You do if your board runs linuxbios, or whatever they're calling it now. People do care about that, just not most people. Catering to most people isn't the point.
I'm with you on the python whitespace thing, but for YAML it's different. We're not talking about writing code here. It can be tricky to get the whitespace right but it's a damn sight easier than learning and reading XML syntax. Remember that 99% of the time machines process these files and we only care to make reading easy (where YAML whitespace is a non-issue) and human editing easy, where it isn't too bad. Composing from scratch by hand isn't really something you're going to be doing with YAML (or XML).
I absolutely rely on delicious to remember my bookmarks for me. I won't be able to function if this goes away. There are simply no alternatives that come anywhere close to competing.
I always thought that Delicious should have been a Google acquisition, instead of Yahoo. It fits much better into the Google style. Perhaps they'll be able to pick it up form Yahoo for a song?
No. The "Connection portal" would be the smart phone, the bus would be a fat wireless link. Each device would have internally all required hardware and software to perform this communication automatically. The only cord required would be power. A monitor might have a cat5 plug as well for when wired video is preferred.
It would also be bad for business to say "We weren't attacked, we just suck at doing our jobs." This is precisely what hardware-related outages mean for an outfit like Amazon. Why would you trust your business to Amazon hosted services when they are incompetent?
Interesting. Yes, this pretty much describes 90% of activities you see that originate in chan culture, raids like this included even though they are the least of it. There sometimes is an original source, but since the thread for it 404s in minutes it might as well not exist.
In fact this harkens back to the very concept of the internet meme: It's a shared thought that (generally) springs into the minds of many people all at once, and then is exchanged like a revolving epidemic back and forth, prolonging its life (perhaps indefinitely).
You could be right, but note here that your definition of "group" isn't the same as typically used by the journalists and not what I was trying to debunk. I disagree on one point: If you arrested moot and shut down 4chan you'd simply see an explosion in the population of the other chans. Actually, shutting down the 'popular' chan would probably be a good thing as it would drive away a lot of the riffraff. Since most of the people are not engaged in anything *especially* illegal most wouldn't have sufficient cause to fear and so would continue.
Who is anonymous? Whoever is posting right now. People doing raids against credit card companies because of international politics can call themselves whatever they like. Each one is anonymous. I cannot speak for them but they cannot speak for me. The only problem here is that some of them sometimes try to say what "anonymous" thinks.
In unrelated news, I'm starting to think we need/i/ just so this crap can get segregated from the cat pictures we all desire.
This is a fair question and hard to answer in a way that is convincing. I know no one is in charge because I know who anonymous is. Explaining the back story (and thus the joke) takes a lot of ink; you kind of had to be there. All I can say, briefly, is "Trust me," which is not going to be convincing to you.
There *are* some clueless people who are trying to be "Anonymous the group", which I call captial-A Anonymous because this is what reporters have insisted on saying since the Scientology raid. That was a bad raid, because even though it was funny it brought in too much attention by supporters who were not in on the joke. Ever since then, and just before then with the Fox News piece on "Anonymous", reporters trying to cover this have been saying "Anonymous" like it's an organization or group of some kind. If you were anonymous at the time, even if not participating in the raids, it would have been obvious how silly this was. Actually, a lot of fun was had making fun of this mistake. A lot of fun is still being had.
Some anonymous are definitely out to be activists and like trying to incite the mob for their personal agendas, but mostly they are not successful. The mob will react when it is interesting to do so.
By now, thanks to reporting, there are people out there who want to "join" the "Anonymous protest group." I assure you that 99.99% of these people are ineffectual and are not involved in any actual site takedowns. Some who try are like the guy who got arrested. Arrests like that won't stop the DDoSes because they're just picking off the fringe hangers-on.
