Sadly I predict that many comments here won't get that. They will instead call him a pussy because he couldn't stand the heat, and acted like a girl by leaving. Let's see if I'm right.
As MG flies his ideological colours quite high on his mast, a self-professed SJW (in the most non-derogatory sense possible), this gives the world an ideal opportunity to see if there is any merit to the assumption that a more PC and/or inclusive environment produces a better end-product.
If this fork fails to garner any development following in a significant manner then I feel that the question of the "better" environment is at least settled; if other ideologues such as the Anita Sarkeesians and Zoe Quins of the world (all calling themselves developers, mind) do not submit patches to this kernel then I hardly think that the majority of people who don't actually give a damn about other peoples religion/politics will join this fork.
What talent? The SJWs are all pretty talented at being hypocritical and shedding crocodile tears at the UN, but they don't seem to be any good at actually writing code.
If they were then Zoe Quinn's "game" would have been more than reams of self-pitying text and some multiple-choice. A teenage script kiddie could do better.
Sarkeesian would have several AAA titles under her belt instead of just talking about how everyone else should make games to suit her.
That female kernel dev from yesterday would have forked the kernel herself or done something really impressive if she had the chops-- instead she apparently couldn't hang with the real bad asses and tried to make it sound like it was everyone being mean to poor little her. But as far as I can tell she butted into some good-natured ribbing between friends on the mailing list and got all offended at remarks that had absolutely nothing to do with her.
Ellen Pao is precisely the same way: lots of talk and being offended but has never actually accomplished anything aside from ruining Reddit (love it or hate it).
The Oppression Olympics: it appears that each is trying to outdo the previous in the amount of outrage they can command from their ideological worshiping followers.
Poetering is the only programmer target of persecution I've ever heard of that actually doesn't deserve the hatred and who has actually accomplished something. But, oh, look: he's not a SJW and he doesn't make a living from being permanently offended; he makes a living writing code and gettin' stuff done (regardless of whether you hate systemd).
Yeah, I hate systemd, and I hate his reasoning, and the fact that his godawful software is being pushed under largely political pressure, but at least he doesn't play the victim card even though he's been the target of many undeserved attacks and abuse.
The FOSS community will be much better off without the SJW "contributions". Kernel development should be done by programmers not by self-righteous whiners who complain on twitter about how offended they always feel instead of fixing bugs. We'll never hear of this fork of the kernel ever again because the people behind it are not trying to make good software. I'm not saying that Linus' methods are efficient or effective, just that the goals are different.
Except where it does not, of course. Or are you saying all the successful projects which used Agile methodologies to be created don't exist?
Not really - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. As far as TFA is concerned, though, I find it absolutely hilarious that the agile fanclub has now gone so far as to "prove" MMM wrong on a very foundational level. Let me be clear: there are a class of problems that cannot be solved just by working more energetically.
If you think you've solved the halting problem, you're naive.
If you think you've produced sentient AI, you're naive.
If you think you've disproved "throwing more programmers at a late project makes it later", you're naive.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, and the claim made in the summary is in the same class of all other extraordinary claims, hence we require more than a simple "here's why our claim might be true".
As opposed to make programmers, the not mytical at all Jabba the Hutts.
'make clean && make programmers', for when I finally develop sentient AI. The first thing I'll create will be an army of contract programmers who'll do my work while I get some sleep:-)
Note how she never makes it a gender issue. It's never "kernel developers should be nicer to women", it's "kernel developers should be nicer to other human beings". She is clear that on technical matters being blunt is fine, but backing it up with some subtle homophobia or random insults is not something she wants to put up with.
Men and women have different general preferences for communications style. She is arguing for the more feminine style of communications; she actually *did* make it a gender issue by claiming that people who attack her are misogynistic.
Frankly, neither do it, and I'm male.
You're in the minority on this - you do not talk for all males, or even most males, nor all females (or even most females). Why do you assume that your minority position is the correct one?
False analogy. It's ridiculous to compare car accident fatalities to firearm homicide which, of course, would well exceed accidental gun deaths given its nature.
Why are they not comparable? If you claim that something is a killer and is a large enough and severe enough problem to enforce a ban on that something, then it better be a bigger problem than other common killers.
A small grocery shop in town has just installed a commercial juicer. He charges a lot, but it's pure juice and no additives.
And that stuff is bad for you. A single serving of apple juice made from nothing but apples contains the sugar from around 3 apples (but not the fibre). You then drink the thing in a few minutes (juices don't quench thirst very well, so you tend to drink the entire serving), giving your system a nice sugar shock...
