Low ID users have been around longer, probably have more "alignment" with the community mentality, and just more experience commenting. Thus it's likely they get modded up. I doubt many people look at IDs before moderating.
Now, if you were to introduce a renewable food source like the silk worm, most of those problems are reduced considerably. You leave orbit with only a seed population, and since their bodies, much like ours, are comprised mostly of water, it is not a straight equation of 1LB of worm food begets 1LB of worms.
Don't be silly. 1LB of food results in less than 1LB of worms, because despite reduced waste material, there's still waste. There is always entropy, and you can't magically grow more matter just because you have a biological organism. You still need to take all the food you will need for growing things with you... more in this case than you would just for feeding people. Plus the habitats for growing them all and the time to maintain them. Then you have a problem if something suddenly kills them all and you're left with a bunch of dead worms and worm food.
This would only be useful if you could find worm food en route, or even on mars, but I doubt there is much of that lying around.
Other posts have summed it up: be good at your job. The programmers are good at theirs; you should be good at yours. Being good does not mean building up an impenetrable layer of bullshit so you can CYA and point fingers. That's the primary indication of being crappy at what you do, regardless of what it is.
If you don't know, admit it. Ask. Figure it out. RFTM, ask the right questions, take advice seriously, let people do their jobs. If these people are truly good at what they do, your job is simply to be there making sure they're working on the right project and getting them the support they need to get their job done. Be their advocate, not the representative of other groups.
What you need to do isn't hard. You should already know these things at some level. Just do them.
Screw that... I went pubkey-only from any directly-exposed hosts awhile ago. Works great. I keep my Blackberry's MidpSSH key on the hosts, then in an emergency I can log in and add a new key if necessary. Plus if people want an account they can just send in a pubkey and I don't have to communicate a password.
Actually it's EAL8. But you can't know about it, because it's insecure. Products that qualify for EAL8 can be neither confirmed nor denied, because if you knew about them, they wouldn't qualify. Those developers that make it are EAL8-ed.
Why? As a single consumer, I have very little power in the economy. But my one ability is to not patronize those I disagree with. It has very little overall effect, but it is my only effect.
No. That's just the lazy man's rationalization. You can't be bothered to speak out or actually do anything, so you decide not to do something, and convince yourself that, by not doing something, you're doing something. Guess what: you're not.
This is entirely different from a boycott. You simply disagree with what someone says, so you refuse to read anything they write, stop considering anything they say, cut off any communication... dare I say, excommunicate them. Perhaps you should consider seeing if they float, and burning them at the stake.
A real boycott is because someone (usually lots of someones, as per a company) has done something immoral; they're using child labor in another country, they're using and promoting something detrimental to health, being unethical and stomping on competition, etc. They're not just a person expressing their opinion that they're not just entitled to, but have an inalienable right to express.
If you stop considering everything anyone says because they disagree with you slightly or not so slightly, then you're simply a fanatic who has no desire to learn or discuss.
I'm not surprised that iPhones fail less. People take far better care of them.
No kidding. My blackberry gets near constant use all day. In and out of the holster, keyboard pounded on. I've spent 6 straight hours (leashed to a power outlet) doing emergency work over SSH on one. Dropped it repeatedly. Had it on and awake for months of uptime. And you know what? It works just as well as it did the day I got it.
If iPhones have a better fail rate than Blackberries, my guess is because people simply use them less.
Seems whatever happens people just want to hate Microsoft whatever moves the company makes...
Apparently you were born recently. The reason Microsoft is hated no matter what they do is because they have a history of doing reprehensible things at every single turn. IBM. Apple. Lotus. Stac. Netscape. Tons of names in between.
Never have they competed fairly, honestly, or been good business partners. Always there is backstabbing, monopoly abuse, and underhanded tactics to increase their market position. Where there was a new feature or a new application, it was to crush the competition. There is nothing wrong with a good, strong business profiting from a great product. But Microsoft is an evil, twisted company that thrives on crushing everyone else with inferiority.
Fortunately the market has shifted in the past decade to a position where Microsoft has a much harder time competing. No longer can billions of dollars buy their way into a market; when your competition is free and open, you have a harder time competing by product dumping. When everyone is using a cross-platform web, you have a harder time locking people in. When you're old and all you can do is market your way out of a situation, you have a hard time beating the other guy who's way better and doesn't need marketing.
Next time some whiner points out something new cool thing Google is doing is really a veiled conspiracy to take over the world, please point to this and tell them to kindly STFU. Microsoft is really evil and they've consistently and continuously done things like this since their inception 25+ years ago.
Given the earlier controversy over their EULAs containing clauses to forfeit all rights to your IP, this isn't just an idle question.
