That's perfectly fine for me to say to you on a forum, because that's my honest opinion, and I've said so politely, right?
The original poster never said anything. He felt it inside. Can you see the difference? You can't fault a guy for finding something repulsive that 95%+ of the human population finds repulsive.
If you don't know the difference between "inside voice" and "outside voice" then I can't help you.
Historically speaking, homosexual acts have been tolerated far more often than not. Perhaps the influence of modern western society has led you to believe differently, but Judaeo-Christian concepts of morality have not always been the norm.
Well, we also have Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist...oh wait...
I'd modify your statement to read something more along the lines of "The first three are people who like to have relationships and sex in ways that aren't historically accepted by the "Christian" based religions."
Because, of course, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism approve of homosexuality.
Give me a break. The idea that a heterosexual man finds another man coming on to him revulsive is not some failure of empathy, latent homosexuality, an expression of homophobia, or due to immaturity.
Heterosexual guys don't like gay guys coming on to them and find it revulsive. It's been that way for 20,000 years and is not going to change. Guys who do like other guys coming on to them are called homosexual.
Note that the original poster didn't say "and therefore I poured gasoline over him and set him afire" or "and therefore me and my friends beat him up" or "and therefore I think we should put all gays in concentration camps." He simply said he felt an inner revulsion. So what. For all you know, he was polite about it and amicably declined.
I would find myself revulsed at a woman with a moustache coming on to me - does that mean I have deep-seated facial hair issues? Do I lack empathy? Should I question my own shaving practices? According to your line of thought, simply saying "no thanks" while being revolted inside means I've somehow done something wrong.
Saying that the original poster is somehow defective, evil, or less enlightened because someone gave him the heebie-jeebies is ridiculous. You can fault someone for how they choose to act, but not how they react inside.
By and large, and usually on a case by case basis, this claim is false. It's difficult to make a sweeping claim either way, since there are many issues
So as I understand your argument,
In general,
Depending on circumstances,
And it may not always be true...
This is a case where there is no "usually". It entirely depends on what you're doing and where you're doing it. Sometimes it's cheaper to build; sometimes it's cheaper to reuse. Trying to make an argument that one rule fits all is silly.
Youtube is failing because all of the stuff worth watching was coincidentally all the stuff they removed for DMCA-related reasons. On top of that, the few videos that I like that they didn't remove are much harder to find using the new search system. When I youtube, I'm looking for something specific and I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of teenagers' insignificant opinions, cretinous hammy behavior, or unimaginative video collages.
I don't really get this. I played Oblivion for about two or three hundred hours without buying the expansion. I've played Fallout 3 for about the same. And I haven't nearly seen everything in either game.
Who needs DLC for these games? Most DLC seems to me completely superfluous.
As a huge Oblivion player, I have to say that Fallout 3 rocks...but it's does not have as much content as Oblivion, despite being priced the same. There are a lot more quests, characters, and elements of the environment in Oblivion than in Fallout 3...I dunno, maybe 50% more? 100% more? Heck, just look at the books you find...in Oblivion, when you pick one up you can actually read through it. In F3, it's just a Pre-Ruin Book.
I'm just using that as an example...my gut feeling is that where Oblivion had some minor aspects that could still take up a hundred hours of play (e.g., vampirism, with all its related quests, sewers, catching it/ridding it, etc.), F3 either doesn't have subplots like that or elevates them to major plots without more content.
I suspect that in 2005, Bethesda operated under a model of getting as much into the base game in order to impress people. In 2009, the model is more "get as little into the base game as we need, and then we can release more as DLC". Easier on their schedule/budgets and more revenue-friendly.
That's not to say that F3 doesn't have a lot or isn't a great game...it's just that I paid $50 for each (and Oblivion was 3-4 years of inflation earlier) and I got a lot more when I bought Oblivion.
WTF? This is your lead-off complaint? It's "long"? Well, the GPL is long, too - should we replace it? Heck, the BSD license is two paragraphs - that's kinda long, don't you think? Perhaps there is a cartoon version...
