It's also perfectly okay to sue when GPL code gets ripped off, because stealing GPL code is wrong. Even though we say "piracy isn't theft," we call it "stealing" when the GPL is violated
I've seen this sentiment a couple of times. It sounds very noble, but it is entirely unconvincing. If Overly Critical Guy would give at least one example of a single person that stated both views he would be more credible.
As it is, it sounds like Overly Critical Guy can't believe that the contradictory sentiments may actually be held by non-intersecting subsets of posters.
To me the word implies irrational fear, (and I believe it was coined with that purpose in mind).
You gave, in some sense, 4 definitions in your post. I understand that that there are different ways of splitting that up, but this is how I counted. 1.Fear of homosexuals 2.Contempt for homosexuals 3.Prejudice against homosexuals 4.Prejudice against homosexuality
When the word is used as you used it in the GGP, it doesn't matter what definition is meant, the implication of fear is understood.
So, I would disagree with you on two points:
First point, teaching the sinfulness of homosexual practices is NOT always accompanied by contempt for the people that engage in them. In fact, almost every time that I've happened to hear homosexuality condemmed from a Christian pulpit, the teacher has also been very careful to teach that people with this problem should not be feared or hated. Perhaps I've just been luckier in the Christian sermons that I've heard than you have.
Second point, the word homophobia is so charged, through etymology and common usage, with the conotation of fear that it is practically usless in a rational discussion. In other words, I still don't think it fit when you used it in the GGP.
"I'll criticise a religion which promotes homophobia (which includes Christianity by the way..."
Please define homophobia. I ask because, to me, the definition implied by the pieces of the word wouldn't fit in that context. Therefore, your definition must be different than mine.
So, because of your arrogant boss you missed out on a free (short) vacation to Japan? A little groveling sure looks a lot cheaper to me than the prices you find on Travelocity.
Plus, I would disagree with how well socialized health care works. The comedians in Britain sure critisize it a lot. (I know, I know, comedians aren't exactly an unbiased scientific source, but what the comedians expect people to find humorous is telling.)
One of the main troubles with health care now is that the patient isn't the customer, the insurance company is. The doctors only listen to the patient when it doesn't conflict with the company that is paying the bills. If health care were socialized this would get drastically worse.
Not necessarily. Nor do I necessarily want the US to invade anyone. I was just pointing out that "because the UN said so" idn't likely to instill fear into the heart of any nation.
So, maybe I do need more explanation, because I'm not sure I understand you.
Did I imply that computers behave more like humans than dogs do in every way? No.
Did I imply that people who talk to their dogs are less sane than people that talk to their computers? No.
Did I even begin to suggest that computers have their own will, or that they're alive? No.
You said "That's one fancy computer. Mine only responds to commands."
Did I suggest that my computer does anything but respond to commands? No.
Do computers respond to things other than commands? That's debatable, but these few posts suggest probably not between you and I.
Do computers make their own decisions about You also said, "Computers exhibit no internal stimuli." I submit that software (and firmware) are internal stimuli.
I guess that's true. Look at Saddaam Houssein. He defied the UN for years and got away with it. A different group of nations (who happen to be members of the UN) finally got sick of it, but the UN itself pretty much did nothing nothing.
Moral: Unless the US gets mad, the worst you have to fear from the UN is talk.
"I do get a little frustrated when people treat computers as some kind of magical or animate object."
I talk to my car all the time. When the lead in my pencil breaks I accuse it of being stupid. People have been giving boats names for millennia. A computer has far more animate-object-like responses than any of these. Computer behavior is, in many ways, more human than dog behavior. It would be very strange, and possibly slightly inhuman, not to anthropomorphize computers a little.
Once upon a time, some fast-talking sharp convinced some poor slob at NEC that Packard Bell was a good aquisition because of the brand recognition, not mentioning that people recognized the Packard Bell brand as synonymous with "sucks."
I did tech support for Packard Bell NEC for about a year, and in one quarter NEC poured $450 million into the sink hole, so I would guess that the total loss was substantially over a billion. I'm not sure if this counts as a "Gigalapse" becuase I don't know how much of what NEC wanted had to do with the internet.
You may notice that Packard Bell no longer exists in the US. There're a few good reasons for this, one of which may be the "pizza tower" case (the motherboard is horizontal, with a riser card). Another reason is probably that PB put used parts in computers which they subsequently labeled "new."
"I would have to say that coffee does NOT make me a yes-man, as I've always been anti-authority and loved playing Devil's advocate."
Often, people viewing themselves as "anti-authority" and "Devil's advocate" are simply parroting (being persuaded by) a different group, and not actually self-directing.
I have no way of knowing if this applies to you, but it is much more common than independent thought, so I thought I'd mention it.
