You seem to be claiming that you can justify using terms like bloated and sucky by *not* using those terms and choosing to use better reasoned and more well-defined terms instead. That was more or less the same point I was trying to make.
You craft a string of equivalences (ostensibly) to show that bloated and sucky obviously mean the same thing as fiscally irresponsible (or as you put it, losing money-prone). I would contend that equally obvious (and much more commonly used) meanings of bloated could be 'has more packages to choose from than I actually need' or 'has too many install CDs'. As for sucky, I'd as easily interpret that to mean 'I am unfamiliar with the idiosyncrasies of this distro' or 'I am biased'.
I decided that Fedora has gone beyond bloated and sucky, and that if I were to ever prefessionally recommend any Linux flavors..
You may not fully comprehend the connotations associated with the term professional (at least when used in reference to making business decisions involving Linux). In a professional environment, you'd have a difficult time justifying your decisions using criteria such as 'bloated' and 'sucky'.
I don't know how the kernel devs feel either, but it would be reasonable to suppose that most of them greatly appreciate RedHat's substantial contributions to their project (and to OSS in general). As to the GP's query, it would also be reasonable to think that RedHat doesn't particularly mind the existence of projects such as WhiteBox and CentOS. It's not as if the majority of users would actually pony up to RedHat if it were to be the case that the knockoff distros didn't exist. IMO those users would be more likely to simply find another free (as in beer) distro to use.
Re:Will Fry and Leela finally get together?
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 1
The awful last episode...
One can only hope that you're not serious about that. Instead I'll choose to believe that you are setting up the first quarter of some sort of ridiculously circuitous joke. Be forewarned however that you'll get no credit if we fail to see the irony.
This is great news, and certainly cause for Futurama fans to rejoice. All the same I'd be just as exited if were to turn out to be true that Billy was going to reprise his role as the Jackie Puppet. I swear every time that freakin' puppet opened it's mouth I'd end up laughing so hard that my stomach hurt and my eyes watered.
Also, it is just me or is there something not funny about a Futurama thread that consists mainly of Futurama quotes? Oh well, I guess we can at least look forward to the next phase of the Scientology wars, Scientology vs. Robotology.;)
Now that we're in "end of thread" limbo, I guess I'm writing primarily for myself =)
That makes two of us, I guess.;)
I think you make valid points and argue cogently, and as I said before our differences seem to be mostly semantic. Perhaps instead of suggesting you misused a term, I'd have been better served to instead further clarify what I understand the term to be. I tend to associate the word mature with 'being fully developed', but the way the term is commonly used lacks the property of being well-defined. To me an arbitrary phrase such as 'intended for a mature audience' lacks real meaning because there are bound to be people of varying states of maturity (across all age groups) in any such audience. It's quite possible that someone who is cognitively or emotionally immature (again regardless of age) might go on a crusade against 'violence in the media' after viewing Pulp Fiction, for instance. On the other hand, it might be perfectly appropriate for a twelve year old to watch Futura (even though it airs on Adult Swim and is preceded by an 'intended for mature audiences' warning). This is the sense in which I think that the word mature has been bastardized, primarily for the purpose of marketing.
I've never mustered enough interest to pick up a Harry Potter book even though I read a lot of sci-fi, fantasy, and horror. As you said it isn't condescending to not have that interest, and it isn't necessarily prejudgement. I would only be prejudging if I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't enjoy Harry Potter books if I were to read one. Even though I've not yet been interested enough to read one, I'm fairly sure that I would enjoy reading them if I were to give them a fair try. My initial point was that interests tend to change over very long periods of time, and I might be quite tempted to pick up a used copy of Harry Potter title if it were in good condition and the price was right. I may have inferred that you'd prejudged whether you would enjoy a game you'd not played when you in fact didn't mean to imply that. Note lastly that I don't think prejudging is always a bad thing. Like just about everything, it all depends on the context.
I didn't mean to condescend, so I apologize if you took offense. At worst I only meant to emphasize your (mis?)-use of the term mature. I still happen to think you're misusing the term (for instance my son would enjoy all three of the games you cite as enjoyable, but he is hardly "older"). However this doesn't invalidate your overall point or imply any fault on your part...rather it's just a matter of semantics. As you suggest, we're each entitled to box ourselves into whatever demographic we choose (just as we're entitled not to do so).
