I stopped paying attention to all dictionaries when the macquarie dictionary redefined "misogyny" after a particularly contentious parliamentary argument in Australia, in a flagrant attempt to retcon the prime ministers hyperbolic accusation against her political opponent as correct.
The French have it the right way. They have an institute that is dedicated to guiding the language for everyone.
The English (and derivatives) also have it the right way: we talk however the hell we want and let the dictionaries catch up, kicking and screaming all the way that we are literally abusing the language.
but XP was clearly the most powerful OS that MS has made, and Windows 7 is a barely usable but certainly much less convenient OS than XP.
It's very true. For years I thought that I liked windows 7 more than XP, but then about 3 years ago I had to use an XP machine at work, and I realised it was much better then 7. The only thing I missed from 7 was pinning windows to the start bar.
It turns out that what I really want from an operating system is to not notice it. Windows 7 is like windows XP, but flashier. Flashiness is not a desirable attribute in an OS. XP represented peak functionality over form for microsoft, and the balance has been going the other way since then.
I don't want your OS to respond to voice commands, I don't want it to automatically sync my files, I don't want push notification apps. If I wanted that I'd download a program to do it
I want a robust hardware abstraction so I can pretend thumb drives work the same as magnetic SATA drives, an understated and gentle file manager/desktop, and that's all.
I don't even want your browser. Bring back the thing which lets me choose a browser the first time I start the computer.
Actually, you just gave good examples of non-self defeating names. The reason they are great is they are unique. Easy to google, easy to talk about.
Every time someone talks about rust in the crucial next two years, they are going to have to say "what do you think of rust? the language, not the game".
Every time someone who hasn't searched for it before and thus hasn't acclimatised their search bubble to finding Rust No Not The Oxidation Result I Mean The Programming Language searches for "rust" it'll be on the third page.
Just because people can stalker and bully in the real world is not a reason to make it easy online.
With respect to your second point, if I stalk you the old fashioned way, technology won't help you. I'll just turn my phone off.
It's false safety, but you've made the situation worse, because I can use facebook to choose someone I don't personally know to stalk, making it harder for the police to isolate me, and then do it the old fashioned way, removing the "technological advantage" you (incorrectly) tout.
The inside of your head is a strange place. Again, how about just not tracking, linking and catagorising people?
She now has to actively spend time counter-stalking her stalker. The stalker may well enjoy that even more, and now she has to structure her entire life, including things like where she works, what routes she drives, where she lives, which friends she visits and when she shops around current and past locations of her stalker.
If she has more then one stalker, there may be no valid solution. Maybe she should just not buy toilet paper today, and wipe her arse with teatowels, because there's someone in range of every shopping center?
Good news, new idea for an app, for 99c I'll make you an app that will warn you when your stalker is within 2km. Spend an extra $10, get the addon that makes your satnav choose roads that your stalker isn't on!
What is wrong with you, that you could possibly think that's a better solution then not letting her be tracked in the first place?
What does she even gain by allowing herself to be tracked? Why would anyone want this? Why not just, and I know this is radical, not track people?
Online harassment is a symptom of a larger problem.
Time was you could deal with online harassment by clicking the block button. The ability for someone to follow you across forums and services was limited. Today, we insist that people use their real names, link their accounts and allow friend-of-friend connections on modern web services. We make them input their phone numbers, of all things.
We say to people "if you don't like it, don't use it". But there is no good reason for people to insist on these functions. They insist on them only because people have always been singularly identifiable, and some people find it odd to operate in a space where that might not hold true.
However, there is a good reason to insist we trash them: cyberbullying.
It's far easier to to dox people if you can google their name and get dozens of results. Far easier to follow people if they're linking their facebook account to things, and you've got a clandestine link to their facebook account. Automatic stalking.
Yet, when people like me suggest that this "publicity by default" concept is bad, and say that people should be allowed to delete accounts when they no longer need them, we are told "it's a post privacy world, deal with it" and "everything on the internet is pubic and permanent, deal with it".
If I'm using bitcoins as a payment gateway then that makes sense, but I would never do that because visa is adequate for that purpose, and provides me with the bonus benefit of being able to reverse the transaction.
Drivers in SA are bad, I won't argue with that. Quite the opposite, I could give you a detailed explanation in the many deficiencies of the SA licensing system.
