I assume that Russian archaeologists have found proof that ancient Ukraine actually worshiped the Sun-god Poo-ten, who was granted an eternal right to return when He saw fit.
These aren't just whatever, "it's just people making choices". It's clearly social and political influence.
Perhaps, but just about every choice we make is affected by social and political influence.
What am I having for dinner tonight? That's affected by externalities that affect my income (via career choice and and food prices), tastes (what was affordable when I was a kid), and who's doing the cooking (is my wife running errands when dinner needs to be made?).
What clothes did I put on today? That's affected by my personal tastes, but also by the tastes of the buyers at Target a few years ago, and on the economics of trans-oceanic clothes production, and the governmental policies of the U.S., China, Vietnam, and Thailand.
Why am I a programmer? Well, my Dad did electrical engineering, so we spent more time talking about computers than perhaps a lot of families did in the 70's and 80's. It also meant we could afford a Commodore 64 for me to start playing around with. And I was a little socially awkward as well as introverted, so programming in my basement had more appeal compared to socializing in some cases.
If the goal here is some kind of self-realization of every individual, without the influence of external factors, I just don't see how that's going to happen. I don't see any viable way to actually eliminate "unacceptable" influences, especially indirect ones.
Effectively, Git is abusive. It drags every user through a steep learning curve.
You strike me as the kind of person that also considers all men latent rapists.
Wow, you're really an asshole. Because someone had an argument you didn't like, you conflated them with someone else you didn't like, in a way that let you work rape into the conversation.
I see where you're coming from, and indeed I am sometimes an asshole/ But I think you're misunderstanding what I meant by my earlier post. Let me explain.
In a number of news stories about particularly vocal feminists and/or politically correct college campus administrators, I've seen what I'd consider an unreasonable inflation of the seriousness of their perceived slights. For example, a man looking a woman up and down is the same as rape. Or a white person getting a job for which a black person applied being racist.
The statement "Effectively, Git is abusive. It drags every user through a steep learning curve." reminded me of that kind of inflation. And so, I quipped, he reminded me of the silliness I've seen in the "staring = rape" crowd.
However, my apologies for making a joke that was more confusing than funny. Apparently I struck the wrong balance.
For all cases where effective is a synonym for "just barely works enough to be easier to use than the effort required to convince the entire community to move to something better."
Horseshit. Most projects I've been in that have adopted git did so because it was the best tool we could find. There was no inertia with which those projects had to contend.
> You strike me as the kind of person that also considers all men latent rapists.
Wow.
It's the mildest response I could find at the time to the poster's statement.
Git uses poor naming, is poorly documented, and is, in my opinion, an example of the worst of the lack of social sophistication in programmers.
And yet we use it, because it's that effective If you can make a better git than git, I'm sure we'll all eventually move to it. But right now your armchair-quarterbacking.
Effectively, Git is abusive. It drags every user through a steep learning curve.
You strike me as the kind of person that also considers all men latent rapists.
A program is not finished until the user interface and documentation make using the program as easy as possible.
So what I think you're saying is that Linus should have iterated on git privately, indefinitely, until it meets your standard of done-ness?
If we care about him, and we should, we must help him become more socially capable.
I dunno, he hasn't gotten divorced yet, he's living a stable life, enjoys what he does, and is making a very positive contribution to society. Exactly what about him do you think is so in need of fixing that we should attend to that rather than, for example, find more time reading to our own kids?
I'm writing a book about how people use their brains.
Please warn us when you know its ISBN.
If you don't like my explanations, it is not sufficient to drop the subject or just complain; it is necessary to make your own theories about the problems.
No it's not. In no way have you demonstrated that we have a moral or practical obligation to consider your statements. In fact, the only reason I'm writing about them at all is because I felt you needed an intervention, not Linux.
I think there's a difference between using strong language on a person who demonstrably done something you don't agree with, versus death threats, continuous abuse, stalking or directing said vitriol against large groups people only related by race, gender, etc.
Can somebody please explain why it would be smart to buy some of these devices?
For many of us, it's not a good investment. But if someone can afford (and wants) to replace his computer every few years, it could make sense.
