My uncle as it goes, and yes he had piercings too. He has, from what I recall, a huge tattoo of Sylvester the Cat and Tweetie Pie on his chest, with Tweetie Pie in a cage, where his belly button is the lock on the cage. I think he also has a gun toatin' Elmer Fudd somewhere, and a few other cartoon characters (pretty sure Tom and Jerry) I forget. Some of them his legs I think.
He also has the usual heart/anchor/mermaid stuff you'd expect on each arm, and the icon from each suite on a deck of cards (hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades), one on each knuckle, and who knows what else. Something large on his back (like a dragon or eagle or something, that was never quite finished and always in progress) is all I can recall.
He also has several kids he never sees, and he doesn't pay any maintenance to. The first of which managed to end up a single mother herself at 16, the rest seem sadly likely to follow a similar course.
My enduring memory of him is that he smelled really weird, had a large collection of the sort of plastic novelty toys you find in little plastic eggs and that his silver Ford Escort was held together almost exclusively by black duct tape. I seem to remember that no one in the car was ever allowed to talk when he was driving, because it confused him. Oh, and the horn on the Escort played the same refrain as the General Lee in The Dukes of Hazzard did when it went over a jump.
But it's okay if you're a woman and you just pierce your ears. Because that's totally different.
Well I don't think that's okay (hell, I'm sufficiently practical that I think high heeled shoes are very poor idea -a sensible approach to footwear is actually something I look for in women) not buying in to the pierced ears thing would definitely earn plus points in my book (ditto for thinking that diamonds on rings are ridiculously overpriced, not actually that pretty and are far better off on a drill bit).
However, it is undeniably different as far as social acceptability goes.
Also, if you're looking for a position with a lot of customer interaction, depending on the field, you might want to keep visibile body-mods to a minimum. It is a business reality that some customers will be idiots and unless your company is wildly successful, it will want to make money from idiots as well.
This is the key area of concern for me. Obviously it's not an issue for everyone because the liability level is related to your exposure to customers, but I've worked on projects which involved large clients (such as Sony, AOL-TW) and interfacing with them directly at a technical level, which involved being presentable not just to their analysts but to a range of staff (including more senior corporate management).
The projects were good, but yes some of the customers are very conservative and I would say would not react favourably to people with outlandish personal decoration. I think some of them would visibly squirm if you so much as turned up with brightly coloured dyed hair (and that some of them would take a dislike to you if you turned up in a poor quality novelty tie).
I don't support a football team either, but I realise that some people attach a genuine attachment to them that's a strong as, or in many cases, stronger than any level of attachment to a given religion (for example).
I wouldn't mark someone down just because it's something I wouldn't do, because I can appreciate the symbolism it has for some.
I said that my opinions and experiences differ from yours
You didn't do just that though, you matter of factly stated that I was incorrect in my estimation of the viewpoint of society. You said - and I quote - "Thirty years ago an earing on a man would have been viewed the way you seem to view it, however time has moved on.".
Apparently, even on the un-representatively liberal/., it's not the case that people are indifferent to it. If they were, this topic would not be nearly so 'lively' and I don't think we'd be having this discussion in the first place.
You have a prejudice against people who wear body jewelry based upon supposed medical grounds. You make the mistake of assuming that because they make a decision that you wouldn't, they must be inferior in some way. Don't worry, every one does it to some extent or another ity's called being human.
That is factually incorrect. It is not a 'prejudice', because it's not preconceived or based on spurious or unfounded evidence, it's based merely on objective observation which I have very clearly detailed across numerous posts in this thread (which you can access from my user info page).
More to the point:
Are you actually seriously suggesting that the notorious medical evidence (repeated in studies in the US and UK of which I am directly aware, and in other countries too I'm absolutely sure) is - quote - 'supposed'?
For the record:
Yes, I do most definitely consider people who think that having unnecessary cosmetic surgery[1] (not least done by someone who is not a clinical professional) to be 'a good idea' inferior, with regard to their capacity for sound rational judgement. I maintain this view regardless of the procedure.
[1] e.g. Cosmetic surgery or body modification which is done for purposes other than to correct what can reasonably be justified as a defect that impacts negatively on quality of life.
o) Because 15-20% of piercings involve unforeseen complications (excessive bleeding, permanent deformation, infection and dental/gum/sense-of-taste damage with respect to tongue piercing), not least due to the lack of proper medical training by the people who carry out this sort of cosmetic surgery.
o) Because surgeons, doctors and dentists around the world have been saying for the last 20 years or so what a bad idea they think the trend is piercing is due the problems that arise as as a result - because no one ever expects it to go wrong for them (I'll leave Googling for the vast amounts of information on that to the reader).
o) Because it's not yet socially acceptable to a large number of rather conservative people (at least at the level I work at), which means that it negatively impacts on the team I am in by extension if one of those members has their credibility undermined.
As I've already said in this thread, no-one should need to explain why unnecessary cosmetic surgery is a daft idea. I regard it as one of those things your just intuitively supposed to know. Ditto for understanding what's regarded as being widely socially acceptable.
I have to say that the last part of your post - to me anyway - reads as saying "Don't be different, stay the same as everyone else".
I am merely attempting to observe the currently reality and frame actions within that context.
