if your key is as attackable as a mailed ballot, but unlike in a mail in system, you can prove your vote was counted in the final tally, prove fraud (to the media, auditors, whatever) if its not, and have much stronger guarantees about the robustness of the secret ballot its still an improvement.
You're incorrect about this being a secret ballot. It's not a secret ballot if you don't do it at a polling place (that's not the only criteria, but it is one).
American Linus, stay away from me American Linus, hacker let me be Don't come hangin' round my code I don't wanna see your kernel no more I got more important things to do Then spend my time tryin' to compile you
Either directly retract the claim, or it stands. That's how it works.
[a bunch of stuff that doesn't retract the claim]
you said "I mean honestly... this guy is smart, and he says it's going to take him more than two years of ALL his free time, and a total of about 5 years, to become fluent."
obviously you do not agree with yourself, retract it!
No, you're smart, about some things, I think. You seem to know your way around electronics, for example. You're terribly dumb about argument and logic, though. This is a common problem for technical people: they think because they are smart at some things, that this intelligence carries over. It doesn't.
You still think you have a point, for example, even though it's clear you do not. But at least you wised up and stopped trying to talk about what I've published.
If you could explain to me how any of those things could matter to my case, I would gladly provide a list. But I don't think you'll be able to do it.
you can't list anything because they only exist in your head
Being incapable of explaining how it relates to the point, you therefore tacitly admit that you are engaging in a red herring fallacy.
ok, again - be specific - post a link to the books you've co-authored! ISBNS please!
You really don't know how to Google? We've already established that it is unrelated to the argument; and I have no incentive to throw you any more bones. If you're of even moderate intelligence, you have all the information you need to find out in a minute or two.
which award, when, post a link
Shrug. Google, if you care. Once you've Googled the above, this should be mere seconds.
again, read the article. it's about makers who run maker businesses that work with companies in china, i even list out ones that do this now and how they're either learning mandarin or visiting frequently.
Yes, and none of that implies ALL makers who run maker businesses SHOULD learn Chinese.
look, i know it's hard to read past headlines.
I've repeatedly pointed out the fact that you claimed ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese, and you've refused to retract that claim, and you've repeatedly and directly argued in support of that claim. To shrug it off as just a headline is dishonest. Either directly retract the claim, or it stands. That's how it works.
it's awesome to watch
It's amazing that you don't realize that everything you're attacking me for in this regard, necessarily also applies to you. It's not like you're not writing as much as I am, and throwing around at least as many insults; worse, for you, I'm the one trying to focus on the actual argument, and you're the one continually engaging in ad hominem by trying to compare whom I know, what I've written, etc.
resorting to calling people "douchebags" when they ask you to back up anything you're saying with specifics
How did you become so closed-minded? I didn't "resort" to it. You make it sound like that's some last recourse. No, with douchebags, it's one of the first words I use, not one of the last.
Sigh. No. Do your own homework, if you care.
just list'em out, what's the big deal?
Look, I know you're very slow-witted, but I already explained this. Try to keep up. I'll say it again: it is logically irrelevant. I won't mention them because it literally doesn't matter to the argument, and it debases it. Whom I know doesn't matter, and what I've done doesn't matter, to my case, which is built on fundamental logical principles, as outlined in my example with the sets. If you could explain to me how any of those things could matter to my case, I would gladly provide a list. But I don't think you'll be able to do it.
really, you why can't you name all the publications you've written for? is the list too long for the meager form here?
Honestly, in truth, I cannot remember them all. There's been many, and it's been a long time. In addition to the two books I've co-authored, there's been maybe several newspapers and tech magazines... and that's not even including the online publications, like Slashdot and oreilly.com. And I've turned down at least twice as many as I've written for, including an offer to write a book for O'Reilly, many moons ago.
haha! that's what you're considering "articles"? it's a news item with 3 sentences
On Slashdot, yes, that is what an article is. Are you new to Slashdot? I've done longer pieces here, but the majority are very short, yes, as almost every article on Slashdot is short.
from almost *5 years ago*.
Yes, when last I wrote regularly on Slashdot, it was a long time ago. And? If you recall, the point here is simply that you were trying to impress by pointing out that I was commenting on a Slashdot article about your article. I simply noted the fact that I've written many articles on Slashdot. I've been the subject of a few, too. If you don't think that's a big deal, fine, neither do I; we can both agree that an article on Slashdot about your article is not impressive.
where do you store all the pulitzers!?
Are you implying YOU have a Pulitzer? I have won several awards for writing and news, including an award -- sponsored by O'Reilly, with a cash prize, no less -- for a news web site I ran. I don't see how awards mean anything at all, though. It just means one or more people at one time thought they should recognize you for something. That's pretty boring to me, and if I had a Pulitzer it would not make any difference to me.
look dude, just face it - you love to argue on slashdot
You apparently do not realize that the only evidence that I "love to argue on Slashdot" also directly implies that YOU love to argue on Slashdot.
think of the hours you're spending talking to me about *my article* and walking around all pissed after getting smacked down here.
