Jimminy Cricket, this is the 21st century. Do you see no other political solution to your grievance than buying a gun?
Let's see what's going on in the 21st century, shall we? Armed rebellion in Syria. Root cause: an oppressive government that overplayed its hand. Armed rebellion in Ukraine. Root cause: two klepto governments that overplayed their hands. Chaos in Venezuela. Root cause: statist government that overplayed its hand.
Lesson: the way to avoid chaos is to not allow the government to think it can get away with shit. Deduction: Civic participation is the carrot to that end. Responsible gun ownership is the last-line-of-defense-stick.
Questions? Comments? Naive counter-arguments?
See, this is what you get when you have wink-and-nod, everyone-gets-a-trophy education in the schools instead of teaching people not to be stupid by boxing them on the ears when they get out of line.
Speaking as someone in a vague and unspecified location on the "inside,"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
One pointy-haired boss leading a panel of eleven other pointy haired bosses with no situation awareness or operational insights is going to fix the problem of a culture of technical incompetence, blind box-checking and bureaucracy for every bit of minutia how exactly?
But how about going faster or higher? Airlines speeds have plateaued at around 0.85 Mach for the last 50 years. How about cheaper and quieter to go faster?
TL;DR. Most uncooled camera chips give you maybe 10 or 11 bits of dynamic range, and light is subject to Poisson noise, meaning the brighter a pixel, the noiser it is in absolute (not relative) terms. If you have to solve a big giant matrix inversion to do the job of a collimating lens, you're composing each pixel as a sum of many others instead of just itself, some of them being way brighter than the reconstructed image, meaning your reconstructed pixel is always noisier. Cool idea, and certainly has its applications, but the best images will always come from big fat optics.
Doesn't matter. Without an experiment, you can't tell if you're onto something or are just confusing yourself. Even high school math class has examples where you can get a completely wrong answer if you don't interpret the solution correctly. How do we amass the knowledge and experience to tell what's real and what's a "nonphysical" artifact of the method of calculations? With experiments!
There are a dozen use cases for not full headless and not full desktop. I'll name you one: a laboratory workstation that you both physically sit at and occasionally check up on from your desk or your home by sshing in and running a graphical thingie to monitor to test equipment it's plugged into.
Spoken like someone fundamentally afraid of code. X is a big lump of code, but it's written without too much spaghetti and you can follow the call tree to understand how stuff gets for on call to server to device to screen. And if you take the time: a few days to get an impression, a few weeks to gain notional comprehension, and a few months to achieve fluency, you'll "understand". And if you were serious about tweaking your own implementation, you could do it. Unless you're a lazy ass.
Yes. But they don't understand the needs of people who use X, and they don't understand that they don't understand. That's why talking to them about network transparency has been only marginally more productive than discussing the finer points of French Impressionism with an upturned tree stump.
I won't. 1 the team has no credibility because of their many years long opposition to network transparency and 2 whatever product they do churn out won't be as known and as debugged/understood X is. X has a 30 year lead on them. Any one of those in isolation and they might have stood a chance like if they didn't have network transparency but were also mature tech, or if they were new but started with a goal to replicate all existing X functionality. Both new and contrary is a no go in a domain where things need to just work without surprises.
Yes, that "random ad hoc" stuff is called the capabilities of the computer environment. Kind of like reading CDs and USB keys. Most people most of the time don't do it, but I don't think you want to pull those bits out of the kernel. Other than a tiny minority of technical users, most people don't write C code either. Should we drop the C compiler from the standard Linux environment too? Why not go whole horse and just use Windows? No compiler, no remote terminal, no native nothing without third-party add-ons. Just because most of your friends aren't capable of taking the full advantage of a Linux machine with x11 doesn't mean you get to piss all over it and fuck it up for the rest of us.
OK. What's your sane argument? What can you possibly pull out of the aether to justify the tactics being used to halt the construction of the telescope? And I will remind you that sane arguments must be constructed from the framework of laws-on-the-books, past precedents, and actual logic, not emotion, not imagined grievances, and not political statements.
Rich and powerful my ass. That's the go-to label for anyone that's doing something other than worshipping at the alter of Social Justice. A mom-and-pop operation can find itself labeled "rich and powerful" if they fail to fill their one job opening with people of the favored skin color and the favored Historical Injustice(TM) weighing on their souls to this very day.
We don't need to grok anything other than the fact that they tanked a big scientific instrument for no reason other than their aboriginal superstitions and less-than-veiled disdain for anything haole. And that's bullshit, regardless of where they're coming from, which is to say that their position is not defensible in any sane argument.
