I guess "suppressed" was the wrong word. My main point was that there are certain subjects that invariably get childish ridicule in response. Your reply is actually well reasoned, while the first were just juvenile. Just happen to mention your girlfriend in passing any you'll get a similar response.
It's about suppression of expression, not the expression itself. There are many opinions expressed on Slashdot all the time. I'll ignore most of them if they aren't relevant to the discussion. However, mentioning God is a sure way to get mocked. I think I just proved my point. I made a one sentence reply and was immediately attacked by two other replies.
The peer pressure is very strong here. Don't side with Microsoft (except possibly in this case), mock anyone who claims to have a girlfriend, and deride any mention of God.
Why couldn't he get away with it if it's true? Well, the bit about supermodels is somewhat subjective. By the way, I'm not Jewish and I have no idea if what he said is true.
You're expanding the argument way beyond what it was. I did not make the comment about the talent of the drummer. I did not resort to name calling. I simply pointed out that condemning all music with the label "rock" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course there is much wrong with the world. I'm just as concerned about moral relativism as you are. I've studied postmodernism and it is a very disturbing trend. In fact, it is just a recent version of the Devil's original lie that we can be like God, choosing what is right and wrong for ourselves. This world is decaying and it will not last.
Are you saying that there is nothing of value in the modern world? Are you just yearning for the "good old days?"
If you are so intent on bashing "rock" music, you need to define it carefully. You seem to think it has something to do with being a small ensemble. Is a march just as bad if it's played by a small band? Your complaints about lack of order are completely ludicrous, since much rock music is extremely ordered. It is driven by a straight beat, like a march (and is typically 4:4 time too).
I don't think I can even respond to this statement: "The greatest classical music is from an age where personal preferences did not exist, where people were united, and in that unity came some of the greatest of human achievements." Every part of it is completely bogus on every level. At least give some dates if you want to show some support for such specious claims.
So what it comes down to is this: how do you define what is "good" or "worthy" music and what is "bad" or "of no value." Is a particular style of music bad because it has been used for negative purposes at some point? Hitler loved marches and Wagner. Military marches were popular music in Nazi Germany and were used to inspire the populace to even greater heights of misguided nationalism.
I think the fact that it's advisable to ignore patents until they become a problem speaks volumes about how broken the system is. What about the programmers who have researched extensively to make sure projects like Gzip and Vorbis don't infringe on any patents? It also seems that this is a clear case of a patent being granted on a completely abstract idea, something which isn't supposed to be patentable.
Yes, rock music is usually (though not always) limited to a small ensemble. How does that make it imprecise or disordered? It may be less complex than most classical music, but that's a different measurement. How about baroque music? It's limited to small ensembles, often a single instrument.
In your diatribe about impulsiveness, you are describing some of the origins of rock music, but not the nature of all rock music. I encourage you to listen to a greater variety.
You are also describing how you personally enjoy music, though other people have different experiences. I get a very similar rush listening to various well written and performed pieces of music, including Bach and metal guitar solos. It's fine if you don't enjoy rock music, but don't extend that personal preference to dogmatic principles. I don't generally enjoy country music, but I realize there is some valuable country music.
I know it makes for a good conspiracy theory, but there's nothing really nefarious here. Scientology is a relatively new term, so it only exists in the relatively new dictionaries, which want you to pay. To look up any word in the Webster's Millennium(TM) Dictionary of English would cost the same. It's not is if you can't find free information on Scientology.
You have a very narrow view if you think rock music lacks precision and order. Maybe you've only listened to a few songs. There is huge variety in rock. I have eclectic tastes. I enjoy both old and new music. Bach has always been one of my favorite composers and I enjoy most Baroque music. There's also a lot of great Classical music. Most music now is crap, but you could probably say that of any time.
So, why would you put a Perl interpreter on a production server if it's not OK? It seems you're saying that it's acceptible to put a tool on a production server if it's needed (Duh). So, it is acceptible to put a compiler on a production server if it is needed to compile new packages. Yes, you could build them on another machine, but that might be too inconvenient. Just because you don't use a source based operating system doesn't mean it's a bad way to do things.
