>But when a prof shows up to teach in sandals and and shorts, its NOT a 'fuck you'.
but it is, its inferring he has the social status to flaunt rules. Students, especially in our pop culture driven society of social vultures see this, and flock to it.
True Alpha males(not internet alpha males) distinguish themselves but setting the rules, not following them.
This whole concept of conformity as "respect" has to do with hiearchy. This concept you miss.
Also, in no culture that has hiearchy, has there ever been universal rules that apply to both the top and bottom equally. Rules are only enforcable against the bottom, from the top, and sometimes, from a peer, to another peer, either as means of attempting to establish domenience.
your concept of dressing formally, is that you are trying to set the tone, be the alpha, and expect others to follow your lead. The demand people respect *your* invidual tastes is nothing more than an imposition of hierarchy.
Do you really let someone with less than 3 months experiance with big boy OSs fucking post. This is something someone with no real computer experiance would think.
>Less useful but still useful are command shells. These provide file management mostly. I believe some of them may allow for sending and retrieving email messages.
Thats not true, not on any modern operating system. It was only true on windows, before the introduction of PowerShell.
>So Zuckerberg showing up at something in a jeans and hoodie just reinforces my negative impression of him
and this why its a status symbol. Zuckerberg is flaunting the fact he is so powerful, he doesn't have to care what you think about him. not only does he have "fuck you money", he has "fuck you" social status.
He's making it clear he's the alpha, and he sets the rules. Zuckerberg doesn't need your favors, you would more likely need his.
>but will dress up for certain meetings not because I need to but out of respect for the people I'm meeting with and the event.
not "internet beta male"(which are really gammas and deltas), but actual beta male. your conforming to a position to seek favors. If your the one receiving and not giving the favors.
you could obviously say the same about me. I wear jeans, t-shirt, and sometimes the ubiquitous hoody to my IT job. The standard was set by someone else.
All social constructs are made up, and relevant, but I think you agree.
But I agree, the article is pseudo-scientific in nature, but might give some insights.
in the USA corporations, especially large ones feel they are entitled to dictate policy. They value this just as much as money, and they'll spend millions to punish the serfs for insolence.
UNIX has had GUIs in one form or another since X graphics server reared its ugly head in 1986, not long after microsoft and apple did the same.
as for the CLI, like the keyboard its not going anywhere. Its been decades since its seen daily use by casual users, however its still needed for many things. For one, its quicker and EASIER for experts and power users. there is no need to navigate a complex maze of windows and submenus, you can type any command from anywhere. There is also no need to navigate directories(you can though), you can refrence a file anywhere, from anywhere. Then there is scripting and automation. You can automate system tasks by making a script with the same commands you use on the command line. GUIs have macros which are not nearly as powerful, far more complicated, and will never ever work nearly as well.
Mabey there is a reason microsoft introduced powershell to compete with traditional UNIX shells for scripting on servers. BASH is still well maintained.
There is no OS popular today that precludes the use of a command line for troubleshooting.
As far as next generation with GUIs, again another misnomer. My generation grew up with GUIs. I am over 30 years old. in the 1990s we also had mp3s, web browsers, internet porn, instant messaging, all in a GUI.
Exept today there is far more motivation to learn computers (they are EVERYWHERE, and run EVERYTHING), computers are cheaper, documentation is far more abundant, they work better, and you can get things like Rasbery PIs for $35. We didn't have that in my generation.
Like our generation, the ones that want to learn, for whatever reason, will. The ones that are content with being users, will.
I could imagine some applications where it wouldn't be desirable to upgrade the OS at all, and the install would need to stay in place 10-20 years, such as at railroads, banks, factories, etc...
to be honest for me its the reverse. I see people with "proffesional" image as liars and tricksters, using image to trick people, and getting away with things normal people don't.
When someone shows up to work over-dressed, I immediately think he's compensating for lack of skill.
