If you don't know how to know this, I cannot help you.
Well, you could begin by telling me how you know that. If you don't want to use software with a "strange" name, I don't care, but I just wanted to know what made you "pretty sure."
there are things which are likely to offend people, and there are things which are not likely to offend people.
I see. As long as you're not claiming that the majority is correct simply because they are the majority.
for no good reason.
What may be a "good" reason to you may not be a "good" reason to another person (and vice versa). Other than that, I see your point.
but I'm pretty sure there's a strong correlation between being able to take responsibility of your software and being able to take responsibility of your language.
And how do you know this? Who are you to say what is and isn't "responsible" language when anyone can be offended by anything?
They're words. Instead of the children being taught that they should be offended by certain ones, I think they should be taught not to be. There's no reason that you have to be offended. Of course, I also think that randomly calling people names (even when in an argument) is rather useless.
certainly you can see that a post consisting of the word "COCKS" copy-pasted over and over again doesn't belong on a message board, and that the moderators probably should delete it.
That depends on who you ask. But are you sure many people here would defend such a post? Or are they just against censorship when it is either done forcibly by the government, or when it's done by large, powerful corporations?
Let's ask the magical moral fairy whose morals are all absolutely correct and override everyone else's opinions. Since I'm the only one who can talk to it, I guess I'll do the asking...
Naming stuff to be kitschy or to offend other people is childish.
Subjective.
but if you behave like a child, you shouldn't be too surprised when adults get offended.
If the "adults" are so easily offended by someone else's sense of humor, then in my opinion, they are the "childish" ones. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Grow up. Get a little empathy.
Whether someone should or should not have empathy is also subjective. Growing up has little to do with it.
at least they are not a random guy on the internet who is arguing excessively fervently and aggressively
A random guy could still be correct. The fact that someone is a so-called "expert" in their field only affects your willingness to believe what they say.
apparently emotionally, rather than analytically.
Surely you've realized that everyone who disagrees with you is just arguing emotionally instead of analytically. They are completely incorrect.
And? Many of these seem to be knee-jerk reactions. They don't actually support their claims with evidence in these cases. They're probably just looking to discredit the new technology (for whatever reason). And just because a technology has unintended side effects, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "bad" (which is subjective, anyway).
Argument from authority is only a fallacy if all parties to the discussion are equally educated and equally committed to the pursuit of philosophy.
It's a fallacy when you act as if an "authority figure" saying something makes it true. How "intelligent" they are only affects your willingness to believe it. Either it is true or it is not.
It's reasonable to expect laymen to accept the consensus of the academy that philosophy of religion is a worthwhile endeavour.
Nonsense. You can only disprove it in the sense of 'we looked, and he wasn't there', but that's the same as saying 'hey, we went into the heavens, and didn't see god' (god was, originally, supposed to be literally in the sky). Believers just move the goalposts - there's no reason why believers in Santa can't do the same.
Well, the Santa that many people describe probably doesn't exist (due to a lack of evidence where there should be evidence). They may move the goalposts, but the one they previously described most likely does not exist.
Because you don't want people to judge "how it is written."
That does not mean that his code is "crappy" (which is subjective). There could be many other reasons that he does not want this happening. I'm not saying I think that code reviews are bad. I'm saying that it is unlikely that you know whether his code is "crappy" or not merely because he doesn't want it reviewed.
There's no such thing as clean code that someone doesn't like just because it's a subjective judgment.
It's subjective. So is "clean" in this instance. It is possible that someone could hate code that you deem "clean."
And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.
That would depend on the person. There are some people who don't care about "cheaters" and some people who don't even care about their own children. They may be few in number, but they exist.
They add value, and they take profit. If they didn't, don't you think someone would come along and do it cheaper and better? There's no collusion going on here.
Lots of people can be stupid. And there may be a reason someone else hasn't come along.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't know how to know this, I cannot help you.
Well, you could begin by telling me how you know that. If you don't want to use software with a "strange" name, I don't care, but I just wanted to know what made you "pretty sure."
there are things which are likely to offend people, and there are things which are not likely to offend people.
I see. As long as you're not claiming that the majority is correct simply because they are the majority.
for no good reason.
What may be a "good" reason to you may not be a "good" reason to another person (and vice versa). Other than that, I see your point.
irrational
According to whose standards?
but I'm pretty sure there's a strong correlation between being able to take responsibility of your software and being able to take responsibility of your language.
And how do you know this? Who are you to say what is and isn't "responsible" language when anyone can be offended by anything?
