I don't have an account but that doesn't mean FB isn't tracking me somehow. I have facebook's ip blocked in my hosts files, and run several tracker removing tools like privoxy, ghostery and adblock+. However people take photos of me, friends and family, and not being on facebook, I can't keep track of them. I'm sure some of them are "helpfully" tagging my face on their profiles. I tell people I don't like FB when I can, but you can't really be take the initiative without becoming the "man that's proud to not own a TV/FB/G+" etc. As a result it's hard to tell who is tagging me and who isn't. Worse yet while I ask people to stop tagging me when I can, I never ask for being untagged, because that's useless, FB won't ever forget about that.
This doesn't mean I will stop caring and make an account already. Ghost profiles are by their very nature, sketchy and unreliable. The less information they have on me the better. And no, it's not simply privacy. For as much as I complain that I want my privacy, I do realize that FB itself isn't interested in me. I don't buy at all the bullshit that they are going to make life better for me by offering me products I'm interested in. This kind of marketing isn't about helping me. It's about finding the right market strategy to sell me things I wouldn't buy otherwise.
The real danger are FB clients. Groups like the US government or UK police departments. Groups that would try to use FB vast database to cast a net and trap people for stepping away from control. The thing that saddens me about FB is that it's a tool for suppression of social progress. The huge hypocrisy is that we know this, and we know it's good and we even encourage it in other countries. Yet we've left our covernment build a safety wall against their own citizens...
FB, one way or another, manages to depress me almost every day somehow.
I don't think sensationalist hogwash even begins to describe this. When products compete on price its often a singal that the market has matured and consumers have decided on a specific featureset.
People aren't buying iPads because there is no market, people aren't buying iPads because it's "superior features" some of which include "being hip" and "it's the one on TV" and "OMG I love Steave Jobs", aren't really what consumers wants.
This is a fanboy if I've seen one, Amazon and Google aren't "hurting" the table market simply because they are eating into Apple's marketshare.
See the hypocrisy, how this guy simultaneusly delcares "there is no market" and "the iPad owns the market".
For all I care the iPad isn't even in the tablet market. The iPad is in the iPad market. Take from that what you will.
It isn't surprising for anyone who knows DX and OpenGL well, but it is surprising for game developers and other graphic intensive users since the "everybody knows" that graphics on Linux sucks.
An interesting implication is that, since people expect to be praised for a mediocre job, actually getting criticized means you must have done something beyond terrible. Basically you have to calibrate your response according to how people will perceive it. If the person did an slightly bad job, show disappointment. If they did a really bad job, show disapproval. If they did a really bad job, criticize it. If they did a catastrophically terrible job, then it's time to let lose hell.
Wow, talk about blaming the victim. Don't pretend this isn't Apple's fault, in fact I don't even think this was planned, otherwise she would have complained from the moment the links were blamed.
In a way I think this is a great opportunity to illustrate why monopolies, even popular ones are bad. Talking about popular monopolies, are you a fan of Apple? Because that was some nice brand loyalty there.
On the other hand account tracking focuses too much on personality and too little on content. It's amazing how relatively civil and directed is conversation in sites like 4chan. Yes, you see a lot of "fucking nigger" comments, but it's up to you to pay them any mention and just ignoring them tends to diffuse them. Plus it's not the model's fault the content is shit if the users are assholes, the real measure of the content quality is how little spam there is, no viagra pill ads on sight anywhere.
And I agree with you but there are still things that suck about how Gnome 3 does things (and I'm using it right now).
In Gnome-Do, as well as Launchy, Kupfer and every other Quicksilver clone, you can navigate search results with the down key. And so it is in Gnome 3, except the results are displayed horizontally.
This means that you use the down key to move rightward and the up key to move leftward.
I like Gnome 3, I don't think it is as bad as many people have claimed. I see a lot of potential. But GODS IT IS BONE HEADED about so many things. So many things implemented so wrong.
That's still an advantage for Microsoft, whether you chose to ignore it or not, but the real problem for me is what it implicates for smaller distributions but we all know that they don't matter.
I meant average lifespan. More people living past their 40's means more marriages end in divorces. Extending individual lifespans would have the same effect in average divorce rates by the way.