That society changes goes without saying, but I maintain that claiming it in fact doesn't matter as we are now living in some kind of 'golden age of tolerance' is indicative of poor judgement in my view, because it's not an accurate representation of day to day reality (though this obviously depends on specifically what sort of work you do - as I've already indicated).
Thirty years ago an earing on a man would have been viewed the way you seem to view it, however time has moved on.
I've been very up front and quite elaborate on the rational for my position. Supposing or implying that I 'seem to view it' from the POV of some ultra orthodox repressed conservative is unwarranted (and not even remotely accurate).
I think the supposition that society at large is not indifferent is re-enforced by the display of opinion here (and/. is if anything markedly more liberal than society as a whole, and certainly more than business which is often seen as the domain of political and social conservatives).
I think a good 'litmus test' for the level of acceptability is observing the number of up and coming 'movers and shakers' in the business industry and in particular the number of major political candidates who feel comfortable with expressing themselves in this way (and they typically only represent what they believe society is willing to tolerate, thereby acting as a barometer for the level of social change).
Why? What is it about an earing that leads you to believe that their judgement might be suspect?
Multiple reasons.
It's can be damanging to health (especially with regard to more extreme peircings, such as tongue percings) and yet serves no purpose other than a dubious asthetic one, I think it's at best tenious to think it's doing something like 'challenging the norms society'.
Unlike shaving your head or dying your hair blue it's not without real and serious physical risk. A relatively high percentage of piercings, something in the order of 15-20%, have complications such as persistant bleeding, tearing of the skin and permenant physical damange. In the case of upper ear peircing your merely risking having a mauled ear (as well as of course increased risk infection by pericing in such an inappropriate place) but in the case of tounge piercings, your seriously putting your sense of taste at risk.
Having bits of metal put in your body without due cause is simply not a smart idea for well documented and in many instances obvious reasons (risk vrs. reward). This is especially true when it's done by people who are not clinicaly trained and do not offer real post operative care. Medical professionals (doctors, dentists and surgeons) have been trying to warn people of the dangers for years, the evidence suggests with good cause. Unnecessary surgery (however minor) is simply a Bad Thing (TM).
In addition, the inability to even envisage any possible negative impact in relation their decison is clear indicator there is something wrong with that persons judgement, because the idea is irrefutably contentious. As such, it will inevitable undermine the credibility of that person in the eyes of others (and by extention, has the potential and strongly likelyhood of doing comparible damage to someone you represent, such as a team or organisation).
In short, if someone doesn't think it's going be a problem they are either very short sighted or one of the many 'high functioning autists' (capeable, but unable to relate to others at all well) that plague the industry, in which case I would rather not work with them. If someone can envisage that it might cause a problem but does it anyway, then that's manifestly poor judgement on their part and so the same applies.
The appropriate approach to something like this (for someone who works in software) should of course to be to justify the change from the default in the first place, rather than instead challenging others to come up with reasons as to why the change isn't a good idea. Failure to take this sort of apporach would also cause me to be suspect about their judgement and the methodoloy they use to tackle problems.
Im sorry at what point did an earing become detrimental to the way a person works?
To jump here, IMO (as I've posted futher down), I think it's indicative of that persons level of judgement. I work in a sector which relies more than anything on the capacity for sound rational judgement to build and manage software and services. I do not think that taking a deliberate decision to place bits of metal thourgh skin attached to your head is a 'positive indicator' of good judgement by that individual.
For traditional social reasons, I consider this a less detrimental indicator for women than men, but personally I don't think it's great idea for women either (and when done to anyone under the age of 16 should be criminal offense, IMO).
I'm quite liberal [1] on most issues, including what I regard as trival things such as hair style, color and dress code, and I wouldn't want to work at a company that got uptight about engineers/developers/sysadmins wearing trainers or comfortable casual footware to the office, or that similarly imposed a needlessly strict dress code.
However, on the subject of tatoo's and piercings I find I'm quite conservative. If I'm being honest I'd find it hard not to feel suspicous of the judgement of anyone in the field who thought it would a good idea to place bits of metal through their face (other than perhaps for non medial purposes), especially if they are over the age of about 25.
I honestly would not feel comfortable with someone who thought it was a smart decision to do this to himself helping design software or network infrastucture and I wouldn't want him in the team I was in. Based on the avalible evidence, I would not trust his capacity for rational judgement (an absolute core requirement for sort of work I do).
With regard to tattoo's I'm of a similar opinion. Having the name of your wife/kids/football team (or something of similar significance) tattooed on your arm, I'd consider quite reasonable and not count that as a sign of poor judgement. The same would be true for things are 'tastefully' decorative (while realisting that term is subjective, I would include things such as celtic crosses, marui tattoo's [2]).
However, this would not be the case for anyone who I observed who had something overtly tasteless like 'Love/Hate' tatoos across their knuckles, or large tatoos of cartoon characters, like Daffy Duck or Tom & Jerry (also equally negative indicators when worn on ties IMO - with some exceptions).[3]
I'd try not to let someone having facial percings or tasteless tattoo's on it's own as something that stand in the way of someone being hired in a job interview, but I conceed that it could count against them in a tie breaker situation. If there was a position for someone in an overly creative area (such as graphic design, or perhaps marketing) I don't think I would consider percings or tattoo's necessarily negative indicators at all.
