Personally, I hope they get what they are asking for. The sooner they drive themselves out of business, the sooner we can actually fix the music industry.
The reason I responded is that I had the same experience you did in high school, and (forgive the cliche) it did get better. It took a long time for it to get a lot better for me, and it happened through the kindness of others as much as my own action. I didn't have as much trouble as you did post college, so I don't really have any useful advice to give on that front other than to join a community garden or something, but one of the things I realized is that the kind of person you decide to be has a lot to do with whether the women you'd really like to wind up with will want to wind up with you, and being "a success" has very little to do with it. My days of being "a success" were my loneliest; my days of chucking it all and doing what I really thought mattered have been my best.
If the hacker culture allows the 1% of guys who can't handle a woman they find attractive being in close proximity to behave badly, then the hacker culture as a whole is to blame, even though only 1% of the guys behave badly. If the hacker culture rejects that kind of behavior when it happens, then they are not to blame. It's really not complicated.
Spend time figuring out how to be good company. Old people are good to practice on, and they also give good advice, if you can get over your pride and listen to it. Let go of your attraction to immature women, if you have any. Pay attention to the women you are attracted to, and what they do to be attractive to you. Think about how you could do the same. Obviously putting on makeup won't work, but if you are like most people in our society, you have imprinted on images that have been presented to you on TV and in the print media, and online. Women are conforming to those images to appear more attractive to you. The same thing works on them. Figure out how to be as good a person as the woman you want to meet. Then do what it takes to actually be that person, not just present that image. When you can ask a woman out and be completely okay with her saying no, you're a long way down that road. But ultimately there is no answer that will always work. If the only way you can be okay with being alone is to take prozac, you absolutely must figure out how to fix that. If what you are doing with your life yields no joy, then do something else with your life. Don't expect a woman to be a source of joy—it doesn't work that way.
Actually, the way to get past the stupid vernacular of privilege is to treat actual bad behavior as bad behavior and take action that successfully limits it. Then we can maybe stop talking about privilege and start talking about how to behave properly towards our fellow humans in a general way.
So you are supporting the author of TFA, who proposes spelling it out explicitly in the rules so that nobody will have to wonder what's okay and what's not okay, right?
How is it a wet statist dream? I mean yes, of course you have to have a state or some kind of tax authority to make it work. But aside from the tax collection and redistribution, it doesn't really float any bureaucrat's boat, because there's no bureaucracy to build. This is probably why it hasn't been enacted yet.
China is not as hopeless as you think. But a lot of this is just that we keep electing people who are more interested in not offending than in getting things done. The U.S. is quite capable of being a force for change in the world, even though our numbers are small. The problem is that to date, we have not really tried to make any positive change—we've been against every major change that's been proposed.
(1) global warming isn't uniform (2) read the paper again—that's not what it says. It compares what was normal in the past to what is normal now, and shows that the statistical probability of such a change occurring due to random variation is too small to take seriously. It's actually a really good argument, unless you are determined that its conclusion is unacceptable.
My favorite solution to global warming is to tax carbon use and redistribute the proceeds evenly, creating a market incentive for people to stop using carbon. This neatly addresses the externality of carbon use, requires no special bureaucracy, and obsoletes itself as carbon use declines, while at the same time not unfairly penalizing people who are stuck using carbon fuels now.
That's _not_ the only thing we normal people can do. We can learn to reject propaganda. We can pay attention to who we elect, and judge them on the basis of what they do, not what they promise to do. And we can find fellow citizens who also want a better world, and debate with them. People will tell you that this can never happen, and this can never work, but it is the only way change ever happens in a society: from the bottom up. And it has happened many times before. Don't let the no-hopeniks convince you to give up.
This is not to say that any of what you have said above is wrong—just that it's not the only thing you can do.
