My argument is that the framework is there for trust, but simply being open source doesn't automatically mean it is trustworthy in its current form (i.e., current code).
In other words: it's open for review, but that does not mean that someone has reviewed it.
(that said, I would tend to trust an open-source one more than closed-source with no external review, simply because the open-source one is openly inviting review at any time... if that is your point, then I agree:))
The real solution is not to tell the gossip anything in the first place.
Pft. You and your common sense may go elsewhere. What I want is to be able to tell anyone I want anything AND force them to be quiet and not tell others!...
Seriously though, you're right - but it seems that most people would rather gossip and take the risk than have to live without. And only when they "get burned" do people suddenly find out that their privacy is important, perhaps more important than the gossip-entertainment. And Farmville.
We don't need to have everyone understand how the code works we just need some that find any flaws that then help spread the word to everybody else
There is no guarantee that that has happened, is there? With a small project that apparently has, at this time, one developer? I have not read anyone that has reviewed the current codebase and told me that nothing bad is in there.
I guess since it's already been done, we don't want anyone else to do it. Competition is bad. And stupid. Once an idea has been done, it's futile to try to improve on it in any way, or implement it for your own clients.
Most of the Slashdot posts so far appear to be saying that it's "just Microsoft playing catchup, as always" as if that is always a bad thing. I guess Microsoft should be the lead innovator in every single area, and if another company comes out with a good idea, Microsoft should not offer it to their current customers/clients/users/whatever... and if they do, it's definitely bad.
And Google? Great innovator! Like buying GrandCentral and turning it into Google Voice! Very innovative!
Don't get me wrong, I like Google Voice. I'm just saying that the comparison gets really frustrating sometimes. Microsoft has done some pretty innovative things, so has Google, and they BOTH do the catch-up/acquisition thing.
(Microsoft innovation thing, at least one I haven't seen as well implemented elsewhere so far.... that works on such a wide variety of platforms and is pretty easy to install/use: Live Mesh)
Good points... I am not sure, though, that the issues you mentioned necessarily reflect the cultural ideas. They represent issues that ended up changing the culture, but did that represent the culture at the time?
I would argue that because TV has to make a profit based on their viewing audience, they have to cater to said viewing audience, which means they typically have to provide shows that the viewing audience likes and/or identifies with. It's interesting to note when the shows you mentioned went off the air, presumably due to profitability. I don't remember seeing many of the happily-married-couple-with-2.5-kids-and-a-white-picket-fence TV shows after the 60s.
Of course, I'm not any sort of expert on this in the least. It's mostly just from watching and listening to (e.g., music or radio shows) media from those decades and observing how they changed throughout the decades. There WAS a big shift, as you say, in the 60s with regards to sexuality. And that, I think, was pretty clearly portrayed in er, consumer media (TV, music, movies). (Example: not being allowed to show a husband and wife in the same bed in TV shows, hence having separate twin/double beds... e.g., in the Dick Van Dyke show, Laura and Rob had separate beds).
Only in regards to freedom of speech, correct? Because this entire topic is not on the morality of saying anything, it is only on the freedom to say things. I went off into an education tangent, admittedly (and that's not just with swear/cuss/whatever words, that's with any word... say, for example, "like"), but my last paragraph was not speaking of morality or social etiquette, but freedom of speech.
Personally, I find racial slurs to be more offensive than cussing, since racial slurs seem to more often by deliberately trying to offend someone. But it seems that that speech is protected as much as cussing is protected. And rightly so; the same freedom that allows people to cuss and spew racist slurs also allows us to speak against or for the government, speak for various causes that we like or adhere to, etc.
Hm. I could annotate your post with one simple phrase, too: (I know what CannonballHead is saying better than he does).
But, to answer: no, I am not better than "those people." Unless expressing concern for the way people act suddenly means I'm "better" than they are. I guess that IS the current trend, though, isn't it - if what I'm doing is somehow not a good idea, then clearly you're just being arrogant and on your high-horse/holier-than-thou kick.
