"Cowboy values" are just a derogatory way of stating a value for honest hard work, self-reliance, and common decency. Those things predate the cowboy by a century or two, and were common in the colonial Americans as a matter of nature (only people who were daring or had nothing to lose would come to the colonies in the beginning) and of necessity. You ever hear of the 'Protestant work ethic'?
The cowboy was essentially the colonial culture twice distilled. Where the colonies were founded by only those people daring or rootless enough to leave Europe, the American West was founded by only those people who were daring and rootless enough to leave that society and go deeper into the undeveloped wilderness. It is a direct lineage, and very little if any influence came from Native American society. Not to mention that they were already culture contaminated anyway. There's a picture in the US Senate Indian Affairs committee room of a tribal chief returning from Washington, DC, walking with a snazzy cane and wearing a suit coat with tails, a top hat, and with pockets full of trinkets. You might as well speak of how Japanese culture is affecting American youth through anime, regardless of the fact that anime itself is a direct product of the influence of American culture on Japan. Cultures in relationships of any kind of exchange are an ecosystem of varying degrees of feedback (cultural synthesis/syncresis). And on that note, you're ignoring the socio-cultural contributions of second wave immigration.
The cowboy was the last bastion of the distilled American frontier spirit, born in the colonies. I should add it is remembered primarily as an abstraction. Movies like High Noon might also be high art, but that doesn't make their subject art any more than a painting of something makes the thing painted art in of itself. 'Western art' is an abstraction, and only gets more so as time makes it more and more romanticized until finally it is as much fantasy as the art related to medieval life.
Name me one major folk artist or work of folk art that is more than two centuries old without looking it up. I expect that you cannot do it. Almost all folk art over time becomes marginal to culture and society, primarily because it is very localized in scope and appeal to the time and place that it was created. The artists and works that are most commonly remembered transcend time and place.
That was sarcasm. It was meant to parody 'think of the children'. I also think that 'pervert' is a word that can be rehabilitated like 'geek' or 'nerd'. I am not in the least bit afraid or ashamed to self-identify as a pervert.
If automotive transportation/ownership is equivalently valuable, then the Constitution could be amended. Plenty of things have been added since the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not least of which was end of slavery and the enfranchisement of women. So whether or not something existed at the time the Constitution and its original amendments were drafted is irrelevant and immaterial, as the Constitution clearly outlines the method by which it can be modified to meet future needs and conditions.
It has taken all of my self control not to insult your intelligence any more than the implication of this sentence having had to spell that out for you.
I can't believe you were modded up for that. 'The rest of the internet' is diffuse and unstructured and makes the process of looking at and/or delivering live wangs a tedious process limited in scope by time and resources. By consolidating a service with a single purpose the process is streamlined and the scope expanded to include more desired content in one place.
Why do you think there are so many pr0n-oriented YouTube clones? The significant features excluded in the biggest services are going to be in demand as separate services. Just you wait, it will happen.
Why don't you burn an Henri Rousseau painting while you're at it? Art is not the captive of schools and demagogues. Just because somebody doesn't have some kind of background or pedigree does not automatically make their product irrelevant, tasteless, or vulgar (connotatively as a negative, it remains denotatively vulgar as a neutral {funny, the spell checker thinks 'connotatively' is a word but not 'denotatively'}).
Actually, anything that is called art is art. You can only then determine if it is 'good' or 'bad' art based on its substance and how well that substance is communicated.
What about the people who want to look at boners? Won't somebody please think of the perverts?!
Though really this is an opportunity waiting to be snatched up. Chatroulette has demonstrated that there is a huge userbase just waiting to wave their willies on camera, so all somebody need do is create software that does something similar, and then make it known that 'this is the new place to flash people on teh intarwebs!' and BOOM instant userbase (= MONAY).
There are so many issues with social constructs that it's hard to get a reliable picture of the matter. Places that are more tolerant such as San Francisco are artificially high, because they not only are catalytic in more people living openly with regard to sexuality, but they attract people from places that are intolerant, decreasing natural presence in those places. And in those intolerant places people are of course less likely to endure public disapproval about living openly, which drives perceived numbers down. So, you have to deal with the flow of people from intolerant to tolerant places, and the socially positive and negative pressures to live openly in each place respectively. I imagine that there is still enough denial and secret lives out there that any general average is probably lower than the reality. There are still many parts of the world where homosexuals are killed, if not by the government in places like Uganda in Iran, then by the violence of random bigots.