When I see you act "corporate polite", or act corporate proffesional, I immediately assume your trying to swindle me out of *something*.
I obviously also work in IT, and this attitude is pretty common.
I think the obvious message is, if people see someoe in authority of flouts social norms, it must be, because they are so talented, social norms don't apply.
Its a reflection from pop culture, where celebrities flaunt their deviance as signs of social prowess, a form of conspicious consumption, showing the world they are so high on the social latter, rules don't apply to them.
this is the fallacy of the long term release. While they are many benefits of an LTR model, security is ironicly not one.
While Microsoft has had a very long time to find and fix bugs, security or otherwise, the rest of the world has, as well.
There are more people looking for security holes than fixing them. People writing exploits also have had equal amount of time to refine their exploits against known hole.
you'd be a fool to think windows, or even linux, or any other OS is capable of patching ALL the holes. In addition, as time wears on, most of the dev work, and most of the attention is going to be placed on newer versions, leaving either second tier devs, or majorily distracted first tier devs to do the back patching, and port work to old versions.
The major appeal of the LTR model is compatibility, and known performance profile. You know apps written for Win XP will run on Win XP. You know how much ram and cpu is going to take to do a given task, and exact what hardware it needs to run on.
For a large businesses, government and any IT dept that has 10-100 computers per person assigned to manage them, this is a really big deal.
when your a spy agency %7 is a huge chunk of the population. That means that everyone in society at least knows passingly one stasi agent, by statistics.
assume the average person knows around 10-15 people well and around another 20-30 passingly. Statistics are that one of those agents is stasi, and reporting back every bit of gossip that details every last person in the state.
Now, if they wanted to target an individual, they could easily target around 2-3% of the population in constant terror, as the opposition lacks tha ability to organize at this point.
On the other hand its a means to get around the oppressive states of today that track currency, and with it, all transactions, and things arbitrarily prohibtied.
The drug market is not the problem, prohabition is.
No, bit coin is not perfect, and it also has some fundimental flaws like a limit on how many bitcoins can be mined, the ability to lose them, and it doesn't address larger social issues.
but it also has its advantages, like not having a major player than can shut you down for political purposes, like what happened with wikileaks.
now that you understand this, how much of a leap would it be to convince you that the same fear mongering about terrorism also applies to "mental illness", "gun ownership", and "drugs"
Long before we had the war on terror, we had the war on drugs, and if you go by statistics, its been far more of a threat to our freedoms, dignity, etc... than the war on terrorism, and going on a lot longer.
you can never have complete security. This is a myth. The myth depends upon two false assumptions:
1. the government if capable is always going to do their job perfectly, unbiased, and truthfully. You also expect the government to faithfully pursue threats against the general populace honestly.
2. you expect the government to not to be the threat, in any capacity.
both of these, in the United States, and elsewhere have been broken enough times. The government cannot provide complete security at all, no matter how many freedoms you give up, in fact there is a balance, where once they have enough power, enough secrecy, there is so little oversight the people have on the government, the government has less and less incentive to actually do the stated task of protecting the populace against threats, because there is less liability if they fail.
We've reached the turning point. The amount of secrecy makes us LESS safe.
if anyone remembers news coverage from that day, the news media was blaring that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attack.
No one suspected McVeigh, and he would have gotten away with it, except he purposefully got caught speeding down the highway without license plates so he could ramble his anti-government manefesto in front of the camera and explain his reasonings for his anti-government crusade for the public.
they never planned on supporting it for 12 years, they just wound up supporting it, because well, just because no one wants to give it up. Its far worse than the windows 98 hanger on ers.
I could imagine a large amount of infrastructure, and the need for custom applications to be re-written.
I hope the massive development they did is open sourced, and makes it easier for other cities and governments to switch, and the code and effort can be reused to make it easier for other cities
The only diffrence between now, and the 1970s, is that we don't even have a single shred of pretense of freedom left. No one is even going to bother with a new church commission.