[1] NB: With a small 'l'. [2] Not an exhaustive list [3] I have a deadbeat realtive who incidentally has all of these, and then some.
Hey buddy, why don't you write a graphical installer for them which works reliably on eleven architectures.
That's a silly response, you don't need to get it working on 11 architectures, getting it working on the core platforms would be more than sufficient for the VAST majority of users (95%+ I'd imagine), with text mode as fall back (which users of esoteric hardware will be comfortable with in any case).
Debian is already moving away from attempting to provide the same level of support for all hardware, in favour of focusing on the most common platforms, so it's not as if that's just crazy talk.
That said, if a system is able to run X11, then the CPU architecture makes no difference, there should of course be several layers of abstraction by the time you reach the GUI for the installer. Problems with X11 compatibility are more likely to be down to problems with a specific graphical chipset, which even more likely to be an issue on x86, rather than say a platform such as SPARC, where the installed hardware range is much more limited and so supporting hardware from a given vendor (e.g. Sun) is actually easier.
It's taken a ridiculously long time for Debian to get around to building and releasing a graphical installer (TBA 'RSN'). It's not like it wouldn't be hard to co-opt and existing GPL'd graphical installer process (or at least learn from an alternative implementation). There are plenty of people willing to undertake this work too, if it were to be accepted. The primary reason for delay seems to be a failure to acknowledge the importance of having a high quality installer to an appropriate degree (and to act accordingly).
Debian is a marvellous modern operating system once installed, but given the third rate 'decade-out-of-date' installer, it's no wonder it's hard to convince people of this, which is great shame IMO. If I saw Debian for the first time now, I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole because I'd draw conclusions about the competence of it's maintainers from my first impression and consider opting for something else very quickly (which would be a mistake, but a perfectly logical conclusion to reach).
In recent years I've found the continuing lack of a better installer odd though (even for a text based installer, it's been a poorly implemented one), in the same way I find it odd that Red Hat seems to stubbornly refuse to implement apt-get for RPM out of the box as part of the standard feature set (which if it did, would drastically increase so many users perceptions of it).
Going slightly off topic, I actually see this behaviour in a number of open source projects.
By way of an example (because I use it quite a bit) HORDE springs to mind. There are many obvious and trivial problems with it which the developers and maintainers seem inexplicably completely blind to. This can on occasionally been observed when users repeatedly raise the sorts of issues (e.g. on the mailing lists) only be treated abruptly and even rudely by the maintainers who respond to the users as if they are insolent or in some way mentally insufficient for even suggesting such a thing.
There are many examples of this, but one would be it's (HORDE - IMP's) poor handling of some messages generated by some versions of Microsoft Outlook Express, which users can't "Reply" to because the address handling is fubard. It would be utterly trivial to fix this (shorter for me to fix than it's taken me to write this post for sure - I know because I've fixed it and a hundred other bugs in the version we make available to customers), but the team refuse to do anything about it, and are not willing to accept patches because they are being stupidly stubborn.
Does anyone have any info, or know of any books which covers this sort of perceived behaviour, and how to avoid in a team (and how to combat it when it arises)? Obviously sometimes people just disagree on what the current priority or direction should be for a project - and that's one thing - but sometimes the inability to acknowledge the 'Bleeding Irrefutably Obvious' seems to be entrenched (I know I see it in teams I work with).
I thought the quality and performance of the Ryzom engine was quite poor for a commercial title (and this is on my P4 3.2 Ghz w/2 GB DDR 400, Radeon 9800 256 MB and 10K RPM SATA HD). This, and the *HORRIBLE* UI configuration put me right off Ryzom quickly and permanently.
When companies like NC Soft (Lineage 2), Blizzard (WoW) use engines from companies like Unreal the difference in performance and quality is staggering, Epic offer a staggeringly adaptable platform for both FPS titles and MMOG's, which can handle both large outdoor arenas and tighter more complex maps.
(Though equally, I found the EQ2 engine to be pretty sophisticated (though clearly suited to 'Power Users' and long term use, given the vast number of options configurable), and the engine used for City Of Heroes to be excellently suited to purpose.)
Ryzom is not alone in my dislike for it's engine though, I also disliked the poor engine in SWG, which had the *worst* LOD handling for terrain I have ever seen (simply fixing the LOD at a lower level would have been a far superior solution, both visually and from a playability standpoint). It also featured *horrible* pop up for/specific/ player placeable structures, not Rebel or Imperial placed player bases or for NPC towns, but entire large player towns or facilities would simply pop up out of nowhere at 100 yards (to the extent that if I was going more than 200 yards out of town I would set a way point so I could find the town again, even I was in the middle of open dessert).
I would urge any developer to use an off the shelf commercial or open source engine, unless they had a very compelling reason not to (e.g. for a more truly unique title such as PlanetSide, which even then could arguably be equally implemented with a customised Unreal Warfare engine I should think).
Something a lot of people overlook, or simply don't know about, is that Open Step (which is what Mac OS X was before NeXT and Apple merged and it got some serious plastic surgery) and Rhapsody (which I appreciate only some of us were able to use, but it was pretty much just a partly borked version of Open Step with Mac OS 8+ window manager and widgets) worked fine on generic x86 hardware.
