When does insurance not act as a killjoy weapon for those who want to shut something down, or control someone's behavior? It's a financial yoke that requires a fear-driven, risk-adverse culture to function. Life has risks. Deal with it. many of the problems brewing over the last 50 years or so are caused by too much risk aversion and litigiousness and not enough decisive leadership. I blame insurance as both a part of this problem and as a symptom of it. In the end, paying a bunch of bankers a lot of money doesn't save your sorry hide if the rocket/car/human fails somewhere along the way.
I am glad to hear that, and honestly I doubted it, but the summary made me wonder with its choice of vocabulary, and trends these days would make me unsurprised if it was true. there is talk that the admin tools are now python based.. that does have implications if already existing scripts depend on rapid calling/scraping of admin utils.
the cool part about properly coded native programming is that it's suited for a variety of environments.. from big iron servers, to pocket computers with tiny amounts of ram.. the script you talk about is something you run once a day, probably mostly IO bound.. the functions in a system daemon can be called hundreds to thousands of times/second...even more for real low latency and/or high bandwidth stuff. switching to a high level language severely limits the footprint the program can run in usefully.
The most valuable resource in computing is developer time
that's great for them. what about MY time? and my users' time? I agree that time is money, and senseless nth degree optimizations are pointless, but offloading developer time by dumping bloated turds onto user hardware is a big no no. Every time this comes up, people want me to assume that the time magically disappears! it doesn't. it's offloaded onto the customer! This attitude is probably THE reason why so much software today is bloated beyond reason for a task.. The problem is compounded when the user must run multiple programs written with this attitude. Most developers assume the user's only going to run THEIR program and nothing else when they run their idiotic 'cost analyses.'
properly coded new features worth a small hit in performance are very different from killing it by multiple factors so that a couple of hacks can throw it together in 1/5 the time in a 'managed' runtime. The developers time is only one chunk.. one time+any patching. The time the users waste in slugging through a slow ass program is multiplied by the number of times they have to use it to complete tasks! Then there's the energy footprint and the cost of needless upgrades, not just the cost of the hardware itself, but the downtime associated with its setup and initial hiccups..and for what? so they get the same performance they had before with the old software? what a deal!
clock cycles are 'the' measurement of efficiency if you assume an average percentage of real business level work done per cycle. this includes the user. if the program runs faster than he can, all is good. if he's waiting around for guis to redraw, garbage collection to flush every time he clicks something, or his harddrive to swap out 900MB worth of bulk from all the other bloated software he has to run on his (often already underspec'd) machine, then it costs HIS company time, and him his sanity.
umm.. no. This attitude is why it takes a 2ghz cpu and 12GB of ram to push the same data a server with 1/20th the resources was doing a decade ago. We need to re-learn that it's not wise to kill performance at low levels of the stack just to get more people involved. more people need to step up to the challenge, learn C and get it done right (or develop a new, better native language! and code in that). Python is slow as hell no matter how good the programmer is. It's fine for writing administration scripts and such, but it's terrible for low latency, high bandwidth applications like a file/authentication/authorization/allocation server. There's a reason why it's a general rule that system level daemons are written in C. sure I could see python being used to process its log files, or to automate directory creation, but the article uses the word 'internals' which makes me quite nervous about performance.. See, I like the idea that running smbd on a modern machine will actually GAIN me performance that wasn't available 10 years ago. That means more files being served at once, faster, which means users log on more quickly, and get better network performance. Happy users make for a happy sysadmin. I did not buy more cycles so that software developers can replace a few excellent C programmers with many mediocre ones who can't be bothered to learn proper systems programming. As an admin, I'd resent this because what's really happening is that these people are offloading their laziness onto my hardware. Yes, I could stick with existing software, but that's not really tenable in the long term.
now I could be wrong, as this summary is thin on details about 'internals', and I did not dig deeper, but if this is true, samba 4 is about to become the latest victim to the bloat craze of the 21st century. There is a BIG difference between a program being slower because of properly coded new features that justify the impact and emotionally driven development tool changes that blatantly waste cycles for politics.
whether it's promoting the frat dude because he's got connections, or the woman because she's got the vajayjay, it's discrimination against the opposing side. the existence of one doesn't justify the other. combined, they're additive, not subtractive. this makes the problem worse.