Or we might have to wait for a powerful CIA/FBI figure like hover to expire, before they get lax enough to stop threatening senators to keep it quiet, because that is how Hoover stayed in power so long.
> This applies to, for example, media that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or racist material, also to media content that glorifies National Socialism, drugs, alcohol abuse, self-inflicted injury or suicide, to media content propagating vigilante justice
Just like in great britian, where the porn filter, trying keep porn from kids, manditory, now covers exoteric and political material, this is covering a wide range of topics, not just national socilaism.
>But if anythingâ€(TM)s worth bending a few ideals for, stopping Nazis is probably it.
they are going to violate your freedoms, by bringing up the nazi boogeymeny into giving them up. Swap nazism with terrorism, or socialism, ot "mentally unstable", or whatever fear word is now cropping up.
I see this used to target vast swathes of socially and politically aware musicians, especially those anti-capitalist and anti-government.
no not really, and especially not in context. There was a left branch of nazism called strasserism, but that was put down durring the night of long knives.
National Socialism belongs to the "third position", and was prevelant in an area where marxists, and anarchists where on the streets. Third position is anti-capitalist and anti-socialist.
This is about false diagnosis used as a shadow justice system for malcontents, and bringing back torture and abuse.
we're not talking about people who actually need help. we are talking about people who are about to be rammed through the system because the system wants them gone, without too much of a fuss if they were ordinary criminals
Slashdot Mirror
>But when a prof shows up to teach in sandals and and shorts, its NOT a 'fuck you'.
but it is, its inferring he has the social status to flaunt rules. Students, especially in our pop culture driven society of social vultures see this, and flock to it.
True Alpha males(not internet alpha males) distinguish themselves but setting the rules, not following them.
This whole concept of conformity as "respect" has to do with hiearchy. This concept you miss.
Also, in no culture that has hiearchy, has there ever been universal rules that apply to both the top and bottom equally. Rules are only enforcable against the bottom, from the top, and sometimes, from a peer, to another peer, either as means of attempting to establish domenience.
your concept of dressing formally, is that you are trying to set the tone, be the alpha, and expect others to follow your lead. The demand people respect *your* invidual tastes is nothing more than an imposition of hierarchy.
Do you really let someone with less than 3 months experiance with big boy OSs fucking post. This is something someone with no real computer experiance would think.
>Less useful but still useful are command shells. These provide file management mostly. I believe some of them may allow for sending and retrieving email messages.
Thats not true, not on any modern operating system. It was only true on windows, before the introduction of PowerShell.
I keep telling people millenials might be the generation to save us all.
looks like it. This generation has more taste than mine
>So Zuckerberg showing up at something in a jeans and hoodie just reinforces my negative impression of him
and this why its a status symbol. Zuckerberg is flaunting the fact he is so powerful, he doesn't have to care what you think about him. not only does he have "fuck you money", he has "fuck you" social status.
He's making it clear he's the alpha, and he sets the rules. Zuckerberg doesn't need your favors, you would more likely need his.
>but will dress up for certain meetings not because I need to but out of respect for the people I'm meeting with and the event.
not "internet beta male"(which are really gammas and deltas), but actual beta male. your conforming to a position to seek favors. If your the one receiving and not giving the favors.
you could obviously say the same about me. I wear jeans, t-shirt, and sometimes the ubiquitous hoody to my IT job. The standard was set by someone else.
All social constructs are made up, and relevant, but I think you agree.
But I agree, the article is pseudo-scientific in nature, but might give some insights.
in the USA corporations, especially large ones feel they are entitled to dictate policy. They value this just as much as money, and they'll spend millions to punish the serfs for insolence.
