or the repression touches too many of the wrong nerves.
I'm not even sure it has to touch that many. I can think of quite a few cases of government acting in such a way as to really, really upset people. It only takes one really pissed off, skilled, intelligent person do to a great deal of damage. Most dissenters who have taken action thus far have been relatively unskilled and really didn't think through what they were trying to accomplish.
What's amusing to me about therealnews.com is the banner at the top that says "no advertising" and the (at present, I just looked) seven huge banner ads on the front page.
They have other problems too, for instance, issues they simply ignore.
Not that this is any worse than other places, it's just that I wouldn't call them a paragon of excellence by any stretch of the imagination.
Not just the editorial spin. News outlets -- almost all news outlets,as well as places like Facebook -- spin content (at least) five additional ways.
First, simply by the choice of what they cover. I think that's fairly obvious, but I'll elaborate if it turns out not to be.
Second, by how they cover it. Some examples:
o Giving "equal consideration" to the ridiculous and absurd, such as anti-vaxxing, often anecdote-driven o The opposite: Ignoring valid viewpoints (presuming the viewpoint of the paper/author is profound truth) o Treating superstition as if it was valid (this is essentially straight-up pandering... lots of superstition out there) o Gullible parroting: "Government said so, so it's true" o Failure to look at root causes (guns instead of culture is a common one recently) o Presenting a completely skewed view as outright agitprop (Fox News is a poster child for this)
Third, by picking and choosing who can advertise. Again, pretty obvious.
Fourth, by over-controlling the comment stream. Not deleting/blocking trolls -- abusive posts, etc., but deleting/blocking well-written points of view that don't agree with the news source's take.
Fifth, by locking out voices they don't want to hear from -- felons, etc. Facebook is the poster child for this, just read their terms of service for an eye-opener.
There may very well be others I've not picked up on, too.
His posturing is his content. It's a zen thing. You have to meta your meta into the metaverse to get it. You should probably give up now, or someone will figure out how fast you're going at the same time they know where you are, and poof, you'll disintegrate into random quantum particles.
or silly accusations of "mean spiritedness" against conservatives as liberals struggle and ultimately fail to understand why somebody could possibly disagree with them without being an idiot or a psychopath.
Yep. Nothing mean-spirited about letting people starve, go without medical care, or having knowledge of sexuality, not to mention the actuality of birth control, withheld from them. Not a thing. Nothing mean-spirited about trying to force your religion on the entire body politic, either. Nope. Nothing mean spirited about wasting all your time in congress on a futile task while there is actual work to be done. Nothing mean spirited about trying to shut down the government, either. Nothing mean spirited about lying, then bombing the living shit out of a country that doesn't pose a threat to us (well, they had oil, so I guess it was a work of charity for your fellow conservatives, deeply invested in oil, yes?) Nothing mean spirited about denying people social security, medicare, food stamps, and so on -- that is purely a saintly act from beginning to end. Nothing mean spirited about handing "free speech" to corporations, while herding the dissenters into "free speech zones", amirite?
Psychopath? Psychopath??? Oh hell no. Conservatives are the living incarnation of angels, each and every one.
Thank the Lord of Hosts that we have conservatives to save us from ourselves.
Not a problem here. I've tried CrossOver on and off for a few years now; it's still shite.
Way back when, I was considering releasing my software under Wine on Linux, under the terms of "if you run this product under Wine, you owe us nothing." (I didn't copy protect, I used registration enabling, and would have been delighted to enable everyone under Linux.) So, I got and installed Wine, and tested it. It broke. Really badly. Several system calls that weren't covered, or broken, or whatever -- they flat out didn't work. So I contacted the authors. They said, and I am paraphrasing here but this is very close: "give us money and we'll fix our product."
So, that's why my product never ran under Linux/Wine.
