a single rich guy in the left lane with a sticker on his car helps exactly HOW, again, in terms of road congestion?
The roads are much less congested for him. So at least someone benefits. I'm all for "Lexus lanes." If the extra few minutes is sufficiently important to you that you'll pay a couple bucks in voluntary taxes, everybody wins.
Oh, is WH13 still on the air? I like that one; didn't realize there might be more coming. While it's definitely second tier TV (whatever the TV equivalent to a B movie is), it's like a good B movie: the cast and crew are clearly giving it their all on a limited budget, and it's endearing.
I haven't seen him in much in recent years, but I've liked what I've seen. He seems a competent actor with an interest in tech - a good choice for a show like this. Too bad it's Syfy though.
Well, do you have to properly understand DB partitioning, to be sure. Still, it's a heck of a lot easier than re-writing everything to work non-transactionally with NoSQL.
Of course, the best way to get a fast DB is 10,000 low-end servers. But if you're stuck in the legacy world of trying to scale up, you can't really use a cloud server for a DB, except for testing with token load.
You mentioned snapshotting et al, but you don't do that stuff explicitly with cloud servers, you just stand up servers with the requested image on demand, and leave the implementation to the provider. If you need to move quickly, you just have a pool waiting, or just go parallel. E.g., if you need to run 100 test suits, each starting with a fresh server, you just run 100 servers in parallel and toss em when you're done. You're effectively paying by server-hour, not by server, so it's a different mindset.
I'm sad that you can't see the difference between criticizing a viewpoint as wrong, and trying actively to get an individual fired. I hope you never have to learn the hard way.
Cloud servers have terrible IOPS. For anything but a DB, it probably doesn't matter, but trying to run a DB on a cloud VM will be painfully slow.
OTOH, most cloud services actually offer DB-as-a-service, in one form or another, and if you can use that then performance will be much better. Not good, mind you, but no longer painful.
At some point, I should be free to reject their views and stop listening to them.
Sure, of course, it's the difference between "stop listening" and "shouting down", or making public ad-holmium arguments against the person, or worse, saying loudly that no one should ever listen to "people like that".
The point, of course, where's it's rational to start ignoring an argument is when you fully understand what the person is trying to say, and could explain the argument yourself. To be able to explain "the argument goes like this, and here's where it's flawed". Often if you're clear headed you'll realize the only reason you reject the argument is it's counter to some deeply held belief of your own, one with strong emotional attachment that you can't actually articulate a defense of. Are you rejecting the argument because it causes you anxiety about that hard-to-defend-but-cherished belief? Always good to understand if that's the case (not that it makes you wrong, but it does make you irrational if it's that anxiety that motivates you).
OTOH, when people make shallow, dismissive arguments like "that's just something stupid religious people say because they can't think for themselves", or "the gays don't care if they harm society, they only care about buttsex", well, you know they're not even considering the argument rationally.
It sounds like we're really in agreement on most of this, just had different meanings to "shouting down".
FYI, when a small group in society has a special, better sort of rules that apply to them than the masses that's "privilege". E.g., aristocrats in the feudal system had an entirely separate justice system at one point. When a group of people has a special, worse sort of rules apply to them, that's "oppression".
I point that out because the word "privilege" has become very commonly misused by the "I'm right because SHUT UP" crowd, and as we've seen, being confused with that crowd isn't helpful to rational discussion.
You opponent will certainly seem stupid if you make no attempt to understand his argument. An intelligent person can make his opponent's argument strongly and logically, can take both sides of a debate because he understands both sides, that's how he knows his choice was rational.
You don't seem to be such a person, at least from your posts here. Sad, really.
I've never once seen such an argument. But then, it's not very important to me. I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
The argument that "perhaps new ways of living / family structures will cause society to crumble, as the traditional way is what's proven" seems quite reasonable to me. Perhaps they will. What are the odds? They seem low to me, not 0. Seems like an interesting question.
As I said, they're people, but unintelligent people. Nothing will get through to them; they've been either thoroughly brainwashed since birth, or they're utterly irrational. Not many of them ever change.
No, that's how you label someone as an "unperson": incapable of moral decision, and thus not a moral entity, much like you can't reason with a panther, or a volcano.
Shouting down bigotry is the best way to deal with bigotry.
I have never told anyone to shut up.
Uh huh.
Yes I have an opinion that I want to live in a society that treats people equally under the law. I understand that some people may not share this opinion. It might actually be considered rather clever to try to assume a position of legal privilege if you can get away with it, however my sense of fairness and justice will not allow me to accept this.
As an aside, the majority cannot have "privilege". That's not what the word means (the word "oppressed" would serve you better than "privileged" in making the same point). The majority cannot have "private law", as when it's the majority it's just "law".
