Are you in some way suggesting, say, a couple of black parents are just going to up and give birth to a white infant? Did you even bother reading the article? Do you know what article I'm talking about? I've got this great idea.. If you want anyone to take what you have to say seriously, at least pay a little fscking attention to the context. You can have and voice any opinion you want, and can even do so completely uninformed (as is your right), but do you really want to look like a total idiot?
..I find it difficult to put much stock into someone who consistently plays the Hitler card in this arguement. Singer is not advocating the wholesale slaughter of people, but the option to euthanize a newborn child who is clearly not fit to survive in the world. I believe that in the natural world, you won't find this to be so "insane" a notion. Nor is homosexuality, for that matter. Does anyone here happen to realize how many female sea gulls are lesbians? According to many religious people, does this mean the are "the bird of Satan"? After all, why would "God" create such a creature to be "sinful" by nature?
Disclaimer: I became disgusted with religion at an early age. All attempts to "reform" me have met with actual thought and much subsequent criticism.
Alright now. Usually I'm rather reactionary, opting to respond to comments posted by others rather than taking any real intiative (except perhaps to do a line by line rip of an article or post a silly joke no one laughs at anyway). This is going to be.. a little different.
Two weeks into the school year, the 53-year-old scholar has come under fierce criticism because of his view that parents should be able to euthanize severely disabled infants. His appointment as a tenured professor at the university's Center for Human Values has led to threats, a barrage of e-mails and demonstrations.
What hubris it is for humans to even dare suggest that they are indeed exempt from natural selection. Do you think that out in the wild parents (read: animals) allow their offspring to go on living if it is clear that they can not fend for themselves? Clearly not. Only the strong survive. This is the natural way of things. The only thing that separates humans from the natural world is their disgusting way of thinking.
"I think it's a good thing to stimulate people to think," Singer said in an interview at his office Thursday. "You can't separate debate and learning."
This man is a genius. To think people condemn him for having a view that conflicts with their own. Personally, I'd switch my choice of university in order to be in one of his classes. It's nice to have an instructor who actually has intelligent thoughts.
Singer's views on euthanasia were first detailed in his 1979 book "Practical Ethics." He has written that children less than a month old have no human consciousness and that parents should be allowed to kill a severely disabled infant to end its suffering and to increase the family's happiness. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all," he has written.
I'm not so sure about the "human consciousness" issue, having no clear recollection of my first year or two of life. But hey, whatever. I will agree that it's not always "wrong" to kill a person. I'd like to question morality itself, however.. Which brings me to:
In "Animal Liberation," which Singer considers his most important work, he argues that the life of a person is not necessarily more valuable than that of an animal. The 1975 book led to the founding of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and turned Singer into the philosophical father of the animal rights movement.
How true. Think of how many insects and other critters you step on every day, squashing the life out of them. What makes you think you're so much better? Because you can "think"? Because you can "feel"? News flash: animals can feel pain too. Ever seen a kid kick a dog? See how it whimpers? Ever seen a dog get depressed? See how sad it looks? No creature is "more deserving" of life than any other, though some are simply better built to survive it.
Also, thinking about all the vegans and vegetarians out there. They don't want to eat animals (ok, that comment was broad-sweeping.. I'll admit right now that that is not the rationale for all of them.. for those that it is, that is who the following is concerned with, alright?). Well.. guess what? Plants are alive too! Just because they can't run off, they aren't "deserving" of life? Because they can't scream, you assume they can't feel? By that line of reasoning, a mute amputee would not be deserving of life either. Think about it. (also think about how sick vegans and such get because it's so hard to maintain a healthy diet without eating any kind of animal product)
Some opponents liken his views to those of the Nazis.
Oh please! This man is talking about the ending of suffering, not the complete opposite: torturing an entire people and putting them to death. The Jews weren't "unfit" to live.. Hitler was simply a sick, very sick, man. By the way.. he also isn't advocating making euthanasia (do you people even know what that means??) mandatory, simply that parents have that option. As in nature. Again I ask: what makes you think you're above the natural order?
"He provides a convenient ethical framework for bigotry and cost-saving measures that cut lives," said Stephen Drake of the Forest Park, Ill., disability group Not Dead Yet. "I really don't think there's room for this kind of discussion."
Clearly an enlightened mind. So long as I can draw breath, I'll talk about whatever the fuck I want. You want to restrict my freedom of speech? You'll have to kill me first. Most people may not be willing to step up to the plate to defend their freedom anymore, but I'll be damned if I'm not. He obviously missed Singer's entire point.
Singer, who is married and has a daughter, says he has actually received support from some parents of disabled children.
Personally, if I were the disabled child, I'm not sure I'd want to know that my parents said that. Well, unless I was really that miserable. I don't know. I say I'm not sure because, well, I'm not disabled (subject to controversy with regards to my mental capacity, I'm sure). =P
"There's no unanimity among those who live with disabled children," he said. "If people attack me because of that belief, why aren't they going to clinics that offer prenatal testing and protesting there?"
Obviously because that would make sense. The fact that they are protesting proves that they don't make sense.
Bob Griss, a Princeton graduate who is director of the Center on Disability and Health in Washington, said when he first heard of Singer's appointment, he petitioned the university to reconsider. But after exchanging e-mails with Singer over several weeks, Griss changed his mind.
Wow.. someone actually taking the time to become more informed. More people should get a clue from this and do the same.
"I personally view him more as an ally of the disability community than our archenemy," Griss said. "I think that he's in a position to recognize the dangers of the implementation of his theoretical questions."
As I said, I don't think we're talking about mandatory stuff here. Purely an option. And it should certainly only be used in extreme circumstances. Anyone who thinks you need to be euthanised because of a minor defect is clearly nuts. Only those disabilities which inhibit a person's ability to actually live life and survive in the world should be considered. And no, it's not about saving money, you loons. Gah. Not everyone thinks about your precious fucking money! Get off it!
Singer eats no meat, wears no leather and donates one-fifth of his income to international aid organizations.
This I find odd.;) However, I'm not going to disagree with the man personally because he has chosen this way of life, nor does it cause me to discredit the main point he has come under fire for simply because I disagree with him here. I never said there was anything wrong with not eating meat, just that it seems silly to me. If people don't want to eat (or wear) animals, that's fine. But plants are living things too.. And you have to eat something.. Of course, all of that is premature. I'd like to know why he doesn't eat meat/wear leather.;)
In a New York Times Magazine article, Singer wrote that members of affluent Western societies should donate at least 10 percent of their income to help ease starvation in poor countries. The article resulted in $75,000 in unexpected donations to Oxfam over three weeks, spokeswoman Peggy Connolly said.
Clearly this man is the root of all evil..? Ha!
The attention has put Princeton in the difficult position of ensuring Singer's place without defending - or condemning - his views. The university has provided him with a guarded classroom and promised to maintain his safety and that of the 23 students taking his course, "Questions of Life and Death."
This really saddens me. Perhaps one day the U.S. really will be about learning and free thought again, rather than ignorance and submission.
"Some of the controversy can be attributed to misrepresentation or misinterpretation of his views," university President Harold T. Shapiro wrote in an editorial for the Daily Princetonian last November, shortly after Singer was appointed. "But some of the controversy arises from the fact that he works on difficult and provocative topics and in many cases challenges long-established ways of thinking - or not thinking - about them."