Face it, if you gobbled down 3 apples in 120 seconds you'd get some pretty odd looks. At least by eating the whole apple you get the fibre to slow the uptake of sugar in your digestive system.
When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.
You want to look up the percentage of gun-owners whose gun has killed people and the percentage of car owners whose car has killed people. When less than a fraction of a percent of gun-owners are irresponsible one has to be clinically insane to suggest that we remove the guns from the rest.
That's not what I'm asking. There are many reasons for the violence in the US and Mexico. Since it is hard to separate all the causes, I'm asking if we can prove that gun carrying is beneficial another way.
You're taking the authoritarian route - you shouldn't be asking for reasons to allow $FOO, you should be asking for reasons to disallow $FOO. This is how most laws work most of the time. Is there any reason $FOO is bad enough that we need to outlaw it?
I'll ask again. Is there any evidence that having armed bystanders prevents or lessens the severity of these mass, indiscriminate shootings?
Link above you (reply to your previous post) provides ample evidence. It happens enough that it appears to be worth the risk.
Are there many examples of school shooters being stopped by armed bystanders, or is that just speculation?
It doesn't matter - I believe that there are numerous examples of school shooters being stopped by other people with guns. When the only thing that will stop a bad gunner is a good gunner, well, then you want many more good gunners around.
The problem is identifying the good from the bad *before* handing out the guns. If you can solve that one then there won't be need for more stringent gun-control laws because we can simply hand out guns like candy, but only to the good guys.
Yeah, I'm not being *totally* facetious, only a little.
Notice Where they all get there Guns?
In other news today:
Cop Shot and killed with a stolen gun.
Man playing with gun shots wife.
Buying a gun legally for a criminal is easy because there are no laws that stop you from buying them in another state or of Craigs list.
No law that says any jurisdiction must report those that cant own them in a timely fashion, it at all.
If you want to live in a place where everyone has a gun try:
Yemen
Libia
Syria.
South Africa.
You just provided your own counterpoint. I live in South Africa. We have the some of the highest levels of violent crime in the world, yet some of the lowest levels of gun ownership, and some of the strictest gun control laws as well.
South Africa is one of the most dangerous countries to live in, yet has much much *MUCH* fewer firearms than other safer places and much stricter gun-control laws.
The sad fact is that the number of weapons available has very little correlation to the amount of danger you'll face. You want a gun-free zone? Come live in South Africa.
Not all, though, and making a blanket statement like that means that even a single counterexample is enough to prove it wrong. There is more than one counterexample.
Notice all these shootings seem to be happening in "gun free zones"?
You stupid sonofabitch. Did you even think to check whether guns are allowed on-campus in Oregon? (hint: they are. Oregon allows conceal/carry on college campuses).
All you have to do is fill out some paperwork, so people like you don't hurt themselves or someone else.
Well, there are a lot of gun free / highly-regulated countries with far less gun crime than the US. Maybe you should dis-empower citizens from making bad decisions / accidents.
Because abstinence works so much better than education, right?
> the homicide rate in Australia is almost exactly the same before and after the ban.
This has been well debunked.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Yeah, that debunking has been well-debunked too... violent crime has been decreasing in all first world countries, and using other countries as a control shows that Australia's violent crime is higher than it should be.
The range figures for a typical commuter are mostly irrelevant, since the typical commuter won't even get close to the max range in their daily commute, and they can easily charge overnight.
0
Exactly. People seem happy enough charging their smartphone every night.
Just because they're happy enough does not mean that they are happy; Most people would *love* to be able to recharge their phone in an instant. What most people do now is tolerate the (lack of) capacity. I can guarantee you that, given the option, most people would rather not try to plan for tomorrows use by charging tonight and would instead prefer an instant-charge capability.
Only if you can recharge at least 50% in about the same amount of time as it takes to refill a car with gas.
This is one place where everyone seems to miss the point.
For every day use, as everyone has already said, you charge overnight. The car has enough range for any reasonable day trip. (To all of you who insist that you need to drive round-trip 400 miles every day, uphill to the mountains, while towing a boat... Shut the hell up and stick with your pickup truck. You are not most people.)
For road trips, you don't "wait at a charger for the car to recharge." Everyone, please stop assuming this. Its wrong. Rather, you park your car at a supercharger when making the *normal* rest stops you'd make on a road trip anyway.
Think of it this way...
With a gas car: Drive for a while, stop somewhere to use the bathroom, perhaps get something to eat, spend 5 minutes at a gas station, get back on the road.
With a Tesla: Drive for a while, stop at a supercharger (and plug in), go use the bathroom, perhaps grab something to eat, and get back on the road.
The total length of time you spend at one of these stops really isn't all that different.
