right.. until you stumble upon a law the government you're paying taxes to chooses to enforce on your land. See there is a difference between owning land within a country, and having your own.
You hear stuff from libertarians? That's funny. All I hear around me are the same tired bullshit ideologies-pitched-as-answers from socialists, liberals, and 'fake' conservatives. It's rare to hear from a bona-fide libertarian. I'm tired of hearing the same old promises (pipe dreams) of democrats who think we can tax'n'borrow our way to financial security...and the spendy republicans are no better. I'm tired of both parties selling out our liberties for back door deals with well heeled corporations and social interest groups.
No one said libertarians have it all right, but they're the direction we need to head in for now....not forever just for now.
you're splitting invisible hairs. whether a law defines how it is to be enforced or not is irrelevant. I never said this 'curfew' allowed anything or not. I did say it treats citizens unfairly because it makes incorrect associations about behavior.
kids who are out to make trouble will ignore a stupid curfew. the only people curtailed by it are those who are out and not causing trouble. these curfews are just as ineffective as anti-gun laws. the only thing this does is give cops carte blanche to stereotype and make assumptions based on age, offloading work from the cops by curtailing liberty. after all, why do any investigative work when he can just say "under 18? past a certain hour? criminal!"? this is how authority justifies expansion of police force budgets: just associate common activities or even bodily functions with the current 'crime spree,' then make them illegal, turning the rule of law into a lottery for the sake of politics. quit asking the rest of us to pay for your imaginary safety bubble. you actually think the authorities want to fix anything? they just want to look good for the next election. as long as the crime trend shifts downward statistically, they don't really care what happens to individuals on the street.
if your city has riots every night, the problem most likely resides higher up in the pyramid than its youth.
1. more annoying search that requires an indexer with very shitty load heuristics. this feature is abused too. think about it, loading the control panel should show ALL of the control panels that are available, not just some of them with a search box where you can have fun guessing what you're looking for. relabeling things so they're hard to remember generic sounding phrases doesn't help either. it's like someone was trying to make the layout hard to memorize so the user is forced into using the stupid search.
2.Libraries are an additional confusing abstraction on top of files/directories and links. There really is no point to this.
3. WMP12/IE9 could easily run on any NT OS. they just artificially lock it to win7 to get you to upgrade. ALL the migration tools suck no matter which windows is doing the migrating.
4. DX11.. minus the gpu memory mapping, these things could be added to winxp with little issue. after all, these same extensions are available under opengl 4 in any os that runs ati/nvidia drivers.
5. I don't understand the hate regarding xp 64.. it took a little bit of work to get drivers for it, but it worked great.. once vista became the norm, it actually got EASIER to get 64 bit kernel drivers for devices.
6. speed? i find win7's explorer sluggish, even with aero turned off. the shortcut keys to various dialogs are now incredibly cumbersome and unintuitive. someone did not think this explorer through all the way, that's for sure. xp64's explorer is REALLY fast..
disable the uxsms service and win7 falls back to GDI+ rendering.. they readded this after people bitched about not having it in vista (resulting in VERY slow blitting if aero was turned off).
your little corner != the world. most of the planet still runs windows in corporate land.. this might change, but right now apple and linux are still niche markets.
I did not say this. -- The prevailing trends suggest a feelings over facts, consensus over truth culture. your 'rage, hate and bile' would fit under this. seems like you're saying it's ok for you to express your feelings, but that it's also ok to censor the expression of others you don't like. you can't have it both ways.
ex: most forum admins set generic rules like 'no trolling' which really just let them arbitrarily decide what that means. owning the site, they can do this if they wish, but it's hardly a fair or objective way to go about things. some people troll for fun.. others are just accused of it by people who don't agree with them. it's this latter situation that such rules are no good for. for example, log on to a vendor's forum and try to openly discuss your criticisms about one of their products. more often than not, you'll be censored/banned. this action is the kind of cop out I'm talking about. the vendor doesn't wish to address legitimate issues and finds it easier to suppress them as much as possible. we should not reward this. same goes with political discussions. in fact, there's so much "I represent the biggest pack, and I dare you to offend us" implied rhetoric in this arena these days, that absolutely nothing is accomplished. no complete picture is allowed to form for fear of 'offending' someone.
a 1.6ghz atom is roughly equivalent to a pentium3 800Mhz. a 2Ghz P4 should have no problem. none of them will be speed demons.. the only issue is ram. if you have less than 1GB, it will swap. turn off the bling and you're fine..