Interestingly, I happen to view the 'mature' genre as primarily marketing BS much the same way that you view Mario/Nintendo. A close-minded person might even go so far as to write off the whole genre as destined to pollute the human consciousness in the form of a series of dreadful Uwe Boll movies. However that would be prejudging, and I like to think that I'm above doing that (even if it's not necessarily actually true).
Outside of that, as a "mature" gamer, I could pass on the entire game library other than RE4.
Yes, you could. As an alternative, you might also want to consider picking up some of the older A-list Nintendo exclusives dirt cheap. Some day (once you outgrow your 'maturity') you might be grateful for the hours of fun you've afforded yourself. This isn't a knock on you or those who consider themselves to be mature gamers. Rather, it's just an oft repeated word of advice related to how tastes change over time.
Those that support this surveillance primarily argue that we gain security in the form of protection against future terrorist attacks. I find this assertion to be highly dubious simply because I give the 'bad guys' more credit than to openly discuss their plans in any manner that might not be considered secure. However let's assume for the sake of argument that spying on Americans without warrants does indeed somehow prevent every major terrorist plot in the future. I still wouldn't support it because I'm not willing to trade my liberties for that protection.
I think that once we allow ourselves to be stripped of a constitutional liberty we're on a slippery slope. Maybe today we're only trying to justify the removal of unreasonable search and seizure. However who's to say that in the future we won't be trying to justify the removal of the right to bear arms or the right to free speech. If we as a country are not strong and brave enough to face the threat of terror without giving up our constitutional rights to do so, then how can we clothe ourselves in the vestiges of patriotism that were borne from those very rights? I used to like to think that I lived in "The land of the free and the home of the brave"; however it's looking more and more like we'd rather live in the land of the secure, and the home of the pragmatic. I don't see how we can possibly consider ourselves brave if we're willing to simply give away our freedoms.
Often times a non-science major is required to take no more than what amounts to a single survey course in math as an undergraduate. The class sizes for this type of course are huge, and tests are often multiple choice and given on scantron sheets. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of these students would show a lack of proficiency in math.
It's things like this that justify the fact that the AP dethroned Bears at the top of the ThreatDown. If the AP can't even get a handle on truthiness, how can they be trusted? My gut tells me to go with Reuters.
I think that to a large extent the issue is that people unduly expect journalistic integrity from slashdot (and/or its editors). I don't mean to disparage anyone in particular, but to consider/. "editors" as editors in (the traditional) journalistic sense is pretty far fetched. This is just my opinion of course, but given the level of complaint about the editorial process that exists in the typical slashdot discussion I consider it an opinion that is not without justification.
To be fair though, it's not as though slashdot is unique in this regard. Journalistic integrity in general is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, even among the most respected publishers. Just turn on the news the next time a big story breaks and count the minutes until some guest "live on the scene" cracks wise about Howard Stern's penis. Open your local paper to the editorial and/or letters sections and enjoy the vitriolic party-line rantings of those astroturfing for their cause (I'm supposing that well reasoned arguments no longer sell to the majority of the American public). I used to think that all the talk about bloggers replacing traditional news outlets was unrealistic because I couldn't see a way in which bloggers as a whole could match the journalistic integrity of more organized news outlets. Now however, I've come to believe that it's actually the other way around. Traditional journalism is clawing and digging its way down to the lowest common denonimator as quickly as it can, ostensibly because they'll get higher ratings or syndication numbers.
I read zerocool's posts about BB in the Milky Way thread, and I tend to agree that where there is smoke there is usually fire. That by itself doesn't convince me that anything untoward is occurring. However, neither does Taco's declaration that it's all just a big coincidence -- trust me and move along convince me that there is not something fishy going on. As with everything else, I take everyone's two cents along with a grain of salt and wait patiently for another shoe to drop. Just my two cents.
I think you're full of it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow for the fact that you're just utterly incompetent. Your 'story' is so full of conveniently placed loopholes that it appears highly incredulous. Another person placed the order by 'other means'...RH mistakenly contacted 'someone else' who 'rightly' ignored them...it was too 'complicated' to log in to RHN. To be fair you're posting as an AC, so maybe you really do find the idea of logging in to be complicated.
For the rest of us however, it's very easy to order from the RH website. The order form conspicuously allows you to add the physical media for $25. Additionally the entitlements you purchase are automatically associated with the RHN login you use to complete the order (thus an 'activation key' isn't even needed). That's how it's always been for me, at least.
