I hate to disagree with pretty much all of Slashdot (as their collective opinion is again and again proven most wise), but I tried NoScript and found it to be too much of a pain, so I promptly uninstalled it. The risk relative to the benefit is frankly pretty low. I'd rather not examine the JavaScript of each and every site I visit to determine whether it is "safe." JavaScript is meant to be a sandboxed language; we should improve the design to further minimize security risks and not resort to reactive paranoia.
You make some interesting points, but I would substitute the admittedly more clumsy person with a genetic predisposition to developing psychopathy and psychopath. By definition, a psychopath is not a good, moral, rule-abiding person. If they are able to inhibit their impulses to lie, exploit, steal, and abuse, they're just a normal human being (most of us have less socially desirable impulses from time time although we are aware it would be wrong/harmful/stupid/illegal to do so). Psychopaths not only do not care about how their behavior impacts others, they don't care how it might impact their own long-term well-being.
Legal penalties and religious prohibitions serve to socialize people from infancy into adulthood (where the parents initially present the rules of society to their children with admonishments not to hit their little brother, not to lie, to share, to play nice, etc.). In adulthood, formal legal punishment persists to check the more selfish, inconsiderate behavior that many nominally good people would nevertheless fall into. These prohibitions mean little to the genuine psychopath, who, if sufficiently clever, will simply find away around the law without being caught. Capital punishment, life imprisonment, and other severe punishments (that are more about protecting society from the criminal than from rehabilitating the criminal) are meant to eliminate this subset of the population from society when discovered.
It is an unfortunate trend that many psychopathic traits are presently highly rewarded and even esteemed in American culture. For example, psychopathic impulsivity is labeled spontaneity or "fun." The glibness which is a hallmark of the syndrome leads to success in marketing and politics. Being emotionally detached, or "cool," is highly esteemed. Shallow emotions and relationships are glorified everywhere in the popular media. Thoughtfulness and effort are not seen as worth the effort (I think I saw a study showing that 60% or so of computer science graduates admitted to having cheated on an exam).
To me, psychopathy merely represents the extreme end of the people who were part of the popular crowd in high school. Nerds, geeks, and the other bookish or technical types are in most ways the complete opposite (personal observation).
Why do you assume a rejection of fundamental libertarianism implies support for some highly authoritarian communist regime? Something can be said for moderation. John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty (as long as the individual's actions do not harm others, society should not infringe) is a reasonable principle, but Mill himself admitted exceptions (which he used a utilitarian argument to defend). For example, Mill approved of marriage licenses so that only couples shown to have the resources to raise children could marry! Many of us on the more liberal side of politics view the state as a sort of "corporation" where the citizens are the "shareholders." Fundamentally, the state works (or ought to) to the benefit of the people. Its charge is to handle that aspect of public life that is common to everyone (or almost everyone). The state provides a common standard of justice through the courts, ideally unswayed by money and popularity (I hope I am not dealing with a libertarian so fundamental that he believes even the arbitration of justice should be a private enterprise!). Likewise, the state is charged with conserving certain public resources (national parks, airspace, the electromagnetic spectrum) to prevent the tragedy of the commons. How can a liberal defend a level of social welfare? It is a sort of wager. If I, for some reason, become incapacitated and unable to work or provide for my own health care, would I like a sort of insurance built in to the state? What about those with severe congenital disabilities? Basic human compassion says we ought to take care of that (some would disagree whether that is the state's role or private charities, but liberals in the true sense of the word are open to disagreement and real discussion).
In practice, no government bends to some ideal political philosophy; indeed much of the politician's skill is in finagling a compromise out of seemingly intractable disagreement. Of course, it is very much easy to claim to be a libertarian and hate both mainstream parties. If you refrain from voting or taking some other political action, you've merely filled the air with a glib soundbite to give yourself Slashdot libertarian cred. Self-interest and maneuverings for power have continued to bloat and distort the role of government away from anything resembling what it ought to be (by your opinion or mine). By taking action resting on principle, you are checking the more cynical influences on government and giving it a nudge back towards the ideal. Or you can just claim to be libertarian and then do nothing to actually make your principles take effect. Your freedom, your choice.:)
The thing is why do you think you have to accept this? If they have a right to pollute the air you breathe, you likewise have a right to take the damned thing out of their mouth and extinguish it. Smokers can fabricate rights all they want, but if they're violating your own rights, why not do the same? I recommend sticking to less invasive means as a first resort, though. I like to talk out loud about how much I hate smoking and how I wish:) I could just rip the thing out of their mouth and enjoy my meal without the noxious smoke. If you're willing to be a little obnoxious (as if smoking in public in itself isn't), this usually works.
