One of the many things I loved about Serenity was how completely un-PC it was. The heroes are ex-Confederates (as in the real West); the Union is oppressive (as in the real late 19th century); the Indians are savages (as in the real 19th century). It's completely not the party line on the War Between the States and the Wild West.
The advantage of investing is that it provides a long-term source of funding. A few large gifts could endow developer seats for eternity, which is surely a Good Thing...
It's rather a religious POV to believe that being turned on is good and killing is bad. On can believe that: a) sex and violence are good; b) sex is good but violence is bad; c) sex is bad but violence is good; or d) both sex and violence are bad. It's more religious than anything else, simply because one's preferences are determined by one's philosophy.
Yes, certainly anyone can do a better job than the man who brought stable governments to Afghanistan and Iraq, and who is desperately trying to make Social Security...secure.
I propose new terms: mebiwarm and kibicool which will indicate the traditional, non-scientific colour terms; warm and cool will henceforth be reserved to scientific use.
Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek, and yes it refers to the idiotic kibi-, mebi- and gibi- prefixes proposed to replace kilo-, mega- and giga- in computing use.
And as for the guy who replace KB with KiB and so on in the GNU tools: damn you to hell.
The reason Nielsen writes this sort of thing is because people are making the mistakes of using PDFs for online content--to use your analogy, there are a lot of folks making tea in their washing machines.
Take away the private interests, and people will naturally organize themselves to one format or another. And, in most cases, consumers will be better off for it. The only reason they may be worse off is if people rally around an inferior standard, but that's probably more likely to happen with private interests.
Interestingly, left-hand-drive is one of those inferior standards, driven by private interests. But then, French units are another, driven by public standards. Which just goes to show...
RPM was poorly designed from the start, and was probably designed from the start as a tool for vendor lock-in. Apt-get, AFAICT, is well designed.
RPM is not equivalent to apt-get; RPM is not equivalent to apt-get. RPM is equivalent to.deb; yum and apt-get are equivalent to apt-get (yes, it's been ported to handle RPMs). Don't be silly.
Back in the '80s some states didn't even have photos on their drivers' licenses. That's because there was this crazy idea that the document is supposed to license a driver, not serve as identification...
God-damned authoritarians removing every last vestige of liberty in this once-free land. Both parties are to blame; very few people actually care for freedom. Bastards.
Actually, the use of knowing log tables (or using a slide rule) is that one gets a feel for how numbers work. Heck, I'd go so far as to argue that getting rid of geometrical constructions (use straightedge and compass) was a bad idea, because many things are more geometrically obvious than algebraically so.
Basically, education has been getting worse for a century or more.
How do you get that? To think rationally is to reason; to reason is to form logical arguments from assumptions. I have my assumptions (as do you, as does any system of belief, including mathematics), and I can argue from them. I don't happen to think that reason is everything, of course.
Christianity is the only true, right and just religion in the world.
Well, yeah. Everyone believes that what he believes is true--else he wouldn't believe it! Although I wouldn't say that Orthodox Christianity is the only just religion--justice is orthogonal to correctness.
All other religions are incorrect and have false prophets.
Again, yeah. Everyone believes that those who believe differently from him are incorrect--else he would believe what they believe! Although I wouldn't introduce phrases like 'false prophets,' for the denotation is negative and unconducive to conversation.
The only way to know god is through Jesus Christ.
It's impossible to know God, period (well, I believe that--no doubt other religions disagree, and obviously some folks disagree that He exists).
People can believe whatever they want, but if it is not a belief [sic--missing 'of' or 'in'?] god, as defined in the bible, their beliefs are wrong.
That just repeats the above bit about other religions being incorrect (to some degree or other, and in some areas more than others).
So, I do believe that science holds the possibility for ultimate truth, but I could be wrong.
Actually, Goedel proved that mathematics cannot prove itself, and since science is based on mathematics, this means that science cannot be proven. This implies that science cannot prove 'ultimate truth.'
