I don't believe they're stupid, I believe they're greedy.
No, you believe they're greedy enough to do stupid things. It comes down to the same thing.
Of course this COMPLETELY JUSTIFIES what Apple does, right?
Justify? What? It's a consumer electronics device that they sell to people who buy them. There is no "justified" or "not justified", as that would imply a moral argument where one doesn't exist.
Seriously, calm down and get a grip.
I think you overestimate how much the average person users their computer.
I think you underestimate what people expect from a desktop computer.
But go ahead, insult me more. It makes your argument stronger.
Alright: you're an insane, Apple-hating fear-monger, much like a rather vocal minority here on Slashdot who feels they must foist their needs and desires regarding Apple devices upon everyone else, despite never intending to own or use one.
It's kinda hilarious, really: you demand choice and freedom, but only insofar as it's *your* choices and *your* definition of freedom.
Do you have *any* knowledge of Gandhi or his actions?
He and his followers did the precise *opposite* of what the OP is suggesting. They didn't sit back and watch as their people were abused. They actively fought against the actions of the British. They just did so using non-violent means.
Apathy is the term reserved usually to more general behavior - to many aspects of life, not towards a particular subject. That's highly unusual usage from you.
Look, normally I don't attack those who clearly have learned English as a second language (given I'm a monolinguistic, myself, I prefer not to throw stones from my glass house), but in this case, I must correct you. Apathy is defined as.
2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference
Example:
"People have shown surprising apathy toward these important social problems."
Yes, "apathy" can describe an overall personality trait or behaviour, but it is more often used to describe an attitude toward something specific. In this case, your apathy toward the prejudice and hatred directed at American muslims, frankly, saddens and disturbs me.
You have to be consistent here and assume that if we accept that the tribulation is from God then surely we know that it's "continuation" is "ensured" by God too.
Ah, I see, so you surrender your free will to god. You presume that, because god places this difficulty before you, you should not challenge it or fight against it.
Sounds like a pretty shitty attitude to me.
It seems like, if god was placing an obstacle before you, it would be for the purpose of encouraging your growth by forcing you to overcome it. But no, apparently you would rather just bow down beneath the weight of your difficulties. Nice. How very noble of you.
I wonder how long it will be until Apple divides the low and high end Macs via lock down.
Oy, the haters are at it again.
Apple isn't this stupid. I know, I know, you want to believe Apple is stupid. It makes you feel good to think Apple is stupid. But clearly they're not.
I point this out because only someone who's stupid would be unable to grasp that consumers have different expectations for their computers than they do for their other consumer electronics. People don't *expect* their phone or MP3 player to be open, hackable things (except for the geeks around here with their nerdy horseblinders on). They've never expected that, any more than they expect to hack their TV or their Blu-Ray player.
But a laptop or a computer is obviously a different thing. Much like, for decades, they've never expected to hack their CD player, for decades they've expected to be able to buy COTS software and install it on their laptop. So Apple would have to be staffed with fucking idiots to take away that ability.
and most of my friends do not care about this. It's part of the religion to care less about possible adversities as a result of your good action.
Yeah. See, *sane* people fight for the fucking rights their government is supposed to guarantee them. Shrugging your shoulders, grinning, and bearing it because you feel it's some tribulation placed upon you by god is a brilliant way to ensure your continued persecution at the hands of those who would use you as a scapegoat in an ugly political climate (like, say, a period dominated by a weak economy, a couple of ugly wars, and a highly divided populace).
You help *no one* with your high-minded apathy. All you do is enable the bigots and the opportunists, implicitly validating their actions by refusing to fight against them.
For now, yes. But when (yes *when*, Verizon is already planning to roll out a usage-based fee model, and I'm willing to bet other ISPs won't be far behind) that happens, will you no longer advocate unauthorized use of other people's internet connectivity?
What makes Go hard isn't anything particularly neat about the game.
Incorrect. There are many things that make go difficult for a computer to play: positional evaluation is tough. The branching factor is huge (unlike Chess and similar games, the number of available moves in a given board configuration is very large, as a stone can be played virtually anywhere on the board). Life-and-death is difficult to calculate. There are interactions between local and global play...
Go's board size is certainly a factor, yes, but if it were the only one, computers should excel at 13x13 or 9x9 games, and yet they don't.
1. What turned you into an evil, anti-god, pinko communist? 2. Why do you hate our economy so much? 3. Why can't you understand that the biosphere should just pull itself up by its own bootstraps?