I guess it is wrong to claim that I have a better vocabulary than someone else, too? I don't know if I do; I know I probably sound like I do, simply because I choose a wider variety of words.
Most people are "educated." I am not borderline genius. And, furthermore, I said sound, I did not say that they were. Influenced? Yes, I'd argue that's more than what they just sound like, because that IS what they speak like. Is it necessarily bad to talk like other people? No. My opinion: I'd rather not learn my language skills from my peers who are just as bad at it as I am.
No, I don't write big academic sentences. I attempt to be clear in what I say, and very often fail.
I am rude. I try not to be, but I can't deny that I exhibit rude behavior. It's not superiority. But if I said "I am rude occasionally," you'd probably still say that was a superiority complex of some sort. I don't think being rude is one of my particular bad traits. I could list off a lot of other bad traits if you'd like.
I create no new branches of mathematics, and while I enjoyed those classes, I took very few of them due to my degree requirements.
Yes, I am clearly a huge racist, because I said the word "black." I recognize that their skin color is, in fact, different than mine. And I try very, very hard not to let that influence the way I think about their character, intellect, etc. I let those judgments be based on other things.
But I guess I'm supposed to pretend they look like me.
Sarcasm aside, frankly, I try to simply recognize a black person for who he is. He's a person, just like me, with darker skin. And if I had to point out someone from someone else in a crowd, I likely would say "black" or "dark skinned" because it's a distinguishing feature, just like someone would point me out with adjectives.... like hair color, height, weight, skin color, etc. If there were multiple people of "dark skin" color, then maybe the *tall* one or the *long-haired* one... etc. It's really not that weird. If I was a white guy in the middle of a lot of dark-skinned people, I would expect to be pointed out as "the white guy." It's the most readily available description. And it's not offensive in the least to me.
What's "offensive"... or, really, just rather ridiculous in my thinking... is being told that I'm white, therefore I can't call someone else black because that's a racist white thing to do.:)
And I'm not really referring to them, they're just as bad, IMO. Worse, in my view, actually, because of what/who they claim to be and what their actions show them to be.
As for the speech thing... ever looked at Canada's laws? From what I understand, "hate speech" has been carried out to more of an extreme than it has in the US. But it seems like the US political arena, at times, leans that way... and it definitely seems that certain topics in schools are not allowed anymore, due to PC type things. I'm not a white extremist or something like that, and I think US schools should teach what "white people" did wrong, too. I'd advocate for fair teaching, regardless of race, religion, etc. At the moment, the push seems to be for certain races or religions (or sexual orientations) that feel they have been misused i the past, and thus speak out loudly at the moment.
I think that your point is, while not completely without merit, a vast generalization.
That is quite possibly true.
For the record, I pondered filling this post with fifty-cent words (or sesquipedalians), to help prove my point, but I decided that there is a limit to how pedantic even I can be
Thank you for sparing me google define: searches.:)
Since 14-year-olds don't make TV shows, I don't know why you would expect TV to be an effective indication of how "kids these days" talk or act
I was referring to society in general at that point. Not in a "oh, life was so golden and moral back then" though... not so much morality but education.
Also not true. You're thinking of a handful of works from older times and incorrectly assuming that they are either the whole of or representative of all works from that period.
Good point. It seems that it WAS popular back then, though. Shakespeare and operas were quite popular, from what I understand.
So they are both wrong, but we have decided to only lobby for the right of one of them?
You act as if this were a recent phenomenon, when in fact your parents made this same observation about your generation, as did your grandparents about your parents' generation, and so on.
Using TV a measure of society, I would propose that it has gotten worse since my grandparents' generation.
For that matter, "art" and "poetry" used to attempt to use proper, expressive English - not "pop culture" expression. The poetry I typically hear now is all pop culture expression. That could be because that's all that ends up in media, I suppose.