It's got a windbaggy ideological preamble
Unlike the Creative Commons? Not.
Although GFDL can be a free license, it can also be a non-free license if you choose to use it with some of the optional parts like invariant subsections. This creates confusion, and has also caused lots of smart people to waste amazing amounts of time arguing and worrying about it
If they wasted amazing amounts of time, how smart can they really be?
I think I'm going to vote no on this license change because the reasons presented here are very lame.
The only thing that will make me switch is the unavailability of the OS. And even that would take a while. We order standard model PCs, and do disk imaging. If I found out about Dell not being able to offer XP to us any longer, I'd make one last order for 20 PCs of that model, image and be set for two years.
The fine "article" says "AMAZON IS A GAY-HATING COMPANY FOR NAZIS" and includes a lovely swastika graphic declaring the author to be "Gay, White, and Proud".
Must be that New Journalism we keep hearing about.
" many consumers are disappointed with the slow warm-up times, lower-than-advertised lifetimes, and hassles of disposing the mercury-containing bulbs.
I would wager that most consumers just throw them in the trash. Sure, you're supposed to recycle them, etc., but most people don't know that and don't read the instructions. The hassle factor for most consumers is zero.
Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
I've always thought that Star Trek was science fiction, while Star Wars was space opera. Star Trek usually explored some science fiction concept in each episode. You might say the ideas were crap (they sometimes were), but each episode introduced a new idea, explored it, etc.
On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story. The space setting is merely a style. Same thing is pretty much true for Battlestar Galactica - the story is great, but it's not really science fiction in the sense of exploring new ideas. You could retell either BSG or Star Wars as Westerns or Fantasy or sword and sandals, etc.
That's not to say that Star Wars or BSG are bad, just that they are space opera - stories with the trappings of space - not science fiction. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are not set in space that are science fiction.
Wanted for position as Slashdot Editor: Individual with poor spelling skills, no journalist background, and weak memory. Ideal candidate has foaming-at-the-mouth Orwellian fantasies about "rights", rabid Linux advocacy background, and atheist bias. Apple and/or Obama fanboy a plus. Must absolutely have zero graphical design skills (we will check). Inability to optimize JavaScript preferred. Good candidates are those that put their feet up on the sofa during documentaries. Apply online.
One was the "change of control" provisions in executive contracts, and the fact that they extended more widely than IBM had anticipated. I suspect this is a result of Sun's dot-com history. There are probably a ton of stock-options spread around and the better deals had change-of-control equity clauses that make things more expensive for IBM. At the end of the day, this is probably not the deal-killer, though.
The other reason: "Sun was most concerned about securing tighter provisions to restrict I.B.M.â(TM)s ability to walk away from the deal." In other words, IBM wants flexibility to say "ewww, we discovered X and we're backing out" and Sun wants them to ink the deal in blood. Backout provisions and who can walk away in what circumstances before consummation is all part of the negotiations and lawyering, but I suspect Sun wants IBM to be totally committed when they sign, while IBM wants more flexibility.
At the end of the day, Sun needs to be bought by IBM. IBM would like to buy Sun, but it's hardly vital. I expect the next move is that Sun's stock drops back to $4 a share, IBM sits back, Sun reapproaches them, IBM buys them for less than $7 billion, and Jonathan Schwartz spends the next three years defending himself form shareholder lawsuits.
And will it be posted in a usable format for "slicing and dicing" or will it be PDFs of the data?
If you're still having trouble using PDFs you need to update to a Ca. Y2k version of Linux or something
Sounds like you're still having trouble differentiating structured versus unstructured data. Budget data in tables or CSV or SQL or whatever is useful. A.PDF of a document where you cannot extract the data into a spreadsheet or database is far less useful.
Mainframes are still very good at a few things that mini/micro-computers don't do well:
Massive I/O. Try running 1,000 printers on any Unix platform and let me know how that works for you. Ideally while you're also doing batch processing and have a few thousand interactive users as well. Sure, you can build giant clusters that would do this, but with a mainframe it's one machine.