The thing to keep in mind is that anonymous is a name, not a plural, or it is a description of a characteristic. Anonymous is no more a group than "Youth" is a group; yes, it's a group in the sense that it's a classification, but in no other way. A bunch of kids in a schoolyard may represent Youth in a certain sense, but they do not speak for Youth. In a similar way many are anonymous and many groups of anonymous exist, but no one speaks for anonymous. More accurately no one speaks *directly* for anonymous; anonymous tends to make his opinions known in the form of memes--not image macros or catch phrases, but ideas that appear without apparent direction in the minds of many different people and spread through word of mouth. You can get a broad sense of what anonymous thinks and feels from the aggregation of a lot of things. These thoughts and feelings are by necessity few and/or general, and they may not be universal to every anonymous. It's just that, on the whole, anonymous tends to agree. Quintessential example: furries are bad.
In the future everyone will carry a smart phone around with them. When they approach a computer terminal, which will be a stationary mouse, keyboard and monitor, the phone will sync using high bandwidth low-distance wireless protocols. While at the terminal you simply set your phone on the desk/table, or even leave it in your pocket; you might plug it in to the power jack and possibly into an ethernet jack for faster net access (these might be one cable). All of your computing always takes place on your own device, possibly farming out intensive computation to external servers via partially-web/cloud/net-based apps. Storage is local to your phone with a sync service which mirrors to redundant, encrypted storage on a remote service provider silently and in the background, or on demand. Some files may not really existing locally but will be transferred on-demand if they are not in the local disk cache.
Thus, wherever you go you have your own computer and your own data, all of which is secure.
What happened here seems to be, from my skimming of the mailing lists, just a personality conflict. A bog-standard one, at that. The name change is more symbolic than anything else. Here's what to take away from this fiasco: One KWord developer is going to do his own thing, where some lists and code repos are hosted may change. Everything else is business as usual.
Who would you have to be to benefit from killing her? If you don't have exclusive rights to Harry Potter then your Harry Potter Down Under production won't make much money in the face of a hundred Harry Potter Meets Frankenstein movies. It's a lot of risk to kill someone when the potential reward is not very high.
I'm not saying there isn't a danger here, where killing an artist might be seen as a way to profit from his works, but I think a modest copyright term of ~24 years would be sufficient to deaden this impulse. It is at any rate not a huge risk. There is far, far more risk from children killing their parents for inheritance but I don't see many people advocating that the assets of the deceased revert to the state.
So you disagree about his decision regarding how intense a response was warranted. You judge his rudeness to be excessive so you then ascribe jackassery to him. I could call you all sorts of bad things for reacting in what I perceive as an excessively harsh manner to his harsh manner, no matter how polite a facade you put on it, but that would only be my mistake and not your intent. You seem hung up on flames being bad to the extent that you probably wont ever see them as good; this makes your opinion less neutral than most. All I'm seeing so far is a personal problem, not a general rule for internet discourse.
Flaming can be useful. I believe that it was, in this case, warranted and the degree of harshness was appropriate. Don't attempt to justify your differing opinion with sweeping statements like "flaming isn't a reasonable way of doing anything," you have no more monopoly on objective certainty than I do. Attacking someone by suggesting they require anger management is even worse since it deflects the topic of debate from real issues, such as whether or not the submitter is reacting rationally, to offensive things like "does this poster have emotional issues?" and "shouldn't we dismiss him from the debate for not conforming to my preferred form of discussion." Perhaps derailing the conversation was not your intent. Perhaps it was also not your intent to alienate participants. From where I sit, however, your comments seem like nothing more than flamebait: contributing nothing to the topic, demanding emotional responses.
No. That would be copyright violation. Learn to understand the difference.
Copyright infringement has nothing to do with who makes a profit but with who reproduces what. The purpose is artificial scarcity. If there is high demand for this article and only one person is allowed to produce copies of it then that one person sets any price he likes, including free, and can control who gets each initial copy. If another person produces copies also then the problem is not "the copyright holder is not making all the money," for if that were the case resale would be prohibited, but the problem is "the copyright holder is not in control of supply."
