no apology required because there was no actual insult, as the term "antisemite" has long been rendered meaningless by the sheer abuse by israeli propaganda. calling you "antisemite" is the same as calling you "terrorist". you can't possibly feel insulted by that because media has shown that anyone can be called that without the slightest ground. next time any zionist stooge calls you "antisemite" just politely ask him to explain it with other words, because you don't know what "antisemitism" means, and even less so in the context of the current discussion.
it's a downside of language perversion: vocabulary erodes slowly away.
Extreme would be to drop a nuke on them. See? Isn't it fun using strawmen to argue your point.
may be i'm a bit picky, but i'd say robbing their land, expelling them, denying access to water and healthcare, imprisioning them indefinitely with no warrant, and killing them at will or bombing them with white phosphor is quite extreme.
shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions?
no.
look: if there are scientists (as you say) with blind faith in unprovable beliefs, then they're not being scientific but religious. in this case you are asking to stop the whining between religious factions, and that would be for them to decide. i guess they won't, not because they're religious but because they're factions. religion is ok if (and only if) one limits it's application strictly to oneself.
what these guys are speculating may seem weird but is the effort of theorizing possible explanations for concrete contradictions which need one, because there is a necessity to explain those to progress in our understanding of the world. it's work in progress, sometimes you do have to examine weird possibliities so you eventually find the right track.
classic religion, in contrast, assembles theories equally fantastic which are no necessary explanation for anything (last time i checked), and that makes sense because (most) religion actually doesn't seek to explain, but to people to live happily and stop asking.
if you then throw those "who don't want to know" into factions and confront them then yes, real shit starts to happen, and "whining" is the least concern.
Yes, I see a problem with pot cafes. Drug use is not OK
drug use IS OK. drug abuse is not.
I see a problem with views like yours which shift the blame on the substance, righteously ignoring the root problems which are social and educational. this view solves nothing, perpetuates the real problems and just supports the status in quo in keeping the prohibition circus going.
wolfenstein 3D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D) is the only shooter where i have ever experienced that. consistently after playing about 30 mins, and my gf as well. it never happened with rott, quake, doom or any other shooter until now, and i've played quite a lot of them. based on this personal experience and comparing w3d to all others i would say framerate, turn speed and color saturation combined might be a relevant factor. i don't think it had anything to do with a contradiction of virtual and real states. don't really know about hmds, though, so that could be a different issue.
From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.
no. it was massification, sadly. it's a bitter irony and it doesn't look like universal access (duh) will make us globally smarter anytime soon as it should have done, and we thought it would do.
i've been on the "net" since even before internet, and never ever used my real name, anywhere, nor did most of the people i met. some did. i also never saw a reason to put my personal email address on usenet for everyone to collect. what for? i just shared it with people i wanted to exchange email with.
Unlike Facebook, in that there is intelligence. The way I explain it (someone said it before me), Facebook is for keeping track of people I care about, Google+ is for keeping track of ideas/issues/things I care about. The intersection is very small.
fb also throws random crap "you might care about" at you. the link is still the people (or "entities"), and the business model is still in these links. that's all what advertisers want: bunches of linked people.
the very reason for the sick name policy thing was to convince advertisers that g+'s bunches were of real people, unlike fb where more than half of them are fake, meaning they could offer a "more valuable" bunch of linked people than fb. that was the only real difference between fb and g+, besides a slicker ui. that they now have backed down means it didn't work out, i guess, son now there'll be no substantial difference between fb and g+ at all. different tribes or market segments, maybe.
it also means my g+ account is no longer banned, because naturally i told them straight away they could go fuck themselves the very moment they insisted in knowing better than me how i should be recognized on the net. lol, suckers.
I'd be really curious to here there opinions on KeePass, which isn't web-based but certainly in the same category.
i've always had trouble with putting all my apples in the same basket, so i never touched things like keepass, kisskiss nor any other keyring. that there's folks doing that *OVER THE WEB* is staggering. if i weren't speechles right now i'd say they deserve being raped in their most intimate identity.