You still have not addressed how a compiler can modify a system in dangerous ways more easily than an interpreter. What can a C or C++ program do that a Perl or Python one can't? Let's revisit the original post:
As for the rhetorical question on adding bash, perl & python, bash is a command shell and is unlikely to be made into a tool that can be used to modify production application components. Perl & python are interpreted languages, and such if the application depended on perl or python, you would have to install them. If/when perl & python can be used to generate binary code, then good system management practices would discourage the placement of perl or python on a "production" server.
Bash, Perl, and Python can all be used to generate binary code or any other kind of code. As an example, there's a assembler written in Bash. Even worse, if you can run one of those interpreters on a system, you don't need to generate binary code; you can do all kinds of mischief by sending source straight to the interpreter.
So, you see I'm not attacking a straw man, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic.
By the way, Python is both a compiler and an interpreter. You see those modules in ".py" files? When you import the module, the compiler compiles the source, then writes a file of the same name with an extension of ".pyc" or ".pyo" if it can. You can then remove the source ".py" file and everything will still work. Do the ".pyc" and ".pyo" files have native machine code? No. Does that make them less capable or any less compiled? Not really.
I asked because it seems difficult to reconcile communism and anarchy. Communism requires a very orderly society. Most of the states that claim to be communist also claim to be republics, but seldom have a real representative government. Communist states that last tend to be authoritarian or totalitarian. Isn't capitalism closer to anarchy than communism?
My only goal was to point out how ludicrous it is to claim that a compiler on a production system is unsafe, while Perl and Python are OK. It seems my post had the desired effect. Now, you're emphasizing stability and testing, which I can't fault. You can have a sloppy system without a compiler or a well maintained one with a compiler.
If/when perl & python can be used to generate binary code, then good system management practices would discourage the placement of perl or python on a "production" server.
You're absolutely right. We all know that binary code is much more concrete than source. I mean, what can a Perl or Python program do anyway? It's not as if it could write to a filesystem, send signals to processes, or listen for network connections.
We could learn a thing or two from the wise folks at Microsoft who were careful never to require or encourage compilers on production systems. They've been able to avoid all those remotely compiled exploits that have plagued Apache for years. Imagine what damage could be done if say, an email client were able to compile some malicious code it got from the network.
So, which are you, a communist or an anarchist?;) That's got to be the most extreme social darwinism I've ever heard of. To put it another way, "shoot 'em all and let natural selection sort 'em out."
EMACS only cost hundreds of dollars to obtain because it didn't come with the system and few people had Internet access. It sounds like vi became popular for the same reason that IE is popular: it was bundled with the system.
This is my favorite quote:
I think one of the interesting things is that vi is really a mode-based editor. I think as mode-based editors go, it pretty good. One of the good things about EMACS, though, is its programmability and the modelessness. Those are two ideas which never occurred to me.
That's a pretty dim view. Since you mention Swift's "Modest Proposal" without mentioning that it was satirical and gloss over a lot of other things, I would guess you're just a troll.
I guess it comes down to judgment. I would guess that the typical burglar would be more likely to simply flee than attack if discovered. My family's house was broken into when I was young. Electronics and other valuables were taken. We were frightened the next morning, but I think it was better that none of us woke up and caused the burglar to become alarmed.
I think it would be extremely irresponsible to shoot someone unless you were quite certain he threatened you or your family or another person. I cannot justify killing a person to protect my personal belongings. Things are not as valuable as a person, no matter how much of a scumbag the person is.
I'm pointing out that the word "American" is often abused. To describe my nationality, I say that I am from the US, or that I am a citizen of the USA. The problem is that there is not a good English word to describe that nationality. There's a good Spanish one: Estadounidense. Maybe I should start calling myself a UnitedStatesian.
Does spelling it with a "k" make it derogatory? By the way, Candians are Americans too.