It's funny that you think you're a big deal, and that you think you've won a single argument here.
i asked you for specifics you can't provide
Yes, specifics that could not possibly help or hurt your case that all makers SHOULD learn Chinese, nor my case that this is an asinine claim for you to make.
and you look, foolish. not to anyone here, no one reads this
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I am unburdened by caring what most people think of me. It's a gift.
just yourself and that's why you're so upset:)
I am not upset, in fact. I do have a problem: a nearly, but not quite, pathological need to point out the logical fallacies of people who are being douchebags, whether anyone's watching or not.
However, I do take your response as confirmation that you really do find worth and value in relative comparison of publication credits. And I find that to be extremely sad and pathetic.
or anyone who actually makes things as business and works with china on a regular basis
You're a damned liar.
you're ashamed of your trolly comments here that know one reads
You're a damned liar.
that's why you can't stand behind them with any real facts, names
You're a damned liar.
or anything remotely resembling a coherent sentence:)
Wow. You really think you've written better sentences than I have, with your many spelling, grammar, and punctutation errors?
you're claiming to know maker owned businesses but cannot provide any examples at all.
You're a damned liar.
if you read the article you'll see where where i specifically say it's something good to consider.
I did see that. But nowhere -- not even here -- do I see you disavowing your claim that all makers should learn Chinese.
And if you read ANY of my comments you would know the POINT of my criticism was against YOUR claim that ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese. At any point you could've retracted your claim. You still have not, and therefore my criticism still stands.
we both know you'll never actually create something besides commenting here
Wow. You really are that stupid, aren't you?
you know you're never going to start a magazine or have people read *articles* you write
I'd go over my significant list of publication credits, but I'll just note that I've writen articles and contributed to books -- as a writer, and tech editor -- at O'Reilly, just to make you feel more foolish, and leave it at that.
when they point out you're wrong
Except, of course, you never pointed out I was wrong.
slashdot, you're on slashdot commenting about my article:)
... and? Are you trying to imply something? I can't see what. I've written hundreds of articles on Slashdot... so? It seems like you are trying to make yourself seem superior to me just because you've written things, and you (ignorantly) assume I have not. Even if I didn't have a ton of publication credits, that would STILL be stupid.
Actually -- and this should come as no surprise to anyone reading this far -- you're wrong, once again. I claimed no such thing. I probably DO know someone at MAKE, but I never said I did, or do, know anyone at the magazine. (Although I've met Dale before, more than once, and Mark too, I think.)
Seriously, learn to read. It's sad an "editor at large" has such poor reading skills. When I wrote, "I actually know a lot of people involved in it. I've been following it since O'Reilly put out the first MAKE," the referent of "it" is "community or movement". It's very clear from the context.
you're claiming to know maker owned businesses but cannot provide any examples at all.
You're a damned liar, Phillip. I refused to do so, because it's fallacious. If I provide a list, you won't be convinced by anything, nor should you: my argument is not based on what I know, but the fact that you didn't make your case. Further, I didn't ask their permission to mention them to some douchebag on Slashdot, even if I wanted to.
my article outlines what's going on with actual makers, people i know - i've listed them out and talked to all of them.
Yes, exactly... but -- as anyone who knows a damned thing about logic and reason can attest -- this doesn't back up your assertion that ALL such people SHOULD learn Chinese. It only backs up the claim that knowing Chinese works for that subset of people.
if you're still confused by the article
The only thing that confused me about your article is why you would claim that all makers should learn Chinese, and then not give any arguments backing up that assertion. Re-reading it won't solve this confusion.
a good idea for "any" maker to consider:)
So do you retract your claim that all makers "should" learn Chinese? And if so, then why didn't you retract it earlier, when I kept repeating -- and then directly criticizing -- your claim?
If you don't believe all makers "should" learn Chinese, then if you had half a damned brain you would have said from the outset, "I don't believe all makers 'should' learn Chinese, I just think it's a good idea to consider." That would have solved the problem. By not correcting your error, and allowing it to persist, you've necessarily implied that you continue to agree with it.
You're exceptionally dense. Remind me to never hire you if I start a periodical of my own.
Again, you're a douchebag for dishonestly implying I didn't.
it's for "makers"
Again, you completely miss my point: I know many "makers," and they are a diverse group, and you are being extremely closed-minded by asserting that all of them should run their businesses a certain way.
read the comments *there* and review the long list of makers who are visiting china each year - this has already happened and will continue to happen. two founders of 2 of the top maker companies moved to asia already. if you read the make site you will see my follow ups with specific examples, past/present/and future.
