If it's Firefox, it's perfectly OK to blame the add-ons.
Those hundreds of memory leaks the FF team fixed in 3.0? All attributed to add-ons, until they were fixed.
And don't get me wrong, FF is a far superior browser to IE any day of the week, but people in crystal rooms shouldn't be hurling stones at others. Or something along those lines.
Most of the media (for example, NPR on the radio today) talks about "unauthorized access by employees", while/. entry is about "sharing" (which is more sinister).
That's probably because, with the exception of Fox News, the MSM still has a sliver of integrity left somewhere and won't game the headline that way unless it's possible to prove that the records were actually shared, as opposed to just illegally accessed.
Slashdot however, doesn't bother with those kinds of silly self-constraints.
I believe he advocates hatred because of his religious angle, that's all. Religious people who would otherwise be inclined to be sympathetic to gays (you know, live and let live) might be swayed to the other extreme by his endless "OMG THE GAYS ARE COMING" idiocies.
Denying people basic human rights is a badly-disguised form of hatred.
You are welcome to believe otherwise. Me, I've seen enough of that fire and brimstone crap that I'm not surprised anymore. In the country where I grew up during the mid-80s people started boycotting the Smurfs (yes, you read that right) because some idiot catholic priest in Spain claimed they were representations of Satan. You extrapolate from there, if you want. I already have.
Yes, calling someone a massive douchebag because they don't agree with you while insulting their religion and faith is trashing--that's exactly what I meant.
Calling him a massive douchebag because I happen to disagree with his (flawed) stance on gay marriage and not buying his books are my prerogatives as a consumer.
I didn't really expect you to be able to point out where Card advocated hate
You didn't read the article, then? Thanks for fulfilling my expectations.
Or if you did read it and find nothing particularly wrong with it, then let's just agree to to disagree.
Well, the mods go either way, mostly. We're into deep offtopic territory here now. It really depends on whether or not people with mod points think that a) his drivel is valuable; and b) whether or not his shilling is "OK" because of (a).
Read this if you have time. It's linked from the journal that documents his gaming of the moderation system, but it captures the whole thing very well. That's who you're dealing with here, so I generally recommend just stepping away or risk getting some twitter on your shoes, which is generally not hygienic:)
Expect a few more to show up, it's this guy's usual disruption MO. He gets modded to hell for his useless drivel and shilling, and then he starts whining about how Microsoft is subverting Slashdot just to get him.
If you have 20 years in IT then you should be able to come up with a scenario that goes like "X happens, then Y happens, what do you do?", because ideally you've gone through that kind of thing enough times.
I like the one where I ask them to work through setting up a build system and proper source control for an already-in-the-second-phase project they're taking over as architects. The key there is not only how they do things from a technical perspective, but also if they ask questions like "is there an existing system or procedure in place and who designed/owns it" or things like that. Coders I can get for a dime a dozen; software developers that can function within a large project on the other hand, are few and between.
I also sometimes ask them to do a high-level design of a software application that controls an elevator system in a building. The way they approach that, especially how they abstract problems and manage complexity, is very revealing.
Other than that, the standard 50 question deep tech rounds up quite nicely.
Just like you are trashing somebody you don't agree with?
If by thrashing you mean I'm of the opinion he's a douchebag and I won't buy his books, then yes. That's just my opinion though.
Please indicate where Card is "advocating" hatred?
Um, read the Mormon Times link I posted (not the first one). And when you're done, even if you think all that is just peachy, remember that these opinion issues go both ways, OK?
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
to advocate the hatred
I never said I "hated" him, I said I wasn't going to buy his books. As a consumer, that's the only way for me to say "hey, I think you're full of shit".
There is nothing hypocritical about it. Hypocritical would be my little economic embargo paired with a loud call to burn his Mormon church down to the ground and prosecute everyone in it for being different to Catholics.
And you would be surprised at how tolerant gays are, in my experience. They can hardly afford to be hateful when all they want is to be left alone.
I can see why you checked "Post anonymously" here - I thought no one could be this stupid. You proved me wrong.
Scott Card essentially argues that if we let gay people get married, that will somehow cause a great disturbance among heterosexual married couples (50% of which get divorced anyway), I assume (and he doesn't say), their marriage certificates will suddenly vanish in smoke to Satan's hoarse laughter playing in the background. He then goes on to warn that he will fight to overthrow the government that appoints judges that support gay marriage. You know, in general, gays are subhuman slaves to unnatural lust and should not be allowed the same social privileges as we "normal" heteros.
And just for clarity here, which seems to be sadly lacking in these arguments, gays don't want to walk down the isle dressed in white and be blessed by a priest. What they want is for their partners to be able to receive health benefits, hold joint investment accounts, and be allowed to generally act as what a "spouse" is, from a legal point of view. That's all they want. Nothing more.