And anyone who does not believe what you believe is, as you put it, "any individual is free to ruin his life by living an immoral life. But there's no use pretending that's good." throwing their life away. That's called condescending.
Well, yeah, that's what freedom is: the freedom to be wrong; the freedom to err; the freedom to do what someone else thinks foolish. And you're condescending when you say that I'm delusional. Of course, the whole reason I brought up freedom was to refute your allegation that I want to control people (must have been successful, since you've abandoned it).
I support and encourage your right to believe in your religion, and I think that your religion has just as much possibility of being 'right' as my religion.
[snip]
Now, if you are capable of conversing, you should be able to write that exact same sentence to me or anyone else.
I am capable of conversing about my beliefs vis-a-vis yours or anyone else's.
I support and encourage your right to your beliefs (school of thought; religion; philosophy; whatever you want to call it).
Anyway, all of this is arguing around the original argument, which was that you said that sexual feelings are natural and should not be repressed; I then introduced a counter-example, that there are plenty of natural feelings which should be repressed. From this you decided that I wanted to control others; I showed that I do not. Apparently you are now annoyed that someone disagrees with you about matters of belief, and have determined that disagreement precludes conversation (when, obviously, it doesn't, for true believers in any two schools can discuss their differences).
We're not really all that different: you believe in your (apparent) relativism and (apparent) materialism; I believe in my absolutism and dualism. I think that you're sadly wrong; you think that I'm sadly wrong. The difference is that I admit it.
Of course, the 'net is a difficult medium for conversations of import simply because differences which could be resolved in the blink of an eye in person cannot over a distance. It may be that we could have an amicable discussion over beers and possibly that one of us might persuade the other. But given the constraints under which we're operating, I don't see that happening at the moment. You think I'm full of it and, quite honestly, I return the sentiment.
Just who decides what "proper" and "improper" are? You, me, the government, god, Mohamed, van halen, general motors, (insert any entity here> or the individual? If you choose anyone but the individual then you do not understand what personal freedom is.
Rather, it's you who does not understand what 'personal freedom' means. Freedom means being free to be wrong about what's proper and improper--it does not mean that right and wrong are subjective. Right and wrong simply are; because we are free we can choose to do them or not.
You think the morality of all humans can be found in the bible, right?
No, not really. The Bible is a collection of historical documents (admittedly inspired by God); morality consists of living according to His will rather than one's own, and thus means that one is a lot happier and more content than one would otherwise be. But people are free not to do so if they'd like.
So in other words, when it comes to morality or freedom, you can't think for yourself. Everything you think, speak and write has been put in your head by a book. And when it comes to logical discussions about such matters your arguments always return to your faith.
When it comes to physics, you can't think for yourself. Everything you think, speak and write has been put in your head by a book and teachers. And when it comes to logical discussions about such matters your arguments always return to what you've been taught.
That is, I sincerely doubt that you have performed every experiment ever performed, and have done all the math to prove to a satisfactory degree modern physics and chemistry. The subjects are too big for one man to prove or repeat; likewise with the art of proper living.
The Church has spent millennia researching morality; why should I repeat the experiment any more than a physicist will repeat Priestly's work on oxygen? More to the point, why should I bother living a dissolute life to see if it really is bad any more than a physicist would spend a decade or so trying alchemical means of transmuting lead into gold?
And yeah, just as any individual is free to spend his idle hours trying to transmute lead into gold, any individual is free to ruin his life by living an immoral life. But there's no use pretending that's good.
Why are so many marriages unhappy? Why are so many children and adults drugged up, either illegally or legally? Why are so many people desperately miserable? I posit that it is precisely because the modern what-I-want-when-I-want-it philosophy is analogous to a man who fills his belly with candy and ice cream and doesn't understand why he's sick to his stomach. Well, no-one will stop one from doing that, but it's a Bad Idea and it will make one sick; likewise with our me-first, spare-no-thought-for-the-consequences lifestyle.