Wow. You simply are not a rational person who understands the basics of logic: NONE of that backs up your assertion that every maker-run business SHOULD work that way. You do make a good case that this is something that works for SOME -- maybe even many, or most -- such companies. You do not make ANY case that it is what ALL such companies SHOULD do.
To put it in more mathematical terms, you are saying that everyone in Set C (maker-run busineeses learning Chinese, going to China, etc.) is also in Set S (maker-run businesses that are successful). But you provide no evidence or argument that everyone in Set N (not learning Chinese, going to China, etc.) needs to move to Set C in order to be in Set S.
really? i've been there from the start, can you be specific who you "know" ?
Yes. Will I? Absolutely not. Such logical fallacies are irrelevant. Again, I can provide you the name of some books to help you out here.
can you list maker owned companies of people you actually know, what they do and if they get goods from china?
Yes.
have you talked to them about this?
Yes.
saying someone is "close-minded" by proposing makers consider learning chinese is, well, laughable
Now you're just lying, Phillip. Please try to be honest. Your article made the point -- and I've explicitly repeated it every time I've criticized the point, often using capital letters -- that they SHOULD learn Chinese, not merely that they should consider learning Chinese. My entire criticism is predicated on the fact that you said they SHOULD learn it. I even explicitly stated that I think it is good that many are learning Chinese, which necessarily implies I have no problem with people considering it. I have a problem with your assertion -- which you are now dishonestly modifying -- that they SHOULD learn Chinese.
And, of course, I have a problem with you lying to us.
Continuing to falsely imply that I didn't makes you look more douche-y.
... you would have seen that give specific examples of *maker owned* companies...
Yes, that is what we are talking about.
... for them it does matter and for them, the found/owner of the company likes to visit.
For THOSE SPECIFIC COMPANIES, fine. But what's that got to do with all the other maker-owned companies? You DID NOT make the case that this necessarily applies to ALL such companies. You merely hoped that by pointing out that it works for some companies, and YOU like it, therefore everyone else SHOULD do it. That's extremely poor reasoning.
if this is not a community or movement you're part of and you don't know the people it may be hard for you to imagine this.
I actually know a lot of people involved in it. I've been following it since O'Reilly put out the first MAKE (I still have a copy of it around here somewhere). I've done some of my own projects, and have many friends who do a lot more than I do (some of whom run their own maker businesses). And I know, very well, how diverse the people involved in it are. You apparently do not. You are closed-minded and think everyone should act as you would act, instead of trying different things and being themselves.
What's astonishing is that part of the whole POINT of the movement is trying different things and being yourself, and you're trying to squash that!
I am not saying no one should do as you do. I am simply saying it's nonsense to say that ALL such companies should do it. You can't seem to fathom that the same spirit of innovation and individualism that is seen throughout the work of "makers" (and again, I really hate that stupid term) should apply not just to their products, but to how they run their businesses.
You simply didn't make the case.
for makers i seemed to have
False. Cases are made, or not, through reason and logic, not through agreement. I can give you a good book on the subject if this concept eludes you.
attack? assault?
Yes. What part of that do you have a problem with? You accused me of trolling. That's an attack. This is obvious.
you're commenting on slashdot dude, it's troll all the way down.
So you're going to stick with irrational, fallacious, and douche-y, then.
businesses usually are not one-man affairs; I could certainly hire a business manager or partner or another maker who knows Chinese, and be just as well-off.
i don't think so, it matters when the president/founder talks or visits. if you look at the sparkfun site you'll see the CEO visits china, not some biz manager.
*facepalm*
You're not getting it, Phillip. Everyone is different. Maybe not in China, but here. (Laugh, it's a joke.) You apparently cannot even consider the possibility that maybe my company would be better off with someone else doing that, than me, even if I learned Chinese fluently. You're being extremely closed-minded, thinking the only way to do things is the way YOU want to do them. Maybe that comes from living in, and admiring, China? (Also a joke... maybe?)
You made no case, at all, for why everyone else "should" do it.
you didn't read the article.
Yes, I did. You simply didn't make the case.
totally cool, trolling on slashdot is a better hobby for some, enjoy this wonderful mess.
Yeah, um, attacking someone who assaults your premise with rational arguments as a "troll" is an obvious copout, and no one buys it.
hey pudge, i specifically mean "makers who run businesses" - which a lot of the makers who read MAKE tend to be, or want to become.
My answer's the same, except perhaps the scale is a bit lower. Plus, as has been pointed out, businesses usually are not one-man affairs; I could certainly hire a business manager or partner or another maker who knows Chinese, and be just as well-off.
it's been handy for me
Good. What's that got to do with what everyone else "should" do?
they're all visiting china at least once a year
Good. What's that got to do with what everyone else "should" do?
these are the prolific makers that are at every maker faire and are the centers of many diy communities.