I've got a gtx280 and a high res (2048x1536) desktop.. there are times when I click on a non-focused window and start dragging that there're split second delays before the gui responds.. this is one example. there are many others. turning off aero fixes the problem completely.. tbh, I'm not really enamored of fully gpu accelerated guis.. the old block-fill accelerated GDI+ was and is MUCH faster and more responsive (and less heavy on the hw)..
I think the point is that, prestige or not, society shouldn't be allowed to strip you of it for unrelated actions.. If you're a prestigious scientist, you shouldn't lose that because you had an affair, you should lose it for failing to live up to being a good scientist. social groupthink tends to like lashing out with irrational punishment simply to magnify the damage as much as possible instead of staying within context. This process is the number one reason authority figures lose the respect they so crave, as these people are the tips of this collective group, enforcing these irrational expectations on the rest of us.
The problem with stuff like google+, facebook and the rest is that stuff you did in the past is up there for all time, ready to be judged by current attitudes.. you can delete it sure, if the vendor lets you, but is it really gone? if you're that prestigious, you can bet it will haunt you for life. just look at hollywood celebrities. they are a prime example of the effect I'm talking about. their careers make or break based solely on public groupthink's attitude towards them. No wonder they're all crazy. This collection of group-attitudes is NOT rational and needs to be kept in check, or these relatively new zero anonymity chat networks coupled with the above mentioned age old groupthink mentality will enslave us all.
I'm not sure what this has to do with autism.. I would think that autistics would be more likely to post anyway since they tend to be less sensitive to socially defined limits on expression. That said, yes there is a growing trend with most sites requiring identification before one can post.. If I want to post, I just create one use throwaway accounts. However, I've been posting a lot less frequently than I used to maybe 5-10 years ago. Posting anonymously is getting harder to do.
'deindividualization' is actually 'REindividualization.' IE bypassing today's increasing pressures to conform, individuals are saying what they really think, and, according to this article anyway, that's a bad thing. I disagree completely. Feelings, consensus, and politeness should never outweigh rationality, truth, and objectivity. If they do, then we've lost the whole point of communications in the first place.
I grasp your concept about cues, but it's also supposed to be understood that those on the internet are unaware and (usually) don't care about any particular user's personal problems. The user is supposed to understand this by default. This isn't a rule I made up, it's just part of the deal. There just aren't any other cues other than the language used by the user and the peers he is communicating with. I remember a time when this was considered a good thing because irrelevant attributes were not used to judge.
Whose tolerance? If anything, the tolerance of the overly sensitive, emotional types that make up the majority of society is what's lacking. This was always true, but, like the anonymous users they whine about, systems like the internet allow them to hit critical groupthink mass as well, forcing their censorious expectations on ever growing amounts of communication between individuals. No matter what they say, their feelings do not justify censoring uncomfortable truth, which is the real reason they would like to stamp out anonymity whereever they find it.
rage is a symptom, not something reasoned. if there is more pent up rage in a society than there was in the past, that suggests systemic changes need to be made. the gp is right. if many individuals are acting out rage, then it is most likely the cause of those in charge of the screws making them too tight.
why would you want to base a system of trust on irrational precepts? first you have to trust that the identity wasn't forged. second, you're trusting that the fact the poster used the 'trusted identity' to post, he is more apt to be correct. he's not.. the only thing you've filtered is conviction level...maybe. The poster could still be an idiot.
You posted anonymously, so are you telling me I shouldn't take your position seriously?
at least there is one other here who sees this.. it truly shocks me that the average poster here doesn't see this trend.. I think it started with those 'single signon' advocates about 10-12 years ago.
people need to realize that hiding the truth under the filthy rug of political correctness does not make it go away, full of bile or not.
Slashdot Mirror
right.. until you stumble upon a law the government you're paying taxes to chooses to enforce on your land. See there is a difference between owning land within a country, and having your own.
You hear stuff from libertarians? That's funny. All I hear around me are the same tired bullshit ideologies-pitched-as-answers from socialists, liberals, and 'fake' conservatives. It's rare to hear from a bona-fide libertarian. I'm tired of hearing the same old promises (pipe dreams) of democrats who think we can tax'n'borrow our way to financial security...and the spendy republicans are no better. I'm tired of both parties selling out our liberties for back door deals with well heeled corporations and social interest groups.