I think Redhat's and Canonical's decisions are their own counterargument. As paradoxical as that sounds.
The argument against UEFI is that it gives an advantage to Microsoft, putting them in control of licensing. The counter argument is that UEFI has provisions for running other OS, that don't rely on Microsoft. Redhat and Canoncial, Microsoft competitors, chose to contract licensing from Microsoft.
Whatever UEFI provisions are*, they are bad enough that paying Microsoft is the better alternative, so it is still the case that UEFI favors Microsoft.
* UEFI provision are. 1.- User's can disable Secure Boot. 2.- Users can sign their own OS at their expense. 3.- Users can install keys provided by distributions. 3.- Distributions can make deals with OEMs to include their keys.
Are you including yourself in this "we" that used to make fun of us who insisted in "free" over "open"? Because if you aren't then you are just using a rethorical device to sound more convincing. I don't like that, even if it favours my case.
If you do then WOW!. I mean WOW!, it is the first time I see someone change opinions on the internet in a long long time. I'm amazed. The inhability of people to change their minds has been a source of frustration of mine for so long.
I think you are answering your own post. UEFI provides 4 ways to install another OS, a, b, c and d.
And they all suck so much that they have to choose "e" which is not even in the standard. UEFI provisions are so bad that the two major distributions with the most clout would rather pay the competition than use any of them. That says everything you need to know about UEFI provisions.
Even if it does have the drivers the devices could refuse to work on a computer without secure boot, I'm pretty sure that's how optical drives are going to work in the future.
Let the parties present governing strategies and work similarly to experts in trials by jury, but let the jury decide on the ultimate actions. Juries must be large enough to statistically represent the population they --you know-- represent.
Youtube comments are almost engineered to be useless.
They are very short, urls, even between videos are prohibited cannot be edited, cannot be easily threaded, don't have subject lines or, for that matter, tags nor any other way to sort them. There is no way to conduct an argument on them, they are literally only enough for you to say "Cool video!" and that's it.
And don't get me started on how they let you disable comments and even RATINGS! This is clearly a measure to appeal to uploaders but it's a split in the face of users, who are by far their main income source.
Youtube comments would be 10,000% better if they had a "discussion" section and the regular comments limited to, say, 60 chrs or less. Anything else would redirect you to that video's specific discussion board.
But well, I'm not going to suggest that, because they'll surely try to tie that into G+ too.
Why not? You don't get to chose what I can criticize, otherwise I wouldn't be able to, say, criticize a movie or a restaurant without their blessing.
What ever possesed you to make that statement? No seriously, I'm asking you, what made you think that people shouldn't be able to express their opinion on some one else's actions?
And I am personalli offended by the gross disregard for proper grammar and ortography. I mean, how did "mentally retarded" managed to be truncated into "tard"? If the phrase is too long you could always say something else like "slow". YOu could easily say, "that kid is slow" and you even have the cover of whether you are talking about his head or his body. Ambiguity is great for softening or disguising uncomfortable terms.
Back to "Big Boobs". Yes, the OP is right, these aren't sexist words. Immature perhaps but not sexist. The problem is the mentality that any mention of sexuality, specifically any expression motivated by male, heterosexual drives, constitues a violation of the basic human rights of all women.
The scenarios is like this. Somebody is reading the kernel source...
#include 'somelib.h'...blah blah blah...void set_pointer(int objectp... blah blah blah...0xB16B00B5...blah blah blah...Wait WHAT? Big boobs? BIG BOOBS!?? SOMEONE HERE LIKES BIG BOOBS!? THE ENTIRE KERNEL TEAM THINKS WOMEN ARE WORHTLESS ANIMALS ONLY VALUABLE AS SEXUAL SLAVES!!?? OMG LINUX IS KEEPING WOMEN IMPRISIONED IN SECRET SEX DUNGEONS!!!
As most people here don't give a shit about non-english.
Now, admittedly, I don't think this is exactly an excellent idea, but let me try and dispel a couple of misconceptions here. Firstly, that the "host" language doesn't matter because code isn't in English to begin with.