I'm going to wager on the "not thinking" theory. People really should open up their minds and actually think about things. A lack of questioning.. is decidedly unhealthy. Just think how horrible your life would be if you never questioned anything and simply accepted everything the way it was. No, seriously, close your eyes and just try to imagine..
Pretty fucking scary if you ask me.
"If people read this as part of a broader context," he said, "they understand that I'm trying to alleviate the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world."
Well, I'm all for it. I'm also for anything that brings us closer to recognizing that we are indeed a part of the natural world rather than its ultimate masters. Humans always try to manipulate the other creatures on this earth, and think themselves to be above all else. Humans as a whole have the right to decide the fate of entire species, trimming their numbers as "appropriate" (coyotes and wolves are evil.. kill the fuckers! no one cares about animal species until they are already on the brink of extinction.. and then it's too late.. humans don't have clue 1 about how to balance the natural order because it's far to complex to predict or even assess properly), yet parents can't even have the right to decide if their child is healthy enough to survive in the world?
Throw off the shackles of conventional "thought", and actually ponder these weighty issues before making a snap judgement. The world will be better off for it.
Also note the difference between "fit to survive" and "deserving of life". All things are deserving of life, whether you think so or not. However, not all things were built to survive. Sad to many of us? Yes. A fact of nature? Yes. Morality is wholly in your mind. There is nothing natural about it. Do you think nature is guided by some greater morality? No. It's something completely different, something most people clearly do not even understand, although they damn well should.
Hmm. I'll attempt to tread a little more carefully with the following assertations, though I'll cut out the notion that I will bother reasserting any points questioning the validity of your work that have been previously posted by others right away. Not all of it boiled down to simple name-calling, however.
By the way, I believe that despite drawing your ostensible ire, I've proven my time-honored point that I tend to choose my words quite carefully. My proof?
Anyhow, I still stand behind what I said, minor flaws above notwithstanding. Want to disagree? Fine! But indiscriminant shouting of "liar!" gets one nowhere...
I would bother to disagree, but all of the relavent points have been disagreed upon throughout the course of this entire discussion. To rehash them would be redundant. I was simply responding to the thread insinuating you "Slashtrolled".. To the point, however.. Since you are obviously talking to me, I never once called you a liar. In fact, if you'll take a closer look at most of my commentary, it's rather abstract, general bitching, mostly brought on by responses other than yours (wow, and you think Slashdotters have some serious ego). Only a small minority is actually directed against your article in particular.;)
As for "false conceptions", you'll have to explain what that means. If you think I've achieved incorrect or inaccurate perceptions based on facts at hand, then we can debate that. But you haven't done anywhere near the very difficult task of proving that an opinion is false.
Well, that might be because I have not attempted the impossible and highly paradoxical task of disproving something that is not a fact (i.e., an opinion). Opinions are by definition subjective, while facts are objective. This does lend further credence to the idea, however, that you are attempting to troll on a massive level. You'll have to do a little better to sucker me in.. =P
Aimlessly throwing the word "lie" around accomplishes little of value, and certainly does little to disprove my conclusions. Did I lie, as some have suggested, because I deliberately did a/. search on "Macmillan" rather than "Mandrake"? Not one shred, especially since the Macmillan box of Mandrake has some significant non-technical differences with MandrakeSoft's own package -- bundled-in Linuxcare tech support, for one thing. You may not agree with my opinion that this is a significant distinction, but it ain't no lie.
Interesting point, but, um, I still never called you a liar, on top of the fact that as you pointed out, someone else brought that up, not me. If you're going to make a point out of talking to me directly, you can at least track our discussion a little better.:)
To your credit, the quote of mine you included in your post is as close as I came to calling you a liar:
I don't care if Evan is a "suprerior techno-geek", but if he can't keep from lying, misrepresenting, and otherwise pressing false conceptions through his articles, I'm going to continue to trash him.:)
Now that I've had an oppurtunity to stare at this a little more often, I realize I should have said "and/or" rather than "and". Even so, as it stands, I dare you to prove who this explicitly states that I am indeed referring to you as a liar. As people can with your opinions, or you can about theirs, anyone can feel free to read into what I say all they want and claim it implies this or that, but until I say that what they claim is the gospel truth.. it's all hearsay and wild-eyed speculation.
Most of my posting was general bitching about the uninformed viewpoints and/or deliberate mistruths represented by a grand majority of "techie" articles. My strike against you, however, is that I see very little reason why you would not be informed enough to assert a few opinions that made a little more sense than the ones you did. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find it all too easy to imagine why someone might accuse you of trolling. A lot of your statements are misleading and appear rather uninformed (and, if you'll note my only post directly replying to yours, the only thing I really accused you of was being clueless.. not of being a liar) The fact that you said the following makes it even more mind-boggling.
It's all-too-easy around these parts to disagree with an opinion by calling it a lie. I write opinion pieces by design, yet I try to do research to make sure I can back up what I say. In this case I'd interviewed the presidents of MandrakeSoft, Macmillan, and Red Hat before writing. There's also a lot of background to what I wrote that never made it into print.
I'd be very interested to read the rest of that background. Why not post it here? =P At any rate.. Hmm.. Slashdot. Your information resource one-stop. Even a brief period of stay, or a few more carefully selected uses of the search box, will enlighten one to practically no end, so long as they maintain their threshold of one and are open to new thoughts and information.:)
By the way..
It's been pointed out by many that Red Hat 6.1 was in release by the time my piece was published. OK, so ZD doesn't turn around articles as fast as some would like -- guilty as charged.
Yeah, I believe.. perhaps.. that was me! Wow, imagine that. However, I believe I was dissing the editors on that point, not you. =P
And yeah, come to think of it, I did participate in a little name-calling in that post as well, but I didn't call you a liar because of it, you know.;) I was simply stating my opinion. Obviously you felt the distinction was important.. I didn't. So what? Big deal.. But if you're going to say I was calling you a liar, back it up. I backed up my factual points, and was simply flaming with regards to my opinionated points. Makes sense, does it not? Whatever you do, do not mix the two.. That is the essence that holy wars are spun out of..;)
At any rate, anyone who thinks we are going to care enough to make the distinction between "Macmillan" Mandrake and just plain Mandrake (you seem to confuse the issue yourself, actually) is probably a little nuts. There are already far too many distros out there without becoming even more specialized in our coverage of them. Mandrake happens to get a lot more attention than many, but since it's not actually Macmillan that creates the distro, no one gives a damn about Macmillan. People do care about Mandrake, and talk about it, however. Your entire point seems a little murky and bizarre, if you ask me.
GNU/Linux is not Unix.. It's POSIX-compliant and so plays nice with Unix, but in order to be a version of Unix, it would have to have been derived from Unix. It was not.
Ok, well.. First, my initial thoughts: it doesn't really matter either way. Just by making this case against Microsoft, the DoJ has forced Microsoft to be a little less overt with their strong arm tactics, and allowed a few cracks in their marketing armor to be made. It's just a matter of time before Microsoft is relagated to being a bit player. A company that rich won't simply go away, however, and will remain a part of the Establishment, but no one will give a damn about them anymore. Not really. (in the future they may actually make decent products, but only their core, truly fanatical group of users will still be on the bandwagon long enough to actually care)
Another thing that comes to mind is all this alluding to Ma Bell throughout this discussion.. I'd like to remind all of you that Microsoft is not a phone company. There's a little less room for competition with phone companies (at least at the local level) because you don't exactly want to have a few dozen different sets of phone lines strewn all across your town or whatever. The software industry is full of competition, and is one of the easiest industries to break into. I think a combination of unfair business practics on the part of Microsoft, lack of marketing savvy on the part of other companies, and various other things (like total ignorance on the part of the end-user) have contributed to their monopolistic reign.