Huh, I don't see why anyone would think you were crazy for not wanting to share a room, particularly with someone of the opposite sex. I certainly see the attraction of a setup like this, but I'd rather pay more for a private room. I think the social setting would be very cool, but on a practical level, I don't think it would work for me. I _have_ stayed in hostels like this for mountaineering courses up in the Sierras, and it worked okay except for the snoring, but I think I slept with my wallet in my pocket.
IOW, TFS is simply wrong: the application isn't crashing. Everything is working exactly as it should, except for some intermediary storage in the App store.
Yeah, I'm _really_ confused by this story. In order to publish an app, you have to sign it with your developer key, and Apple has to sign it too. How is it even _possible_ for a corrupted app to run on an iOS device? Wouldn't it just fail the signature check?
Oh, btw, yes, you can conceal your "intellectual property," but then it's not property. It's a trade secret. If someone else figures it out independently, or it is released through other means, you no longer "own" it. This is what trade secrets are, and there is a whole body of law that deals with them.
Yes, if you restrict property ownership to what you can personally defend, then property does not require government intervention. Otherwise it does. Anarcho-syndicalists often pretend that a corporate property registry is different, because it's not governmental, but it amounts to the same thing. The only difference is that you pay the syndicate to defend your rights, whether people collectively agree you have them or not, which can get really ugly (not that government enforcement of property rights can't, of course).
Correct. Prior art is grounds for invalidating a patent. It sort of sounds like you think it means that whoever invented the thing first owns it, but that's not what it means. The patent system requires that the thing being owned be *disclosed*, not just invented. It's a lame system, and works really badly in the software industry, but if Apple came up with something in 1994 and never disclosed it, and then Samsung built something similar in 2004, this doesn't mean that Samsung stole Apple's work.
Right, the most hidebound bunch of groupthinkers in the whole industry didn't anticipate it, so it couldn't have been anticipated. Incorrect. Devices like the iPhone had been made and sold before Apple announced. They weren't iPhones, but the iPhone was an obvious evolutionary step after, e.g., the Nokia 770. It's too bad Nokia didn't manage to turn that into a real product.
Apple's innovation with the iPhone was not that they created a new piece of hardware nobody could have anticipated, but that they managed to convince AT&T to allow them full control over the software on the phone. This was _revolutionary_. But not really something you can patent.
Less than two years, not three. I got an iPhone 3G the day it was released, with a two-year contract, and it was out of support before the contract ended.
I agree with you that if we were comparing non-Google Android phones to Apple phones, I would still be out to lunch. Non-google Android phones suck—the only way to use Android and like it is on a Google device, or to root your Android device and install an open source build like Cyanogenmod. Otherwise it's like a windows preinstall—loaded up with crapware.
But that's actually why Android is a win. With iOS, once your phone is out of the support stream, that's the end of it. With Android, if the manufacturer's support sucks, you can root your phone and install an open source version (if you bought carefully in the first place, of course). With Google Nexus phones, it's really easy, but it can be done with a lot of non-Google phones too.
I think that Android's UI needs a lot of fine-tuning, and that Apple's is better. But UI isn't everything. I do not appreciate being forced onto a 2 year upgrade cycle. For me, this is a deal-breaker, because it means that the phone is useless once I'm done with it, even if I upgrade every two years. The lockdown on the iPhone prevents it from being repurposed once it's been obsoleted by Apple.
Dude, I adore Apple. I've been buying Apple products since MacOS 10.1 came out. I switched to a Google Nexus a couple of years ago after really enjoying my iPhone when Apple discontinued support for the iPhone when I was still in contract. This is just downright abusive behavior, and it continues: my iPad is also no longer supported as of iOS 6. The reason people are pissed off at Apple is that they have gotten too big for their breeches and started to abuse their customers. So the new intelligence test for Apple customers is, how much more of this are you willing to put up with?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I hope they get what they are asking for. The sooner they drive themselves out of business, the sooner we can actually fix the music industry.