How do you think these kids develop these paraphilias? Most paraphilias are not genetically determined sexual orientations in the way that heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality is but rather the result of psychological conditioning (for one reason or another, they have a fantasy about something and sexuality somehow gets mixed in there; they masturbate; and their paraphilia thus becomes reinforced). Oftentimes the initial paraphilic stimulus is coincidental; some nontypical sexual object is environmentally present during sexual arousal. This is much like how when a person smells cookies baking, they are reminded of grandma's house.
My experience with Wikipedia has been that editors may be in disagreement about some item or term, discussing it on the talk page, and as an attempt at compromise, both "sides" are presented (preserving "NPOV") are presented as a wordy mess. And too often these disputes are over the minutiae of a subject rather than its conceptual core. Thus some articles spend several paragraphs clarifying etymology, proper terminology, etc. while paying scant attention to what the subject actually is.
Actually, there is more to a conscience than empathy, and a lack of empathy does not necessarily result in no conscience. Some people's sense of right and wrong is premised on their acceptance of moral principles rather than feeling what someone else might be feeling. In some cases, having a relative lack of empathy can be an advantage in doing the right thing; one would be less swayed by hurting others' feelings (spoiled children has to learn they can't always have their way) or doing what's popular at the moment. Of course, such people wouldn't make the greatest counselors or participants in "You go, gurl!" Oprah marathons, but this doesn't make them any worse than other people.
If lack of empathy were the only symptom of psychopathy, half the people on Slashdot probably would be psychopaths. I can only imagine this is not the case.
According to the article, this technology does more than determine whether a person believes what he or she is saying; it can be trained to recognize an individual's pattern of thoughts. It might be able to tell that I'm planning to read Slashdot for five more minutes, for example.
Absolutely. No shops should be allowed to display signs advertising what they're selling. Billboards should be outlawed. TV adverts should be banned, and only people who can afford increased subscription fees should be allowed to watch shows. People should only be aware of the existence of something if they have gone looking for it (ya know, without knowing it exists).
I dislike almost all marketing (the only good marketing is opt-in or consensual), but telemarketing and spam are the most egregious offenders because they invade a person's peace, privacy, and personal resources. No one has the right to clog my inbox and bandwidth--wasting my time as well--with their little advertisements for penis pills or mortgages or even a "legitimate" ad. I honestly wouldn't miss TV if it went poof; they don't call it the idiot box for nothing. It is quite rare for a work of mainstream television or cinema to go beyond the mundane and insipid to produce something interesting and thought provoking. Mass media appeals to the teeming masses, whose judgment apparently is also clouded by bright pictures saying, "Buy me!" and intrusive phone calls.
Really, before you attack my rant against marketing as stupid and misguided, realize I don't just reject advertising; I reject the sensibilities and assumptions of our entire culture (by and large).
You've obviously never worked in marketing.
Marketing is all about that first impression. The marketer wants to impress the message on you the moment you view the email in your Preview Pane. User choice has nothing to do with it. Heck, the marketer doesn't want you to have a choice to view the message or not, because you might choose not to.
I know this is Slashdot, where alpha *nix geeks prefer editing text files to using a GUI, and design and typography are considered just useless fluff. But in the Real World, appearances do matter. If your message is pleasant to the eye, it's more likely to be read. Even better if it grabs attention, compelling the user to look. ASCII text doesn't have that sort of impact; HTML can, if done right.
That's exactly the point: It's marketing! Marketing is junk. Maybe there's some segment of the population that does respond positively to nuisance phone calls and unwanted e-mails, but I'm not one of them, and I'm sure as hell glad about any technology change that sets marketers back.
I have absolutely no sympathy for telemarketers and spammers--none. People in these professions (including the "e-mail designers" who support the spammers ^Z^Znewsletters) should consider ways to making a living ethically, that is without violating others' rights.
Because people are totally self-serving and fucked up. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it's environment or psychology or anything else. People are out for themselves and occassionaly they express that by committing acts that we consider to be crimes. Unless people can change their underlying motivation and have a real reason to do so... they're going to continue acting in their own self interest regardless of the consequences to others.