In the abstract, intellectual sense, you can be all for the rights of "marginalized peoples" and against the "the man".
But when you naively put theory into practice, you start to get some less-than-happy outcomes and get mugged by reality and start to get a visceral understanding of some facts, like
1. Turns out that the marginalized peoples are marginalized not because they're innocent noble pacifists more in tune with nature, but because they're superstitious anti-science savages who worship sacred rocks and can't be reasoned with.
2. The Man actually has a millenia-long tradition of scientific inquiry and exploration, which is how you get to have a roof over your head, food on the table, indoor plumbing, electric lights, and a lifespan longer than 30.
3. Fighting for Justice (TM) is all well and good. But when we're sitting pretty in the civilized world, there really isn't much real injustice to fight against. So like a child raised in a sterile environment only to develop allergies to everything, a society taught to attack "injustice" will turn its energies against itself, and superstition and paganism can trump science.
4. Freedom of religion is all well and good, but we in the west tend to have more personal and private religions, where my faith doesn't place any demands on your lifestyle. The savages, on the other hand, tend to have communal 'religions' with sacrifices to pagan idols in the extreme case, and elaborate restrictions on the freedom of their inherents in the most charitable interpretation. One is compatible with capital-f Freedom, one is not. Our culture is about freedom, theirs isn't. You can't compromise between the two.
that the US government is Bad At Computers? Where have you been this whole time? And are you interested in buying a bridge? I've got in Brooklyn that just happens to be for sale.
And if it were even remotely that bad, you'd have half a point. But it's not, you're living in a Dickens novel, and you've got nothing except your own self-righteousness.
You're pulling numbers out of your ass. The reason people like me are "fighting" is that we're walking and talking existence proofs that there really is opportunity for those who are willing to work. And people like you seem to believe that it's all well and good to steal from us in the name of some sort of enlightened collectivism informed by demonstrably false statistics and at-best shaky reasoning. Which is to say that we're calling bullshit on your sloppy thinking.
It isn't single payer because the democrats who brought it to the floor and passed it on a party line vote didn't want a single payer system. Try to pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Jimminy Cricket, this is the 21st century. Do you see no other political solution to your grievance than buying a gun?
Let's see what's going on in the 21st century, shall we?
Armed rebellion in Syria. Root cause: an oppressive government that overplayed its hand.
Armed rebellion in Ukraine. Root cause: two klepto governments that overplayed their hands.
Chaos in Venezuela. Root cause: statist government that overplayed its hand.
Lesson: the way to avoid chaos is to not allow the government to think it can get away with shit.
Deduction: Civic participation is the carrot to that end. Responsible gun ownership is the last-line-of-defense-stick.
Questions? Comments? Naive counter-arguments?
See, this is what you get when you have wink-and-nod, everyone-gets-a-trophy education in the schools instead of teaching people not to be stupid by boxing them on the ears when they get out of line.
How did this get modded interesting? It's self-parody of self-parody.
Speaking as someone in a vague and unspecified location on the "inside,"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
One pointy-haired boss leading a panel of eleven other pointy haired bosses with no situation awareness or operational insights is going to fix the problem of a culture of technical incompetence, blind box-checking and bureaucracy for every bit of minutia how exactly?
But how about going faster or higher? Airlines speeds have plateaued at around 0.85 Mach for the last 50 years. How about cheaper and quieter to go faster?
TL;DR. Most uncooled camera chips give you maybe 10 or 11 bits of dynamic range, and light is subject to Poisson noise, meaning the brighter a pixel, the noiser it is in absolute (not relative) terms. If you have to solve a big giant matrix inversion to do the job of a collimating lens, you're composing each pixel as a sum of many others instead of just itself, some of them being way brighter than the reconstructed image, meaning your reconstructed pixel is always noisier. Cool idea, and certainly has its applications, but the best images will always come from big fat optics.
Doesn't matter. Without an experiment, you can't tell if you're onto something or are just confusing yourself. Even high school math class has examples where you can get a completely wrong answer if you don't interpret the solution correctly. How do we amass the knowledge and experience to tell what's real and what's a "nonphysical" artifact of the method of calculations? With experiments!
And guess what: they did it wrong because they dropped a feature lots of people liked and use as part of their workflow.
There are a dozen use cases for not full headless and not full desktop. I'll name you one: a laboratory workstation that you both physically sit at and occasionally check up on from your desk or your home by sshing in and running a graphical thingie to monitor to test equipment it's plugged into.
