Thing is, I'm positive there were multiple copycats, and with the content Kristopeit usually wrote it was trivial to duplicate. In a sense it made the whole Kristopeit troll even more epic because not only would he (or it?) be writing troll posts but copycats too and it just spiraled into madness.
With APK it's almost impossible for a normal, rational individual to accurately duplicate the unique style of a genuine APK rant. That long copy pasta that's been making the rounds is a pretty good approximation though.
Ugh. This, a thousand times this! Nothing worse than having multiple screens and the gall to want to look at two spreadsheets side by side. But no, Excel is a stupid MDI app -- which BTW ranks high in the stupidest ideas EVER -- so SUFFER!! Even worse, once you "hack" it, if you deign to have macros in your PERSONAL.XLS file, it'll bother you endlessly about overwriting it until you get fed up and make it read-only. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid
But those are dockapps, we're talking about tiles here man, TILES. Completely different. Besides, MS invented the modern operating system, the Apple lawsuits were plain FUD and we have St. Gates to thank for modernity. And tiles.
How many people can really compete with an ABS. I wouldn't expect it to be many (1% would be my guess).
It's probably less than that, at least once you remove all the deluded "I'm the bestest drivers evar!!11!" folks. A lot of the anti-ABS arguments seem to rely on "sufficiently skilled drivers" which is utterly ridiculous.
Wish I had a link to that study which showed how people tend to overestimate their skill at various tasks even to the point of denying their utter incompetence.
this can be true, but you seem to be assuming that drivers are trained and have skills.
Not only that, but he's also assuming that even well trained drivers always have optimal response times, other variables aren't coming in to play, etc.
Without ABS you need to be able to judge the exact amount of pressure to stop the car
Which is exactly why ABS is useful, because only the most arrogant of "good drivers" really thinks they can do this correctly, all of the time.
This kind of stuff is why I chuckle at the "well I'm an good driver," partly because everyone seems to think that, and partly because their petty arrogance makes them eschew safety features just because "I'm so damn good." Added safety features (even if they have certain trade offs) are always a good thing, deluded jackasses not-withstanding.
Only those who think that getting to work 20 seconds sooner is important. If you are following at 60 MPH with 1 car length, you are an accident waiting to happen.
While this may be true, it doesn't really discredit the GP's point. Just because I, as the worlds best and most safest driver, do my best to keep as many car lengths as possible between me and the car in front, it doesn't mean all the other jackasses who are trying to get to work 20 seconds sooner aren't going to start doing things that impact my safety which are beyond my control!
Just the act of driving means you're an accident waiting to happen. No matter how defensively you drive you cannot predict, nor stop, other drivers from doing unsafe things, and sooner or later someone else's unsafe behavior is going to impact you. That's not to say that there isn't any point in defensive driving habits, but trying to pretend that anyone who gets in an accident wasn't driving properly is foolish.
This is the same Dart that compiles down to JavaScript, yes? If anything they've invested so heavily into Dart because it rounds off some of those nasty little corners and edge cases folk are always bitching about W.R.T. JavaScript. So Google could re-write Gmail entirely in Dart and it would end up being compiled into JavaScript, taking it's fair place amongst the rest of "web 2.0." Does that make Google a "non-JavaScript shop"? Possibly, but in the end it's JavaScript, all the way down.
The lay of the land at this time is JavaScript as the WWW/HTML scripting language, no matter how you want to dress it up. Is is perfect? Nope. Are there initiatives out there to work around the perceived issues with the language? Yep. So until the Python Gods smile upon web browsers everywhere and release us from our JavaScript bondage, we'll just keep working around the problems laid upon us by our forebears. As for JavaScript... it ain't going anywhere fast.
.... The citizens of a country should have sovereign reign over the government, not the other way around.