You mean the ones they immediately fixed? Are you one of those paranoid whiners who has no problem with Microsoft but points out all the evil things that Google must be doing?
If by "going nowhere" you mean "constantly getting new releases of everything, from remastered old videos to digitally-filmed new releases," then yes, Blu-Ray is "going nowhere". Personally I don't buy anything now unless it's BD. Anything less than HD looks like crap now.
(Hint: just because you don't have a player or never look for new content doesn't mean it doesn't exist, anymore than putting your hands over your eyes makes something go away.)
anyone who puts religious convictions or beliefs higher than their science, are not worthy of any scientific post.
Pressuring someone to resign because they mention the word "creationism" in a not entirely disparaging context, despite being misquoted, sounds like "religious convictions or belief higher than their science" to me. Unless their science involves propaganda and gut feeling rather than logic an facts. So who isn't worthy of a post here?
If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.
They will always give different answers. (legal, illegal) doesn't match (right, wrong).
And, on a serious note, nor should they. The question of what is "right" or "wrong" differs between a lot of people. Things like the first amendment address the right to say things that others might consider wrong. Should the law be updated so people can't say "wrong" things? I didn't think so. This simple test may be pithy, but it's not sufficient.
Additionally, having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. The only thing I can see here is that Google holds a monopoly on online advertising (i.e., >81% of the market or whatever the standard is), and someone's been whining about their practices. It's unlikely to be about anything people normally use, unless they're accused of product dumping (by not charging for services) and stifling competition in the area, but this seems unlikely because really, like TV, users are the product they're selling to advertisers.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, and I'm just speculating. Of all the companies to go after (*coughmicrosoftcough*), Google seems like the least evil.
The paragraph quoted above is correct in fact and in spirit. I'm not exactly sure what Zimmermann is opposed to.
Probably exactly what he says: "Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this." What's so confusing here?
Oddly, both of the criteria you've suggested as the only viable criteria for interpreting art actually have little or nothing to do with what it means, which makes it understandable that you need the artist explain it to you literally.
Aha! I have found our point of discontinuity. I'm talking about defining or classifying art, not interpreting it. Many times I find people who contend something like "art means whatever I think, therefore art is simply whatever I want". This is not the case; what is art and what is not art is pretty easy to define, at least along a scale of sorts, using the previously-stated criteria.
What art means is entirely different, of course. Interpretation, as I said, is definitely an observer-oriented role... and sure, you can interpret something however you want---but that doesn't mean you're "right", i.e., your interpretation may or may not be close to what the artist intended. With art you often have the luxury of this not mattering. (Sadly, many analysts/critics read their own viewpoints and interpretations into art and claim incorrectly that it's "what the artist meant".)
In any case, my contention is more about the classification of art rather than the interpretation. Some would use the subjectivity of the latter to imply the subjectivity of the former.
Your piece of art means to me whatever I think it means.
Ah, the total relativist. Well, this statement clearly means that you're entirely and utterly wrong on all counts an explicitly saying so in those exact words...
The point is that it does not mean what you think it means. Code, for instance, can be a form of art; if anything has explicit and exact objective meaning, it's code. Writing is similar (though natural language becomes more ambiguous). What changes is not the author's intent or meaning; what changes is your perspective. This is often why history and culture are studied alongside art, so that the perspective of the artist at the time may be understood.
I'm going to have go ahead and totally disagree with you on that one. Excellence of form, while one judge of a work's quality, does not inherently make that work innovative, inspirational or compelling.
Right; excellence is one of two defining factors of art. The other is the depth, as mentioned. (Incidentally, "innovative" is next to meaningless, and "inspirational or compelling" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but these things are not necessary for art. If you don't find a work "inspirational or compelling", that doesn't make it not-art. There is a difference between "what is art" and "what I appreciate".)
Typical bullshit from a pretender or non-artist. Art is the expression of the artist; the form of expression may be completely abstract, as with abstract visual art or most forms of music. It may be representational or allegorical or symbolic or many things, but it has specific meaning the artist is trying to convey. Art is communication between the artist and the observer: an artist without something to say isn't an artist.
As with any communication, of course, the meaning is subject to interpretation, which can be right on or completely off. This does not however mean that meaning is entirely in the eye of the beholder---only that the beholder can be completely wrong. Art is also subject to analysis by third parties, which lends insight and detail to the work. Analysis, however, is also not meaning.
Quality of art is in its excellence of form and its depth. A poorly-scrawled stick figure is crap; a well-drawn stick figure that conveys multiple well-thought-out references may be pretty good art. (I'm sure you can come up with a few references to xkcd here.)