Regulation.. As I said, this isn't a phone company, ok? It's a diverse industry, not a single giant. Regulation.. would be bad.
Break them up..? Oh, who cares. It's too much trouble. And it's still not a phone company. I say fine the bastards a huge sum and spend the money on something useful.. (that's right Uncle Sam, no more gold-plated toilets in outhouses in the middle of heavily forested regions no one shall ever visit)
Everyone should just be happy there is strong competition on the horizon. The market is starting to get a lot more interesting. There's too much focus on Microsoft, anyway. It gives them more credit than they deserve. Be pro-whatever, not anti-Microsoft. Otherwise you make it seem like whatever you are for really isn't worth anything except as a tool to beat down Microsoft so that something "way kewl" will eventually come out.. Especially since comparing *BSD, or GNU/Linux, or even MacOS in many instances is like comparing a big juicy steak to a big rotting carcass with a lot of air freshener sprayed all over it. =P
At the very least.. consider the differences in different industries before comparing monopolies from.. you guessed it.. different industries.
Companies like Redhat and Sun microsystems are marketing superior products for Free.
Free as in beer or speech? While you can download RH Linux gratis, they are definitely out there to make a buck, as they are indeed a company. A highly respectable company in light of others (*cough* who were we talking about again? *cough*), but a company nonetheless. Certainly free speech though. Now, Sun.. Free speech? Ah.. I'm a little scared by the SCSL, myself. Not exactly free speech or free beer. So, since everyone knows about Red Hat Linux, but not everyone is a Sun fanatic, you care to give some examples to back yourself up?
It's only a matter of time before microsoft will be forced to go open source, or give their software away free.
Are you smoking crack?
If the government breaks them up, then that will deter Companies Like AOL/Netscape and or Sun or maybe even Redhat getting together and making great things happen (*Definitely* to the consumer's advantage!!).
Great things happen?? What the hell..? AOL.. provides crappy ISP service. Netscape.. provides crappy browser that doesn't even bother to conform to the W3C's standards, opting instead to add more bloat (if a browser can't even render style sheets properly, and is supposed to, it's a piece of shit. pure and simple). Sun.. strives to make money hand over fist through extreme hype and overcapitalized marketing (quite unlike Microsoft, don't you think?). Red Hat.. not so crappy, though I won't say they make the best distro in the world. Good, but so far Debian looks to be the real badass around here.;)
Surprisingly enough, I've found that few of the comments so far on this discussion have involved "screaming". Somehow I have to wonder if you work at Microsoft or think Windows is "way kewl d00d" as compared to.. well.. practically anything else. =P
At any rate, it's not our decision..? Do you really fscking think so?? Of course not, you fool, we're simply voicing our opinions. I can't remember the last time a Slashdotter likened himself (or herself.. or itself, in the case of some *peer*) unto God(dess) Almighty Him(Her)self. Do you?
The government is supposed to step in when a business performs unfair business practices. Regardless of how misguided certain sectors of the U.S. government may be, I can only laugh at those who think that Microsoft has performed in all fairness with regards to its business deals, and believe that Microsoft deserves any pressure applied to it, especially from the DoJ.
Certain monopolies are unavoidable or even desirable due to varying factors.. depending upon what you're talking about, of course. Do you think I'm pissed that I can only choose Southwestern Bell as my local phone company, even though I can choose any long-distance carrier I want? Well, no, because that's what is called a "natural monopoly" (you should try looking that up). It wouldn't exactly make sense for a couple dozen different phone companies to set up their own phone lines all across the fscking city, do you think? The government strictly regulates natural monopolies, and is strongly against the kind of crap MS pulls. It's not natural for there to be a monopoly in the software industry, because they is room for so many different companies, products, etc.
..how do you figure one has a trial without government involvement? Did I miss something? Is the judicial branch of government no longer a branch of government but rather a group of vigilante crime-fighters?
At any rate, if you believe that the U.S. government is worse than Microsoft.. you're first and foremost ignorant anyway, because obviously you have a problem distinguishing separate parts of the U.S. government. Ever heard of checks and balances? Apparently not. But back to my point.. you might as well just move to another country. And if you already do live in another country, you should probably just shut up. I'm thinking you do live in the U.S. though. Trust me, the U.S. government as a whole is not precisely one of the circles of hell, ok?
Of course, since he's not a superior techno-geek, Slashdotters will diss him. But folks like Evan, and like MacMillan, are just as important to the success of Linux as the uber-geeks who actually produce the technology.
I could personally care less about World Domination. I'm all about choice. While I personally dislike Windows, MacOS, and even *BSD, I could care less if people use them. I'm also concerned with the truth. I don't care if Evan is a "suprerior techno-geek", but if he can't keep from lying, misrepresenting, and otherwise pressing false conceptions through his articles, I'm going to continue to trash him.:)
What's the use of great technology, if you can't come out of the closet? Aren't we tired of Linux being the gay stepchild of operating systems?!
*rofl!!* Now that's funny.. However.. I'm sick of all the lies. *BSD fanatics lie about GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux fanatics lie about *BSD, Microsoft lies about everyone, etc. etc. I may sometimes get the facts wrong myself, and occassionally troll (ok, only once on Slashdot, really;), but then again.. I'm not writing news articles. And I don't lie on purpose. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Or if someone points out an interpretation of something I say I didn't think of, I'll elaborate. Nonetheless, if you're going to be a journalist, you should get your fscking facts straight, because you're going to be reaching a far wider audience than, say, me, and the last thing the public needs is more lies. It's enough to make me sick.
If Evan reads Slashdot, as he clearly does, he has absolutely no good reason for his gross errors in that article. End of discussion.
However, I can think of far better languages to use for that kind of thing than Java. Besides, you ever notice how most programmers can't do Web design to save their lives? And that most Web designers just don't have what it takes to be a programmer? It seems like a bad idea to bundle up all of the jobs of running a Web site into one position.. Likely, something is going to be terribly wrong.;)
..that someone who actually bothers to read Slashdot could be so utterly clueless? I wish I had read this post before I had written the others I have already submitted in this discussion. That's just a whole new level of cluelessness.
Personally, I'd rather accept the idea that I was trolling than to suggest otherwise and thereby admit my total lack of intelligence. =P
On top of that.. Why are you even reading Slashdot right now, the comments to this story? My ego would have been ripped to shreds by now if so many things I'd said had been pointed out to me as being so much utter nonsense and other gibberish usually attributed to.. well.. I think I've said enough, already.;)
Personally, I have no respect and no love for those sorry bastards. They are obviously clueless, and that "crack this box" challenge was hopelessly deviant and unenlightened. I wouldn't bother looking to them for truth.. on anything. =P
Mandrake just announced October 1 the availability of release 6.1 for download, while Red Hat's 6.1 is still on the drawing board.