Careful, the people you describe aren't all people but rather just the psychopathic subset of people. It's not just a nasty label; it's a researched and well-studied psychiatric disorder. The essential feature is that they are so self-centered that they literally don't care at all if they hurt someone in the process of gratifying their desires.
The guy mentioned in the article attempted to defend himself as suffering from a delusion at the time of the killing, but in all likelihood, that was a lie intended to minimize his punishment. The similarity of the words psychosis and psychopathy along with psychopaths' attempts to manipulate the justice and medical systems for leniency are the reason why people believe mentally ill people are dangerous (few really are) and that psychopaths are mentally ill (they're not except insofar as their disregard of the rights of others could be considered mentally ill; they do not suffer from depression, anxiety, hallucinations, or delusions generally).
Legal? I'm sure she could teach you a thing or two!
Everything I never wanted to know about sex I learned on the Internets.:P
Sorry, but that's actually pretty sad. There are women out there in meatspace too; if you practice your social skills a little bit, you might even find one of them likes you.
There is a brain developmental disorder that results in the sufferers often being very technically inclined or knowledgeable in some area while being horribly socially skilled (in addition to other problems). It is called autism, or Asperger's syndrome in higher-functioning cases.
Here, here! Don't get me wrong: I am pretty good at programming and got decent grades in college, but if interpersonal skills weren't such a problem for me, I probably would have considered other lines of work.
Now I go to a job interview, and they keep mentioning their team focus. It's like these companies want some perfect being who can code like a whiz and spend hours in front of a screen yet communicate and socialize like the smarmiest extrovert when the Company wills it. The HR types really have to acknowledge some people are more technically skilled and other people are more people oriented like themselves.
How will the open-source community view SuSe Linux now? I can only imagine the brand will soon have the same stigma as Windows does. Will there be exaggerated anecdotes about how frequently SuSe "WinLinux" crashes compared to "real" distros?
This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but a contributor needs to cite a source to say 2 and 2 is 4. This leads to quibbling over details and giving even ridiculous points of view credence; Encyclopedia Dramatica did a good job parodying this:
Proponents of the water is wet doctrine or concept claim that their belief is correct[1], however, critics point out that the vast majority of the doctrine is false[2]. Critics note that their claim suffers from circular logic, and accuse proponents of using ad hominems to further their argument[3]. Believers often lash out aggressively at those who point out that water is, in fact, dry. "Wet" water is often an assumed position, by definition[4], and therefore critics argue the proponent's argument is flawed, in definitional terms[2]. Ice, for example, is a form of water[1] and, at -204C, is often described as dry at that temperature[5]. As a result, proponents of the "water is wet" dogma are seen by some as ill-informed on the nature of water[6]. The main proponents of this dogma work in water-related industry[7], leading some to believe that the water is wet concept is more likely propaganda[8].
If you have the misfortune of looking up anything related to certain bodily processes on Wikipedia, beware of the pictures! Outright pornography (even bestiality) is present on some of them (and the articles themselves are not on a pornographic topic), and a "consensus" has formed to keep them! Why? Basically a few trolls with too much time on their hands revert the pictures whenever they're deleted and cry "Wikipedia is not censored!" or "That this picture is disgusting is not NPOV." Wikipedia treats these trolls as legitimately as anyone else and basically assumes good faith on their part (when it is quite clear they are trying to shock people and not add the photos to be informative). The blind Wikipedians have no other choice but to take their arguments seriously and try to find another policy to counter with.
The debate roughly devolves into this:
Troll: Removing this picture is censorship, and Wikiapedia is not censored. Editor assuming good faith: That picture is highly disgusting and repellent to the vast majority of visitors. Troll: Maybe, but that is not NPOV. (ad infinitum)
World is full of pedants and perfectionists that get 99% of what they do right, just not nearly enough of "what it takes" since they spend so much time on ultimately unimportant details, and never at the right time because in order to get everything right you basically have to be looking at things in retrospect, after that window has long since passed.
You're right in that it's certainly stupendously popular (otherwise, what is the point of joining a friend network if no one uses it? heck, I do use it) and has been a financial success for Tom and Chris when they sold it to News Corp., but if it hardly works half the time, it's not a success in terms of being functional.
I'm not advocating everyone strictly follow software engineering methodologies for absolutely every software project, but is it really asking too much to ask for a Web application that doesn't lag like crazy or give an error message every third try? They obviously made some blunders with the scalability of their application among other concerns.
