What my neighbor makes has no bearing on how free I am
Of course, this depends on how you define "freedom" which for you is apparently freedom to spend some money on a family trip or an extra garage.
How "free" are you to actually help your poor neighbor? What if he/she is disabled and has been denied health insurance? What if he/she is the victim of pollutants in the local water supply, which don't affect you and your bottled water? How free are _you_ to continue your gun-totin' ways if you lose your job/health insurance/house?
I love how you right-winger/libertarian/anti-Commie (what's up with the Commie label anyway? Can't handle a little political diversity?) types always define freedom as a _individual's_ right to do things. What you fail to see is that in life, everyone needs help at some time or another, and some need a lot more help than others. Your response would be to leave them to die, or mumble about letting the Church/their family help them out. Anything but god forbid yourself or society consider the welfare of their fellow citizen.
Fortunately for humanity there are other, less shortsighted people than yourself, and yes, there are societies unlike the US where they see through the selfishness. They're not perfect, but they are more _humane_.
They aren't intentionally targeting civilian targets
Care to provide any proof for your baseless assertion? Exactly what do you call dropping a 500-pound bomb on a house with a family sleeping inside? An "oopsie"?
Hezbollah has chosen to use Lebanese non-combatants as human shields
Two points: 1) that doesn't justify killing the shield. I suppose you think that when a criminal takes a hostage you should simply blow up the building? 2) I suppose you think it's OK to blow up anything -- hospitals, orphanages, you name it -- if Israeli intelligence assures you there were Hizbollah inside? Cause they never, ever lie about that kind of stuff, oh no...
This is precisely the kind of apologism that emboldens the Israeli government to carry out it's genocidal policies, and it's no accident either that so many people are brainwashed to think this way. The Israel/US axis has an intellectual stranglehold on the press in the US. You can read a lot more reality coming from the Israeli press. Israel absolutely targets civilian targets, much like the US military has done in Fallujah and elsewhere.
Certainly economies of scale apply at the big stores. In Brooklyn, you can own a car, since it's not quite so concentrated as Manhattan. Thus you can manage weekend getaways and the occaisional big-box run, while commuting to work on public transportation and filling most day-to-day needs in your neighborhood. It's a great mix, so I don't consider myself an anti-car zealot (which would be quite lame seeing as I own a car).
The biggest problem I see with highway-based development is that it effectively locks out any alternatives, ie, foot-based living. The movers behind the Eisenhower-era highway explosion were forces directly opposed to public transportation (GM, Goodyear, etc), and were very aware what the exact results of sprawl would be: increasing dependence on cars as the only means of transportation. I don't have a problem with being able to stock up at a remote huge store. I have a problem with there being no alternative.
My neighborhood in Albuquerque had exactly one option in walking distance, a Circle-K. Great for candy bars, MAD magazine and Gorf. Not much else.
Boy you're in a good mood today. Sorry I didn't protect your fragile sensibilities with an "IMHO Though I May Be Wrong And Please Don't Take Offense". I guess you're one of those people who thinks there's never any right answer, just competing opinions?
There are disadvantages to more concentrated living, and certainly having a sprawling yard all to yourself is pretty sweet come barbeque time. But it's not sustainable, in more ways than just all of the pollution from the cars, all of the wasted space from the single-family 1/4 acre lots. Getting around on foot means living in an environment operating at a *human scale*, where monstrous freeways are not an absolute requirement of existence. It's safer. It's healthier. It's more sustainable. "IMNSHO".
Right -- if the grocery store was small and within short walking distance you could buy just enough for a day or two instead of stocking up for the whole week with your bloated SUV.
Here in metro New York City we actually have the kind of development that results from accessible, fast public transportation -- small shops that don't have to carry 24-packs of paper towels. If Robert Moses hadn't had his way with Long Island, mass transit links would have extended all the way out at a fraction of the cost of the constantly jammed expressways and parkways, and they would enjoy the same benefits, not to mention getting into manhattan with a fraction of the stress.
Of course, suburban types (I should know, I grew up in Albuquerque, NM, sprawl at it's finest) pretend to like driving everywhere, big box stores, and the like. Having experienced both, I can say confidently a foot-traffic-based lifestyle is infinitely superior. It's far healthier, for one -- believe it or not, walking is better for you than driving. Go figure.