That's bullshit.
If everything you needed to understand a program was it's syntax and function definitions javascript would kinda look like this:
x a % 1* x a2 % "hello world"* w i a3 f I
u a3ytif* F
That is, with all keywords and punctuation chosen at random. That simply is no way to help the programmer get things done. Both the keywords and punctuation, as well as identifiers must be easy to remember. There is a reason we don't chose punctuation and identifiers at random.
Second misconception is that every programmer writes in English. Being a Mexican coder I can attest that most enterprise code is written with Spanish identifier names. That's even a guideline for some people. If an identifier is in Spanish they know they can check the source code, if it's in English it's part of the language, or the framework or a library and you don't bother checking the source.
And it makes a lot more sense that you people would think. Enterprise code tends to be overly specific, choosing English identifiers in an Enterprise environment means that you will end up changing the terminology and this custom software is usually written for experienced teams that already have developed a terminology that matters to them so there's value in keeping everything consistent.
I can only guess that code written in India or Japan would also use Indian or Japanese identifiers.
Now keywords... yeah, let them be English. The advantage of changing them is negligible compared to its downfalls.
Let me clarify what some people are saying about how Microsoft can't demand locked BIOS because of anti-trust laws.
They are wrong. MS can demand secure boot. As long as there is a way for other comercial companies to get into this scheme, they can't be accoused of monopolizing the market.
And why would they? Secure boot won't prevent Google from releasing another TV OS. Won't prevent Apple from selling more iPads, won't even prevent System 76 from selling Ubuntu. But your S76 laptop won't have the DRM hardware module to run Netflix and your PVR that does have it won't install another OS.
Freedom will be isolated to specific machines to be easily ignored while all useful applications will be restricted to a "safe zone". That is, safe from user's freedom.
Mexico isn't at war. Yes there are isolated towns that have it very bad, and there are some very dramatic killings in the big cities, what with hanging people off bridges, but the situations is mostly comparable to the Al Capone era in the States. It's troubling but it isn't a war.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have an account but that doesn't mean FB isn't tracking me somehow. I have facebook's ip blocked in my hosts files, and run several tracker removing tools like privoxy, ghostery and adblock+. However people take photos of me, friends and family, and not being on facebook, I can't keep track of them. I'm sure some of them are "helpfully" tagging my face on their profiles. I tell people I don't like FB when I can, but you can't really be take the initiative without becoming the "man that's proud to not own a TV/FB/G+" etc. As a result it's hard to tell who is tagging me and who isn't. Worse yet while I ask people to stop tagging me when I can, I never ask for being untagged, because that's useless, FB won't ever forget about that.
This doesn't mean I will stop caring and make an account already. Ghost profiles are by their very nature, sketchy and unreliable. The less information they have on me the better. And no, it's not simply privacy. For as much as I complain that I want my privacy, I do realize that FB itself isn't interested in me. I don't buy at all the bullshit that they are going to make life better for me by offering me products I'm interested in. This kind of marketing isn't about helping me. It's about finding the right market strategy to sell me things I wouldn't buy otherwise.
The real danger are FB clients. Groups like the US government or UK police departments. Groups that would try to use FB vast database to cast a net and trap people for stepping away from control. The thing that saddens me about FB is that it's a tool for suppression of social progress. The huge hypocrisy is that we know this, and we know it's good and we even encourage it in other countries. Yet we've left our covernment build a safety wall against their own citizens...
FB, one way or another, manages to depress me almost every day somehow.
I don't think sensationalist hogwash even begins to describe this. When products compete on price its often a singal that the market has matured and consumers have decided on a specific featureset.
People aren't buying iPads because there is no market, people aren't buying iPads because it's "superior features" some of which include "being hip" and "it's the one on TV" and "OMG I love Steave Jobs", aren't really what consumers wants.
This is a fanboy if I've seen one, Amazon and Google aren't "hurting" the table market simply because they are eating into Apple's marketshare.
See the hypocrisy, how this guy simultaneusly delcares "there is no market" and "the iPad owns the market".
For all I care the iPad isn't even in the tablet market. The iPad is in the iPad market. Take from that what you will.