If you have 100 hours available for testing, you can use static analysis to find 90% of the bugs and spend the rest of your time on the 10% that require deeper insight. Or you can waste 90% of your time being a human compiler, manually cross-checking symbols. Which is going to result in more reliable software?
obviously, the one where you skip static analysis and devote 100% of testing time to testing. it will be exactly 10% more reliable than both cases of your false dichotomy.:-P
besides, your perspective is more about productivity than about quality. that's ok, but it depends on your particular environment. actually static analysis gives you a specific insight into a code body which is good. but it's often greatly overrated and i find statements like "static analysis adds reliability" alarming. that's simply not true. it assists you in assessing reliability but if you stop there you're screwed, the actual important step is testing and if you get *that* right, you're ok. reviews are a great plus, not just for reliability, but also for learning.
and i like static typed languages, if anything just because refactor is a breeze with adecuate tools.
this also means it is more reliable since more problems can be detected by static analysis tools
actually, it means you can employ unreliable programmers and think you can get away with it because your reports are green all over. odds are you won't.
static analysis tells if code is wrong. it will never tell if code is right. it's just a tool to assist in early improvement and by no means a substitute for reviews and testing. review and testing do add reliability. static analysis doesn't. it's just convenient, but you could do perfectly without, provided you test and review.
If you already know JavaScript, and either Java or C++, then you can learn Dart *and write absolute crap* in about 20 minutes.
please, folks. do get some real insight into the languages you use before doing serious stuff others will have to maintain. thank you.
this is true in general, but regarding to javascript: if you come from Java, you *must* unlearn almost everything to start doing anything half decent in javascript. If you come from c++ not so much, but please, please... read the manual first. javascript is *not* what you think it is.
the problem with javascript isn't javascript, it's that 90% of people writing javascript hasn't a clue about javascript.
I don't know what sort of projects you've worked on, but an enterprise level project requires a massive understanding of the business, its processes and its clients.
I don't know what sort of projects you've worked on, but an enterprise level project (specially a "large and complex one" as is discussed here) has a host of business analysts, functional analysts, architects, IT and consulting guys, field expers, accessibility experts, testers and developers skilled in several technologies, all committed to the same project. very few (if any) of all these have a thorough understanding of the whole system in full detail, not in 18 months and probably not in the entire life of the project. but for anyone to be productive in such an endeavour means breaking it down into manageable pieces and... good management to make all these work together. if folks cannot make useful contributions whithin a month then they are useless or very poorly managed, or the system is not just large and complex but also badly architected or lacking a sound infrastructure.
You cannot pick that up in a month - 18 months would be about right, to get the minimum understanding of those.
dunno what to say. maybe if you give a concrete example we might find out why you guys are so utterly failing. could be guru corporativism, bad practices, bad organization or documentation, could be anything but definitely it's like there's a big elephant in your room.
On the other hand, if you are just there to build web pages, or desktop GUIs, then sure, you could become productive in a month - but you're not going to be adding value to the company.
now if 18 months seems weird, this seems complete nonsense. what has the concrete technology to do with complexity? if your front-ends are dumb and your backend is a nightmare, then you'll have to hire specially talented backenders. they might even point out what you are doing wrong. but if they can't contribute *something* of value in at least 18 months then the problem is on your side.
Must be nice to never have worked on any large, complex project.
a month *should* be enough. more than a month means an awful programmer or average lousy management. large projects tend to have many managers with many of them being ladder climbers, this people can produce spectacular chaos when thrown together. so indeed longer catch-up periods are common but GP is still right about what it usually means: bad management.
the problem comes with replacing a well known standard
which standard? html5 isn't a standard at all, let alone well known. it's a wannabee. besides, famo.us doesn't seem to seek to *replace* anything, it's just another option for an area currently lacking good enough support or standard.
with god-knows-what graphics drawing.
if it works crossbrowser i can't possibly see a problem with it, just as with any other lib you are free to use or not.
if a court finds out later that a company had no standing or no good reason to make a DMCA claim that resulted in a takedown, there should be statutory damages. Let's start at $10000 per infraction.
won't work. many of dmca trolls have no problem in shelling out 10k, even several times a day. this would just alienate the guy or small company that may have a legitimate claim but can't afford it and also has reasonable fear that he will get trampled over in court. it's the same problem with patents: the rich will almost always win. patent fights nowadays only make sense between megacorps.