You believe society is best served by "equal treatment" as you define it. Your opponent believes that society is best served by giving special social accord to those who live a certain, traditional way. IMO, proposition 8 should satisfy you both, granting civil union but not the specific word "marriage". But I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
but this would be like how the people who supported segregation of whites and blacks in the South were "fairness challenged".
I see one side refusing to work with people from the other side. Would you prefer the other side unable to work at all, or do you support "separate but equal" companies?
I never said that they weren't people.
Fair enough, but many people on the left these days state outright that those who disagree with them are simply too stupid to hold an opinion and just ignored (or in one recent prominent opinion piece, argued that those who disagree with global warming should be jailed as a danger to society). Sorry if I unfairly lumped you in with that crowd, but I see so much of that sort of talk.
It is possible to hurt people without intending to. I am sure many people who opposed civil rights did not intend to hurt anyone, however the societal manifestation of this opposition to civil rights actually did hurt many people, and it needed to be abolished in order to have a more just society.
Unless the intent is to do harm, then it's a legitimate debate over which sides views, if adopted, would do the least harm / most good. Shouting down the other side means rejecting the legitimacy of the debate, which really implies rejecting the right of the person on the other side to speak and similar basic freedoms. Can you see how "unperson" is implied by shouting down?
What is worse than the worst speech is when someone's rights are violated
Like the right to free speech? Without a heckler's veto?
Getting to a society where people are given equal protection under the law is a very worthy goal, and I think having people feel uncomfortable during that process is a small price to pay for having it happen a little more quickly.
Sure, but it's not the only goal, or even the highest. And calling your opponents names is the worst possible way to convince them of anything. I'm quite skeptical in fact that the current approach is likely to make this change happen faster.
Try presenting an argument for your point of view. "I'm right because SHUT UP!" is not an argument, except in a Monty Python sketch sort of way.
You have only your opinion here, and the strength of your belief. Your opponent also believes strongly, and, guess what, is also an intelligent, rational human being deserving of basic respect. When you can both express your views in public, and attempt to convince others, without fear of retaliation, then we have a functional society. OTOH, the Civil War killed more Americans than all other wars combined, and created hardships that lasted years. Perhaps it was the only way, but any other way that would have worked would have been a better way.
I don't think it's profound at all to claim that those opposed to intolerance are intolerant of intolerance. This just seems like an obvious and necessary exception to the concept of intolerance.
That's just BS. Accept that those who disagree with you are people too, just trying to find their own path to happiness. Very few people are just hurting others for the joy of doing so (though sadly they do exist, and sometimes come to power). You don't have to accept the views of your opponents, but you should tolerate them, and accept the people holding those views as people, just like you.
Do you really think they see their own views as intolerant? Do you really think they're trying to harm others, instead of trying to shape society the way they see as best for all (again, there are always a few assholes on both sides of every issue, but not the mainstream).
See, this is what I'm going on about: instead of presenting an argument for your point of view, you simply define those who oppose you as unpeople, unintelligent and unworthy of consideration. This will not end well.
Is it a scam that you have to pay for your groceries? You sure can't live without food. We all have basic needs we should expect to pay for ourselves. That's why we get jobs and work and so on.
Some of us need charity to meet our needs. Charity is great - perhaps the most praiseworthy human act. But people who need charity to cover medical costs aren't any different that people who need charity to cover the cost of food, or shelter. We don't need a special system for each.
Yes, I agree 100%. Criticism is exactly the correct response. Escalation to economic retaliation or violence crosses the line. Trying to get a guy fired because you disagree with him crosses the line. Breaking the shop windows of "unpeople" is as clear and obvious a sign of evil as you can possibly get.
Those who "oppose the destruction of society by making marriage meaningless" feel just as strongly. Society only functions by people who disagree on strongly-held views being willing to live and work together for. When you start thinking of those with opposing views as "unpeople," you have become the problem.
They're boycotting Firefox because that "one guy" co-funded a hate campaign against consenting adults
He donated in support of Proposition 8, which was supported by the majority of Cali voters, including the majority of Latino voters and 7 out of 10 Black voters. Why are you such a racist?
The legal and moral situation is no different than if a state tried to block interracial couples from marrying. Anyone who supports such efforts, including Eich, should be shunned by all decent human beings. Until such time as he issues a public apology and states he's renounced his bigotry, fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
Eich supported Prop 8. As did the majority of California voters. President Obama, per his official political position at that time (this was 2006), also opposed gay marriage. He's hardly in some crazy extreme here.
There's also a lot to be said for sticking to what you can be great at, and leaving the rest to someone else. But it's anathema to "Apple fans" who are really "Microsoft anti-fans", who show up a lot on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
a single rich guy in the left lane with a sticker on his car helps exactly HOW, again, in terms of road congestion?
The roads are much less congested for him. So at least someone benefits. I'm all for "Lexus lanes." If the extra few minutes is sufficiently important to you that you'll pay a couple bucks in voluntary taxes, everybody wins.