Supporting the majority of systems is not all that diffcult, thanks to common interfaces on things like IDE controllers, sound cards and graphics cards (even good GL support is possible as ATI and Nvidia chips dominate the market).
Open Step/Rhapsody installed fine on all sorts of weird frankenboxes (at least, on my weird frankenboxes - YMMV), so the odds of generic x86 compatiblity for a lot of users with no (or minimal) driver development are good in my estimation. This is also true for Windows, which (to a varying degree) can work in a 'compatible' way with common hardware, even if it doesn't have a 'proper' vendor supplied driver for a given device.
It's true that Apple could make it especially difficult with bizzare hacks everywhere and continually shifting the goalposts, but I don't think they will because I don't think that's commercially viable option for them - I think they would judge it would simply require too much work and be relatively ineffecient way of trying to enforce the goal of preventing it being used on non Apple hardware.
I rather suspect that if they are going to be prissy about it they will simply opt for the inclusion of something like DRM technology or propriatory copywritten information stored in the BIOS (which I equally expect to be worked around, by either illegally copying and flashing a ROM image onto other hardware, or a tool for creating a hacked up installer, as examples).
He was clearly referring to the real Star Wars (i.e. Eps 4-6).
Sorry, I wasn't aware episodes 1-3 were in some way bootleg, and only 4-6 are to be regarded as canon for some arbitrary reason.
But even with the horrible horrible 1-3, that's all you got? One dude to answer one of the criticisms?
I think pointing out one inaccuracy per false statement made by the poster is fair.
"in Star Wars the hero was an aryan brat" [statement - false ] "the only black guy was Judas" [statement - false ] "the baddies had a french accent" [statement- false ] "all wrapped up with a philosophy about as deep as the lyrics to a Britney Spears song." [subjective - but, not far off IMO ]
I'm not sure what more you reasonably expect!
What about the whole, Star Wars universe is simplistic Good vs. Nazi Evil and such?
Okay if you want another one, as indicated above the statement that Anakin was Aryan is also not true because that's not possible given we are told the events occurred a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away (at least not unless his mother had taken a trip in a TARDIS at some point).
I do actually realise the implication, but I am so not getting into an argument with other nerds on the internet about the comparative merits of SW and ST[1].
I'm just pointing out the glaring inaccuracies of a person who is so out of touch with reality that he thinks the bad guys in Star Wars were French (and subsequently pointing out that Samuel Jackson is black and that the whole thing was set 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away' and not 4000 years ago in Europe).
That I will do for free, but anything else costs extra
[1] ST is better. [2] [2] PS: Deckard was a Replicant, so there!
I think the idea of having Tripwire hooks so that it's automatically informed of changes real time when on Mac OS X is certainly interesting and I'd think eminently doable.
I think true real time updates may actually have been a feature of a commercial implimentation (for Solaris), but that would be going back 7-8 years ago now, so I'm not certain (it could have been just a daemon that periodically checked for changes, or I may have remembered wrongly).
PS: I hadn't heard the name 'fslogger' used for the real time file monitoring feature in the Dawrin kernel - though I've not actually had a name for it all (it seems weird that it wouldn't have one, given it impacts not just things like Spotlight, but Automator and even the Finder, which now updates Windows contents in real time) - but is it perhaps just the name for a utility that lets you view the change history?
Your right, their parents have have some responsibility for this too!
Clearly they failed educate them sufficiently, at least not to the point that they were able to realise that by mixing petrol and washing up liquid in a glass container (then setting it on fire) they had just made a very potent Molotov Cocktail.
I've done plenty of stupid things with fire and illegal imported explosives (even as a child) but the concept of using Molotov Cocktail's as lightsabers - I could never imagine doing that.
If you strongly disagree with this, as you seem to, please retort with substance.
This approach is unfortunately rather pointless, as I believe has been established.
AFAIC, anyone that still cares can read the post history and make their own mind up, I've got better things to do than pander to a loonie.
You've marked me as a Foe, but since you've been so much fun, I'm going to mark you as a Friend. To make sure I don't miss a minute of your fascinating opinion.
Go ahead and knock yourself out kid.
BTW, is your constant incorrect spelling of "Theo de Raadt" based on ignorance or do you have an agenda?
Yes, I have a secret agenda. It's a conspiracy. Oh no, I've been found out. Bugger.
Maybe I'll reply from time to time. And maybe you won't even notice.
What a spectacular load of utter bollocks that was, I am in awe of your command of irrelevant diversionary gibberish and your inability to master the pertinent.
The dial on my Muppet Alert gauge just wizzed passed "Fuckwit" so fast it disappeared off into an alternate reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Your father?
*ducks*
My uncle as it goes, and yes he had piercings too. He has, from what I recall, a huge tattoo of Sylvester the Cat and Tweetie Pie on his chest, with Tweetie Pie in a cage, where his belly button is the lock on the cage. I think he also has a gun toatin' Elmer Fudd somewhere, and a few other cartoon characters (pretty sure Tom and Jerry) I forget. Some of them his legs I think.
He also has the usual heart/anchor/mermaid stuff you'd expect on each arm, and the icon from each suite on a deck of cards (hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades), one on each knuckle, and who knows what else. Something large on his back (like a dragon or eagle or something, that was never quite finished and always in progress) is all I can recall.