Yep, but unfortunately that cute little idea they had in the Enlightenment? How's that working out again? Oh, you mean power is doing what it always has done and always will? I'm always hearing the word sheeple bandied about and it seems to me that people (or some majority thereof) have always been, and always will be apathetic and ignorant of the shit power does. The only reason that all those high flown Enlightenment ideas seemed to work so much better in the past is because like any corpse (this one being stillborn) it takes time to decay (power being the maggots that aid in said decay). All our grandiose ideas about liberty and sovereign citizens are practically dirt by now, and thus the status quo of unrestrained power is just about restored.
Not saying I like it, just calling it like I see it.
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say, but I wasn't about to do it so politely. Who hasn't had that boss who thinks that because he once worked as a trainer in a group that did Java work and puzzled out god awful VBScript and perl scripts while creating an abomination of a MySQL database where everything is a string, but we can't change anything because hey, it works (for some values of "work").
In other words, until you've supported (and god help you had to modify) the hoary abominations cultivated by these "self-trained" deciples of the Elder Gods, you really haven't any cause think that the bitterness directed at these "teach yerself to code" websites as anything more than the the resigned realization that now there are even more imbeciles devoted to ruining your life that it is.
TL;DR: If you're to goddamned stupid to come to the realization that your abortion of a VBScript ASP classic "website" is slow because your're executing a query in a tight loop based on an ID you retrieved from a previous query that you could have trivially retrieved all at once in a single query then maybe, just maybe, you're too goddamned stupid to be programming. Furthermore, when you refuse to acknowledge that that very same website does absolutely no validation on input and it's breaking the bloody fucking things you wanted ME to develop because "it works", but if I forget to validate some obscure edge case you jump down my throat... then maybe you're just a douche bag as well.
P.S. Sorry, got a little ranty there... wish I'd submitted some of that shit to The Daily WTF.
Well to be fair, they didn't exactly delete it... they obfusticated it and then no-one bothered to implement it. That being said, I guess it amounts to deleting it, doesn't it?
I've spent some time in the HTML trenches and my take on the whole thing is to hell with XHTML, use the original HTML properties when they make sense and the CSS rules everywhere else. Then again, I was lucky (relatively speaking) I was working on an intranet project (my idiot boss insisted on IE9, even though no-one used it so I targeted Chrome, Opera, Firefox, and put in IE kludges when he noticed the site wasn't working right in his useless fucking excuse of a browser)
Did I mention I'm no longer employed at that company? Funny that. Bunch of useless gits, the lot of em.
Alright, here. I AM a lawyer (though not your lawyer, and nothing I post here should be construed as legal advice)
Please don't construe this as an attack in any way shape or form, but you lawyer types inevitably say some variation on this phrase and it makes me wonder. I understand that pragmatism might cause the use of this phrase when opining on some legal type matter, but have there been actual cases where some lawyer neglected to include this little C.Y.A and got caught up in an actual lawsuit where someone interpreted the "off duty" opinion of a lawyer as real legal advice? Or is it one of those things that you just say just in case?
Personally, I don't care for Paul or his ideas. That being said, would I vote for him? Absolutely. Put up or shut up. Honestly the president doesn't have the power to push through even a fraction of what these fools proscribe for "fixing the nation". Why couldn't Obama fix the economy? Because the president of the united states of America, while figuratively the "leader of the free world" actually has but the most limited of powers.
And for that exact reason, Ron Paul, assuming he became president, couldn't possibly follow through with even a quarter of his high flung campaign promises. None of them can. The congress decides the ins and outs of national policy. The president merely gets to implement it.
All these sweeping campaign promises are nothing more than dust in the wind, sweet nothings whispered into the ears of a public who has forgotten (if they were ever taught!) about the way this country's government actually works. To paraphrase Portal, "the president is a lie".
And we all still believe in the fallacious "social contract theory", which, as theories go is about as debunked as possible.
Why do the scumbags in congress vote for endless graft? Why do they ignore the constitution? Because it actually is just a god damned piece of paper. It's not as if the founding fathers magically imbued it with some spooky powers. It's paper, scribbled on by men, with all the force that implies, I.e, none what so ever.