So, by your lights it's ok to tell lies to start a war that get ~20,000 people killed, but not ok to lie about a blowjob, simply because one was under oath and the other wasn't?
No...if fact it's quite the opposite. My point was that using an arbitrary indicator (such as being under oath) to determine the impact of and retribution for a lie isn't valid.
(And BTW, isn't testimony to Congress and congressional commissions done under oath?)
It depends. If the purpose of the hearing is to Nail(TM) someone (i.e. the baseball steroid hearings), then yes a swearing in will likely take place. However if the purpose of the hearing is to put on a Dog and Pony Show(TM) (like this, for instance), then not only do they not swear you in, but they (apparently) allow you to lie to your heart's content without consequence.
I have to admire, though, the way Bush has managed to run roughshod over just about every conservative ideal there is while still managing to keep a sizable percentage of the country fiercely loyal to him.
I think Bush's die-hard supporters are primarily religious conservatives, and not people who are conservative in the more traditional sense of the word. As you note he fares poorly when judged by traditional conservative milestones. However when it comes to migrating America from a freedom and Democracy to intolerance and Theocracy he's doing a good job.
Baseless lawsuit or not, you shouldn't be able to lie under oath and get away with it.
I agree. You should only be able to get away with your lies if you speak them outright (in, for instance, an address to the citizens of your country). You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be claiming that you can justify using terms like bloated and sucky by *not* using those terms and choosing to use better reasoned and more well-defined terms instead. That was more or less the same point I was trying to make.
You craft a string of equivalences (ostensibly) to show that bloated and sucky obviously mean the same thing as fiscally irresponsible (or as you put it, losing money-prone). I would contend that equally obvious (and much more commonly used) meanings of bloated could be 'has more packages to choose from than I actually need' or 'has too many install CDs'. As for sucky, I'd as easily interpret that to mean 'I am unfamiliar with the idiosyncrasies of this distro' or 'I am biased'.
I point out obvious contradictions in someone's argument and get modded flamebait? What gives? (I know, I know...I must be new here.)
I decided that Fedora has gone beyond bloated and sucky, and that if I were to ever prefessionally recommend any Linux flavors..
You may not fully comprehend the connotations associated with the term professional (at least when used in reference to making business decisions involving Linux). In a professional environment, you'd have a difficult time justifying your decisions using criteria such as 'bloated' and 'sucky'.
If they had just shelled out for RedHat to begin with, then those fargin' iceholes from CentOS wouldn't have hacked them. Will people never learn?
:)
I don't know how the kernel devs feel either, but it would be reasonable to suppose that most of them greatly appreciate RedHat's substantial contributions to their project (and to OSS in general). As to the GP's query, it would also be reasonable to think that RedHat doesn't particularly mind the existence of projects such as WhiteBox and CentOS. It's not as if the majority of users would actually pony up to RedHat if it were to be the case that the knockoff distros didn't exist. IMO those users would be more likely to simply find another free (as in beer) distro to use.
The awful last episode...
One can only hope that you're not serious about that. Instead I'll choose to believe that you are setting up the first quarter of some sort of ridiculously circuitous joke. Be forewarned however that you'll get no credit if we fail to see the irony.
This is great news, and certainly cause for Futurama fans to rejoice. All the same I'd be just as exited if were to turn out to be true that Billy was going to reprise his role as the Jackie Puppet. I swear every time that freakin' puppet opened it's mouth I'd end up laughing so hard that my stomach hurt and my eyes watered.
;)
Also, it is just me or is there something not funny about a Futurama thread that consists mainly of Futurama quotes? Oh well, I guess we can at least look forward to the next phase of the Scientology wars, Scientology vs. Robotology.
Now that we're in "end of thread" limbo, I guess I'm writing primarily for myself =)
;)
That makes two of us, I guess.