Virtualization. Now, I don't mean your VMware with a half-dozen Linux images. I mean a thousand images. With perfect resource isolation - i.e., no "this image was consuming a lot of CPU and it slowed the others down". Yes, I know you can do it with clusters, but not in a single box.
Complete fault tolerance. Yes, you can do failover and RAC and all of that, but mainframes just are built differently. The O/S is probably 75% error handling at this point. Every pin and circuit is highly available, the memory is HA, the CPUs are HA, etc. Instructions are compared, etc. It's just a different mindset.
I'm not knocking Unix - I know it and love it. But you have to respect mainframes. Mainframes are just the biggest, baddest single machine out there. Most of open systems is about trying to do mainframe-class stuff with clusters.
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Thank you. The idea of journalistic neutrality is bullshit. Go back 100 years, when each city had a dozen newspapers. All of them were wildly biased and when you picked up a newspaper, you knew what you were getting - heck, it often stated its bias or philosophy in the mast head! Go look in Europe in the pre-War years - many of the newspapers were organs of the political parties.
Pretending to be unbiased is nonsense - I'd rather have a couple papers that report ferociously with an in-the-open bias then the subtle, stupid bias (towards sensationalism) that we have in the modern, neutered American press.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess IBM must be regretting
I don't think so, since they indicated that after deeper examination and further consideration, they weren't interested in Sun at any price.
Okay how about this: I find you repulsive.
That's perfectly fine for me to say to you on a forum, because that's my honest opinion, and I've said so politely, right?
The original poster never said anything. He felt it inside. Can you see the difference? You can't fault a guy for finding something repulsive that 95%+ of the human population finds repulsive.
If you don't know the difference between "inside voice" and "outside voice" then I can't help you.
Historically speaking, homosexual acts have been tolerated far more often than not. Perhaps the influence of modern western society has led you to believe differently, but Judaeo-Christian concepts of morality have not always been the norm.
Well, we also have Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist...oh wait...
I'd modify your statement to read something more along the lines of "The first three are people who like to have relationships and sex in ways that aren't historically accepted by the "Christian" based religions."
Because, of course, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism approve of homosexuality.
Oh wait...
(Decided against Bored of the Rings, since it's always been boring, and it's the king of shitty boring stories that go on way too long.)
Hey, I thought Bored of the Rings was funny.
Give me a break. The idea that a heterosexual man finds another man coming on to him revulsive is not some failure of empathy, latent homosexuality, an expression of homophobia, or due to immaturity.
Heterosexual guys don't like gay guys coming on to them and find it revulsive. It's been that way for 20,000 years and is not going to change. Guys who do like other guys coming on to them are called homosexual.
Note that the original poster didn't say "and therefore I poured gasoline over him and set him afire" or "and therefore me and my friends beat him up" or "and therefore I think we should put all gays in concentration camps." He simply said he felt an inner revulsion. So what. For all you know, he was polite about it and amicably declined.
I would find myself revulsed at a woman with a moustache coming on to me - does that mean I have deep-seated facial hair issues? Do I lack empathy? Should I question my own shaving practices? According to your line of thought, simply saying "no thanks" while being revolted inside means I've somehow done something wrong.
Saying that the original poster is somehow defective, evil, or less enlightened because someone gave him the heebie-jeebies is ridiculous. You can fault someone for how they choose to act, but not how they react inside.
Alas, he just spouted off a "vision". The Economist covered this in depth in the current issue. In a nutshell,
I can already tell you what is going to happen:
Really nothing to see here. Which is a shame.
By and large, and usually on a case by case basis, this claim is false. It's difficult to make a sweeping claim either way, since there are many issues
So as I understand your argument,
This is a case where there is no "usually". It entirely depends on what you're doing and where you're doing it. Sometimes it's cheaper to build; sometimes it's cheaper to reuse. Trying to make an argument that one rule fits all is silly.