Actually that would be 'his version of compromise'. The whole implied criticism was that the GGP was weak for knuckling under. There was no criticism, even implied to my reading, of the female half of the equation. In order for that to be so, there would have to be more exposition, such as the inclusion that she made some contingent demand or that she had declared that she thought compromise was 'getting her way' etc. You're reading too much into this in order to put the GP in a bad light for (reasonably) asserting that the GGP was a weak person for offering a unilateral "compromise". A condition that would be true regardless of the gender(s) involved.
There is reason to be a bit more squeamish about cars. They are actually more dangerous and more complex.
More Dangerous:
a) A car can do more damage than a gun. They both can kill people, even multiple people, but a gun cannot significantly damage a structure in the way a vehicle can. An out of control vehicle can, depending on its size and velocity, do tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to structures, even collapsing them entirely.
b) People use cars more frequently than guns. There is a reason why children are statistically 20 times more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting. There are more people operating vehicles more often. Guns are something of an expensive luxury to use. A good day at a range can cost around $100 in fees and ammo costs. Few people can afford to do that very often. Cars on the other hand, while to certain degree expensive, are an absolute necessity to most people, without daily use of which they would have no income.
More Complex:
a) Cars are more complex than guns, they have thousands of parts, a myriad of different fluids, electrical systems, now even computerized monitoring and controls. Guns are still purely mechanical, and the best ones are as simple as possible to use and clean.
b) Driving is more complex than shooting. There are only three things you need to learn to properly use a gun: trigger discipline, sight discipline (don't point it at valuable things and treat it as though it is loaded at all times), and storage discipline. Everything else is just developing accuracy. However with driving you have to learn how to back around corners, handle ice and snow, handle a sudden tire blow-out with crashing into things, parallel park, check blindspots as a reflex before properly merging, learn braking distances for different speeds and road conditions, etc. etc. And many of these things need to be done every day, and the consequences of improper execution can not only be injury or death but ten times as much financial property damage as a gun could ever do.
c) This is perhaps a subjective opinion, but I think laws related to driving and vehicle licensing/registration/insurance are more complex than laws related to the (common) use and ownership of guns.
All this aside, there is also the fact that gun ownership is a civil right enshrined in the Constitution in a way that cars and driving are not.
You think this is exclusive to America, and you're calling other people naive? Academia is an industry in most other places. Asia is probably more baldly industrial in their approach to academics than America ever has been.
As one of those ardent advocates I agree, bad idea, but on the same note, that shouldn't preclude responsible ownership. People should be taught proper gun safety, but until they handle a weapon improperly it should be assumed that they can take care of themselves.
After looking at the product page for this it seems that people have to sign some kind of liability waiver that tells them all the bad things it can do, so if they don't pay attention it's their own damn fault and the company is legally off the hook.
Though I do think the company is being irresponsible for portraying them like toys for lighting cigarettes and such. That would be like Ruger making an advertisement where somebody shoots a can off of a person's head. Yeah, technically an expert shooter could do that, but it's so insanely irresponsible that nobody should do it except maybe a stunt man and an exhibition shooter with decades of experience and daily practice.
Considering that you waved around allegations of MitM attacks even though you didn't know what they were, I doubt you understand 'networking laws' very well either.
Current law as it applies to networking is based on 'authorization'. 'Unauthorized' access is illegal, but if a device is configured to give access to anybody, then who can say it was unauthorized access? If you think that it is, then you must also think that everybody that logs into a public FTP server that is configured to accept a default login is breaking and entering.
People who own equipment are responsible for its configuration, and that equipment thereafter essentially acts as their agent, granting or denying authorization as it was configured.
Nope, then it would be murder. "Assassination" connotes that killing somebody would accomplish some kind of (political, economic, social) goal that is larger than the person individually. Killing John Q. Public isn't going to mean anything more than some people who knew him will be rightly upset, but if somebody kills the Pope, that will have repercussions throughout the world beyond any personal level.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, the AC was me. I hate it when the box accidentally gets checked.
"Cowboy values" are just a derogatory way of stating a value for honest hard work, self-reliance, and common decency. Those things predate the cowboy by a century or two, and were common in the colonial Americans as a matter of nature (only people who were daring or had nothing to lose would come to the colonies in the beginning) and of necessity. You ever hear of the 'Protestant work ethic'?