However, the cameras are making the situation worse, not better. Moreover, there are drivers everywhere who should not have their licences.
Just because there are lots of people who can't drive doesn't make it's ok to put up a camera system that might cause more road deaths. You have to engineer systems for the reality of the world. Wishing that all drivers knew how to break properly and only needed speed cameras as gentle reminders won't make it so.
Speed cameras cause panic when noticed for the first time. If nothing else, it causes people to take their eyes off the road and check their exact speed, causing an ongoing roll of distracted drivers right in front of the camera. Naturally, that sometimes makes them automatic hotspots for crashes.
I have tried to send money from Australia to Iceland by bank transfer exactly once.
I wanted to send about $20 to a friend. My bank charged me $25 to send the $20 by direct deposit bank transfer. It never arrived. Several weeks after it was overdue we talked to the respective banks.
The Australian bank (I won't name names) said "it definitely left our system, not our problem". The Icelandic bank said "it never arrived, there's nothing we can do!".
It just fucking vanished somewhere over India, apparently. I was out $55, my friend was out $20, and apparently it was no ones fault.
Bitcoin as a retail payment system? Not yet. Not until bitcoin is a bit less volatile. But as a money transfer mechanism between private citizens? Maybe not a bad idea.
In my state, they put them at the bottom of hills, hoping to catch cars that have rolled from 50km/h to 52km/h on the downhill slope.
That's pretty scummy in and of itself, but it's also dangerous, because it means people see the cameras and slam on the brakes half way down a hill, which is very unsafe.
I do not consider the added danger that drivers reacting to speed cameras causes to be a worthwhile exchange for making sure people drive at 50 rather than 52.
I understand that you are expressing a desire to catch people doing 70 in a 50 zone, but you could do that without causing brake-slamming by setting the cameras to only capture people doing 10km/h over the speed limit or more, and making that fact public knowledge.
These cameras are not about safety, they are willfully lowering safety to make money. I'm not ok with that.
Slashdot Mirror
They are. Dictionaries are a redundant operation.
I stopped paying attention to all dictionaries when the macquarie dictionary redefined "misogyny" after a particularly contentious parliamentary argument in Australia, in a flagrant attempt to retcon the prime ministers hyperbolic accusation against her political opponent as correct.
The French have it the right way. They have an institute that is dedicated to guiding the language for everyone.
The English (and derivatives) also have it the right way: we talk however the hell we want and let the dictionaries catch up, kicking and screaming all the way that we are literally abusing the language.
but XP was clearly the most powerful OS that MS has made, and Windows 7 is a barely usable but certainly much less convenient OS than XP.
It's very true. For years I thought that I liked windows 7 more than XP, but then about 3 years ago I had to use an XP machine at work, and I realised it was much better then 7. The only thing I missed from 7 was pinning windows to the start bar.
It turns out that what I really want from an operating system is to not notice it. Windows 7 is like windows XP, but flashier. Flashiness is not a desirable attribute in an OS. XP represented peak functionality over form for microsoft, and the balance has been going the other way since then.
I don't want your OS to respond to voice commands, I don't want it to automatically sync my files, I don't want push notification apps. If I wanted that I'd download a program to do it
I want a robust hardware abstraction so I can pretend thumb drives work the same as magnetic SATA drives, an understated and gentle file manager/desktop, and that's all.
I don't even want your browser. Bring back the thing which lets me choose a browser the first time I start the computer.
It probably would be by the custom rom providers.
Actually, you just gave good examples of non-self defeating names. The reason they are great is they are unique. Easy to google, easy to talk about.
Every time someone talks about rust in the crucial next two years, they are going to have to say "what do you think of rust? the language, not the game".
Every time someone who hasn't searched for it before and thus hasn't acclimatised their search bubble to finding Rust No Not The Oxidation Result I Mean The Programming Language searches for "rust" it'll be on the third page.
You are making a non-associative link, dunce.
Just because people can stalker and bully in the real world is not a reason to make it easy online.
With respect to your second point, if I stalk you the old fashioned way, technology won't help you. I'll just turn my phone off.
It's false safety, but you've made the situation worse, because I can use facebook to choose someone I don't personally know to stalk, making it harder for the police to isolate me, and then do it the old fashioned way, removing the "technological advantage" you (incorrectly) tout.
The inside of your head is a strange place. Again, how about just not tracking, linking and catagorising people?
Why not just legislate against it?