I'm not saying pop culture/pop art/whatever is bad, by the way, and I'm not necessarily saying that a small vocabulary (hehe) is bad. I'm saying that there does seem to be a shift in perspective. It's seen in philosophy, too. Philosophy has changed from 150 years ago. For example, saying someone is wrong is really not the thing to do, because it's bigoted, arrogant, and intolerant.
It seem to me that that mentality has come into education as well. It's intolerant, bigoted, and arrogant to assume that a 14 year old's vocabulary isn't using language well, because language is just a verbal expression and the 14 year old should be allowed to express himself without those stupid adults getting in the way! Which seems to ignore the reality that the 14 year old is likely just going to parrot what his peers are doing, so the only change from that philosophical change is the source of the 14 year old's learning, not the learning itself.
This is not to say we tell kids what to think. I'm arguing for telling kids TO think. Because kids don't tend to think on their own. Neither do adults. They have to learn to think. Including vocabulary, language, and expression.
Certain words have crept into vocabulary and are now used to the exclusion of other words. It seems young folks are unable, now, to express themselves without swear words. It seems that they are completely unaware that there are actual words that actually MEAN what they are trying to say; but since they don't know them, they attach the same word that everyone else attaches for emphasis. So we end up with sentences that include the same word, for emphasis, three times... when all they really mean to say is "I was astounded."
To me, people who use swear words for pretty much everything sound uneducated and... well, the follow-the-crowd type... someone who is clearly influenced, in the way they talk, by whoever is around them at the time.
It's also interesting to me that people argue that words have no meaning out of context, etc., and typically argue that with someone who is offended by that kind of speech... and yet, then they use those same words specifically to offend or be abrasive. That's not out-of-context, that is a very specific context. If you are using a word specifically to offend me while claiming I shouldn't be offended because it's out of context, you're being rather rude.
I personally dislike swearing. I find it... well, vulgar and uneducated:) Here's my actual "political" response though: as long as I am not allowed to use certain terms for people because it's "politically incorrect" or "offensive" to them, etc - for example, "black" or "gay" or perhaps saying that some act or sexual orientation is a "sin" - then I don't see why you should be allowed to swear and cuss under to offend someone under the guise of free speech.
So far, in my experience. this is often not the case.
I've run windows 7 on multiple machines, including machines 2 to 3 years old, and it appears to work just fine. I haven't run into hardware that didn't have drivers since I tried the beta... but those drivers (sound card) were quickly added.
And I've been testing 64 bit for the most part. In general, I've been quite impressed with the driver support.
Of course, there are a lot of devices that are... shall we say, "minority" devices that likely don't have drivers... or obsolete devices, or devices whose manufacturing company is now out of business, etc.
Come on now, what standards organization wants to have goals set for them? Seems to be most standards orgs like setting the goals themselves and forcing everyone else to comply.
(which I think is silly, but that does seem to be the way HTML5 standards are being written?)
To add my anecdotal evidence: dual core (before Core 2 came out) Intel laptop with an ATI X1400 mobile machine works just fine with Hulu... if using Windows anyways. Haven't tried Linux on that one lately, but last time I did, drivers + flash player made stuttery video.
I also have a Q6600 + nVidia 8800 setup and it runs completely smoothly, no problems whatsoever.
In any case, at least now you know the relevant bible prophecy.
It's not relevant. Revelation has very sequential events. Revelation 8:8 is after some significant events. The author appears to have ignored that part.
I don't disagree that many vendors do; but it seems in the past, that wasn't always the way it was, or something... because there are a lot of servers still running some pretty old software.
I'm thinking primarily of IBM stuff... but I guess IBM sold support, too, so they still got money, even if you didn't rebuy.
Slashdot Mirror
My argument is that the framework is there for trust, but simply being open source doesn't automatically mean it is trustworthy in its current form (i.e., current code).
In other words: it's open for review, but that does not mean that someone has reviewed it.
(that said, I would tend to trust an open-source one more than closed-source with no external review, simply because the open-source one is openly inviting review at any time... if that is your point, then I agree :))
The real solution is not to tell the gossip anything in the first place.