Probaby because no one was using it. Combine that with their desire to add new features that would break that kind of functionality, and I can see why they wouldn't want to continue to support it.
If it's because Python is very productive, because it's easy to understand AND powerful, guilty as charged.
No, it's because Guido has decided precisely how you should be coding. *He* decided how the code should be indented and laid out. He decided there should only be a single, Guido-approved way of doing anything.
My point is that someone who says "you should never touch the repo!" clearly likes rigid boundaries that can't be crossed, and Python would, I'm sure, be very appealing to a person like that.
Me, I prefer the tools get out of my way because I'm a capable individual who doesn't need the training wheels and the helmet to protect me from myself.
Well actually in both the git book I have and a the quick reference, the next term is typically either --hard or --soft.
Slashdot ate my tags. The next terms are "--hard" or "--soft" followed by a revnum. The revnum should give an obvious clue that something beyond a simplistic rollback is happening.
It shouldn't matter to the remote repo what steps you took to get to the particular revision you're pushing.
That's just short-sighted and wrong. If you work with other people, who might need to read your commits, either to okay them for commit, or to post-analyze them, it's useful to have nice, clean changesets.
Now, maybe you don't give a shit about the people you're working with. But I do. And clean changesets are something I care about.
Sorry, but your opinion that hard to understand UIs are justified by unnecessary complexity of function is the reason why Linux never took more than a tiny fraction of the market.
And the audience that it took? Power users. *Developers*. People who should be able to cope with complexity in order to utilize the power of the tools. Git is a powertool. Again, if you can't handle that, fine, enjoy hg, which is, I'm sure, a very useful tool, it's just clear that it offers a subset of the functionality git provides, functionality that I and others clearly want.
"hg rollback" may only go back one level, but it does have the great advantage of actually being named after what it does.
And it's limited as a consequence. You've illustrated my exact point for me: the tool can be powerful, or it can be simple. Take your pick.
Reset implies going back to the beginning, not going back one or more steps.
Sure, if you stop reading at "git reset". "git reset <revspec>" should make it clear something more than that is going on. But I know, you don't want to have to, like, learn things and read stuff, so I can see how it might be a bit much, asking you to read past the first two terms in a command-line...
People should't be messing about rewriting history to be something other than what actually happened.
Well, if *you* don't do it, clearly it's not useful...::rollseyes::
Apparently you don't use cheap local working branches very often. See, if I'm working in my own local branch and am prepping a change for merge and then push to a remote repo, I *do* want the ability to clean up my commits before merging and pushing. The SCM *shouldn't* make me pause before committing. If I create a local repo, and want to commit some things to checkpoint where I'm at, expecting to clean up the commit log later, I should have that flexibility.
Well, unless you say so, right?
Let me guess, you're a big Python fan, aren't you?
vim is awful too.
Well, there's little else to say, then... have a nice day and enjoy your tools, while I enjoy mine. *shrug*
No, it's complex because it's powerful. "git reset" is far more flexible than "hg rollback", and using it forces the user to understand what's going on when git manages the tree, because it allows the user to perform interesting, low-level manipulations of the repository.
If you can't handle that, that's fine, use another tool. But "git reset", for example, exists, and is named the way it is, for a very good reason. This isn't "accidental complexity". This is "complexity where it's appropriate".
Now, it may be that for a lot of users, the kind of functionality git offers rarely justifies its complexity. And if that's the case, they're free to use another tool. But I frequently make use of some of git's capabilities, and am very very glad that I can do some of the things git allows, even if it means I have to actually spend some time learning my toolset ('course, I'm also a Vim user, so clearly I have no issue working with strange, esoteric, yet very powerful tools).
The other commentor did a good job covering your other questions, so I won't bother with them.
That's true, but, for example, the 'reset' command suggests absolutely nothing to me. Why isn't it named 'rollback' or 'undo' or 'revert' or something else vaguely related to revisions and transactions?
Because none of those terms is accurate. What "git reset" does is move the HEAD of the current branch somewhere, and optionally affect the index and the working copy. "Rollback", "undo", and "revert" all describe a *subset* of the functionality "git reset" offers (specifically, "git reset --hard"), but they don't wholly encapsulate what it does, which is why a different term is used.