No one said libertarians have it all right, but they're the direction we need to head in for now....not forever just for now.
you mean like when the browser itself is exploited in the same manner by crafted javascript?
the only way to truly secure 'the web' is to remove the ability to script browsers beyond basic formatting that can be done in html.
honestly if we're gonna keep javascript, I wouldn't mind seeing C++ as well..
get over it.. get a real job that actually produces something for the economy.. infinite profit hurts us all .. take your greed elsewhere.
you're splitting invisible hairs. whether a law defines how it is to be enforced or not is irrelevant. I never said this 'curfew' allowed anything or not. I did say it treats citizens unfairly because it makes incorrect associations about behavior.
kids who are out to make trouble will ignore a stupid curfew. the only people curtailed by it are those who are out and not causing trouble. these curfews are just as ineffective as anti-gun laws. the only thing this does is give cops carte blanche to stereotype and make assumptions based on age, offloading work from the cops by curtailing liberty. after all, why do any investigative work when he can just say "under 18? past a certain hour? criminal!"? this is how authority justifies expansion of police force budgets: just associate common activities or even bodily functions with the current 'crime spree,' then make them illegal, turning the rule of law into a lottery for the sake of politics. quit asking the rest of us to pay for your imaginary safety bubble. you actually think the authorities want to fix anything? they just want to look good for the next election. as long as the crime trend shifts downward statistically, they don't really care what happens to individuals on the street.
if your city has riots every night, the problem most likely resides higher up in the pyramid than its youth.
hmm.. well I was basing my assumptions on available cpu benchmarks. I was wrong though.. it wasn't a pentium 3 800.. it was a tualtin 1.2Ghz.
the bytecode might be compiled down to x86 or whatever, but the result is still memory hungry and slow.
sweet.. it'll be like running NT4 again..
if xp is a kludge, then so is win7. if their computers are infected, windows 7 will not save them. it's their usage patterns that need changing.
1. more annoying search that requires an indexer with very shitty load heuristics. this feature is abused too. think about it, loading the control panel should show ALL of the control panels that are available, not just some of them with a search box where you can have fun guessing what you're looking for. relabeling things so they're hard to remember generic sounding phrases doesn't help either. it's like someone was trying to make the layout hard to memorize so the user is forced into using the stupid search.
2.Libraries are an additional confusing abstraction on top of files/directories and links. There really is no point to this.
3. WMP12/IE9 could easily run on any NT OS. they just artificially lock it to win7 to get you to upgrade. ALL the migration tools suck no matter which windows is doing the migrating.
4. DX11.. minus the gpu memory mapping, these things could be added to winxp with little issue. after all, these same extensions are available under opengl 4 in any os that runs ati/nvidia drivers.
5. I don't understand the hate regarding xp 64.. it took a little bit of work to get drivers for it, but it worked great.. once vista became the norm, it actually got EASIER to get 64 bit kernel drivers for devices.
6. speed? i find win7's explorer sluggish, even with aero turned off. the shortcut keys to various dialogs are now incredibly cumbersome and unintuitive. someone did not think this explorer through all the way, that's for sure. xp64's explorer is REALLY fast..
disable the uxsms service and win7 falls back to GDI+ rendering.. they readded this after people bitched about not having it in vista (resulting in VERY slow blitting if aero was turned off).
unless apple offers a charity pricing scheme, it'd be even more expensive than reverting from vista to xp.
depends how stupid the user is and how he uses it, no?
your little corner != the world. most of the planet still runs windows in corporate land.. this might change, but right now apple and linux are still niche markets.
I did not say this.
--
The prevailing trends suggest a feelings over facts, consensus over truth culture. your 'rage, hate and bile' would fit under this. seems like you're saying it's ok for you to express your feelings, but that it's also ok to censor the expression of others you don't like. you can't have it both ways.
ex:
most forum admins set generic rules like 'no trolling' which really just let them arbitrarily decide what that means. owning the site, they can do this if they wish, but it's hardly a fair or objective way to go about things. some people troll for fun.. others are just accused of it by people who don't agree with them. it's this latter situation that such rules are no good for. for example, log on to a vendor's forum and try to openly discuss your criticisms about one of their products. more often than not, you'll be censored/banned. this action is the kind of cop out I'm talking about. the vendor doesn't wish to address legitimate issues and finds it easier to suppress them as much as possible. we should not reward this. same goes with political discussions. in fact, there's so much "I represent the biggest pack, and I dare you to offend us" implied rhetoric in this arena these days, that absolutely nothing is accomplished. no complete picture is allowed to form for fear of 'offending' someone.
a 1.6ghz atom is roughly equivalent to a pentium3 800Mhz. a 2Ghz P4 should have no problem. none of them will be speed demons.. the only issue is ram. if you have less than 1GB, it will swap. turn off the bling and you're fine..