the only real solution is going full underground. free source simply cannot depend on private companies' goodwill, with or without dmca or you name it. it has to escape the system to be really free. that's the problem i always saw with github and similar sites: a cool idea, cool implementation, but moot in this society full off greedy incorporated assholes. we need to implement the idea differently, with a resilient anonymous network (that's right, it *has* to be anonymous, too bad for some crippled egos). if we manage to get to that no ignominy disguised in lame copyright will do shit.
yes, it can. it involves a partial re-encryption, verification codes, zero knowledge proofs, a mixnet and a bunch other funny stuff. it can be verified individually by the voter, and the counting process is also auditable, verifiable, and anonymous. you'll find complete specifications on the norwegian election site.
Voting ought to be public.
that's another issue. i might even agree, but norwegian (and most countries') law strongly enforces privacy. privacy is precisely the hardest nut to crack.
I believe in giving people true power. The power to run their own lives. No more, no less.
great power comes with great responsibility. i guess we'll get there when we're ready.
How did you manage to make the election process verifiable for a large majority of the population, while still keeping the votes secret and unprovable? (Note the whole process needs to be verifiable, an opaque verification function of an opaque system is not sufficient.)
the system is not opaque at all, it's fully transparent. unfortunately, it's also complex. it's verifiable by anyone with understanding of the math and the data manipulation involved. that's far from a majority but still quite a few, and it would take only one of them pointing out a flaw to invalidate the process.
a large majority of the population can't verify the whole process on paper either, there is also trust necessary in that due process is followed and collectively monitored correctly. this doesn't rule out fraud completely, but makes massive fraud very difficult.
How do you know it is private? And not actively coerced at time of voting (fx dominating head of house, or even an organization, watching and making sure that all vote 'right')
i can't. but the voter can invalidate that vote many times, from anywhere, secretly, and ultimately he can vote on paper too if need be.
paper voters have no way of verifying that either, you are simply talking nonsense.
When I vote, I pick a list for the party I vote for, and put it (unmarked) into the ballot box where it is mixed with a significant number of other similar lists. There is no way to track exactly what piece of paper I put in that box. So my vote is anonymous.
you wish. you have no way to verify it you are actually have privacy while picking, or if your envelope is not traceable. sure this example is extreme, the point is that it equally applies to electronic voting. in neither case absolute certainty is possible. specific and documented procedures were in place in the evoting experiment to guarrantee voter privacy and anonimity, and they are public. you are welcome to study and challenge them. or else... so what is your point?
The aim of this test was to measure if there would be an increased turnout. By the design criterium, the test was no success. As I did not create the design cirteria for the test, I can hardly be blamed if the test used irrelevant criteria?
sorry, i'm really far fom angry, just baffled. who told you that? this was the first time (not really, we're actually talking about the second run of the same experiment, the first was in 2011, but on a smaller scale) that full evoting over the wild wild web was attempted on binding elections ever, with privacy, anonymity and verifiability. the real test was if this was at all possible and practical with present technology. i turns out it is. it's complex, it has issues, there's a lot of room for improvement but it works, it can be carried out and verified. participation was just another measure amongst many others... i dunno, it may have been trumpeted in some official statement but your common sense alone should have sufficed for you to realize that even if that were the primary objective, results of a single pilot test between different types of elections in different contexts and different population sizes and with years of difference would have been far from conclusive if not merely anecdotical in all but very extreme scenarios.
the aim of this experiment was to see if this difficult and heavily debated stunt is at all feasible, and how it works out. it was possible because some guys just thought it was worth to try, and because some other guys thought they could handle it. many conclusions in lots of areas can be drawn from it, and more experiments will be necessary. just looking at participation comparing to some other random election is not only simplistic but makes no sense.
the difference now (that the system has proved feasible) is that current guys just don't find it interesting, necessary or worth the effort. that's just ok, but the talk about turnout is definitely just an excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
no apology required because there was no actual insult, as the term "antisemite" has long been rendered meaningless by the sheer abuse by israeli propaganda. calling you "antisemite" is the same as calling you "terrorist". you can't possibly feel insulted by that because media has shown that anyone can be called that without the slightest ground. next time any zionist stooge calls you "antisemite" just politely ask him to explain it with other words, because you don't know what "antisemitism" means, and even less so in the context of the current discussion.
it's a downside of language perversion: vocabulary erodes slowly away.