For my wife's photography business, we considered a Mac, because color calibration is a huge deal. In the end though, we decided that Windows' color management was close enough to OS X's, that we preferred the low cost and at-home-repairability of a Windows box.
Even if no-fault is merely an option, it doesn't change the fact that, as far as I know, the criminality (in some states) of adultery is hardly ever a factor in people's thinking, and therefore wouldn't explain the prevalence of divorce-related snooping activity.
I don't understand why you keep on bringing up the fact that dirty laundry is aired during some divorce proceedings. I can see how that's relevant to snooping technology, but I thought we were arguing whether or not the criminality of infidelity drives the use of snooping technology. If anything, you're kind of making my point for me, by providing an alternative explanation for that prevalence.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I need to get back to work now. Be well.
But how do you expect someone's "feelings of affection" NOT to wane when they find out they've been cheated on.
I don't expect that. Let me clarify what I'm arguing for:
- In the case of adultery, divorce is probably reasonable, and I wouldn't expect the cheated-on spouse to necessarily ever feel affection again towards the cheater.
- Even marriages which don't involve adultery generally go through dry spells of affection. But for many (most?) committed couples who stick it out, those feelings come back, and are sometimes accompanied by the additional respect and admiration and affection that come from a seeing each other grow, and from a life-long love story unfolding.
- So even people who want to reason from a purely hedonistic standpoint (which I wouldn't recommend) should consider whether or not they're selling themselves short by committing adultery.
Divorce courts are noted for threats to air the dirty laundry and other forms of blackmail.
Sure, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with, in some states, adultery being a crime
That is, the blackmail is never of the form, "Let me have 70% of our marital assets, or else I'll give evidence of your infidelity to the local district attorney who will lock you up." Remember, this whole discussion you and I are having is about whether or not the criminal law aspects of infidelity are actually relevant in today's U.S.
There would be a LOT less of this if you simply enacted no-fault divorce.
From Wikipedia: "Since at least 1985, no-fault divorce has been available in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia."
I'm really sorry. I guess you can take some small comfort that your moral compass seems to be working well, and that you've been a good enough husband otherwise that she appreciates you.
It's a two-way street, and cheating is a symptom of a lack of commitment. To argue that the one cheated on should be obliged to sacrifice their own integrity by continuing in such a relationship creates a very unequal and unfair "partnership."
I wasn't arguing that one should stay committed to an unfaithful spouse. I was arguing that I've had a very happy life for having stuck with my wife even through periods when I didn't feel warm and fuzzy.
How is it selfish or immature to say "you broke the rules, there are consequences?"
If appears we're talking about different situations, as I mentioned earlier in this current post.
I don't think whether or not it's backward is relevant to the point you were making.
You had made this statement:
Of course, if you had civilized laws that didn't make adultery a criminal offense (it's not in Canada; the only grounds for divorce where I live are the desire of one of the parties to exit the relationship) you wouldn't have so much need for people spying on each other.
You were basically saying that the technical criminality of adultery had a material impact on the need for people to spy on each other.
What I'm saying is that, at least in the U.S., I've seen no evidence that those legal codes are on the mind of almost anyone. I suspect the spying has more to do with jealousy, or (diminishingly) to gain an upper hand in divorce court.
Studies such as this one report a higher level of feelings of commitment between recently married couples than those cohabitating for a long period, which just goes to show that marriage tends to give people a false sense of commitment, given the high divorce rate. Feelings change.
Yes, of course feelings change. People who are committed to their spouse generally know this, and learn to ride out those dry spells. Successful marriage requires commitment to, and sacrifice for, the other person. This is the grown-up's definition of love.
If a person quits a marriage (by divorce or cheating) any time his/her feelings of affection wane, then not only are they being immature and selfish, but they're also missing out on the joys of a life-long love story.
Of course, if you had civilized laws that didn't make adultery a criminal offense (it's not in Canada; the only grounds for divorce where I live are the desire of one of the parties to exit the relationship) you wouldn't have so much need for people spying on each other. It's bad enough when facebook and google and the government do it.