He also has several kids he never sees, and he doesn't pay any maintenance to. The first of which managed to end up a single mother herself at 16, the rest seem sadly likely to follow a similar course.
My enduring memory of him is that he smelled really weird, had a large collection of the sort of plastic novelty toys you find in little plastic eggs and that his silver Ford Escort was held together almost exclusively by black duct tape. I seem to remember that no one in the car was ever allowed to talk when he was driving, because it confused him. Oh, and the horn on the Escort played the same refrain as the General Lee in The Dukes of Hazzard did when it went over a jump.
o/` De-De Dedle-De De-De-De-Dee-De o/`
He's a really classy guy.
We don't keep touch.
But it's okay if you're a woman and you just pierce your ears. Because that's totally different.
Well I don't think that's okay (hell, I'm sufficiently practical that I think high heeled shoes are very poor idea -a sensible approach to footwear is actually something I look for in women) not buying in to the pierced ears thing would definitely earn plus points in my book (ditto for thinking that diamonds on rings are ridiculously overpriced, not actually that pretty and are far better off on a drill bit).
However, it is undeniably different as far as social acceptability goes.
Also, if you're looking for a position with a lot of customer interaction, depending on the field, you might want to keep visibile body-mods to a minimum. It is a business reality that some customers will be idiots and unless your company is wildly successful, it will want to make money from idiots as well.
This is the key area of concern for me. Obviously it's not an issue for everyone because the liability level is related to your exposure to customers, but I've worked on projects which involved large clients (such as Sony, AOL-TW) and interfacing with them directly at a technical level, which involved being presentable not just to their analysts but to a range of staff (including more senior corporate management).
The projects were good, but yes some of the customers are very conservative and I would say would not react favourably to people with outlandish personal decoration. I think some of them would visibly squirm if you so much as turned up with brightly coloured dyed hair (and that some of them would take a dislike to you if you turned up in a poor quality novelty tie).
I don't support a football team either, but I realise that some people attach a genuine attachment to them that's a strong as, or in many cases, stronger than any level of attachment to a given religion (for example).
I wouldn't mark someone down just because it's something I wouldn't do, because I can appreciate the symbolism it has for some.
I said that my opinions and experiences differ from yours
/., it's not the case that people are indifferent to it. If they were, this topic would not be nearly so 'lively' and I don't think we'd be having this discussion in the first place.
You didn't do just that though, you matter of factly stated that I was incorrect in my estimation of the viewpoint of society. You said - and I quote - "Thirty years ago an earing on a man would have been viewed the way you seem to view it, however time has moved on.".
Apparently, even on the un-representatively liberal
You have a prejudice against people who wear body jewelry based upon supposed medical grounds. You make the mistake of assuming that because they make a decision that you wouldn't, they must be inferior in some way. Don't worry, every one does it to some extent or another ity's called being human.
That is factually incorrect. It is not a 'prejudice', because it's not preconceived or based on spurious or unfounded evidence, it's based merely on objective observation which I have very clearly detailed across numerous posts in this thread (which you can access from my user info page).
More to the point:
Are you actually seriously suggesting that the notorious medical evidence (repeated in studies in the US and UK of which I am directly aware, and in other countries too I'm absolutely sure) is - quote - 'supposed'?
For the record:
Yes, I do most definitely consider people who think that having unnecessary cosmetic surgery[1] (not least done by someone who is not a clinical professional) to be 'a good idea' inferior, with regard to their capacity for sound rational judgement. I maintain this view regardless of the procedure.
[1] e.g. Cosmetic surgery or body modification which is done for purposes other than to correct what can reasonably be justified as a defect that impacts negatively on quality of life.
I mean, Lizardman? What kind of example is that? Do you vote Republican? You argue like they do.
Liberal Democrat[1], if you must know.
[1] Which translates into American English as something approximating 'Filthy Socialists'.
I've gone into that here if you are interested.
In short:
o) Because 15-20% of piercings involve unforeseen complications (excessive bleeding, permanent deformation, infection and dental/gum/sense-of-taste damage with respect to tongue piercing), not least due to the lack of proper medical training by the people who carry out this sort of cosmetic surgery.
o) Because surgeons, doctors and dentists around the world have been saying for the last 20 years or so what a bad idea they think the trend is piercing is due the problems that arise as as a result - because no one ever expects it to go wrong for them (I'll leave Googling for the vast amounts of information on that to the reader).
o) Because it's not yet socially acceptable to a large number of rather conservative people (at least at the level I work at), which means that it negatively impacts on the team I am in by extension if one of those members has their credibility undermined.
As I've already said in this thread, no-one should need to explain why unnecessary cosmetic surgery is a daft idea. I regard it as one of those things your just intuitively supposed to know. Ditto for understanding what's regarded as being widely socially acceptable.
I have to say that the last part of your post - to me anyway - reads as saying "Don't be different, stay the same as everyone else".
/. is if anything markedly more liberal than society as a whole, and certainly more than business which is often seen as the domain of political and social conservatives).
I am merely attempting to observe the currently reality and frame actions within that context.
That society changes goes without saying, but I maintain that claiming it in fact doesn't matter as we are now living in some kind of 'golden age of tolerance' is indicative of poor judgement in my view, because it's not an accurate representation of day to day reality (though this obviously depends on specifically what sort of work you do - as I've already indicated).