Damnit, how am I supposed to feel superior to the "normals" out there if you go and post fucking reasonable things like this?? The very defining characteristic of my being is now in question... thanks a lot, jackass.:/
Those features of git are possible to do in other source control systems (like Mercurial) without the bizarre syntax that means nothing to the uninitiated and is even difficult to explain to someone who wants to understand
It is? Okay, so, just ooc (seriously, I am just curious), how do you do the equivalent of "git reset --soft HEAD~5" in hg? "hg rollback" only goes one commit up, so clearly that ain't it.
I know how hash DAG based DVCS systems work, and git still makes no sense.
Well, no offense, but it sounds like you're just not trying that hard. Git's terminology is slightly odd (the term 'index', referring to the staging area, is a certainly strange), but fundamentally, it's operations are just operations on the commit tree. There's nothing really that confusing going on there, save that some of git's commands allow for some fairly low-level manipulation of said tree.
Yeah, you're right, we should do away with any powerful software features that people might find a little difficult to understand initially... God forbid powerful tools should require a little thought to learn and use.
It is shunned by the MSM and derogatorily referred to as "teabaggers" by many.
What the fuck... Fox all but "created" the fucking teaparty movement, and has been their stalwart champion ever since. Meanwhile, yes, MSNBC derides them, and CNN reposts tweets about them.
Seriously, teabaggers are like Christians... utterly convinced they're being assailed from all sides by an invisible, non-existent enemy. I can only assume this intense victim complex serves as glue to encourage a strong group dynamic...
Why the hell is the above marked flamebait? He's right. *Socialism* is alive and well, and in fact the US is one of the few countries that's ideologically opposed to it.
Communism, OTOH, is largely dead and buried, save for a few obvious holdouts.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe they're stupid, I believe they're greedy.
No, you believe they're greedy enough to do stupid things. It comes down to the same thing.
Of course this COMPLETELY JUSTIFIES what Apple does, right?
Justify? What? It's a consumer electronics device that they sell to people who buy them. There is no "justified" or "not justified", as that would imply a moral argument where one doesn't exist.
Seriously, calm down and get a grip.
I think you overestimate how much the average person users their computer.
I think you underestimate what people expect from a desktop computer.
But go ahead, insult me more. It makes your argument stronger.
Alright: you're an insane, Apple-hating fear-monger, much like a rather vocal minority here on Slashdot who feels they must foist their needs and desires regarding Apple devices upon everyone else, despite never intending to own or use one.
It's kinda hilarious, really: you demand choice and freedom, but only insofar as it's *your* choices and *your* definition of freedom.
I don't think he was advocating just sitting around and accepting the things in life that you hate.
Huh? He specifically opened with that. To quote:
His example was a piss poor one, to be sure, but its clear his attitude is one of "meh, shit happens".
Wow, just... wow.
Do you have *any* knowledge of Gandhi or his actions?
He and his followers did the precise *opposite* of what the OP is suggesting. They didn't sit back and watch as their people were abused. They actively fought against the actions of the British. They just did so using non-violent means.
Apathy is the term reserved usually to more general behavior - to many aspects of life, not towards a particular subject. That's highly unusual usage from you.
Look, normally I don't attack those who clearly have learned English as a second language (given I'm a monolinguistic, myself, I prefer not to throw stones from my glass house), but in this case, I must correct you. Apathy is defined as.
2 : lack of interest or concern : indifference
Example:
"People have shown surprising apathy toward these important social problems."
Source.
Yes, "apathy" can describe an overall personality trait or behaviour, but it is more often used to describe an attitude toward something specific. In this case, your apathy toward the prejudice and hatred directed at American muslims, frankly, saddens and disturbs me.
You have to be consistent here and assume that if we accept that the tribulation is from God then surely we know that it's "continuation" is "ensured" by God too.
Ah, I see, so you surrender your free will to god. You presume that, because god places this difficulty before you, you should not challenge it or fight against it.
Sounds like a pretty shitty attitude to me.
It seems like, if god was placing an obstacle before you, it would be for the purpose of encouraging your growth by forcing you to overcome it. But no, apparently you would rather just bow down beneath the weight of your difficulties. Nice. How very noble of you.
I wonder how long it will be until Apple divides the low and high end Macs via lock down.
Oy, the haters are at it again.
Apple isn't this stupid. I know, I know, you want to believe Apple is stupid. It makes you feel good to think Apple is stupid. But clearly they're not.
I point this out because only someone who's stupid would be unable to grasp that consumers have different expectations for their computers than they do for their other consumer electronics. People don't *expect* their phone or MP3 player to be open, hackable things (except for the geeks around here with their nerdy horseblinders on). They've never expected that, any more than they expect to hack their TV or their Blu-Ray player.