I think you make valid points and argue cogently, and as I said before our differences seem to be mostly semantic. Perhaps instead of suggesting you misused a term, I'd have been better served to instead further clarify what I understand the term to be. I tend to associate the word mature with 'being fully developed', but the way the term is commonly used lacks the property of being well-defined. To me an arbitrary phrase such as 'intended for a mature audience' lacks real meaning because there are bound to be people of varying states of maturity (across all age groups) in any such audience. It's quite possible that someone who is cognitively or emotionally immature (again regardless of age) might go on a crusade against 'violence in the media' after viewing Pulp Fiction, for instance. On the other hand, it might be perfectly appropriate for a twelve year old to watch Futura (even though it airs on Adult Swim and is preceded by an 'intended for mature audiences' warning). This is the sense in which I think that the word mature has been bastardized, primarily for the purpose of marketing.
I've never mustered enough interest to pick up a Harry Potter book even though I read a lot of sci-fi, fantasy, and horror. As you said it isn't condescending to not have that interest, and it isn't necessarily prejudgement. I would only be prejudging if I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't enjoy Harry Potter books if I were to read one. Even though I've not yet been interested enough to read one, I'm fairly sure that I would enjoy reading them if I were to give them a fair try. My initial point was that interests tend to change over very long periods of time, and I might be quite tempted to pick up a used copy of Harry Potter title if it were in good condition and the price was right. I may have inferred that you'd prejudged whether you would enjoy a game you'd not played when you in fact didn't mean to imply that. Note lastly that I don't think prejudging is always a bad thing. Like just about everything, it all depends on the context.
I didn't mean to condescend, so I apologize if you took offense. At worst I only meant to emphasize your (mis?)-use of the term mature. I still happen to think you're misusing the term (for instance my son would enjoy all three of the games you cite as enjoyable, but he is hardly "older"). However this doesn't invalidate your overall point or imply any fault on your part...rather it's just a matter of semantics. As you suggest, we're each entitled to box ourselves into whatever demographic we choose (just as we're entitled not to do so).
Interestingly, I happen to view the 'mature' genre as primarily marketing BS much the same way that you view Mario/Nintendo. A close-minded person might even go so far as to write off the whole genre as destined to pollute the human consciousness in the form of a series of dreadful Uwe Boll movies. However that would be prejudging, and I like to think that I'm above doing that (even if it's not necessarily actually true).
Outside of that, as a "mature" gamer, I could pass on the entire game library other than RE4.
Yes, you could. As an alternative, you might also want to consider picking up some of the older A-list Nintendo exclusives dirt cheap. Some day (once you outgrow your 'maturity') you might be grateful for the hours of fun you've afforded yourself. This isn't a knock on you or those who consider themselves to be mature gamers. Rather, it's just an oft repeated word of advice related to how tastes change over time.
Those that support this surveillance primarily argue that we gain security in the form of protection against future terrorist attacks. I find this assertion to be highly dubious simply because I give the 'bad guys' more credit than to openly discuss their plans in any manner that might not be considered secure. However let's assume for the sake of argument that spying on Americans without warrants does indeed somehow prevent every major terrorist plot in the future. I still wouldn't support it because I'm not willing to trade my liberties for that protection.
I think that once we allow ourselves to be stripped of a constitutional liberty we're on a slippery slope. Maybe today we're only trying to justify the removal of unreasonable search and seizure. However who's to say that in the future we won't be trying to justify the removal of the right to bear arms or the right to free speech. If we as a country are not strong and brave enough to face the threat of terror without giving up our constitutional rights to do so, then how can we clothe ourselves in the vestiges of patriotism that were borne from those very rights? I used to like to think that I lived in "The land of the free and the home of the brave"; however it's looking more and more like we'd rather live in the land of the secure, and the home of the pragmatic. I don't see how we can possibly consider ourselves brave if we're willing to simply give away our freedoms.
I saw this on Boing Boing earlier today.
Future lawers protest AG's speech
The link is to someone's blog, but the pictures are priceless.
Often times a non-science major is required to take no more than what amounts to a single survey course in math as an undergraduate. The class sizes for this type of course are huge, and tests are often multiple choice and given on scantron sheets. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of these students would show a lack of proficiency in math.
I hate the people who love me, and they hate me!
It's things like this that justify the fact that the AP dethroned Bears at the top of the ThreatDown . If the AP can't even get a handle on truthiness, how can they be trusted? My gut tells me to go with Reuters.
I think that to a large extent the issue is that people unduly expect journalistic integrity from slashdot (and/or its editors). I don't mean to disparage anyone in particular, but to consider /. "editors" as editors in (the traditional) journalistic sense is pretty far fetched. This is just my opinion of course, but given the level of complaint about the editorial process that exists in the typical slashdot discussion I consider it an opinion that is not without justification.