But they don't HAVE a use of landmines. The only remaining landmines are left in place from the still-inconclusive Korean war. The USA on principle refuses to employ landmines in general.
[bzzzzzzzt] WRONG.
"U.S. commanders constantly had to reassure their troops that antipersonnel mines, when properly employed, could be an asset in the field. But faced with the reality that everything from dead bodies to their own discarded ration containers might be mined, some U.S. troops even refused to use command detonated Claymore mines. Their fears were apparently well-grounded. In December 1969 the Mine Warfare Center warned that "a review of casualty reports reveals an alarming number of incidents involving U.S. troops being injured by the untimely detonations of M18A1 Claymores or the blasting caps." (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/gen1/General-03.h tm)
Most of the mine injuries suffered by US troops were caused by US mines being lifted and re-placed by the Viet Cong.
Does that mean the great stomp boxes he recently designed should be called MoagerFoager?
I always wondered if he actually cared how people pronounced the names of his synths. Until I learned the correct pronounciation of his name, I always felt moooooog was a great name for something that went mooooooooooooo (at least on a square wave).
Adblock is the greatest, but I'm having to actually think (shudder) these days to figure out how to block some Yahoo ads, which are served from the same "yimg.yahoo.com" host. I did figure it out tho... but google's adsense stuff is in the page html. how do you block that?
more importantly, though: adsense ads are not TOTALLY OBNOXIOUS. Sometimes, god forbid, they're helpful. Parent is correct: advertisers in general have no taste or shame and are trying to violently drag your eyeballs away from the content. Better ads would help (case in point: theonion.com's American Apparel ads -- just can't seem to bring myself to block those:) )
Yeah, and we're DEFINITELY not brainwashed at all here in the US. Just keep saying that to yourself.
It's amazing how folks can moralize about Cuba and completely ignore US-sponsored atrocities everywhere else in Latin America. Who are you going to blame Haiti on? How do you justify our attempts to oust a thice-elected leader in Venezuela? Constant invasions of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama etc etc etc?
The fact is, the US is an aggressive, militant empire that has it's boot on the neck of thousands of poor people across latin america. Castro may be an oppressive dictator, but he can't come close to matching the kind of bloodthirsty domination the US has wreaked.
And don't get me started about the anti-Castro terrorists in Miami. Castro is a drop in the bucket, but here in the brainwashed US he's "worse than hitler".
I recently was moving around a lot and did not want to get a land line, and at around the same time starting dating a woman who liked to talk on the phone a LOT...
after about 10 months of this, i notice that when I'm using the cell phone that side of my head can get a little achy, sometimes right after starting a phone call. after a long conversation it's definitely throbbing.
of course, this could be paranoia from reading too many articles about the dangers of cell phones. but it is a little worrisome, after all it is my BRAIN that hurts...
I've just read a lot of replies to this message saying "interpretation is very subjective" and "it doesn't matter what the author intended". Bullshit. Think of the work of art as a "person" trying to communicate. Now, would you say that in a conversation with a person that your interpretation is very subjective or that it doesn't matter what the author was trying to say? Only if you're a solipsist.
What's hilarious here is that you disprove your own argument with your response to other comments. There are a number of responses here that do indicate that the author's intention is not *necessarily* important. Yet you parrot their viewpoints with a ridiculous oversimplification. "Interpretation is very subjective" is proven by your misinterpreting.
Your analogy of art to a person is hopeless. A person has subjectivity. An artwork does not. You can ask a person to clarify or restate. You cannot with artwork. What's more, you're not a very sophisticated communicator if you think a conversation is so easy to interpret. People misunderstand each other constantly.
It's not true always that only through "a lot of hard work" can we arrive at the author's intention. It can come easily -- or be utterly impossible (Pynchon and Koons come to mind). It's fine to laud the efforts of academics, critics and historians. But the paradigm shifts of time continually prove "rock-solid" interpretations wrong. This is true for the "hard" disciplines like history and science, so therefore even more so for art criticism.