Although, it may be that Wine works now. I'm not saying it does, or doesn't. I don't know. I don't even own/have a Windows OS any more. But if it does, I long ago made enough money from my product and now give it away, and you are certainly welcome try to get it going under Wine, etc. It's here: WinImages and it was last aimed at Windows XP. Docs are here. WinImages is neither Gimp nor Photoshop, but something else. In a very, very large number of cases, it can replace either/both of them, functionally speaking. In other cases, it does things they cannot. And it is extremely fast, offers a small executable, and the last version, which is what is up there, has very few problems that aren't actually caused by bugs in Windows. Feel free to have at it if you like. Under any OS, real or virtual, you can get it running under. Or not.:)
PS: Known to work under [OS X + VMWare Fusion + XP] and, of course, under XP itself.
You can call out Linus but the whole Linux community will turn on you.
Oh. My. Goodness. There are stresses and consequences to being the exception and attempting to remediate an entrenched problem within an existing system that could affect the viability of the system. Who would have thunk it? How could it BE that everyone in the system doesn't immediately send money, flowers and carve your name on a granite wall Time to go home and hide under the bed, clearly. Get going. It'll be dark soon.
A correct action (one of them, there are many) probably is to stand up, say "you're being dismissive of my (whatever) here, and I'm pretty sure you are doing the (business, operation, product, clean floor, collegial atmosphere, whatever) no favors at all with that because (short summary of why). How about you consider my input a bit more carefully and try again, or, please feel free to explain in detail what it is you have in mind that is better than the input I just provided to you?"
There are certainly others.
None of them involve smacking anyone with a keyboard, but also, none of them involve pretending that spirited back and forth is a bad idea, either. Sometimes we don't think through what someone else is telling us. Sometimes your idea is really not worth considering in any depth (hey, let's give away the product, we'll make it up in volume!) Sometimes you're right, but even so, you just have to stand up and make your point. Again, With more oomph. Perhaps even more than once. Without collapsing into a little heap of quivering goo and tears.
Furthermore, teaching people to establish boundaries is way, way better than teaching them to retire to a corner, or a lawyer, or HR.
Almost every time I hear someone say "my life was ruined", and I listen further, it turns out it isn't their life that was ruined, it was their ability to be a complete person, and the ones who ruined that were the ones that taught them that pressure and competition and pushback were only cause for crying for help instead of teaching them how to deal.
These people are of -- end up with -- the mindset that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will turn me into a pile of quivering, never-again-to-be-right-in-the-head-and-I-now-need-therapy jello."
And no, I just can't come around to respecting that. Pull up your big girl/boy undies (or go commando, that's where the real fun is, but I digress) and let it roll off your shoulders, or do something proactive and beneficial about it that isn't the act of a sniveling wimp.
Professional behavior doesn't differ by gender. Even the words should be the same.
Yes, because hormones, primary and secondary sexual characteristics, differences in nutrition, intuition, metabolism, ways of thinking, reflexes, strength, flexibility, personal dress, perception of customers and co-workers and workers lower and higher on the totem pole and the product and process(es) at hand, all personal interests that impact business thinking, not to mention (he mentioned) instinct and the male-female polarization evolution has so diligently implanted in healthy human beings, completely disappear (by magic, obviously) when one is a professional. Oh wait, I meant, "when one has been knocked out by a severe impact to the skull." And by "magic", I meant "brain function has been suspended." And by "professional", I mean SJW. Or "moron." No, actually both.
Wow, that was fun.:)
Takeaway: Of course women should be treated differently than men. Because, you know, they're... different. I'm so sorry you haven't noticed that yet. Take my word for it, though. Those differences can be valuable to everyone, if we stop this absurd pretense that we're all square pegs made from the same Styrofoam. Not that there's much chance of that happening.