Pft. You and your common sense may go elsewhere. What I want is to be able to tell anyone I want anything AND force them to be quiet and not tell others! ...
Seriously though, you're right - but it seems that most people would rather gossip and take the risk than have to live without. And only when they "get burned" do people suddenly find out that their privacy is important, perhaps more important than the gossip-entertainment. And Farmville.
We don't need to have everyone understand how the code works we just need some that find any flaws that then help spread the word to everybody else
There is no guarantee that that has happened, is there? With a small project that apparently has, at this time, one developer? I have not read anyone that has reviewed the current codebase and told me that nothing bad is in there.
Love != sex. Sex != love.
I guess since it's already been done, we don't want anyone else to do it. Competition is bad. And stupid. Once an idea has been done, it's futile to try to improve on it in any way, or implement it for your own clients.
Most of the Slashdot posts so far appear to be saying that it's "just Microsoft playing catchup, as always" as if that is always a bad thing. I guess Microsoft should be the lead innovator in every single area, and if another company comes out with a good idea, Microsoft should not offer it to their current customers/clients/users/whatever... and if they do, it's definitely bad.
And Google? Great innovator! Like buying GrandCentral and turning it into Google Voice! Very innovative!
Don't get me wrong, I like Google Voice. I'm just saying that the comparison gets really frustrating sometimes. Microsoft has done some pretty innovative things, so has Google, and they BOTH do the catch-up/acquisition thing.
(Microsoft innovation thing, at least one I haven't seen as well implemented elsewhere so far.... that works on such a wide variety of platforms and is pretty easy to install/use: Live Mesh)
Hm. That's a good question.
That's only the Presidency. Senators don't have a limit on re-elections...
Good points... I am not sure, though, that the issues you mentioned necessarily reflect the cultural ideas. They represent issues that ended up changing the culture, but did that represent the culture at the time?
I would argue that because TV has to make a profit based on their viewing audience, they have to cater to said viewing audience, which means they typically have to provide shows that the viewing audience likes and/or identifies with. It's interesting to note when the shows you mentioned went off the air, presumably due to profitability. I don't remember seeing many of the happily-married-couple-with-2.5-kids-and-a-white-picket-fence TV shows after the 60s.
Of course, I'm not any sort of expert on this in the least. It's mostly just from watching and listening to (e.g., music or radio shows) media from those decades and observing how they changed throughout the decades. There WAS a big shift, as you say, in the 60s with regards to sexuality. And that, I think, was pretty clearly portrayed in er, consumer media (TV, music, movies). (Example: not being allowed to show a husband and wife in the same bed in TV shows, hence having separate twin/double beds ... e.g., in the Dick Van Dyke show, Laura and Rob had separate beds).
I have a bridge in Alaska to sell to you.
Where? I've been looking for an investment, and Alaska seems like it's pretty stable.
;)
Well, in your defense, it's tempting to misuse a bunch of fifty-cent words, just to bother you... ;)
is equivalent to a racist epithet.
Only in regards to freedom of speech, correct? Because this entire topic is not on the morality of saying anything, it is only on the freedom to say things. I went off into an education tangent, admittedly (and that's not just with swear/cuss/whatever words, that's with any word... say, for example, "like"), but my last paragraph was not speaking of morality or social etiquette, but freedom of speech.
Personally, I find racial slurs to be more offensive than cussing, since racial slurs seem to more often by deliberately trying to offend someone. But it seems that that speech is protected as much as cussing is protected. And rightly so; the same freedom that allows people to cuss and spew racist slurs also allows us to speak against or for the government, speak for various causes that we like or adhere to, etc.
Hm. I could annotate your post with one simple phrase, too: (I know what CannonballHead is saying better than he does).
But, to answer: no, I am not better than "those people." Unless expressing concern for the way people act suddenly means I'm "better" than they are. I guess that IS the current trend, though, isn't it - if what I'm doing is somehow not a good idea, then clearly you're just being arrogant and on your high-horse/holier-than-thou kick.