Honestly, if you ever try browsing that site, with all the animations, videos, graphics, and assorted crap, those pages will bring your computer to an instant crawl, even a powerful one. Also, you'll get nonstop error messages no matter what you're trying to do. Technologically, Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe must have flunked Software Engineering 101.
Honestly, who gives a shit what soccer moms and joe six pack think ? they dont matter
They vote, don't they? Well, some of them do anyway.
By the way, for those not linguistically inclined, the meanings of word often change over time. Sure, some purists may decree it's all in error, but we wouldn't be speaking English if it didn't happen. Hacker and hacking are hardly the first words this has happened to, and this isn't exclusive to English. Ever wonder why the Latin word for horse is equus (as in equestrianism), but we call the mounted division of an army (now tanks) the cavalry? In Late (Vulgar) Latin, the word for horse became caballus (originally meaning a pack-horse), and this is the generic word for horse that made it to French, Spanish, Italian, etc. Another example is the French word tête, which comes from Late Latin testa, slang for skull and later generalized to head. Of course, classicists know the word caput means head.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to disagree with pretty much all of Slashdot (as their collective opinion is again and again proven most wise), but I tried NoScript and found it to be too much of a pain, so I promptly uninstalled it. The risk relative to the benefit is frankly pretty low. I'd rather not examine the JavaScript of each and every site I visit to determine whether it is "safe." JavaScript is meant to be a sandboxed language; we should improve the design to further minimize security risks and not resort to reactive paranoia.
You make some interesting points, but I would substitute the admittedly more clumsy person with a genetic predisposition to developing psychopathy and psychopath. By definition, a psychopath is not a good, moral, rule-abiding person. If they are able to inhibit their impulses to lie, exploit, steal, and abuse, they're just a normal human being (most of us have less socially desirable impulses from time time although we are aware it would be wrong/harmful/stupid/illegal to do so). Psychopaths not only do not care about how their behavior impacts others, they don't care how it might impact their own long-term well-being. Legal penalties and religious prohibitions serve to socialize people from infancy into adulthood (where the parents initially present the rules of society to their children with admonishments not to hit their little brother, not to lie, to share, to play nice, etc.). In adulthood, formal legal punishment persists to check the more selfish, inconsiderate behavior that many nominally good people would nevertheless fall into. These prohibitions mean little to the genuine psychopath, who, if sufficiently clever, will simply find away around the law without being caught. Capital punishment, life imprisonment, and other severe punishments (that are more about protecting society from the criminal than from rehabilitating the criminal) are meant to eliminate this subset of the population from society when discovered. It is an unfortunate trend that many psychopathic traits are presently highly rewarded and even esteemed in American culture. For example, psychopathic impulsivity is labeled spontaneity or "fun." The glibness which is a hallmark of the syndrome leads to success in marketing and politics. Being emotionally detached, or "cool," is highly esteemed. Shallow emotions and relationships are glorified everywhere in the popular media. Thoughtfulness and effort are not seen as worth the effort (I think I saw a study showing that 60% or so of computer science graduates admitted to having cheated on an exam). To me, psychopathy merely represents the extreme end of the people who were part of the popular crowd in high school. Nerds, geeks, and the other bookish or technical types are in most ways the complete opposite (personal observation).
y rev_g33k_101 (886348):
In which case I'd break your skull open. Never assume the person you're messing with is a rational actor... Just saying.Why do you assume a rejection of fundamental libertarianism implies support for some highly authoritarian communist regime? Something can be said for moderation. John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty (as long as the individual's actions do not harm others, society should not infringe) is a reasonable principle, but Mill himself admitted exceptions (which he used a utilitarian argument to defend). For example, Mill approved of marriage licenses so that only couples shown to have the resources to raise children could marry! Many of us on the more liberal side of politics view the state as a sort of "corporation" where the citizens are the "shareholders." Fundamentally, the state works (or ought to) to the benefit of the people. Its charge is to handle that aspect of public life that is common to everyone (or almost everyone). The state provides a common standard of justice through the courts, ideally unswayed by money and popularity (I hope I am not dealing with a libertarian so fundamental that he believes even the arbitration of justice should be a private enterprise!). Likewise, the state is charged with conserving certain public resources (national parks, airspace, the electromagnetic spectrum) to prevent the tragedy of the commons. How can a liberal defend a level of social welfare? It is a sort of wager. If I, for some reason, become incapacitated and unable to work or provide for my own health care, would I like a sort of insurance built in to the state? What about those with severe congenital disabilities? Basic human compassion says we ought to take care of that (some would disagree whether that is the state's role or private charities, but liberals in the true sense of the word are open to disagreement and real discussion). In practice, no government bends to some ideal political philosophy; indeed much of the politician's skill is in finagling a compromise out of seemingly intractable disagreement. Of course, it is very much easy to claim to be a libertarian and hate both mainstream parties. If you refrain from voting or taking some other political action, you've merely filled the air with a glib soundbite to give yourself Slashdot libertarian cred. Self-interest and maneuverings for power have continued to bloat and distort the role of government away from anything resembling what it ought to be (by your opinion or mine). By taking action resting on principle, you are checking the more cynical influences on government and giving it a nudge back towards the ideal. Or you can just claim to be libertarian and then do nothing to actually make your principles take effect. Your freedom, your choice. :)
You make it sound as if it's a bad thing. I wish the politicians around here would have the balls to ban smoking.