Good. What's that got to do with what everyone else "should" do?
You made no case, at all, for why everyone else "should" do it.
I think it's great that you want to become fluent in Chinese. I sure as hell don't.
Absolutely false. The benefit of me learning Chinese, compared to the benefit of using that time to read about math, science, history, and so on... it's a no-brainer. There's no good reason for me to spend my time learning Chinese, as opposed to doing something else, unless it's something I simply WANT to do.
I mean honestly... this guy is smart, and he says it's going to take him more than two years of ALL his free time, and a total of about 5 years, to become fluent. If he wants to do that, great! But for every "maker" (what a stupid term!) to do that, my goodness... just think of all the things that could be created in those thousands upon thousands of hours.
It's nonsensical on its face.
Surely, some people would benefit from it... but I suspect it would only be those who would already be inclined to want to.
I posit that "You guys" is not in fact directed at you specifically...
He said it to me, in reply to my comment. If he had meant something different, he could have responded that way, but in his several comments he did not, so I posit that he has tacitly conceded he was speaking to me specifically.
I do so love the idea that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what he's talking about... or is crazy
You're a liar, and thanks for pointing that out to me. I love intellectual disagreement from sane and well-informed people.
I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you.
That's an interesting choice of wording because I doubt the users intended to install an application that would hurt them.
You didn't explain what was interesting about the wording. Instead you talked about something else.
In any case, while that's not how they put it
I have no idea who this "they" is you keep referring to. Seriously, you're a fool. You're living in a world of make-believe where you can not only make up words people say, but make up the people who say them. Your world is a fantasy.
it's advertised...
FUCK advertising, and FUCK you. This isn't about advertising. Get it through your damned thick skull.
There's a difference between allowing users to install software of their choice and making it easy for random malicious websites to trick users into installing malware.
The latter never happened in this case. The users chose to install it, period. And it was completely and totally an explicit choice. They may not have understood that choice, but I don't care.
No they didn't.
You're lying.
the users didn't seek out and download this malware with the intention of compromising their PCs
I never said they did. I said the purposely and intentionally installed the software. That they didn't know what it was going to do is not the fault of the OS, it is THEIR fault, period. And no, in fact, despite your bald-faced lie, this is not different on Windows or Linux or any other similar operating system that gives the user the ability to have root privileges AND allows them to install whatever software they wish. It's exactly the same everywhere.
The malicious websites downloaded the program to the users' Macs, which then launched the installer, usually with no user interaction beyond visiting the site.
And then the user intentionally and purposefully and explicitly installed it. (That's not to take away from the obvious fact that it's idiotic to launch an installer without user direction, but even if that happens, the user has full and complete choice.)
It then tried to convince them to allow them to install it, at which point they did have to choose to do so - but lacked the information required to make a sensible decision!
You're lying. The sensible decision when you don't know what something is, is to deny installation. They had, literally, all the information necessary to make the sensible and right decision, whether they knew anything about this software or not.
(I think it may even have been able to bypass the "this software is from the internet" warning...)
I don't care. That's a stupid warning that helps no one and is ignored by everyone. It doesn't matter where it came from.
Even in the bad old days of widespread ActiveX malware on Windows, you had to agree to install most of it. This didn't stop Microsoft totally discontinuing ActiveX as unsafe, because effective security is about more than just technical details, it's also about helping users to make good security decisions.
If you cannot be trusted to know when to give something root privileges, you SHOULD NOT HAVE root privileges. This is the only "problem" here. What happened is absolutely unavoidable in a system where people have freedom, and don't know how to use it. The only solution is to take away freedom or educate the users, which is why Mac OS X can have non-admin accounts, and why eventually you'll probably be able to flip a bit to make installing software only possible (for a given user, or whole computer) through the App Store.
Slashdot Mirror
if your key is as attackable as a mailed ballot, but unlike in a mail in system, you can prove your vote was counted in the final tally, prove fraud (to the media, auditors, whatever) if its not, and have much stronger guarantees about the robustness of the secret ballot its still an improvement.
You're incorrect about this being a secret ballot. It's not a secret ballot if you don't do it at a polling place (that's not the only criteria, but it is one).
American Linus, stay away from me
American Linus, hacker let me be
Don't come hangin' round my code
I don't wanna see your kernel no more
I got more important things to do
Then spend my time tryin' to compile you
OK, I'll stop now.
I thought someone wrote a Finder for iOS.
Oops.
Um, uh. Hi! You look swell.
PANTS.
You're due for a break, Rob. You done good.
Hemos didn't, but you did. ;-)
Either directly retract the claim, or it stands. That's how it works.