The problem with feminism is that it bakes sexist bias into the system on the permanent assumption of repression. The government gives her a free pass to cut in line while only competing with other women. The frat guy has to earn his connections at least, and compete with both genders. Yes, both are useless because they judge on irrelevant attributes (gender and friendships).
The only way to stop this is to dump political correctness on top of marx's grave, and create a culture that calls a spade a spade..ie isn't afraid of judging on relevant attributes.
I've used no ad hominems in that statement. I never said it's ok to be biased against women for irrational reasons. I said that irrational, systemic biases entitling them requires men to wonder if a woman got her title legitimately. why? These biases are sexist: they grant women privilege for the 'virtue' of being female, not because they've earned them. If women want the respect that comes with the title, then they have to earn their chevrons the same way that men have to. No more, no less
I don't care how 'repressed' a group says they are, if they're willing to stoop to the accused behavior themselves as hypocrites, they deserve no quarter.
sorry, the whole "no true scotsman" thing doesn't fly with me. The 'moderates' support the political groups and politicians who lobby for the blatant misandric stuff on the books.
Look at the word itself. See any reference to men in there? Right. It, coupled with that 'chastity-fist' logo really demonstrates how 'fair and balanced' the movement is./sarcasm The word is gynocentric just like the efforts of the group. It IS aptly named, just not for a group concerned with equity.
Yes, I have spoken to feminists. The women are friendly until I point out a double standard. usually I start with voting (men must sign up for selective service, women don't). When I ask why don't the womens groups push to get women on the draft, I get shaming language. if I suggest that women take on responsibility equitable with "my body, my right" and support male post conception choice, I get shaming language. In fact, any critique at all results in long lists of fallacies, ranging from attacks on my manhood, to accusations of misogyny.. Of course, I disagree with feminism so I must hate women. Brilliant logic there.
The men are truly the pathetic ones. Feminist men have no idea what it is they're talking about. They're like those guys who whip themselves with razor-adorned whips until they're covered with blood. They've never read any of the laws, they don't care about what happens to men chewed up by the pro-female baked-in systemic biases in family/divorce court, in education, and in the marketplace (where feminist male bosses give women the promotion because they got the vagina, not because they're the most qualified). they buy the propaganda concerning false rape accusation ("even if he's not guilty, he can learn something from the experience"). Sexist, right? Yeah, but I've seen it many, many times...anyone who questions it is threatened with 'sexual harassment' charges. After all, only misogynists question feminism.
The conclusion I draw from my research is that the movement never was about equality. it's about building a gynocentric culture. It's the only way their half century worth of collective effort makes any sense.
So when the "others" being incited against are government agents it is acceptable to disregard the principles upon which we have built our society?
That's just it. This only happens when the officials disregard these principles first, in ways egregious or hypocritical enough to piss people off. if, in a democracy, a lot of people are ready to go from the ballot box to the ammo box, the government has failed and has been failing for a long time. I realize china isn't a democracy, but perhaps that's part of the problem.
[c] or move to someplace where your views are tolerated.
You said 'love it or leave it'. It's quite unambiguous.
but you should seek to demonstrate that there is greater harm in restricting the individual freedom of speech than restricting the freedom to seek harm to members of your own society.
Ok, when the law allows lots of/powerful/influential people to dictate what the minority can say, it quickly becomes a form of tyranny. Without the right to communicate unambiguously, it's impossible for grievances to be heard except couched in whatever newspeak terms the power elite allow.
Secondarily you might tackle why the majority of nations seem to disagree with that.