Works that are so ambiguous and so slapdash that they are utterly ambiguous
So much of the creative process is subconscious that I have to grudgingly agree with my old English teacher that the author doesn't always realize (or even recognize!) all of the things they put into a work.
...But of course, 85% of the theories are still utter crap.
I don't think it's ever necessary to genuflect to the author when interpreting a work; it's almost the judge of a good work that it can live on it's own. The whole thrust of deconstructionists was that indeed every structure of meaning in a work will have the seeds of it's own destruction.
The author's story about their work is can be fascinating, but sometimes can ruin it too. Tolkein hated interpretations of his work that tied the ring to the bomb or whatever; that doesn't mean that LOTR doesn't have a powerful message about power and even technology.
It can go the other way, too: LOTR's overwhelmingly white-supremacist orientation could say loads about Tolkein's beliefs. Or not, though: for me, the race angle is THE most fascinating thing about LeGuin's complaints about the series, but it's probably, ultimately, not why the series sucks a$$.
"Windows has kernel windowing. When it wants to perform a graphics operation, it does call into the kernel. In Linux, the application sends a message to the x-window process, which looks like any other process."
"With Linux, you have messages transmitted which can degrade performance," he said, but conceded that this does make it easier to do remote applications. "With X-windows you can run windows for applications on a remote client. That is much more difficult in Microsoft Windows," he said.
while Windows' windowing performance is admittedly snappy, it seems to me that having the kernel involved in windowing is a poor, overly-monolithic design choice... also, i generally don't have a problem with X windowing on linux, i'm taking his word for it that it's a performance hit. what are the implications of involving the kernel in windowing?
finally, i know OSX is a very different kernel, but does it also have windowing support? OSX seems pretty snappy as well...
Zero defects IS management-speak, but it's completely compatible with known bugs going out in a release -- IF all parties agree that it's going to happen.
ZD means an understood set of inputs (requirements) are processed (developed, coded) into an understood set of outputs (releases). Zero defects means this entire process occurs as planned.
Therefore to get software out the door, you might have to ignore the recently-discovered beta-testers' problem with your SW and his AllInWonderPro TV out, as that video card was not part of your inputs. Known bug, yes. Defect, no.
There is an interesting microsoftie's blog post trying to reconcile ZD with agile/extreme methodology: What is the Zero-Defects Mindset?. being neither an Agile addict or a M$ coder i cannot vouch for any of its contents -- read at your own risk
As for all those people who shout "prescriptive grammarian!", I often suspect they're just too lazy to learn to write well, and have decided that claiming that rules are passe is an effective workaround.
either that or he's too busy coding free software to give a shit about 'prescriptive grammarians' who obviously don't RTFA. this is slashdot pal -- damn, at least he spellchecked!
While obviously Cormack and Lynam are central to this discussion, it's depressing that this is +4, Informative when instead they obviously resent any serious questioning of their work. Is there a '-1, Wussy' moderation?
"We shall not respond" -- huh? Pull the log out of your ass guys. Like it or not, he's got legitimate beefs with your study. What's more, he's got cred: dude puts SERIOUS effort into GPL'd software that helps people, so his input is relevant and valid. Get over it.
Besides, his questioning of your credibility are neither 'ad-hominem' or irrelevant. Claiming that it is betrays a decidedly unprofessional sensitivity to criticism. as he points out, it is more than legitimate to question the credentials of the tester when interpreting results -- UNLESS the test has been repeated. 'Ad-hominem' attacks means irrelevant insults, whereas he's merely questioning your approach and relevant experience. don't go public with your stuff if you don't like the heat.
How about instead, you address his most damaging points:
- put all of your configuration data and any other information required to re-run the test online, immediately. there is absolutely no reason to resist this. you might want to explain why you haven't already.
- your errata is so far entirely due to his corrections. professional class would merit gratitude for his attention. try it on for size. after all this is supposed to be a *review* period yes?
- he directly questions the use of human error-checking. is he right? wrong? i don't know but it's a damn interesting question, and one your response does not address.