It isn't surprising for anyone who knows DX and OpenGL well, but it is surprising for game developers and other graphic intensive users since the "everybody knows" that graphics on Linux sucks.
An interesting implication is that, since people expect to be praised for a mediocre job, actually getting criticized means you must have done something beyond terrible. Basically you have to calibrate your response according to how people will perceive it. If the person did an slightly bad job, show disappointment. If they did a really bad job, show disapproval. If they did a really bad job, criticize it. If they did a catastrophically terrible job, then it's time to let lose hell.
Because fuck braces and unnecessary recursion:
def manageWorker(worker):
isFired = False
while not worker.isDead or isFired:
worker.flog()
isAcceptableMorale = worker.morale >= MORALE_THRESOLD
isAcceptableProductivity = worker.productivity >= PRODUCTIVITY_THRESOLD
if isAcceptableMorale or isAcceptableProductivity:
worker.goldstars += 1
else:
isFired = True
Wow, talk about blaming the victim. Don't pretend this isn't Apple's fault, in fact I don't even think this was planned, otherwise she would have complained from the moment the links were blamed.
In a way I think this is a great opportunity to illustrate why monopolies, even popular ones are bad. Talking about popular monopolies, are you a fan of Apple? Because that was some nice brand loyalty there.
On the other hand account tracking focuses too much on personality and too little on content. It's amazing how relatively civil and directed is conversation in sites like 4chan. Yes, you see a lot of "fucking nigger" comments, but it's up to you to pay them any mention and just ignoring them tends to diffuse them. Plus it's not the model's fault the content is shit if the users are assholes, the real measure of the content quality is how little spam there is, no viagra pill ads on sight anywhere.
There are no gift cards for steam. Are there?
And I agree with you but there are still things that suck about how Gnome 3 does things (and I'm using it right now).
In Gnome-Do, as well as Launchy, Kupfer and every other Quicksilver clone, you can navigate search results with the down key. And so it is in Gnome 3, except the results are displayed horizontally.
This means that you use the down key to move rightward and the up key to move leftward.
I like Gnome 3, I don't think it is as bad as many people have claimed. I see a lot of potential. But GODS IT IS BONE HEADED about so many things. So many things implemented so wrong.
That's still an advantage for Microsoft, whether you chose to ignore it or not, but the real problem for me is what it implicates for smaller distributions but we all know that they don't matter.
I meant average lifespan. More people living past their 40's means more marriages end in divorces. Extending individual lifespans would have the same effect in average divorce rates by the way.
Sorry I meant 66% but it's still sort of a guess.
Sorry. Damn it, why do my reading skills fail me a the worst possible moments...
I think Redhat's and Canonical's decisions are their own counterargument. As paradoxical as that sounds.
The argument against UEFI is that it gives an advantage to Microsoft, putting them in control of licensing.
The counter argument is that UEFI has provisions for running other OS, that don't rely on Microsoft.
Redhat and Canoncial, Microsoft competitors, chose to contract licensing from Microsoft.
Whatever UEFI provisions are*, they are bad enough that paying Microsoft is the better alternative, so it is still the case that UEFI favors Microsoft.
* UEFI provision are.
1.- User's can disable Secure Boot.
2.- Users can sign their own OS at their expense.
3.- Users can install keys provided by distributions.
3.- Distributions can make deals with OEMs to include their keys.
Are you including yourself in this "we" that used to make fun of us who insisted in "free" over "open"? Because if you aren't then you are just using a rethorical device to sound more convincing. I don't like that, even if it favours my case.
If you do then WOW!. I mean WOW!, it is the first time I see someone change opinions on the internet in a long long time. I'm amazed. The inhability of people to change their minds has been a source of frustration of mine for so long.
I think you are answering your own post. UEFI provides 4 ways to install another OS, a, b, c and d.
And they all suck so much that they have to choose "e" which is not even in the standard. UEFI provisions are so bad that the two major distributions with the most clout would rather pay the competition than use any of them. That says everything you need to know about UEFI provisions.
Even if it does have the drivers the devices could refuse to work on a computer without secure boot, I'm pretty sure that's how optical drives are going to work in the future.