And to get back on the earlier subject, yes I do think that if a teenager's energies were properly channeled (incl. his sexual energies--there are healthy outlets for that) then he'd be a lot happier than the Ritalin-modulated, ADD-diagnosed youngster failing his classes.
She's not that thin. She does, however, have a man's shoulders. And what's wrong with her upper lip--it juts in a very odd fashion. I don't recall that she used to look like that; did she have a bad plastic surgery?
All I said was that if a 14 year old boy is having sexual feelings they should be acknowledged as natural and to not repress them. Notice I did not say those feelings should be acted upon or even encouraged.
If they're not repressed then they'll be acted upon. Do you remember what you were like at 14?
You on the other hand, immediately jump to the conclusion that sexual feelings should be dealt with just as violent feelings are dealt with.
It was an easy example: sexual feelings should be dealt with as all feelings should be dealt with. I.e., celebrated and enjoyed in the proper place and repressed in improper places. The analogy of violence is just the first thing which leaps to mind, since lust and anger are the only two vices our society cares much about anymore. Greed would have worked as well, or sloth, or envy, or gluttony or pride.
Lastly, I value personal freedom and choice--liberty is a sweet thing. But freedom to do what one wants is not freedom from being told what to do. I see nothing wrong with society saying, e.g. 'duelling is foolish' while allowing duels or 'obesity is bad for you' while allowing one to eat as much as one wants or 'vanity twists your soul' while allowing the sale of mirrors.
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have sexual feelings that are natural. And to repress those feelings and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have violent feelings that are natural? And to repress those feeling and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
My point is that sex isn't just rubbing naughty bits to relieve some physiological pressure: it has consequences and repercussions. It affects the soul. It shouldn't be entered into lightly. Within its proper realm, it's a really, truly wonderful experience--but outside that realm, it has harmful effects.
What responsible society tells its members that touching a stove element is good because warmth is good? What responsible society tells its members that casual sex is good because loving sex between man and wige is good?
Name someone who worked on a Star Wars / Star Trek fan film who has been discovered by a big name and gone on to make a theatrically distributed motion picture.
...Ask a Kerry Conran (Sky Captain) or Shane Carruth or for that matter a James Cameron or Peter Jackson...
...But neither [Cameron no Jackson] decided to create their own little Star Warrs film, despite having had the ingenuity to do so in their youth on the 16mm shorts they made.
Methinks thou hast answered thine own question. Now, for my part I absolutely loathe the female acting: the good gal sounds like a soap opera actress, and the evil gal sounds like she is tense, not evil. But the fact remains that even the worst actors in the production did better than I would have, and some of the will go on to better things, and still better things.
It is what it is, and it is interesting. I'd like to watch it, with suitable luqid refreshment in large quantities.
Yes, I would recommend them to take some sword lessons by professional sword actors. Make it look like you are first trying to find the weak spots.
Actually, dramatic sword fighting has very little in common with real swordfighting. For example, that brief clip of the two men fighting seemed to be much closer to my experience of (simulated) sword fighting than anything I've ever seen: fast, and not particularly interesting to any but the principles. Theatrical fighting must serve the dramatic purpose, and so involves a lot of foolishness that simply wouldn't work in real life.
I'm unconvinced that realistic fighting couldn't work in a dramatic context, but so far no-one has put it to the test. It'd be difficult, for certain (among other things, the fighters would need to be good).
Well, considering his recent flicks it's probably a good thing that he's not in films much anymore. 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' was abominable; even 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights' really wasn't that great. I enjoyed 'Spaceballs,' but probably the best Brooks film ever is 'Young Frankenstein.' My family and I can recite every line by heart--it's that good.
In Colorado it's legal to carry weapons openly or concealed (with the appropriate permit) where alcohol is served; it's illegal to be armed and intoxicated. That makes sense to me: if I'm out drinking with my buddies, we probably shouldn't be armed, but there's no reason our designated driver shouldn't be.