- finally, what's up with saying you won't respond... and then RESPONDING, and using his work in your errata?
there are more problems here but you get the gist. you guys get paid to do this so do it right.
along the whole "ssh to the home linux box to do things they won't let me do at work", mutella is a kickin' gnutella client. it also has a nice web interface which is a bit easier to use... perhaps it could use the ncurses treatment, but it still rocks.
speaking of consoles -- i wish Ximian would enable a console-only mode for Evolution, which they say is doable. if they did it would be THE killer app on this list.
At least be mature enough to admit that what you're doing is no different (legally or morally) from stealing tangible goods.
Wrong, both legally and morally.
Legally: the parent got you. The circumstances, method, effects, and laws are utterly different. I guess you need it spelled out:
circumstances: theft being at least clandestine and usually dangerous; pirating trivial and easy to accomplish with zero negative impact
method: B&E vs. downloading, nuff said.
effects: if we take your argument (which i don't, see below) that the "victim" is denied revenue, royalties are still absolutely NOT possession.
laws: criminal theft versus copyright laws. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, you can drop your precious moral argument too. Simply put, even property itself CAN be seen as theft. I'm a musician who'd love to get rich on royalties, believe me. but that doesn't mean I have a god-given RIGHT to them. music will ALWAYS exist independent of whatever social concepts of contracts and exchange dictate. Equating something as mundane as that with morality is philosophically and spiritually incorrect -- and annoying. Morality itself is a sickly Christian concept, just ask Nietszche. Music is far cooler.
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
I suppose it doesn't matter to you that the Heritage organization is a deeply biased reactionary think-tank, and that your "study list" is a powerpoint presentation that backs up zero of your assertions.
Why don't you show us something that actually has some scientific weight?
I would suggest others do the same, in a professional and informative tone
Bah, I say rip him a new one. I did. Not in a breathless "I can't believe you're such a meanie" way but in a "you're wrong, here's why, you're either a shill or a dumbshit, fuck off" way.
Believe me, all of the "eww, I'm not going to stoop to your level" kind of talk can be just as annoying in it's obvious condescention.
This article pissed me off so I let the fucker know. End of story.
Slashdot Mirror
don't feel the need to sleep with guns in the drawer, or shoot their classmates.
...
Unless they're Canadian
What my neighbor makes has no bearing on how free I am
Of course, this depends on how you define "freedom" which for you is apparently freedom to spend some money on a family trip or an extra garage.
How "free" are you to actually help your poor neighbor? What if he/she is disabled and has been denied health insurance? What if he/she is the victim of pollutants in the local water supply, which don't affect you and your bottled water? How free are _you_ to continue your gun-totin' ways if you lose your job/health insurance/house?
I love how you right-winger/libertarian/anti-Commie (what's up with the Commie label anyway? Can't handle a little political diversity?) types always define freedom as a _individual's_ right to do things. What you fail to see is that in life, everyone needs help at some time or another, and some need a lot more help than others. Your response would be to leave them to die, or mumble about letting the Church/their family help them out. Anything but god forbid yourself or society consider the welfare of their fellow citizen.
Fortunately for humanity there are other, less shortsighted people than yourself, and yes, there are societies unlike the US where they see through the selfishness. They're not perfect, but they are more _humane_.
They aren't intentionally targeting civilian targets
...
Care to provide any proof for your baseless assertion? Exactly what do you call dropping a 500-pound bomb on a house with a family sleeping inside? An "oopsie"?
Hezbollah has chosen to use Lebanese non-combatants as human shields
Two points: 1) that doesn't justify killing the shield. I suppose you think that when a criminal takes a hostage you should simply blow up the building? 2) I suppose you think it's OK to blow up anything -- hospitals, orphanages, you name it -- if Israeli intelligence assures you there were Hizbollah inside? Cause they never, ever lie about that kind of stuff, oh no
This is precisely the kind of apologism that emboldens the Israeli government to carry out it's genocidal policies, and it's no accident either that so many people are brainwashed to think this way. The Israel/US axis has an intellectual stranglehold on the press in the US. You can read a lot more reality coming from the Israeli press. Israel absolutely targets civilian targets, much like the US military has done in Fallujah and elsewhere.