The thing is why do you think you have to accept this? If they have a right to pollute the air you breathe, you likewise have a right to take the damned thing out of their mouth and extinguish it. Smokers can fabricate rights all they want, but if they're violating your own rights, why not do the same? I recommend sticking to less invasive means as a first resort, though. I like to talk out loud about how much I hate smoking and how I wish :) I could just rip the thing out of their mouth and enjoy my meal without the noxious smoke. If you're willing to be a little obnoxious (as if smoking in public in itself isn't), this usually works.
How do you think these kids develop these paraphilias? Most paraphilias are not genetically determined sexual orientations in the way that heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality is but rather the result of psychological conditioning (for one reason or another, they have a fantasy about something and sexuality somehow gets mixed in there; they masturbate; and their paraphilia thus becomes reinforced). Oftentimes the initial paraphilic stimulus is coincidental; some nontypical sexual object is environmentally present during sexual arousal. This is much like how when a person smells cookies baking, they are reminded of grandma's house.
My experience with Wikipedia has been that editors may be in disagreement about some item or term, discussing it on the talk page, and as an attempt at compromise, both "sides" are presented (preserving "NPOV") are presented as a wordy mess. And too often these disputes are over the minutiae of a subject rather than its conceptual core. Thus some articles spend several paragraphs clarifying etymology, proper terminology, etc. while paying scant attention to what the subject actually is.
And you thought I wasn't wearing anything at all!
The hierarchy of effective communication goes something like this:
The definition is in the DSM. Rett's syndrome has a different set of criteria.
Actually, there is more to a conscience than empathy, and a lack of empathy does not necessarily result in no conscience. Some people's sense of right and wrong is premised on their acceptance of moral principles rather than feeling what someone else might be feeling. In some cases, having a relative lack of empathy can be an advantage in doing the right thing; one would be less swayed by hurting others' feelings (spoiled children has to learn they can't always have their way) or doing what's popular at the moment. Of course, such people wouldn't make the greatest counselors or participants in "You go, gurl!" Oprah marathons, but this doesn't make them any worse than other people.
If lack of empathy were the only symptom of psychopathy, half the people on Slashdot probably would be psychopaths. I can only imagine this is not the case.
According to the article, this technology does more than determine whether a person believes what he or she is saying; it can be trained to recognize an individual's pattern of thoughts. It might be able to tell that I'm planning to read Slashdot for five more minutes, for example.
I dislike almost all marketing (the only good marketing is opt-in or consensual), but telemarketing and spam are the most egregious offenders because they invade a person's peace, privacy, and personal resources. No one has the right to clog my inbox and bandwidth--wasting my time as well--with their little advertisements for penis pills or mortgages or even a "legitimate" ad. I honestly wouldn't miss TV if it went poof; they don't call it the idiot box for nothing. It is quite rare for a work of mainstream television or cinema to go beyond the mundane and insipid to produce something interesting and thought provoking. Mass media appeals to the teeming masses, whose judgment apparently is also clouded by bright pictures saying, "Buy me!" and intrusive phone calls.
Really, before you attack my rant against marketing as stupid and misguided, realize I don't just reject advertising; I reject the sensibilities and assumptions of our entire culture (by and large).
That's exactly the point: It's marketing! Marketing is junk. Maybe there's some segment of the population that does respond positively to nuisance phone calls and unwanted e-mails, but I'm not one of them, and I'm sure as hell glad about any technology change that sets marketers back.
