i have complaints about all browsers, and i'll always root about and try new ones, looking for that perfect browser that doesn't exist. i have no fixed interest in or allegiance to chrome
currently i'm feeling chrome more than firefox only because it has more... chrome. little eye candy and user interface tweaks i like, like resizable textboxes, highlighting of current input, expansive screen real estate, fast tabbing
i don't like the fact chrome doesn't have a drop down history of urls like firefox or ie. but right now chrome's "chrome" has seduced me, temporarily at best
with a webpage, you know you see what everyone else sees. well, you can make scripts to modify pages for certain users, but this is done when you are purposefully attempting to exclude someone, not draw them further into a subculture. and even if such a membership track existed within a subculture (special tweaks per user), it creates feelings of classism and paranoia, which alienates and destroys: fred sees something i don't see, he is more "special" than me (even if what fred sees is random unimportant fluff, its the feeling and the impression of no tbeing in the know that is important)
remember: all subcultures, all cultures, are based on commonality of experience. if you break that commonality of experience, you kill that culture/ subculture
"That subculture members won't pride themselves on their ability to tweak the way those filters work for that subculture and that the other members of that subculture won't reward them with attention and accolades for helping to further delineate their subculture from the mainstream?"
subculture is the changing of WHAT is communicated, not HOW it is communicated. you might go into a goth emo chatroom and not know what the hell the lingo is all about, but you will still know its a chatroom and how to use it
there is no such thing as a subculture based on changes in mode of communication. well, there is: ham radio, or spy agencies. but these subcultures' whole purpose is that very change in mode of communication, its a foundational identity. changes in mode of communication is not normal to subcultures based on non-communication based identities. haute couture, WoW, falconry: they will all use the same bulletin board software
and even if they did use some bizarre form of communication, if they became a "secret" society, they are killing themselves: you need a low barrier of entry in subcultures or the subcultures fade away and die. churn is a part of any group
i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure
why? no one wants to exert the extra effort. what's the benefit? the summary makes it sound like some sort of revolutionary anticorporate antimind control movement. guess what: most users not only want to do nothing, they want to make sure they are seeing exactly what everyone else sees
its a basic human desire for commonality of culture: sharing anything on the web is all about being part of contributing to a group, and consuming what is the same for everyone else. this is a basic human social drive. that if they had content that was "special" and only visible to them in a certain way, even if in just cosmetic appearance, you are driving a wedge between the user and that sense of shared commonality. what is the whole point of the internet? what is the driving force behind its popularity and adoption?
this project flies directly in the face of that basic human social impulse and drive
ps: this observation of mine applies most especially to subcultures: small splinter groups that are outside the mainstream and proudly so. their desire to see the same thing the rest of the subculture sees is accelerated due to the fact that it takes more effort to be part of a subculture than be part of the mainstream, they need to "work harder" to remain synchronized in bona fides with the rest of the members of their subculture. suggest to them that they aren't seeing quite what everyone else sees in that subculture and it will disturb to them, that they aren't fully part of the group yet
in fact, i am a recent ie convert to google chrome, for many reasons, but not least of which was the fact that slashdot looked like ass in ie
i thought it was some linux tribe thumb in the eye to microsoft: we're purposely going to make ie users suffer. ok, fine, i understand the passion to sabotage. but apparently the linux tribe hates google/webkit just as much, as the most glaring page display errors (weird dead white space in prominent spots, disappearing titles) are the same in chrome. cross browser support is one thing, but cross browser page rendering bug support is quite the accomplishment!