You're joking, right?
She now has to actively spend time counter-stalking her stalker. The stalker may well enjoy that even more, and now she has to structure her entire life, including things like where she works, what routes she drives, where she lives, which friends she visits and when she shops around current and past locations of her stalker.
If she has more then one stalker, there may be no valid solution. Maybe she should just not buy toilet paper today, and wipe her arse with teatowels, because there's someone in range of every shopping center?
Good news, new idea for an app, for 99c I'll make you an app that will warn you when your stalker is within 2km. Spend an extra $10, get the addon that makes your satnav choose roads that your stalker isn't on!
What is wrong with you, that you could possibly think that's a better solution then not letting her be tracked in the first place?
What does she even gain by allowing herself to be tracked? Why would anyone want this? Why not just, and I know this is radical, not track people?
Fuck me.
Well, what if we made it so things were even more transparent, and we were able to bring pressure against the "doxer"
Fantastic, never mind making sure 0 people get doxxed, let's dox two people! It's a party!
Mutually assured destruction has always been a terrible policy.
Online harassment is a symptom of a larger problem.
Time was you could deal with online harassment by clicking the block button. The ability for someone to follow you across forums and services was limited. Today, we insist that people use their real names, link their accounts and allow friend-of-friend connections on modern web services. We make them input their phone numbers, of all things.
We say to people "if you don't like it, don't use it". But there is no good reason for people to insist on these functions. They insist on them only because people have always been singularly identifiable, and some people find it odd to operate in a space where that might not hold true.
However, there is a good reason to insist we trash them: cyberbullying.
It's far easier to to dox people if you can google their name and get dozens of results. Far easier to follow people if they're linking their facebook account to things, and you've got a clandestine link to their facebook account. Automatic stalking.
Yet, when people like me suggest that this "publicity by default" concept is bad, and say that people should be allowed to delete accounts when they no longer need them, we are told "it's a post privacy world, deal with it" and "everything on the internet is pubic and permanent, deal with it".
Maybe that's not a good paradigm?
Violation does not concern you.
It does if I'm going to keep a store of bitcoins.
If I'm using bitcoins as a payment gateway then that makes sense, but I would never do that because visa is adequate for that purpose, and provides me with the bonus benefit of being able to reverse the transaction.
Drivers in SA are bad, I won't argue with that. Quite the opposite, I could give you a detailed explanation in the many deficiencies of the SA licensing system.
However, the cameras are making the situation worse, not better. Moreover, there are drivers everywhere who should not have their licences.
Just because there are lots of people who can't drive doesn't make it's ok to put up a camera system that might cause more road deaths. You have to engineer systems for the reality of the world. Wishing that all drivers knew how to break properly and only needed speed cameras as gentle reminders won't make it so.
Speed cameras cause panic when noticed for the first time. If nothing else, it causes people to take their eyes off the road and check their exact speed, causing an ongoing roll of distracted drivers right in front of the camera. Naturally, that sometimes makes them automatic hotspots for crashes.
I have tried to send money from Australia to Iceland by bank transfer exactly once.
I wanted to send about $20 to a friend. My bank charged me $25 to send the $20 by direct deposit bank transfer. It never arrived. Several weeks after it was overdue we talked to the respective banks.
The Australian bank (I won't name names) said "it definitely left our system, not our problem". The Icelandic bank said "it never arrived, there's nothing we can do!".
It just fucking vanished somewhere over India, apparently. I was out $55, my friend was out $20, and apparently it was no ones fault.
Bitcoin as a retail payment system? Not yet. Not until bitcoin is a bit less volatile. But as a money transfer mechanism between private citizens? Maybe not a bad idea.
In my state, they put them at the bottom of hills, hoping to catch cars that have rolled from 50km/h to 52km/h on the downhill slope. That's pretty scummy in and of itself, but it's also dangerous, because it means people see the cameras and slam on the brakes half way down a hill, which is very unsafe. I do not consider the added danger that drivers reacting to speed cameras causes to be a worthwhile exchange for making sure people drive at 50 rather than 52. I understand that you are expressing a desire to catch people doing 70 in a 50 zone, but you could do that without causing brake-slamming by setting the cameras to only capture people doing 10km/h over the speed limit or more, and making that fact public knowledge. These cameras are not about safety, they are willfully lowering safety to make money. I'm not ok with that.