though the vast majority of his haters are overseas
Yeah but that's only because the vast majority of all people are overseas.:)
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
slavery was common just about everywhere.
The context was in American racism (hence the n-word), and so my post was geared toward American history.
I know that blacks enslaved blacks. Africans enslaved other Africans, but not nearly in the same way Americans enslaved Africans. For example, African slaves in Africa had some hope of eventual freedom, which they certainly did not have here.
Hate to burst your bubble, but slavery was practiced by blacks on blacks, whites on blacks, whites on whites, blacks on whites, etc... by just about everyone for just about all of history until those "white Christians" finally put an end to it because of their moral beliefs informing their political decisions.
Yeah, there's no better way to wash away your own sins than going on a worldwide crusade to wash away those of everyone else. Save the world to save yourself? I wouldn't put much stock in those moral beliefs.
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 0
Speak for your own ancestors, asshole.
Don't mind me, I'm just speaking for recorded history. The statements I made were not my opinion - those things happened. If your ancestors lived here during slavery and did nothing to aid those enslaved, regardless of whether or not they were slavers themselves, they were still probably hated by the slaves. See, through inaction, you can do just as much harm as if you were doing something yourself. It's a perception. The "it's not my problem" argument wouldn't get you a buy there. I don't necessarily share that perception, but thanks for the presumption all the same. <3
And if my skin were darker, that wouldn't mean my ancestors hadn't done horrible things.
You're right about that. Africa once enslaved their own people, but for far different terms than Americans are familiar with. It was more of an indentured servitude, usually reserved for criminals. The difference was that slaves in Africa were afforded the eventual opportunity to not only regain their freedom, but own land and gain title. In American, conversely, only white slaves were ever granted such freedom. In my opinion, it was mostly to further alienate African slaves from everybody else more than it was a generosity.
So 'you should put up with it because your skin is pale' is pure crap, it has nothing to do with anything.
I don't know what you are so angry. It's not like I'm saying I condone reverse racism and that we should sit back and take it. I merely suggest that an African-American using a word everyone has such a problem with in conversation with another African-American is not something anyone should really bitch about. And yes, I'm sorry to say, white people had everything to do with the propagation of that word.
It's ironic that you posted your rant AC. In a discussion much about having the guts to speak your mind publicly, it's clear that you certainly do not.
So are you saying we can't talk about anything but technology here, hmmm? Hmmm.
Re:The first 15 posts on this are things you cant
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
It is socially unacceptable to use that term when you are white because, let's face it, our European ancestors have committed one hell of a sin against African-Americans (not mention Native Americans). We are still suffering for the ignorance and atrocities of the last 400 years. And before anyone says anything like, "Hey, I'm Spanish, I didn't do anything." Yes, your ancestors did, too. Hell, European exploration was almost entirely legworked by slaves. Look at what Columbus and his cronies did to the Arawaks (who were nearly eradicated as a people as a result), look at what the English did to Native Americans and later Africans, look at what the Spanish did to the Aztecs. And before you chastise me for using such general terms, understand that in each instance, the taking of slaves by various Eurpoean endeavors was not only viewed with acceptance by their respective governments, it was often encouraged. My point is that we still have much to live down, we are nowhere near out of the woods on all that shit just yet. Yourself may not be to blame, but if your ancestors were here at or near the birth of this nation, then they certainly could be, whether through action or otherwise. We were some racist mother fuckers in the beginning, like it or not. Personally, I abhor the concept of racism and all who subscribe to it. But I can't change the fact that so much damage has been done and neither can you.
For the reasons above, the racial "minorites" of the US (such a stupid term that is, it does much to perpetuate racial tension all by its little lonesome - minorities, that is, not US =P) will always have more liberties in the social acceptance of racial slurs in banter. One might say it's a continued reminder between individuals that are both part of the same group that had been once enslaved that they remember the bond developed among their own people under such diress. It also may be no different than the way us unimaginative white guys incessantly say things like "dude" and "man" and "bro" to each other. All the time.. over and over again.. like you were intentionally trying to annoy every English speaking person across the entire planet, dude. But, I digress...
In any case, it is no one person's place to judge the usage of that word, or any other, around circles in which it is tolerated by both the speaker and the subject. That, believe it or not, would be yet another form of intolerance (and thus the infinite spiral of political [un]correctness begins).
Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word.
It's not a double-standard for the reasons I stated above. It's not even a negative, hateful word. Words do not convey emotion or intent. The context and speaker make that decision.
Little side note - all the use of that word is starting to make this place sound like the Drudge Report. Oooh, we're talking about racial tension, I can say nigger and sound edgy! Ah well, he's entertaining.. sometimes.;)
The problem is damn few poeple actually have the balls to risk their family or their livelihood over it.
The problem isn't that people are afraid to risk their own lives or family for the sake of expression. Who could blame them? While I might risk my own life over an ideal, I wouldn't risk my family for anything. The real problem is that there is any risk associated in the first place.
...all of our personal freedoms have been eroded over the last 100 years becuase no one in power seriously considers the Bill of Rights to be enforceable today.
Well, yeah. The kind folks who would be enforcing the Bill of Rights are the same ones who are taking Zippos to the four corners of the paper on which it was written. Welcome to the decline of yet another system of government. Oh, and if you do a bit more digging you'll discover that the 100 years you guesstimated[*] is actually a bit closer to, oh, about all of them.:)
*I don't care if guesstimated is your pet peeve! I like it and I'm gonna use it! Down with the establishment!
In a constantly evolving world, the two are not so different. Even the most notable people, and their deeds, will fade into obscurity. Except, maybe, for that annoying rat-faced kid from American Idol. That was burned into my fucking retinas!
I think this is one of the ironies of internet communication -- in an environment which supposedly promotes universal communication, people only seem to communicate in enclaves of like minds, reinforcing each other's narrow world views.
That is the great irony of humanity and not at all limited to the internet. The hive mind has always been how we gain acceptance by those around us. It's probably a left over survival instinct. Run with the pack and you eat with the pack. Run alone and you die alone.
This is probably the single most self-destructive trait in modern human beings. It was certainly the cause of xenophobia. I would even wager that this single little issue could be traced as the spark that lit the fires of religion, war (I'm not talking little territorial battles, I'm talking genocide), corporate philosophy (and therefore policy!), etc. Religion cows its victims into groupthink through fear of eternal damnation, companies cow employees into "sharing the company's vision" through fear of losing their job (or receiving work assignments that would make even a mindless workaholic go insane). And, ever wise, our governments cow citizens through fear and mass hysteria. For example, how many of us really know that much about terrorism, other than the rhetoric endlessly spewed by the Bush administration? Now, how many of you would be a little squeamish if you were on a plane surrounded by passengers obviously of Middle Eastern descent? Why is that, do you think?
If it is web traffic, then by definition, it's HTTP traffic, and then BY DEFINITION, the application that's talking to the server is called a browser.
Your words. Nothing about rendering in that blanket statement. You were attempting a logical statement that just happens to be incorrect. That's really all I was pointing out.
The only things that cuts out are the programs that don't render anything directly to a human
Heh, nice try at injecting new context into your original statement - after I pointed out your error. You never disqualified any applications from your web browser category. In fact, your "definition" was all encompassing. I'm not sure what you are trying to say now, unless you are simply contradicting yourself in attempt to deflate my post by saying something to the effect of "Yeah, that's what I meant."
And I didn't say using HTTP is browsing
Actually, you did. Refer back to your first post and your definition of web traffic (requoted at the start of this post). You made it very clear that HTTP is browsing, even using ALL CAPS to really drive your point home.
I said that one END of the connection is a browser
I'm not even sure what argument that statement makes. That looks to be severely lacking context.
Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming, you can be charged with a crime
See what happens when people blindly preach the "greatness" of extreme programming? Shit like this happens. It used to be that the passenger could haxor some sick ass code like a phreak or whatever without fear of a ticket. Now with that new, trendy "paired progamming" you went ahead and ruined it for the rest of us!
Guess I'll just go back to drinking booze while I get my ride to work. At least then I'd have an excuse for not getting my work done.