slashdot: fix your damn css. or at least enable old school html only. we are mostly hard core techies here, we can handle it, we don't need myspace eyecandy. please lose your insecurity over ajaxy digg stealing your show. we hate digg. but we don't want to hate slashdot too, for the sake of some really, really easy javascript/ css fixes
i had to forcibly destroy the disc in order to have a life
for me, it was a combination of the engrossing micromanagement (which you see with WoW and its endless loot management) and that insistent "just one more turn..." urging that moves you to devote 5 more minutes to the game that turns into 5 hours. that urging is the desire to see the completion of small goalposts, like building a wonder or taking a border city from the spanish or the indians, which is also discussed in regards to WoW
hollywood is completely impervious. why? because the cinema business is doing gangbusters business. unlike music, which produces product best consumed by oneself, sitting in a movie theatre with crowds oohing and aahing is better than watching a movie in your mom's basement on a 17 inch monitor by yourself. and yes, this positive crowd effect outweighs the cell phones and crying babies
sure, hollywood will completely lose their dvd aftermaket, but the cinema is going nowhere but up, and the internet will not kill it. the dvd didn't, the vhs didnt, hell, they said moviehouses were dead in the 1950s due to free television over the airwaves: nope
do you think moralizing and outrage is going to change behavior? then there is no enforcement, then there is no change in the status quo
if you can put into a reasonable argument a reason why internet file trading without attribution is theft, and a teenager raised in this environment can turn around articulate a reasonable argument as to why it is not theft right back at you, are you willing to rethink some of the woeful assumptions you obviously have about property rights and media?
1. 'a lot of the traditionally "free" western "democracies" sliding deeper into corporatism/fascism'
on a historical scale, western democracies are less beholden to corporations (witness monopoly busting from a century ago). what you are suffering from is called historical myopia: the idea that things are getting worse and worse according to some arbitrary measurement when they might actually be getting better or not changing at all. additionally, there is no suich thing as a slippery slope. the concept of a slippery slope is a piece of propaganda meant to appeal to your emotions rather than your reason. it feeds into your conceit that you are the only human being who can tell the difference between say, censoring child porn and censoring political expression. or: allowing gays to marriage and allowing necrophilia. or: legalizing marijuana and legalizaing methamphetamine. no, your average person can make those discernments too, so there is no slipper slope from allowing one small thing into full blown "fascism", or whatever your fantasy life imagines
and as for "fascism" the use of this word is similar to the use of the word "socialism" or "terrorism": overused and extended in meaning to the point of useless demagoguery that has very little to do with what those terms literally mean
2. the sony asshole can state anything he wants. even if he lined the pockets of every legislator and got the most draconian anti-internet legislation ever passed, it wouldn't mean a damn thing, as there are always other countries where the laws don't apply, and there always legions of poor media-hungry teenagers who can always outcompete the most well-funded stable of corporate programmers. corporate meddling would just be damage for the internet to route around. in other words "what are you willing to do?" is a question with a simple answer: barely anything. use the simple free easily available script that disables whatever multimillion dollar tool the corporation devises
3. "So, my question is - what can we do, and what are you willing to do if this self-entitled asshole and others like him start getting what they want?
I know I am willing to do whatever it takes."
yes, so did timothy mcveigh: he perceived a threat which was nonexistent and hyped and propagandized by his fellow deluded tools into a mass hysteria, as you are doing, and then he decided to do the most retarded and couterproductive thing in order to fight a phantom threat
so how about this clarence: calm the fuck down and try thinking with a level head, if you possess enough neurons to do that
the words you say are so humorously ignorant of reality one hopes that you are merely green
you do realize that a country that doesn't have legal guarantees of your freedoms has no such freedoms, that you somehow miracuolously exist in dubai, or an ancient monarchy
as for no government: allow me to come over and shoot you in the face. who's to punish me? that's what "no government" means
except for all the other forms of government which have been tried"
-winston churchill, badly paraphrased
it does no good to point out the flaws of democracy, simply because for every flaw democracy has, any other government system you can show me has those same flaws, but more and worse... or not the same flaws, but much more horrible flaws
so what is your point? the probative value of your criticism of democracy is zero without the ability to describe a superior system
democracy sucks. and yet it is still better than any other governmental system out there (including and especially the absence of a governmental system)
if i recall correctly, after the browser wars of the 1990s, the internet czar abdicated following the y2k debacle during which he and his family were imprisoned first in a cisco router at a server farm in virginia beach, then later in a backup tape at an ibm server facility in omaha, and finally at an iPod nano in spokane. The internet czar, his wife, his son, his four daughters, the family's medical doctor, the czar's valet, the empress' lady in waiting and the family's cook were all killed in the same disk partition by the internet bolsheviks on the night of the release of google's ajax mapping software.