I have absolutely no sympathy for telemarketers and spammers--none. People in these professions (including the "e-mail designers" who support the spammers ^Z^Znewsletters) should consider ways to making a living ethically, that is without violating others' rights.
Careful, the people you describe aren't all people but rather just the psychopathic subset of people. It's not just a nasty label; it's a researched and well-studied psychiatric disorder. The essential feature is that they are so self-centered that they literally don't care at all if they hurt someone in the process of gratifying their desires.
The guy mentioned in the article attempted to defend himself as suffering from a delusion at the time of the killing, but in all likelihood, that was a lie intended to minimize his punishment. The similarity of the words psychosis and psychopathy along with psychopaths' attempts to manipulate the justice and medical systems for leniency are the reason why people believe mentally ill people are dangerous (few really are) and that psychopaths are mentally ill (they're not except insofar as their disregard of the rights of others could be considered mentally ill; they do not suffer from depression, anxiety, hallucinations, or delusions generally).
No, sadder. Seriously, adolescent jokes revolving around getting some or not getting some aren't funny.
Sorry, but that's actually pretty sad. There are women out there in meatspace too; if you practice your social skills a little bit, you might even find one of them likes you.
There is a brain developmental disorder that results in the sufferers often being very technically inclined or knowledgeable in some area while being horribly socially skilled (in addition to other problems). It is called autism, or Asperger's syndrome in higher-functioning cases.
Here, here! Don't get me wrong: I am pretty good at programming and got decent grades in college, but if interpersonal skills weren't such a problem for me, I probably would have considered other lines of work. Now I go to a job interview, and they keep mentioning their team focus. It's like these companies want some perfect being who can code like a whiz and spend hours in front of a screen yet communicate and socialize like the smarmiest extrovert when the Company wills it. The HR types really have to acknowledge some people are more technically skilled and other people are more people oriented like themselves.
How will the open-source community view SuSe Linux now? I can only imagine the brand will soon have the same stigma as Windows does. Will there be exaggerated anecdotes about how frequently SuSe "WinLinux" crashes compared to "real" distros?
This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but a contributor needs to cite a source to say 2 and 2 is 4. This leads to quibbling over details and giving even ridiculous points of view credence; Encyclopedia Dramatica did a good job parodying this:
If you have the misfortune of looking up anything related to certain bodily processes on Wikipedia, beware of the pictures! Outright pornography (even bestiality) is present on some of them (and the articles themselves are not on a pornographic topic), and a "consensus" has formed to keep them! Why? Basically a few trolls with too much time on their hands revert the pictures whenever they're deleted and cry "Wikipedia is not censored!" or "That this picture is disgusting is not NPOV." Wikipedia treats these trolls as legitimately as anyone else and basically assumes good faith on their part (when it is quite clear they are trying to shock people and not add the photos to be informative). The blind Wikipedians have no other choice but to take their arguments seriously and try to find another policy to counter with.
The debate roughly devolves into this:
Tlosk (761023) wrote
You're right in that it's certainly stupendously popular (otherwise, what is the point of joining a friend network if no one uses it? heck, I do use it) and has been a financial success for Tom and Chris when they sold it to News Corp., but if it hardly works half the time, it's not a success in terms of being functional.
I'm not advocating everyone strictly follow software engineering methodologies for absolutely every software project, but is it really asking too much to ask for a Web application that doesn't lag like crazy or give an error message every third try? They obviously made some blunders with the scalability of their application among other concerns.
Honestly, if you ever try browsing that site, with all the animations, videos, graphics, and assorted crap, those pages will bring your computer to an instant crawl, even a powerful one. Also, you'll get nonstop error messages no matter what you're trying to do. Technologically, Tom Anderson and Chris DeWolfe must have flunked Software Engineering 101.
Tweekster (949766) wrote:
They vote, don't they? Well, some of them do anyway.
By the way, for those not linguistically inclined, the meanings of word often change over time. Sure, some purists may decree it's all in error, but we wouldn't be speaking English if it didn't happen. Hacker and hacking are hardly the first words this has happened to, and this isn't exclusive to English. Ever wonder why the Latin word for horse is equus (as in equestrianism), but we call the mounted division of an army (now tanks) the cavalry? In Late (Vulgar) Latin, the word for horse became caballus (originally meaning a pack-horse), and this is the generic word for horse that made it to French, Spanish, Italian, etc. Another example is the French word tête, which comes from Late Latin testa, slang for skull and later generalized to head. Of course, classicists know the word caput means head.