I'd like you to know that I own a pet store. I sell, among other things, kittens. If video games promote the willful act of freely distributing kittens with no means of compensation for the giver, then I could be out of a job. I would lose my house, my car, my boat, and my wife, so used to living the expensive lifestyle afforded her by my kitten sales, would leave me (and probably for one of those communist animal shelter bastards). My children, starving and shoeless, would be forced to prostitute themselves on the cold, wet streets of San Diego. Imagine my poor kids, street urchins all, the painful chafing of sand between their naked toes[*].
For shame. I can't believe you could be so insensitive, you, uh, insensitive clod.
Then we can all sing songs and dance amongst the trees and kittens and give flowers to each other and everyone will be happy, or else.
And my brother, the florist...
[*] On the behest of Mark Asparagus, Michael Jackson is excluded from this suggestion.
If it is web traffic, then by definition, it's HTTP traffic, and then BY DEFINITION, the application that's talking to the server is called a browser.
Actually, if you want to split hairs, you're statement is incorrect. You would be more accurate if you had said any application that uses HTTP to retrieve information and render it in some viewable form to the user would be a browser. But, using that logic, anything that renders data in such a way is a browser, regardless of which protocol was used to retrieve said information (such as POP, FTP, etc).
Having said that, HTTP is merely a protocol. It does not define the applications that make use of it, nor does it make claim to any single paradigm. It is simply a means of sending information in response to a request for information. That does not infer browsing. It does not infer anything. You certainly would not call SOAP services web browsers, yet they use the HTTP protocol to the letter. What about tunneling other protocols over HTTP? Still using HTTP, still not browsing. If anything, you would define HTTP as a content delivery mechanism. What you do with that content determines the nature of the application (eg, your app is or is not a browser).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's my lack of sleep, but I'm not sure whether or not your post was to insult me or the AC guy. :)
Frankly, we don't need advice from the Europeans on running a stable, pluralistic democracy.
That's right! We can fuck this up on our own, thank you very much.
though the vast majority of his haters are overseas
:)
Yeah but that's only because the vast majority of all people are overseas.
slavery was common just about everywhere.
The context was in American racism (hence the n-word), and so my post was geared toward American history.
I know that blacks enslaved blacks. Africans enslaved other Africans, but not nearly in the same way Americans enslaved Africans. For example, African slaves in Africa had some hope of eventual freedom, which they certainly did not have here.
Hate to burst your bubble, but slavery was practiced by blacks on blacks, whites on blacks, whites on whites, blacks on whites, etc... by just about everyone for just about all of history until those "white Christians" finally put an end to it because of their moral beliefs informing their political decisions.
Yeah, there's no better way to wash away your own sins than going on a worldwide crusade to wash away those of everyone else. Save the world to save yourself? I wouldn't put much stock in those moral beliefs.
Speak for your own ancestors, asshole.
Don't mind me, I'm just speaking for recorded history. The statements I made were not my opinion - those things happened. If your ancestors lived here during slavery and did nothing to aid those enslaved, regardless of whether or not they were slavers themselves, they were still probably hated by the slaves. See, through inaction, you can do just as much harm as if you were doing something yourself. It's a perception. The "it's not my problem" argument wouldn't get you a buy there. I don't necessarily share that perception, but thanks for the presumption all the same. <3
And if my skin were darker, that wouldn't mean my ancestors hadn't done horrible things.
You're right about that. Africa once enslaved their own people, but for far different terms than Americans are familiar with. It was more of an indentured servitude, usually reserved for criminals. The difference was that slaves in Africa were afforded the eventual opportunity to not only regain their freedom, but own land and gain title. In American, conversely, only white slaves were ever granted such freedom. In my opinion, it was mostly to further alienate African slaves from everybody else more than it was a generosity.
So 'you should put up with it because your skin is pale' is pure crap, it has nothing to do with anything.
I don't know what you are so angry. It's not like I'm saying I condone reverse racism and that we should sit back and take it. I merely suggest that an African-American using a word everyone has such a problem with in conversation with another African-American is not something anyone should really bitch about. And yes, I'm sorry to say, white people had everything to do with the propagation of that word.
It's ironic that you posted your rant AC. In a discussion much about having the guts to speak your mind publicly, it's clear that you certainly do not.
that means they'll became obsolete
If that's not redundant, then I don't know what is redundant.
So are you saying we can't talk about anything but technology here, hmmm? Hmmm.