The internet turns this on its head because the 'supply' of digital copies is always infinite.
I'd tear apart your post piece-by-piece and rub each one in your face, much in the manner I would rub a dog's nose in his mess on the floor, to show you what I disapprove of as I verbally beat some sense in to your ass, but I can see already that there is no point in taking actions that would require a dog's level of intelligence to comprehend.
But yours was a nice one, too, even if it sounded a bit forced.
If the first 50% of behavior on a scale from "coddle" to "inferno" is coddling and the next 50% is flaming, then there are in fact shades of interaction but not any that fall between. The OPs post was not *purely* a flame in that it wasn't just vitriolic insults and name calling. So, in fact, he was operating in one of the shades you describe.
You seem to presume that impolite comments are inherently useless. What the OP did was suggest in an *impolite* manner that the author should do just what you describe. The impoliteness was, in a sense, a form to indicate strong conviction.
Flaming people can be useful and beneficial to discourse. Being polite at all costs can be unhelpful and disruptive. These are simple facts I have seen proven time and time again. Appropriate flaming is a technique that should not be dismissed just because you think that 'politeness' has some monopoly on truth.
So you are the one that is full of shit, or you just skimmed to where we are now and missed the libertarian drivel that is so common here.
I browse at threshhold 0 and order by oldest-to-newest. I read every single post from the start of the discussion down to yours excluding only those that were modded below 0 at the time. I saw nothing hateful and no anti-ADA sentiments except those that addressed this particular proposal, all of which were reasonable objections. I saw no serious suggestions that "blacks and cripples" should be excluded from anything; that kind of thing was only mentioned as a straw-man example by people defending the ADA, not brought up as a good idea by those who think this proposal is silly.
And when the business interests require accessibility, doesn't everyone win?
No. It simply raises the barrier to entry. Want to have a web page? Better be prepared to make it accessible first, whatever the cost. Perhaps for-profit businesses with startup capital can afford that, though it is an additional expense, most of us cannot. Requiring this *up front* before one dollar is earned is unreasonably burdensome. Requiring it *retroactively*, ie for all existing pages, is just insane.
Businesses that gain business, thus revenue, from catering to people who need accessibility win. People who need accessibility win if they use the sites that would be made accessible but currently aren't. Everybody else loses. It's the vast third category which is the problem.
But the initial "goal" of HTML was to render platform (and browser) independent. "At stake" is that the web might actually have to conform to that. Oh horror.
The failure of HTML to be independent is a technical one, mostly. I am all for a conforming web. If the government really wants that it needs to talk to the W3C to get the standards altered to require strictness and then pressure browser makers into removing quirks mode. The rest will follow. I would stand up and applaud such a move no matter what the motivation. Pretending that anyone is against a more-standards-conforming web is simply a false argument that avoids the issue.
You might be right at most of your points but there is no need to talk an enthusiastic person down like that. I for one am glad that people who haven't even studied this matter take interest in their local area and try to find out what it actually is. I agree though that you should always go for the most logical assumption first.
He's not trying to find out what it actually is. He has a preconceived notion that admits to no disproving. Facts? Research? Science? He doesn't seem to care for these things. If he did a little digging (metaphorically) and could provide a scrap of evidence for something other than a sinkhole, that would be another matter. Leaping to far-fetched conclusions without supporting evidence is just childish.
I'm all for slapping down 'enthusiasm' of this sort before another "faith trumps fact" religion gets started.
Mod parent down. Flaming someone is a reasonable way to teach him not to be such an idiot. Coddling someone with sweet lies doesn't help anything. If the poster had wanted polite discourse he should have (a) not made ridiculous unsubstantiated claims and (b) not gone crying to slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were a delicious user you would know that Google's is no replacement. They could do with a better clone at least.
You do if your board runs linuxbios, or whatever they're calling it now. People do care about that, just not most people. Catering to most people isn't the point.