Spoken like someone fundamentally afraid of code. X is a big lump of code, but it's written without too much spaghetti and you can follow the call tree to understand how stuff gets for on call to server to device to screen. And if you take the time: a few days to get an impression, a few weeks to gain notional comprehension, and a few months to achieve fluency, you'll "understand". And if you were serious about tweaking your own implementation, you could do it. Unless you're a lazy ass.
Yes. But they don't understand the needs of people who use X, and they don't understand that they don't understand. That's why talking to them about network transparency has been only marginally more productive than discussing the finer points of French Impressionism with an upturned tree stump.
I won't. 1 the team has no credibility because of their many years long opposition to network transparency and 2 whatever product they do churn out won't be as known and as debugged/understood X is. X has a 30 year lead on them. Any one of those in isolation and they might have stood a chance like if they didn't have network transparency but were also mature tech, or if they were new but started with a goal to replicate all existing X functionality. Both new and contrary is a no go in a domain where things need to just work without surprises.
Yes, that "random ad hoc" stuff is called the capabilities of the computer environment. Kind of like reading CDs and USB keys. Most people most of the time don't do it, but I don't think you want to pull those bits out of the kernel. Other than a tiny minority of technical users, most people don't write C code either. Should we drop the C compiler from the standard Linux environment too? Why not go whole horse and just use Windows? No compiler, no remote terminal, no native nothing without third-party add-ons. Just because most of your friends aren't capable of taking the full advantage of a Linux machine with x11 doesn't mean you get to piss all over it and fuck it up for the rest of us.
OK. What's your sane argument? What can you possibly pull out of the aether to justify the tactics being used to halt the construction of the telescope? And I will remind you that sane arguments must be constructed from the framework of laws-on-the-books, past precedents, and actual logic, not emotion, not imagined grievances, and not political statements.
Rich and powerful my ass. That's the go-to label for anyone that's doing something other than worshipping at the alter of Social Justice. A mom-and-pop operation can find itself labeled "rich and powerful" if they fail to fill their one job opening with people of the favored skin color and the favored Historical Injustice(TM) weighing on their souls to this very day.
We don't need to grok anything other than the fact that they tanked a big scientific instrument for no reason other than their aboriginal superstitions and less-than-veiled disdain for anything haole. And that's bullshit, regardless of where they're coming from, which is to say that their position is not defensible in any sane argument.
That's my point. Ours tend to be the types that can keep to themselves. Theirs are the kind that can't.
In the abstract, intellectual sense, you can be all for the rights of "marginalized peoples" and against the "the man".
But when you naively put theory into practice, you start to get some less-than-happy outcomes and get mugged by reality and start to get a visceral understanding of some facts, like
1. Turns out that the marginalized peoples are marginalized not because they're innocent noble pacifists more in tune with nature, but because they're superstitious anti-science savages who worship sacred rocks and can't be reasoned with.
2. The Man actually has a millenia-long tradition of scientific inquiry and exploration, which is how you get to have a roof over your head, food on the table, indoor plumbing, electric lights, and a lifespan longer than 30.
3. Fighting for Justice (TM) is all well and good. But when we're sitting pretty in the civilized world, there really isn't much real injustice to fight against. So like a child raised in a sterile environment only to develop allergies to everything, a society taught to attack "injustice" will turn its energies against itself, and superstition and paganism can trump science.
4. Freedom of religion is all well and good, but we in the west tend to have more personal and private religions, where my faith doesn't place any demands on your lifestyle. The savages, on the other hand, tend to have communal 'religions' with sacrifices to pagan idols in the extreme case, and elaborate restrictions on the freedom of their inherents in the most charitable interpretation. One is compatible with capital-f Freedom, one is not. Our culture is about freedom, theirs isn't. You can't compromise between the two.
that the US government is Bad At Computers? Where have you been this whole time? And are you interested in buying a bridge? I've got in Brooklyn that just happens to be for sale.
Which is yet another reason that the rest of the world needs to start speaking English. Just like in Star Trek.
Mebbe they shood chanj ther writn languaj too bee mor funetikali ekspresibl with ther keebordz
I don't think you understand how conversations are supposed to flow.
And if it were even remotely that bad, you'd have half a point. But it's not, you're living in a Dickens novel, and you've got nothing except your own self-righteousness.
You're pulling numbers out of your ass.
The reason people like me are "fighting" is that we're walking and talking existence proofs that there really is opportunity for those who are willing to work. And people like you seem to believe that it's all well and good to steal from us in the name of some sort of enlightened collectivism informed by demonstrably false statistics and at-best shaky reasoning. Which is to say that we're calling bullshit on your sloppy thinking.
It isn't single payer because the democrats who brought it to the floor and passed it on a party line vote didn't want a single payer system. Try to pay attention.