[a bunch of stuff that doesn't retract the claim]
you said "I mean honestly ... this guy is smart, and he says it's going to take him more than two years of ALL his free time, and a total of about 5 years, to become fluent."
obviously you do not agree with yourself, retract it!
No, you're smart, about some things, I think. You seem to know your way around electronics, for example. You're terribly dumb about argument and logic, though. This is a common problem for technical people: they think because they are smart at some things, that this intelligence carries over. It doesn't.
You still think you have a point, for example, even though it's clear you do not. But at least you wised up and stopped trying to talk about what I've published.
If you could explain to me how any of those things could matter to my case, I would gladly provide a list. But I don't think you'll be able to do it.
you can't list anything because they only exist in your head
Being incapable of explaining how it relates to the point, you therefore tacitly admit that you are engaging in a red herring fallacy.
ok, again - be specific - post a link to the books you've co-authored! ISBNS please!
You really don't know how to Google? We've already established that it is unrelated to the argument; and I have no incentive to throw you any more bones. If you're of even moderate intelligence, you have all the information you need to find out in a minute or two.
which award, when, post a link
Shrug. Google, if you care. Once you've Googled the above, this should be mere seconds.
again, read the article. it's about makers who run maker businesses that work with companies in china, i even list out ones that do this now and how they're either learning mandarin or visiting frequently.
Yes, and none of that implies ALL makers who run maker businesses SHOULD learn Chinese.
look, i know it's hard to read past headlines.
I've repeatedly pointed out the fact that you claimed ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese, and you've refused to retract that claim, and you've repeatedly and directly argued in support of that claim. To shrug it off as just a headline is dishonest. Either directly retract the claim, or it stands. That's how it works.
it's awesome to watch
It's amazing that you don't realize that everything you're attacking me for in this regard, necessarily also applies to you. It's not like you're not writing as much as I am, and throwing around at least as many insults; worse, for you, I'm the one trying to focus on the actual argument, and you're the one continually engaging in ad hominem by trying to compare whom I know, what I've written, etc.
resorting to calling people "douchebags" when they ask you to back up anything you're saying with specifics
How did you become so closed-minded? I didn't "resort" to it. You make it sound like that's some last recourse. No, with douchebags, it's one of the first words I use, not one of the last.
Sigh. No. Do your own homework, if you care.
just list'em out, what's the big deal?
Look, I know you're very slow-witted, but I already explained this. Try to keep up. I'll say it again: it is logically irrelevant. I won't mention them because it literally doesn't matter to the argument, and it debases it. Whom I know doesn't matter, and what I've done doesn't matter, to my case, which is built on fundamental logical principles, as outlined in my example with the sets. If you could explain to me how any of those things could matter to my case, I would gladly provide a list. But I don't think you'll be able to do it.
really, you why can't you name all the publications you've written for? is the list too long for the meager form here?
Honestly, in truth, I cannot remember them all. There's been many, and it's been a long time. In addition to the two books I've co-authored, there's been maybe several newspapers and tech magazines ... and that's not even including the online publications, like Slashdot and oreilly.com. And I've turned down at least twice as many as I've written for, including an offer to write a book for O'Reilly, many moons ago.
haha! that's what you're considering "articles"? it's a news item with 3 sentences
On Slashdot, yes, that is what an article is. Are you new to Slashdot? I've done longer pieces here, but the majority are very short, yes, as almost every article on Slashdot is short.
from almost *5 years ago*.
Yes, when last I wrote regularly on Slashdot, it was a long time ago. And? If you recall, the point here is simply that you were trying to impress by pointing out that I was commenting on a Slashdot article about your article. I simply noted the fact that I've written many articles on Slashdot. I've been the subject of a few, too. If you don't think that's a big deal, fine, neither do I; we can both agree that an article on Slashdot about your article is not impressive.
where do you store all the pulitzers!?
Are you implying YOU have a Pulitzer? I have won several awards for writing and news, including an award -- sponsored by O'Reilly, with a cash prize, no less -- for a news web site I ran. I don't see how awards mean anything at all, though. It just means one or more people at one time thought they should recognize you for something. That's pretty boring to me, and if I had a Pulitzer it would not make any difference to me.
look dude, just face it - you love to argue on slashdot
You apparently do not realize that the only evidence that I "love to argue on Slashdot" also directly implies that YOU love to argue on Slashdot.
think of the hours you're spending talking to me about *my article* and walking around all pissed after getting smacked down here.
