And that resorting to force means that the LEGITIMATE points you raise then go ignored. And with enough of that belligerency, real and serious issues with society get covered up and go unaddressed, meaning this technique is actually counterproductive to the stated goal. Which means that we need serious people to take up those real and serious issues and tackle them in a manner that does not involve that kind of belligerent approach, but a more civilized one. Gamergate raises very real issues about sexism, but the use of out-and-out bullying and harassment -- by BOTH sides -- is going to do no justice to those issues.
While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is "science" even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.
Yet if science is about determining reliable predictive rules through experiment, then if we have experimentally shown the reliability and validity of those rules, we do not need to experiment on the year 2114 in order to make predictions. We just apply our reliable rules and they will give us predictions which are reliable to however much those rules are.
"If that is so, then why are we by far the most violent and aggressive species on earth?"
Are we? Remember: we will tend to notice our own violence more than that in some other species. We hear about it when there's another human war somewhere, but not when some pack of chimps decides to go after another. For this statement to be true, it would have to be that evolution favored the violent instinct far more in the human species than any other, and if so, why. Why would that be? There's only so much violent instinct a species can have before it would destroy itself.
And don't just go "But we've got the atomic bomb!" That is more a measure of how much _intelligence_ we have and can devote to violence than a meter gauging the amount of underlying violent instinct or impulse. One could argue that the combination of violence with intelligence reduces the threshold amount mentioned above as to when there is too much violent instinct for a species to destroy itself, since it makes acting on those impulses more destructive, even if the underlying impulse is not changed.
I suppose then you could say humans may be "more violent" in terms of deaths caused, but this is due to intelligence, not necessarily a greater amount of underlying "violentness".
If they're 20 years old or older they probably have some kind of mental disorder (or intellectual disability or developmental disability), in which case compassion and getting them proper care for that are the best responses. Or, if they're older, they may be a senior in a nursing home with some kind of dementing disease. In which case they'll probably be already getting care. Or they're having their mind ravaged in prison by a solitary confinement unit and so being made worse by it, in which case $@#! the abusive prison system. Or their parents totally failed at raising them, in which case the anger should go toward the parents, not the victim of the negligence.
If something "more" than just abuse would include physical violence, then that's criminal and "two wrongs do not make a right".
Yes, you can be abusive, in the sense that you have the ability to be abusive. It is wrong to be abusive.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Yup! More logic and arguments, not abuse.
Actually, given that a KERNEL was being compiled improperly -- a truly VITAL piece of software on which LIVES may depend -- I think he actually did pretty good in that he managed to keep his anger directed squarely at the COMPILER, instead of actually getting abusive with the PEOPLE. Notice that all his "stupid"s and "retarded"s were directed against the compiler! So he wasn't actually abusing any people, rather the poor, poor compiler, which of course has no feelings or human spirit of any sort, being just a pile of digital information on a computer:)
I thought "political correctness" was about avoiding things like racism or other types of prejudice (e.g. avoiding talking about black people as being inferior or something). That's a very good thing, IMO. I didn't think it was about saying that every opinion is equally valid, which is a logical impossibility as they all contradict each other.
... but GPL says anyone building on top of the software has to contribute their improvements to the community.
And not just "improvements", but complete new original works which use a small piece of the code in them as well. In other words, the GPL not only allows for modified and improved versions of the program to remain free, but also can cause the addition of new works into the free software pool.
What makes you even more stupid is that you wouldn't ever punch me in the face and you've delegated yourself to the millions of armchair, internet "tough guys" who would never actually DO anything that you describe.
And you don't see the absurdity in your suggestion there? Hint hint: he *CANNOT* be more than an "armchair" on this one. ***HOW*** (H-O-W) on Earth could he possibly even "DO" that?! He's not the government, he has NO such power, just like YOU have no such power and I have no such power and so both could be no more than armchair guys on this. And is that a bad thing, anyway? When you CANNOT "DO"... then what???
These people aren't heroic real-world veterans who sagely ignore the pretentious chatterings of academics... they're simply folks who don't understand how to express themselves clearly in code, much less the runtime environment, compilation process, or other fundamentals of the basic tools they've worked with for the past ~5 years.
Why are only the biggest problems in the world worth attention? Somebody getting mugged on the street is a darn SMALL problem, and there are a ton of things FAR more severe, but if I just casually strolled by and did nothing at all about it, what would I be? Not sure if that is analogous to this or not but the point is that the "size" of the problem doesn't necessarily matter.
And furthermore, isn't this another victory for DRM and another loss for "freedom" -- isn't that freedom something _you_ support, considering your sig?
Why is it wrong and "huge ego" to feel upset if something that may have been a lot of hard work for you seems trashed? Why do you have to be a "celebrity"?
