Actually bible-thumpers don't have political views on their own. By nature they excel at being sheep, they'll follow anyone anywhere as long as they go nowhere, because the thing they really fear is the unknown.
Reject outsiders, harass newcomers, revere the old and they are yours. The bible doesn't provide them with political and economical principles, and even if it did they'll ignore them as they do most of the commandments (there are more than 10). They want someone to interpret the bible for them. Just like they want their bible and their god to think for them. So they'll align themselves with either republicans or democrats as long as they uphold the status quo.
Self, Io-language, Smalltalk, Ruby and of course Python or even Lisp, but also Java, C# or Vala if you want static typing.
You mean something supported on todays browsers? Yes, Javascript. But as long as you are reinventing the browser you can always pick a better scripting language.
No, piracy is copying of content by RIAA or MPAA members or software from BSA members. Stealing GPL is good old American business sense unless you are a communist hippie terrorist child pornographer atheist.
Congratulations. You are the first poster not to simply dismiss this research as either false or a result of cluelessness. Pretty much everybody is is claiming that even the 33% miss rate of Google must mean that Google is somehow magically superior to Bing.
Mind you, I'm FAR from a MS fan, nor am I a Bing user, and that's the point, most of the people here jumping to the rescue of their pimp Google probably haven't recently used Bing enough to notice how good or bad it is, and of course they forget that Google brings them results they'll click regardless if they are relevant based on previous queries they've made.
The correct reaction is to either give Bing a go, or at least give other search engines a go, or maybe research the reputation of the source (using Google even!) *then* take a decision.
What we see instead: take a decision, defend it to death.
You're just aware of this transition now? Well, better late than never, I suppose.
In my defence the frog was cooked too slowly. Apple whoring has been here since forever and Google were just some guys offering a search page that loaded 20 times faster than Yahoo's the trend over a decade was so subtle that is only now that it is grating on my nerves.
The commercial route was always something someone would recommend here but it used to be a case of "if you trust $company they could do it for you" now it's like "if you are an insane moron who hates his life, you could do it yourself". The complacency has turned into derogative condescension. Soon it's going to be a matter of old plain hostility, and that makes me type a colon and an open parenthesis.
The problem with Circles is that you really can't step away from a Circle without loosing all it's protection. Which I guess it's okay if all you are going to use G+ for is organising gatherings, share photos of those gatherings, family photos, gossip and very, very low profile promotion of interests.
Since my interests lie in debates and participation in online communities, I have a need to be "publicly private". That is, if I'm not interested in having the online drama following me home. Which I don't.
On top of that, personal details don't always contribute to discussion, I don't want to let my ethnicity, (non)religion, or political view be a factor in online interactions. Except when it's relevant, but that's why I keep multiple profiles around.
Now I realise I'm not a standard user of social networks (in fact I have no interest in having "friends" who aren't real friends) but that doesn't mean I don't know what Circles' main drive of implementation is, since facebook users just keep multiple profiles for that purpose alone.
Also, honestly, it's just an accident waiting to happen, the lower the error margin the more likely you are to share stuff with the wrong friends. But I can see Google fans not caring about that one.
Maybe you shouldn't put senseless ad-hominem in your replies?
He's not saying it is an exact copy right now but it's in the process of becoming one.
I for one hardly believe that you will be able to protect your personal info from these games for too long. I'm pretty sure a "what transformer are you?" app that scraps your friends' "friends-only" data is just waiting to happen. The functionality must be there for the really interesting (and way creepier) apps that do actually make use of your friends' private data.
The circles thing is sorta of a scam*, trying to give you the feeling that you are going to be able to keep the different aspects of your life separate, but its very purpose is preventing you from doing what really could help you manage your identity online --keeping multiple profiles--
G+'s privacy options are not something to write home about, they are not much different from facebook's. But I admit they will most probably do respect them, unlike facebook.
To rip from XKCD, G+ is a facebook that is not facebook.
* Oh golly, I said scam in relation to Google, I'm not going to see the end of it, am I?