It's funny that you think you're a big deal, and that you think you've won a single argument here.
i asked you for specifics you can't provide
Yes, specifics that could not possibly help or hurt your case that all makers SHOULD learn Chinese, nor my case that this is an asinine claim for you to make.
and you look, foolish. not to anyone here, no one reads this
Perhaps, perhaps not. But I am unburdened by caring what most people think of me. It's a gift.
just yourself and that's why you're so upset :)
I am not upset, in fact. I do have a problem: a nearly, but not quite, pathological need to point out the logical fallacies of people who are being douchebags, whether anyone's watching or not.
this is *awesome*
Being exposed as a liar is awesome?
i imagine a big ole' man-child meltdown
Yawn. No, I do not get worked up when I am smacking you down.
great, name a few.
Sigh. No. Do your own homework, if you care.
trolly comments on slashdot calling people "douchebags" is not an "article"
Correct. And?
However, I do take your response as confirmation that you really do find worth and value in relative comparison of publication credits. And I find that to be extremely sad and pathetic.
you don't know anyone at MAKE
Again, I never said I did.
or anyone who actually makes things as business and works with china on a regular basis
You're a damned liar.
you're ashamed of your trolly comments here that know one reads
You're a damned liar.
that's why you can't stand behind them with any real facts, names
You're a damned liar.
or anything remotely resembling a coherent sentence :)
Wow. You really think you've written better sentences than I have, with your many spelling, grammar, and punctutation errors?
you're claiming to know maker owned businesses but cannot provide any examples at all.
You're a damned liar.
if you read the article you'll see where where i specifically say it's something good to consider.
I did see that. But nowhere -- not even here -- do I see you disavowing your claim that all makers should learn Chinese.
And if you read ANY of my comments you would know the POINT of my criticism was against YOUR claim that ALL makers SHOULD learn Chinese. At any point you could've retracted your claim. You still have not, and therefore my criticism still stands.
we both know you'll never actually create something besides commenting here
Wow. You really are that stupid, aren't you?
you know you're never going to start a magazine or have people read *articles* you write
I'd go over my significant list of publication credits, but I'll just note that I've writen articles and contributed to books -- as a writer, and tech editor -- at O'Reilly, just to make you feel more foolish, and leave it at that.
when they point out you're wrong
Except, of course, you never pointed out I was wrong.
slashdot, you're on slashdot commenting about my article :)
... and? Are you trying to imply something? I can't see what. I've written hundreds of articles on Slashdot ... so? It seems like you are trying to make yourself seem superior to me just because you've written things, and you (ignorantly) assume I have not. Even if I didn't have a ton of publication credits, that would STILL be stupid.
pudge, you're claiming to know people at MAKE
Actually -- and this should come as no surprise to anyone reading this far -- you're wrong, once again. I claimed no such thing. I probably DO know someone at MAKE, but I never said I did, or do, know anyone at the magazine. (Although I've met Dale before, more than once, and Mark too, I think.)
Seriously, learn to read. It's sad an "editor at large" has such poor reading skills. When I wrote, "I actually know a lot of people involved in it. I've been following it since O'Reilly put out the first MAKE," the referent of "it" is "community or movement". It's very clear from the context.
you're claiming to know maker owned businesses but cannot provide any examples at all.
You're a damned liar, Phillip. I refused to do so, because it's fallacious. If I provide a list, you won't be convinced by anything, nor should you: my argument is not based on what I know, but the fact that you didn't make your case. Further, I didn't ask their permission to mention them to some douchebag on Slashdot, even if I wanted to.
my article outlines what's going on with actual makers, people i know - i've listed them out and talked to all of them.
Yes, exactly ... but -- as anyone who knows a damned thing about logic and reason can attest -- this doesn't back up your assertion that ALL such people SHOULD learn Chinese. It only backs up the claim that knowing Chinese works for that subset of people.
if you're still confused by the article
The only thing that confused me about your article is why you would claim that all makers should learn Chinese, and then not give any arguments backing up that assertion. Re-reading it won't solve this confusion.
a good idea for "any" maker to consider :)
So do you retract your claim that all makers "should" learn Chinese? And if so, then why didn't you retract it earlier, when I kept repeating -- and then directly criticizing -- your claim?
If you don't believe all makers "should" learn Chinese, then if you had half a damned brain you would have said from the outset, "I don't believe all makers 'should' learn Chinese, I just think it's a good idea to consider." That would have solved the problem. By not correcting your error, and allowing it to persist, you've necessarily implied that you continue to agree with it.
You're exceptionally dense. Remind me to never hire you if I start a periodical of my own.
again, read the article
Again, you're a douchebag for dishonestly implying I didn't.
it's for "makers"
Again, you completely miss my point: I know many "makers," and they are a diverse group, and you are being extremely closed-minded by asserting that all of them should run their businesses a certain way.
read the comments *there* and review the long list of makers who are visiting china each year - this has already happened and will continue to happen. two founders of 2 of the top maker companies moved to asia already. if you read the make site you will see my follow ups with specific examples, past/present/and future.