Art, like every other craft, is not magic. It is not a magically-talented person: contrary to popular opinion, most Mozart is very formulaic and not very good. It's not someone wielding incomprehensible forces: artists tend to know their craft very well and be able to explain their work in detail. And it's not anything goes: slinging paint at a canvas doesn't automatically make you an insightful abstract painter. Like any other craft, only non-craftsmen and those pretending the craft believe these things.
Slashdot Mirror
Low ID users have been around longer, probably have more "alignment" with the community mentality, and just more experience commenting. Thus it's likely they get modded up. I doubt many people look at IDs before moderating.
And I've got a low ID, so that makes it true.
I mean seriously.
Don't be silly. 1LB of food results in less than 1LB of worms, because despite reduced waste material, there's still waste. There is always entropy, and you can't magically grow more matter just because you have a biological organism. You still need to take all the food you will need for growing things with you... more in this case than you would just for feeding people. Plus the habitats for growing them all and the time to maintain them. Then you have a problem if something suddenly kills them all and you're left with a bunch of dead worms and worm food.
This would only be useful if you could find worm food en route, or even on mars, but I doubt there is much of that lying around.
Other posts have summed it up: be good at your job. The programmers are good at theirs; you should be good at yours. Being good does not mean building up an impenetrable layer of bullshit so you can CYA and point fingers. That's the primary indication of being crappy at what you do, regardless of what it is.
If you don't know, admit it. Ask. Figure it out. RFTM, ask the right questions, take advice seriously, let people do their jobs. If these people are truly good at what they do, your job is simply to be there making sure they're working on the right project and getting them the support they need to get their job done. Be their advocate, not the representative of other groups.
What you need to do isn't hard. You should already know these things at some level. Just do them.
We can't? I'm pretty sure we should, if nothing else, be blaming him for using the MS definition and not even having the geek level to differentiate.
Screw that... I went pubkey-only from any directly-exposed hosts awhile ago. Works great. I keep my Blackberry's MidpSSH key on the hosts, then in an emergency I can log in and add a new key if necessary. Plus if people want an account they can just send in a pubkey and I don't have to communicate a password.
I'm afraid that at this point I stopped caring about your opinion...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure his original answer wasn't using his brain, so there you go. ;-)
Actually it's EAL8. But you can't know about it, because it's insecure. Products that qualify for EAL8 can be neither confirmed nor denied, because if you knew about them, they wouldn't qualify. Those developers that make it are EAL8-ed.
No. That's just the lazy man's rationalization. You can't be bothered to speak out or actually do anything, so you decide not to do something, and convince yourself that, by not doing something, you're doing something. Guess what: you're not.
This is entirely different from a boycott. You simply disagree with what someone says, so you refuse to read anything they write, stop considering anything they say, cut off any communication... dare I say, excommunicate them. Perhaps you should consider seeing if they float, and burning them at the stake.
A real boycott is because someone (usually lots of someones, as per a company) has done something immoral; they're using child labor in another country, they're using and promoting something detrimental to health, being unethical and stomping on competition, etc. They're not just a person expressing their opinion that they're not just entitled to, but have an inalienable right to express.
If you stop considering everything anyone says because they disagree with you slightly or not so slightly, then you're simply a fanatic who has no desire to learn or discuss.
So if my blackberry is constantly connected to the internet and it's on 24/7, I guess that means
...
...
I'm ... what were we talking about? I was checking my mail.
No kidding. My blackberry gets near constant use all day. In and out of the holster, keyboard pounded on. I've spent 6 straight hours (leashed to a power outlet) doing emergency work over SSH on one. Dropped it repeatedly. Had it on and awake for months of uptime. And you know what? It works just as well as it did the day I got it.
If iPhones have a better fail rate than Blackberries, my guess is because people simply use them less.
Apparently you were born recently. The reason Microsoft is hated no matter what they do is because they have a history of doing reprehensible things at every single turn. IBM. Apple. Lotus. Stac. Netscape. Tons of names in between.
Never have they competed fairly, honestly, or been good business partners. Always there is backstabbing, monopoly abuse, and underhanded tactics to increase their market position. Where there was a new feature or a new application, it was to crush the competition. There is nothing wrong with a good, strong business profiting from a great product. But Microsoft is an evil, twisted company that thrives on crushing everyone else with inferiority.
Fortunately the market has shifted in the past decade to a position where Microsoft has a much harder time competing. No longer can billions of dollars buy their way into a market; when your competition is free and open, you have a harder time competing by product dumping. When everyone is using a cross-platform web, you have a harder time locking people in. When you're old and all you can do is market your way out of a situation, you have a hard time beating the other guy who's way better and doesn't need marketing.
Yeah, they need to specify how many Refrigerators per Library-of-Congress so we can really envision it.
You haven't played Halo then.