The cowboy was essentially the colonial culture twice distilled. Where the colonies were founded by only those people daring or rootless enough to leave Europe, the American West was founded by only those people who were daring and rootless enough to leave that society and go deeper into the undeveloped wilderness. It is a direct lineage, and very little if any influence came from Native American society. Not to mention that they were already culture contaminated anyway. There's a picture in the US Senate Indian Affairs committee room of a tribal chief returning from Washington, DC, walking with a snazzy cane and wearing a suit coat with tails, a top hat, and with pockets full of trinkets. You might as well speak of how Japanese culture is affecting American youth through anime, regardless of the fact that anime itself is a direct product of the influence of American culture on Japan. Cultures in relationships of any kind of exchange are an ecosystem of varying degrees of feedback (cultural synthesis/syncresis). And on that note, you're ignoring the socio-cultural contributions of second wave immigration.
The cowboy was the last bastion of the distilled American frontier spirit, born in the colonies. I should add it is remembered primarily as an abstraction. Movies like High Noon might also be high art, but that doesn't make their subject art any more than a painting of something makes the thing painted art in of itself. 'Western art' is an abstraction, and only gets more so as time makes it more and more romanticized until finally it is as much fantasy as the art related to medieval life.
Name me one major folk artist or work of folk art that is more than two centuries old without looking it up. I expect that you cannot do it. Almost all folk art over time becomes marginal to culture and society, primarily because it is very localized in scope and appeal to the time and place that it was created. The artists and works that are most commonly remembered transcend time and place.
Noted. This is so informative it should be in the summary.
That was sarcasm. It was meant to parody 'think of the children'. I also think that 'pervert' is a word that can be rehabilitated like 'geek' or 'nerd'. I am not in the least bit afraid or ashamed to self-identify as a pervert.
If automotive transportation/ownership is equivalently valuable, then the Constitution could be amended. Plenty of things have been added since the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not least of which was end of slavery and the enfranchisement of women. So whether or not something existed at the time the Constitution and its original amendments were drafted is irrelevant and immaterial, as the Constitution clearly outlines the method by which it can be modified to meet future needs and conditions.
It has taken all of my self control not to insult your intelligence any more than the implication of this sentence having had to spell that out for you.
I can't believe you were modded up for that. 'The rest of the internet' is diffuse and unstructured and makes the process of looking at and/or delivering live wangs a tedious process limited in scope by time and resources. By consolidating a service with a single purpose the process is streamlined and the scope expanded to include more desired content in one place.
Why do you think there are so many pr0n-oriented YouTube clones? The significant features excluded in the biggest services are going to be in demand as separate services. Just you wait, it will happen.
Why don't you burn an Henri Rousseau painting while you're at it? Art is not the captive of schools and demagogues. Just because somebody doesn't have some kind of background or pedigree does not automatically make their product irrelevant, tasteless, or vulgar (connotatively as a negative, it remains denotatively vulgar as a neutral {funny, the spell checker thinks 'connotatively' is a word but not 'denotatively'}).
Ahem: $$$
The cultural values of the underclass do not survive over time. People remember the Baroque culturally for Vivaldi not Punch and Judy.
Actually, anything that is called art is art. You can only then determine if it is 'good' or 'bad' art based on its substance and how well that substance is communicated.
What about the people who want to look at boners? Won't somebody please think of the perverts?!
Though really this is an opportunity waiting to be snatched up. Chatroulette has demonstrated that there is a huge userbase just waiting to wave their willies on camera, so all somebody need do is create software that does something similar, and then make it known that 'this is the new place to flash people on teh intarwebs!' and BOOM instant userbase (= MONAY).
If I weren't so lazy I'd do it myself.
There are so many issues with social constructs that it's hard to get a reliable picture of the matter. Places that are more tolerant such as San Francisco are artificially high, because they not only are catalytic in more people living openly with regard to sexuality, but they attract people from places that are intolerant, decreasing natural presence in those places. And in those intolerant places people are of course less likely to endure public disapproval about living openly, which drives perceived numbers down. So, you have to deal with the flow of people from intolerant to tolerant places, and the socially positive and negative pressures to live openly in each place respectively. I imagine that there is still enough denial and secret lives out there that any general average is probably lower than the reality. There are still many parts of the world where homosexuals are killed, if not by the government in places like Uganda in Iran, then by the violence of random bigots.