I find it interesting that you didn't address one glaring error in this statement. Red Hat 6.1 was hardly "on the drawing board" as of the 1st of this month. As this article clearly points out, RH 6.1 came out shortly after Mandrake 6.1.. Somehow I find it difficult to believe that a distro could be "on the drawing board" one day, and then come to be released a scant three days later. Anyone else consider that odd? As further evidence that ZDNet doesn't make use of all of the resources available (the foremost of which should be Slashdot.. they obviously can't research on their own, at least), see this article, which shows that the distro was done already, just that it wasn't "official" yet.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking.. Both of those articles came after Mandrake 6.1 was official.. However.. The article on ZDNet is clearly dated the 4th.. Who edits these things?
This is almost, but not quite, as stupid as the fact that the idiot searched Slashdot for Macmillan rather than Mandrake. Who gives a fsck about Macmillan?? Most people I know prefer books by O'Reilly, anyway. Unless those people aren't complete and utter tools.. =P
I mentioned this before, but I lost the post.. Oh well. Anyway..
I don't buy into the whole "Red Hat is going to make it's money off support" theory. Ask yourself this one thing: What distribution do most big-time computer manufacturers put on their preinstalled Linux systems? (no, Pengiun Computing and VA do not constitute the "big-time" for Joe Public)
Easy: Red Hat. And of course those guys are going to want the official version, right? I would think so, or else Red Hat would do some cracking down on trademark usage, as well they should, were these companies to call the distro on their systems Red Hat Linux (as opposed to VA which I think calls it VA Linux, but says their systems ship with Red Hat unless specified otherwise). Now.. if you were Red Hat.. would you or would you not charge a pretty penny for each system these companies put your distro on? Would you try to get a deal going so that they also shipped your cute little installation/set-up guides along with the box?
That would be where they would make the real money, as the most popular distro. By signing deals with computer manufacturers to ship their boxen with the "official" Red Hat Linux and guides.
I don't know if this is the truth of the matter, but if it isn't, the people over at Red Hat.. "not as smart as they think". =P
P.S. Before anyone points it out.. No, I don't think it would be smart to just call the distro something other than Red Hat and say it basically is Red Hat a la VA.. Why, you may ask? I myself was daunted by VA when I first saw the little thing say VA Linux as the distro.. I was like, "Gah.. Another freakin' distro?? Fsck this!" I'd imagine Joe Public would be much more easily daunted than I and not care to investigate further. Indeed, I don't even think he would go for anything other than the "official" version, if for no other reasons than a) it gives him a warm and fuzzy feeling b) he feels better knowing there is an entire company he can bitch out if his system doesn't work.. two, in fact.. he could complain to the people who sold him the box, too, just for kicks! c) the official version is always better, right? =P d) he gets those fscking guides! what's not to love?
I've never read any Que books (they don't look so attractive =P), though I'd have to say Sams books are.. well, they're alright. Nothing great, some annoying technical errors, but probably fairly easy for a newbie to grasp.. as compared to works from O'Reilly or Addison-Wesley (sp?), anyway. The one book I have a hard time slamming Sams for is HTML 4 Unleashed (practically any edition.. the 2nd Edition is good, but I'm annoyed at the distinction between the Prof. Ref. edition and the regular edition.. esp. since I don't think they have a Professional Reference second edition yet.. it has a lot of nifty stuff the regular edition doesn't, and makes the regular edition pointless). Even a total newbie could become a competent (and probably even good, or great) Web designer just by reading that book and actually using that information.;) Yeah, there are a couple errors, but nothing I would have noticed without extensive reading. Certainly not as many as in their C/C++ books. Ugh. =P
Anyone who actually thought I was insinuating that design was the end-all and be-all of computer programming, and that implementation was not important in the slightest.. Well, honestly, I'm insulted that anyone would think I would make such a ridiculous and paradoxical statement. Design is the most important, but every phase of coding any given project deserves the utmost attention. Design shall simply consume the most time.
And yes, anyone who throws a novice at a nicely polished design and doesn't throw any help her way needs to be slapped upside the head. Well, unless you're really just not that concerned about whether or not she fails. You could have just as easily said that design is not enough and it's important you bug test. That's true, too.
Point is, I never said design was enough. I said it's your foundation. Would you build a house on top of a giant mud pit? No, of course not. You're going to find some good dirt and build a pretty foundation, then build it on top of that. However, you can't do a whole lot with just a foundation. You'll be pretty pissed the first time it rains if you're unfortunate enough to live there. Come ooonnn..
..if you're going to school to learn programming, you aren't going to learn much. Potential programmers are well advised to know something about programming before going to school. The most exciting thing you're likely to learn inside an educational institution is probably assembly language. College should be viewed as a way to get a degree, and thus, respect from most businesses who might be looking to hire programmers (many of which appear to be utterly clueless). Or at least you should study/practice some real programming languages outside of school during your stay there.
Hell, even people who want Web designers have ridiculous requirements. A while back I was doing Web searches for such jobs (just to be cute), and most of them required two years experience in Java (I don't think Java had been public for two years at the time =P). Not that I can grasp why you would need Java to do Web design, but whatever.. I've found that having Java applets on your page is generally a good way to make people never come back to your crappy Web site.. =P
How anyone could tell whether or not I interpreted or misinterpreted anything from my post is clearly beyond my mental radar. Hee hee.. I didn't exactly say a whole lot. =P
Rating systems enable censorship.. They are not synonyms..
They do not help parents make informed decisions, they make the decision for the parent, who rarely questions it, because "there had to be a reason for it", as stupid as we might find the reason to be.
Actually, they make the decision for all of us, as you clearly pointed out immediately thereafter..
And they do constitute censorship when the stupid ticket people "cover my eyes" for me when they refuse to sell me a ticket. Or when the theater refuses to show unrated or NC-17 movies, even though that unrated movie might have made THE greatest point in recent history about a serious issue, albiet taken in a way someone found offensive to themselves. You should sit with your kid and watch where they go if it absolutely concerns you.
Ayup.. I wish more parents thought this way. I mean, do you really want Big Brother deciding what is or what isn't good for you? Or your kids? If so, why do you bother even thinking about freedom? You've clearly shown a strong desire to give up your freedom in order to be "taken in" and protected from the "bad elements" of society. Once you give up a little bit of your freedom.. more and more of it will slip out of your grasp.. The only way to keep your freedom is to fight for it. Giving it up is like giving up life itself.
Theory: If they're old enough, they were probably looking for it. So no point in stopping them. But if you object to it, TELL THEM in a REASONABLE manner.
We already have rating systems for movies, video games, and CDs (and lots of other things, for that matter). I'm thinking most adults are pretty aware of how these things are used. Seriously, who here actually thinks that watching a rated-R movie is going to warp some kid's mind? Even if it did, which part?
Sex? Well, it's something kids need to learn about anyway, and if you ask me, sex ed. is the worst place (that class made me sick.. ugh..). Not that I know the best, but you know, kids are going to learn about sex no matter what, and if you ask me, it's probably better that they learn about it some other way than by having it at 13 or 14 when they probably don't know enough about STDs and whatever to be too health-conscious about it. However, if that's what they want to do anyway, it would be good if they learned about it in a healthy fashion beforehand so maybe they won't screw their lives over so early on.
Besides which, the "child" in question viewing the movie is either old enough that they've probably already had sex (surprise mom/dad!) or they're too young and don't even care.