So when many power structures blatantly abuse their power according to bastardized, orwellian interpretations of their 'cherished principles', it's ok, but citizens are immoral if they revolt against this with violence? Of course most states want this: the officials in power don't want to get shot. They're afraid if enough consensus is built, their lives will be in danger. They're right of course. Instead of passing draconian measures to protect their sorry asses, they should remember who it is they're supposed to serve, and then they need not worry about violent uprisings.
I didn't say they didn't care. It's quite obvious that the majority in either camp is not interested in individual liberty. The majority in each are far too interested in dictating behavior en masse in ever more subtly different ways, while wealthy lobbyists dictate the direction of both. you can't make change within a bought institution unless you can outbid the highest bidders.. I can't.
no.. public school creates dutiful, obedient office workers and blue collar tradesmen. people who don't rock the boat. this is why smart people consider it torture, not the sweater wearing prep book worm semi-popular people, but the ones who are smart but are so miserable they end up with 'inconsistent' stamped all over their report cards.
I'd rather have to download patches than have the thing autoupdating when I don't want it to just yet. Same thing with drivers. Those are things that really should be managed by the user. There are plenty of circumstances where latest_version = best choice is a horrible assumption, esp with people who have older hardware. Some drivers just don't like some hardware configs too.
One of the biggest selling points of PCs is that the user controls the software. Take that away and it's just another stupid console like everything else is nowadays. I don't mind having an option for autoupdate, but I would not want it mandatory. I still want to have the installers available for local storage.
simplified your games too. I guess fishbowl fps, cpu-play-4-u RTS, monthly fees for xboxlive, and screaming 14yos are good enough for you. They aren't for me.
peaceful? maybe. honest? no. who defines honesty then? some popular crowdbased 'like' system? sorry but argumentum ad populum is not a good way of deriving truth.
1. Discussing the issue within the framework set up by authority when it is the authority that needs changing is not usually workable. That's why rebellions start in the first place. Countries that make criminal offenses out of words that make certain people/groups feel bad have no business calling themselves free.
2. lobbying. well this is really an example of 1, right? Except of course you have to be wealthy, which 99% of us aren't, and those who are, are the ones using the government to their advantage. They don't want it to change unless one of their competitors lobbies for something unwanted.
3. love it or leave it, eh? the problem is that there's no where to go. the planet is populated. a lot of countries are moving towards this super sensitive mentality and it's not good for freedom. at all. think about it, if they don't even want citizens suggesting there's something wrong...
I've seen these 'retina' displays.. they're nice I suppose, but I can still make out pixels at a normal viewing distance.. maybe their test group was full of blind people.
no.. it's like buying a sports car to drive down your 200ft driveway and get your mail. if you're going to use car analogies, at least have them make sense.
If the person doesn't stop, then you aren't standing up for yourself. Make it clear you aren't worth messing with. This applies to all forms of bullying, not just sexual harassment. Push til it gives if necessary. I wouldn't run to authorities right away though. That just makes you look weak, and in the case of womens empowerment, kinda ironic since by doing so, she's depending on white knights coming to her rescue. As someone who was bullied in highschool, I can tell you that this works. I'ts very difficult at first, but it makes a world of difference..far better than any stupid government enforced zero tolerance program...like VAWA and all the stupid, blatantly misandric corporate and government policies out there.
No, I said if it's bad enough that it warrants legal action, that it would be easy to prove. The sort of systemic abuse in the example is quite easy to prove. Regardless, lack of an ability to prove this does NOT justify enabling witch hunts..or in this case a warlock hunt. That's why the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
When does insurance not act as a killjoy weapon for those who want to shut something down, or control someone's behavior? It's a financial yoke that requires a fear-driven, risk-adverse culture to function. Life has risks. Deal with it. many of the problems brewing over the last 50 years or so are caused by too much risk aversion and litigiousness and not enough decisive leadership. I blame insurance as both a part of this problem and as a symptom of it. In the end, paying a bunch of bankers a lot of money doesn't save your sorry hide if the rocket/car/human fails somewhere along the way.