I guess it is wrong to claim that I have a better vocabulary than someone else, too? I don't know if I do; I know I probably sound like I do, simply because I choose a wider variety of words.
Most people are "educated." I am not borderline genius. And, furthermore, I said sound, I did not say that they were. Influenced? Yes, I'd argue that's more than what they just sound like, because that IS what they speak like. Is it necessarily bad to talk like other people? No. My opinion: I'd rather not learn my language skills from my peers who are just as bad at it as I am.
No, I don't write big academic sentences. I attempt to be clear in what I say, and very often fail.
I am rude. I try not to be, but I can't deny that I exhibit rude behavior. It's not superiority. But if I said "I am rude occasionally," you'd probably still say that was a superiority complex of some sort. I don't think being rude is one of my particular bad traits. I could list off a lot of other bad traits if you'd like.
I create no new branches of mathematics, and while I enjoyed those classes, I took very few of them due to my degree requirements.
Yes, I am clearly a huge racist, because I said the word "black." I recognize that their skin color is, in fact, different than mine. And I try very, very hard not to let that influence the way I think about their character, intellect, etc. I let those judgments be based on other things.
But I guess I'm supposed to pretend they look like me.
Sarcasm aside, frankly, I try to simply recognize a black person for who he is. He's a person, just like me, with darker skin. And if I had to point out someone from someone else in a crowd, I likely would say "black" or "dark skinned" because it's a distinguishing feature, just like someone would point me out with adjectives.... like hair color, height, weight, skin color, etc. If there were multiple people of "dark skin" color, then maybe the *tall* one or the *long-haired* one... etc. It's really not that weird. If I was a white guy in the middle of a lot of dark-skinned people, I would expect to be pointed out as "the white guy." It's the most readily available description. And it's not offensive in the least to me.
What's "offensive" ... or, really, just rather ridiculous in my thinking ... is being told that I'm white, therefore I can't call someone else black because that's a racist white thing to do. :)
Heck yes, but it's also legal.
And I'm not really referring to them, they're just as bad, IMO. Worse, in my view, actually, because of what/who they claim to be and what their actions show them to be.
As for the speech thing ... ever looked at Canada's laws? From what I understand, "hate speech" has been carried out to more of an extreme than it has in the US. But it seems like the US political arena, at times, leans that way... and it definitely seems that certain topics in schools are not allowed anymore, due to PC type things. I'm not a white extremist or something like that, and I think US schools should teach what "white people" did wrong, too. I'd advocate for fair teaching, regardless of race, religion, etc. At the moment, the push seems to be for certain races or religions (or sexual orientations) that feel they have been misused i the past, and thus speak out loudly at the moment.
I think that your point is, while not completely without merit, a vast generalization.
That is quite possibly true.
For the record, I pondered filling this post with fifty-cent words (or sesquipedalians), to help prove my point, but I decided that there is a limit to how pedantic even I can be
Thank you for sparing me google define: searches. :)
Since 14-year-olds don't make TV shows, I don't know why you would expect TV to be an effective indication of how "kids these days" talk or act
I was referring to society in general at that point. Not in a "oh, life was so golden and moral back then" though... not so much morality but education.
Also not true. You're thinking of a handful of works from older times and incorrectly assuming that they are either the whole of or representative of all works from that period.
Good point. It seems that it WAS popular back then, though. Shakespeare and operas were quite popular, from what I understand.
...two wrongs don't make a right.
So they are both wrong, but we have decided to only lobby for the right of one of them?
You act as if this were a recent phenomenon, when in fact your parents made this same observation about your generation, as did your grandparents about your parents' generation, and so on.
Using TV a measure of society, I would propose that it has gotten worse since my grandparents' generation.
For that matter, "art" and "poetry" used to attempt to use proper, expressive English - not "pop culture" expression. The poetry I typically hear now is all pop culture expression. That could be because that's all that ends up in media, I suppose.