To be fair though, it's not as though slashdot is unique in this regard. Journalistic integrity in general is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, even among the most respected publishers. Just turn on the news the next time a big story breaks and count the minutes until some guest "live on the scene" cracks wise about Howard Stern's penis. Open your local paper to the editorial and/or letters sections and enjoy the vitriolic party-line rantings of those astroturfing for their cause (I'm supposing that well reasoned arguments no longer sell to the majority of the American public). I used to think that all the talk about bloggers replacing traditional news outlets was unrealistic because I couldn't see a way in which bloggers as a whole could match the journalistic integrity of more organized news outlets. Now however, I've come to believe that it's actually the other way around. Traditional journalism is clawing and digging its way down to the lowest common denonimator as quickly as it can, ostensibly because they'll get higher ratings or syndication numbers.
I read zerocool's posts about BB in the Milky Way thread, and I tend to agree that where there is smoke there is usually fire. That by itself doesn't convince me that anything untoward is occurring. However, neither does Taco's declaration that it's all just a big coincidence -- trust me and move along convince me that there is not something fishy going on. As with everything else, I take everyone's two cents along with a grain of salt and wait patiently for another shoe to drop. Just my two cents.
I think you're full of it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow for the fact that you're just utterly incompetent. Your 'story' is so full of conveniently placed loopholes that it appears highly incredulous. Another person placed the order by 'other means'...RH mistakenly contacted 'someone else' who 'rightly' ignored them...it was too 'complicated' to log in to RHN. To be fair you're posting as an AC, so maybe you really do find the idea of logging in to be complicated.
For the rest of us however, it's very easy to order from the RH website. The order form conspicuously allows you to add the physical media for $25. Additionally the entitlements you purchase are automatically associated with the RHN login you use to complete the order (thus an 'activation key' isn't even needed). That's how it's always been for me, at least.
So, by your lights it's ok to tell lies to start a war that get ~20,000 people killed, but not ok to lie about a blowjob, simply because one was under oath and the other wasn't?
No...if fact it's quite the opposite. My point was that using an arbitrary indicator (such as being under oath) to determine the impact of and retribution for a lie isn't valid.
(And BTW, isn't testimony to Congress and congressional commissions done under oath?)
It depends. If the purpose of the hearing is to Nail(TM) someone (i.e. the baseball steroid hearings), then yes a swearing in will likely take place. However if the purpose of the hearing is to put on a Dog and Pony Show(TM) (like this, for instance), then not only do they not swear you in, but they (apparently) allow you to lie to your heart's content without consequence.
I have to admire, though, the way Bush has managed to run roughshod over just about every conservative ideal there is while still managing to keep a sizable percentage of the country fiercely loyal to him.
I think Bush's die-hard supporters are primarily religious conservatives, and not people who are conservative in the more traditional sense of the word. As you note he fares poorly when judged by traditional conservative milestones. However when it comes to migrating America from a freedom and Democracy to intolerance and Theocracy he's doing a good job.
I rather liked the part where he referred to the 'Next' button:
:)
"And if you don't like it, you have got your little advance button. It's pretty high-tech stuff."
I wonder what animal will be on the cover of the O'Reilly book that splains all that high-falutin high-tech gajectry.
Baseless lawsuit or not, you shouldn't be able to lie under oath and get away with it.
I agree. You should only be able to get away with your lies if you speak them outright (in, for instance, an address to the citizens of your country). You should also be able to get away with your lies if you speak them to foreign governments or the United Nations. Or to the military. Or to the news media (or at least those members of the news media who aren't already on your payroll). Or to congressional investigators, the 911 commission, or other such agencies. There may be some others I left out, but the point is that that by no means should one ever get away with lying under oath.
...both technical and theoretical -- would you give us on conducting a deep and objective study on the Unix desktop
No offense, but my advice would be: Don't ask slashdot.
OSS leader: "Great Wall of Prophecy, reveal to us God's will so that we may blindly obey."
(Slashdot) crowd: "Free us from thought and responsibility."
OSS leader: "We shall read things off you."
(Slashdot) crowd: "Then do them."
OSS leader: "Your words guide us."
(Slashdot) crowd: "We're dumb."
You're right!
...sweet zombie Jesus! It's reading over 40 mega-Ballmers!!!