But a laptop or a computer is obviously a different thing. Much like, for decades, they've never expected to hack their CD player, for decades they've expected to be able to buy COTS software and install it on their laptop. So Apple would have to be staffed with fucking idiots to take away that ability.
and most of my friends do not care about this. It's part of the religion to care less about possible adversities as a result of your good action.
Yeah. See, *sane* people fight for the fucking rights their government is supposed to guarantee them. Shrugging your shoulders, grinning, and bearing it because you feel it's some tribulation placed upon you by god is a brilliant way to ensure your continued persecution at the hands of those who would use you as a scapegoat in an ugly political climate (like, say, a period dominated by a weak economy, a couple of ugly wars, and a highly divided populace).
You help *no one* with your high-minded apathy. All you do is enable the bigots and the opportunists, implicitly validating their actions by refusing to fight against them.
In the US, they typically are.
For now, yes. But when (yes *when*, Verizon is already planning to roll out a usage-based fee model, and I'm willing to bet other ISPs won't be far behind) that happens, will you no longer advocate unauthorized use of other people's internet connectivity?
And the latency would be *atrocious*. Yeah, for a simple text message it might be okay, but for anything beyond that, it'd be a lesson in frustration.
You're running under the assumption that the home owner has an unmetered broadband connection.
CyanogenMod is pretty awesome and it is available for most Android phones so you don't need to wait for the carrier updates.
Uhuh. So if I hack my Android phone, I can control it. And that's better than if I hack my iPhone so I can control it.
Seriously, you fandroids are the most oddly hypocritical lot I've come across in a long time...
You must think talk shows, Jersey Shore, and soap operas are the pinnacle of television programming.
Of course! And therefore everything popular *isn't* worthwhile! I'm *sure* that's the logical conclusion to make...
What makes Go hard isn't anything particularly neat about the game.
Incorrect. There are many things that make go difficult for a computer to play: positional evaluation is tough. The branching factor is huge (unlike Chess and similar games, the number of available moves in a given board configuration is very large, as a stone can be played virtually anywhere on the board). Life-and-death is difficult to calculate. There are interactions between local and global play...
Go's board size is certainly a factor, yes, but if it were the only one, computers should excel at 13x13 or 9x9 games, and yet they don't.
Any questions?
1. What turned you into an evil, anti-god, pinko communist?
2. Why do you hate our economy so much?
3. Why can't you understand that the biosphere should just pull itself up by its own bootstraps?
Probaby because no one was using it. Combine that with their desire to add new features that would break that kind of functionality, and I can see why they wouldn't want to continue to support it.
If it's because Python is very productive, because it's easy to understand AND powerful, guilty as charged.
No, it's because Guido has decided precisely how you should be coding. *He* decided how the code should be indented and laid out. He decided there should only be a single, Guido-approved way of doing anything.
My point is that someone who says "you should never touch the repo!" clearly likes rigid boundaries that can't be crossed, and Python would, I'm sure, be very appealing to a person like that.
Me, I prefer the tools get out of my way because I'm a capable individual who doesn't need the training wheels and the helmet to protect me from myself.
Well actually in both the git book I have and a the quick reference, the next term is typically either --hard or --soft.
Slashdot ate my tags. The next terms are "--hard" or "--soft" followed by a revnum. The revnum should give an obvious clue that something beyond a simplistic rollback is happening.
It shouldn't matter to the remote repo what steps you took to get to the particular revision you're pushing.
That's just short-sighted and wrong. If you work with other people, who might need to read your commits, either to okay them for commit, or to post-analyze them, it's useful to have nice, clean changesets.
Now, maybe you don't give a shit about the people you're working with. But I do. And clean changesets are something I care about.
Sorry, but your opinion that hard to understand UIs are justified by unnecessary complexity of function is the reason why Linux never took more than a tiny fraction of the market.
And the audience that it took? Power users. *Developers*. People who should be able to cope with complexity in order to utilize the power of the tools. Git is a powertool. Again, if you can't handle that, fine, enjoy hg, which is, I'm sure, a very useful tool, it's just clear that it offers a subset of the functionality git provides, functionality that I and others clearly want.
DS - Subset of functionality.
Archos - Shit.
Books - Subset of functionality.
Would you like to offer up more alternatives that also don't provide the same functionality? Because that's *really* constructive...