Youtube is failing because all of the stuff worth watching was coincidentally all the stuff they removed for DMCA-related reasons. On top of that, the few videos that I like that they didn't remove are much harder to find using the new search system. When I youtube, I'm looking for something specific and I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of teenagers' insignificant opinions, cretinous hammy behavior, or unimaginative video collages.
s/youtube/internet/g :-)
I don't really get this. I played Oblivion for about two or three hundred hours without buying the expansion. I've played Fallout 3 for about the same. And I haven't nearly seen everything in either game. Who needs DLC for these games? Most DLC seems to me completely superfluous.
As a huge Oblivion player, I have to say that Fallout 3 rocks...but it's does not have as much content as Oblivion, despite being priced the same. There are a lot more quests, characters, and elements of the environment in Oblivion than in Fallout 3...I dunno, maybe 50% more? 100% more? Heck, just look at the books you find...in Oblivion, when you pick one up you can actually read through it. In F3, it's just a Pre-Ruin Book.
I'm just using that as an example...my gut feeling is that where Oblivion had some minor aspects that could still take up a hundred hours of play (e.g., vampirism, with all its related quests, sewers, catching it/ridding it, etc.), F3 either doesn't have subplots like that or elevates them to major plots without more content.
I suspect that in 2005, Bethesda operated under a model of getting as much into the base game in order to impress people. In 2009, the model is more "get as little into the base game as we need, and then we can release more as DLC". Easier on their schedule/budgets and more revenue-friendly.
That's not to say that F3 doesn't have a lot or isn't a great game...it's just that I paid $50 for each (and Oblivion was 3-4 years of inflation earlier) and I got a lot more when I bought Oblivion.
This seems more like "some dude gives an interview" rather than "officially declassified by the government"...?
GFDL sucks for a variety of reasons:
This is a pretty lame list.
It's long.
WTF? This is your lead-off complaint? It's "long"? Well, the GPL is long, too - should we replace it? Heck, the BSD license is two paragraphs - that's kinda long, don't you think? Perhaps there is a cartoon version...
It's got a windbaggy ideological preamble
Unlike the Creative Commons? Not.
Although GFDL can be a free license, it can also be a non-free license if you choose to use it with some of the optional parts like invariant subsections. This creates confusion, and has also caused lots of smart people to waste amazing amounts of time arguing and worrying about it
If they wasted amazing amounts of time, how smart can they really be?
I think I'm going to vote no on this license change because the reasons presented here are very lame.
The only thing that will make me switch is the unavailability of the OS. And even that would take a while. We order standard model PCs, and do disk imaging. If I found out about Dell not being able to offer XP to us any longer, I'd make one last order for 20 PCs of that model, image and be set for two years.
Or...just image it yourself.
It's even less ethical than sending your BT traffic over Tor,
"Even" less? Pray tell why sending BT traffic over Tor is unethical.
The fine "article" says "AMAZON IS A GAY-HATING COMPANY FOR NAZIS" and includes a lovely swastika graphic declaring the author to be "Gay, White, and Proud".
Must be that New Journalism we keep hearing about.
" many consumers are disappointed with the slow warm-up times, lower-than-advertised lifetimes, and hassles of disposing the mercury-containing bulbs.
I would wager that most consumers just throw them in the trash. Sure, you're supposed to recycle them, etc., but most people don't know that and don't read the instructions. The hassle factor for most consumers is zero.
Don't believe me? Look at the most popular 'sci-fi' movies in history (truly popular, not just cult classics) and think about whether or not they are really science-fiction the way you think about it. Pop-culture sci-fi uses the futuristic/technology aspects as plot devices to make a fantasy story work. What makes the new Star Trek movie interesting is that it seems to be both science-fiction as well as pop-culture science-fiction at the same time.
I've always thought that Star Trek was science fiction, while Star Wars was space opera. Star Trek usually explored some science fiction concept in each episode. You might say the ideas were crap (they sometimes were), but each episode introduced a new idea, explored it, etc.
On the other hand, you could take Star Wars and redo it as a Western without any loss of story. The space setting is merely a style. Same thing is pretty much true for Battlestar Galactica - the story is great, but it's not really science fiction in the sense of exploring new ideas. You could retell either BSG or Star Wars as Westerns or Fantasy or sword and sandals, etc.