I'm with you on the python whitespace thing, but for YAML it's different. We're not talking about writing code here. It can be tricky to get the whitespace right but it's a damn sight easier than learning and reading XML syntax. Remember that 99% of the time machines process these files and we only care to make reading easy (where YAML whitespace is a non-issue) and human editing easy, where it isn't too bad. Composing from scratch by hand isn't really something you're going to be doing with YAML (or XML).
I absolutely rely on delicious to remember my bookmarks for me. I won't be able to function if this goes away. There are simply no alternatives that come anywhere close to competing.
I always thought that Delicious should have been a Google acquisition, instead of Yahoo. It fits much better into the Google style. Perhaps they'll be able to pick it up form Yahoo for a song?
To be perfectly safe it would be better to say "${USER}"@"${PROVIDER}"
Except that Watson doesn't involve google or any connection to the internet. Next time RTFA before you start yawning.
No. The "Connection portal" would be the smart phone, the bus would be a fat wireless link. Each device would have internally all required hardware and software to perform this communication automatically. The only cord required would be power. A monitor might have a cat5 plug as well for when wired video is preferred.
It would also be bad for business to say "We weren't attacked, we just suck at doing our jobs." This is precisely what hardware-related outages mean for an outfit like Amazon. Why would you trust your business to Amazon hosted services when they are incompetent?
Interesting. Yes, this pretty much describes 90% of activities you see that originate in chan culture, raids like this included even though they are the least of it. There sometimes is an original source, but since the thread for it 404s in minutes it might as well not exist.
In fact this harkens back to the very concept of the internet meme: It's a shared thought that (generally) springs into the minds of many people all at once, and then is exchanged like a revolving epidemic back and forth, prolonging its life (perhaps indefinitely).
You could be right, but note here that your definition of "group" isn't the same as typically used by the journalists and not what I was trying to debunk. I disagree on one point: If you arrested moot and shut down 4chan you'd simply see an explosion in the population of the other chans. Actually, shutting down the 'popular' chan would probably be a good thing as it would drive away a lot of the riffraff. Since most of the people are not engaged in anything *especially* illegal most wouldn't have sufficient cause to fear and so would continue.
You MORORN, The HTTP port is WWW, even my GRANDMOTHER knows that!
Who is anonymous? Whoever is posting right now. People doing raids against credit card companies because of international politics can call themselves whatever they like. Each one is anonymous. I cannot speak for them but they cannot speak for me. The only problem here is that some of them sometimes try to say what "anonymous" thinks.
In unrelated news, I'm starting to think we need /i/ just so this crap can get segregated from the cat pictures we all desire.
This is a fair question and hard to answer in a way that is convincing. I know no one is in charge because I know who anonymous is. Explaining the back story (and thus the joke) takes a lot of ink; you kind of had to be there. All I can say, briefly, is "Trust me," which is not going to be convincing to you.
There *are* some clueless people who are trying to be "Anonymous the group", which I call captial-A Anonymous because this is what reporters have insisted on saying since the Scientology raid. That was a bad raid, because even though it was funny it brought in too much attention by supporters who were not in on the joke. Ever since then, and just before then with the Fox News piece on "Anonymous", reporters trying to cover this have been saying "Anonymous" like it's an organization or group of some kind. If you were anonymous at the time, even if not participating in the raids, it would have been obvious how silly this was. Actually, a lot of fun was had making fun of this mistake. A lot of fun is still being had.
Some anonymous are definitely out to be activists and like trying to incite the mob for their personal agendas, but mostly they are not successful. The mob will react when it is interesting to do so.
By now, thanks to reporting, there are people out there who want to "join" the "Anonymous protest group." I assure you that 99.99% of these people are ineffectual and are not involved in any actual site takedowns. Some who try are like the guy who got arrested. Arrests like that won't stop the DDoSes because they're just picking off the fringe hangers-on.