Violence? I'd just like to say that after watching Nightmare on Elm Street, I went on a homicidal rampage and butchered my whole neighborhood. I'm typing this behind prison walls on Death Row. They treat us good in here. Good food.. Yeah, right. Get real. Kids in general think it's cool to see violence in movies, not to reenact it in real life. Those who are violent irl are fscked in the head to begin with, and not because of the movie.
Profanity? I'm sorry, but even in Catholic school will you hear more profanity than any other part of your life other than a real high school. The profanity found in movies will not be nearly as creative, either.
In short, I could probably give a fsck less what movies my kids watch when they get "old enough" (this being determined on a case by case basis, though I can assure everyone it will be at much lowers ages than the MPAA or U.S. gov. would like it to be), should I ever choose to have them (I just might, just so that more intelligent people roam the land =P). Besides, if you can't keep your kids from seeing movies you disapprove of, you're probably a bad parent one way or the other, and need to relax your death grip on them or actually spend time with them for once. Ratings are abstract, and serve no purpose other than to attach a stigma to "bad" movies (you have to stay under the dread NC-17 mark or else no one will ever see your movie.. well, or else over it, and even then only porn freaks will). An "R-rated" movie could be a total homicidal freak show, or it could just say "fuck" once too often. Real specific, guys!
Video games.. Pretty much the same thing, except there's not likely to be too much sex or profanity. And guess what? The violence isn't likely to be too realistic. But you get to control the violence! I'll sum it up right here: After playing Mortal Kombat for the first time, I ripped my friend's spine out! It kicked ass! Yeah.. I definitely see people's point when they say violent video games and role-playing games are the cause for why our children are fucked up. Personally, I think it's because our delusional parents are twisted renditions of the Antichrist painted in biggotry and ignorance. Grr.
Down with Big Brother and all his evils! CDs with sexual/explicit content.. Oh come the fuck off it already! I already said we'd have more profanity in high schools! You have to be 18 to buy CDs with "explicit content"? I'm not sure if that's the age limit, I thought I remembered my favorite girl mentioning something about that. That's straight up stupid. What do they expect kids to listen to? Country/western music? Ugh.. Not for all of us, thanks.
I'm sick of rating systems! I'm sick of censorship! I'm sick of regulation! I'm sick of "editing" for what-the-fuck ever content! All it does it make me angry, and make those cavorting devils in the extreme right all warm and fuzzy inside because they can sleep better at night knowing they've raped me so that parents everywhere can sleep soundly knowing their children have no rights to decide for themselves! Did I say rape?? Yes, I did! Why? Because my freedom has been taken away from me by force! My freedom, you say? Well.. yes!
Everyone has the right to choose for themselves (or should). It's my life. I decide who I'm going to be. I decide what I'm going to watch, listen to, play, whatever. Someone else wants to force their ethical/moral values upon me? They're going to get a clue-by-four upside their fscking skull! They should live their own lives, decide their own decisions, not take the "burden" off of the rest of us by deciding for us too. Those kind of people make me sick, and ought to be ejected from this country and sent to a true police state where they'll feel right at home. They don't want to go? We have plenty of electric chairs, guys.. *evil grin*
Welcome to the Land of the Kings.. What!? The Land of the Free..? Whoever told you that is your enemy!
- Rage Against the Machine
In short, Joe Public may not know much about computers, but even if he did, he wouldn't give a fuck. He'd still want the censorship to continue. Why? He's a lazy fucking idiot who shouldn't have procreated in the first place.
P.S. If my favorite girl is reading this, I'm not suggesting we have kids. Don't hurt me. =P
This will probably have low signal/noise ratio due to the fact that I stayed out of the last censorship discussion (though I was a very active part of the one before that), and have some pent-up energy about it all.. You've been warned. =P
You know, after seeing all the crazy laws in Europe and Australia, I find it quite laughable when the true "intellectuals" from those parts of the world who post here on Slashdot talk about how horrible and stupid the U.S. government is.. Sorry, I just can't get it out of my head when people say things like "it's good to snub your nose at America". That said, I'm still above slamming countries and regions myself. I see little to condemn about long stretches of dirt, anyway. =P
The industry itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this form of regulation.
Hmm. The "Bertelsman industry" (sp?) maybe. =P
We have been trying to negotiate it for the last three years with the Internet Industry Association.
If it's so widely accepted and agreed upon, why are they "trying to negotiate".. and why would it matter that:
Their problem is that there are these maniacs - these electronic frontiers outfits - running around stirring up trouble, using quaint expressions and feeding lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union [Nadine Strossen] who then gets out there, gets a good run and says that we are global village idiots.
What.. people wanting their civil liberties? They are maniacs! This is just slanderous. Certainly "low-grade".. Speaking of which!
This is just a low-grade political campaign.
Talk about a total fscking hypocrite! You'd think this guy could think of something more intellectual to say. Hell, I could think of a more eloquent way to put it, and I'm still blown away by how well-versed spokespeople from, say, the ACLU, are in the English language.
I do not find industry opposing this approach.
I've heard that it is often difficult to find something you are not looking for..
In other words, all of the responsible players - and most of these people have kids of their own - do not for a moment want to see the anarchy that is prevailing at the moment.
Anarchy!? That's really funny. If I have to deal with one more "save the children" campaign that is aimed at censoring the Internet (or anything else), I'm going to murder someone. I think it's interesting to note that someone said in a previous discussion that once Australia and/or Europe have workable laws in place concerning "regulation" of Internet content, the U.S. will follow suit.. What, like a cow being led to slaughter? I kind of doubt it. The one thing the judicial branch excels at is protecting the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. =P
At any rate.. Isn't anarchy a political "structure"? This guy obviously has not a clue what true anarchy really is.. I swear, the zero responsibility attitude of parents these days is dragging the world down into the bowels of hell itself. Would it be so bad if more people learned how to raise children effectively or were forced to give them up for adoption (or better yet, not have them at all)? This "pass the buck" mentality is driving.. me.. in.. sane..
Practically everything you said is an indication to me that you are either attempting to troll, or.. no, I won't bother flaming too much today. I'll just examine the point you made which almost made sense as opposed to the others which were apparently the work of an underdeveloped brain..
What he should've said is Linux could be as insecure as Windows in the story. Truth of the matter is if you haven't kept up on security issues, Linux does have some problems as much as Windows does. Haven't you read any BugTraQ postings? Just about every other week they're finding some sort of overflow on Linux. Personally I think it's just crappy admining but for the most part linux can be just as insecure as Linux can be... but I wouldn't know I use OpenBSD;)
Any OS could be insecure.. If you want total security, don't install any new applications, and don't connect yourself to a network. OpenBSD would be just as subject to security holes as GNU/Linux if you installed the same easily exploitable application onto both systems. OpenBSD may be the most secure "out of the box", but do you expect me to believe, for even one second, that you have never ever installed any other application onto your OpenBSD system since you've got it? Even if that were true, I think you're missing the entire point of having a computer. So.. next time I suggest using the preview button ("Linux can be just as insecure as Linux"??), and I highly recommend you actually try thinking for once in your life. You obviously haven't been lately.