I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement. It seems that many people cheat on their spouses, but I can't think of any time, ever that I've heard of someone being criminally prosecuted for it in the U.S.
I think the trouble starts with the 'aspiring cheater'. Not the enabling technology. I'm responsible for my own self control and resistance to temptations. I don't need laws, restrictions on technology or some silly holy book to enforce agreements I have with my wife, family or friends.
I see it a little differently. I almost always know what's right or wrong, but sometimes I'm more tempted than others to do what I know is wrong.
When I come back to my senses, in hindsight I'm grateful for anything that helped me avoid actually doing those wrong things. Even if it's the absence of particular enabling technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot actually supports HTTPS just fine. They simply redirect you back to HTTP immediately! Try it yourself: https://slashdot.org/ - 302, Location: http://slashdot.org/index2.pl - 302, Location: http://slashdot.org/
I wish I was joking...
Any idea why they do this? Of all the sites to not to https...
One thing that seems very relevant, but never discussed: Why comes first, symptoms, or contagiousness?
If a person isn't contagious until well after showing symptoms, I can kind of see the current lax screening as being reasonable.
But otherwise, it seems inexcusable.
I assume that Russian archaeologists have found proof that ancient Ukraine actually worshiped the Sun-god Poo-ten, who was granted an eternal right to return when He saw fit.
foil National Security Letters?
When people with guns ignore the Constitution, technical solutions seem insufficient.
Perhaps, but just about every choice we make is affected by social and political influence.
What am I having for dinner tonight? That's affected by externalities that affect my income (via career choice and and food prices), tastes (what was affordable when I was a kid), and who's doing the cooking (is my wife running errands when dinner needs to be made?).
What clothes did I put on today? That's affected by my personal tastes, but also by the tastes of the buyers at Target a few years ago, and on the economics of trans-oceanic clothes production, and the governmental policies of the U.S., China, Vietnam, and Thailand.
Why am I a programmer? Well, my Dad did electrical engineering, so we spent more time talking about computers than perhaps a lot of families did in the 70's and 80's. It also meant we could afford a Commodore 64 for me to start playing around with. And I was a little socially awkward as well as introverted, so programming in my basement had more appeal compared to socializing in some cases.
If the goal here is some kind of self-realization of every individual, without the influence of external factors, I just don't see how that's going to happen. I don't see any viable way to actually eliminate "unacceptable" influences, especially indirect ones.
How fucking hard is that.
Today Facebook's market cap is about 188 billions U.S. dollars. Somehow I think they're doing okay without your direction.
Nah toor viss uhn shof ten
I think.
It appears to be Slashdotted. Someone's got to show them how to use IIS!
Effectively, Git is abusive. It drags every user through a steep learning curve.
You strike me as the kind of person that also considers all men latent rapists.
Wow, you're really an asshole. Because someone had an argument you didn't like, you conflated them with someone else you didn't like, in a way that let you work rape into the conversation.
I see where you're coming from, and indeed I am sometimes an asshole/ But I think you're misunderstanding what I meant by my earlier post. Let me explain.
In a number of news stories about particularly vocal feminists and/or politically correct college campus administrators, I've seen what I'd consider an unreasonable inflation of the seriousness of their perceived slights. For example, a man looking a woman up and down is the same as rape. Or a white person getting a job for which a black person applied being racist.
The statement "Effectively, Git is abusive. It drags every user through a steep learning curve." reminded me of that kind of inflation. And so, I quipped, he reminded me of the silliness I've seen in the "staring = rape" crowd.
However, my apologies for making a joke that was more confusing than funny. Apparently I struck the wrong balance.
Horseshit. Most projects I've been in that have adopted git did so because it was the best tool we could find. There was no inertia with which those projects had to contend.
It's the mildest response I could find at the time to the poster's statement.
And yet we use it, because it's that effective If you can make a better git than git, I'm sure we'll all eventually move to it. But right now your armchair-quarterbacking.
You strike me as the kind of person that also considers all men latent rapists.
So what I think you're saying is that Linus should have iterated on git privately, indefinitely, until it meets your standard of done-ness?