UNIX has had GUIs in one form or another since X graphics server reared its ugly head in 1986, not long after microsoft and apple did the same.
as for the CLI, like the keyboard its not going anywhere. Its been decades since its seen daily use by casual users, however its still needed for many things. For one, its quicker and EASIER for experts and power users. there is no need to navigate a complex maze of windows and submenus, you can type any command from anywhere. There is also no need to navigate directories(you can though), you can refrence a file anywhere, from anywhere. Then there is scripting and automation. You can automate system tasks by making a script with the same commands you use on the command line. GUIs have macros which are not nearly as powerful, far more complicated, and will never ever work nearly as well.
Mabey there is a reason microsoft introduced powershell to compete with traditional UNIX shells for scripting on servers. BASH is still well maintained.
There is no OS popular today that precludes the use of a command line for troubleshooting.
As far as next generation with GUIs, again another misnomer. My generation grew up with GUIs. I am over 30 years old. in the 1990s we also had mp3s, web browsers, internet porn, instant messaging, all in a GUI.
Exept today there is far more motivation to learn computers (they are EVERYWHERE, and run EVERYTHING), computers are cheaper, documentation is far more abundant, they work better, and you can get things like Rasbery PIs for $35. We didn't have that in my generation.
Like our generation, the ones that want to learn, for whatever reason, will. The ones that are content with being users, will.
I could imagine some applications where it wouldn't be desirable to upgrade the OS at all, and the install would need to stay in place 10-20 years, such as at railroads, banks, factories, etc...
to be honest for me its the reverse. I see people with "proffesional" image as liars and tricksters, using image to trick people, and getting away with things normal people don't.
When someone shows up to work over-dressed, I immediately think he's compensating for lack of skill.
When I see you act "corporate polite", or act corporate proffesional, I immediately assume your trying to swindle me out of *something*.
I obviously also work in IT, and this attitude is pretty common.
I think the obvious message is, if people see someoe in authority of flouts social norms, it must be, because they are so talented, social norms don't apply.
Its a reflection from pop culture, where celebrities flaunt their deviance as signs of social prowess, a form of conspicious consumption, showing the world they are so high on the social latter, rules don't apply to them.
this is the fallacy of the long term release. While they are many benefits of an LTR model, security is ironicly not one.
While Microsoft has had a very long time to find and fix bugs, security or otherwise, the rest of the world has, as well.
There are more people looking for security holes than fixing them. People writing exploits also have had equal amount of time to refine their exploits against known hole.
you'd be a fool to think windows, or even linux, or any other OS is capable of patching ALL the holes. In addition, as time wears on, most of the dev work, and most of the attention is going to be placed on newer versions, leaving either second tier devs, or majorily distracted first tier devs to do the back patching, and port work to old versions.
The major appeal of the LTR model is compatibility, and known performance profile. You know apps written for Win XP will run on Win XP. You know how much ram and cpu is going to take to do a given task, and exact what hardware it needs to run on.
For a large businesses, government and any IT dept that has 10-100 computers per person assigned to manage them, this is a really big deal.
when your a spy agency %7 is a huge chunk of the population. That means that everyone in society at least knows passingly one stasi agent, by statistics.
assume the average person knows around 10-15 people well and around another 20-30 passingly. Statistics are that one of those agents is stasi, and reporting back every bit of gossip that details every last person in the state.
Now, if they wanted to target an individual, they could easily target around 2-3% of the population in constant terror, as the opposition lacks tha ability to organize at this point.
On the other hand its a means to get around the oppressive states of today that track currency, and with it, all transactions, and things arbitrarily prohibtied.
The drug market is not the problem, prohabition is.
No, bit coin is not perfect, and it also has some fundimental flaws like a limit on how many bitcoins can be mined, the ability to lose them, and it doesn't address larger social issues.
but it also has its advantages, like not having a major player than can shut you down for political purposes, like what happened with wikileaks.
and half the claims are contradicted by the information on the documents snowden stole.