Certainly economies of scale apply at the big stores. In Brooklyn, you can own a car, since it's not quite so concentrated as Manhattan. Thus you can manage weekend getaways and the occaisional big-box run, while commuting to work on public transportation and filling most day-to-day needs in your neighborhood. It's a great mix, so I don't consider myself an anti-car zealot (which would be quite lame seeing as I own a car).
The biggest problem I see with highway-based development is that it effectively locks out any alternatives, ie, foot-based living. The movers behind the Eisenhower-era highway explosion were forces directly opposed to public transportation (GM, Goodyear, etc), and were very aware what the exact results of sprawl would be: increasing dependence on cars as the only means of transportation. I don't have a problem with being able to stock up at a remote huge store. I have a problem with there being no alternative.
My neighborhood in Albuquerque had exactly one option in walking distance, a Circle-K. Great for candy bars, MAD magazine and Gorf. Not much else.
And then there's Fresh Direct ...
Boy you're in a good mood today. Sorry I didn't protect your fragile sensibilities with an "IMHO Though I May Be Wrong And Please Don't Take Offense". I guess you're one of those people who thinks there's never any right answer, just competing opinions?
There are disadvantages to more concentrated living, and certainly having a sprawling yard all to yourself is pretty sweet come barbeque time. But it's not sustainable, in more ways than just all of the pollution from the cars, all of the wasted space from the single-family 1/4 acre lots. Getting around on foot means living in an environment operating at a *human scale*, where monstrous freeways are not an absolute requirement of existence. It's safer. It's healthier. It's more sustainable. "IMNSHO".
Right -- if the grocery store was small and within short walking distance you could buy just enough for a day or two instead of stocking up for the whole week with your bloated SUV.
Here in metro New York City we actually have the kind of development that results from accessible, fast public transportation -- small shops that don't have to carry 24-packs of paper towels. If Robert Moses hadn't had his way with Long Island, mass transit links would have extended all the way out at a fraction of the cost of the constantly jammed expressways and parkways, and they would enjoy the same benefits, not to mention getting into manhattan with a fraction of the stress.
Of course, suburban types (I should know, I grew up in Albuquerque, NM, sprawl at it's finest) pretend to like driving everywhere, big box stores, and the like. Having experienced both, I can say confidently a foot-traffic-based lifestyle is infinitely superior. It's far healthier, for one -- believe it or not, walking is better for you than driving. Go figure.
But they don't HAVE a use of landmines. The only remaining landmines are left in place from the still-inconclusive Korean war. The USA on principle refuses to employ landmines in general.
h tm)
[bzzzzzzzt] WRONG.
"U.S. commanders constantly had to reassure their troops that antipersonnel mines, when properly employed, could be an asset in the field. But faced with the reality that everything from dead bodies to their own discarded ration containers might be mined, some U.S. troops even refused to use command detonated Claymore mines. Their fears were apparently well-grounded. In December 1969 the Mine Warfare Center warned that "a review of casualty reports reveals an alarming number of incidents involving U.S. troops being injured by the untimely detonations of M18A1 Claymores or the blasting caps." (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/gen1/General-03.
Most of the mine injuries suffered by US troops were caused by US mines being lifted and re-placed by the Viet Cong.
MAN there needs to be a new meme about a discussion inevitably producing a Neil Peart quote ...
...
Seriously, though, awesome. Probably his best lyrics -- and on topic to boot!
Although I bet Ayn Rand would agree with the study
Does that mean the great stomp boxes he recently designed should be called MoagerFoager?
I always wondered if he actually cared how people pronounced the names of his synths. Until I learned the correct pronounciation of his name, I always felt moooooog was a great name for something that went mooooooooooooo (at least on a square wave).
Is it even possible to adblock google ads?
... but google's adsense stuff is in the page html. how do you block that?
:) )
Adblock is the greatest, but I'm having to actually think (shudder) these days to figure out how to block some Yahoo ads, which are served from the same "yimg.yahoo.com" host. I did figure it out tho
more importantly, though: adsense ads are not TOTALLY OBNOXIOUS. Sometimes, god forbid, they're helpful. Parent is correct: advertisers in general have no taste or shame and are trying to violently drag your eyeballs away from the content. Better ads would help (case in point: theonion.com's American Apparel ads -- just can't seem to bring myself to block those
Yeah, and we're DEFINITELY not brainwashed at all here in the US. Just keep saying that to yourself.