Whatever force the constitution ever had was (and remains) is entirely social and the idea that it is some force of nature is the very epitome of naivety. The fact that you're surprised that this country is drifting BACK to the default power structure of totalitarianism merely highlights your naive belief that "liberty" and "freedom" and all the other fallacies of the enlightenment are anything more that the fleeting dreams they turned out to be.
Face the facts: the reason governments devolve into authoritarian/totalitarian models is simply due to the fact that humans are not the enlightened, rational actors that enlightenment era thought made us out to be.
This the exact same reason that the libertarian's ideal society wouldn't work. We already tried it. Welcome to the future of the libertarian utopia.
One last thing, since I just can't let a good rant lie. So, libertarian/anarco-capitalists, once we're freed from the yoke of government what exactly is supposed to stop the same processes that formed the concept if government in the first place? One has to imagine that whatever force of nature which necessitated the forming of governments in the first place hasn't just up and vanished. The whole argument is just a hand waving, idealistic nonsense.
In an ideal world, you and I. Unfortunately, that world only exists in textbooks and dreams. Monied interests have always trumped the public and always will
They didn't Capitulate, they laid down, spread their leg wide and screamed "Me love you long time" at the top of their lungs. Capitulate... what the hell are you smoking???
Methinks you missed the point of the OP's argument.
There never was some glorious principled past. Crooks have been running the show since 1776, and it's nothing unique to America.
Yeah, the crazy powers the Federals have granted themselves are bad. But it's an out and out fallacy to assume that it was ever any different. We're talking matters of degree here.
The grand old Founding Fathers created a "new world order" with their little Constitution thing. Expecting future generations to honor their prejudices? Oh, well that's just the definition of optimism. Holding up a document written by dead men as the holy grail of politics is an argumentative non-starter. We all (for an expansive definition of all) wish that modern legislators would abide by the silly little social contract laid out by the the Constitution. Except the Renaissance is over, and well the ideal of a "social contract: has been thoroughly debunked,
The real problem Americans have is that they bought into the idea that a "social contract" has any meaning outside of the willingness of the current power structure to maintain that contract. The very idea that some historical document like the U.S. Constitution is supposed to be binding now and forever is naive at best.
Don't get me wrong, I want to be free just as much as anyone else, but the idea that some "ancient" document is somehow supposed to magically constrain future development is, as delusion goes, turned up to 11.
Let me be clear, our current raft of politicians are treating the U.S. Constitution as the piece of paper that it its, forget about the ideals behind the document, they don't actually matter. We've got a rather "American" problem of arguing from the premise that this grand document has any actual, physical legitimacy in the first place, let alone it's applicability to future generations.
I'm slipping into ranting territory here, so let me end this post with this: The essential problem we're running up against here is due exclusively to the naive "social contract" theory embodied by the U.S. Constitution itself. The fact that our current crop of "representatives" are supposed to uphold this contract is predicated in nothing more than the social ideal that they're "supposed to". What we are witnessing here is power doing what power does.
Go ahead, keep pretending that your pretty little "social contract" theory is anything more than an echo of the Enlightenment. Yeah, we had a good run under the social contract theory. If I were you, I would hardly be surprised that this particular contract got broken, since it was predicated on the same unrealistic ideals as our much maligned Communism.
Don't be stupid! It's not corruption it's political speech! Remember folks, money talks. And it talks loud. Oh, and the Supreme Court went ahead and kicked us in the balls by capitulating and unequivocally equating money with speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is, I'm positive there were multiple copycats, and with the content Kristopeit usually wrote it was trivial to duplicate. In a sense it made the whole Kristopeit troll even more epic because not only would he (or it?) be writing troll posts but copycats too and it just spiraled into madness.
With APK it's almost impossible for a normal, rational individual to accurately duplicate the unique style of a genuine APK rant. That long copy pasta that's been making the rounds is a pretty good approximation though.