Shooting someone is not usually a reasonable response to breaking and entering; in some cases, it is. The wielder of a deadly weapon needs to be responsible, whether he is a private citizen or a police officer. It is legal for citizens to shoot trespassers in some places because private citizens need to be able to defend themselves and are capable of just as much responsibility as the police. Both private and public authority are necessary parts of a free society.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess "suppressed" was the wrong word. My main point was that there are certain subjects that invariably get childish ridicule in response. Your reply is actually well reasoned, while the first were just juvenile. Just happen to mention your girlfriend in passing any you'll get a similar response.
It's about suppression of expression, not the expression itself. There are many opinions expressed on Slashdot all the time. I'll ignore most of them if they aren't relevant to the discussion. However, mentioning God is a sure way to get mocked. I think I just proved my point. I made a one sentence reply and was immediately attacked by two other replies.
The peer pressure is very strong here. Don't side with Microsoft (except possibly in this case), mock anyone who claims to have a girlfriend, and deride any mention of God.
Isn't it funny how most Slashdotters talk about freedom of information and expression, only to jump all over anyone who mentions God?
Why couldn't he get away with it if it's true? Well, the bit about supermodels is somewhat subjective. By the way, I'm not Jewish and I have no idea if what he said is true.
You're expanding the argument way beyond what it was. I did not make the comment about the talent of the drummer. I did not resort to name calling. I simply pointed out that condemning all music with the label "rock" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Of course there is much wrong with the world. I'm just as concerned about moral relativism as you are. I've studied postmodernism and it is a very disturbing trend. In fact, it is just a recent version of the Devil's original lie that we can be like God, choosing what is right and wrong for ourselves. This world is decaying and it will not last.
Are you saying that there is nothing of value in the modern world? Are you just yearning for the "good old days?"
If you are so intent on bashing "rock" music, you need to define it carefully. You seem to think it has something to do with being a small ensemble. Is a march just as bad if it's played by a small band? Your complaints about lack of order are completely ludicrous, since much rock music is extremely ordered. It is driven by a straight beat, like a march (and is typically 4:4 time too).
I don't think I can even respond to this statement: "The greatest classical music is from an age where personal preferences did not exist, where people were united, and in that unity came some of the greatest of human achievements." Every part of it is completely bogus on every level. At least give some dates if you want to show some support for such specious claims.
So what it comes down to is this: how do you define what is "good" or "worthy" music and what is "bad" or "of no value." Is a particular style of music bad because it has been used for negative purposes at some point? Hitler loved marches and Wagner. Military marches were popular music in Nazi Germany and were used to inspire the populace to even greater heights of misguided nationalism.
No kidding; I had no idea that "gether" is a word. Maybe poor spelling isn't all bad. It promotes increased vocabulary.
I think the fact that it's advisable to ignore patents until they become a problem speaks volumes about how broken the system is. What about the programmers who have researched extensively to make sure projects like Gzip and Vorbis don't infringe on any patents? It also seems that this is a clear case of a patent being granted on a completely abstract idea, something which isn't supposed to be patentable.
Yes, rock music is usually (though not always) limited to a small ensemble. How does that make it imprecise or disordered? It may be less complex than most classical music, but that's a different measurement. How about baroque music? It's limited to small ensembles, often a single instrument.
In your diatribe about impulsiveness, you are describing some of the origins of rock music, but not the nature of all rock music. I encourage you to listen to a greater variety.
You are also describing how you personally enjoy music, though other people have different experiences. I get a very similar rush listening to various well written and performed pieces of music, including Bach and metal guitar solos. It's fine if you don't enjoy rock music, but don't extend that personal preference to dogmatic principles. I don't generally enjoy country music, but I realize there is some valuable country music.
It's also very dry.
I know it makes for a good conspiracy theory, but there's nothing really nefarious here. Scientology is a relatively new term, so it only exists in the relatively new dictionaries, which want you to pay. To look up any word in the Webster's Millennium(TM) Dictionary of English would cost the same. It's not is if you can't find free information on Scientology.