TFA is about how GPS changes the way our brains understand navigation. It is not about how we shouldn't have maps as much as pointing out that it changes the way people understand their environment.
Surely Ben Gowing (from TFA) isn't asking us to to replace players by abstract icons, forgo earthly physics, euclidean geometry and reduce all attempts at plot to the level of Tetris, is he?
Just having humanoids on a 3D space with gravity already "contaminates" the game with enough realism that you might just as well keep adding realism until it interferes with gameplay.
Graphics, being accessory, can be as cartoony or as realistic as you want. Me? As long as my character can take blows like a piñata and immediately jump back into action I'm happy. Photo-realistic backgrounds don't bother me at all and in fact I find them quite appealing.
Monday's XKCD strip (https://www.xkcd.com/934/) had a joke about how modern browsers are recapitulating the history of window managing. And while it's funny, I think this whole idea of rethinking the browser misses the point that the browser was the "unthinked" platform,
The web wasn't thought as an application platform, but as a document store. It turned out that some simple forms and parameterised queries was all that was required to make applications out of pages. My point is that the beauty of web applications is their simplicity.
Simplicity is an integral part of the paradigm. OS and hardware independence aren't nice features that were brought into web apps because they were desired. You actually have to take out compatibility from web apps by tying them to specific browsers and thus specific OSes, as was the case with IE only pages.
Access to the OS is a really bad idea, i think the less assumptions you make about the client the better, the old UNIX mantra is truer than ever:
Hoho, talk about ad hominem! Quite ironic since I'm against recreational drug use --including tobacco and alcohol-- but I guess you wanted to call me a hippie but it doesn't make sense with that "Jackass" thing you mentioned which sounds like some red-neck tea-partier tv show. Or not, never heard of it.
But how on earth do you correlate watching dogs licking their ass with loving personal freedom? You are right I haven't looked into p2p spam solutions since I stopped running my own single user mail server when yahoo blocked me for this idiotic reason. I've been looking to set it up again and make it work but I haven't decided on a DNS i like yet.
Even before opening this article I knew it would be overflowing with cries to drop this self-dependency stupidity and just surrender to the corporate gods.
What the fuck?
What is the purpose of free software if you are not supposed to use your freedom? You can build your system using open standards, install an open source OS with an open source mail server. But you will get blocked because you are not a business? More over, what is the purpose of freedom when you are not supposed to exercise it? It really has come to the point where "freedom" means "freedom to work for the system".
It should not be like this, it doesn't have to be like this. There's plenty of solutions, something like WoT can be build to prevent spam much better than a simple "block everything not from gmail yahoo or hotmail" that's just business whoring.
Yes, the tower didn't come down completely straight but straight enough for me and while most controlled demolitions, maybe all so far, have worked from the bottom up maybe that is not feasible with such a tall building.
Don't get me wrong I'm not being unreasonable. This brings me down from something like 40% suspicious to 25% suspicious. Meaning, yes it's probably less likely than I used to though just this morning but still don't find it as laughable as the other 9/11 theories.
But man HAD to land on the moon, it's necessary for my theory that the towers where knocked down with lasers from the secret moon base.
But seriously I also think that the way the towers imploded and collapsed looked very controlled and artificial, even if all the theories about how 9/11 was planned by Washington are crazy (and they get reeeeeal crazy some times), I can imagine someone sending the order of tearing down the towers on purpose to prevent them to collapse against another building(s).
The best explanation I can think that doesn't include pre-installed explosives is that the structure itself was designed to collapse on itself in this fashion with a future demolition in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually bible-thumpers don't have political views on their own. By nature they excel at being sheep, they'll follow anyone anywhere as long as they go nowhere, because the thing they really fear is the unknown.
Reject outsiders, harass newcomers, revere the old and they are yours. The bible doesn't provide them with political and economical principles, and even if it did they'll ignore them as they do most of the commandments (there are more than 10). They want someone to interpret the bible for them. Just like they want their bible and their god to think for them. So they'll align themselves with either republicans or democrats as long as they uphold the status quo.