I dunno, he hasn't gotten divorced yet, he's living a stable life, enjoys what he does, and is making a very positive contribution to society. Exactly what about him do you think is so in need of fixing that we should attend to that rather than, for example, find more time reading to our own kids?
Please warn us when you know its ISBN.
No it's not. In no way have you demonstrated that we have a moral or practical obligation to consider your statements. In fact, the only reason I'm writing about them at all is because I felt you needed an intervention, not Linux.
That's going in my quotes file.
What?
Well no shit, you stupid human some-sex fuck!
For many of us, it's not a good investment. But if someone can afford (and wants) to replace his computer every few years, it could make sense.
For my wife's photography business, we considered a Mac, because color calibration is a huge deal. In the end though, we decided that Windows' color management was close enough to OS X's, that we preferred the low cost and at-home-repairability of a Windows box.
I'm glad it worked for you. But depending on where you're going with that statement, you might be committing the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.
$640k/year should be be enough for anyone
Even if no-fault is merely an option, it doesn't change the fact that, as far as I know, the criminality (in some states) of adultery is hardly ever a factor in people's thinking, and therefore wouldn't explain the prevalence of divorce-related snooping activity.
I don't understand why you keep on bringing up the fact that dirty laundry is aired during some divorce proceedings. I can see how that's relevant to snooping technology, but I thought we were arguing whether or not the criminality of infidelity drives the use of snooping technology. If anything, you're kind of making my point for me, by providing an alternative explanation for that prevalence.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I need to get back to work now. Be well.
I don't expect that. Let me clarify what I'm arguing for:
- In the case of adultery, divorce is probably reasonable, and I wouldn't expect the cheated-on spouse to necessarily ever feel affection again towards the cheater.
- Even marriages which don't involve adultery generally go through dry spells of affection. But for many (most?) committed couples who stick it out, those feelings come back, and are sometimes accompanied by the additional respect and admiration and affection that come from a seeing each other grow, and from a life-long love story unfolding.
- So even people who want to reason from a purely hedonistic standpoint (which I wouldn't recommend) should consider whether or not they're selling themselves short by committing adultery.
Sure, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with, in some states, adultery being a crime
That is, the blackmail is never of the form, "Let me have 70% of our marital assets, or else I'll give evidence of your infidelity to the local district attorney who will lock you up." Remember, this whole discussion you and I are having is about whether or not the criminal law aspects of infidelity are actually relevant in today's U.S.
From Wikipedia: "Since at least 1985, no-fault divorce has been available in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia."
I'm really sorry. I guess you can take some small comfort that your moral compass seems to be working well, and that you've been a good enough husband otherwise that she appreciates you.
I wasn't arguing that one should stay committed to an unfaithful spouse. I was arguing that I've had a very happy life for having stuck with my wife even through periods when I didn't feel warm and fuzzy.
If appears we're talking about different situations, as I mentioned earlier in this current post.
I don't think whether or not it's backward is relevant to the point you were making.
You had made this statement:
You were basically saying that the technical criminality of adultery had a material impact on the need for people to spy on each other.
What I'm saying is that, at least in the U.S., I've seen no evidence that those legal codes are on the mind of almost anyone. I suspect the spying has more to do with jealousy, or (diminishingly) to gain an upper hand in divorce court.
Yes, of course feelings change. People who are committed to their spouse generally know this, and learn to ride out those dry spells. Successful marriage requires commitment to, and sacrifice for, the other person. This is the grown-up's definition of love.
If a person quits a marriage (by divorce or cheating) any time his/her feelings of affection wane, then not only are they being immature and selfish, but they're also missing out on the joys of a life-long love story.
I don't understand where you're coming from with this statement. It seems that many people cheat on their spouses, but I can't think of any time, ever that I've heard of someone being criminally prosecuted for it in the U.S.
I see it a little differently. I almost always know what's right or wrong, but sometimes I'm more tempted than others to do what I know is wrong.
When I come back to my senses, in hindsight I'm grateful for anything that helped me avoid actually doing those wrong things. Even if it's the absence of particular enabling technologies.