I'm sick of clueless fanatics trying to press their opinions onto us as if they were documented facts. I don't make up shit about *BSD, so why should others make up shit about GNU/Linux? Because they're bitter? Because they're fscking idiots? They want more "mind share" and will do anything to get it, including lie their asses off? It seems the more *BSD folks I meet, I find that almost all of them are assholes and liars. Damn, I want to join that community right away.. However, I know that the grand majority of *BSD users are probably good people, despite what I think of those I have met so far. As such.. Would the actual "clued in" *BSD advocates please be more vocal than those who do a disservice to *BSD users everywhere, and make it so that the signal/noise ratio appears to be a little higher from that community than it looks like right now? =P
Slashdot Mirror
Are you in some way suggesting, say, a couple of black parents are just going to up and give birth to a white infant? Did you even bother reading the article? Do you know what article I'm talking about? I've got this great idea.. If you want anyone to take what you have to say seriously, at least pay a little fscking attention to the context. You can have and voice any opinion you want, and can even do so completely uninformed (as is your right), but do you really want to look like a total idiot?
..I find it difficult to put much stock into someone who consistently plays the Hitler card in this arguement. Singer is not advocating the wholesale slaughter of people, but the option to euthanize a newborn child who is clearly not fit to survive in the world. I believe that in the natural world, you won't find this to be so "insane" a notion. Nor is homosexuality, for that matter. Does anyone here happen to realize how many female sea gulls are lesbians? According to many religious people, does this mean the are "the bird of Satan"? After all, why would "God" create such a creature to be "sinful" by nature?
Disclaimer: I became disgusted with religion at an early age. All attempts to "reform" me have met with actual thought and much subsequent criticism.
Alright now. Usually I'm rather reactionary, opting to respond to comments posted by others rather than taking any real intiative (except perhaps to do a line by line rip of an article or post a silly joke no one laughs at anyway). This is going to be.. a little different.
What hubris it is for humans to even dare suggest that they are indeed exempt from natural selection. Do you think that out in the wild parents (read: animals) allow their offspring to go on living if it is clear that they can not fend for themselves? Clearly not. Only the strong survive. This is the natural way of things. The only thing that separates humans from the natural world is their disgusting way of thinking.
This man is a genius. To think people condemn him for having a view that conflicts with their own. Personally, I'd switch my choice of university in order to be in one of his classes. It's nice to have an instructor who actually has intelligent thoughts.
I'm not so sure about the "human consciousness" issue, having no clear recollection of my first year or two of life. But hey, whatever. I will agree that it's not always "wrong" to kill a person. I'd like to question morality itself, however.. Which brings me to:
How true. Think of how many insects and other critters you step on every day, squashing the life out of them. What makes you think you're so much better? Because you can "think"? Because you can "feel"? News flash: animals can feel pain too. Ever seen a kid kick a dog? See how it whimpers? Ever seen a dog get depressed? See how sad it looks? No creature is "more deserving" of life than any other, though some are simply better built to survive it.
Also, thinking about all the vegans and vegetarians out there. They don't want to eat animals (ok, that comment was broad-sweeping.. I'll admit right now that that is not the rationale for all of them.. for those that it is, that is who the following is concerned with, alright?). Well.. guess what? Plants are alive too! Just because they can't run off, they aren't "deserving" of life? Because they can't scream, you assume they can't feel? By that line of reasoning, a mute amputee would not be deserving of life either. Think about it. (also think about how sick vegans and such get because it's so hard to maintain a healthy diet without eating any kind of animal product)
Oh please! This man is talking about the ending of suffering, not the complete opposite: torturing an entire people and putting them to death. The Jews weren't "unfit" to live.. Hitler was simply a sick, very sick, man. By the way.. he also isn't advocating making euthanasia (do you people even know what that means??) mandatory, simply that parents have that option. As in nature. Again I ask: what makes you think you're above the natural order?
Clearly an enlightened mind. So long as I can draw breath, I'll talk about whatever the fuck I want. You want to restrict my freedom of speech? You'll have to kill me first. Most people may not be willing to step up to the plate to defend their freedom anymore, but I'll be damned if I'm not. He obviously missed Singer's entire point.
Personally, if I were the disabled child, I'm not sure I'd want to know that my parents said that. Well, unless I was really that miserable. I don't know. I say I'm not sure because, well, I'm not disabled (subject to controversy with regards to my mental capacity, I'm sure). =P
Obviously because that would make sense. The fact that they are protesting proves that they don't make sense.
Wow.. someone actually taking the time to become more informed. More people should get a clue from this and do the same.
As I said, I don't think we're talking about mandatory stuff here. Purely an option. And it should certainly only be used in extreme circumstances. Anyone who thinks you need to be euthanised because of a minor defect is clearly nuts. Only those disabilities which inhibit a person's ability to actually live life and survive in the world should be considered. And no, it's not about saving money, you loons. Gah. Not everyone thinks about your precious fucking money! Get off it!
This I find odd. ;) However, I'm not going to disagree with the man personally because he has chosen this way of life, nor does it cause me to discredit the main point he has come under fire for simply because I disagree with him here. I never said there was anything wrong with not eating meat, just that it seems silly to me. If people don't want to eat (or wear) animals, that's fine. But plants are living things too.. And you have to eat something .. Of course, all of that is premature. I'd like to know why he doesn't eat meat/wear leather. ;)
Clearly this man is the root of all evil..? Ha!
This really saddens me. Perhaps one day the U.S. really will be about learning and free thought again, rather than ignorance and submission.
I'm going to wager on the "not thinking" theory. People really should open up their minds and actually think about things. A lack of questioning.. is decidedly unhealthy. Just think how horrible your life would be if you never questioned anything and simply accepted everything the way it was. No, seriously, close your eyes and just try to imagine..
Pretty fucking scary if you ask me.
Well, I'm all for it. I'm also for anything that brings us closer to recognizing that we are indeed a part of the natural world rather than its ultimate masters. Humans always try to manipulate the other creatures on this earth, and think themselves to be above all else. Humans as a whole have the right to decide the fate of entire species, trimming their numbers as "appropriate" (coyotes and wolves are evil.. kill the fuckers! no one cares about animal species until they are already on the brink of extinction.. and then it's too late.. humans don't have clue 1 about how to balance the natural order because it's far to complex to predict or even assess properly), yet parents can't even have the right to decide if their child is healthy enough to survive in the world?
Throw off the shackles of conventional "thought", and actually ponder these weighty issues before making a snap judgement. The world will be better off for it.
Also note the difference between "fit to survive" and "deserving of life". All things are deserving of life, whether you think so or not. However, not all things were built to survive. Sad to many of us? Yes. A fact of nature? Yes. Morality is wholly in your mind. There is nothing natural about it. Do you think nature is guided by some greater morality? No. It's something completely different, something most people clearly do not even understand, although they damn well should .
Hmm. I'll attempt to tread a little more carefully with the following assertations, though I'll cut out the notion that I will bother reasserting any points questioning the validity of your work that have been previously posted by others right away. Not all of it boiled down to simple name-calling, however.
By the way, I believe that despite drawing your ostensible ire, I've proven my time-honored point that I tend to choose my words quite carefully. My proof?
