If it weren't for your manly low ID, I'd assume you were a troll. I am not sure which ethnic groups you are referring to, but what is the source of your info on this? Suffice it to say that I am highly skeptical about your claim.
Whoa! I thought this was just some weird phenomenon that only happened to me. I guess I don't know a whole lot of other musicians. Anyway, I can't talk while playing anything remotely non-trivial that I haven't memorized the shit out of. I've often wondered why this is.
It wasn't intended to be a troll. Sorry for being so short with you.
Language is a funny thing. Words convey meanings, but carry all kinds of shades of other meanings and connotations with them. Great rhetoricians use this to their advantage. Here is my understanding of the definition of the word 'sheeple', along with some of the things that cross my mind when I hear someone use the word sheeple. I will grant you that they may not always be correct, but one should be aware of connotations of words they use in any case. Here we go:
* An individual sheeple (hereafter I will refer to the singular as 'sherson') tends to do what they are told. They stay in the herd, which is exactly where 'the man' wants them to say. The sherson is not really aware of anything outside this structure. * The speaker considers him/herself not to be a sherson. This might be because they question authority, analyze their surroundings, etc. The speaker truly lives outside the system, man. * The speaker considers the majority of people to satisfy the requirements for being sheeple. * The word is derisive.
With these things in mind, all people have their own systems of rating other people. I am intentionally being somewhat vague, because it varies from person to person, but everyone forms an opinion of people they meet based on some factor(s). Of course it can change over time as they learn more about the person, but everyone rates people somehow. Furthermore, almost everyone (including me) is above average in their own system of rating, whatever it may be.
Let's look at a trivial example. Susie only cares about travelling. Her opinions of other people is 100% determined by how much/where they have traveled. Of course, she herself has traveled extensively. Of course, this is a ridiculous example, but I think it's less far-fetched than it might seem. Right here on slashdot, I have seen numerous examples of people mistaking lack of specific knowledge about certain technologies to be equivalent to lack of intelligence. To get back to Susie, I don't think there is anything wrong with her particular system, unless, and this is the big UNLESS: unless she considers herself to be better than people who haven't traveled as much. If Susie understands that these people probably don't care much about traveling and accepts that they are into something else, then that's fine. However, I think there is something wrong if Susie thinks these people obviously suck at traveling, since they've never even been to Africa for crying out loud. The example is somewhat contrived, but think this kind of thinking is startlingly common. People get blasted all the time here on slashdot for not knowing how to do on a computer what we would think of as something obvious. And I think that some people actually believe that this makes them an inferior person.
In summary, 'sheeple' gives me (and others) the impression that the speaker is arrogant. That is the bottom line. 'sheeple' == arrogance. Of course, it's quite conceivable that you are not arrogant, but the things you say do affect how you're perceived.
However, you certainly seem reasonable, especially in this post, so I will admit there is a chance I have misjudged you. Sorry for rambling for so long, but I wanted to (attempt to) articulate clearly my thoughts on the subject. I think it may have come out somewhat muddled, but I hope you are able to see my main point.
:) Forgive me if I appear to somber. Rereading my own post, it is an understandable interpretation. However, let there be no mistake! I take everything with great lightness. Observe:
Shit! Balls! Donkey!
What does it mean? I do not know. But none can deny its light-hearted nature.
... My wife, who definitely doesn't fit in with the rank-and-file sheeple that make up the bulk of society,...
And don't get me started on people who use the word 'sheeple'. Let me give you a hint, buddy. You're not as far above the average as you think you are.
knowing what re-imaging is does not equate to intelligence. that is specific learned knowledge. not knowing what re-imaging is would prevent someone from understand the joke, but does not make them stupid.
PS, i didn't really think it was funny in the first place.
He described ideals. You described current attempts at meeting those ideals. You may have menus on your phone for commonly-dialed friends, family, and businesses, but you still had to put in the numbers at least once.
Not if they call you first!
Soon phones will be able to distribute their numbers through IR or wifi or some such crap. Personally, I'm looking forward to this.