While I broadly agree, you're thinking way too small-picture. The situation changes substantially when *everyone* needs to charge on a long route. Right now its no problem for a station to fill up 900+ cars/hour. You fill your car up and five minutes later it's parked at the end of the parking lot of the fast-food joint while the guy behind you is filling his car.
To charge 900+ cars/hour at 20mins/charge you need 300 charging stations. You are underestimating just how much energy is transferred by a single fuel station during a peak holiday period.
FWIW, I do a 1200km round-trip twice a month, and during peak vacationing time the road has 3000 cars/hour on it; at that point *all* of the fuel stations on that route have queues, even though they're only taking a few minutes each.
You can buy a nice car for half the price, but it won't be just as nice. And it won't have the acceleration of the Tesla.
I don't know about all the other "nice" things you want, but for acceleration at half the price, an Ariel Atom or Caterham CSR should come close. If you're handy with tools (like I am) you can build a factory five for $35k, or get it built for you for $65k - one of those racecars that *will* outperform the Tesla 0-60.
Seriously though, if you're shopping in the Tesla price range and you just want raw acceleration you're spoiled for choice; more so if you don't mind running on two wheels. Tesla Model S is a fast car, granted, but the world is filled with cheap, fast cars.
Please explain to me, how 50 years after the Great Society, and all the special programs for all the minorities, how they are still disadvantaged by our society?
It took me a moment to realize you weren't being sarcastic.
Entire cultures and ethnicities dropped right at the bottom of the totem pole and you think 50 years is supposed to be enough time for everything to even out?
You want an actual event? It took less than twenty years for an entire population of a *minority* culture to reverse their collective fortunes, starting on the day that the oppression stopped. So, yes. 50 years is more than double the time needed.
The country was South Africa, the end of oppression was 1994, the minority was the indian population (
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly I predict that many comments here won't get that. They will instead call him a pussy because he couldn't stand the heat, and acted like a girl by leaving. Let's see if I'm right.
As MG flies his ideological colours quite high on his mast, a self-professed SJW (in the most non-derogatory sense possible), this gives the world an ideal opportunity to see if there is any merit to the assumption that a more PC and/or inclusive environment produces a better end-product.
If this fork fails to garner any development following in a significant manner then I feel that the question of the "better" environment is at least settled; if other ideologues such as the Anita Sarkeesians and Zoe Quins of the world (all calling themselves developers, mind) do not submit patches to this kernel then I hardly think that the majority of people who don't actually give a damn about other peoples religion/politics will join this fork.
What talent? The SJWs are all pretty talented at being hypocritical and shedding crocodile tears at the UN, but they don't seem to be any good at actually writing code. If they were then Zoe Quinn's "game" would have been more than reams of self-pitying text and some multiple-choice. A teenage script kiddie could do better. Sarkeesian would have several AAA titles under her belt instead of just talking about how everyone else should make games to suit her. That female kernel dev from yesterday would have forked the kernel herself or done something really impressive if she had the chops-- instead she apparently couldn't hang with the real bad asses and tried to make it sound like it was everyone being mean to poor little her. But as far as I can tell she butted into some good-natured ribbing between friends on the mailing list and got all offended at remarks that had absolutely nothing to do with her. Ellen Pao is precisely the same way: lots of talk and being offended but has never actually accomplished anything aside from ruining Reddit (love it or hate it).
The Oppression Olympics: it appears that each is trying to outdo the previous in the amount of outrage they can command from their ideological worshiping followers.
Poetering is the only programmer target of persecution I've ever heard of that actually doesn't deserve the hatred and who has actually accomplished something. But, oh, look: he's not a SJW and he doesn't make a living from being permanently offended; he makes a living writing code and gettin' stuff done (regardless of whether you hate systemd).
Yeah, I hate systemd, and I hate his reasoning, and the fact that his godawful software is being pushed under largely political pressure, but at least he doesn't play the victim card even though he's been the target of many undeserved attacks and abuse. The FOSS community will be much better off without the SJW "contributions". Kernel development should be done by programmers not by self-righteous whiners who complain on twitter about how offended they always feel instead of fixing bugs. We'll never hear of this fork of the kernel ever again because the people behind it are not trying to make good software. I'm not saying that Linus' methods are efficient or effective, just that the goals are different.
"Hey advertisers...fuck you ha ha ha ha ha!"
-Signed, Twitter
Personally this is one of those "...and nothing of value was lost" moments.
Fixed that for everyone :-)
Except where it does not, of course. Or are you saying all the successful projects which used Agile methodologies to be created don't exist?