Though, even WITHOUT these devices, we have still engaged in many, many, many, many brutal wars. What do you propose to do about _that_? To not only not _increase_ the level of war, but actually _decrease_ it below the levels it's been at? That'll obviously take _more_ than just "banning robots". What do you think it'll take?
"In the case of the server I have zero pity for anyone who kept data only on the servers that were seized. Yes it is there data, but they also had responsibility if that data was important to keep it somewhere they controlled."
So are you saying it was OK for the government to do what they did?
And what's the "something better"?
And does this mean you're an "immature two-year-old" if you think there may be something wrong with the facts in the posts you're reading? That if you question it, or are curious about the facts, etc. then you're an "immature two-year-old"?
However, fact of the matter is that "lot-of-internet-users arrogance" and "arrogance of the person with the power to create" are _still_ _both_ bad, if the latter kind of "arrogance" involves an inflated sense of self-importance. What does that latter kind of "arrogance" involve, anyway?
The problem with this is that, as you mention, there's a difference between arrogance and "confidence", for one. I'd say that it's not arrogant to champion a well-supported position. E.g. in your music analogy (I don't have much knowledge/experience in this area so I'm not really qualified to comment on just what kind of speakers are "best"), if it's indeed well-supportable that brand X of speakers are indeed better than Bose, then it's not arrogant to have and state that opinion, especially if you can back it up. One can be "confident" in it without being "arrogant" in it, though, as you say, it's easy for one to spill into the other. As mentioned, though, it takes the right social skills to say it in a non-offensive way. But on the other hand, if arrogance is present, this can make one more likely to say something offensive, regardless of social skills. So the nerd needs to deal with the arrogance _too_. Arrogance involves feeling superior. Confidence involves feeling sure or secure. One can have the latter without the former. If one feels secure in something but that something is false, it was not arrogance, rather misplaced confidence. The problem here is that you mention a difference between arrogance and confidence, but then seem to confuse them again.
I find this strange, that they can "work hard" in high school, yet then have trouble "working hard" in college and beyond ("you'll actually need to *try* in order to get that A")... Why would this be?
Slashdot Mirror
And that resorting to force means that the LEGITIMATE points you raise then go ignored. And with enough of that belligerency, real and serious issues with society get covered up and go unaddressed, meaning this technique is actually counterproductive to the stated goal. Which means that we need serious people to take up those real and serious issues and tackle them in a manner that does not involve that kind of belligerent approach, but a more civilized one. Gamergate raises very real issues about sexism, but the use of out-and-out bullying and harassment -- by BOTH sides -- is going to do no justice to those issues.
This bit I found problematic:
While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is "science" even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.
Yet if science is about determining reliable predictive rules through experiment, then if we have experimentally shown the reliability and validity of those rules, we do not need to experiment on the year 2114 in order to make predictions. We just apply our reliable rules and they will give us predictions which are reliable to however much those rules are.
"If that is so, then why are we by far the most violent and aggressive species on earth?"
Are we? Remember: we will tend to notice our own violence more than that in some other species. We hear about it when there's another human war somewhere, but not when some pack of chimps decides to go after another. For this statement to be true, it would have to be that evolution favored the violent instinct far more in the human species than any other, and if so, why. Why would that be? There's only so much violent instinct a species can have before it would destroy itself.
And don't just go "But we've got the atomic bomb!" That is more a measure of how much _intelligence_ we have and can devote to violence than a meter gauging the amount of underlying violent instinct or impulse. One could argue that the combination of violence with intelligence reduces the threshold amount mentioned above as to when there is too much violent instinct for a species to destroy itself, since it makes acting on those impulses more destructive, even if the underlying impulse is not changed. I suppose then you could say humans may be "more violent" in terms of deaths caused, but this is due to intelligence, not necessarily a greater amount of underlying "violentness".
If they're 20 years old or older they probably have some kind of mental disorder (or intellectual disability or developmental disability), in which case compassion and getting them proper care for that are the best responses. Or, if they're older, they may be a senior in a nursing home with some kind of dementing disease. In which case they'll probably be already getting care. Or they're having their mind ravaged in prison by a solitary confinement unit and so being made worse by it, in which case $@#! the abusive prison system. Or their parents totally failed at raising them, in which case the anger should go toward the parents, not the victim of the negligence.
If something "more" than just abuse would include physical violence, then that's criminal and "two wrongs do not make a right".
Yes, you can be abusive, in the sense that you have the ability to be abusive. It is wrong to be abusive.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Yup! More logic and arguments, not abuse.
Actually, given that a KERNEL was being compiled improperly -- a truly VITAL piece of software on which LIVES may depend -- I think he actually did pretty good in that he managed to keep his anger directed squarely at the COMPILER, instead of actually getting abusive with the PEOPLE. Notice that all his "stupid"s and "retarded"s were directed against the compiler! So he wasn't actually abusing any people, rather the poor, poor compiler, which of course has no feelings or human spirit of any sort, being just a pile of digital information on a computer :)
I thought "political correctness" was about avoiding things like racism or other types of prejudice (e.g. avoiding talking about black people as being inferior or something). That's a very good thing, IMO. I didn't think it was about saying that every opinion is equally valid, which is a logical impossibility as they all contradict each other.