Thirty years ago an earing on a man would have been viewed the way you seem to view it, however time has moved on.
I've been very up front and quite elaborate on the rational for my position. Supposing or implying that I 'seem to view it' from the POV of some ultra orthodox repressed conservative is unwarranted (and not even remotely accurate).
I think the supposition that society at large is not indifferent is re-enforced by the display of opinion here (and
I think a good 'litmus test' for the level of acceptability is observing the number of up and coming 'movers and shakers' in the business industry and in particular the number of major political candidates who feel comfortable with expressing themselves in this way (and they typically only represent what they believe society is willing to tolerate, thereby acting as a barometer for the level of social change).
I'm sure there are probably other mistakes too (including at least one superflous apostrophe).
*sigh*
Free mars bar for the first person to spot 10+.
Why? What is it about an earing that leads you to believe that their judgement might be suspect?
Multiple reasons.
It's can be damanging to health (especially with regard to more extreme peircings, such as tongue percings) and yet serves no purpose other than a dubious asthetic one, I think it's at best tenious to think it's doing something like 'challenging the norms society'.
Unlike shaving your head or dying your hair blue it's not without real and serious physical risk. A relatively high percentage of piercings, something in the order of 15-20%, have complications such as persistant bleeding, tearing of the skin and permenant physical damange. In the case of upper ear peircing your merely risking having a mauled ear (as well as of course increased risk infection by pericing in such an inappropriate place) but in the case of tounge piercings, your seriously putting your sense of taste at risk.
Having bits of metal put in your body without due cause is simply not a smart idea for well documented and in many instances obvious reasons (risk vrs. reward). This is especially true when it's done by people who are not clinicaly trained and do not offer real post operative care. Medical professionals (doctors, dentists and surgeons) have been trying to warn people of the dangers for years, the evidence suggests with good cause. Unnecessary surgery (however minor) is simply a Bad Thing (TM).
In addition, the inability to even envisage any possible negative impact in relation their decison is clear indicator there is something wrong with that persons judgement, because the idea is irrefutably contentious. As such, it will inevitable undermine the credibility of that person in the eyes of others (and by extention, has the potential and strongly likelyhood of doing comparible damage to someone you represent, such as a team or organisation).
In short, if someone doesn't think it's going be a problem they are either very short sighted or one of the many 'high functioning autists' (capeable, but unable to relate to others at all well) that plague the industry, in which case I would rather not work with them. If someone can envisage that it might cause a problem but does it anyway, then that's manifestly poor judgement on their part and so the same applies.
The appropriate approach to something like this (for someone who works in software) should of course to be to justify the change from the default in the first place, rather than instead challenging others to come up with reasons as to why the change isn't a good idea. Failure to take this sort of apporach would also cause me to be suspect about their judgement and the methodoloy they use to tackle problems.
Im sorry at what point did an earing become detrimental to the way a person works?
To jump here, IMO (as I've posted futher down), I think it's indicative of that persons level of judgement. I work in a sector which relies more than anything on the capacity for sound rational judgement to build and manage software and services. I do not think that taking a deliberate decision to place bits of metal thourgh skin attached to your head is a 'positive indicator' of good judgement by that individual.
For traditional social reasons, I consider this a less detrimental indicator for women than men, but personally I don't think it's great idea for women either (and when done to anyone under the age of 16 should be criminal offense, IMO).
I'm quite liberal [1] on most issues, including what I regard as trival things such as hair style, color and dress code, and I wouldn't want to work at a company that got uptight about engineers/developers/sysadmins wearing trainers or comfortable casual footware to the office, or that similarly imposed a needlessly strict dress code.
However, on the subject of tatoo's and piercings I find I'm quite conservative. If I'm being honest I'd find it hard not to feel suspicous of the judgement of anyone in the field who thought it would a good idea to place bits of metal through their face (other than perhaps for non medial purposes), especially if they are over the age of about 25.
I honestly would not feel comfortable with someone who thought it was a smart decision to do this to himself helping design software or network infrastucture and I wouldn't want him in the team I was in. Based on the avalible evidence, I would not trust his capacity for rational judgement (an absolute core requirement for sort of work I do).
With regard to tattoo's I'm of a similar opinion. Having the name of your wife/kids/football team (or something of similar significance) tattooed on your arm, I'd consider quite reasonable and not count that as a sign of poor judgement. The same would be true for things are 'tastefully' decorative (while realisting that term is subjective, I would include things such as celtic crosses, marui tattoo's [2]).
However, this would not be the case for anyone who I observed who had something overtly tasteless like 'Love/Hate' tatoos across their knuckles, or large tatoos of cartoon characters, like Daffy Duck or Tom & Jerry (also equally negative indicators when worn on ties IMO - with some exceptions).[3]
I'd try not to let someone having facial percings or tasteless tattoo's on it's own as something that stand in the way of someone being hired in a job interview, but I conceed that it could count against them in a tie breaker situation. If there was a position for someone in an overly creative area (such as graphic design, or perhaps marketing) I don't think I would consider percings or tattoo's necessarily negative indicators at all.
[1] NB: With a small 'l'.
[2] Not an exhaustive list
[3] I have a deadbeat realtive who incidentally has all of these, and then some.