I am glad to hear that, and honestly I doubted it, but the summary made me wonder with its choice of vocabulary, and trends these days would make me unsurprised if it was true. there is talk that the admin tools are now python based.. that does have implications if already existing scripts depend on rapid calling/scraping of admin utils.
the cool part about properly coded native programming is that it's suited for a variety of environments.. from big iron servers, to pocket computers with tiny amounts of ram.. the script you talk about is something you run once a day, probably mostly IO bound.. the functions in a system daemon can be called hundreds to thousands of times/second...even more for real low latency and/or high bandwidth stuff. switching to a high level language severely limits the footprint the program can run in usefully.
It still increases dependency hell, and it eliminates efficient scripting of those now 1% as fast operations. then there's embedded systems...
The most valuable resource in computing is developer time
that's great for them. what about MY time? and my users' time? I agree that time is money, and senseless nth degree optimizations are pointless, but offloading developer time by dumping bloated turds onto user hardware is a big no no. Every time this comes up, people want me to assume that the time magically disappears! it doesn't. it's offloaded onto the customer! This attitude is probably THE reason why so much software today is bloated beyond reason for a task.. The problem is compounded when the user must run multiple programs written with this attitude. Most developers assume the user's only going to run THEIR program and nothing else when they run their idiotic 'cost analyses.'
properly coded new features worth a small hit in performance are very different from killing it by multiple factors so that a couple of hacks can throw it together in 1/5 the time in a 'managed' runtime. The developers time is only one chunk.. one time+any patching. The time the users waste in slugging through a slow ass program is multiplied by the number of times they have to use it to complete tasks! Then there's the energy footprint and the cost of needless upgrades, not just the cost of the hardware itself, but the downtime associated with its setup and initial hiccups..and for what? so they get the same performance they had before with the old software? what a deal!
clock cycles are 'the' measurement of efficiency if you assume an average percentage of real business level work done per cycle. this includes the user. if the program runs faster than he can, all is good. if he's waiting around for guis to redraw, garbage collection to flush every time he clicks something, or his harddrive to swap out 900MB worth of bulk from all the other bloated software he has to run on his (often already underspec'd) machine, then it costs HIS company time, and him his sanity.
umm.. no. This attitude is why it takes a 2ghz cpu and 12GB of ram to push the same data a server with 1/20th the resources was doing a decade ago. We need to re-learn that it's not wise to kill performance at low levels of the stack just to get more people involved. more people need to step up to the challenge, learn C and get it done right (or develop a new, better native language! and code in that). Python is slow as hell no matter how good the programmer is. It's fine for writing administration scripts and such, but it's terrible for low latency, high bandwidth applications like a file/authentication/authorization/allocation server. There's a reason why it's a general rule that system level daemons are written in C. sure I could see python being used to process its log files, or to automate directory creation, but the article uses the word 'internals' which makes me quite nervous about performance.. See, I like the idea that running smbd on a modern machine will actually GAIN me performance that wasn't available 10 years ago. That means more files being served at once, faster, which means users log on more quickly, and get better network performance. Happy users make for a happy sysadmin. I did not buy more cycles so that software developers can replace a few excellent C programmers with many mediocre ones who can't be bothered to learn proper systems programming. As an admin, I'd resent this because what's really happening is that these people are offloading their laziness onto my hardware. Yes, I could stick with existing software, but that's not really tenable in the long term.
now I could be wrong, as this summary is thin on details about 'internals', and I did not dig deeper, but if this is true, samba 4 is about to become the latest victim to the bloat craze of the 21st century. There is a BIG difference between a program being slower because of properly coded new features that justify the impact and emotionally driven development tool changes that blatantly waste cycles for politics.
whether it's promoting the frat dude because he's got connections, or the woman because she's got the vajayjay, it's discrimination against the opposing side. the existence of one doesn't justify the other. combined, they're additive, not subtractive. this makes the problem worse.