It is socially unacceptable to use that term when you are white because, let's face it, our European ancestors have committed one hell of a sin against African-Americans (not mention Native Americans). We are still suffering for the ignorance and atrocities of the last 400 years. And before anyone says anything like, "Hey, I'm Spanish, I didn't do anything." Yes, your ancestors did, too. Hell, European exploration was almost entirely legworked by slaves. Look at what Columbus and his cronies did to the Arawaks (who were nearly eradicated as a people as a result), look at what the English did to Native Americans and later Africans, look at what the Spanish did to the Aztecs. And before you chastise me for using such general terms, understand that in each instance, the taking of slaves by various Eurpoean endeavors was not only viewed with acceptance by their respective governments, it was often encouraged. My point is that we still have much to live down, we are nowhere near out of the woods on all that shit just yet. Yourself may not be to blame, but if your ancestors were here at or near the birth of this nation, then they certainly could be, whether through action or otherwise. We were some racist mother fuckers in the beginning, like it or not. Personally, I abhor the concept of racism and all who subscribe to it. But I can't change the fact that so much damage has been done and neither can you.
;)
For the reasons above, the racial "minorites" of the US (such a stupid term that is, it does much to perpetuate racial tension all by its little lonesome - minorities, that is, not US =P) will always have more liberties in the social acceptance of racial slurs in banter. One might say it's a continued reminder between individuals that are both part of the same group that had been once enslaved that they remember the bond developed among their own people under such diress. It also may be no different than the way us unimaginative white guys incessantly say things like "dude" and "man" and "bro" to each other. All the time.. over and over again.. like you were intentionally trying to annoy every English speaking person across the entire planet, dude. But, I digress...
In any case, it is no one person's place to judge the usage of that word, or any other, around circles in which it is tolerated by both the speaker and the subject. That, believe it or not, would be yet another form of intolerance (and thus the infinite spiral of political [un]correctness begins).
Why is it a double standard, and it's a negative hateful word.
It's not a double-standard for the reasons I stated above. It's not even a negative, hateful word. Words do not convey emotion or intent. The context and speaker make that decision.
Little side note - all the use of that word is starting to make this place sound like the Drudge Report. Oooh, we're talking about racial tension, I can say nigger and sound edgy! Ah well, he's entertaining.. sometimes.
There have to be very few advantages if any in being hated by millions of people.
I dunno about that, it seems to work for Dubya.
The problem is damn few poeple actually have the balls to risk their family or their livelihood over it.
...all of our personal freedoms have been eroded over the last 100 years becuase no one in power seriously considers the Bill of Rights to be enforceable today.
:)
The problem isn't that people are afraid to risk their own lives or family for the sake of expression. Who could blame them? While I might risk my own life over an ideal, I wouldn't risk my family for anything. The real problem is that there is any risk associated in the first place.
Well, yeah. The kind folks who would be enforcing the Bill of Rights are the same ones who are taking Zippos to the four corners of the paper on which it was written. Welcome to the decline of yet another system of government. Oh, and if you do a bit more digging you'll discover that the 100 years you guesstimated[*] is actually a bit closer to, oh, about all of them.
*I don't care if guesstimated is your pet peeve! I like it and I'm gonna use it! Down with the establishment!
Is notoriety better than obscurity?
In a constantly evolving world, the two are not so different. Even the most notable people, and their deeds, will fade into obscurity. Except, maybe, for that annoying rat-faced kid from American Idol. That was burned into my fucking retinas!
I think this is one of the ironies of internet communication -- in an environment which supposedly promotes universal communication, people only seem to communicate in enclaves of like minds, reinforcing each other's narrow world views.
That is the great irony of humanity and not at all limited to the internet. The hive mind has always been how we gain acceptance by those around us. It's probably a left over survival instinct. Run with the pack and you eat with the pack. Run alone and you die alone.
This is probably the single most self-destructive trait in modern human beings. It was certainly the cause of xenophobia. I would even wager that this single little issue could be traced as the spark that lit the fires of religion, war (I'm not talking little territorial battles, I'm talking genocide), corporate philosophy (and therefore policy!), etc. Religion cows its victims into groupthink through fear of eternal damnation, companies cow employees into "sharing the company's vision" through fear of losing their job (or receiving work assignments that would make even a mindless workaholic go insane). And, ever wise, our governments cow citizens through fear and mass hysteria. For example, how many of us really know that much about terrorism, other than the rhetoric endlessly spewed by the Bush administration? Now, how many of you would be a little squeamish if you were on a plane surrounded by passengers obviously of Middle Eastern descent? Why is that, do you think?