I have zero problem with a woman who has/earns more money than me, who is smarter than me, who wants to dress and act as a guy or like a classic pinup, etc. Nor do I have a problem being polite to them, respecting the boundaries they set, if they do that, including them in my verbal horseplay (or not) to whatever degree they seem to be comfortable with, for whatever reason that may be. Same thing for the fellows. And I don't give the south end of a northbound rat what someone's sexual preferences are, or what they say, relate, or joke about, sexually speaking, until/unless I am sexually involved with them myself. What I have a problem with is people like you, who try to pretend that we're all the same. We're not. Not only are men not the same as women, men are not the same as other men, and women are not the same as other women. Any drive to present the situation as otherwise is an act of pure disruptive idiocy of real benefit only to lawyers. Should we all respect each other and try to work together smoothly and productively and for everyone's best outcome? Sure. Of course. Should we pretend we're all the same and create cookie-cutter uniform behavior to match? No. Fuck no.
For anything critical, you'd only give out a URL one time, and of course, you'd encrypt the page containing it so no one could see that URL going out but the person who was supposed to have it. Shopping carts, products for sale, everything.
For that matter, presuming only that encryption actually works, I don't know why the whole web isn't encrypted, other than the money-making scam of having to buy certificates that won't make browsers puke out fear-mongering dialogs from a "certificate authority."
But I wouldn't mind if my browser informed any website that asked that I'm interested in Python, electronic components, and Stuart MacBride books. This would allow them to collect information about their audience's interests and adapt accordingly. It would allow Amazon to differentiate the shopping experience for my wife and me.
Yes, I'd like to see this as well. There are quite a few interests I would very happy to see a website know about immediately upon my arrival. And again, this does not require the website forwarding my information and my browser all over creation, so that's one big problem not imposed by this.
Of course this would make some people more identifiable because of their unique interests, but browser-fingerprinting is already quite good at that.
Yes. So, your idea + my idea. That way, no cookies -- just turn them off --, and no forwarding, turn that off too. Just a user-controlled DB in the browser that lays out what WE are willing to share, and nothing else. Now the browser fingerprinting won't work, because it absolutely requires cookies. A good browser would go where you told it to go, and nowhere else. And I think that would be a wonderful change in how the web works.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not even sure it has to touch that many. I can think of quite a few cases of government acting in such a way as to really, really upset people. It only takes one really pissed off, skilled, intelligent person do to a great deal of damage. Most dissenters who have taken action thus far have been relatively unskilled and really didn't think through what they were trying to accomplish.
Ragnarok. Eat my lava.
Dude(tte). Everyone knows you need a Beryllium sphere. Just check the historical documents. Jeeze.
That is a significant insight. Pulls quite a few truths, and implied consequences of those truths, together in one pithy remark. Kudos, sir. :)
At any rating less than +5, this is underrated. C'mon mods. Stone truth.
What's amusing to me about therealnews.com is the banner at the top that says "no advertising" and the (at present, I just looked) seven huge banner ads on the front page.
They have other problems too, for instance, issues they simply ignore.
Not that this is any worse than other places, it's just that I wouldn't call them a paragon of excellence by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm guessing your dog is cold and wet. :)
I sympathize 100%, but I suspect your search is futile. :(
Not just the editorial spin. News outlets -- almost all news outlets,as well as places like Facebook -- spin content (at least) five additional ways.
First, simply by the choice of what they cover. I think that's fairly obvious, but I'll elaborate if it turns out not to be.
Second, by how they cover it. Some examples:
o Giving "equal consideration" to the ridiculous and absurd, such as anti-vaxxing, often anecdote-driven
o The opposite: Ignoring valid viewpoints (presuming the viewpoint of the paper/author is profound truth)
o Treating superstition as if it was valid (this is essentially straight-up pandering... lots of superstition out there)
o Gullible parroting: "Government said so, so it's true"
o Failure to look at root causes (guns instead of culture is a common one recently)
o Presenting a completely skewed view as outright agitprop (Fox News is a poster child for this)
Third, by picking and choosing who can advertise. Again, pretty obvious.
Fourth, by over-controlling the comment stream. Not deleting/blocking trolls -- abusive posts, etc., but deleting/blocking well-written points of view that don't agree with the news source's take.
Fifth, by locking out voices they don't want to hear from -- felons, etc. Facebook is the poster child for this, just read their terms of service for an eye-opener.