"Experience tells me that most people who come out of school are mediocre coders at best"
Mathematics tells me that most people are mediocre at best. (Assuming the median to be mediocre.)
One thing that a college degree tells you that many other things don't, is that they started a large (multi-year, multi-discipline, working with/for multiple people) project, and saw it through to completion, while many others quit/failed.
(Note: I do not imply that all started projects must be completed, nor do I imply that a college degree is all-important, nor do I imply that school is always the best source for education.)
The trouble is, if they lied to get the job, what else will they lie about?
Do they keep company secrets, or only until the payoff/blackmail is big enough? (e.g. If you don't tell me I'll let your employer know that you lied on your resume.)
Do they work when they say they do?
Is all the work claimed by them actually done by them?
I know that one lie doesn't guarantee another, but if you don't think that one lie makes another then you're an easy mark.
"But I guess old-school notions of loyalty just don't exist anymore - not when there are dollars in question."
It depends. Are you loyal enough sell your house pay whatever is asked? Are you loyal enough to quit your job and follow Madonna wherever she goes?Or does loyalty go out the window when enough money gets involved?
1. Wander the streets of New York, or Hong Kong, and you'll easily find lots of "knockoffs" that are copies of designer clothes. Hint: Don't imagine that your spiffy new duds by Georgio Armanie and Tommy Hilfinger are all that exciting.
"In the present case, it's not as if the infringer had published the cut-out pattern (or whatever) used to make those garments, they just published photos of people wearing them."
For the average ameteur sewing one or two pieces of clothing each year for their child, a photo is probably not enough. For my wife - a skilled, trained and experienced professional - a photo is enough to duplicate a piece of clothing. More than once she's seen something in a store or a catalog and made one for one of our daughters, usually without even making a pattern first. (She thinks that patterns are a waste of time, since she doesn't like making the same thing more than once.)
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds very noble, but it is entirely unconvincing.
If Overly Critical Guy would give at least one example of a single person that stated both views he would be more credible.
As it is, it sounds like Overly Critical Guy can't believe that the contradictory sentiments may actually be held by non-intersecting subsets of posters.
To me the word implies irrational fear, (and I believe it was coined with that purpose in mind).
You gave, in some sense, 4 definitions in your post. I understand that that there are different ways of splitting that up, but this is how I counted.
1.Fear of homosexuals
2.Contempt for homosexuals
3.Prejudice against homosexuals
4.Prejudice against homosexuality
When the word is used as you used it in the GGP, it doesn't matter what definition is meant, the implication of fear is understood.
So, I would disagree with you on two points:
First point, teaching the sinfulness of homosexual practices is NOT always accompanied by contempt for the people that engage in them. In fact, almost every time that I've happened to hear homosexuality condemmed from a Christian pulpit, the teacher has also been very careful to teach that people with this problem should not be feared or hated. Perhaps I've just been luckier in the Christian sermons that I've heard than you have.
Second point, the word homophobia is so charged, through etymology and common usage, with the conotation of fear that it is practically usless in a rational discussion. In other words, I still don't think it fit when you used it in the GGP.
Thank you for the discussion.
"I'll criticise a religion which promotes homophobia (which includes Christianity by the way..."
Please define homophobia.
I ask because, to me, the definition implied by the pieces of the word wouldn't fit in that context. Therefore, your definition must be different than mine.
End of Line
1. Your post seems to suggest that "discrimination" is inherently bad. It is not.
2. This is not forced. I'm not buying one, for example.
So, because of your arrogant boss you missed out on a free (short) vacation to Japan?
A little groveling sure looks a lot cheaper to me than the prices you find on Travelocity.
Ever since I read this comment by Descalzo, I've been looking for an excuse to link to it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185703&cid=15
Plus, I would disagree with how well socialized health care works.
The comedians in Britain sure critisize it a lot. (I know, I know, comedians aren't exactly an unbiased scientific source, but what the comedians expect people to find humorous is telling.)
One of the main troubles with health care now is that the patient isn't the customer, the insurance company is. The doctors only listen to the patient when it doesn't conflict with the company that is paying the bills. If health care were socialized this would get drastically worse.
"You /want/ the UN to invade countries?"
Not necessarily. Nor do I necessarily want the US to invade anyone. I was just pointing out that "because the UN said so" idn't likely to instill fear into the heart of any nation.
Should it? That's a different topic.
So, maybe I do need more explanation, because I'm not sure I understand you.
Did I imply that computers behave more like humans than dogs do in every way?
No.
Did I imply that people who talk to their dogs are less sane than people that talk to their computers?
No.
Did I even begin to suggest that computers have their own will, or that they're alive?
No.
You said "That's one fancy computer. Mine only responds to commands."
Did I suggest that my computer does anything but respond to commands?
No.
Do computers respond to things other than commands?
That's debatable, but these few posts suggest probably not between you and I.