Executives juries, better known as Sortition.
Let the parties present governing strategies and work similarly to experts in trials by jury, but let the jury decide on the ultimate actions. Juries must be large enough to statistically represent the population they --you know-- represent.
Youtube comments are almost engineered to be useless.
They are very short, urls, even between videos are prohibited cannot be edited, cannot be easily threaded, don't have subject lines or, for that matter, tags nor any other way to sort them. There is no way to conduct an argument on them, they are literally only enough for you to say "Cool video!" and that's it.
And don't get me started on how they let you disable comments and even RATINGS! This is clearly a measure to appeal to uploaders but it's a split in the face of users, who are by far their main income source.
Youtube comments would be 10,000% better if they had a "discussion" section and the regular comments limited to, say, 60 chrs or less. Anything else would redirect you to that video's specific discussion board.
But well, I'm not going to suggest that, because they'll surely try to tie that into G+ too.
Why not? You don't get to chose what I can criticize, otherwise I wouldn't be able to, say, criticize a movie or a restaurant without their blessing.
What ever possesed you to make that statement? No seriously, I'm asking you, what made you think that people shouldn't be able to express their opinion on some one else's actions?
Because the pseudo-15th century English tosh is funny, you can hide funny comments in your prefferences.
And yes, it's not very convenient.
And I am personalli offended by the gross disregard for proper grammar and ortography. I mean, how did "mentally retarded" managed to be truncated into "tard"? If the phrase is too long you could always say something else like "slow". YOu could easily say, "that kid is slow" and you even have the cover of whether you are talking about his head or his body. Ambiguity is great for softening or disguising uncomfortable terms.
Back to "Big Boobs". Yes, the OP is right, these aren't sexist words. Immature perhaps but not sexist. The problem is the mentality that any mention of sexuality, specifically any expression motivated by male, heterosexual drives, constitues a violation of the basic human rights of all women.
The scenarios is like this. Somebody is reading the kernel source...
Or something like that.
As most people here don't give a shit about non-english.
Now, admittedly, I don't think this is exactly an excellent idea, but let me try and dispel a couple of misconceptions here. Firstly, that the "host" language doesn't matter because code isn't in English to begin with.
That's bullshit.
If everything you needed to understand a program was it's syntax and function definitions javascript would kinda look like this:
That is, with all keywords and punctuation chosen at random. That simply is no way to help the programmer get things done. Both the keywords and punctuation, as well as identifiers must be easy to remember. There is a reason we don't chose punctuation and identifiers at random.
Second misconception is that every programmer writes in English. Being a Mexican coder I can attest that most enterprise code is written with Spanish identifier names. That's even a guideline for some people. If an identifier is in Spanish they know they can check the source code, if it's in English it's part of the language, or the framework or a library and you don't bother checking the source.
And it makes a lot more sense that you people would think. Enterprise code tends to be overly specific, choosing English identifiers in an Enterprise environment means that you will end up changing the terminology and this custom software is usually written for experienced teams that already have developed a terminology that matters to them so there's value in keeping everything consistent.
I can only guess that code written in India or Japan would also use Indian or Japanese identifiers.
Now keywords... yeah, let them be English. The advantage of changing them is negligible compared to its downfalls.
Let me clarify what some people are saying about how Microsoft can't demand locked BIOS because of anti-trust laws.
They are wrong. MS can demand secure boot. As long as there is a way for other comercial companies to get into this scheme, they can't be accoused of monopolizing the market.
And why would they? Secure boot won't prevent Google from releasing another TV OS. Won't prevent Apple from selling more iPads, won't even prevent System 76 from selling Ubuntu. But your S76 laptop won't have the DRM hardware module to run Netflix and your PVR that does have it won't install another OS.
Freedom will be isolated to specific machines to be easily ignored while all useful applications will be restricted to a "safe zone". That is, safe from user's freedom.
Not this shit again.
Mexico isn't at war. Yes there are isolated towns that have it very bad, and there are some very dramatic killings in the big cities, what with hanging people off bridges, but the situations is mostly comparable to the Al Capone era in the States. It's troubling but it isn't a war.