It's amazing how folks can moralize about Cuba and completely ignore US-sponsored atrocities everywhere else in Latin America. Who are you going to blame Haiti on? How do you justify our attempts to oust a thice-elected leader in Venezuela? Constant invasions of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama etc etc etc?
The fact is, the US is an aggressive, militant empire that has it's boot on the neck of thousands of poor people across latin america. Castro may be an oppressive dictator, but he can't come close to matching the kind of bloodthirsty domination the US has wreaked.
And don't get me started about the anti-Castro terrorists in Miami. Castro is a drop in the bucket, but here in the brainwashed US he's "worse than hitler".
I recently was moving around a lot and did not want to get a land line, and at around the same time starting dating a woman who liked to talk on the phone a LOT ...
...
after about 10 months of this, i notice that when I'm using the cell phone that side of my head can get a little achy, sometimes right after starting a phone call. after a long conversation it's definitely throbbing.
of course, this could be paranoia from reading too many articles about the dangers of cell phones. but it is a little worrisome, after all it is my BRAIN that hurts
What's hilarious here is that you disprove your own argument with your response to other comments. There are a number of responses here that do indicate that the author's intention is not *necessarily* important. Yet you parrot their viewpoints with a ridiculous oversimplification. "Interpretation is very subjective" is proven by your misinterpreting.
Your analogy of art to a person is hopeless. A person has subjectivity. An artwork does not. You can ask a person to clarify or restate. You cannot with artwork. What's more, you're not a very sophisticated communicator if you think a conversation is so easy to interpret. People misunderstand each other constantly.
It's not true always that only through "a lot of hard work" can we arrive at the author's intention. It can come easily -- or be utterly impossible (Pynchon and Koons come to mind). It's fine to laud the efforts of academics, critics and historians. But the paradigm shifts of time continually prove "rock-solid" interpretations wrong. This is true for the "hard" disciplines like history and science, so therefore even more so for art criticism.
Works that are so ambiguous and so slapdash that they are utterly ambiguous
oh, my. Who's the "pseudo-intellectual" here?
I don't think it's ever necessary to genuflect to the author when interpreting a work; it's almost the judge of a good work that it can live on it's own. The whole thrust of deconstructionists was that indeed every structure of meaning in a work will have the seeds of it's own destruction.
The author's story about their work is can be fascinating, but sometimes can ruin it too. Tolkein hated interpretations of his work that tied the ring to the bomb or whatever; that doesn't mean that LOTR doesn't have a powerful message about power and even technology.
It can go the other way, too: LOTR's overwhelmingly white-supremacist orientation could say loads about Tolkein's beliefs. Or not, though: for me, the race angle is THE most fascinating thing about LeGuin's complaints about the series, but it's probably, ultimately, not why the series sucks a$$.
from the FA:
... also, i generally don't have a problem with X windowing on linux, i'm taking his word for it that it's a performance hit. what are the implications of involving the kernel in windowing?
...
"Windows has kernel windowing. When it wants to perform a graphics operation, it does call into the kernel. In Linux, the application sends a message to the x-window process, which looks like any other process."
"With Linux, you have messages transmitted which can degrade performance," he said, but conceded that this does make it easier to do remote applications. "With X-windows you can run windows for applications on a remote client. That is much more difficult in Microsoft Windows," he said.
while Windows' windowing performance is admittedly snappy, it seems to me that having the kernel involved in windowing is a poor, overly-monolithic design choice
finally, i know OSX is a very different kernel, but does it also have windowing support? OSX seems pretty snappy as well
Zero defects IS management-speak, but it's completely compatible with known bugs going out in a release -- IF all parties agree that it's going to happen.
ZD means an understood set of inputs (requirements) are processed (developed, coded) into an understood set of outputs (releases). Zero defects means this entire process occurs as planned.
Therefore to get software out the door, you might have to ignore the recently-discovered beta-testers' problem with your SW and his AllInWonderPro TV out, as that video card was not part of your inputs. Known bug, yes. Defect, no.