Oh, I wouldn't take offence at calling the SCA's martial side 'Live Action Wargaming,' and I'm a SCAdian. It's probably a fair description. We do more than that (e.g. historical brewing, music, cooking, clothing and so on), but the fighting could be called a form of wargaming.
...it's not that hard to be better than Enterprise.
Amend that to read 'it's not that hard to be better than Star Trek.' In a world with Babylon 5, Farscape and Andromeda (well, until the most recent season's worth of DVDs I've seen, in which it has degenerated into a Star Drek knockoff), there's just no need for the rank foolishness of Star Trek.
Heck, Stargate is better by far than Star Trek, and it's unwatchable!
Slashdot Mirror
Also, revolvers are just cool:-)
The advantage of investing is that it provides a long-term source of funding. A few large gifts could endow developer seats for eternity, which is surely a Good Thing...
It's rather a religious POV to believe that being turned on is good and killing is bad. On can believe that: a) sex and violence are good; b) sex is good but violence is bad; c) sex is bad but violence is good; or d) both sex and violence are bad. It's more religious than anything else, simply because one's preferences are determined by one's philosophy.
Yes, certainly anyone can do a better job than the man who brought stable governments to Afghanistan and Iraq, and who is desperately trying to make Social Security...secure.
Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek, and yes it refers to the idiotic kibi-, mebi- and gibi- prefixes proposed to replace kilo-, mega- and giga- in computing use.
And as for the guy who replace KB with KiB and so on in the GNU tools: damn you to hell.
Well, no. But something need not explore man's relationship with technology to be science fiction (IMHO; others differ, of course).
The reason Nielsen writes this sort of thing is because people are making the mistakes of using PDFs for online content--to use your analogy, there are a lot of folks making tea in their washing machines.
Interestingly, left-hand-drive is one of those inferior standards, driven by private interests. But then, French units are another, driven by public standards. Which just goes to show...
RPM is not equivalent to apt-get; RPM is not equivalent to apt-get. RPM is equivalent to .deb; yum and apt-get are equivalent to apt-get (yes, it's been ported to handle RPMs). Don't be silly.
Well, it's the Federal government's responsibility to air those shows, it's right in the Constitution. Oh yeah--it's not.
Whoops.
God-damned authoritarians removing every last vestige of liberty in this once-free land. Both parties are to blame; very few people actually care for freedom. Bastards.
Basically, education has been getting worse for a century or more.
How do you get that? To think rationally is to reason; to reason is to form logical arguments from assumptions. I have my assumptions (as do you, as does any system of belief, including mathematics), and I can argue from them. I don't happen to think that reason is everything, of course.
Christianity is the only true, right and just religion in the world.
Well, yeah. Everyone believes that what he believes is true--else he wouldn't believe it! Although I wouldn't say that Orthodox Christianity is the only just religion--justice is orthogonal to correctness.
All other religions are incorrect and have false prophets.
Again, yeah. Everyone believes that those who believe differently from him are incorrect--else he would believe what they believe! Although I wouldn't introduce phrases like 'false prophets,' for the denotation is negative and unconducive to conversation.
The only way to know god is through Jesus Christ.
It's impossible to know God, period (well, I believe that--no doubt other religions disagree, and obviously some folks disagree that He exists).
People can believe whatever they want, but if it is not a belief [sic--missing 'of' or 'in'?] god, as defined in the bible, their beliefs are wrong.
That just repeats the above bit about other religions being incorrect (to some degree or other, and in some areas more than others).
So, I do believe that science holds the possibility for ultimate truth, but I could be wrong.
Actually, Goedel proved that mathematics cannot prove itself, and since science is based on mathematics, this means that science cannot be proven. This implies that science cannot prove 'ultimate truth.'
And anyone who does not believe what you believe is, as you put it, "any individual is free to ruin his life by living an immoral life. But there's no use pretending that's good." throwing their life away. That's called condescending.