The problem with feminism is that it bakes sexist bias into the system on the permanent assumption of repression. The government gives her a free pass to cut in line while only competing with other women. The frat guy has to earn his connections at least, and compete with both genders. Yes, both are useless because they judge on irrelevant attributes (gender and friendships).
The only way to stop this is to dump political correctness on top of marx's grave, and create a culture that calls a spade a spade..ie isn't afraid of judging on relevant attributes.
I've used no ad hominems in that statement. I never said it's ok to be biased against women for irrational reasons. I said that irrational, systemic biases entitling them requires men to wonder if a woman got her title legitimately. why? These biases are sexist: they grant women privilege for the 'virtue' of being female, not because they've earned them. If women want the respect that comes with the title, then they have to earn their chevrons the same way that men have to. No more, no less
I don't care how 'repressed' a group says they are, if they're willing to stoop to the accused behavior themselves as hypocrites, they deserve no quarter.
sorry, the whole "no true scotsman" thing doesn't fly with me. The 'moderates' support the political groups and politicians who lobby for the blatant misandric stuff on the books.
Look at the word itself. See any reference to men in there? Right. It, coupled with that 'chastity-fist' logo really demonstrates how 'fair and balanced' the movement is. /sarcasm The word is gynocentric just like the efforts of the group. It IS aptly named, just not for a group concerned with equity.
Yes, I have spoken to feminists. The women are friendly until I point out a double standard. usually I start with voting (men must sign up for selective service, women don't). When I ask why don't the womens groups push to get women on the draft, I get shaming language. if I suggest that women take on responsibility equitable with "my body, my right" and support male post conception choice, I get shaming language. In fact, any critique at all results in long lists of fallacies, ranging from attacks on my manhood, to accusations of misogyny.. Of course, I disagree with feminism so I must hate women. Brilliant logic there.
The men are truly the pathetic ones. Feminist men have no idea what it is they're talking about. They're like those guys who whip themselves with razor-adorned whips until they're covered with blood. They've never read any of the laws, they don't care about what happens to men chewed up by the pro-female baked-in systemic biases in family/divorce court, in education, and in the marketplace (where feminist male bosses give women the promotion because they got the vagina, not because they're the most qualified). they buy the propaganda concerning false rape accusation ("even if he's not guilty, he can learn something from the experience"). Sexist, right? Yeah, but I've seen it many, many times...anyone who questions it is threatened with 'sexual harassment' charges. After all, only misogynists question feminism.
The conclusion I draw from my research is that the movement never was about equality. it's about building a gynocentric culture. It's the only way their half century worth of collective effort makes any sense.
So when the "others" being incited against are government agents it is acceptable to disregard the principles upon which we have built our society?
That's just it. This only happens when the officials disregard these principles first, in ways egregious or hypocritical enough to piss people off. if, in a democracy, a lot of people are ready to go from the ballot box to the ammo box, the government has failed and has been failing for a long time. I realize china isn't a democracy, but perhaps that's part of the problem.
[c] or move to someplace where your views are tolerated.
You said 'love it or leave it'. It's quite unambiguous.
but you should seek to demonstrate that there is greater harm in restricting the individual freedom of speech than restricting the freedom to seek harm to members of your own society.
Ok, when the law allows lots of/powerful/influential people to dictate what the minority can say, it quickly becomes a form of tyranny. Without the right to communicate unambiguously, it's impossible for grievances to be heard except couched in whatever newspeak terms the power elite allow.
Secondarily you might tackle why the majority of nations seem to disagree with that.