I would bother to disagree, but all of the relavent points have been disagreed upon throughout the course of this entire discussion. To rehash them would be redundant. I was simply responding to the thread insinuating you "Slashtrolled".. To the point, however.. Since you are obviously talking to me, I never once called you a liar. In fact, if you'll take a closer look at most of my commentary, it's rather abstract, general bitching, mostly brought on by responses other than yours (wow, and you think Slashdotters have some serious ego). Only a small minority is actually directed against your article in particular. ;)
Well, that might be because I have not attempted the impossible and highly paradoxical task of disproving something that is not a fact (i.e., an opinion). Opinions are by definition subjective, while facts are objective. This does lend further credence to the idea, however, that you are attempting to troll on a massive level. You'll have to do a little better to sucker me in.. =P
Interesting point, but, um, I still never called you a liar, on top of the fact that as you pointed out, someone else brought that up, not me. If you're going to make a point out of talking to me directly, you can at least track our discussion a little better. :)
To your credit, the quote of mine you included in your post is as close as I came to calling you a liar:
Now that I've had an oppurtunity to stare at this a little more often, I realize I should have said "and/or" rather than "and". Even so, as it stands, I dare you to prove who this explicitly states that I am indeed referring to you as a liar. As people can with your opinions, or you can about theirs, anyone can feel free to read into what I say all they want and claim it implies this or that, but until I say that what they claim is the gospel truth.. it's all hearsay and wild-eyed speculation.
Most of my posting was general bitching about the uninformed viewpoints and/or deliberate mistruths represented by a grand majority of "techie" articles. My strike against you, however, is that I see very little reason why you would not be informed enough to assert a few opinions that made a little more sense than the ones you did. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find it all too easy to imagine why someone might accuse you of trolling. A lot of your statements are misleading and appear rather uninformed (and, if you'll note my only post directly replying to yours, the only thing I really accused you of was being clueless.. not of being a liar) The fact that you said the following makes it even more mind-boggling.
I'd be very interested to read the rest of that background. Why not post it here? =P At any rate.. Hmm.. Slashdot. Your information resource one-stop. Even a brief period of stay, or a few more carefully selected uses of the search box, will enlighten one to practically no end, so long as they maintain their threshold of one and are open to new thoughts and information. :)
By the way..
Yeah, I believe.. perhaps.. that was me! Wow, imagine that. However, I believe I was dissing the editors on that point, not you. =P
And yeah, come to think of it, I did participate in a little name-calling in that post as well, but I didn't call you a liar because of it, you know. ;) I was simply stating my opinion. Obviously you felt the distinction was important.. I didn't. So what? Big deal.. But if you're going to say I was calling you a liar, back it up. I backed up my factual points, and was simply flaming with regards to my opinionated points. Makes sense, does it not? Whatever you do, do not mix the two.. That is the essence that holy wars are spun out of.. ;)
At any rate, anyone who thinks we are going to care enough to make the distinction between "Macmillan" Mandrake and just plain Mandrake (you seem to confuse the issue yourself, actually) is probably a little nuts. There are already far too many distros out there without becoming even more specialized in our coverage of them. Mandrake happens to get a lot more attention than many, but since it's not actually Macmillan that creates the distro, no one gives a damn about Macmillan. People do care about Mandrake, and talk about it, however. Your entire point seems a little murky and bizarre, if you ask me.
I don't seem to recall saying it was POSIX- certified ..
GNU/Linux is not Unix.. It's POSIX-compliant and so plays nice with Unix, but in order to be a version of Unix, it would have to have been derived from Unix. It was not.
Ok, well.. First, my initial thoughts: it doesn't really matter either way. Just by making this case against Microsoft, the DoJ has forced Microsoft to be a little less overt with their strong arm tactics, and allowed a few cracks in their marketing armor to be made. It's just a matter of time before Microsoft is relagated to being a bit player. A company that rich won't simply go away, however, and will remain a part of the Establishment, but no one will give a damn about them anymore. Not really. (in the future they may actually make decent products, but only their core, truly fanatical group of users will still be on the bandwagon long enough to actually care)
Another thing that comes to mind is all this alluding to Ma Bell throughout this discussion.. I'd like to remind all of you that Microsoft is not a phone company. There's a little less room for competition with phone companies (at least at the local level) because you don't exactly want to have a few dozen different sets of phone lines strewn all across your town or whatever. The software industry is full of competition, and is one of the easiest industries to break into. I think a combination of unfair business practics on the part of Microsoft, lack of marketing savvy on the part of other companies, and various other things (like total ignorance on the part of the end-user) have contributed to their monopolistic reign.
Regulation.. As I said, this isn't a phone company, ok? It's a diverse industry, not a single giant. Regulation.. would be bad.
Break them up..? Oh, who cares. It's too much trouble. And it's still not a phone company. I say fine the bastards a huge sum and spend the money on something useful .. (that's right Uncle Sam, no more gold-plated toilets in outhouses in the middle of heavily forested regions no one shall ever visit)
Everyone should just be happy there is strong competition on the horizon. The market is starting to get a lot more interesting. There's too much focus on Microsoft, anyway. It gives them more credit than they deserve. Be pro-whatever, not anti-Microsoft. Otherwise you make it seem like whatever you are for really isn't worth anything except as a tool to beat down Microsoft so that something "way kewl" will eventually come out.. Especially since comparing *BSD, or GNU/Linux, or even MacOS in many instances is like comparing a big juicy steak to a big rotting carcass with a lot of air freshener sprayed all over it. =P
At the very least.. consider the differences in different industries before comparing monopolies from.. you guessed it.. different industries.
Free as in beer or speech? While you can download RH Linux gratis, they are definitely out there to make a buck, as they are indeed a company. A highly respectable company in light of others (*cough* who were we talking about again? *cough*), but a company nonetheless. Certainly free speech though. Now, Sun.. Free speech? Ah.. I'm a little scared by the SCSL, myself. Not exactly free speech or free beer. So, since everyone knows about Red Hat Linux, but not everyone is a Sun fanatic, you care to give some examples to back yourself up?
Are you smoking crack?
Great things happen?? What the hell ..? AOL.. provides crappy ISP service. Netscape.. provides crappy browser that doesn't even bother to conform to the W3C's standards, opting instead to add more bloat (if a browser can't even render style sheets properly, and is supposed to, it's a piece of shit. pure and simple). Sun.. strives to make money hand over fist through extreme hype and overcapitalized marketing (quite unlike Microsoft, don't you think?). Red Hat.. not so crappy, though I won't say they make the best distro in the world. Good, but so far Debian looks to be the real badass around here. ;)
Surprisingly enough, I've found that few of the comments so far on this discussion have involved "screaming". Somehow I have to wonder if you work at Microsoft or think Windows is "way kewl d00d" as compared to.. well.. practically anything else. =P
At any rate, it's not our decision..? Do you really fscking think so?? Of course not, you fool, we're simply voicing our opinions. I can't remember the last time a Slashdotter likened himself (or herself.. or itself, in the case of some *peer*) unto God(dess) Almighty Him(Her)self. Do you?
The government is supposed to step in when a business performs unfair business practices. Regardless of how misguided certain sectors of the U.S. government may be, I can only laugh at those who think that Microsoft has performed in all fairness with regards to its business deals, and believe that Microsoft deserves any pressure applied to it, especially from the DoJ.