the idea that we need a corporate filter on our culture is a false assumption
actually, you did need a corporate filter on our culture... before the internet, when vinyl and cassette tape were our distribution options
now artists and fans can reach each other directly
so now the corporation is looking forlorn and feeling insecure, and its shills (this retarded author) are attempting to justify and extend its existence artificially
the job of the average media company right now is simple: just die already
scads of information in a free, reliable, anonymous, and secure manner?"
there's 4 criteria there. take away free, and you can get the other 3 criteria. leave in the word "free," and you can only have 1 of the other 3 criteria
Isoflavones can act like estrogen, stimulating development and maintenance of female characteristics or they can block cells from using cousins of estrogen. In vitro studies have proven genistein to induce apoptosis of testicular cells at certain levels, thus raising concerns about effects it could have on male fertility.[10]
soy has been used in many cultures for thousands of years
where is the faux outrage about how soy is going to destroy the world?
not that i think we shouldn't get rid of BPA. get rid of BPA, please. the positives it enables are outweighed by the negatives. same with transfats, same with DDT: get rid of these substances form our food supply and our environment. just do it without the drama
but i don't see why this pantytwisted fear-addled panic is supposed to help anyone or anything
Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down... Leon: What one? Holden: What? Leon: What desert? Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical. Leon: But, how come I'd be there? Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you... Leon: Tortoise? What's that? Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a turtle is? Leon: Of course! Holden: Same thing. Leon: I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean. Holden: You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon. Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you? Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping? Holden: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon? [Leon has become visibly shaken] Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(mining)
keen.com i think?
one of the most overblown piece of shit dotcom era ideas, ever
i have complaints about all browsers, and i'll always root about and try new ones, looking for that perfect browser that doesn't exist. i have no fixed interest in or allegiance to chrome
currently i'm feeling chrome more than firefox only because it has more... chrome. little eye candy and user interface tweaks i like, like resizable textboxes, highlighting of current input, expansive screen real estate, fast tabbing
i don't like the fact chrome doesn't have a drop down history of urls like firefox or ie. but right now chrome's "chrome" has seduced me, temporarily at best
i'll be raving about opera next month ;-P
with a webpage, you know you see what everyone else sees. well, you can make scripts to modify pages for certain users, but this is done when you are purposefully attempting to exclude someone, not draw them further into a subculture. and even if such a membership track existed within a subculture (special tweaks per user), it creates feelings of classism and paranoia, which alienates and destroys: fred sees something i don't see, he is more "special" than me (even if what fred sees is random unimportant fluff, its the feeling and the impression of no tbeing in the know that is important)
remember: all subcultures, all cultures, are based on commonality of experience. if you break that commonality of experience, you kill that culture/ subculture
"That subculture members won't pride themselves on their ability to tweak the way those filters work for that subculture and that the other members of that subculture won't reward them with attention and accolades for helping to further delineate their subculture from the mainstream?"
subculture is the changing of WHAT is communicated, not HOW it is communicated. you might go into a goth emo chatroom and not know what the hell the lingo is all about, but you will still know its a chatroom and how to use it
there is no such thing as a subculture based on changes in mode of communication. well, there is: ham radio, or spy agencies. but these subcultures' whole purpose is that very change in mode of communication, its a foundational identity. changes in mode of communication is not normal to subcultures based on non-communication based identities. haute couture, WoW, falconry: they will all use the same bulletin board software
and even if they did use some bizarre form of communication, if they became a "secret" society, they are killing themselves: you need a low barrier of entry in subcultures or the subcultures fade away and die. churn is a part of any group
i remember reading about a startup in the dotcom days that allows users to annotate webpages in ways that can be shared. complete failure
why? no one wants to exert the extra effort. what's the benefit? the summary makes it sound like some sort of revolutionary anticorporate antimind control movement. guess what: most users not only want to do nothing, they want to make sure they are seeing exactly what everyone else sees
its a basic human desire for commonality of culture: sharing anything on the web is all about being part of contributing to a group, and consuming what is the same for everyone else. this is a basic human social drive. that if they had content that was "special" and only visible to them in a certain way, even if in just cosmetic appearance, you are driving a wedge between the user and that sense of shared commonality. what is the whole point of the internet? what is the driving force behind its popularity and adoption?