Wow. You simply are not a rational person who understands the basics of logic: NONE of that backs up your assertion that every maker-run business SHOULD work that way. You do make a good case that this is something that works for SOME -- maybe even many, or most -- such companies. You do not make ANY case that it is what ALL such companies SHOULD do.
To put it in more mathematical terms, you are saying that everyone in Set C (maker-run busineeses learning Chinese, going to China, etc.) is also in Set S (maker-run businesses that are successful). But you provide no evidence or argument that everyone in Set N (not learning Chinese, going to China, etc.) needs to move to Set C in order to be in Set S.
really? i've been there from the start, can you be specific who you "know" ?
Yes. Will I? Absolutely not. Such logical fallacies are irrelevant. Again, I can provide you the name of some books to help you out here.
can you list maker owned companies of people you actually know, what they do and if they get goods from china?
Yes.
have you talked to them about this?
Yes.
saying someone is "close-minded" by proposing makers consider learning chinese is, well, laughable
Now you're just lying, Phillip. Please try to be honest. Your article made the point -- and I've explicitly repeated it every time I've criticized the point, often using capital letters -- that they SHOULD learn Chinese, not merely that they should consider learning Chinese. My entire criticism is predicated on the fact that you said they SHOULD learn it. I even explicitly stated that I think it is good that many are learning Chinese, which necessarily implies I have no problem with people considering it. I have a problem with your assertion -- which you are now dishonestly modifying -- that they SHOULD learn Chinese.
And, of course, I have a problem with you lying to us.
keep trollin' !
Look in the mirror, douchebag.
if you read the article ...
Continuing to falsely imply that I didn't makes you look more douche-y.
... you would have seen that give specific examples of *maker owned* companies ...
Yes, that is what we are talking about.
... for them it does matter and for them, the found/owner of the company likes to visit.
For THOSE SPECIFIC COMPANIES, fine. But what's that got to do with all the other maker-owned companies? You DID NOT make the case that this necessarily applies to ALL such companies. You merely hoped that by pointing out that it works for some companies, and YOU like it, therefore everyone else SHOULD do it. That's extremely poor reasoning.
if this is not a community or movement you're part of and you don't know the people it may be hard for you to imagine this.
I actually know a lot of people involved in it. I've been following it since O'Reilly put out the first MAKE (I still have a copy of it around here somewhere). I've done some of my own projects, and have many friends who do a lot more than I do (some of whom run their own maker businesses). And I know, very well, how diverse the people involved in it are. You apparently do not. You are closed-minded and think everyone should act as you would act, instead of trying different things and being themselves.
What's astonishing is that part of the whole POINT of the movement is trying different things and being yourself, and you're trying to squash that!
I am not saying no one should do as you do. I am simply saying it's nonsense to say that ALL such companies should do it. You can't seem to fathom that the same spirit of innovation and individualism that is seen throughout the work of "makers" (and again, I really hate that stupid term) should apply not just to their products, but to how they run their businesses.
You simply didn't make the case.
for makers i seemed to have
False. Cases are made, or not, through reason and logic, not through agreement. I can give you a good book on the subject if this concept eludes you.
attack? assault?
Yes. What part of that do you have a problem with? You accused me of trolling. That's an attack. This is obvious.
you're commenting on slashdot dude, it's troll all the way down.
So you're going to stick with irrational, fallacious, and douche-y, then.
businesses usually are not one-man affairs; I could certainly hire a business manager or partner or another maker who knows Chinese, and be just as well-off.
i don't think so, it matters when the president/founder talks or visits. if you look at the sparkfun site you'll see the CEO visits china, not some biz manager.
*facepalm*
You're not getting it, Phillip. Everyone is different. Maybe not in China, but here. (Laugh, it's a joke.) You apparently cannot even consider the possibility that maybe my company would be better off with someone else doing that, than me, even if I learned Chinese fluently. You're being extremely closed-minded, thinking the only way to do things is the way YOU want to do them. Maybe that comes from living in, and admiring, China? (Also a joke ... maybe?)
You made no case, at all, for why everyone else "should" do it.
you didn't read the article.
Yes, I did. You simply didn't make the case.
totally cool, trolling on slashdot is a better hobby for some, enjoy this wonderful mess.
Yeah, um, attacking someone who assaults your premise with rational arguments as a "troll" is an obvious copout, and no one buys it.
hey pudge, i specifically mean "makers who run businesses" - which a lot of the makers who read MAKE tend to be, or want to become.
My answer's the same, except perhaps the scale is a bit lower. Plus, as has been pointed out, businesses usually are not one-man affairs; I could certainly hire a business manager or partner or another maker who knows Chinese, and be just as well-off.
it's been handy for me
Good. What's that got to do with what everyone else "should" do?
they're all visiting china at least once a year
Good. What's that got to do with what everyone else "should" do?
these are the prolific makers that are at every maker faire and are the centers of many diy communities.