Do computers make their own decisions about
You also said, "Computers exhibit no internal stimuli."
I submit that software (and firmware) are internal stimuli.
End of Line
I guess that's true. Look at Saddaam Houssein. He defied the UN for years and got away with it. A different group of nations (who happen to be members of the UN) finally got sick of it, but the UN itself pretty much did nothing nothing.
Moral: Unless the US gets mad, the worst you have to fear from the UN is talk.
Computers respond with human language, dogs don't, even if they understand it. Sometimes the computer responds with a human voice and a human face.
If that sounds a little obvious, I'm sorry. I didn't expect that anyone would need that part explained.
"I do get a little frustrated when people treat computers as some kind of magical or animate object."
I talk to my car all the time. When the lead in my pencil breaks I accuse it of being stupid. People have been giving boats names for millennia. A computer has far more animate-object-like responses than any of these. Computer behavior is, in many ways, more human than dog behavior. It would be very strange, and possibly slightly inhuman, not to anthropomorphize computers a little.
Once upon a time, some fast-talking sharp convinced some poor slob at NEC that Packard Bell was a good aquisition because of the brand recognition, not mentioning that people recognized the Packard Bell brand as synonymous with "sucks."
I did tech support for Packard Bell NEC for about a year, and in one quarter NEC poured $450 million into the sink hole, so I would guess that the total loss was substantially over a billion. I'm not sure if this counts as a "Gigalapse" becuase I don't know how much of what NEC wanted had to do with the internet.
You may notice that Packard Bell no longer exists in the US. There're a few good reasons for this, one of which may be the "pizza tower" case (the motherboard is horizontal, with a riser card). Another reason is probably that PB put used parts in computers which they subsequently labeled "new."
I am amazed at the amount of anecdotal evidence people volunteered to substantiate your speculation.
WOW!
"I would have to say that coffee does NOT make me a yes-man, as I've always been anti-authority and loved playing Devil's advocate."
Often, people viewing themselves as "anti-authority" and "Devil's advocate" are simply parroting (being persuaded by) a different group, and not actually self-directing.
I have no way of knowing if this applies to you, but it is much more common than independent thought, so I thought I'd mention it.
"Experience tells me that most people who come out of school are mediocre coders at best"
Mathematics tells me that most people are mediocre at best. (Assuming the median to be mediocre.)
One thing that a college degree tells you that many other things don't, is that they started a large (multi-year, multi-discipline, working with/for multiple people) project, and saw it through to completion, while many others quit/failed.
(Note: I do not imply that all started projects must be completed, nor do I imply that a college degree is all-important, nor do I imply that school is always the best source for education.)
The trouble is, if they lied to get the job, what else will they lie about?
Do they keep company secrets, or only until the payoff/blackmail is big enough? (e.g. If you don't tell me I'll let your employer know that you lied on your resume.)
Do they work when they say they do?
Is all the work claimed by them actually done by them?
I know that one lie doesn't guarantee another, but if you don't think that one lie makes another then you're an easy mark.
"...but that doesn't mean that I am planning a terrorist attack on the subway."
It doesn't mean that you're not, either.
I'm not riding the subway for a while.
"* for example pump water up a mountain to a storage lake and let it run down durring [sic] the night for power"
FYI: For those that think that this is just a random idea that networkBoy made up, http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm and http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/niagara.htm are examples of where this has been done for years.
Specifically Twizzler's black.
It is the best licorice there is, but that dye they use to make it black...
"But I guess old-school notions of loyalty just don't exist anymore - not when there are dollars in question."
It depends. Are you loyal enough sell your house pay whatever is asked? Are you loyal enough to quit your job and follow Madonna wherever she goes?Or does loyalty go out the window when enough money gets involved?
1. Wander the streets of New York, or Hong Kong, and you'll easily find lots of "knockoffs" that are copies of designer clothes. Hint: Don't imagine that your spiffy new duds by Georgio Armanie and Tommy Hilfinger are all that exciting.
Totally, dude.
And the same goes for physical property laws.
*mutters*
Stupid freedom-limiting fences and locks.
"In the present case, it's not as if the infringer had published the cut-out pattern (or whatever) used to make those garments, they just published photos of people wearing them."
For the average ameteur sewing one or two pieces of clothing each year for their child, a photo is probably not enough.
For my wife - a skilled, trained and experienced professional - a photo is enough to duplicate a piece of clothing. More than once she's seen something in a store or a catalog and made one for one of our daughters, usually without even making a pattern first. (She thinks that patterns are a waste of time, since she doesn't like making the same thing more than once.)
I was thinking wars and other forms of mass humans killing mass humans, but I guess suicide bombers fit in.
So, you're saying that if I'm dumb enough to live in the frigid north, I have a right to be inefficient?
(Yes, this is a joke. It's just not funny.)