The best way to discredit an idiot is to hand him a microphone and let him speak.
I think I understand what GP was saying here, but when I read it I thought of exactly the same criticism as you.
Giving someone a platform *inherently* gives credibility to w/e they say next.
I do agree w/ GP that Nazi and other b.s. ideology needs to be "beaten not hidden" very much.
There's a lesson to learn here & I'm trying to figure it out...
Maybe it's this: The GP that we're responding to really made a great point about free speech followed by a statement that *sort of* logically flows from the first point. I remember a poster on a teacher's wall from middle school with 3 chicks, one with beak open others beaks closed. The caption read,
"It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Which is awesome + seems to bolster the "give the idiot the mic" comment...
What is different is the "microphone" implies a **public gathering**...in that context you simply cannot just give the microphone to any idiot willing to take it because of human nature.
I know this seems pedantic but it's not in my mind. GP makes a great point but I think the lesson is that free speech isn't the same as letting anyone use a public forum. It implies choice...***who chooses who gets to speak*** becomes the deciding question of who will have the most influence.
It's too complex to give a one-sentence answer. The variable is context. In an undergrad philosophy class all students should feel welcome to ask questions, but not free to dominate the discussion.
But anyways I want to hear this, how exactly is Google bogging down the public transportation system in SF?
it's the same as taxi cabs lining up for pick ups at a bus station...they are not allowed & neither should google busses
***but i wrote that in my previous comment*** and you didn't actually respond
if you want to start make demands in the conversation ***YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE AS WELL***
just like i pointed out in my last comment, you're being selfish and myopic...the community of *this conversation* is the same as your Bay Area community...and in both you're completely self-centered and myopic
if you want to continue this conversation, actually engage my counterpoints from the last two rounds
Do the Google buses occupy space at the same time that public buses would otherwise occupy? No?
yes...i mean 'no'...the right answer to the first question you posed was answered correctly by you: no
Then how the fuckin shit is that a valid comparison?
b/c those aren't the criteria for misuse/abuse of public property...***cab drivers have all kinds of rules & limitations for using public roads and bus stops***
cabs can't line up at bus stops for the same reasoning...
it's part of a **system** and it taxes **other parts of the system**
if google wants buses to be able to use the stops, they must get permission and pay...or they could **donate money to the city to improve the infrastructure**
see, your problem is you don't see yourself as *part* of the community you live in...its a complex system and you only look at THE PART THAT AFFECTS YOU DIRECTLY...
the little "from the X dept" area is completely neutral..."left my pants in SF" ???...that's where the/. editors *always* get cute...even if they just quote TFA for their summary
i'd have looked askew at this article as presented even ***if*** the "from X dept" was sarcastic...but we don't even have that
I read your comment b/c it got up-modded, but I'm not sure I know where you're coming from...
But my impression for the first half of that week? "You fucking savages call this shithole home??? Google couldn't pay me enough to put up with this!"
I don't disagee with you...it's your opinion...but I just don't know, comparatively, what would not be a "shithole" to you...and it's not evident by context other than the types that vacation in SF are usually from the midwest.
So what's **not** a shithole?
I live in Portland & often people mistake *problems inherent to any big city* with problems of the specific city, or even neighborhood they visit.
I've had country bumpkin friends visit & had to explain that all big cities have homeless people downtown...
You seem familiar with the language of the Google Bus debate, but you don't exemplify any higher intellectual analysis beyond just agreeing with whatever in-group you *feel* closest to
It's not about comparing paint cost.
It's as if one of the biggest private tennis academies in the city decided to use all public courts for its tennis lessons.
A 'bus stop' isn't just a coat of paint...it's a ***NODE IN A SYSTEM***
Google is using public property (bus stop) as if it was its own infrastructure...it's similar to theft...it's taking resources on a time/space basis.
a name doesn't tell you anything about the widget you're looking at
Feynman's story was about linguistics & form
Symbols are how humans communicate meaning.