Well, yeah, that's what freedom is: the freedom to be wrong; the freedom to err; the freedom to do what someone else thinks foolish. And you're condescending when you say that I'm delusional. Of course, the whole reason I brought up freedom was to refute your allegation that I want to control people (must have been successful, since you've abandoned it).
I support and encourage your right to believe in your religion, and I think that your religion has just as much possibility of being 'right' as my religion.
[snip]
Now, if you are capable of conversing, you should be able to write that exact same sentence to me or anyone else.
I am capable of conversing about my beliefs vis-a-vis yours or anyone else's.
I support and encourage your right to your beliefs (school of thought; religion; philosophy; whatever you want to call it).
Anyway, all of this is arguing around the original argument, which was that you said that sexual feelings are natural and should not be repressed; I then introduced a counter-example, that there are plenty of natural feelings which should be repressed. From this you decided that I wanted to control others; I showed that I do not. Apparently you are now annoyed that someone disagrees with you about matters of belief, and have determined that disagreement precludes conversation (when, obviously, it doesn't, for true believers in any two schools can discuss their differences).
We're not really all that different: you believe in your (apparent) relativism and (apparent) materialism; I believe in my absolutism and dualism. I think that you're sadly wrong; you think that I'm sadly wrong. The difference is that I admit it.
Of course, the 'net is a difficult medium for conversations of import simply because differences which could be resolved in the blink of an eye in person cannot over a distance. It may be that we could have an amicable discussion over beers and possibly that one of us might persuade the other. But given the constraints under which we're operating, I don't see that happening at the moment. You think I'm full of it and, quite honestly, I return the sentiment.
Rather, it's you who does not understand what 'personal freedom' means. Freedom means being free to be wrong about what's proper and improper--it does not mean that right and wrong are subjective. Right and wrong simply are; because we are free we can choose to do them or not.
You think the morality of all humans can be found in the bible, right?
No, not really. The Bible is a collection of historical documents (admittedly inspired by God); morality consists of living according to His will rather than one's own, and thus means that one is a lot happier and more content than one would otherwise be. But people are free not to do so if they'd like.
So in other words, when it comes to morality or freedom, you can't think for yourself. Everything you think, speak and write has been put in your head by a book. And when it comes to logical discussions about such matters your arguments always return to your faith.
When it comes to physics, you can't think for yourself. Everything you think, speak and write has been put in your head by a book and teachers. And when it comes to logical discussions about such matters your arguments always return to what you've been taught.
That is, I sincerely doubt that you have performed every experiment ever performed, and have done all the math to prove to a satisfactory degree modern physics and chemistry. The subjects are too big for one man to prove or repeat; likewise with the art of proper living.
The Church has spent millennia researching morality; why should I repeat the experiment any more than a physicist will repeat Priestly's work on oxygen? More to the point, why should I bother living a dissolute life to see if it really is bad any more than a physicist would spend a decade or so trying alchemical means of transmuting lead into gold?
And yeah, just as any individual is free to spend his idle hours trying to transmute lead into gold, any individual is free to ruin his life by living an immoral life. But there's no use pretending that's good.
Why are so many marriages unhappy? Why are so many children and adults drugged up, either illegally or legally? Why are so many people desperately miserable? I posit that it is precisely because the modern what-I-want-when-I-want-it philosophy is analogous to a man who fills his belly with candy and ice cream and doesn't understand why he's sick to his stomach. Well, no-one will stop one from doing that, but it's a Bad Idea and it will make one sick; likewise with our me-first, spare-no-thought-for-the-consequences lifestyle.
And to get back on the earlier subject, yes I do think that if a teenager's energies were properly channeled (incl. his sexual energies--there are healthy outlets for that) then he'd be a lot happier than the Ritalin-modulated, ADD-diagnosed youngster failing his classes.