Ugh. This, a thousand times this! Nothing worse than having multiple screens and the gall to want to look at two spreadsheets side by side. But no, Excel is a stupid MDI app -- which BTW ranks high in the stupidest ideas EVER -- so SUFFER!! Even worse, once you "hack" it, if you deign to have macros in your PERSONAL.XLS file, it'll bother you endlessly about overwriting it until you get fed up and make it read-only. Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid
But those are dockapps, we're talking about tiles here man, TILES. Completely different. Besides, MS invented the modern operating system, the Apple lawsuits were plain FUD and we have St. Gates to thank for modernity. And tiles.
[/troll]
How many people can really compete with an ABS. I wouldn't expect it to be many (1% would be my guess).
It's probably less than that, at least once you remove all the deluded "I'm the bestest drivers evar!!11!" folks. A lot of the anti-ABS arguments seem to rely on "sufficiently skilled drivers" which is utterly ridiculous.
Wish I had a link to that study which showed how people tend to overestimate their skill at various tasks even to the point of denying their utter incompetence.
this can be true, but you seem to be assuming that drivers are trained and have skills .
Not only that, but he's also assuming that even well trained drivers always have optimal response times, other variables aren't coming in to play, etc.
Without ABS you need to be able to judge the exact amount of pressure to stop the car
Which is exactly why ABS is useful, because only the most arrogant of "good drivers" really thinks they can do this correctly, all of the time.
This kind of stuff is why I chuckle at the "well I'm an good driver," partly because everyone seems to think that, and partly because their petty arrogance makes them eschew safety features just because "I'm so damn good." Added safety features (even if they have certain trade offs) are always a good thing, deluded jackasses not-withstanding.
Only those who think that getting to work 20 seconds sooner is important. If you are following at 60 MPH with 1 car length, you are an accident waiting to happen.
While this may be true, it doesn't really discredit the GP's point. Just because I, as the worlds best and most safest driver, do my best to keep as many car lengths as possible between me and the car in front, it doesn't mean all the other jackasses who are trying to get to work 20 seconds sooner aren't going to start doing things that impact my safety which are beyond my control!
Just the act of driving means you're an accident waiting to happen. No matter how defensively you drive you cannot predict, nor stop, other drivers from doing unsafe things, and sooner or later someone else's unsafe behavior is going to impact you. That's not to say that there isn't any point in defensive driving habits, but trying to pretend that anyone who gets in an accident wasn't driving properly is foolish.
Hurray for Chic-let keyboards! Those things are truly awful.
I believe they were referencing this little gem from The DailyWTF:
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_.aspx
This is the same Dart that compiles down to JavaScript, yes? If anything they've invested so heavily into Dart because it rounds off some of those nasty little corners and edge cases folk are always bitching about W.R.T. JavaScript. So Google could re-write Gmail entirely in Dart and it would end up being compiled into JavaScript, taking it's fair place amongst the rest of "web 2.0." Does that make Google a "non-JavaScript shop"? Possibly, but in the end it's JavaScript, all the way down.
The lay of the land at this time is JavaScript as the WWW/HTML scripting language, no matter how you want to dress it up. Is is perfect? Nope. Are there initiatives out there to work around the perceived issues with the language? Yep. So until the Python Gods smile upon web browsers everywhere and release us from our JavaScript bondage, we'll just keep working around the problems laid upon us by our forebears. As for JavaScript... it ain't going anywhere fast.
Duh, they're made out of cheese like the rest of it. Sheesh!
He means HTML entities like & or whatever as opposed to every other website in the modern world where you can just use regular ass Unicode.
Awesome, thanks for that. Started sharing it around.
.... The citizens of a country should have sovereign reign over the government, not the other way around.