If you think I'm wrong, hit 'cancel' when you post your reply & that will ***PROVE*** that a "name doesn't tell you anything about the widget you're looking at"
i think we all have some kind of implicit understanding of the type of phenomenon your corrolary adresses, but for some it seems the choice to think & contextualize things a certain way is connected to the 'self' of the coder
i think that's why we see some acrimonious replies on this thread...like its an insult to the coder to point out how weird/dumb the naming conventions are b/c it tells them that somehow their perceptions of the world are wrong
Seriously, nobody else cares about your fetish - nobody. Get over yourself! The rest of us find you tedious.
GIMP is a questionable name...another commenter tells a story of people being reluctant to recommend it & it sounds plausible
what I found interesting is the **unbridled animosity** that questioning a beloved software's name...it really shows that there is something underneath the surface
I fsking love GIMP...use it all the time. I never have a problem recommending it b/c I just don't think that way. I didn't name it...it's weird sure but it's about the **usability of the software**
I *do* think the name GIMP & many others have caused **unecessary confusion** which absolutely does **hurt our industry**
when a tech consumer gets confused about their new product it causes a shockwave through the development process if that consumer confusion gets to Marketing...b/c then that just **compounds** the confusion...b/c we know what happens when Marketing tries to solve a tech problem!
You were replying to a post about Gentoo Linux. So was I.
stop dodging + avoiding the facts...
I'm **the original commenter**...I made it...others replied, and I replied to them
I suggested "wacky abstract names" as another thing coders should avoid
you're pathetically trying to avoid confronting a truth that causes you cognitive dissonance....what I don't get is why? why is it hard to accept these names are dumb?
Look at Bluetooth's name origin...***technically*** you can see what they were thinking but that doesn't make it any less confusing:
The word "Bluetooth" is an anglicized version of the Scandinavian Blåtand/Blåtann, (Old Norse blátnn) the epithet of the tenth-century king Harald Bluetooth who united dissonant Danish tribes into a single kingdom, according to legend, introducing Christianity as well. The idea of this name was proposed in 1997 by Jim Kardach who developed a system that would allow mobile phones to communicate with computers. At the time of this proposal he was reading Frans Gunnar Bengtsson's historical novel The Long Ships about Vikings and king Harald Bluetooth.[7][8] The implication is that Bluetooth does the same with communications protocols, uniting them into one universal standard
via wiki
It's just too much...
I know that every "wacky abstract name" probably has **some** kind of funny quirky story...that doesn't make it a useful name
"I need to pick wacky, completely abstract name (that have nothing to do with function) for the new thing I made...that's a novel idea that will make it easy for people to remember!!"
nsa/gov , do they have any fucking morals? do they really believe they are securing the world from the evil guys?
idk about morals (I dont want to define or discuss defining it b/c it brings out trolls something fierce)
do they really believe they are securing the world from the evil guys?
They feel like cogs. From my short time as a DC congressional staffer & people I know in those fields, they feel like a **cog in a big machine** Their job is so abstracted that they dont really know the context of the work **or** they are doing the front line work & never see any analysis just an action order.
the intelligence community has been practicing "compartmentalization" in administering worker tasks since the Manhattan Project in the late 40s at least
one hand doesn't know what the other is doing **by design** across the whole org
The basis for compartmentalization was the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased....(and later, re: Manhattan Project "Most did not know what, exactly, they were doing. Those that did know, did not know why they were doing it. Parts of the weapon were separately designed by teams who did not know how the parts interacted."
an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves. Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states.
Compartmentalization in orgs **can** increase security, but it **also** can be used by bad actors to **cover up bad actions**
Compartmentalization, from a cybernetic perspective, is viewed as a feedback management technique.
In any system, be it one human mind or an organization of thousands of them over decades...compartmentaliztion can be used to hide all manner of immorality
You say that as though it is supposed to bolster your argument
Yes...I did!
Because it *does*
$13 million. I suspect a lot of that goes to personnel costs, some of which might be reduce
$13 million per year...that has to be cut
You exhibit your lack of management experience by your framing of this idea. It's people like you that have made NASA suck for anyone trying to do real space exploration. Every idea is an opportunity for you to exercise your pedantic asperberger proclivities to bolster your ego.