(And not all compilers are equally bug-free.)
"... if you're using my stuff you sure better make sure I can use everything you make."
... everything that uses some of the GPLed code, that is.
... but GPL says anyone building on top of the software has to contribute their improvements to the community.
And not just "improvements", but complete new original works which use a small piece of the code in them as well. In other words, the GPL not only allows for modified and improved versions of the program to remain free, but also can cause the addition of new works into the free software pool.
He's not saying it's "OK". He's just saying it's not Google's job to "warn" them away.
What makes you even more stupid is that you wouldn't ever punch me in the face and you've delegated yourself to the millions of armchair, internet "tough guys" who would never actually DO anything that you describe.
And you don't see the absurdity in your suggestion there? Hint hint: he *CANNOT* be more than an "armchair" on this one. ***HOW*** (H-O-W) on Earth could he possibly even "DO" that?! He's not the government, he has NO such power, just like YOU have no such power and I have no such power and so both could be no more than armchair guys on this. And is that a bad thing, anyway? When you CANNOT "DO"... then what???
For all the people saying "C++ is bad", I'm curious: what would you consider a _good_ programming language?
These people aren't heroic real-world veterans who sagely ignore the pretentious chatterings of academics... they're simply folks who don't understand how to express themselves clearly in code, much less the runtime environment, compilation process, or other fundamentals of the basic tools they've worked with for the past ~5 years.
So where does one get that knowledge, then?
So what should one do if one is one of those people who are "bad for society" in the way you mention?
In which case, EVERYONE on this site who is complaining about the DRM is utterly irrelevant and should all shut up, eh?
Why are only the biggest problems in the world worth attention? Somebody getting mugged on the street is a darn SMALL problem, and there are a ton of things FAR more severe, but if I just casually strolled by and did nothing at all about it, what would I be? Not sure if that is analogous to this or not but the point is that the "size" of the problem doesn't necessarily matter. And furthermore, isn't this another victory for DRM and another loss for "freedom" -- isn't that freedom something _you_ support, considering your sig?
Why is it wrong and "huge ego" to feel upset if something that may have been a lot of hard work for you seems trashed? Why do you have to be a "celebrity"?
Though, even WITHOUT these devices, we have still engaged in many, many, many, many brutal wars. What do you propose to do about _that_? To not only not _increase_ the level of war, but actually _decrease_ it below the levels it's been at? That'll obviously take _more_ than just "banning robots". What do you think it'll take?
"In the case of the server I have zero pity for anyone who kept data only on the servers that were seized. Yes it is there data, but they also had responsibility if that data was important to keep it somewhere they controlled." So are you saying it was OK for the government to do what they did?
How do you propose the poor should be helped?
And what's the "something better"? And does this mean you're an "immature two-year-old" if you think there may be something wrong with the facts in the posts you're reading? That if you question it, or are curious about the facts, etc. then you're an "immature two-year-old"?
However, fact of the matter is that "lot-of-internet-users arrogance" and "arrogance of the person with the power to create" are _still_ _both_ bad, if the latter kind of "arrogance" involves an inflated sense of self-importance. What does that latter kind of "arrogance" involve, anyway?
(ARGH!) ...long as you had the right "social skills". Fact is, both are bad: arrogance and improper social skills.
Which goes to better augment my counterpoint to the one AC above who was seeming to say that "arrogance" was OK as
The problem with this is that, as you mention, there's a difference between arrogance and "confidence", for one. I'd say that it's not arrogant to champion a well-supported position. E.g. in your music analogy (I don't have much knowledge/experience in this area so I'm not really qualified to comment on just what kind of speakers are "best"), if it's indeed well-supportable that brand X of speakers are indeed better than Bose, then it's not arrogant to have and state that opinion, especially if you can back it up. One can be "confident" in it without being "arrogant" in it, though, as you say, it's easy for one to spill into the other. As mentioned, though, it takes the right social skills to say it in a non-offensive way. But on the other hand, if arrogance is present, this can make one more likely to say something offensive, regardless of social skills. So the nerd needs to deal with the arrogance _too_. Arrogance involves feeling superior. Confidence involves feeling sure or secure. One can have the latter without the former. If one feels secure in something but that something is false, it was not arrogance, rather misplaced confidence. The problem here is that you mention a difference between arrogance and confidence, but then seem to confuse them again.
I find this strange, that they can "work hard" in high school, yet then have trouble "working hard" in college and beyond ("you'll actually need to *try* in order to get that A")... Why would this be?