I'm not saying pop culture/pop art/whatever is bad, by the way, and I'm not necessarily saying that a small vocabulary (hehe) is bad. I'm saying that there does seem to be a shift in perspective. It's seen in philosophy, too. Philosophy has changed from 150 years ago. For example, saying someone is wrong is really not the thing to do, because it's bigoted, arrogant, and intolerant.
It seem to me that that mentality has come into education as well. It's intolerant, bigoted, and arrogant to assume that a 14 year old's vocabulary isn't using language well, because language is just a verbal expression and the 14 year old should be allowed to express himself without those stupid adults getting in the way! Which seems to ignore the reality that the 14 year old is likely just going to parrot what his peers are doing, so the only change from that philosophical change is the source of the 14 year old's learning, not the learning itself.
This is not to say we tell kids what to think. I'm arguing for telling kids TO think. Because kids don't tend to think on their own. Neither do adults. They have to learn to think. Including vocabulary, language, and expression.
Certain words have crept into vocabulary and are now used to the exclusion of other words. It seems young folks are unable, now, to express themselves without swear words. It seems that they are completely unaware that there are actual words that actually MEAN what they are trying to say; but since they don't know them, they attach the same word that everyone else attaches for emphasis. So we end up with sentences that include the same word, for emphasis, three times... when all they really mean to say is "I was astounded."
To me, people who use swear words for pretty much everything sound uneducated and ... well, the follow-the-crowd type... someone who is clearly influenced, in the way they talk, by whoever is around them at the time.
It's also interesting to me that people argue that words have no meaning out of context, etc., and typically argue that with someone who is offended by that kind of speech... and yet, then they use those same words specifically to offend or be abrasive. That's not out-of-context, that is a very specific context. If you are using a word specifically to offend me while claiming I shouldn't be offended because it's out of context, you're being rather rude.
I personally dislike swearing. I find it ... well, vulgar and uneducated :) Here's my actual "political" response though: as long as I am not allowed to use certain terms for people because it's "politically incorrect" or "offensive" to them, etc - for example, "black" or "gay" or perhaps saying that some act or sexual orientation is a "sin" - then I don't see why you should be allowed to swear and cuss under to offend someone under the guise of free speech.
Why can't we just move on and apply the sweet R&D money on the SSDs?
Because people buy magnetic storage still, it's fast enough for most people, it's cost effective, etc.
this often the case.
So far, in my experience. this is often not the case.
I've run windows 7 on multiple machines, including machines 2 to 3 years old, and it appears to work just fine. I haven't run into hardware that didn't have drivers since I tried the beta... but those drivers (sound card) were quickly added.
And I've been testing 64 bit for the most part. In general, I've been quite impressed with the driver support.
Of course, there are a lot of devices that are ... shall we say, "minority" devices that likely don't have drivers... or obsolete devices, or devices whose manufacturing company is now out of business, etc.
It's the only time I've ever seen a base 16 number get converted to base 10 and get *smaller* :)
giving them an explicit goal to shoot for.
Come on now, what standards organization wants to have goals set for them? Seems to be most standards orgs like setting the goals themselves and forcing everyone else to comply.
(which I think is silly, but that does seem to be the way HTML5 standards are being written?)
To add my anecdotal evidence: dual core (before Core 2 came out) Intel laptop with an ATI X1400 mobile machine works just fine with Hulu ... if using Windows anyways. Haven't tried Linux on that one lately, but last time I did, drivers + flash player made stuttery video.
I also have a Q6600 + nVidia 8800 setup and it runs completely smoothly, no problems whatsoever.
In any case, at least now you know the relevant bible prophecy.
It's not relevant. Revelation has very sequential events. Revelation 8:8 is after some significant events. The author appears to have ignored that part.
I'd make one heck of business card...
I don't think you'd fit in most business card holders, sorry...
They want you to rebuy software every 5 years.
I don't disagree that many vendors do; but it seems in the past, that wasn't always the way it was, or something... because there are a lot of servers still running some pretty old software.
I'm thinking primarily of IBM stuff... but I guess IBM sold support, too, so they still got money, even if you didn't rebuy.