Extreme would be to drop a nuke on them. See? Isn't it fun using strawmen to argue your point.
may be i'm a bit picky, but i'd say robbing their land, expelling them, denying access to water and healthcare, imprisioning them indefinitely with no warrant, and killing them at will or bombing them with white phosphor is quite extreme.
shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions?
no.
look: if there are scientists (as you say) with blind faith in unprovable beliefs, then they're not being scientific but religious. in this case you are asking to stop the whining between religious factions, and that would be for them to decide. i guess they won't, not because they're religious but because they're factions. religion is ok if (and only if) one limits it's application strictly to oneself.
what these guys are speculating may seem weird but is the effort of theorizing possible explanations for concrete contradictions which need one, because there is a necessity to explain those to progress in our understanding of the world. it's work in progress, sometimes you do have to examine weird possibliities so you eventually find the right track.
classic religion, in contrast, assembles theories equally fantastic which are no necessary explanation for anything (last time i checked), and that makes sense because (most) religion actually doesn't seek to explain, but to people to live happily and stop asking.
if you then throw those "who don't want to know" into factions and confront them then yes, real shit starts to happen, and "whining" is the least concern.
Good. Take your ball and go home. The internet could use a few less for-profit entities twisting their content in order to maximize cashflow.
it's called monetization, you insensitive clod!
Yes, I see a problem with pot cafes. Drug use is not OK
drug use IS OK. drug abuse is not.
I see a problem with views like yours which shift the blame on the substance, righteously ignoring the root problems which are social and educational. this view solves nothing, perpetuates the real problems and just supports the status in quo in keeping the prohibition circus going.
those killmails must have really pissed you off, man :) :D
harden the fuck up!
wolfenstein 3D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D) is the only shooter where i have ever experienced that. consistently after playing about 30 mins, and my gf as well. it never happened with rott, quake, doom or any other shooter until now, and i've played quite a lot of them. based on this personal experience and comparing w3d to all others i would say framerate, turn speed and color saturation combined might be a relevant factor. i don't think it had anything to do with a contradiction of virtual and real states. don't really know about hmds, though, so that could be a different issue.
From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.
no. it was massification, sadly. it's a bitter irony and it doesn't look like universal access (duh) will make us globally smarter anytime soon as it should have done, and we thought it would do.
i've been on the "net" since even before internet, and never ever used my real name, anywhere, nor did most of the people i met. some did. i also never saw a reason to put my personal email address on usenet for everyone to collect. what for? i just shared it with people i wanted to exchange email with.
Unlike Facebook, in that there is intelligence. The way I explain it (someone said it before me), Facebook is for keeping track of people I care about, Google+ is for keeping track of ideas/issues/things I care about. The intersection is very small.
fb also throws random crap "you might care about" at you. the link is still the people (or "entities"), and the business model is still in these links. that's all what advertisers want: bunches of linked people.
the very reason for the sick name policy thing was to convince advertisers that g+'s bunches were of real people, unlike fb where more than half of them are fake, meaning they could offer a "more valuable" bunch of linked people than fb. that was the only real difference between fb and g+, besides a slicker ui. that they now have backed down means it didn't work out, i guess, son now there'll be no substantial difference between fb and g+ at all. different tribes or market segments, maybe.
it also means my g+ account is no longer banned, because naturally i told them straight away they could go fuck themselves the very moment they insisted in knowing better than me how i should be recognized on the net. lol, suckers.
I'd be really curious to here there opinions on KeePass, which isn't web-based but certainly in the same category.
i've always had trouble with putting all my apples in the same basket, so i never touched things like keepass, kisskiss nor any other keyring. that there's folks doing that *OVER THE WEB* is staggering. if i weren't speechles right now i'd say they deserve being raped in their most intimate identity.
The thug prowling around in the woods can take and spend my $20s, and I've got no recourse unless he's caught.
and cashless means you will have no recourse against *the other* thugs either. and they are simply "too big to get caught", didn't you hear?