The reason I responded is that I had the same experience you did in high school, and (forgive the cliche) it did get better. It took a long time for it to get a lot better for me, and it happened through the kindness of others as much as my own action. I didn't have as much trouble as you did post college, so I don't really have any useful advice to give on that front other than to join a community garden or something, but one of the things I realized is that the kind of person you decide to be has a lot to do with whether the women you'd really like to wind up with will want to wind up with you, and being "a success" has very little to do with it. My days of being "a success" were my loneliest; my days of chucking it all and doing what I really thought mattered have been my best.
If the hacker culture allows the 1% of guys who can't handle a woman they find attractive being in close proximity to behave badly, then the hacker culture as a whole is to blame, even though only 1% of the guys behave badly. If the hacker culture rejects that kind of behavior when it happens, then they are not to blame. It's really not complicated.
Spend time figuring out how to be good company. Old people are good to practice on, and they also give good advice, if you can get over your pride and listen to it. Let go of your attraction to immature women, if you have any. Pay attention to the women you are attracted to, and what they do to be attractive to you. Think about how you could do the same. Obviously putting on makeup won't work, but if you are like most people in our society, you have imprinted on images that have been presented to you on TV and in the print media, and online. Women are conforming to those images to appear more attractive to you. The same thing works on them. Figure out how to be as good a person as the woman you want to meet. Then do what it takes to actually be that person, not just present that image. When you can ask a woman out and be completely okay with her saying no, you're a long way down that road. But ultimately there is no answer that will always work. If the only way you can be okay with being alone is to take prozac, you absolutely must figure out how to fix that. If what you are doing with your life yields no joy, then do something else with your life. Don't expect a woman to be a source of joy—it doesn't work that way.
Actually, the way to get past the stupid vernacular of privilege is to treat actual bad behavior as bad behavior and take action that successfully limits it. Then we can maybe stop talking about privilege and start talking about how to behave properly towards our fellow humans in a general way.
If you have so little self control that a woman leaning over a bar is an attractive nuisance to you, you should probably stay out of bars.
Cuz porn stars are all women, I guess?
So you are supporting the author of TFA, who proposes spelling it out explicitly in the rules so that nobody will have to wonder what's okay and what's not okay, right?
How is it a wet statist dream? I mean yes, of course you have to have a state or some kind of tax authority to make it work. But aside from the tax collection and redistribution, it doesn't really float any bureaucrat's boat, because there's no bureaucracy to build. This is probably why it hasn't been enacted yet.
China is not as hopeless as you think. But a lot of this is just that we keep electing people who are more interested in not offending than in getting things done. The U.S. is quite capable of being a force for change in the world, even though our numbers are small. The problem is that to date, we have not really tried to make any positive change—we've been against every major change that's been proposed.
(1) global warming isn't uniform
(2) read the paper again—that's not what it says. It compares what was normal in the past to what is normal now, and shows that the statistical probability of such a change occurring due to random variation is too small to take seriously. It's actually a really good argument, unless you are determined that its conclusion is unacceptable.
My favorite solution to global warming is to tax carbon use and redistribute the proceeds evenly, creating a market incentive for people to stop using carbon. This neatly addresses the externality of carbon use, requires no special bureaucracy, and obsoletes itself as carbon use declines, while at the same time not unfairly penalizing people who are stuck using carbon fuels now.
That's _not_ the only thing we normal people can do. We can learn to reject propaganda. We can pay attention to who we elect, and judge them on the basis of what they do, not what they promise to do. And we can find fellow citizens who also want a better world, and debate with them. People will tell you that this can never happen, and this can never work, but it is the only way change ever happens in a society: from the bottom up. And it has happened many times before. Don't let the no-hopeniks convince you to give up.
This is not to say that any of what you have said above is wrong—just that it's not the only thing you can do.
Reducing the fidelity of screening hasn't stopped them in the past, unfortunately.
Population problem: solved!