No Streisand effect? Come on I want to know what was it they wanted to block!
On the contrary, change (can) be good. So computers you can change and experiment with are better than walled gardens.
Also relevant:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375428/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks
Fuck damn it!
Or those of us not form the US. I've heard there's quite a lot of US around.
Self, Io-language, Smalltalk, Ruby and of course Python or even Lisp, but also Java, C# or Vala if you want static typing.
You mean something supported on todays browsers? Yes, Javascript. But as long as you are reinventing the browser you can always pick a better scripting language.
No, piracy is copying of content by RIAA or MPAA members or software from BSA members. Stealing GPL is good old American business sense unless you are a communist hippie terrorist child pornographer atheist.
I miss when technology would simply move forward without someone dramatically announcing obituaries.
Javascript is not a nice language, it's the unholy chimera of Self and Java.
Sure it's better than how most people describe it, but there are far better languages out there.
Congratulations. You are the first poster not to simply dismiss this research as either false or a result of cluelessness. Pretty much everybody is is claiming that even the 33% miss rate of Google must mean that Google is somehow magically superior to Bing.
Mind you, I'm FAR from a MS fan, nor am I a Bing user, and that's the point, most of the people here jumping to the rescue of their pimp Google probably haven't recently used Bing enough to notice how good or bad it is, and of course they forget that Google brings them results they'll click regardless if they are relevant based on previous queries they've made.
The correct reaction is to either give Bing a go, or at least give other search engines a go, or maybe research the reputation of the source (using Google even!) *then* take a decision.
What we see instead: take a decision, defend it to death.
You're just aware of this transition now? Well, better late than never, I suppose.
In my defence the frog was cooked too slowly. Apple whoring has been here since forever and Google were just some guys offering a search page that loaded 20 times faster than Yahoo's the trend over a decade was so subtle that is only now that it is grating on my nerves.
The commercial route was always something someone would recommend here but it used to be a case of "if you trust $company they could do it for you" now it's like "if you are an insane moron who hates his life, you could do it yourself". The complacency has turned into derogative condescension. Soon it's going to be a matter of old plain hostility, and that makes me type a colon and an open parenthesis.
The problem with Circles is that you really can't step away from a Circle without loosing all it's protection. Which I guess it's okay if all you are going to use G+ for is organising gatherings, share photos of those gatherings, family photos, gossip and very, very low profile promotion of interests.
Since my interests lie in debates and participation in online communities, I have a need to be "publicly private". That is, if I'm not interested in having the online drama following me home. Which I don't.
On top of that, personal details don't always contribute to discussion, I don't want to let my ethnicity, (non)religion, or political view be a factor in online interactions. Except when it's relevant, but that's why I keep multiple profiles around.
Now I realise I'm not a standard user of social networks (in fact I have no interest in having "friends" who aren't real friends) but that doesn't mean I don't know what Circles' main drive of implementation is, since facebook users just keep multiple profiles for that purpose alone.
Also, honestly, it's just an accident waiting to happen, the lower the error margin the more likely you are to share stuff with the wrong friends. But I can see Google fans not caring about that one.
Maybe you shouldn't put senseless ad-hominem in your replies?
>>> 409 += 10
SyntaxError: can't assign to literal
He's not saying it is an exact copy right now but it's in the process of becoming one.
I for one hardly believe that you will be able to protect your personal info from these games for too long. I'm pretty sure a "what transformer are you?" app that scraps your friends' "friends-only" data is just waiting to happen. The functionality must be there for the really interesting (and way creepier) apps that do actually make use of your friends' private data.
The circles thing is sorta of a scam*, trying to give you the feeling that you are going to be able to keep the different aspects of your life separate, but its very purpose is preventing you from doing what really could help you manage your identity online --keeping multiple profiles--
G+'s privacy options are not something to write home about, they are not much different from facebook's. But I admit they will most probably do respect them, unlike facebook.