I happen to think it isn't really anymore unethical than something like itunes, because the artists gets screwed regardless. The labels take the lion's share of any money that comes in. And the big labels don't exactly behave in a very ethical way either. The ethical thing to do, imo, is give money to the artists (and others who contributed) for their work. Unfortunately, this is somewhat difficult to do. You can give them about 25 cents by buying an album, but that supports the label too, so I usually don't do that, unless it's on a label I don't mind supporting. (ie not big 5) The most obvious way to get money to the artists is to go to concerts, but this isn't always practical. Contrary to what you may think, I have given this thought, and I haven't found an easy answer.
I would like to point out here that I have never used allofmp3.com, but I would have no issues about doing so.
Downloading music is legal in the good ol' USofA too. The only thing illegal is downloading music without permission. There is plenty of music on the internet which is free for the taking.
Given certain constraints, the more complicated the rules that govern a FPS, the more depth it can have. You could try totally non-sensical rules, such as:
"If you enter water while strafing, your movement speed while you are in the water will be 300% normal" but that's not usually very much fun because people can't relate to it. More realistic physics allow more fine-tuning of strategy with a minimum of annoyance incurred by adding more rules, since it's an approximation of what people are already familiar with.
Thanks for the hearty laugh. I just pictured a guy asking a store clerk for a "CD" or "64".
Whether you're technically right (which I somehow doubt) or not isn't important, since it has little bearing on how these product names are used in the real world.
Well, for one, Windows has inferior out-of-box security. That may be an understatement. If nothing additional is done to windows box, it will probably be 0wned in a matter of minutes. Of course, it seems I'm preaching to the choir here.
For two, mac users are a smaller and (generally speaking) more informed target, therefore less valuable.
All I'm saying is that I have managed to keep an internet connected windows 2000 box running with no major compromises for about 3 years. I can't prove how repeatable this is. Maybe I'm just really lucky. There's no way to prove it. All it is is anecdotal evidence.
However, this experience has given me the (apparently possibly false) view that given several precautionary measures, it is usually possible to get a windows box satisfactorily secured, at least for end-user purposes.
Not that Mac users are clueless, but why don't they have their share of problems? Why don't I?
To address your other point, I'm guessing you're running linux or some other unixish-variant. If this is the case, then I am guessing you have gone out of your way to install this on your computer. By "out of your way", I mean you spent an hour or two and intentionally set up this os on your computer. If you did this, you probably keep your computer reasonably up to date with patches etc. Perhaps you've taken other precautions such as a firewall etc.
However, this is far more effort than most computer users want to bother with. If linux came on store bought computers pre-installed, you can bet they'd use it. And you can bet many (I think most) would be clicking on spam attachments left and right.
There is no way to stop the user (logged in as god) from unknowingly (but intentionally from the point of view of the os) installing any manner of crap.
I regularly install os updates. i use a firewall. i don't use ie. i don't use outlook or oe. i don't use windows media player. i don't view office documents from untrusted sources. i don't run executable files from untrusted sources.
with regard to corporate environments, i don't have people connecting laptops to my machine that they've infected at home.
i'm sure there are more precautions, but these are the basics.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I've been running windows 2000 for over 3 years without a single spyware or adware infestation. I know what i'm doing. I regularly check for updates. I don't use ie or outlook. I don't use windows media player. I don't open office documents from untrusted sources. I don't run executables from untrsuted sources. I have a firewall. I have never reinstalled windows 2000 because I've never needed to. Sorry for the rant, but I do think you're wrong.
I think it was supposed to be assumed that computer security would come *after* reading in the standard curriculum. He figured most people would just be able to figure that out.
Slashdot Mirror
If it weren't for your manly low ID, I'd assume you were a troll. I am not sure which ethnic groups you are referring to, but what is the source of your info on this? Suffice it to say that I am highly skeptical about your claim.
Whoa! I thought this was just some weird phenomenon that only happened to me. I guess I don't know a whole lot of other musicians.
Anyway, I can't talk while playing anything remotely non-trivial that I haven't memorized the shit out of. I've often wondered why this is.