If you have 100 hours available for testing, you can use static analysis to find 90% of the bugs and spend the rest of your time on the 10% that require deeper insight. Or you can waste 90% of your time being a human compiler, manually cross-checking symbols. Which is going to result in more reliable software?
obviously, the one where you skip static analysis and devote 100% of testing time to testing. it will be exactly 10% more reliable than both cases of your false dichotomy. :-P
besides, your perspective is more about productivity than about quality. that's ok, but it depends on your particular environment. actually static analysis gives you a specific insight into a code body which is good. but it's often greatly overrated and i find statements like "static analysis adds reliability" alarming. that's simply not true. it assists you in assessing reliability but if you stop there you're screwed, the actual important step is testing and if you get *that* right, you're ok. reviews are a great plus, not just for reliability, but also for learning.
and i like static typed languages, if anything just because refactor is a breeze with adecuate tools.
this also means it is more reliable since more problems can be detected by static analysis tools
actually, it means you can employ unreliable programmers and think you can get away with it because your reports are green all over. odds are you won't.
static analysis tells if code is wrong. it will never tell if code is right. it's just a tool to assist in early improvement and by no means a substitute for reviews and testing. review and testing do add reliability. static analysis doesn't. it's just convenient, but you could do perfectly without, provided you test and review.
If you already know JavaScript, and either Java or C++, then you can learn Dart *and write absolute crap* in about 20 minutes.
please, folks. do get some real insight into the languages you use before doing serious stuff others will have to maintain. thank you.
this is true in general, but regarding to javascript: ... read the manual first. javascript is *not* what you think it is.
if you come from Java, you *must* unlearn almost everything to start doing anything half decent in javascript.
If you come from c++ not so much, but please, please
the problem with javascript isn't javascript, it's that 90% of people writing javascript hasn't a clue about javascript.
as for dart, i don't know / don't care atm.
I don't know what sort of projects you've worked on, but an enterprise level project requires a massive understanding of the business, its processes and its clients.
I don't know what sort of projects you've worked on, but an enterprise level project (specially a "large and complex one" as is discussed here) has a host of business analysts, functional analysts, architects, IT and consulting guys, field expers, accessibility experts, testers and developers skilled in several technologies, all committed to the same project. very few (if any) of all these have a thorough understanding of the whole system in full detail, not in 18 months and probably not in the entire life of the project. but for anyone to be productive in such an endeavour means breaking it down into manageable pieces and ... good management to make all these work together. if folks cannot make useful contributions whithin a month then they are useless or very poorly managed, or the system is not just large and complex but also badly architected or lacking a sound infrastructure.
You cannot pick that up in a month - 18 months would be about right, to get the minimum understanding of those.
dunno what to say. maybe if you give a concrete example we might find out why you guys are so utterly failing. could be guru corporativism, bad practices, bad organization or documentation, could be anything but definitely it's like there's a big elephant in your room.
On the other hand, if you are just there to build web pages, or desktop GUIs, then sure, you could become productive in a month - but you're not going to be adding value to the company.
now if 18 months seems weird, this seems complete nonsense. what has the concrete technology to do with complexity? if your front-ends are dumb and your backend is a nightmare, then you'll have to hire specially talented backenders. they might even point out what you are doing wrong. but if they can't contribute *something* of value in at least 18 months then the problem is on your side.
Must be nice to never have worked on any large, complex project.
a month *should* be enough. more than a month means an awful programmer or average lousy management. large projects tend to have many managers with many of them being ladder climbers, this people can produce spectacular chaos when thrown together. so indeed longer catch-up periods are common but GP is still right about what it usually means: bad management.
the problem comes with replacing a well known standard
which standard? html5 isn't a standard at all, let alone well known. it's a wannabee. besides, famo.us doesn't seem to seek to *replace* anything, it's just another option for an area currently lacking good enough support or standard.
with god-knows-what graphics drawing.
if it works crossbrowser i can't possibly see a problem with it, just as with any other lib you are free to use or not.
if a court finds out later that a company had no standing or no good reason to make a DMCA claim that resulted in a takedown, there should be statutory damages. Let's start at $10000 per infraction.
won't work. many of dmca trolls have no problem in shelling out 10k, even several times a day. this would just alienate the guy or small company that may have a legitimate claim but can't afford it and also has reasonable fear that he will get trampled over in court. it's the same problem with patents: the rich will almost always win. patent fights nowadays only make sense between megacorps.
the only real solution is going full underground. free source simply cannot depend on private companies' goodwill, with or without dmca or you name it. it has to escape the system to be really free. that's the problem i always saw with github and similar sites: a cool idea, cool implementation, but moot in this society full off greedy incorporated assholes. we need to implement the idea differently, with a resilient anonymous network (that's right, it *has* to be anonymous, too bad for some crippled egos). if we manage to get to that no ignominy disguised in lame copyright will do shit.
nearly 30% of Americans either aren't digitally literate or don't trust the Internet.