To rip from XKCD, G+ is a facebook that is not facebook.
* Oh golly, I said scam in relation to Google, I'm not going to see the end of it, am I?
TFA is about how GPS changes the way our brains understand navigation. It is not about how we shouldn't have maps as much as pointing out that it changes the way people understand their environment.
Surely Ben Gowing (from TFA) isn't asking us to to replace players by abstract icons, forgo earthly physics, euclidean geometry and reduce all attempts at plot to the level of Tetris, is he?
Just having humanoids on a 3D space with gravity already "contaminates" the game with enough realism that you might just as well keep adding realism until it interferes with gameplay.
Graphics, being accessory, can be as cartoony or as realistic as you want. Me? As long as my character can take blows like a piñata and immediately jump back into action I'm happy. Photo-realistic backgrounds don't bother me at all and in fact I find them quite appealing.
Anonymouse? Seriously? Do you have a spelling impediment or just have the mind of a 10 year old child?
Monday's XKCD strip (https://www.xkcd.com/934/) had a joke about how modern browsers are recapitulating the history of window managing. And while it's funny, I think this whole idea of rethinking the browser misses the point that the browser was the "unthinked" platform,
The web wasn't thought as an application platform, but as a document store. It turned out that some simple forms and parameterised queries was all that was required to make applications out of pages. My point is that the beauty of web applications is their simplicity.
Simplicity is an integral part of the paradigm. OS and hardware independence aren't nice features that were brought into web apps because they were desired. You actually have to take out compatibility from web apps by tying them to specific browsers and thus specific OSes, as was the case with IE only pages.
Access to the OS is a really bad idea, i think the less assumptions you make about the client the better, the old UNIX mantra is truer than ever:
Less is more
I didn't know cloak-and-dagger was a thing before TF2
Hay guys! I tough, someone should car-bomb the embassy, @lovekittens, r u up 2 it? #terrorizing
Hoho, talk about ad hominem! Quite ironic since I'm against recreational drug use --including tobacco and alcohol-- but I guess you wanted to call me a hippie but it doesn't make sense with that "Jackass" thing you mentioned which sounds like some red-neck tea-partier tv show. Or not, never heard of it.
But how on earth do you correlate watching dogs licking their ass with loving personal freedom? You are right I haven't looked into p2p spam solutions since I stopped running my own single user mail server when yahoo blocked me for this idiotic reason. I've been looking to set it up again and make it work but I haven't decided on a DNS i like yet.
Even before opening this article I knew it would be overflowing with cries to drop this self-dependency stupidity and just surrender to the corporate gods.
What the fuck?
What is the purpose of free software if you are not supposed to use your freedom? You can build your system using open standards, install an open source OS with an open source mail server. But you will get blocked because you are not a business? More over, what is the purpose of freedom when you are not supposed to exercise it? It really has come to the point where "freedom" means "freedom to work for the system".
It should not be like this, it doesn't have to be like this. There's plenty of solutions, something like WoT can be build to prevent spam much better than a simple "block everything not from gmail yahoo or hotmail" that's just business whoring.
Yes, the tower didn't come down completely straight but straight enough for me and while most controlled demolitions, maybe all so far, have worked from the bottom up maybe that is not feasible with such a tall building.
Don't get me wrong I'm not being unreasonable. This brings me down from something like 40% suspicious to 25% suspicious. Meaning, yes it's probably less likely than I used to though just this morning but still don't find it as laughable as the other 9/11 theories.
But man HAD to land on the moon, it's necessary for my theory that the towers where knocked down with lasers from the secret moon base.
But seriously I also think that the way the towers imploded and collapsed looked very controlled and artificial, even if all the theories about how 9/11 was planned by Washington are crazy (and they get reeeeeal crazy some times), I can imagine someone sending the order of tearing down the towers on purpose to prevent them to collapse against another building(s).
The best explanation I can think that doesn't include pre-installed explosives is that the structure itself was designed to collapse on itself in this fashion with a future demolition in mind.