There may very well be others I've not picked up on, too.
Just get solar inexpensive enough and I'll be perfectly happy. It sure isn't there yet.
I love me a good "-1, I hate what you said about me"
Slashdot: Where moderation isn't moderate, and moderators run free as the wind. Like a fart.
In Dubai, ruler buys off you.
You made me spit coffee. You should be ashamed. Or anally probed by aliens. I can't decide.
His posturing is his content. It's a zen thing. You have to meta your meta into the metaverse to get it. You should probably give up now, or someone will figure out how fast you're going at the same time they know where you are, and poof, you'll disintegrate into random quantum particles.
Yep. Nothing mean-spirited about letting people starve, go without medical care, or having knowledge of sexuality, not to mention the actuality of birth control, withheld from them. Not a thing. Nothing mean-spirited about trying to force your religion on the entire body politic, either. Nope. Nothing mean spirited about wasting all your time in congress on a futile task while there is actual work to be done. Nothing mean spirited about trying to shut down the government, either. Nothing mean spirited about lying, then bombing the living shit out of a country that doesn't pose a threat to us (well, they had oil, so I guess it was a work of charity for your fellow conservatives, deeply invested in oil, yes?) Nothing mean spirited about denying people social security, medicare, food stamps, and so on -- that is purely a saintly act from beginning to end. Nothing mean spirited about handing "free speech" to corporations, while herding the dissenters into "free speech zones", amirite?
Psychopath? Psychopath??? Oh hell no. Conservatives are the living incarnation of angels, each and every one.
Thank the Lord of Hosts that we have conservatives to save us from ourselves.
Way back when, I was considering releasing my software under Wine on Linux, under the terms of "if you run this product under Wine, you owe us nothing." (I didn't copy protect, I used registration enabling, and would have been delighted to enable everyone under Linux.) So, I got and installed Wine, and tested it. It broke. Really badly. Several system calls that weren't covered, or broken, or whatever -- they flat out didn't work. So I contacted the authors. They said, and I am paraphrasing here but this is very close: "give us money and we'll fix our product."
So, that's why my product never ran under Linux/Wine.
Although, it may be that Wine works now. I'm not saying it does, or doesn't. I don't know. I don't even own/have a Windows OS any more. But if it does, I long ago made enough money from my product and now give it away, and you are certainly welcome try to get it going under Wine, etc. It's here: WinImages and it was last aimed at Windows XP. Docs are here. WinImages is neither Gimp nor Photoshop, but something else. In a very, very large number of cases, it can replace either/both of them, functionally speaking. In other cases, it does things they cannot. And it is extremely fast, offers a small executable, and the last version, which is what is up there, has very few problems that aren't actually caused by bugs in Windows. Feel free to have at it if you like. Under any OS, real or virtual, you can get it running under. Or not. :)
PS: Known to work under [OS X + VMWare Fusion + XP] and, of course, under XP itself.
Oh. My. Goodness. There are stresses and consequences to being the exception and attempting to remediate an entrenched problem within an existing system that could affect the viability of the system. Who would have thunk it? How could it BE that everyone in the system doesn't immediately send money, flowers and carve your name on a granite wall Time to go home and hide under the bed, clearly. Get going. It'll be dark soon.
Badly.
A correct action (one of them, there are many) probably is to stand up, say "you're being dismissive of my (whatever) here, and I'm pretty sure you are doing the (business, operation, product, clean floor, collegial atmosphere, whatever) no favors at all with that because (short summary of why). How about you consider my input a bit more carefully and try again, or, please feel free to explain in detail what it is you have in mind that is better than the input I just provided to you?"
There are certainly others.
None of them involve smacking anyone with a keyboard, but also, none of them involve pretending that spirited back and forth is a bad idea, either. Sometimes we don't think through what someone else is telling us. Sometimes your idea is really not worth considering in any depth (hey, let's give away the product, we'll make it up in volume!) Sometimes you're right, but even so, you just have to stand up and make your point. Again, With more oomph. Perhaps even more than once. Without collapsing into a little heap of quivering goo and tears.