There is an interesting microsoftie's blog post trying to reconcile ZD with agile/extreme methodology: What is the Zero-Defects Mindset?. being neither an Agile addict or a M$ coder i cannot vouch for any of its contents -- read at your own risk
As for all those people who shout "prescriptive grammarian!", I often suspect they're just too lazy to learn to write well, and have decided that claiming that rules are passe is an effective workaround.
either that or he's too busy coding free software to give a shit about 'prescriptive grammarians' who obviously don't RTFA. this is slashdot pal -- damn, at least he spellchecked!
While obviously Cormack and Lynam are central to this discussion, it's depressing that this is +4, Informative when instead they obviously resent any serious questioning of their work. Is there a '-1, Wussy' moderation?
... and then RESPONDING, and using his work in your errata?
"We shall not respond" -- huh? Pull the log out of your ass guys. Like it or not, he's got legitimate beefs with your study. What's more, he's got cred: dude puts SERIOUS effort into GPL'd software that helps people, so his input is relevant and valid. Get over it.
Besides, his questioning of your credibility are neither 'ad-hominem' or irrelevant. Claiming that it is betrays a decidedly unprofessional sensitivity to criticism. as he points out, it is more than legitimate to question the credentials of the tester when interpreting results -- UNLESS the test has been repeated. 'Ad-hominem' attacks means irrelevant insults, whereas he's merely questioning your approach and relevant experience. don't go public with your stuff if you don't like the heat.
How about instead, you address his most damaging points:
- put all of your configuration data and any other information required to re-run the test online, immediately. there is absolutely no reason to resist this. you might want to explain why you haven't already.
- your errata is so far entirely due to his corrections. professional class would merit gratitude for his attention. try it on for size. after all this is supposed to be a *review* period yes?
- he directly questions the use of human error-checking. is he right? wrong? i don't know but it's a damn interesting question, and one your response does not address.
- finally, what's up with saying you won't respond
there are more problems here but you get the gist. you guys get paid to do this so do it right.
along the whole "ssh to the home linux box to do things they won't let me do at work", mutella is a kickin' gnutella client. it also has a nice web interface which is a bit easier to use ... perhaps it could use the ncurses treatment, but it still rocks.
speaking of consoles -- i wish Ximian would enable a console-only mode for Evolution, which they say is doable. if they did it would be THE killer app on this list.
Wrong, both legally and morally.
Legally: the parent got you. The circumstances, method, effects, and laws are utterly different. I guess you need it spelled out:
circumstances: theft being at least clandestine and usually dangerous; pirating trivial and easy to accomplish with zero negative impact
method: B&E vs. downloading, nuff said.
effects: if we take your argument (which i don't, see below) that the "victim" is denied revenue, royalties are still absolutely NOT possession.
laws: criminal theft versus copyright laws.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, you can drop your precious moral argument too. Simply put, even property itself CAN be seen as theft. I'm a musician who'd love to get rich on royalties, believe me. but that doesn't mean I have a god-given RIGHT to them. music will ALWAYS exist independent of whatever social concepts of contracts and exchange dictate. Equating something as mundane as that with morality is philosophically and spiritually incorrect -- and annoying. Morality itself is a sickly Christian concept, just ask Nietszche. Music is far cooler.
I suppose it doesn't matter to you that the Heritage organization is a deeply biased reactionary think-tank, and that your "study list" is a powerpoint presentation that backs up zero of your assertions.
Why don't you show us something that actually has some scientific weight?
Bah, I say rip him a new one. I did. Not in a breathless "I can't believe you're such a meanie" way but in a "you're wrong, here's why, you're either a shill or a dumbshit, fuck off" way.
Believe me, all of the "eww, I'm not going to stoop to your level" kind of talk can be just as annoying in it's obvious condescention.
This article pissed me off so I let the fucker know. End of story.
nice. toodles
yeah, I always start top level posts with "Re:..." ?? figure it out genius. your /. filter is set too high to see the parent post.
defensive? this is a MAC user saying this? After the requisite windoze insults and typical "ever heard of BSD" pretentiousness?
and as for tone, your sig, sir, adds a insulting flair to everything you post.