So when many power structures blatantly abuse their power according to bastardized, orwellian interpretations of their 'cherished principles', it's ok, but citizens are immoral if they revolt against this with violence? Of course most states want this: the officials in power don't want to get shot. They're afraid if enough consensus is built, their lives will be in danger. They're right of course. Instead of passing draconian measures to protect their sorry asses, they should remember who it is they're supposed to serve, and then they need not worry about violent uprisings.
sorry for the ambiguity.. by 'care' I meant "I" not "they" in my reply.
I didn't say they didn't care. It's quite obvious that the majority in either camp is not interested in individual liberty. The majority in each are far too interested in dictating behavior en masse in ever more subtly different ways, while wealthy lobbyists dictate the direction of both. you can't make change within a bought institution unless you can outbid the highest bidders.. I can't.
really? god help us all.. I really hope this doesn't affect performance or memory footprint.
no.. public school creates dutiful, obedient office workers and blue collar tradesmen. people who don't rock the boat. this is why smart people consider it torture, not the sweater wearing prep book worm semi-popular people, but the ones who are smart but are so miserable they end up with 'inconsistent' stamped all over their report cards.
I'd rather have to download patches than have the thing autoupdating when I don't want it to just yet. Same thing with drivers. Those are things that really should be managed by the user. There are plenty of circumstances where latest_version = best choice is a horrible assumption, esp with people who have older hardware. Some drivers just don't like some hardware configs too.
One of the biggest selling points of PCs is that the user controls the software. Take that away and it's just another stupid console like everything else is nowadays. I don't mind having an option for autoupdate, but I would not want it mandatory. I still want to have the installers available for local storage.
simplified your games too. I guess fishbowl fps, cpu-play-4-u RTS, monthly fees for xboxlive, and screaming 14yos are good enough for you. They aren't for me.
peaceful? maybe. honest? no. who defines honesty then? some popular crowdbased 'like' system? sorry but argumentum ad populum is not a good way of deriving truth.
1. Discussing the issue within the framework set up by authority when it is the authority that needs changing is not usually workable. That's why rebellions start in the first place. Countries that make criminal offenses out of words that make certain people/groups feel bad have no business calling themselves free.
2. lobbying. well this is really an example of 1, right? Except of course you have to be wealthy, which 99% of us aren't, and those who are, are the ones using the government to their advantage. They don't want it to change unless one of their competitors lobbies for something unwanted.
3. love it or leave it, eh? the problem is that there's no where to go. the planet is populated. a lot of countries are moving towards this super sensitive mentality and it's not good for freedom. at all. think about it, if they don't even want citizens suggesting there's something wrong...
You europeans/britons/australians are waaay too easily offended if you need to censure words with criminal punishment. Get a spine, get a grip.
um what? neither party cares about our freedoms.
nevermind the fact that a locked system discourages joe sixpacks from learning about their system in the first place. yeah that's what we all need.
I've seen these 'retina' displays.. they're nice I suppose, but I can still make out pixels at a normal viewing distance.. maybe their test group was full of blind people.
no.. it's like buying a sports car to drive down your 200ft driveway and get your mail. if you're going to use car analogies, at least have them make sense.
Because that's just marketing rhetoric. There are lots of factors that determine how much detail your eyes make out.
If the person doesn't stop, then you aren't standing up for yourself. Make it clear you aren't worth messing with. This applies to all forms of bullying, not just sexual harassment. Push til it gives if necessary. I wouldn't run to authorities right away though. That just makes you look weak, and in the case of womens empowerment, kinda ironic since by doing so, she's depending on white knights coming to her rescue. As someone who was bullied in highschool, I can tell you that this works. I'ts very difficult at first, but it makes a world of difference..far better than any stupid government enforced zero tolerance program...like VAWA and all the stupid, blatantly misandric corporate and government policies out there.
No, I said if it's bad enough that it warrants legal action, that it would be easy to prove. The sort of systemic abuse in the example is quite easy to prove. Regardless, lack of an ability to prove this does NOT justify enabling witch hunts..or in this case a warlock hunt. That's why the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is a good idea.