You have a very narrow view if you think rock music lacks precision and order. Maybe you've only listened to a few songs. There is huge variety in rock. I have eclectic tastes. I enjoy both old and new music. Bach has always been one of my favorite composers and I enjoy most Baroque music. There's also a lot of great Classical music. Most music now is crap, but you could probably say that of any time.
So, why would you put a Perl interpreter on a production server if it's not OK? It seems you're saying that it's acceptible to put a tool on a production server if it's needed (Duh). So, it is acceptible to put a compiler on a production server if it is needed to compile new packages. Yes, you could build them on another machine, but that might be too inconvenient. Just because you don't use a source based operating system doesn't mean it's a bad way to do things.
Bash, Perl, and Python can all be used to generate binary code or any other kind of code. As an example, there's a assembler written in Bash. Even worse, if you can run one of those interpreters on a system, you don't need to generate binary code; you can do all kinds of mischief by sending source straight to the interpreter.
So, you see I'm not attacking a straw man, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic.
By the way, Python is both a compiler and an interpreter. You see those modules in ".py" files? When you import the module, the compiler compiles the source, then writes a file of the same name with an extension of ".pyc" or ".pyo" if it can. You can then remove the source ".py" file and everything will still work. Do the ".pyc" and ".pyo" files have native machine code? No. Does that make them less capable or any less compiled? Not really.
I asked because it seems difficult to reconcile communism and anarchy. Communism requires a very orderly society. Most of the states that claim to be communist also claim to be republics, but seldom have a real representative government. Communist states that last tend to be authoritarian or totalitarian. Isn't capitalism closer to anarchy than communism?
My only goal was to point out how ludicrous it is to claim that a compiler on a production system is unsafe, while Perl and Python are OK. It seems my post had the desired effect. Now, you're emphasizing stability and testing, which I can't fault. You can have a sloppy system without a compiler or a well maintained one with a compiler.
You're absolutely right. We all know that binary code is much more concrete than source. I mean, what can a Perl or Python program do anyway? It's not as if it could write to a filesystem, send signals to processes, or listen for network connections.
We could learn a thing or two from the wise folks at Microsoft who were careful never to require or encourage compilers on production systems. They've been able to avoid all those remotely compiled exploits that have plagued Apache for years. Imagine what damage could be done if say, an email client were able to compile some malicious code it got from the network.
You forgot (-2, Evil).
So, which are you, a communist or an anarchist? ;) That's got to be the most extreme social darwinism I've ever heard of. To put it another way, "shoot 'em all and let natural selection sort 'em out."
This is my favorite quote:
That's a pretty dim view. Since you mention Swift's "Modest Proposal" without mentioning that it was satirical and gloss over a lot of other things, I would guess you're just a troll.
I guess it comes down to judgment. I would guess that the typical burglar would be more likely to simply flee than attack if discovered. My family's house was broken into when I was young. Electronics and other valuables were taken. We were frightened the next morning, but I think it was better that none of us woke up and caused the burglar to become alarmed.
I think it would be extremely irresponsible to shoot someone unless you were quite certain he threatened you or your family or another person. I cannot justify killing a person to protect my personal belongings. Things are not as valuable as a person, no matter how much of a scumbag the person is.
A man can dream, can't he?
I'm pointing out that the word "American" is often abused. To describe my nationality, I say that I am from the US, or that I am a citizen of the USA. The problem is that there is not a good English word to describe that nationality. There's a good Spanish one: Estadounidense. Maybe I should start calling myself a UnitedStatesian.
Does spelling it with a "k" make it derogatory? By the way, Candians are Americans too.
Shooting someone is not usually a reasonable response to breaking and entering; in some cases, it is. The wielder of a deadly weapon needs to be responsible, whether he is a private citizen or a police officer. It is legal for citizens to shoot trespassers in some places because private citizens need to be able to defend themselves and are capable of just as much responsibility as the police. Both private and public authority are necessary parts of a free society.