The thing to keep in mind is that anonymous is a name, not a plural, or it is a description of a characteristic. Anonymous is no more a group than "Youth" is a group; yes, it's a group in the sense that it's a classification, but in no other way. A bunch of kids in a schoolyard may represent Youth in a certain sense, but they do not speak for Youth. In a similar way many are anonymous and many groups of anonymous exist, but no one speaks for anonymous. More accurately no one speaks *directly* for anonymous; anonymous tends to make his opinions known in the form of memes--not image macros or catch phrases, but ideas that appear without apparent direction in the minds of many different people and spread through word of mouth. You can get a broad sense of what anonymous thinks and feels from the aggregation of a lot of things. These thoughts and feelings are by necessity few and/or general, and they may not be universal to every anonymous. It's just that, on the whole, anonymous tends to agree. Quintessential example: furries are bad.
The only thing that prevents democracies from becoming mob ruled is with limited government
No, there's also the fact that most democratic governments are actually republics; certainly the USA is.
In the future everyone will carry a smart phone around with them. When they approach a computer terminal, which will be a stationary mouse, keyboard and monitor, the phone will sync using high bandwidth low-distance wireless protocols. While at the terminal you simply set your phone on the desk/table, or even leave it in your pocket; you might plug it in to the power jack and possibly into an ethernet jack for faster net access (these might be one cable). All of your computing always takes place on your own device, possibly farming out intensive computation to external servers via partially-web/cloud/net-based apps. Storage is local to your phone with a sync service which mirrors to redundant, encrypted storage on a remote service provider silently and in the background, or on demand. Some files may not really existing locally but will be transferred on-demand if they are not in the local disk cache.
Thus, wherever you go you have your own computer and your own data, all of which is secure.
What happened here seems to be, from my skimming of the mailing lists, just a personality conflict. A bog-standard one, at that. The name change is more symbolic than anything else. Here's what to take away from this fiasco: One KWord developer is going to do his own thing, where some lists and code repos are hosted may change. Everything else is business as usual.
Who would you have to be to benefit from killing her? If you don't have exclusive rights to Harry Potter then your Harry Potter Down Under production won't make much money in the face of a hundred Harry Potter Meets Frankenstein movies. It's a lot of risk to kill someone when the potential reward is not very high.
I'm not saying there isn't a danger here, where killing an artist might be seen as a way to profit from his works, but I think a modest copyright term of ~24 years would be sufficient to deaden this impulse. It is at any rate not a huge risk. There is far, far more risk from children killing their parents for inheritance but I don't see many people advocating that the assets of the deceased revert to the state.
So you disagree about his decision regarding how intense a response was warranted. You judge his rudeness to be excessive so you then ascribe jackassery to him. I could call you all sorts of bad things for reacting in what I perceive as an excessively harsh manner to his harsh manner, no matter how polite a facade you put on it, but that would only be my mistake and not your intent. You seem hung up on flames being bad to the extent that you probably wont ever see them as good; this makes your opinion less neutral than most. All I'm seeing so far is a personal problem, not a general rule for internet discourse.
Flaming can be useful. I believe that it was, in this case, warranted and the degree of harshness was appropriate. Don't attempt to justify your differing opinion with sweeping statements like "flaming isn't a reasonable way of doing anything," you have no more monopoly on objective certainty than I do. Attacking someone by suggesting they require anger management is even worse since it deflects the topic of debate from real issues, such as whether or not the submitter is reacting rationally, to offensive things like "does this poster have emotional issues?" and "shouldn't we dismiss him from the debate for not conforming to my preferred form of discussion." Perhaps derailing the conversation was not your intent. Perhaps it was also not your intent to alienate participants. From where I sit, however, your comments seem like nothing more than flamebait: contributing nothing to the topic, demanding emotional responses.
No. That would be copyright violation. Learn to understand the difference.
Copyright infringement has nothing to do with who makes a profit but with who reproduces what. The purpose is artificial scarcity. If there is high demand for this article and only one person is allowed to produce copies of it then that one person sets any price he likes, including free, and can control who gets each initial copy. If another person produces copies also then the problem is not "the copyright holder is not making all the money," for if that were the case resale would be prohibited, but the problem is "the copyright holder is not in control of supply."