Hey buddy, why don't you write a graphical installer for them which works reliably on eleven architectures.
That's a silly response, you don't need to get it working on 11 architectures, getting it working on the core platforms would be more than sufficient for the VAST majority of users (95%+ I'd imagine), with text mode as fall back (which users of esoteric hardware will be comfortable with in any case).
Debian is already moving away from attempting to provide the same level of support for all hardware, in favour of focusing on the most common platforms, so it's not as if that's just crazy talk.
That said, if a system is able to run X11, then the CPU architecture makes no difference, there should of course be several layers of abstraction by the time you reach the GUI for the installer. Problems with X11 compatibility are more likely to be down to problems with a specific graphical chipset, which even more likely to be an issue on x86, rather than say a platform such as SPARC, where the installed hardware range is much more limited and so supporting hardware from a given vendor (e.g. Sun) is actually easier.
It's taken a ridiculously long time for Debian to get around to building and releasing a graphical installer (TBA 'RSN'). It's not like it wouldn't be hard to co-opt and existing GPL'd graphical installer process (or at least learn from an alternative implementation). There are plenty of people willing to undertake this work too, if it were to be accepted. The primary reason for delay seems to be a failure to acknowledge the importance of having a high quality installer to an appropriate degree (and to act accordingly).
Debian is a marvellous modern operating system once installed, but given the third rate 'decade-out-of-date' installer, it's no wonder it's hard to convince people of this, which is great shame IMO. If I saw Debian for the first time now, I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole because I'd draw conclusions about the competence of it's maintainers from my first impression and consider opting for something else very quickly (which would be a mistake, but a perfectly logical conclusion to reach).
In recent years I've found the continuing lack of a better installer odd though (even for a text based installer, it's been a poorly implemented one), in the same way I find it odd that Red Hat seems to stubbornly refuse to implement apt-get for RPM out of the box as part of the standard feature set (which if it did, would drastically increase so many users perceptions of it).
Going slightly off topic, I actually see this behaviour in a number of open source projects.
By way of an example (because I use it quite a bit) HORDE springs to mind. There are many obvious and trivial problems with it which the developers and maintainers seem inexplicably completely blind to. This can on occasionally been observed when users repeatedly raise the sorts of issues (e.g. on the mailing lists) only be treated abruptly and even rudely by the maintainers who respond to the users as if they are insolent or in some way mentally insufficient for even suggesting such a thing.
There are many examples of this, but one would be it's (HORDE - IMP's) poor handling of some messages generated by some versions of Microsoft Outlook Express, which users can't "Reply" to because the address handling is fubard. It would be utterly trivial to fix this (shorter for me to fix than it's taken me to write this post for sure - I know because I've fixed it and a hundred other bugs in the version we make available to customers), but the team refuse to do anything about it, and are not willing to accept patches because they are being stupidly stubborn.
Does anyone have any info, or know of any books which covers this sort of perceived behaviour, and how to avoid in a team (and how to combat it when it arises)? Obviously sometimes people just disagree on what the current priority or direction should be for a project - and that's one thing - but sometimes the inability to acknowledge the 'Bleeding Irrefutably Obvious' seems to be entrenched (I know I see it in teams I work with).
I thought the quality and performance of the Ryzom engine was quite poor for a commercial title (and this is on my P4 3.2 Ghz w/2 GB DDR 400, Radeon 9800 256 MB and 10K RPM SATA HD). This, and the *HORRIBLE* UI configuration put me right off Ryzom quickly and permanently.
/specific/ player placeable structures, not Rebel or Imperial placed player bases or for NPC towns, but entire large player towns or facilities would simply pop up out of nowhere at 100 yards (to the extent that if I was going more than 200 yards out of town I would set a way point so I could find the town again, even I was in the middle of open dessert).
When companies like NC Soft (Lineage 2), Blizzard (WoW) use engines from companies like Unreal the difference in performance and quality is staggering, Epic offer a staggeringly adaptable platform for both FPS titles and MMOG's, which can handle both large outdoor arenas and tighter more complex maps.
(Though equally, I found the EQ2 engine to be pretty sophisticated (though clearly suited to 'Power Users' and long term use, given the vast number of options configurable), and the engine used for City Of Heroes to be excellently suited to purpose.)
Ryzom is not alone in my dislike for it's engine though, I also disliked the poor engine in SWG, which had the *worst* LOD handling for terrain I have ever seen (simply fixing the LOD at a lower level would have been a far superior solution, both visually and from a playability standpoint). It also featured *horrible* pop up for
I would urge any developer to use an off the shelf commercial or open source engine, unless they had a very compelling reason not to (e.g. for a more truly unique title such as PlanetSide, which even then could arguably be equally implemented with a customised Unreal Warfare engine I should think).
The scary numbers are helpful to diagnose the cause of the error.
A typical example of visuals going before usability.
Actually they are almost never helpful in that scenario, and no they are not placing visuals before usability, quite the contrary.
The log viewing ability in the Console utility is simple but far more practicle for debugging the cause of a crash IME.
Something a lot of people overlook, or simply don't know about, is that Open Step (which is what Mac OS X was before NeXT and Apple merged and it got some serious plastic surgery) and Rhapsody (which I appreciate only some of us were able to use, but it was pretty much just a partly borked version of Open Step with Mac OS 8+ window manager and widgets) worked fine on generic x86 hardware.