You were saying something about prejudice?
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Note that the original link I included to the Examiner article itself links to one Scott Card article (mirrored in his website) and quotes another one, published in the Mormon Times. The second one contains the attributed quote in the Examiner. I apologize for that, I originally read the Mormon Times one but I for some reason the link I had bookmarked was to the Examiner article.
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Ah, yes. That quotes the wrong article, which appeared in the Mormon Times, not in the Rhino Times.
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You are free to do so at your leisure. You will notice I didn't urge anyone to do the same. I was merely voicing my opinion.
As for "growing up", please go drink some Drano. This guy has a louder voice than most *because* he is wealthy thanks to people who buy his books, and he's using that voice to advocate hatred of people who do not share his values, all snuggled up in a nice Christian delivery blanket for the mainstream to gobble up.
Perhaps you have no friends or family members who are gay. I do. And I respect them a hell of a lot more than I respect people like Scott Card or you.
Stallman has been very clear over the years that he has no issue with people monetizing software, making money off of programming, or even selling software. He merely emphasizes that anyone who obtains software must have access to code.
That's disingenuous. The OP was probably referring to the fact that Stallman believes anyone who does not give away their code is an amoral entity to be dealt with harshly. It has nothing to do with monetization per se, since "closed source" freeware also falls under the category of things RMS wants to make go away.
This but you can charge money for your software! argument is a cop-out that for some reason keeps getting trotted out in the context of Stallman's evident extremism, and I don't understand why people who seem otherwise intelligent insist on using it.
Why don't you put me on your list of foes and adjust your viewing preferences so you won't have to put up with my annoying posts.
If you want to do the same with trollboy here, you'll just have to repeat the operation fourteen times. But I'm sure in the long run that's healthier getting modded down for whining about things other people say.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's pretty funny. It was doing the rounds the other day.
Works fine on IE as well, which is what I had to use to look at it.
Wow, that's really bad.
I have seen some decrease in the amount of memory used by 3.x over 2.x, especially when I leave the browser open for days at a time.
On the other hand, 3 does seem to crash more often, at least on me. This page will make it crash every single time on this machine, for example.
If it's Firefox, it's perfectly OK to blame the add-ons.
Those hundreds of memory leaks the FF team fixed in 3.0? All attributed to add-ons, until they were fixed.
And don't get me wrong, FF is a far superior browser to IE any day of the week, but people in crystal rooms shouldn't be hurling stones at others. Or something along those lines.
That's probably because, with the exception of Fox News, the MSM still has a sliver of integrity left somewhere and won't game the headline that way unless it's possible to prove that the records were actually shared, as opposed to just illegally accessed.
Slashdot however, doesn't bother with those kinds of silly self-constraints.
I never said anything about the "M$" thing, you've got me confused with the person I originally replied to.
And here's the link to that thread I mentioned. I remembered it because I replied to you.
That's funny coming from you, considering twitter nailed you once with one of his sockpuppets and made you believe he was willyhill.
I believe he advocates hatred because of his religious angle, that's all. Religious people who would otherwise be inclined to be sympathetic to gays (you know, live and let live) might be swayed to the other extreme by his endless "OMG THE GAYS ARE COMING" idiocies.
Denying people basic human rights is a badly-disguised form of hatred.
You are welcome to believe otherwise. Me, I've seen enough of that fire and brimstone crap that I'm not surprised anymore. In the country where I grew up during the mid-80s people started boycotting the Smurfs (yes, you read that right) because some idiot catholic priest in Spain claimed they were representations of Satan. You extrapolate from there, if you want. I already have.
Beah carefulsh whatsh joo shhhhhoot at... mossshht thengs hehahr don't shhhReact well toh bulletsh...
Next up is Kepler's mother, who was accused of being a witched and nearly also burned at the stake for that. Maybe they still hold a grudge.
Lord, protect me from thy followers...
Calling him a massive douchebag because I happen to disagree with his (flawed) stance on gay marriage and not buying his books are my prerogatives as a consumer.
You didn't read the article, then? Thanks for fulfilling my expectations.
Or if you did read it and find nothing particularly wrong with it, then let's just agree to to disagree.
Well, the mods go either way, mostly. We're into deep offtopic territory here now. It really depends on whether or not people with mod points think that a) his drivel is valuable; and b) whether or not his shilling is "OK" because of (a).
Read this if you have time. It's linked from the journal that documents his gaming of the moderation system, but it captures the whole thing very well. That's who you're dealing with here, so I generally recommend just stepping away or risk getting some twitter on your shoes, which is generally not hygienic :)
Oh, and another one here.