Yep, but unfortunately that cute little idea they had in the Enlightenment? How's that working out again? Oh, you mean power is doing what it always has done and always will? I'm always hearing the word sheeple bandied about and it seems to me that people (or some majority thereof) have always been, and always will be apathetic and ignorant of the shit power does. The only reason that all those high flown Enlightenment ideas seemed to work so much better in the past is because like any corpse (this one being stillborn) it takes time to decay (power being the maggots that aid in said decay). All our grandiose ideas about liberty and sovereign citizens are practically dirt by now, and thus the status quo of unrestrained power is just about restored.
Not saying I like it, just calling it like I see it.
You "Steal" from an American corp you get tried in USA. They have a long history of thinking their laws rule the world.
Think hell, this is just one more piece of evidence that US laws in fact do so!
This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say, but I wasn't about to do it so politely. Who hasn't had that boss who thinks that because he once worked as a trainer in a group that did Java work and puzzled out god awful VBScript and perl scripts while creating an abomination of a MySQL database where everything is a string, but we can't change anything because hey, it works (for some values of "work").
In other words, until you've supported (and god help you had to modify) the hoary abominations cultivated by these "self-trained" deciples of the Elder Gods, you really haven't any cause think that the bitterness directed at these "teach yerself to code" websites as anything more than the the resigned realization that now there are even more imbeciles devoted to ruining your life that it is.
TL;DR: If you're to goddamned stupid to come to the realization that your abortion of a VBScript ASP classic "website" is slow because your're executing a query in a tight loop based on an ID you retrieved from a previous query that you could have trivially retrieved all at once in a single query then maybe, just maybe, you're too goddamned stupid to be programming. Furthermore, when you refuse to acknowledge that that very same website does absolutely no validation on input and it's breaking the bloody fucking things you wanted ME to develop because "it works", but if I forget to validate some obscure edge case you jump down my throat... then maybe you're just a douche bag as well.
P.S. Sorry, got a little ranty there... wish I'd submitted some of that shit to The Daily WTF.
Well to be fair, they didn't exactly delete it... they obfusticated it and then no-one bothered to implement it. That being said, I guess it amounts to deleting it, doesn't it?
I've spent some time in the HTML trenches and my take on the whole thing is to hell with XHTML, use the original HTML properties when they make sense and the CSS rules everywhere else. Then again, I was lucky (relatively speaking) I was working on an intranet project (my idiot boss insisted on IE9, even though no-one used it so I targeted Chrome, Opera, Firefox, and put in IE kludges when he noticed the site wasn't working right in his useless fucking excuse of a browser)
Did I mention I'm no longer employed at that company? Funny that. Bunch of useless gits, the lot of em.
Alright, here. I AM a lawyer (though not your lawyer, and nothing I post here should be construed as legal advice)
Please don't construe this as an attack in any way shape or form, but you lawyer types inevitably say some variation on this phrase and it makes me wonder. I understand that pragmatism might cause the use of this phrase when opining on some legal type matter, but have there been actual cases where some lawyer neglected to include this little C.Y.A and got caught up in an actual lawsuit where someone interpreted the "off duty" opinion of a lawyer as real legal advice? Or is it one of those things that you just say just in case?
Personally, I don't care for Paul or his ideas. That being said, would I vote for him? Absolutely. Put up or shut up. Honestly the president doesn't have the power to push through even a fraction of what these fools proscribe for "fixing the nation". Why couldn't Obama fix the economy? Because the president of the united states of America, while figuratively the "leader of the free world" actually has but the most limited of powers.
And for that exact reason, Ron Paul, assuming he became president, couldn't possibly follow through with even a quarter of his high flung campaign promises. None of them can. The congress decides the ins and outs of national policy. The president merely gets to implement it.
All these sweeping campaign promises are nothing more than dust in the wind, sweet nothings whispered into the ears of a public who has forgotten (if they were ever taught!) about the way this country's government actually works. To paraphrase Portal, "the president is a lie".
And we all still believe in the fallacious "social contract theory", which, as theories go is about as debunked as possible.
Why do the scumbags in congress vote for endless graft? Why do they ignore the constitution? Because it actually is just a god damned piece of paper. It's not as if the founding fathers magically imbued it with some spooky powers. It's paper, scribbled on by men, with all the force that implies, I.e, none what so ever.