That's not to say that Star Wars or BSG are bad, just that they are space opera - stories with the trappings of space - not science fiction. On the other hand, there are plenty of movies that are not set in space that are science fiction.
Wanted for position as Slashdot Editor: Individual with poor spelling skills, no journalist background, and weak memory. Ideal candidate has foaming-at-the-mouth Orwellian fantasies about "rights", rabid Linux advocacy background, and atheist bias. Apple and/or Obama fanboy a plus. Must absolutely have zero graphical design skills (we will check). Inability to optimize JavaScript preferred. Good candidates are those that put their feet up on the sofa during documentaries. Apply online.
Two things were cited in the FA.
One was the "change of control" provisions in executive contracts, and the fact that they extended more widely than IBM had anticipated. I suspect this is a result of Sun's dot-com history. There are probably a ton of stock-options spread around and the better deals had change-of-control equity clauses that make things more expensive for IBM. At the end of the day, this is probably not the deal-killer, though.
The other reason: "Sun was most concerned about securing tighter provisions to restrict I.B.M.â(TM)s ability to walk away from the deal." In other words, IBM wants flexibility to say "ewww, we discovered X and we're backing out" and Sun wants them to ink the deal in blood. Backout provisions and who can walk away in what circumstances before consummation is all part of the negotiations and lawyering, but I suspect Sun wants IBM to be totally committed when they sign, while IBM wants more flexibility.
At the end of the day, Sun needs to be bought by IBM. IBM would like to buy Sun, but it's hardly vital. I expect the next move is that Sun's stock drops back to $4 a share, IBM sits back, Sun reapproaches them, IBM buys them for less than $7 billion, and Jonathan Schwartz spends the next three years defending himself form shareholder lawsuits.
At the office, I'm still running a 350mghz PowerMac G4 computer (the bugger is 10 years old) as a server.
Hmmm, if that's mghz = MegaGigaHertz, then I'm quite awed. But if it's MicroGigaHertz, then I feel bad for you.
And will it be posted in a usable format for "slicing and dicing" or will it be PDFs of the data?
If you're still having trouble using PDFs you need to update to a Ca. Y2k version of Linux or something
Sounds like you're still having trouble differentiating structured versus unstructured data. Budget data in tables or CSV or SQL or whatever is useful. A .PDF of a document where you cannot extract the data into a spreadsheet or database is far less useful.
Hundreds of thousands of years ago we used kilowatts.
Hundreds of thousands of years ago, homo sapiens weren't around, so I doubt "we" were using a lot of electricity.
Mainframes are still very good at a few things that mini/micro-computers don't do well:
I'm not knocking Unix - I know it and love it. But you have to respect mainframes. Mainframes are just the biggest, baddest single machine out there. Most of open systems is about trying to do mainframe-class stuff with clusters.
(obligatory tip of the hat to Tandem Nonstop ;-)
Mainframe processing is still alive today. Way more (order of magnitude?) transactions are run through mainframes every hour than through Google.
And slashdot is a pro-tech, pro-netneutrality, pro-science blog. Fox news has investigative journalists. No reason the left shouldn't. No reason Slashdot shouldn't. No reason why anyone with an agenda shouldn't be generating content. And at least you understand the bias when you read huffington post. It doesn't attempt to hide behind any veil like a certain other news organization.
The problem isn't whether or not there is bias it's whether or not the reader knows the bias and filters appropriately.
Thank you. The idea of journalistic neutrality is bullshit. Go back 100 years, when each city had a dozen newspapers. All of them were wildly biased and when you picked up a newspaper, you knew what you were getting - heck, it often stated its bias or philosophy in the mast head! Go look in Europe in the pre-War years - many of the newspapers were organs of the political parties.
Pretending to be unbiased is nonsense - I'd rather have a couple papers that report ferociously with an in-the-open bias then the subtle, stupid bias (towards sensationalism) that we have in the modern, neutered American press.