Not really - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. As far as TFA is concerned, though, I find it absolutely hilarious that the agile fanclub has now gone so far as to "prove" MMM wrong on a very foundational level. Let me be clear: there are a class of problems that cannot be solved just by working more energetically.
If you think you've solved the halting problem, you're naive.
If you think you've produced sentient AI, you're naive.
If you think you've disproved "throwing more programmers at a late project makes it later", you're naive.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, and the claim made in the summary is in the same class of all other extraordinary claims, hence we require more than a simple "here's why our claim might be true".
To mods: That's a big bang theory reference that's in another story on today's front page.
This doesn't happen when the nerd becomes an asshole as an adult.
Victim-blame much?
As opposed to make programmers, the not mytical at all Jabba the Hutts.
'make clean && make programmers', for when I finally develop sentient AI. The first thing I'll create will be an army of contract programmers who'll do my work while I get some sleep :-)
Note how she never makes it a gender issue. It's never "kernel developers should be nicer to women", it's "kernel developers should be nicer to other human beings". She is clear that on technical matters being blunt is fine, but backing it up with some subtle homophobia or random insults is not something she wants to put up with.
Men and women have different general preferences for communications style. She is arguing for the more feminine style of communications; she actually *did* make it a gender issue by claiming that people who attack her are misogynistic.
Frankly, neither do it, and I'm male.
You're in the minority on this - you do not talk for all males, or even most males, nor all females (or even most females). Why do you assume that your minority position is the correct one?
False analogy. It's ridiculous to compare car accident fatalities to firearm homicide which, of course, would well exceed accidental gun deaths given its nature.
Why are they not comparable? If you claim that something is a killer and is a large enough and severe enough problem to enforce a ban on that something, then it better be a bigger problem than other common killers.
A small grocery shop in town has just installed a commercial juicer. He charges a lot, but it's pure juice and no additives.
And that stuff is bad for you. A single serving of apple juice made from nothing but apples contains the sugar from around 3 apples (but not the fibre). You then drink the thing in a few minutes (juices don't quench thirst very well, so you tend to drink the entire serving), giving your system a nice sugar shock...
Face it, if you gobbled down 3 apples in 120 seconds you'd get some pretty odd looks. At least by eating the whole apple you get the fibre to slow the uptake of sugar in your digestive system.
Fruit juices are the worst thing for your system.
When was the last time a teeneger planned a mass killing with a car, you master of logic, you? I especially like how you got modded up because people like what you're saying, rather than it making any kind of rational sense at all.
You want to look up the percentage of gun-owners whose gun has killed people and the percentage of car owners whose car has killed people. When less than a fraction of a percent of gun-owners are irresponsible one has to be clinically insane to suggest that we remove the guns from the rest.
I don't know. It's pretty harmless. It's about as funny as Dane Cook, and probably twice as original.
You are seriously overestimating Dane Cook's originality.
That's not what I'm asking. There are many reasons for the violence in the US and Mexico. Since it is hard to separate all the causes, I'm asking if we can prove that gun carrying is beneficial another way.
You're taking the authoritarian route - you shouldn't be asking for reasons to allow $FOO, you should be asking for reasons to disallow $FOO. This is how most laws work most of the time. Is there any reason $FOO is bad enough that we need to outlaw it?
I'll ask again. Is there any evidence that having armed bystanders prevents or lessens the severity of these mass, indiscriminate shootings?
Link above you (reply to your previous post) provides ample evidence. It happens enough that it appears to be worth the risk.
Are there many examples of school shooters being stopped by armed bystanders, or is that just speculation?
It doesn't matter - I believe that there are numerous examples of school shooters being stopped by other people with guns. When the only thing that will stop a bad gunner is a good gunner, well, then you want many more good gunners around.
The problem is identifying the good from the bad *before* handing out the guns. If you can solve that one then there won't be need for more stringent gun-control laws because we can simply hand out guns like candy, but only to the good guys.
Yeah, I'm not being *totally* facetious, only a little.
Notice Where they all get there Guns? In other news today: Cop Shot and killed with a stolen gun. Man playing with gun shots wife.
Buying a gun legally for a criminal is easy because there are no laws that stop you from buying them in another state or of Craigs list. No law that says any jurisdiction must report those that cant own them in a timely fashion, it at all.
If you want to live in a place where everyone has a gun try: Yemen Libia Syria. South Africa.
You just provided your own counterpoint. I live in South Africa. We have the some of the highest levels of violent crime in the world, yet some of the lowest levels of gun ownership, and some of the strictest gun control laws as well.
South Africa is one of the most dangerous countries to live in, yet has much much *MUCH* fewer firearms than other safer places and much stricter gun-control laws.