Coming soon to Syfy prime time: bad paranormal wrestling! Trash talk from beyond the grave! Face-ghost turns!
Oh, is WH13 still on the air? I like that one; didn't realize there might be more coming. While it's definitely second tier TV (whatever the TV equivalent to a B movie is), it's like a good B movie: the cast and crew are clearly giving it their all on a limited budget, and it's endearing.
I haven't seen him in much in recent years, but I've liked what I've seen. He seems a competent actor with an interest in tech - a good choice for a show like this. Too bad it's Syfy though.
Well, do you have to properly understand DB partitioning, to be sure. Still, it's a heck of a lot easier than re-writing everything to work non-transactionally with NoSQL.
I'm sure Windows 9.5 will be revolutionary, unlike anything we've seen before, and Windows 9.8 will continue to improve on it.
Of course, the best way to get a fast DB is 10,000 low-end servers. But if you're stuck in the legacy world of trying to scale up, you can't really use a cloud server for a DB, except for testing with token load.
You mentioned snapshotting et al, but you don't do that stuff explicitly with cloud servers, you just stand up servers with the requested image on demand, and leave the implementation to the provider. If you need to move quickly, you just have a pool waiting, or just go parallel. E.g., if you need to run 100 test suits, each starting with a fresh server, you just run 100 servers in parallel and toss em when you're done. You're effectively paying by server-hour, not by server, so it's a different mindset.
I'm sad that you can't see the difference between criticizing a viewpoint as wrong, and trying actively to get an individual fired. I hope you never have to learn the hard way.
Cloud servers have terrible IOPS. For anything but a DB, it probably doesn't matter, but trying to run a DB on a cloud VM will be painfully slow.
OTOH, most cloud services actually offer DB-as-a-service, in one form or another, and if you can use that then performance will be much better. Not good, mind you, but no longer painful.
ad-holmium? Why is that even in my spellcheck dictionary? What does that even mean?
At some point, I should be free to reject their views and stop listening to them.
Sure, of course, it's the difference between "stop listening" and "shouting down", or making public ad-holmium arguments against the person, or worse, saying loudly that no one should ever listen to "people like that".
The point, of course, where's it's rational to start ignoring an argument is when you fully understand what the person is trying to say, and could explain the argument yourself. To be able to explain "the argument goes like this, and here's where it's flawed". Often if you're clear headed you'll realize the only reason you reject the argument is it's counter to some deeply held belief of your own, one with strong emotional attachment that you can't actually articulate a defense of. Are you rejecting the argument because it causes you anxiety about that hard-to-defend-but-cherished belief? Always good to understand if that's the case (not that it makes you wrong, but it does make you irrational if it's that anxiety that motivates you).
OTOH, when people make shallow, dismissive arguments like "that's just something stupid religious people say because they can't think for themselves", or "the gays don't care if they harm society, they only care about buttsex", well, you know they're not even considering the argument rationally.
It sounds like we're really in agreement on most of this, just had different meanings to "shouting down".
FYI, when a small group in society has a special, better sort of rules that apply to them than the masses that's "privilege". E.g., aristocrats in the feudal system had an entirely separate justice system at one point. When a group of people has a special, worse sort of rules apply to them, that's "oppression".
I point that out because the word "privilege" has become very commonly misused by the "I'm right because SHUT UP" crowd, and as we've seen, being confused with that crowd isn't helpful to rational discussion.
You opponent will certainly seem stupid if you make no attempt to understand his argument. An intelligent person can make his opponent's argument strongly and logically, can take both sides of a debate because he understands both sides, that's how he knows his choice was rational.
You don't seem to be such a person, at least from your posts here. Sad, really.
I've never once seen such an argument. But then, it's not very important to me. I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
The argument that "perhaps new ways of living / family structures will cause society to crumble, as the traditional way is what's proven" seems quite reasonable to me. Perhaps they will. What are the odds? They seem low to me, not 0. Seems like an interesting question.
As I said, they're people, but unintelligent people. Nothing will get through to them; they've been either thoroughly brainwashed since birth, or they're utterly irrational. Not many of them ever change.
No, that's how you label someone as an "unperson": incapable of moral decision, and thus not a moral entity, much like you can't reason with a panther, or a volcano.
Shouting down bigotry is the best way to deal with bigotry.
I have never told anyone to shut up.
Uh huh.
Yes I have an opinion that I want to live in a society that treats people equally under the law. I understand that some people may not share this opinion. It might actually be considered rather clever to try to assume a position of legal privilege if you can get away with it, however my sense of fairness and justice will not allow me to accept this.
As an aside, the majority cannot have "privilege". That's not what the word means (the word "oppressed" would serve you better than "privileged" in making the same point). The majority cannot have "private law", as when it's the majority it's just "law".