Supporting the majority of systems is not all that diffcult, thanks to common interfaces on things like IDE controllers, sound cards and graphics cards (even good GL support is possible as ATI and Nvidia chips dominate the market).
Open Step/Rhapsody installed fine on all sorts of weird frankenboxes (at least, on my weird frankenboxes - YMMV), so the odds of generic x86 compatiblity for a lot of users with no (or minimal) driver development are good in my estimation. This is also true for Windows, which (to a varying degree) can work in a 'compatible' way with common hardware, even if it doesn't have a 'proper' vendor supplied driver for a given device.
It's true that Apple could make it especially difficult with bizzare hacks everywhere and continually shifting the goalposts, but I don't think they will because I don't think that's commercially viable option for them - I think they would judge it would simply require too much work and be relatively ineffecient way of trying to enforce the goal of preventing it being used on non Apple hardware.
I rather suspect that if they are going to be prissy about it they will simply opt for the inclusion of something like DRM technology or propriatory copywritten information stored in the BIOS (which I equally expect to be worked around, by either illegally copying and flashing a ROM image onto other hardware, or a tool for creating a hacked up installer, as examples).
He was clearly referring to the real Star Wars (i.e. Eps 4-6).
Sorry, I wasn't aware episodes 1-3 were in some way bootleg, and only 4-6 are to be regarded as canon for some arbitrary reason.
But even with the horrible horrible 1-3, that's all you got? One dude to answer one of the criticisms?
I think pointing out one inaccuracy per false statement made by the poster is fair.
"in Star Wars the hero was an aryan brat" [statement - false ]
"the only black guy was Judas" [statement - false ]
"the baddies had a french accent" [statement- false ]
"all wrapped up with a philosophy about as deep as the lyrics to a Britney Spears song." [subjective - but, not far off IMO ]
I'm not sure what more you reasonably expect!
What about the whole, Star Wars universe is simplistic Good vs. Nazi Evil and such?
Okay if you want another one, as indicated above the statement that Anakin was Aryan is also not true because that's not possible given we are told the events occurred a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away (at least not unless his mother had taken a trip in a TARDIS at some point).
I do actually realise the implication, but I am so not getting into an argument with other nerds on the internet about the comparative merits of SW and ST[1].
I'm just pointing out the glaring inaccuracies of a person who is so out of touch with reality that he thinks the bad guys in Star Wars were French (and subsequently pointing out that Samuel Jackson is black and that the whole thing was set 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away' and not 4000 years ago in Europe).
That I will do for free, but anything else costs extra
[1] ST is better. [2]
[2] PS: Deckard was a Replicant, so there!
Care to address any of the others?
Okay, Samuel Jackson is (a) black, (b) a Jedi Knight and (c) not a 'judas'.
"World's biggest hacker"...
He must be what, like 400 pounds?
you're very ignorant.
the baddies had a french accent
Actually, they had predominantly English accents ITYF, on account of them being from England.
I think must have dated the Moderator (at least I made an impression \o/).
Watchmen, we love you all!
Hehe, easily done. :)
I think the idea of having Tripwire hooks so that it's automatically informed of changes real time when on Mac OS X is certainly interesting and I'd think eminently doable.
I think true real time updates may actually have been a feature of a commercial implimentation (for Solaris), but that would be going back 7-8 years ago now, so I'm not certain (it could have been just a daemon that periodically checked for changes, or I may have remembered wrongly).
PS: I hadn't heard the name 'fslogger' used for the real time file monitoring feature in the Dawrin kernel - though I've not actually had a name for it all (it seems weird that it wouldn't have one, given it impacts not just things like Spotlight, but Automator and even the Finder, which now updates Windows contents in real time) - but is it perhaps just the name for a utility that lets you view the change history?
Tell that to their families.
Your right, their parents have have some responsibility for this too!
Clearly they failed educate them sufficiently, at least not to the point that they were able to realise that by mixing petrol and washing up liquid in a glass container (then setting it on fire) they had just made a very potent Molotov Cocktail.
I've done plenty of stupid things with fire and illegal imported explosives (even as a child) but the concept of using Molotov Cocktail's as lightsabers - I could never imagine doing that.
If you strongly disagree with this, as you seem to, please retort with substance.
/. stalker. \o/
This approach is unfortunately rather pointless, as I believe has been established.
AFAIC, anyone that still cares can read the post history and make their own mind up, I've got better things to do than pander to a loonie.
You've marked me as a Foe, but since you've been so much fun, I'm going to mark you as a Friend. To make sure I don't miss a minute of your fascinating opinion.
Go ahead and knock yourself out kid.
BTW, is your constant incorrect spelling of "Theo de Raadt" based on ignorance or do you have an agenda?
Yes, I have a secret agenda. It's a conspiracy. Oh no, I've been found out. Bugger.
Maybe I'll reply from time to time. And maybe you won't even notice.
Cool, I have my own weirdo
What a spectacular load of utter bollocks that was, I am in awe of your command of irrelevant diversionary gibberish and your inability to master the pertinent.
The dial on my Muppet Alert gauge just wizzed passed "Fuckwit" so fast it disappeared off into an alternate reality.
Control-C
%