**MY IDEA COULD BE DONE FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE ORIGINAL BUDGET**
you could fund it from money for PR & promotion of space among citizens...there are all kinds of ways to make it happen, asshole
you take my words completely out of context b/c it's the only way your obstructionist mindset can integrate & shoot down my idea...
The cost to create and administer some sort of volunteer program might be small compared to $15bn,
yes...$13 million a year is alot...$15 billion is alot
but for an agency that spends that much money...they money to do **MY IDEA** is well in hand
I know code just doesn't write itself but on NASA budgetary scales this would be a pittance.
When I say "simple prototyping program" I mean they learn the interface + mission capabilities...then they devise a mission...then they **test** the mission via the API & prototyping program.
Basically it's a simple simulation program that anyone in "the community" could download and test their ideas for what the rover should do.
They record their simulation & make a proposal that is discussed on forums...eventually the best ideas get implemented.
And it accomplishes virtually nothing to boot! Seriously, there's a hell of a lot more to running the rover than just steering and driving.
right...i know what you mean. this would be more in the "PR" realm, but educational "PR"...they learn the stuff you're saying they need to know! Realistically speaking it's highly unlikely that a workable idea for use would get "kicked up the ladder" from the community would be anything that wouldn't have been pre-planned anyway.
but don't discount "PR"...it's not just "PR" it's a **next level of involvement** in space exploration for anyone with an internet connection and that is absolutely priceless...seriously how many millions upon millions has NASA and the US gov't as a whole spent to get "kids interested in science"...well with my idea they can drive the thing themselves...and learn some of those "engineering support" roles you pointed out;)
Slashdot Mirror
I think I understand what GP was saying here, but when I read it I thought of exactly the same criticism as you.
Giving someone a platform *inherently* gives credibility to w/e they say next.
I do agree w/ GP that Nazi and other b.s. ideology needs to be "beaten not hidden" very much.
There's a lesson to learn here & I'm trying to figure it out...
Maybe it's this: The GP that we're responding to really made a great point about free speech followed by a statement that *sort of* logically flows from the first point. I remember a poster on a teacher's wall from middle school with 3 chicks, one with beak open others beaks closed. The caption read,
"It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
Which is awesome + seems to bolster the "give the idiot the mic" comment...
What is different is the "microphone" implies a **public gathering**...in that context you simply cannot just give the microphone to any idiot willing to take it because of human nature.
I know this seems pedantic but it's not in my mind. GP makes a great point but I think the lesson is that free speech isn't the same as letting anyone use a public forum. It implies choice...***who chooses who gets to speak*** becomes the deciding question of who will have the most influence.
It's too complex to give a one-sentence answer. The variable is context. In an undergrad philosophy class all students should feel welcome to ask questions, but not free to dominate the discussion.
No one wants to be "that guy"...
it's the same as taxi cabs lining up for pick ups at a bus station...they are not allowed & neither should google busses
***but i wrote that in my previous comment*** and you didn't actually respond
if you want to start make demands in the conversation ***YOU HAVE TO ENGAGE AS WELL***
just like i pointed out in my last comment, you're being selfish and myopic...the community of *this conversation* is the same as your Bay Area community...and in both you're completely self-centered and myopic
if you want to continue this conversation, actually engage my counterpoints from the last two rounds
otherwise, this conversation is over
no
yes...i mean 'no'...the right answer to the first question you posed was answered correctly by you: no
b/c those aren't the criteria for misuse/abuse of public property...***cab drivers have all kinds of rules & limitations for using public roads and bus stops***
cabs can't line up at bus stops for the same reasoning...
it's part of a **system** and it taxes **other parts of the system**
if google wants buses to be able to use the stops, they must get permission and pay...or they could **donate money to the city to improve the infrastructure**
see, your problem is you don't see yourself as *part* of the community you live in...its a complex system and you only look at THE PART THAT AFFECTS YOU DIRECTLY...
you (and Google) are being myopic & selfish
did it need it?
yeah...it did..otherwise Soulskill looks like a shill or loses credibility...he looks like Tom Delay when he mistook a parody show for a real show
the little "from the X dept" area is completely neutral..."left my pants in SF" ???...that's where the /. editors *always* get cute...even if they just quote TFA for their summary
i'd have looked askew at this article as presented even ***if*** the "from X dept" was sarcastic...but we don't even have that
I read your comment b/c it got up-modded, but I'm not sure I know where you're coming from...