It wasn't intended to be a troll. Sorry for being so short with you.
Language is a funny thing. Words convey meanings, but carry all kinds of shades of other meanings and connotations with them. Great rhetoricians use this to their advantage. Here is my understanding of the definition of the word 'sheeple', along with some of the things that cross my mind when I hear someone use the word sheeple. I will grant you that they may not always be correct, but one should be aware of connotations of words they use in any case. Here we go:
* An individual sheeple (hereafter I will refer to the singular as 'sherson') tends to do what they are told. They stay in the herd, which is exactly where 'the man' wants them to say. The sherson is not really aware of anything outside this structure.
* The speaker considers him/herself not to be a sherson. This might be because they question authority, analyze their surroundings, etc. The speaker truly lives outside the system, man.
* The speaker considers the majority of people to satisfy the requirements for being sheeple.
* The word is derisive.
With these things in mind, all people have their own systems of rating other people. I am intentionally being somewhat vague, because it varies from person to person, but everyone forms an opinion of people they meet based on some factor(s). Of course it can change over time as they learn more about the person, but everyone rates people somehow. Furthermore, almost everyone (including me) is above average in their own system of rating, whatever it may be.
Let's look at a trivial example. Susie only cares about travelling. Her opinions of other people is 100% determined by how much/where they have traveled. Of course, she herself has traveled extensively. Of course, this is a ridiculous example, but I think it's less far-fetched than it might seem. Right here on slashdot, I have seen numerous examples of people mistaking lack of specific knowledge about certain technologies to be equivalent to lack of intelligence. To get back to Susie, I don't think there is anything wrong with her particular system, unless, and this is the big UNLESS: unless she considers herself to be better than people who haven't traveled as much. If Susie understands that these people probably don't care much about traveling and accepts that they are into something else, then that's fine. However, I think there is something wrong if Susie thinks these people obviously suck at traveling, since they've never even been to Africa for crying out loud. The example is somewhat contrived, but think this kind of thinking is startlingly common. People get blasted all the time here on slashdot for not knowing how to do on a computer what we would think of as something obvious. And I think that some people actually believe that this makes them an inferior person.
In summary, 'sheeple' gives me (and others) the impression that the speaker is arrogant. That is the bottom line. 'sheeple' == arrogance. Of course, it's quite conceivable that you are not arrogant, but the things you say do affect how you're perceived.
However, you certainly seem reasonable, especially in this post, so I will admit there is a chance I have misjudged you. Sorry for rambling for so long, but I wanted to (attempt to) articulate clearly my thoughts on the subject. I think it may have come out somewhat muddled, but I hope you are able to see my main point.
I'm curious what your reaction to this will be.
:)
Forgive me if I appear to somber. Rereading my own post, it is an understandable interpretation. However, let there be no mistake! I take everything with great lightness. Observe:
Shit! Balls! Donkey!
What does it mean? I do not know. But none can deny its light-hearted nature.
I occasionally serve a few other purposes also. Why? Do you also?
Yeah, they do. I can't believe you didn't know. Seriously. You must be dumb or something.
It's been done more than adequately in the past anyway. It's time to start calling people on the technical deficiencies in their played out jokes.
And don't get me started on people who use the word 'sheeple'. Let me give you a hint, buddy. You're not as far above the average as you think you are.
not even anonymous, but here you go:
knowing what re-imaging is does not equate to intelligence. that is specific learned knowledge. not knowing what re-imaging is would prevent someone from understand the joke, but does not make them stupid.
PS, i didn't really think it was funny in the first place.
So, out of curiousity, what IE hotkeys do not work in firefox? I'm curious because I don't know of any.
I'm curious. How do you know it is illegal?
Seriously.
He described ideals. You described current attempts at meeting those ideals. You may have menus on your phone for commonly-dialed friends, family, and businesses, but you still had to put in the numbers at least once.
Not if they call you first!
Soon phones will be able to distribute their numbers through IR or wifi or some such crap. Personally, I'm looking forward to this.