Huh, I don't see why anyone would think you were crazy for not wanting to share a room, particularly with someone of the opposite sex. I certainly see the attraction of a setup like this, but I'd rather pay more for a private room. I think the social setting would be very cool, but on a practical level, I don't think it would work for me. I _have_ stayed in hostels like this for mountaineering courses up in the Sierras, and it worked okay except for the snoring, but I think I slept with my wallet in my pocket.
IOW, TFS is simply wrong: the application isn't crashing. Everything is working exactly as it should, except for some intermediary storage in the App store.
Sigh.
Yeah, I'm _really_ confused by this story. In order to publish an app, you have to sign it with your developer key, and Apple has to sign it too. How is it even _possible_ for a corrupted app to run on an iOS device? Wouldn't it just fail the signature check?
Oh, btw, yes, you can conceal your "intellectual property," but then it's not property. It's a trade secret. If someone else figures it out independently, or it is released through other means, you no longer "own" it. This is what trade secrets are, and there is a whole body of law that deals with them.
Yes, if you restrict property ownership to what you can personally defend, then property does not require government intervention. Otherwise it does. Anarcho-syndicalists often pretend that a corporate property registry is different, because it's not governmental, but it amounts to the same thing. The only difference is that you pay the syndicate to defend your rights, whether people collectively agree you have them or not, which can get really ugly (not that government enforcement of property rights can't, of course).
In point of fact, drug dealers don't own what they have—the government is free to take it if they can, and so are you (but don't get caught!).
Correct. Prior art is grounds for invalidating a patent. It sort of sounds like you think it means that whoever invented the thing first owns it, but that's not what it means. The patent system requires that the thing being owned be *disclosed*, not just invented. It's a lame system, and works really badly in the software industry, but if Apple came up with something in 1994 and never disclosed it, and then Samsung built something similar in 2004, this doesn't mean that Samsung stole Apple's work.
Right, the most hidebound bunch of groupthinkers in the whole industry didn't anticipate it, so it couldn't have been anticipated. Incorrect. Devices like the iPhone had been made and sold before Apple announced. They weren't iPhones, but the iPhone was an obvious evolutionary step after, e.g., the Nokia 770. It's too bad Nokia didn't manage to turn that into a real product.
Apple's innovation with the iPhone was not that they created a new piece of hardware nobody could have anticipated, but that they managed to convince AT&T to allow them full control over the software on the phone. This was _revolutionary_. But not really something you can patent.
Less than two years, not three. I got an iPhone 3G the day it was released, with a two-year contract, and it was out of support before the contract ended.
I agree with you that if we were comparing non-Google Android phones to Apple phones, I would still be out to lunch. Non-google Android phones suck—the only way to use Android and like it is on a Google device, or to root your Android device and install an open source build like Cyanogenmod. Otherwise it's like a windows preinstall—loaded up with crapware.
But that's actually why Android is a win. With iOS, once your phone is out of the support stream, that's the end of it. With Android, if the manufacturer's support sucks, you can root your phone and install an open source version (if you bought carefully in the first place, of course). With Google Nexus phones, it's really easy, but it can be done with a lot of non-Google phones too.
I think that Android's UI needs a lot of fine-tuning, and that Apple's is better. But UI isn't everything. I do not appreciate being forced onto a 2 year upgrade cycle. For me, this is a deal-breaker, because it means that the phone is useless once I'm done with it, even if I upgrade every two years. The lockdown on the iPhone prevents it from being repurposed once it's been obsoleted by Apple.
Dude, I adore Apple. I've been buying Apple products since MacOS 10.1 came out. I switched to a Google Nexus a couple of years ago after really enjoying my iPhone when Apple discontinued support for the iPhone when I was still in contract. This is just downright abusive behavior, and it continues: my iPad is also no longer supported as of iOS 6. The reason people are pissed off at Apple is that they have gotten too big for their breeches and started to abuse their customers. So the new intelligence test for Apple customers is, how much more of this are you willing to put up with?