The sad fact is that the number of weapons available has very little correlation to the amount of danger you'll face. You want a gun-free zone? Come live in South Africa.
It seems to be the case in other countries...
Not all, though, and making a blanket statement like that means that even a single counterexample is enough to prove it wrong. There is more than one counterexample.
You stupid sonofabitch. Did you even think to check whether guns are allowed on-campus in Oregon? (hint: they are. Oregon allows conceal/carry on college campuses).
All you have to do is fill out some paperwork, so people like you don't hurt themselves or someone else.
Jackoff.
http://www.armedcampuses.org/
You ever read your own links?
Do you think there would be more or fewer shootings if lots of people brought guns to school?
Do you think there would be fewer shootings if you make more laws?
Well, there are a lot of gun free / highly-regulated countries with far less gun crime than the US. Maybe you should dis-empower citizens from making bad decisions / accidents.
Because abstinence works so much better than education, right?
> the homicide rate in Australia is almost exactly the same before and after the ban. This has been well debunked. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/... According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Yeah, that debunking has been well-debunked too... violent crime has been decreasing in all first world countries, and using other countries as a control shows that Australia's violent crime is higher than it should be.
The range figures for a typical commuter are mostly irrelevant, since the typical commuter won't even get close to the max range in their daily commute, and they can easily charge overnight.
0 Exactly. People seem happy enough charging their smartphone every night.
Just because they're happy enough does not mean that they are happy; Most people would *love* to be able to recharge their phone in an instant. What most people do now is tolerate the (lack of) capacity. I can guarantee you that, given the option, most people would rather not try to plan for tomorrows use by charging tonight and would instead prefer an instant-charge capability.
Only if you can recharge at least 50% in about the same amount of time as it takes to refill a car with gas.
This is one place where everyone seems to miss the point. For every day use, as everyone has already said, you charge overnight. The car has enough range for any reasonable day trip. (To all of you who insist that you need to drive round-trip 400 miles every day, uphill to the mountains, while towing a boat... Shut the hell up and stick with your pickup truck. You are not most people.)
For road trips, you don't "wait at a charger for the car to recharge." Everyone, please stop assuming this. Its wrong. Rather, you park your car at a supercharger when making the *normal* rest stops you'd make on a road trip anyway.
Think of it this way... With a gas car: Drive for a while, stop somewhere to use the bathroom, perhaps get something to eat, spend 5 minutes at a gas station, get back on the road. With a Tesla: Drive for a while, stop at a supercharger (and plug in), go use the bathroom, perhaps grab something to eat, and get back on the road. The total length of time you spend at one of these stops really isn't all that different.
While I broadly agree, you're thinking way too small-picture. The situation changes substantially when *everyone* needs to charge on a long route. Right now its no problem for a station to fill up 900+ cars/hour. You fill your car up and five minutes later it's parked at the end of the parking lot of the fast-food joint while the guy behind you is filling his car.
To charge 900+ cars/hour at 20mins/charge you need 300 charging stations. You are underestimating just how much energy is transferred by a single fuel station during a peak holiday period.
FWIW, I do a 1200km round-trip twice a month, and during peak vacationing time the road has 3000 cars/hour on it; at that point *all* of the fuel stations on that route have queues, even though they're only taking a few minutes each.
You can buy a nice car for half the price, but it won't be just as nice. And it won't have the acceleration of the Tesla.
I don't know about all the other "nice" things you want, but for acceleration at half the price, an Ariel Atom or Caterham CSR should come close. If you're handy with tools (like I am) you can build a factory five for $35k, or get it built for you for $65k - one of those racecars that *will* outperform the Tesla 0-60.
Seriously though, if you're shopping in the Tesla price range and you just want raw acceleration you're spoiled for choice; more so if you don't mind running on two wheels. Tesla Model S is a fast car, granted, but the world is filled with cheap, fast cars.
lol fuck off you retard. name one fucking book worth reading that even has "Regatta" in it.
"The Last Continent", by Terry Pratchett (RIP).
(You're welcome)
Please explain to me, how 50 years after the Great Society, and all the special programs for all the minorities, how they are still disadvantaged by our society?
It took me a moment to realize you weren't being sarcastic.
Entire cultures and ethnicities dropped right at the bottom of the totem pole and you think 50 years is supposed to be enough time for everything to even out?
You want an actual event? It took less than twenty years for an entire population of a *minority* culture to reverse their collective fortunes, starting on the day that the oppression stopped. So, yes. 50 years is more than double the time needed.
The country was South Africa, the end of oppression was 1994, the minority was the indian population (