Expect a few more to show up, it's this guy's usual disruption MO. He gets modded to hell for his useless drivel and shilling, and then he starts whining about how Microsoft is subverting Slashdot just to get him.
"Erris" and "right handed" (who replied to you) are just two of twitter's 14 sockpuppet accounts.
See this thread for a recent fun shill session.
If you have 20 years in IT then you should be able to come up with a scenario that goes like "X happens, then Y happens, what do you do?", because ideally you've gone through that kind of thing enough times.
I like the one where I ask them to work through setting up a build system and proper source control for an already-in-the-second-phase project they're taking over as architects. The key there is not only how they do things from a technical perspective, but also if they ask questions like "is there an existing system or procedure in place and who designed/owns it" or things like that. Coders I can get for a dime a dozen; software developers that can function within a large project on the other hand, are few and between.
I also sometimes ask them to do a high-level design of a software application that controls an elevator system in a building. The way they approach that, especially how they abstract problems and manage complexity, is very revealing.
Other than that, the standard 50 question deep tech rounds up quite nicely.
If by thrashing you mean I'm of the opinion he's a douchebag and I won't buy his books, then yes. That's just my opinion though.
Um, read the Mormon Times link I posted (not the first one). And when you're done, even if you think all that is just peachy, remember that these opinion issues go both ways, OK?
Shhhh, Microsoft is dying.
I never said I "hated" him, I said I wasn't going to buy his books. As a consumer, that's the only way for me to say "hey, I think you're full of shit".
There is nothing hypocritical about it. Hypocritical would be my little economic embargo paired with a loud call to burn his Mormon church down to the ground and prosecute everyone in it for being different to Catholics.
And you would be surprised at how tolerant gays are, in my experience. They can hardly afford to be hateful when all they want is to be left alone.
I can see why you checked "Post anonymously" here - I thought no one could be this stupid. You proved me wrong.
Please see the correct article where that quote originated from. Sorry.
And I respect that a majority of people in California and Arizona voted as they did. That's not the issue here.
Yes, sure. Here is the original article, with the correct quote. I apologize for linking to the Examiner article to begin with, which confusingly links to one thing and quotes another.
Scott Card essentially argues that if we let gay people get married, that will somehow cause a great disturbance among heterosexual married couples (50% of which get divorced anyway), I assume (and he doesn't say), their marriage certificates will suddenly vanish in smoke to Satan's hoarse laughter playing in the background. He then goes on to warn that he will fight to overthrow the government that appoints judges that support gay marriage. You know, in general, gays are subhuman slaves to unnatural lust and should not be allowed the same social privileges as we "normal" heteros.
And just for clarity here, which seems to be sadly lacking in these arguments, gays don't want to walk down the isle dressed in white and be blessed by a priest. What they want is for their partners to be able to receive health benefits, hold joint investment accounts, and be allowed to generally act as what a "spouse" is, from a legal point of view. That's all they want. Nothing more.
You were saying something about prejudice?
Note that the original link I included to the Examiner article itself links to one Scott Card article (mirrored in his website) and quotes another one, published in the Mormon Times. The second one contains the attributed quote in the Examiner. I apologize for that, I originally read the Mormon Times one but I for some reason the link I had bookmarked was to the Examiner article.
Ah, yes. That quotes the wrong article, which appeared in the Mormon Times, not in the Rhino Times.
You are free to do so at your leisure. You will notice I didn't urge anyone to do the same. I was merely voicing my opinion.
As for "growing up", please go drink some Drano. This guy has a louder voice than most *because* he is wealthy thanks to people who buy his books, and he's using that voice to advocate hatred of people who do not share his values, all snuggled up in a nice Christian delivery blanket for the mainstream to gobble up.
Perhaps you have no friends or family members who are gay. I do. And I respect them a hell of a lot more than I respect people like Scott Card or you.
Much as I enjoyed the Ender series, Scott Card has revealed himself to be a massive douche. I'm not buying or reading his books anymore.
That's disingenuous. The OP was probably referring to the fact that Stallman believes anyone who does not give away their code is an amoral entity to be dealt with harshly. It has nothing to do with monetization per se, since "closed source" freeware also falls under the category of things RMS wants to make go away.
This but you can charge money for your software! argument is a cop-out that for some reason keeps getting trotted out in the context of Stallman's evident extremism, and I don't understand why people who seem otherwise intelligent insist on using it.
Why don't you put me on your list of foes and adjust your viewing preferences so you won't have to put up with my annoying posts.
If you want to do the same with trollboy here, you'll just have to repeat the operation fourteen times. But I'm sure in the long run that's healthier getting modded down for whining about things other people say.