I don't disagee with you...it's your opinion...but I just don't know, comparatively, what would not be a "shithole" to you...and it's not evident by context other than the types that vacation in SF are usually from the midwest.
So what's **not** a shithole?
I live in Portland & often people mistake *problems inherent to any big city* with problems of the specific city, or even neighborhood they visit.
I've had country bumpkin friends visit & had to explain that all big cities have homeless people downtown...
You seem familiar with the language of the Google Bus debate, but you don't exemplify any higher intellectual analysis beyond just agreeing with whatever in-group you *feel* closest to
It's not about comparing paint cost.
It's as if one of the biggest private tennis academies in the city decided to use all public courts for its tennis lessons.
A 'bus stop' isn't just a coat of paint...it's a ***NODE IN A SYSTEM***
Google is using public property (bus stop) as if it was its own infrastructure...it's similar to theft...it's taking resources on a time/space basis.
yeah, What about them?
your comparison shows the scale of your concept of what happens in computing....in your mind, what happens in tech is equivalent to soda pop
you know what else doesn't make sense? why the candy Nerds are called 'Nerds'...or Mr. Goodbar (how can candy have a gender????)
you know why that point, and by logic your points, don't matter?
because we aren't talking about *candy and soda pop*
some of us do ***really critical*** work in tech & it is important for things to make sense in our interactions with ***non-techs***
you are inventing a distinction where none exists
common tactic when you are trolling
today's coder-kings !!!
what is almost as hilarious is that 'Soulskill' posted the summary without a HINT of irony!
false dichotomy..."abstract/non-abstract"
how's this...**some** names are more abstract than others
names of things tell us their function **all the time**
if you want to prove me wrong, type out a long reply then hit "cancel" to post it
not the "preview" button...hit "cancel"
if names cannot denote function and are totally abstract then you will prove me right
Feynman's story was about linguistics & form
Symbols are how humans communicate meaning.
If you think I'm wrong, hit 'cancel' when you post your reply & that will ***PROVE*** that a "name doesn't tell you anything about the widget you're looking at"
another one: ".NET"
I never liked Yahoo! as a name at all...I "get" WhatsApp but IMHO it's too 'clever' for the sake of being clever, not connected to substance
seriously 'WhatsApp' is about as generic as it gets but it is a matter opinion
really?
your contention is that the coding mistakes in TFA are as well known as the reputation of airline food?
i question your entire thesis...we aren't beating a pink stain...
my evidence: most commercially available software
yeah that sounds about right
i think we all have some kind of implicit understanding of the type of phenomenon your corrolary adresses, but for some it seems the choice to think & contextualize things a certain way is connected to the 'self' of the coder
i think that's why we see some acrimonious replies on this thread...like its an insult to the coder to point out how weird/dumb the naming conventions are b/c it tells them that somehow their perceptions of the world are wrong
GIMP is a questionable name...another commenter tells a story of people being reluctant to recommend it & it sounds plausible
what I found interesting is the **unbridled animosity** that questioning a beloved software's name...it really shows that there is something underneath the surface
I fsking love GIMP...use it all the time. I never have a problem recommending it b/c I just don't think that way. I didn't name it...it's weird sure but it's about the **usability of the software**
I *do* think the name GIMP & many others have caused **unecessary confusion** which absolutely does **hurt our industry**
when a tech consumer gets confused about their new product it causes a shockwave through the development process if that consumer confusion gets to Marketing...b/c then that just **compounds** the confusion...b/c we know what happens when Marketing tries to solve a tech problem!
You were replying to a post about Gentoo Linux. So was I.
stop dodging + avoiding the facts...