this project flies directly in the face of that basic human social impulse and drive
ps: this observation of mine applies most especially to subcultures: small splinter groups that are outside the mainstream and proudly so. their desire to see the same thing the rest of the subculture sees is accelerated due to the fact that it takes more effort to be part of a subculture than be part of the mainstream, they need to "work harder" to remain synchronized in bona fides with the rest of the members of their subculture. suggest to them that they aren't seeing quite what everyone else sees in that subculture and it will disturb to them, that they aren't fully part of the group yet
that works ;-)
in fact, i am a recent ie convert to google chrome, for many reasons, but not least of which was the fact that slashdot looked like ass in ie
i thought it was some linux tribe thumb in the eye to microsoft: we're purposely going to make ie users suffer. ok, fine, i understand the passion to sabotage. but apparently the linux tribe hates google/webkit just as much, as the most glaring page display errors (weird dead white space in prominent spots, disappearing titles) are the same in chrome. cross browser support is one thing, but cross browser page rendering bug support is quite the accomplishment!
slashdot: fix your damn css. or at least enable old school html only. we are mostly hard core techies here, we can handle it, we don't need myspace eyecandy. please lose your insecurity over ajaxy digg stealing your show. we hate digg. but we don't want to hate slashdot too, for the sake of some really, really easy javascript/ css fixes
i had to forcibly destroy the disc in order to have a life
for me, it was a combination of the engrossing micromanagement (which you see with WoW and its endless loot management) and that insistent "just one more turn..." urging that moves you to devote 5 more minutes to the game that turns into 5 hours. that urging is the desire to see the completion of small goalposts, like building a wonder or taking a border city from the spanish or the indians, which is also discussed in regards to WoW
if you don't allow it, it just moves offshore and continues uninterrupted, resulting in nothing but your own businesses not getting a share of the pie
hollywood is completely impervious. why? because the cinema business is doing gangbusters business. unlike music, which produces product best consumed by oneself, sitting in a movie theatre with crowds oohing and aahing is better than watching a movie in your mom's basement on a 17 inch monitor by yourself. and yes, this positive crowd effect outweighs the cell phones and crying babies
sure, hollywood will completely lose their dvd aftermaket, but the cinema is going nowhere but up, and the internet will not kill it. the dvd didn't, the vhs didnt, hell, they said moviehouses were dead in the 1950s due to free television over the airwaves: nope
how do you enforce what you are saying?
you can't
do you think moralizing and outrage is going to change behavior? then there is no enforcement, then there is no change in the status quo
if you can put into a reasonable argument a reason why internet file trading without attribution is theft, and a teenager raised in this environment can turn around articulate a reasonable argument as to why it is not theft right back at you, are you willing to rethink some of the woeful assumptions you obviously have about property rights and media?
1. 'a lot of the traditionally "free" western "democracies" sliding deeper into corporatism/fascism'
on a historical scale, western democracies are less beholden to corporations (witness monopoly busting from a century ago). what you are suffering from is called historical myopia: the idea that things are getting worse and worse according to some arbitrary measurement when they might actually be getting better or not changing at all. additionally, there is no suich thing as a slippery slope. the concept of a slippery slope is a piece of propaganda meant to appeal to your emotions rather than your reason. it feeds into your conceit that you are the only human being who can tell the difference between say, censoring child porn and censoring political expression. or: allowing gays to marriage and allowing necrophilia. or: legalizing marijuana and legalizaing methamphetamine. no, your average person can make those discernments too, so there is no slipper slope from allowing one small thing into full blown "fascism", or whatever your fantasy life imagines
and as for "fascism" the use of this word is similar to the use of the word "socialism" or "terrorism": overused and extended in meaning to the point of useless demagoguery that has very little to do with what those terms literally mean
2. the sony asshole can state anything he wants. even if he lined the pockets of every legislator and got the most draconian anti-internet legislation ever passed, it wouldn't mean a damn thing, as there are always other countries where the laws don't apply, and there always legions of poor media-hungry teenagers who can always outcompete the most well-funded stable of corporate programmers. corporate meddling would just be damage for the internet to route around. in other words "what are you willing to do?" is a question with a simple answer: barely anything. use the simple free easily available script that disables whatever multimillion dollar tool the corporation devises
3. "So, my question is - what can we do, and what are you willing to do if this self-entitled asshole and others like him start getting what they want?