Did this kind of thing happen during other large conflicts?
;\
Yeah. Thanks to Napoleon, every time I wear my favorite hat people point at me and laugh.
99% of the shit I say on this forum is humor, but thanks for flying off the handle all the same. Maybe lay off the meth, I dunno.
they still use bullock carts for carrying the produce...
Not so racially sensitive today, are we?
If it is web traffic, then by definition, it's HTTP traffic, and then BY DEFINITION, the application that's talking to the server is called a browser.
Your words. Nothing about rendering in that blanket statement. You were attempting a logical statement that just happens to be incorrect. That's really all I was pointing out.
The only things that cuts out are the programs that don't render anything directly to a human
Heh, nice try at injecting new context into your original statement - after I pointed out your error. You never disqualified any applications from your web browser category. In fact, your "definition" was all encompassing. I'm not sure what you are trying to say now, unless you are simply contradicting yourself in attempt to deflate my post by saying something to the effect of "Yeah, that's what I meant."
And I didn't say using HTTP is browsing
Actually, you did. Refer back to your first post and your definition of web traffic (requoted at the start of this post). You made it very clear that HTTP is browsing, even using ALL CAPS to really drive your point home.
I said that one END of the connection is a browser
I'm not even sure what argument that statement makes. That looks to be severely lacking context.
Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming, you can be charged with a crime
See what happens when people blindly preach the "greatness" of extreme programming? Shit like this happens. It used to be that the passenger could haxor some sick ass code like a phreak or whatever without fear of a ticket. Now with that new, trendy "paired progamming" you went ahead and ruined it for the rest of us!
Guess I'll just go back to drinking booze while I get my ride to work. At least then I'd have an excuse for not getting my work done.
Yeah, it's very similar to a Slashdot discussion - the only difference being that the Worm actually does something.
but at least no one gets offended
I'd like you to know that I own a pet store. I sell, among other things, kittens. If video games promote the willful act of freely distributing kittens with no means of compensation for the giver, then I could be out of a job. I would lose my house, my car, my boat, and my wife, so used to living the expensive lifestyle afforded her by my kitten sales, would leave me (and probably for one of those communist animal shelter bastards). My children, starving and shoeless, would be forced to prostitute themselves on the cold, wet streets of San Diego. Imagine my poor kids, street urchins all, the painful chafing of sand between their naked toes[*].
For shame. I can't believe you could be so insensitive, you, uh, insensitive clod.
Then we can all sing songs and dance amongst the trees and kittens and give flowers to each other and everyone will be happy, or else.
And my brother, the florist...
[*] On the behest of Mark Asparagus, Michael Jackson is excluded from this suggestion.
If it is web traffic, then by definition, it's HTTP traffic, and then BY DEFINITION, the application that's talking to the server is called a browser.
Actually, if you want to split hairs, you're statement is incorrect. You would be more accurate if you had said any application that uses HTTP to retrieve information and render it in some viewable form to the user would be a browser. But, using that logic, anything that renders data in such a way is a browser, regardless of which protocol was used to retrieve said information (such as POP, FTP, etc).
Having said that, HTTP is merely a protocol. It does not define the applications that make use of it, nor does it make claim to any single paradigm. It is simply a means of sending information in response to a request for information. That does not infer browsing. It does not infer anything. You certainly would not call SOAP services web browsers, yet they use the HTTP protocol to the letter. What about tunneling other protocols over HTTP? Still using HTTP, still not browsing. If anything, you would define HTTP as a content delivery mechanism. What you do with that content determines the nature of the application (eg, your app is or is not a browser).
Now come on the RIAA put out way more crap than that this year!
True, but these were the cream of the crap.
You keep your xbox running Windows. Someone give me Windows running xbox games. =P
I knew that, too! :)
That's one word
:)
I know that. It was me after much caffeine being retarded.
Two words:
go pher.