I'm **the original commenter**...I made it...others replied, and I replied to them
I suggested "wacky abstract names" as another thing coders should avoid
you're pathetically trying to avoid confronting a truth that causes you cognitive dissonance....what I don't get is why? why is it hard to accept these names are dumb?
what about my **other three examples**???
you know: Yahoo, whatsapp, and tumblr
you don't have any counterpoint to those abstract wacky names do you?
just accept it: nerds give the things they make really stupid, unuseful names
it's still just as confusing & alienating
Look at Bluetooth's name origin...***technically*** you can see what they were thinking but that doesn't make it any less confusing:
via wiki
It's just too much...
I know that every "wacky abstract name" probably has **some** kind of funny quirky story...that doesn't make it a useful name
"I need to pick wacky, completely abstract name (that have nothing to do with function) for the new thing I made...that's a novel idea that will make it easy for people to remember!!"
ex: Yahoo, whatsapp, tumblr, Gentoo, etc etc
idk about morals (I dont want to define or discuss defining it b/c it brings out trolls something fierce)
They feel like cogs. From my short time as a DC congressional staffer & people I know in those fields, they feel like a **cog in a big machine** Their job is so abstracted that they dont really know the context of the work **or** they are doing the front line work & never see any analysis just an action order.
the intelligence community has been practicing "compartmentalization" in administering worker tasks since the Manhattan Project in the late 40s at least
one hand doesn't know what the other is doing **by design** across the whole org
it's interesting to note the paralells between:
Compartmentalization (information security): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
The basis for compartmentalization was the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased....(and later, re: Manhattan Project "Most did not know what, exactly, they were doing. Those that did know, did not know why they were doing it. Parts of the weapon were separately designed by teams who did not know how the parts interacted."
Compartmentalization (psychology): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states.
Compartmentalization in orgs **can** increase security, but it **also** can be used by bad actors to **cover up bad actions**
Compartmentalization, from a cybernetic perspective, is viewed as a feedback management technique.
In any system, be it one human mind or an organization of thousands of them over decades...compartmentaliztion can be used to hide all manner of immorality
**slaps you across your bitch mouth**
whatever chickenshit fucktard modded the above post as "Flamebait"....well....you're proving my post right when you mod it like such
your side will lose in the end and you know it
Yes...I did!
Because it *does*
$13 million per year...that has to be cut
You exhibit your lack of management experience by your framing of this idea. It's people like you that have made NASA suck for anyone trying to do real space exploration. Every idea is an opportunity for you to exercise your pedantic asperberger proclivities to bolster your ego.
**MY IDEA COULD BE DONE FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE ORIGINAL BUDGET**
you could fund it from money for PR & promotion of space among citizens...there are all kinds of ways to make it happen, asshole
you take my words completely out of context b/c it's the only way your obstructionist mindset can integrate & shoot down my idea...
yes...$13 million a year is alot...$15 billion is alot
but for an agency that spends that much money...they money to do **MY IDEA** is well in hand
mostly with already existing staff
I know code just doesn't write itself but on NASA budgetary scales this would be a pittance.
When I say "simple prototyping program" I mean they learn the interface + mission capabilities...then they devise a mission...then they **test** the mission via the API & prototyping program.
Basically it's a simple simulation program that anyone in "the community" could download and test their ideas for what the rover should do.
They record their simulation & make a proposal that is discussed on forums...eventually the best ideas get implemented.
right...i know what you mean. this would be more in the "PR" realm, but educational "PR"...they learn the stuff you're saying they need to know! Realistically speaking it's highly unlikely that a workable idea for use would get "kicked up the ladder" from the community would be anything that wouldn't have been pre-planned anyway.
but don't discount "PR"...it's not just "PR" it's a **next level of involvement** in space exploration for anyone with an internet connection and that is absolutely priceless...seriously how many millions upon millions has NASA and the US gov't as a whole spent to get "kids interested in science"...well with my idea they can drive the thing themselves...and learn some of those "engineering support" roles you pointed out ;)