Actually that would be 'his version of compromise'. The whole implied criticism was that the GGP was weak for knuckling under. There was no criticism, even implied to my reading, of the female half of the equation. In order for that to be so, there would have to be more exposition, such as the inclusion that she made some contingent demand or that she had declared that she thought compromise was 'getting her way' etc. You're reading too much into this in order to put the GP in a bad light for (reasonably) asserting that the GGP was a weak person for offering a unilateral "compromise". A condition that would be true regardless of the gender(s) involved.
There is reason to be a bit more squeamish about cars. They are actually more dangerous and more complex.
More Dangerous:
a) A car can do more damage than a gun. They both can kill people, even multiple people, but a gun cannot significantly damage a structure in the way a vehicle can. An out of control vehicle can, depending on its size and velocity, do tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to structures, even collapsing them entirely.
b) People use cars more frequently than guns. There is a reason why children are statistically 20 times more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting. There are more people operating vehicles more often. Guns are something of an expensive luxury to use. A good day at a range can cost around $100 in fees and ammo costs. Few people can afford to do that very often. Cars on the other hand, while to certain degree expensive, are an absolute necessity to most people, without daily use of which they would have no income.
More Complex:
a) Cars are more complex than guns, they have thousands of parts, a myriad of different fluids, electrical systems, now even computerized monitoring and controls. Guns are still purely mechanical, and the best ones are as simple as possible to use and clean.
b) Driving is more complex than shooting. There are only three things you need to learn to properly use a gun: trigger discipline, sight discipline (don't point it at valuable things and treat it as though it is loaded at all times), and storage discipline. Everything else is just developing accuracy. However with driving you have to learn how to back around corners, handle ice and snow, handle a sudden tire blow-out with crashing into things, parallel park, check blindspots as a reflex before properly merging, learn braking distances for different speeds and road conditions, etc. etc. And many of these things need to be done every day, and the consequences of improper execution can not only be injury or death but ten times as much financial property damage as a gun could ever do.
c) This is perhaps a subjective opinion, but I think laws related to driving and vehicle licensing/registration/insurance are more complex than laws related to the (common) use and ownership of guns.
All this aside, there is also the fact that gun ownership is a civil right enshrined in the Constitution in a way that cars and driving are not.
You think this is exclusive to America, and you're calling other people naive? Academia is an industry in most other places. Asia is probably more baldly industrial in their approach to academics than America ever has been.
As one of those ardent advocates I agree, bad idea, but on the same note, that shouldn't preclude responsible ownership. People should be taught proper gun safety, but until they handle a weapon improperly it should be assumed that they can take care of themselves.
After looking at the product page for this it seems that people have to sign some kind of liability waiver that tells them all the bad things it can do, so if they don't pay attention it's their own damn fault and the company is legally off the hook.
Though I do think the company is being irresponsible for portraying them like toys for lighting cigarettes and such. That would be like Ruger making an advertisement where somebody shoots a can off of a person's head. Yeah, technically an expert shooter could do that, but it's so insanely irresponsible that nobody should do it except maybe a stunt man and an exhibition shooter with decades of experience and daily practice.
Dude, compared to Wigle, that site is pathetic with a capital 'P'.
You should stop sending your unlocked door into the middle of the street. It might get hit by a Google Street View car.
Considering that you waved around allegations of MitM attacks even though you didn't know what they were, I doubt you understand 'networking laws' very well either.
Current law as it applies to networking is based on 'authorization'. 'Unauthorized' access is illegal, but if a device is configured to give access to anybody, then who can say it was unauthorized access? If you think that it is, then you must also think that everybody that logs into a public FTP server that is configured to accept a default login is breaking and entering.
People who own equipment are responsible for its configuration, and that equipment thereafter essentially acts as their agent, granting or denying authorization as it was configured.
IANAL & the above is not legal advice.
That would be called harassment, and pretty soon you'd find a district attorney involved.
No, no, no... you want to break them of the habit you make them game testers.
They'll want to chop off their own hands and gouge out their eyes before using a computer again.
Nope, then it would be murder. "Assassination" connotes that killing somebody would accomplish some kind of (political, economic, social) goal that is larger than the person individually. Killing John Q. Public isn't going to mean anything more than some people who knew him will be rightly upset, but if somebody kills the Pope, that will have repercussions throughout the world beyond any personal level.
Oh bleh, AC box checked accidentally. That AC was me.
If I were a woman who had been jizzed on by the Commander in Chief, I might have kept the dress too.