Oh well, I know plenty of liberals who are wrong all the time. I'm happy they managed to stumble their way into a few good opinions. I understand what you mean.
If you'll recall this thread, I raised an objection to using the phrase, for exactly the reason that it does one's argument no favors. That doesn't mean I consider the people using it to expect it to shut down all debate and make them autowin through credibility smashing. It's perfectly legitimate for people to be bothered by the fact that in their discussions with someone, they just start making assumptions about what life is like for members of whatever minority group is being targeted.
The fact that they lash out with a phrase that is not very helpful doesn't make the rest of what they're saying wrong.
"Check your privilege" means "I have lost this debate, but I can't admit that you are smarter than me so I am going to attack you personally."
Cause if there's one thing this debate needs, it's another strawman argument. Thanks for pointing out how horribly stupid those people you don't like are.
Actually, freedom of speech ABSOLUTELY does mean freedom from government consequences. We narrow it in a few cases (lying/fraud, reporting false threats, etc.) because those are demonstrably harmful.
I don't know why you'd include that bolded one, and not the extremely relevant "making threats" exception. However, that is clearly not the case here, and I don't think there's any real room to wiggle, for the fascists who arrested this kid.
Games, document sharing, aptics, real time text chat.
Please, if you can't use SSL+TCP for text chat and keep it real time, you've got horrendous software. Moreover, the potentially lossy nature of UDP is really bad for text. You can outright lose data. Your packets can arrive out of order. It's okay with video data where a hiccup only makes a few missing pixels, but with text, that's a terrible idea.
Yeah, and you don't need coworkers either, because you have friends, right? I didn't say it had anything to do with a spirit of camaraderie, it's a matter of practicality. You can learn more, do more, and achieve things, if you can share utility. Not everyone you do that with is, strictly speaking, a friend.
It's different from a workshop in that it's also a community. People teach to make, people loan tools to each other, people show off creations. I spent about a year as a member of a hackerspace, then I moved somewhere that became less feasible. In that time, I saw some really cool technologies people had made, helped teach people a bit about writing processing code for graphics cards without using CUDA, and made use of their tech-book library.
How do you stop a denial of service attack if both sides aren't required to maintain the overhead of the connection? TCP uses the overhead caused by ACK packets as a rate limiter on clients.
There are obviously high-bandwidth frameworks where you're already putting a strain on systems just by using them, where low-latency is also critical, and UDP is appropriate; video chat comes to mind, but outside of that very limited purview, what use could encrypting UDP actually do?
The expense of setting up your own physical server, installing custom software, and maintaining it, would almost certainly exceed all ad revenue anyways. The very premise of these "businesses" was built on how cheap it was do dump "content" on a blog, against how much money you could earn from ads.
In the google world, there is no delete. If you delete an email off of gmail, then remove it from your trash, it's just hidden, and the space is freed for your account. The email itself is dumped on some backup server, logs, somewhere, because google wants all information.
There are a lot of these, which we all like to not publicly admit we've all seen. They fill themselves up with robo-copied text and material from other parts of the web, stuff in links to "affiliate" websites, and generally take up space. They differ a little from outright spam blogs, since a little bit of what they have is what the user is looking for, some basic content or something, but it's mostly a cover to link to for-profit sites, and doesn't represent an actual blog as blogger is intended to host.
Google has a bit of a vested interest in having blogger be a platform with real people, as it increases the value of their ads. There will be sites of value lost in the cut, but I don't think there will be very many actual people who lose their blogs.
That isn't new information. They're suppressing a newspaper from reaching people, solely because of something that newspaper published. Regardless of intent, the message is that members of the military aren't allowed to get their news from sources the U.S. government disagrees with. And the only excuse seems to be expediency of enforcement of classified documents. That are now widely available anyways.
Ok, so I'm going to explain something I don't particularly believe in. Be aware of the potential bias that incorporates.
Privilege theory describes racial bias as a frequently unconscious problem driven by statistics and unspoken assumptions. It says that most(some? I dunno) of the remaining obstacles for true equality between races/sexes/LGBT/oppressed people are implicit rather than explicit. The most commonly cited example is that your hiring manager for a middle class job is something like 90% likely to be white and 75% likely to be male(those are not the correct statistics, I'm explaining the concept, not validating it), and so that gives white males an implicitly higher chance of getting the job due to natural familiarity. That core concept of naturally accepted white/male/straight as a default is called "privilege". "Check your privilege" is a statement intended to get people to be introspective about the white/male/straight assumptions they might have made in what they're saying.