The internet turns this on its head because the 'supply' of digital copies is always infinite.
I'd tear apart your post piece-by-piece and rub each one in your face, much in the manner I would rub a dog's nose in his mess on the floor, to show you what I disapprove of as I verbally beat some sense in to your ass, but I can see already that there is no point in taking actions that would require a dog's level of intelligence to comprehend.
But yours was a nice one, too, even if it sounded a bit forced.
If the first 50% of behavior on a scale from "coddle" to "inferno" is coddling and the next 50% is flaming, then there are in fact shades of interaction but not any that fall between. The OPs post was not *purely* a flame in that it wasn't just vitriolic insults and name calling. So, in fact, he was operating in one of the shades you describe.
You seem to presume that impolite comments are inherently useless. What the OP did was suggest in an *impolite* manner that the author should do just what you describe. The impoliteness was, in a sense, a form to indicate strong conviction.
Flaming people can be useful and beneficial to discourse. Being polite at all costs can be unhelpful and disruptive. These are simple facts I have seen proven time and time again. Appropriate flaming is a technique that should not be dismissed just because you think that 'politeness' has some monopoly on truth.
So you are the one that is full of shit, or you just skimmed to where we are now and missed the libertarian drivel that is so common here.
I browse at threshhold 0 and order by oldest-to-newest. I read every single post from the start of the discussion down to yours excluding only those that were modded below 0 at the time. I saw nothing hateful and no anti-ADA sentiments except those that addressed this particular proposal, all of which were reasonable objections. I saw no serious suggestions that "blacks and cripples" should be excluded from anything; that kind of thing was only mentioned as a straw-man example by people defending the ADA, not brought up as a good idea by those who think this proposal is silly.
And when the business interests require accessibility, doesn't everyone win?
No. It simply raises the barrier to entry. Want to have a web page? Better be prepared to make it accessible first, whatever the cost. Perhaps for-profit businesses with startup capital can afford that, though it is an additional expense, most of us cannot. Requiring this *up front* before one dollar is earned is unreasonably burdensome. Requiring it *retroactively*, ie for all existing pages, is just insane.
Businesses that gain business, thus revenue, from catering to people who need accessibility win. People who need accessibility win if they use the sites that would be made accessible but currently aren't. Everybody else loses. It's the vast third category which is the problem.
But the initial "goal" of HTML was to render platform (and browser) independent. "At stake" is that the web might actually have to conform to that. Oh horror.
The failure of HTML to be independent is a technical one, mostly. I am all for a conforming web. If the government really wants that it needs to talk to the W3C to get the standards altered to require strictness and then pressure browser makers into removing quirks mode. The rest will follow. I would stand up and applaud such a move no matter what the motivation. Pretending that anyone is against a more-standards-conforming web is simply a false argument that avoids the issue.
Fuck support contracts. Real men fire up gdb when they see a koops.
You might be right at most of your points but there is no need to talk an enthusiastic person down like that. I for one am glad that people who haven't even studied this matter take interest in their local area and try to find out what it actually is.
I agree though that you should always go for the most logical assumption first.
He's not trying to find out what it actually is. He has a preconceived notion that admits to no disproving. Facts? Research? Science? He doesn't seem to care for these things. If he did a little digging (metaphorically) and could provide a scrap of evidence for something other than a sinkhole, that would be another matter. Leaping to far-fetched conclusions without supporting evidence is just childish.
I'm all for slapping down 'enthusiasm' of this sort before another "faith trumps fact" religion gets started.
Mod parent down. Flaming someone is a reasonable way to teach him not to be such an idiot. Coddling someone with sweet lies doesn't help anything. If the poster had wanted polite discourse he should have (a) not made ridiculous unsubstantiated claims and (b) not gone crying to slashdot.