Next time some whiner points out something new cool thing Google is doing is really a veiled conspiracy to take over the world, please point to this and tell them to kindly STFU. Microsoft is really evil and they've consistently and continuously done things like this since their inception 25+ years ago.
You mean the ones they immediately fixed? Are you one of those paranoid whiners who has no problem with Microsoft but points out all the evil things that Google must be doing?
If by "going nowhere" you mean "constantly getting new releases of everything, from remastered old videos to digitally-filmed new releases," then yes, Blu-Ray is "going nowhere". Personally I don't buy anything now unless it's BD. Anything less than HD looks like crap now.
(Hint: just because you don't have a player or never look for new content doesn't mean it doesn't exist, anymore than putting your hands over your eyes makes something go away.)
Pressuring someone to resign because they mention the word "creationism" in a not entirely disparaging context, despite being misquoted, sounds like "religious convictions or belief higher than their science" to me. Unless their science involves propaganda and gut feeling rather than logic an facts. So who isn't worthy of a post here?
They will always give different answers. (legal, illegal) doesn't match (right, wrong).
And, on a serious note, nor should they. The question of what is "right" or "wrong" differs between a lot of people. Things like the first amendment address the right to say things that others might consider wrong. Should the law be updated so people can't say "wrong" things? I didn't think so. This simple test may be pithy, but it's not sufficient.
Additionally, having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. The only thing I can see here is that Google holds a monopoly on online advertising (i.e., >81% of the market or whatever the standard is), and someone's been whining about their practices. It's unlikely to be about anything people normally use, unless they're accused of product dumping (by not charging for services) and stifling competition in the area, but this seems unlikely because really, like TV, users are the product they're selling to advertisers.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, and I'm just speculating. Of all the companies to go after (*coughmicrosoftcough*), Google seems like the least evil.
Probably exactly what he says: "Second, Declan's quote is drawn from remarks I wrote in 1999. Declan seems to be trying to draft me in his opposition to Biden, and, by extension, makes it seem as if I am against the Democratic ticket. I take issue with this." What's so confusing here?
Aha! I have found our point of discontinuity. I'm talking about defining or classifying art, not interpreting it. Many times I find people who contend something like "art means whatever I think, therefore art is simply whatever I want". This is not the case; what is art and what is not art is pretty easy to define, at least along a scale of sorts, using the previously-stated criteria.
What art means is entirely different, of course. Interpretation, as I said, is definitely an observer-oriented role... and sure, you can interpret something however you want---but that doesn't mean you're "right", i.e., your interpretation may or may not be close to what the artist intended. With art you often have the luxury of this not mattering. (Sadly, many analysts/critics read their own viewpoints and interpretations into art and claim incorrectly that it's "what the artist meant".)
In any case, my contention is more about the classification of art rather than the interpretation. Some would use the subjectivity of the latter to imply the subjectivity of the former.
Ah, the total relativist. Well, this statement clearly means that you're entirely and utterly wrong on all counts an explicitly saying so in those exact words...
The point is that it does not mean what you think it means. Code, for instance, can be a form of art; if anything has explicit and exact objective meaning, it's code. Writing is similar (though natural language becomes more ambiguous). What changes is not the author's intent or meaning; what changes is your perspective. This is often why history and culture are studied alongside art, so that the perspective of the artist at the time may be understood.
Right; excellence is one of two defining factors of art. The other is the depth, as mentioned. (Incidentally, "innovative" is next to meaningless, and "inspirational or compelling" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but these things are not necessary for art. If you don't find a work "inspirational or compelling", that doesn't make it not-art. There is a difference between "what is art" and "what I appreciate".)
Typical bullshit from a pretender or non-artist. Art is the expression of the artist; the form of expression may be completely abstract, as with abstract visual art or most forms of music. It may be representational or allegorical or symbolic or many things, but it has specific meaning the artist is trying to convey. Art is communication between the artist and the observer: an artist without something to say isn't an artist.
As with any communication, of course, the meaning is subject to interpretation, which can be right on or completely off. This does not however mean that meaning is entirely in the eye of the beholder---only that the beholder can be completely wrong. Art is also subject to analysis by third parties, which lends insight and detail to the work. Analysis, however, is also not meaning.
Quality of art is in its excellence of form and its depth. A poorly-scrawled stick figure is crap; a well-drawn stick figure that conveys multiple well-thought-out references may be pretty good art. (I'm sure you can come up with a few references to xkcd here.)
Art, like every other craft, is not magic. It is not a magically-talented person: contrary to popular opinion, most Mozart is very formulaic and not very good. It's not someone wielding incomprehensible forces: artists tend to know their craft very well and be able to explain their work in detail. And it's not anything goes: slinging paint at a canvas doesn't automatically make you an insightful abstract painter. Like any other craft, only non-craftsmen and those pretending the craft believe these things.