Man, the anti-Apple mods are out in force today. Fucking idiots. Offtopic my ass...
"hg rollback" may only go back one level, but it does have the great advantage of actually being named after what it does.
And it's limited as a consequence. You've illustrated my exact point for me: the tool can be powerful, or it can be simple. Take your pick.
Reset implies going back to the beginning, not going back one or more steps.
Sure, if you stop reading at "git reset". "git reset <revspec>" should make it clear something more than that is going on. But I know, you don't want to have to, like, learn things and read stuff, so I can see how it might be a bit much, asking you to read past the first two terms in a command-line...
People should't be messing about rewriting history to be something other than what actually happened.
Well, if *you* don't do it, clearly it's not useful... ::rollseyes::
Apparently you don't use cheap local working branches very often. See, if I'm working in my own local branch and am prepping a change for merge and then push to a remote repo, I *do* want the ability to clean up my commits before merging and pushing. The SCM *shouldn't* make me pause before committing. If I create a local repo, and want to commit some things to checkpoint where I'm at, expecting to clean up the commit log later, I should have that flexibility.
Well, unless you say so, right?
Let me guess, you're a big Python fan, aren't you?
vim is awful too.
Well, there's little else to say, then... have a nice day and enjoy your tools, while I enjoy mine. *shrug*
It's not complex because it's pwoereful.
No, it's complex because it's powerful. "git reset" is far more flexible than "hg rollback", and using it forces the user to understand what's going on when git manages the tree, because it allows the user to perform interesting, low-level manipulations of the repository.
If you can't handle that, that's fine, use another tool. But "git reset", for example, exists, and is named the way it is, for a very good reason. This isn't "accidental complexity". This is "complexity where it's appropriate".
Now, it may be that for a lot of users, the kind of functionality git offers rarely justifies its complexity. And if that's the case, they're free to use another tool. But I frequently make use of some of git's capabilities, and am very very glad that I can do some of the things git allows, even if it means I have to actually spend some time learning my toolset ('course, I'm also a Vim user, so clearly I have no issue working with strange, esoteric, yet very powerful tools).
The other commentor did a good job covering your other questions, so I won't bother with them.
That's true, but, for example, the 'reset' command suggests absolutely nothing to me. Why isn't it named 'rollback' or 'undo' or 'revert' or something else vaguely related to revisions and transactions?
Because none of those terms is accurate. What "git reset" does is move the HEAD of the current branch somewhere, and optionally affect the index and the working copy. "Rollback", "undo", and "revert" all describe a *subset* of the functionality "git reset" offers (specifically, "git reset --hard"), but they don't wholly encapsulate what it does, which is why a different term is used.
Damnit, how am I supposed to feel superior to the "normals" out there if you go and post fucking reasonable things like this?? The very defining characteristic of my being is now in question... thanks a lot, jackass. :/
Those features of git are possible to do in other source control systems (like Mercurial) without the bizarre syntax that means nothing to the uninitiated and is even difficult to explain to someone who wants to understand
It is? Okay, so, just ooc (seriously, I am just curious), how do you do the equivalent of "git reset --soft HEAD~5" in hg? "hg rollback" only goes one commit up, so clearly that ain't it.
I know how hash DAG based DVCS systems work, and git still makes no sense.
Well, no offense, but it sounds like you're just not trying that hard. Git's terminology is slightly odd (the term 'index', referring to the staging area, is a certainly strange), but fundamentally, it's operations are just operations on the commit tree. There's nothing really that confusing going on there, save that some of git's commands allow for some fairly low-level manipulation of said tree.
Yeah, you're right, we should do away with any powerful software features that people might find a little difficult to understand initially... God forbid powerful tools should require a little thought to learn and use.
It is shunned by the MSM and derogatorily referred to as "teabaggers" by many.
What the fuck... Fox all but "created" the fucking teaparty movement, and has been their stalwart champion ever since. Meanwhile, yes, MSNBC derides them, and CNN reposts tweets about them.
Seriously, teabaggers are like Christians... utterly convinced they're being assailed from all sides by an invisible, non-existent enemy. I can only assume this intense victim complex serves as glue to encourage a strong group dynamic...
Why the hell is the above marked flamebait? He's right. *Socialism* is alive and well, and in fact the US is one of the few countries that's ideologically opposed to it.
Communism, OTOH, is largely dead and buried, save for a few obvious holdouts.