Whatever force the constitution ever had was (and remains) is entirely social and the idea that it is some force of nature is the very epitome of naivety. The fact that you're surprised that this country is drifting BACK to the default power structure of totalitarianism merely highlights your naive belief that "liberty" and "freedom" and all the other fallacies of the enlightenment are anything more that the fleeting dreams they turned out to be.
Face the facts: the reason governments devolve into authoritarian/totalitarian models is simply due to the fact that humans are not the enlightened, rational actors that enlightenment era thought made us out to be.
This the exact same reason that the libertarian's ideal society wouldn't work. We already tried it. Welcome to the future of the libertarian utopia.
One last thing, since I just can't let a good rant lie. So, libertarian/anarco-capitalists, once we're freed from the yoke of government what exactly is supposed to stop the same processes that formed the concept if government in the first place? One has to imagine that whatever force of nature which necessitated the forming of governments in the first place hasn't just up and vanished. The whole argument is just a hand waving, idealistic nonsense.
I'll be in my cave, if you need me.
Are they all in the same photo? That would at least prove it was one hell of a party!
But with so many companies lobbying on our behalf, we may need to report to the companies if we want to change the vote.
Oh yes, nothing like another layer of indirection to make everything much simpler!
Pointers to pointers. Fantastic.
In an ideal world, you and I. Unfortunately, that world only exists in textbooks and dreams. Monied interests have always trumped the public and always will
They didn't Capitulate, they laid down, spread their leg wide and screamed "Me love you long time" at the top of their lungs. Capitulate... what the hell are you smoking???
Fair enough :)
Methinks you missed the point of the OP's argument.
There never was some glorious principled past. Crooks have been running the show since 1776, and it's nothing unique to America.
Yeah, the crazy powers the Federals have granted themselves are bad. But it's an out and out fallacy to assume that it was ever any different. We're talking matters of degree here.
The grand old Founding Fathers created a "new world order" with their little Constitution thing. Expecting future generations to honor their prejudices? Oh, well that's just the definition of optimism. Holding up a document written by dead men as the holy grail of politics is an argumentative non-starter. We all (for an expansive definition of all) wish that modern legislators would abide by the silly little social contract laid out by the the Constitution. Except the Renaissance is over, and well the ideal of a "social contract: has been thoroughly debunked,
The real problem Americans have is that they bought into the idea that a "social contract" has any meaning outside of the willingness of the current power structure to maintain that contract. The very idea that some historical document like the U.S. Constitution is supposed to be binding now and forever is naive at best.
Don't get me wrong, I want to be free just as much as anyone else, but the idea that some "ancient" document is somehow supposed to magically constrain future development is, as delusion goes, turned up to 11.
Let me be clear, our current raft of politicians are treating the U.S. Constitution as the piece of paper that it its, forget about the ideals behind the document, they don't actually matter. We've got a rather "American" problem of arguing from the premise that this grand document has any actual, physical legitimacy in the first place, let alone it's applicability to future generations.
I'm slipping into ranting territory here, so let me end this post with this: The essential problem we're running up against here is due exclusively to the naive "social contract" theory embodied by the U.S. Constitution itself. The fact that our current crop of "representatives" are supposed to uphold this contract is predicated in nothing more than the social ideal that they're "supposed to". What we are witnessing here is power doing what power does.
Go ahead, keep pretending that your pretty little "social contract" theory is anything more than an echo of the Enlightenment. Yeah, we had a good run under the social contract theory. If I were you, I would hardly be surprised that this particular contract got broken, since it was predicated on the same unrealistic ideals as our much maligned Communism.
Don't be stupid! It's not corruption it's political speech! Remember folks, money talks. And it talks loud. Oh, and the Supreme Court went ahead and kicked us in the balls by capitulating and unequivocally equating money with speech.
Cliff notes: We're doomed.