I've got a gtx280 and a high res (2048x1536) desktop.. there are times when I click on a non-focused window and start dragging that there're split second delays before the gui responds.. this is one example. there are many others. turning off aero fixes the problem completely.. tbh, I'm not really enamored of fully gpu accelerated guis.. the old block-fill accelerated GDI+ was and is MUCH faster and more responsive (and less heavy on the hw) ..
who is google to tell me what my name should be? I'll put whatever I want in there.. their policy is asinine, quit defending it.
I think the point is that, prestige or not, society shouldn't be allowed to strip you of it for unrelated actions.. If you're a prestigious scientist, you shouldn't lose that because you had an affair, you should lose it for failing to live up to being a good scientist. social groupthink tends to like lashing out with irrational punishment simply to magnify the damage as much as possible instead of staying within context. This process is the number one reason authority figures lose the respect they so crave, as these people are the tips of this collective group, enforcing these irrational expectations on the rest of us.
The problem with stuff like google+, facebook and the rest is that stuff you did in the past is up there for all time, ready to be judged by current attitudes.. you can delete it sure, if the vendor lets you, but is it really gone? if you're that prestigious, you can bet it will haunt you for life. just look at hollywood celebrities. they are a prime example of the effect I'm talking about. their careers make or break based solely on public groupthink's attitude towards them. No wonder they're all crazy. This collection of group-attitudes is NOT rational and needs to be kept in check, or these relatively new zero anonymity chat networks coupled with the above mentioned age old groupthink mentality will enslave us all.
pff ... you have an internet, but I have The Internet, and it is on my desktop as early as 1997.
I'm not sure what this has to do with autism.. I would think that autistics would be more likely to post anyway since they tend to be less sensitive to socially defined limits on expression. That said, yes there is a growing trend with most sites requiring identification before one can post.. If I want to post, I just create one use throwaway accounts. However, I've been posting a lot less frequently than I used to maybe 5-10 years ago. Posting anonymously is getting harder to do.
'deindividualization' is actually 'REindividualization.' IE bypassing today's increasing pressures to conform, individuals are saying what they really think, and, according to this article anyway, that's a bad thing. I disagree completely. Feelings, consensus, and politeness should never outweigh rationality, truth, and objectivity. If they do, then we've lost the whole point of communications in the first place.
I grasp your concept about cues, but it's also supposed to be understood that those on the internet are unaware and (usually) don't care about any particular user's personal problems. The user is supposed to understand this by default. This isn't a rule I made up, it's just part of the deal. There just aren't any other cues other than the language used by the user and the peers he is communicating with. I remember a time when this was considered a good thing because irrelevant attributes were not used to judge.
Whose tolerance? If anything, the tolerance of the overly sensitive, emotional types that make up the majority of society is what's lacking. This was always true, but, like the anonymous users they whine about, systems like the internet allow them to hit critical groupthink mass as well, forcing their censorious expectations on ever growing amounts of communication between individuals. No matter what they say, their feelings do not justify censoring uncomfortable truth, which is the real reason they would like to stamp out anonymity whereever they find it.
rage is a symptom, not something reasoned. if there is more pent up rage in a society than there was in the past, that suggests systemic changes need to be made. the gp is right. if many individuals are acting out rage, then it is most likely the cause of those in charge of the screws making them too tight.
why would you want to base a system of trust on irrational precepts? first you have to trust that the identity wasn't forged. second, you're trusting that the fact the poster used the 'trusted identity' to post, he is more apt to be correct. he's not.. the only thing you've filtered is conviction level...maybe. The poster could still be an idiot.
You posted anonymously, so are you telling me I shouldn't take your position seriously?
at least there is one other here who sees this.. it truly shocks me that the average poster here doesn't see this trend.. I think it started with those 'single signon' advocates about 10-12 years ago.
people need to realize that hiding the truth under the filthy rug of political correctness does not make it go away, full of bile or not.