I'm pretty sure if you googled it, you'd find people who could explain better. Regardless, I don't buy that everyone raising objections does so from a privileged perspective, and the assumption that they did is not helpful to anyone.
The following is a simple statement about human nature and isn't intended to reflect too deeply on my own personal perception of digital currencies.
If you want to be taken seriously, the worst thing you can do is go to every important individual you can find, and demand they take you seriously. It seems puerile to the observer.
If the proponents of the phrase are to be believed, it's supposed to highlight that the disagreement in question contains implicit assumptions that invalidate it.
All it actually does is give an obvious point of disagreement that feels intensely personal, and, in the end, drags down the debate.
I'm really bothered that this post of mine got modded up, and another that doesn't appear to accidentally endorse sexism got modded down. I'd have a much higher opinion of/. moderators if both got modded down. Then at lease the cause would appear to be me, and not the fact that I don't think of women as pieces of meat.
I hate internet communities so damned much. I don't like "check your privilege" because it takes focus away from the sexism itself, but it's seemingly pretty damn apparent that that's not what's important about the people who agree with me.
Ugh. I'm filled with such a visceral loathing I don't have the words to describe it.
Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
Does this phrase ever work? All it ever seems to do is turn a debate personal.
Political correctness, is killing all the blatant misogynistic pandering for profit in life for straight guys.
Honestly, I want good games out of the damned games industry, not pandering to an imagined infantile version of myself. The fact that the industry appeals to the lowest common denominator and goes for unrelated sex appeal isn't "the fun things" in life. It's intellectually insulting.
If you honestly believe the name makes everything in Britannica true, you've made a serious mistake. There was a study a couple years ago that suggested for major topics wikipedia is both more in depth, and has approximately the same factual error/word rate.
You can't simply make a claim from personal incredulity anymore about Wikipedia. Society has moved past that.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well, I know plenty of liberals who are wrong all the time. I'm happy they managed to stumble their way into a few good opinions. I understand what you mean.
If you'll recall this thread, I raised an objection to using the phrase, for exactly the reason that it does one's argument no favors. That doesn't mean I consider the people using it to expect it to shut down all debate and make them autowin through credibility smashing. It's perfectly legitimate for people to be bothered by the fact that in their discussions with someone, they just start making assumptions about what life is like for members of whatever minority group is being targeted.
The fact that they lash out with a phrase that is not very helpful doesn't make the rest of what they're saying wrong.
What does that even mean?
"Check your privilege" means "I have lost this debate, but I can't admit that you are smarter than me so I am going to attack you personally."
Cause if there's one thing this debate needs, it's another strawman argument. Thanks for pointing out how horribly stupid those people you don't like are.
I don't consider the idea of privilege, itself "claptrap"; it's just the throw-away phrase "check your privilege" that is basically just noise.
Actually, freedom of speech ABSOLUTELY does mean freedom from government consequences. We narrow it in a few cases (lying/fraud, reporting false threats, etc.) because those are demonstrably harmful.
I don't know why you'd include that bolded one, and not the extremely relevant "making threats" exception. However, that is clearly not the case here, and I don't think there's any real room to wiggle, for the fascists who arrested this kid.
Games, document sharing, aptics, real time text chat.
Please, if you can't use SSL+TCP for text chat and keep it real time, you've got horrendous software. Moreover, the potentially lossy nature of UDP is really bad for text. You can outright lose data. Your packets can arrive out of order. It's okay with video data where a hiccup only makes a few missing pixels, but with text, that's a terrible idea.
I didn't say that. Why would you assume I meant that? I just said they weren't exactly the same as workshops, the contention of the GP.
Yeah, and you don't need coworkers either, because you have friends, right? I didn't say it had anything to do with a spirit of camaraderie, it's a matter of practicality. You can learn more, do more, and achieve things, if you can share utility. Not everyone you do that with is, strictly speaking, a friend.
Yes, because fashion is exactly the same as designing and crafting.
It's different from a workshop in that it's also a community. People teach to make, people loan tools to each other, people show off creations. I spent about a year as a member of a hackerspace, then I moved somewhere that became less feasible. In that time, I saw some really cool technologies people had made, helped teach people a bit about writing processing code for graphics cards without using CUDA, and made use of their tech-book library.
How do you stop a denial of service attack if both sides aren't required to maintain the overhead of the connection? TCP uses the overhead caused by ACK packets as a rate limiter on clients.