She's not that thin. She does, however, have a man's shoulders. And what's wrong with her upper lip--it juts in a very odd fashion. I don't recall that she used to look like that; did she have a bad plastic surgery?
If they're not repressed then they'll be acted upon. Do you remember what you were like at 14?
You on the other hand, immediately jump to the conclusion that sexual feelings should be dealt with just as violent feelings are dealt with.
It was an easy example: sexual feelings should be dealt with as all feelings should be dealt with. I.e., celebrated and enjoyed in the proper place and repressed in improper places. The analogy of violence is just the first thing which leaps to mind, since lust and anger are the only two vices our society cares much about anymore. Greed would have worked as well, or sloth, or envy, or gluttony or pride.
Lastly, I value personal freedom and choice--liberty is a sweet thing. But freedom to do what one wants is not freedom from being told what to do. I see nothing wrong with society saying, e.g. 'duelling is foolish' while allowing duels or 'obesity is bad for you' while allowing one to eat as much as one wants or 'vanity twists your soul' while allowing the sale of mirrors.
Why is it so hard for some people to acknowledge the simple fact that young people of all ages have violent feelings that are natural? And to repress those feeling and smother them in guilt is a very very damaging thing to do.
My point is that sex isn't just rubbing naughty bits to relieve some physiological pressure: it has consequences and repercussions. It affects the soul. It shouldn't be entered into lightly. Within its proper realm, it's a really, truly wonderful experience--but outside that realm, it has harmful effects.
What responsible society tells its members that touching a stove element is good because warmth is good? What responsible society tells its members that casual sex is good because loving sex between man and wige is good?
Methinks thou hast answered thine own question. Now, for my part I absolutely loathe the female acting: the good gal sounds like a soap opera actress, and the evil gal sounds like she is tense, not evil. But the fact remains that even the worst actors in the production did better than I would have, and some of the will go on to better things, and still better things.
It is what it is, and it is interesting. I'd like to watch it, with suitable luqid refreshment in large quantities.
Hell, have you ever seen the B5 pilot?
Actually, dramatic sword fighting has very little in common with real swordfighting. For example, that brief clip of the two men fighting seemed to be much closer to my experience of (simulated) sword fighting than anything I've ever seen: fast, and not particularly interesting to any but the principles. Theatrical fighting must serve the dramatic purpose, and so involves a lot of foolishness that simply wouldn't work in real life.
I'm unconvinced that realistic fighting couldn't work in a dramatic context, but so far no-one has put it to the test. It'd be difficult, for certain (among other things, the fighters would need to be good).
Well, considering his recent flicks it's probably a good thing that he's not in films much anymore. 'Dracula: Dead and Loving It' was abominable; even 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights' really wasn't that great. I enjoyed 'Spaceballs,' but probably the best Brooks film ever is 'Young Frankenstein.' My family and I can recite every line by heart--it's that good.
Well, given that advancing human knowledge is not a legitimate function of the State, and that a military is, then that makes perfect sense.
In Colorado it's legal to carry weapons openly or concealed (with the appropriate permit) where alcohol is served; it's illegal to be armed and intoxicated. That makes sense to me: if I'm out drinking with my buddies, we probably shouldn't be armed, but there's no reason our designated driver shouldn't be.
Congratulations on joining, and good luck with it. Don't let the anti-military folks get you down.
Oh, I wouldn't take offence at calling the SCA's martial side 'Live Action Wargaming,' and I'm a SCAdian. It's probably a fair description. We do more than that (e.g. historical brewing, music, cooking, clothing and so on), but the fighting could be called a form of wargaming.
Amend that to read 'it's not that hard to be better than Star Trek.' In a world with Babylon 5, Farscape and Andromeda (well, until the most recent season's worth of DVDs I've seen, in which it has degenerated into a Star Drek knockoff), there's just no need for the rank foolishness of Star Trek.
Heck, Stargate is better by far than Star Trek, and it's unwatchable!