This.
Furthermore, teaching people to establish boundaries is way, way better than teaching them to retire to a corner, or a lawyer, or HR.
Almost every time I hear someone say "my life was ruined", and I listen further, it turns out it isn't their life that was ruined, it was their ability to be a complete person, and the ones who ruined that were the ones that taught them that pressure and competition and pushback were only cause for crying for help instead of teaching them how to deal.
These people are of -- end up with -- the mindset that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will turn me into a pile of quivering, never-again-to-be-right-in-the-head-and-I-now-need-therapy jello."
And no, I just can't come around to respecting that. Pull up your big girl/boy undies (or go commando, that's where the real fun is, but I digress) and let it roll off your shoulders, or do something proactive and beneficial about it that isn't the act of a sniveling wimp.
Yes, because hormones, primary and secondary sexual characteristics, differences in nutrition, intuition, metabolism, ways of thinking, reflexes, strength, flexibility, personal dress, perception of customers and co-workers and workers lower and higher on the totem pole and the product and process(es) at hand, all personal interests that impact business thinking, not to mention (he mentioned) instinct and the male-female polarization evolution has so diligently implanted in healthy human beings, completely disappear (by magic, obviously) when one is a professional. Oh wait, I meant, "when one has been knocked out by a severe impact to the skull." And by "magic", I meant "brain function has been suspended." And by "professional", I mean SJW. Or "moron." No, actually both.
Wow, that was fun. :)
Takeaway: Of course women should be treated differently than men. Because, you know, they're... different. I'm so sorry you haven't noticed that yet. Take my word for it, though. Those differences can be valuable to everyone, if we stop this absurd pretense that we're all square pegs made from the same Styrofoam. Not that there's much chance of that happening.
I have zero problem with a woman who has/earns more money than me, who is smarter than me, who wants to dress and act as a guy or like a classic pinup, etc. Nor do I have a problem being polite to them, respecting the boundaries they set, if they do that, including them in my verbal horseplay (or not) to whatever degree they seem to be comfortable with, for whatever reason that may be. Same thing for the fellows. And I don't give the south end of a northbound rat what someone's sexual preferences are, or what they say, relate, or joke about, sexually speaking, until/unless I am sexually involved with them myself. What I have a problem with is people like you, who try to pretend that we're all the same. We're not. Not only are men not the same as women, men are not the same as other men, and women are not the same as other women. Any drive to present the situation as otherwise is an act of pure disruptive idiocy of real benefit only to lawyers. Should we all respect each other and try to work together smoothly and productively and for everyone's best outcome? Sure. Of course. Should we pretend we're all the same and create cookie-cutter uniform behavior to match? No. Fuck no.
Twitter: Foot. Gun. Aim gun at foot. FIRE!
AKA "ready, fire, aim"
I turned an ADM3A terminal into a fishtank, so it could continue to live on my desk and amuse me. :)
For anything critical, you'd only give out a URL one time, and of course, you'd encrypt the page containing it so no one could see that URL going out but the person who was supposed to have it. Shopping carts, products for sale, everything.
For that matter, presuming only that encryption actually works, I don't know why the whole web isn't encrypted, other than the money-making scam of having to buy certificates that won't make browsers puke out fear-mongering dialogs from a "certificate authority."
Yes, I'd like to see this as well. There are quite a few interests I would very happy to see a website know about immediately upon my arrival. And again, this does not require the website forwarding my information and my browser all over creation, so that's one big problem not imposed by this.
Yes. So, your idea + my idea. That way, no cookies -- just turn them off --, and no forwarding, turn that off too. Just a user-controlled DB in the browser that lays out what WE are willing to share, and nothing else. Now the browser fingerprinting won't work, because it absolutely requires cookies. A good browser would go where you told it to go, and nowhere else. And I think that would be a wonderful change in how the web works.