Good. What's that got to do with what everyone else "should" do?
You made no case, at all, for why everyone else "should" do it.
I think it's great that you want to become fluent in Chinese. I sure as hell don't.
Absolutely false. The benefit of me learning Chinese, compared to the benefit of using that time to read about math, science, history, and so on ... it's a no-brainer. There's no good reason for me to spend my time learning Chinese, as opposed to doing something else, unless it's something I simply WANT to do.
I mean honestly ... this guy is smart, and he says it's going to take him more than two years of ALL his free time, and a total of about 5 years, to become fluent. If he wants to do that, great! But for every "maker" (what a stupid term!) to do that, my goodness ... just think of all the things that could be created in those thousands upon thousands of hours.
It's nonsensical on its face.
Surely, some people would benefit from it ... but I suspect it would only be those who would already be inclined to want to.
If you had only half my intelligence, I'd respond to you.
Wouldn't that make me the pretty receptionist?
Oops, cat's out of the bag. You've found me out.
So every problem with every web site should be my problem ... ? Sounds like a plan!
Not my problem!
I always thought "Boring Manager Rob" was a direct reference to MY boss at the time, CmdrTaco, and, hence, the song was about me. ;-)
You're a liar, and thanks for pointing that out to me. I love intellectual disagreement from sane and well-informed people.
Q.E.D.
So, when I said well-informed, I meant people who -- for example -- know what QED means, and how to use it.
I posit that "You guys" is not in fact directed at you specifically ...
He said it to me, in reply to my comment. If he had meant something different, he could have responded that way, but in his several comments he did not, so I posit that he has tacitly conceded he was speaking to me specifically.
I do so love the idea that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know what he's talking about ... or is crazy
You're a liar, and thanks for pointing that out to me. I love intellectual disagreement from sane and well-informed people.
I've NEVER heard someone saying that a reason to switch from Windows is that you might purposely install an app designed to hurt you.
That's an interesting choice of wording because I doubt the users intended to install an application that would hurt them.
You didn't explain what was interesting about the wording. Instead you talked about something else.
In any case, while that's not how they put it
I have no idea who this "they" is you keep referring to. Seriously, you're a fool. You're living in a world of make-believe where you can not only make up words people say, but make up the people who say them. Your world is a fantasy.
it's advertised ...
FUCK advertising, and FUCK you. This isn't about advertising. Get it through your damned thick skull.
There's a difference between allowing users to install software of their choice and making it easy for random malicious websites to trick users into installing malware.
The latter never happened in this case. The users chose to install it, period. And it was completely and totally an explicit choice. They may not have understood that choice, but I don't care.
No they didn't.
You're lying.
the users didn't seek out and download this malware with the intention of compromising their PCs
I never said they did. I said the purposely and intentionally installed the software. That they didn't know what it was going to do is not the fault of the OS, it is THEIR fault, period. And no, in fact, despite your bald-faced lie, this is not different on Windows or Linux or any other similar operating system that gives the user the ability to have root privileges AND allows them to install whatever software they wish. It's exactly the same everywhere.
The malicious websites downloaded the program to the users' Macs, which then launched the installer, usually with no user interaction beyond visiting the site.
And then the user intentionally and purposefully and explicitly installed it. (That's not to take away from the obvious fact that it's idiotic to launch an installer without user direction, but even if that happens, the user has full and complete choice.)
It then tried to convince them to allow them to install it, at which point they did have to choose to do so - but lacked the information required to make a sensible decision!
You're lying. The sensible decision when you don't know what something is, is to deny installation. They had, literally, all the information necessary to make the sensible and right decision, whether they knew anything about this software or not.
(I think it may even have been able to bypass the "this software is from the internet" warning...)
I don't care. That's a stupid warning that helps no one and is ignored by everyone. It doesn't matter where it came from.
Even in the bad old days of widespread ActiveX malware on Windows, you had to agree to install most of it. This didn't stop Microsoft totally discontinuing ActiveX as unsafe, because effective security is about more than just technical details, it's also about helping users to make good security decisions.
If you cannot be trusted to know when to give something root privileges, you SHOULD NOT HAVE root privileges. This is the only "problem" here. What happened is absolutely unavoidable in a system where people have freedom, and don't know how to use it. The only solution is to take away freedom or educate the users, which is why Mac OS X can have non-admin accounts, and why eventually you'll probably be able to flip a bit to make installing software only possible (for a given user, or whole computer) through the App Store.
Dude, I live on the command line in my Mac. Won't let me do anything bad? On what planet?
Can you stop shooting down straw men?
Yeah, because you're obviously an average Mac user...
You're not making any sense. What he said was to me. I pointed out the fact that what he said to me was false. Where's your disconnect?