... that less than 30% of Americans are mature enough to use the Internet.
isn't that theyism?
It CANNOT be both "private and verifiable".
yes, it can. it involves a partial re-encryption, verification codes, zero knowledge proofs, a mixnet and a bunch other funny stuff. it can be verified individually by the voter, and the counting process is also auditable, verifiable, and anonymous. you'll find complete specifications on the norwegian election site.
Voting ought to be public.
that's another issue. i might even agree, but norwegian (and most countries') law strongly enforces privacy. privacy is precisely the hardest nut to crack.
I believe in giving people true power. The power to run their own lives. No more, no less.
great power comes with great responsibility. i guess we'll get there when we're ready.
How did you manage to make the election process verifiable for a large majority of the population, while still keeping the votes secret and unprovable? (Note the whole process needs to be verifiable, an opaque verification function of an opaque system is not sufficient.)
the system is not opaque at all, it's fully transparent. unfortunately, it's also complex. it's verifiable by anyone with understanding of the math and the data manipulation involved. that's far from a majority but still quite a few, and it would take only one of them pointing out a flaw to invalidate the process.
a large majority of the population can't verify the whole process on paper either, there is also trust necessary in that due process is followed and collectively monitored correctly. this doesn't rule out fraud completely, but makes massive fraud very difficult.
How do you know it is private? And not actively coerced at time of voting (fx dominating head of house, or even an organization, watching and making sure that all vote 'right')
i can't. but the voter can invalidate that vote many times, from anywhere, secretly, and ultimately he can vote on paper too if need be.
paper voters have no way of verifying that either, you are simply talking nonsense.
When I vote, I pick a list for the party I vote for, and put it (unmarked) into the ballot box where it is mixed with a significant number of other similar lists. There is no way to track exactly what piece of paper I put in that box. So my vote is anonymous.
you wish. you have no way to verify it you are actually have privacy while picking, or if your envelope is not traceable. sure this example is extreme, the point is that it equally applies to electronic voting. in neither case absolute certainty is possible. specific and documented procedures were in place in the evoting experiment to guarrantee voter privacy and anonimity, and they are public. you are welcome to study and challenge them. or else ... so what is your point?
The aim of this test was to measure if there would be an increased turnout. By the design criterium, the test was no success. As I did not create the design cirteria for the test, I can hardly be blamed if the test used irrelevant criteria?
sorry, i'm really far fom angry, just baffled. who told you that? this was the first time (not really, we're actually talking about the second run of the same experiment, the first was in 2011, but on a smaller scale) that full evoting over the wild wild web was attempted on binding elections ever, with privacy, anonymity and verifiability. the real test was if this was at all possible and practical with present technology. i turns out it is. it's complex, it has issues, there's a lot of room for improvement but it works, it can be carried out and verified. participation was just another measure amongst many others ... i dunno, it may have been trumpeted in some official statement but your common sense alone should have sufficed for you to realize that even if that were the primary objective, results of a single pilot test between different types of elections in different contexts and different population sizes and with years of difference would have been far from conclusive if not merely anecdotical in all but very extreme scenarios.
the aim of this experiment was to see if this difficult and heavily debated stunt is at all feasible, and how it works out. it was possible because some guys just thought it was worth to try, and because some other guys thought they could handle it. many conclusions in lots of areas can be drawn from it, and more experiments will be necessary. just looking at participation comparing to some other random election is not only simplistic but makes no sense.
the difference now (that the system has proved feasible) is that current guys just don't find it interesting, necessary or worth the effort. that's just ok, but the talk about turnout is definitely just an excuse.
And the award for most inexplicably angry reaction goes to....
oh please, i don't merit this. i wasn't at all angry, just calling out bullshit. nothing personal.