There are obviously high-bandwidth frameworks where you're already putting a strain on systems just by using them, where low-latency is also critical, and UDP is appropriate; video chat comes to mind, but outside of that very limited purview, what use could encrypting UDP actually do?
You know, you're right. Google apparently only maintains those backup archives for 60 days. That's not the same.
The expense of setting up your own physical server, installing custom software, and maintaining it, would almost certainly exceed all ad revenue anyways. The very premise of these "businesses" was built on how cheap it was do dump "content" on a blog, against how much money you could earn from ads.
In the google world, there is no delete. If you delete an email off of gmail, then remove it from your trash, it's just hidden, and the space is freed for your account. The email itself is dumped on some backup server, logs, somewhere, because google wants all information.
There are a lot of these, which we all like to not publicly admit we've all seen. They fill themselves up with robo-copied text and material from other parts of the web, stuff in links to "affiliate" websites, and generally take up space. They differ a little from outright spam blogs, since a little bit of what they have is what the user is looking for, some basic content or something, but it's mostly a cover to link to for-profit sites, and doesn't represent an actual blog as blogger is intended to host.
Google has a bit of a vested interest in having blogger be a platform with real people, as it increases the value of their ads. There will be sites of value lost in the cut, but I don't think there will be very many actual people who lose their blogs.
That isn't new information. They're suppressing a newspaper from reaching people, solely because of something that newspaper published. Regardless of intent, the message is that members of the military aren't allowed to get their news from sources the U.S. government disagrees with. And the only excuse seems to be expediency of enforcement of classified documents. That are now widely available anyways.
... But the government blocking a newspaper because they don't agree with what it published? That's fucking totalitarian, military or no.
Ok, so I'm going to explain something I don't particularly believe in. Be aware of the potential bias that incorporates.
Privilege theory describes racial bias as a frequently unconscious problem driven by statistics and unspoken assumptions. It says that most(some? I dunno) of the remaining obstacles for true equality between races/sexes/LGBT/oppressed people are implicit rather than explicit. The most commonly cited example is that your hiring manager for a middle class job is something like 90% likely to be white and 75% likely to be male(those are not the correct statistics, I'm explaining the concept, not validating it), and so that gives white males an implicitly higher chance of getting the job due to natural familiarity. That core concept of naturally accepted white/male/straight as a default is called "privilege". "Check your privilege" is a statement intended to get people to be introspective about the white/male/straight assumptions they might have made in what they're saying.
I'm pretty sure if you googled it, you'd find people who could explain better. Regardless, I don't buy that everyone raising objections does so from a privileged perspective, and the assumption that they did is not helpful to anyone.
The following is a simple statement about human nature and isn't intended to reflect too deeply on my own personal perception of digital currencies.
If you want to be taken seriously, the worst thing you can do is go to every important individual you can find, and demand they take you seriously. It seems puerile to the observer.
If the proponents of the phrase are to be believed, it's supposed to highlight that the disagreement in question contains implicit assumptions that invalidate it.
All it actually does is give an obvious point of disagreement that feels intensely personal, and, in the end, drags down the debate.
I'm really bothered that this post of mine got modded up, and another that doesn't appear to accidentally endorse sexism got modded down. I'd have a much higher opinion of /. moderators if both got modded down. Then at lease the cause would appear to be me, and not the fact that I don't think of women as pieces of meat.
I hate internet communities so damned much. I don't like "check your privilege" because it takes focus away from the sexism itself, but it's seemingly pretty damn apparent that that's not what's important about the people who agree with me.
Ugh. I'm filled with such a visceral loathing I don't have the words to describe it.
Next thing you know, you won't be able to get all the good seats in the front of the bus without the negroes getting all uppity about it. Check your privilege.
Does this phrase ever work? All it ever seems to do is turn a debate personal.
Political correctness, is killing all the blatant misogynistic pandering for profit in life for straight guys.
Honestly, I want good games out of the damned games industry, not pandering to an imagined infantile version of myself. The fact that the industry appeals to the lowest common denominator and goes for unrelated sex appeal isn't "the fun things" in life. It's intellectually insulting.
On wikipedia, the criteria for both are identical. Published sources.
If you honestly believe the name makes everything in Britannica true, you've made a serious mistake. There was a study a couple years ago that suggested for major topics wikipedia is both more in depth, and has approximately the same factual error/word rate.
You can't simply make a claim from personal incredulity anymore about Wikipedia. Society has moved past that.