>Snowden never approached any of multiple Inspectors General, supervisors, or Congressional oversight committee members about his concerns.
really, what do you think would have happened to him if he did?
at minimum he would be fired, and harrassed for the rest of his life.
now that you understand this, how much of a leap would it be to convince you that the same fear mongering about terrorism also applies to "mental illness", "gun ownership", and "drugs"
Long before we had the war on terror, we had the war on drugs, and if you go by statistics, its been far more of a threat to our freedoms, dignity, etc... than the war on terrorism, and going on a lot longer.
who modded this up.
you can never have complete security. This is a myth. The myth depends upon two false assumptions:
1. the government if capable is always going to do their job perfectly, unbiased, and truthfully. You also expect the government to faithfully pursue threats against the general populace honestly.
2. you expect the government to not to be the threat, in any capacity.
both of these, in the United States, and elsewhere have been broken enough times. The government cannot provide complete security at all, no matter how many freedoms you give up, in fact there is a balance, where once they have enough power, enough secrecy, there is so little oversight the people have on the government, the government has less and less incentive to actually do the stated task of protecting the populace against threats, because there is less liability if they fail.
We've reached the turning point. The amount of secrecy makes us LESS safe.
if anyone remembers news coverage from that day, the news media was blaring that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attack.
No one suspected McVeigh, and he would have gotten away with it, except he purposefully got caught speeding down the highway without license plates so he could ramble his anti-government manefesto in front of the camera and explain his reasonings for his anti-government crusade for the public.
or mabey, if you find someone isn't a terrorist, you apologize and help clear is name.
not put him on a list and come back for him when your bored and need someone to fuck with
they never planned on supporting it for 12 years, they just wound up supporting it, because well, just because no one wants to give it up. Its far worse than the windows 98 hanger on ers.
I could imagine a large amount of infrastructure, and the need for custom applications to be re-written.
I hope the massive development they did is open sourced, and makes it easier for other cities and governments to switch, and the code and effort can be reused to make it easier for other cities
should but won't. mabey in another decade.
The only diffrence between now, and the 1970s, is that we don't even have a single shred of pretense of freedom left. No one is even going to bother with a new church commission.
Or we might have to wait for a powerful CIA/FBI figure like hover to expire, before they get lax enough to stop threatening senators to keep it quiet, because that is how Hoover stayed in power so long.
> This applies to, for example, media that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or racist material, also to media content that glorifies National Socialism, drugs, alcohol abuse, self-inflicted injury or suicide, to media content propagating vigilante justice
Just like in great britian, where the porn filter, trying keep porn from kids, manditory, now covers exoteric and political material, this is covering a wide range of topics, not just national socilaism.
>But if anythingâ€(TM)s worth bending a few ideals for, stopping Nazis is probably it.
they are going to violate your freedoms, by bringing up the nazi boogeymeny into giving them up. Swap nazism with terrorism, or socialism, ot "mentally unstable", or whatever fear word is now cropping up.
I see this used to target vast swathes of socially and politically aware musicians, especially those anti-capitalist and anti-government.
no not really, and especially not in context. There was a left branch of nazism called strasserism, but that was put down durring the night of long knives.
National Socialism belongs to the "third position", and was prevelant in an area where marxists, and anarchists where on the streets. Third position is anti-capitalist and anti-socialist.
if you put your hands on a firing ignition wire, the jolt is enough to make your head spin like you've smacked hard.
The amount of energy travelling on a spark plug wire is more than a microwave oven.
The irony of this story, is if it was some kid in his garage trying this out he'd he labled a terrorist.
If an established companies does it with the intentions of selling it to the authorities, who will, almost definately misuse it, its innovation
>Mental health treatment is, I think, much where medicine was shortly *before* the discovery of the germ theory of disease
fixed that for you
this isn't about mental health.
This is about false diagnosis used as a shadow justice system for malcontents, and bringing back torture and abuse.
we're not talking about people who actually need help. we are talking about people who are about to be rammed through the system because the system wants them gone, without too much of a fuss if they were ordinary criminals