I happen to think it isn't really anymore unethical than something like itunes, because the artists gets screwed regardless. The labels take the lion's share of any money that comes in. And the big labels don't exactly behave in a very ethical way either. The ethical thing to do, imo, is give money to the artists (and others who contributed) for their work.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat difficult to do. You can give them about 25 cents by buying an album, but that supports the label too, so I usually don't do that, unless it's on a label I don't mind supporting. (ie not big 5) The most obvious way to get money to the artists is to go to concerts, but this isn't always practical. Contrary to what you may think, I have given this thought, and I haven't found an easy answer.
I would like to point out here that I have never used allofmp3.com, but I would have no issues about doing so.
The main entity missing out on payments are the labels. Leaving ethicality aside, it appears to be 100% legal.
Downloading music is legal in the good ol' USofA too. The only thing illegal is downloading music without permission. There is plenty of music on the internet which is free for the taking.
Umm, i think it would probably be tested at least once before it approved by the fda.
Given certain constraints, the more complicated the rules that govern a FPS, the more depth it can have. You could try totally non-sensical rules, such as:
"If you enter water while strafing, your movement speed while you are in the water will be 300% normal"
but that's not usually very much fun because people can't relate to it. More realistic physics allow more fine-tuning of strategy with a minimum of annoyance incurred by adding more rules, since it's an approximation of what people are already familiar with.
Thanks for the hearty laugh. I just pictured a guy asking a store clerk for a "CD" or "64".
Whether you're technically right (which I somehow doubt) or not isn't important, since it has little bearing on how these product names are used in the real world.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary& va=strategize
Well, for one, Windows has inferior out-of-box security. That may be an understatement. If nothing additional is done to windows box, it will probably be 0wned in a matter of minutes. Of course, it seems I'm preaching to the choir here.
For two, mac users are a smaller and (generally speaking) more informed target, therefore less valuable.
All I'm saying is that I have managed to keep an internet connected windows 2000 box running with no major compromises for about 3 years. I can't prove how repeatable this is. Maybe I'm just really lucky. There's no way to prove it. All it is is anecdotal evidence.
However, this experience has given me the (apparently possibly false) view that given several precautionary measures, it is usually possible to get a windows box satisfactorily secured, at least for end-user purposes.
Not that Mac users are clueless, but why don't they have their share of problems? Why don't I?
To address your other point, I'm guessing you're running linux or some other unixish-variant. If this is the case, then I am guessing you have gone out of your way to install this on your computer. By "out of your way", I mean you spent an hour or two and intentionally set up this os on your computer. If you did this, you probably keep your computer reasonably up to date with patches etc. Perhaps you've taken other precautions such as a firewall etc.
However, this is far more effort than most computer users want to bother with. If linux came on store bought computers pre-installed, you can bet they'd use it. And you can bet many (I think most) would be clicking on spam attachments left and right.
There is no way to stop the user (logged in as god) from unknowingly (but intentionally from the point of view of the os) installing any manner of crap.
What have i done?
I regularly install os updates. i use a firewall. i don't use ie. i don't use outlook or oe. i don't use windows media player. i don't view office documents from untrusted sources. i don't run executable files from untrusted sources.
with regard to corporate environments, i don't have people connecting laptops to my machine that they've infected at home.
i'm sure there are more precautions, but these are the basics.
Seriously... all anti-MS FUD aside, I've been running it for years. Seems quite stable. I've yet to get a single piece of spyware or adware.
yes, i'm sure. I keep the process list of the task manager open at all times and periodically check it.
My point is Windows can't be secured.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I've been running windows 2000 for over 3 years without a single spyware or adware infestation. I know what i'm doing. I regularly check for updates. I don't use ie or outlook. I don't use windows media player. I don't open office documents from untrusted sources. I don't run executables from untrsuted sources. I have a firewall. I have never reinstalled windows 2000 because I've never needed to.
Sorry for the rant, but I do think you're wrong.
I think it was supposed to be assumed that computer security would come *after* reading in the standard curriculum. He figured most people would just be able to figure that out.