I know I am willing to do whatever it takes."
yes, so did timothy mcveigh: he perceived a threat which was nonexistent and hyped and propagandized by his fellow deluded tools into a mass hysteria, as you are doing, and then he decided to do the most retarded and couterproductive thing in order to fight a phantom threat
so how about this clarence: calm the fuck down and try thinking with a level head, if you possess enough neurons to do that
the government SOMETIMES makes mistakes
and because of this, every asshole being their own judge, jury, and executioner is preferable to you
you're retarded
pursuant to my patent on any internet-based stories involving ibm and dojo. pay up or face the wrath of my lawyer rush
the words you say are so humorously ignorant of reality one hopes that you are merely green
you do realize that a country that doesn't have legal guarantees of your freedoms has no such freedoms, that you somehow miracuolously exist in dubai, or an ancient monarchy
as for no government: allow me to come over and shoot you in the face. who's to punish me? that's what "no government" means
except for all the other forms of government which have been tried"
-winston churchill, badly paraphrased
it does no good to point out the flaws of democracy, simply because for every flaw democracy has, any other government system you can show me has those same flaws, but more and worse... or not the same flaws, but much more horrible flaws
so what is your point? the probative value of your criticism of democracy is zero without the ability to describe a superior system
democracy sucks. and yet it is still better than any other governmental system out there (including and especially the absence of a governmental system)
if i recall correctly, after the browser wars of the 1990s, the internet czar abdicated following the y2k debacle during which he and his family were imprisoned first in a cisco router at a server farm in virginia beach, then later in a backup tape at an ibm server facility in omaha, and finally at an iPod nano in spokane. The internet czar, his wife, his son, his four daughters, the family's medical doctor, the czar's valet, the empress' lady in waiting and the family's cook were all killed in the same disk partition by the internet bolsheviks on the night of the release of google's ajax mapping software.
the idea that we need a corporate filter on our culture is a false assumption
actually, you did need a corporate filter on our culture... before the internet, when vinyl and cassette tape were our distribution options
now artists and fans can reach each other directly
so now the corporation is looking forlorn and feeling insecure, and its shills (this retarded author) are attempting to justify and extend its existence artificially
the job of the average media company right now is simple: just die already
scads of information in a free, reliable, anonymous, and secure manner?"
there's 4 criteria there. take away free, and you can get the other 3 criteria. leave in the word "free," and you can only have 1 of the other 3 criteria
has genistein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genistein
genistein is a potent estrogen mimic
soy has been used in many cultures for thousands of years
where is the faux outrage about how soy is going to destroy the world?
not that i think we shouldn't get rid of BPA. get rid of BPA, please. the positives it enables are outweighed by the negatives. same with transfats, same with DDT: get rid of these substances form our food supply and our environment. just do it without the drama
but i don't see why this pantytwisted fear-addled panic is supposed to help anyone or anything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig#2007_arrest_and_consequences
Holden: You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Leon: What one?
Holden: What?
Leon: What desert?
Holden: It doesn't make any difference what desert, it's completely hypothetical.
Leon: But, how come I'd be there?
Holden: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see a tortoise, Leon. It's crawling toward you...
Leon: Tortoise? What's that?
Holden: [irritated by Leon's interruptions] You know what a turtle is?
Leon: Of course!
Holden: Same thing.
Leon: I've never seen a turtle... But I understand what you mean.
Holden: You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back, Leon.
Leon: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden? Or do they write 'em down for you?
Holden: The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Leon: [angry at the suggestion] What do you mean, I'm not helping?
Holden: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Leon?
[Leon has become visibly shaken]
Holden: They're just questions, Leon. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
lets boil it down to you simply:
false alarmism is retarded
absolutely agreed
equally retarded: false complacency
look, here's a mirror
in my experience, overly judgmental and overly critical people, such as yourself, i have often found to be the biggest morons around
they seem to have thousands of enthusiastic youngsters who are already hard at work in this very field