You believe society is best served by "equal treatment" as you define it. Your opponent believes that society is best served by giving special social accord to those who live a certain, traditional way. IMO, proposition 8 should satisfy you both, granting civil union but not the specific word "marriage". But I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
but this would be like how the people who supported segregation of whites and blacks in the South were "fairness challenged".
I see one side refusing to work with people from the other side. Would you prefer the other side unable to work at all, or do you support "separate but equal" companies?
I never said that they weren't people.
Fair enough, but many people on the left these days state outright that those who disagree with them are simply too stupid to hold an opinion and just ignored (or in one recent prominent opinion piece, argued that those who disagree with global warming should be jailed as a danger to society). Sorry if I unfairly lumped you in with that crowd, but I see so much of that sort of talk.
It is possible to hurt people without intending to. I am sure many people who opposed civil rights did not intend to hurt anyone, however the societal manifestation of this opposition to civil rights actually did hurt many people, and it needed to be abolished in order to have a more just society.
Unless the intent is to do harm, then it's a legitimate debate over which sides views, if adopted, would do the least harm / most good. Shouting down the other side means rejecting the legitimacy of the debate, which really implies rejecting the right of the person on the other side to speak and similar basic freedoms. Can you see how "unperson" is implied by shouting down?
What is worse than the worst speech is when someone's rights are violated
Like the right to free speech? Without a heckler's veto?
Getting to a society where people are given equal protection under the law is a very worthy goal, and I think having people feel uncomfortable during that process is a small price to pay for having it happen a little more quickly.
Sure, but it's not the only goal, or even the highest. And calling your opponents names is the worst possible way to convince them of anything. I'm quite skeptical in fact that the current approach is likely to make this change happen faster.
Try presenting an argument for your point of view. "I'm right because SHUT UP!" is not an argument, except in a Monty Python sketch sort of way.
You have only your opinion here, and the strength of your belief. Your opponent also believes strongly, and, guess what, is also an intelligent, rational human being deserving of basic respect. When you can both express your views in public, and attempt to convince others, without fear of retaliation, then we have a functional society. OTOH, the Civil War killed more Americans than all other wars combined, and created hardships that lasted years. Perhaps it was the only way, but any other way that would have worked would have been a better way.
I don't think it's profound at all to claim that those opposed to intolerance are intolerant of intolerance. This just seems like an obvious and necessary exception to the concept of intolerance.
That's just BS. Accept that those who disagree with you are people too, just trying to find their own path to happiness. Very few people are just hurting others for the joy of doing so (though sadly they do exist, and sometimes come to power). You don't have to accept the views of your opponents, but you should tolerate them, and accept the people holding those views as people, just like you.
Do you really think they see their own views as intolerant? Do you really think they're trying to harm others, instead of trying to shape society the way they see as best for all (again, there are always a few assholes on both sides of every issue, but not the mainstream).
See, this is what I'm going on about: instead of presenting an argument for your point of view, you simply define those who oppose you as unpeople, unintelligent and unworthy of consideration. This will not end well.
It's the same logic, both ways.
Well, up to this story it was hard to tell. This one is so obviously true is breaks the pattern. How sad is that?
Is it a scam that you have to pay for your groceries? You sure can't live without food. We all have basic needs we should expect to pay for ourselves. That's why we get jobs and work and so on.
Some of us need charity to meet our needs. Charity is great - perhaps the most praiseworthy human act. But people who need charity to cover medical costs aren't any different that people who need charity to cover the cost of food, or shelter. We don't need a special system for each.
it's perfectly fine to criticise them.
Yes, I agree 100%. Criticism is exactly the correct response. Escalation to economic retaliation or violence crosses the line. Trying to get a guy fired because you disagree with him crosses the line. Breaking the shop windows of "unpeople" is as clear and obvious a sign of evil as you can possibly get.
Those who "oppose the destruction of society by making marriage meaningless" feel just as strongly. Society only functions by people who disagree on strongly-held views being willing to live and work together for. When you start thinking of those with opposing views as "unpeople," you have become the problem.
They're boycotting Firefox because that "one guy" co-funded a hate campaign against consenting adults
He donated in support of Proposition 8, which was supported by the majority of Cali voters, including the majority of Latino voters and 7 out of 10 Black voters. Why are you such a racist?
The legal and moral situation is no different than if a state tried to block interracial couples from marrying. Anyone who supports such efforts, including Eich, should be shunned by all decent human beings. Until such time as he issues a public apology and states he's renounced his bigotry, fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
Eich supported Prop 8. As did the majority of California voters. President Obama, per his official political position at that time (this was 2006), also opposed gay marriage. He's hardly in some crazy extreme here.
There's also a lot to be said for sticking to what you can be great at, and leaving the rest to someone else. But it's anathema to "Apple fans" who are really "Microsoft anti-fans", who show up a lot on Slashdot.