They're words. Instead of the children being taught that they should be offended by certain ones, I think they should be taught not to be. There's no reason that you have to be offended. Of course, I also think that randomly calling people names (even when in an argument) is rather useless.
certainly you can see that a post consisting of the word "COCKS" copy-pasted over and over again doesn't belong on a message board, and that the moderators probably should delete it.
That depends on who you ask. But are you sure many people here would defend such a post? Or are they just against censorship when it is either done forcibly by the government, or when it's done by large, powerful corporations?
"how do we decide where the line is"
Let's ask the magical moral fairy whose morals are all absolutely correct and override everyone else's opinions. Since I'm the only one who can talk to it, I guess I'll do the asking...
Would you accept people did the latter to you?
Does it matter? He might have just been claiming that one was worse (in his opinion).
I'd say it depends on the implementation. And a few people like this aren't enough to convince me that it's worse than the current system.
and it is perfectly reasonable to be offended by it
According to whose definition of "reasonable"? Not mine.
The name refers to a non-consensual sexual intrusion, something you might consider light rape.
And something which the software doesn't do. In other words, the software isn't causing it to happen.
Naming stuff to be kitschy or to offend other people is childish.
Subjective.
but if you behave like a child, you shouldn't be too surprised when adults get offended.
If the "adults" are so easily offended by someone else's sense of humor, then in my opinion, they are the "childish" ones. Of course, that is just my opinion.
Grow up. Get a little empathy.
Whether someone should or should not have empathy is also subjective. Growing up has little to do with it.
I don't know about him, but I've never been offended by such things. But, in this case, I'd say desensitization would be good for these people.
I agree. I think these people are far too easily offended. Telling a joke about something isn't the same as doing it.
at least they are not a random guy on the internet who is arguing excessively fervently and aggressively
A random guy could still be correct. The fact that someone is a so-called "expert" in their field only affects your willingness to believe what they say.
apparently emotionally, rather than analytically.
Surely you've realized that everyone who disagrees with you is just arguing emotionally instead of analytically. They are completely incorrect.
justifications
Those aren't necessary.
And? Many of these seem to be knee-jerk reactions. They don't actually support their claims with evidence in these cases. They're probably just looking to discredit the new technology (for whatever reason). And just because a technology has unintended side effects, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "bad" (which is subjective, anyway).
Argument from authority is only a fallacy if all parties to the discussion are equally educated and equally committed to the pursuit of philosophy.
It's a fallacy when you act as if an "authority figure" saying something makes it true. How "intelligent" they are only affects your willingness to believe it. Either it is true or it is not.
It's reasonable to expect laymen to accept the consensus of the academy that philosophy of religion is a worthwhile endeavour.
That would depend on how you define "reasonable."
No, a random net denizen is not going to be able to argue at the level of those who do this as a day job.
That depends on the person.
You think a Slashdot discussion is going to come up with something new that hasn't already been argued in publications?
I don't see how it is impossible.
Nonsense. You can only disprove it in the sense of 'we looked, and he wasn't there', but that's the same as saying 'hey, we went into the heavens, and didn't see god' (god was, originally, supposed to be literally in the sky). Believers just move the goalposts - there's no reason why believers in Santa can't do the same.
Well, the Santa that many people describe probably doesn't exist (due to a lack of evidence where there should be evidence). They may move the goalposts, but the one they previously described most likely does not exist.
If you want total security, you need to live in a police state
And even then the so-called "security" might not even work.
So clearly the secret service needs to raid his house.
Even if you don't predict that something will happen, that doesn't mean you'll feel surprised.
I can predict the future pretty accurately.
Maybe from what you've observed so far.
It's because your car clearly isn't your personal property.
Because you don't want people to judge "how it is written."
That does not mean that his code is "crappy" (which is subjective). There could be many other reasons that he does not want this happening. I'm not saying I think that code reviews are bad. I'm saying that it is unlikely that you know whether his code is "crappy" or not merely because he doesn't want it reviewed.
There's no such thing as clean code that someone doesn't like just because it's a subjective judgment.
It's subjective. So is "clean" in this instance. It is possible that someone could hate code that you deem "clean."
And we are strongly conditioned by evolution to care for our genetic descendants, and not for another man's. Sexual jealousy is built into humans, particularly males, for Darwinian reasons.
That would depend on the person. There are some people who don't care about "cheaters" and some people who don't even care about their own children. They may be few in number, but they exist.
They add value, and they take profit. If they didn't, don't you think someone would come along and do it cheaper and better? There's no collusion going on here.
Lots of people can be stupid. And there may be a reason someone else hasn't come along.
immoral
It's not immoral according to whose morals?
That potential loss of potential profit is absolutely crippling for game companies. Soon we won't have any games at all!