Certain monopolies are unavoidable or even desirable due to varying factors.. depending upon what you're talking about, of course. Do you think I'm pissed that I can only choose Southwestern Bell as my local phone company, even though I can choose any long-distance carrier I want? Well, no, because that's what is called a "natural monopoly" (you should try looking that up). It wouldn't exactly make sense for a couple dozen different phone companies to set up their own phone lines all across the fscking city, do you think? The government strictly regulates natural monopolies, and is strongly against the kind of crap MS pulls. It's not natural for there to be a monopoly in the software industry, because they is room for so many different companies, products, etc.
..how do you figure one has a trial without government involvement? Did I miss something? Is the judicial branch of government no longer a branch of government but rather a group of vigilante crime-fighters?
At any rate, if you believe that the U.S. government is worse than Microsoft.. you're first and foremost ignorant anyway, because obviously you have a problem distinguishing separate parts of the U.S. government. Ever heard of checks and balances? Apparently not. But back to my point.. you might as well just move to another country. And if you already do live in another country, you should probably just shut up. I'm thinking you do live in the U.S. though. Trust me, the U.S. government as a whole is not precisely one of the circles of hell, ok?
I could personally care less about World Domination. I'm all about choice. While I personally dislike Windows, MacOS, and even *BSD, I could care less if people use them. I'm also concerned with the truth. I don't care if Evan is a "suprerior techno-geek", but if he can't keep from lying, misrepresenting, and otherwise pressing false conceptions through his articles, I'm going to continue to trash him. :)
*rofl!!* Now that's funny.. However.. I'm sick of all the lies. *BSD fanatics lie about GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux fanatics lie about *BSD, Microsoft lies about everyone, etc. etc. I may sometimes get the facts wrong myself, and occassionally troll (ok, only once on Slashdot, really ;), but then again.. I'm not writing news articles. And I don't lie on purpose. And if I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Or if someone points out an interpretation of something I say I didn't think of, I'll elaborate. Nonetheless, if you're going to be a journalist, you should get your fscking facts straight, because you're going to be reaching a far wider audience than, say, me, and the last thing the public needs is more lies. It's enough to make me sick .
If Evan reads Slashdot, as he clearly does, he has absolutely no good reason for his gross errors in that article. End of discussion.
However, I can think of far better languages to use for that kind of thing than Java. Besides, you ever notice how most programmers can't do Web design to save their lives? And that most Web designers just don't have what it takes to be a programmer? It seems like a bad idea to bundle up all of the jobs of running a Web site into one position.. Likely, something is going to be terribly wrong. ;)
..that someone who actually bothers to read Slashdot could be so utterly clueless? I wish I had read this post before I had written the others I have already submitted in this discussion. That's just a whole new level of cluelessness.
Personally, I'd rather accept the idea that I was trolling than to suggest otherwise and thereby admit my total lack of intelligence. =P
On top of that.. Why are you even reading Slashdot right now, the comments to this story? My ego would have been ripped to shreds by now if so many things I'd said had been pointed out to me as being so much utter nonsense and other gibberish usually attributed to.. well.. I think I've said enough, already. ;)
Personally, I have no respect and no love for those sorry bastards. They are obviously clueless, and that "crack this box" challenge was hopelessly deviant and unenlightened. I wouldn't bother looking to them for truth.. on anything. =P
I find it interesting that you didn't address one glaring error in this statement. Red Hat 6.1 was hardly "on the drawing board" as of the 1st of this month. As this article clearly points out, RH 6.1 came out shortly after Mandrake 6.1.. Somehow I find it difficult to believe that a distro could be "on the drawing board" one day, and then come to be released a scant three days later. Anyone else consider that odd? As further evidence that ZDNet doesn't make use of all of the resources available (the foremost of which should be Slashdot.. they obviously can't research on their own, at least), see this article, which shows that the distro was done already, just that it wasn't "official" yet.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking.. Both of those articles came after Mandrake 6.1 was official.. However.. The article on ZDNet is clearly dated the 4th.. Who edits these things?
This is almost, but not quite, as stupid as the fact that the idiot searched Slashdot for Macmillan rather than Mandrake. Who gives a fsck about Macmillan?? Most people I know prefer books by O'Reilly, anyway. Unless those people aren't complete and utter tools.. =P
I mentioned this before, but I lost the post.. Oh well. Anyway..
I don't buy into the whole "Red Hat is going to make it's money off support" theory. Ask yourself this one thing: What distribution do most big-time computer manufacturers put on their preinstalled Linux systems? (no, Pengiun Computing and VA do not constitute the "big-time" for Joe Public)
Easy: Red Hat. And of course those guys are going to want the official version, right? I would think so, or else Red Hat would do some cracking down on trademark usage, as well they should, were these companies to call the distro on their systems Red Hat Linux (as opposed to VA which I think calls it VA Linux, but says their systems ship with Red Hat unless specified otherwise). Now.. if you were Red Hat.. would you or would you not charge a pretty penny for each system these companies put your distro on? Would you try to get a deal going so that they also shipped your cute little installation/set-up guides along with the box?
That would be where they would make the real money, as the most popular distro. By signing deals with computer manufacturers to ship their boxen with the "official" Red Hat Linux and guides.
I don't know if this is the truth of the matter, but if it isn't, the people over at Red Hat.. "not as smart as they think". =P
P.S. Before anyone points it out.. No, I don't think it would be smart to just call the distro something other than Red Hat and say it basically is Red Hat a la VA.. Why, you may ask? I myself was daunted by VA when I first saw the little thing say VA Linux as the distro.. I was like, "Gah.. Another freakin' distro?? Fsck this!" I'd imagine Joe Public would be much more easily daunted than I and not care to investigate further. Indeed, I don't even think he would go for anything other than the "official" version, if for no other reasons than a) it gives him a warm and fuzzy feeling b) he feels better knowing there is an entire company he can bitch out if his system doesn't work.. two, in fact.. he could complain to the people who sold him the box, too, just for kicks! c) the official version is always better, right? =P d) he gets those fscking guides! what's not to love?
..aren't Que and Sams both owned by Macmillan? =P
I've never read any Que books (they don't look so attractive =P), though I'd have to say Sams books are.. well, they're alright. Nothing great, some annoying technical errors, but probably fairly easy for a newbie to grasp.. as compared to works from O'Reilly or Addison-Wesley (sp?), anyway. The one book I have a hard time slamming Sams for is HTML 4 Unleashed (practically any edition.. the 2nd Edition is good, but I'm annoyed at the distinction between the Prof. Ref. edition and the regular edition.. esp. since I don't think they have a Professional Reference second edition yet.. it has a lot of nifty stuff the regular edition doesn't, and makes the regular edition pointless). Even a total newbie could become a competent (and probably even good, or great) Web designer just by reading that book and actually using that information. ;) Yeah, there are a couple errors, but nothing I would have noticed without extensive reading. Certainly not as many as in their C/C++ books. Ugh. =P
Anyone who actually thought I was insinuating that design was the end-all and be-all of computer programming, and that implementation was not important in the slightest.. Well, honestly, I'm insulted that anyone would think I would make such a ridiculous and paradoxical statement. Design is the most important, but every phase of coding any given project deserves the utmost attention. Design shall simply consume the most time.
And yes, anyone who throws a novice at a nicely polished design and doesn't throw any help her way needs to be slapped upside the head. Well, unless you're really just not that concerned about whether or not she fails. You could have just as easily said that design is not enough and it's important you bug test. That's true, too.
Point is, I never said design was enough. I said it's your foundation. Would you build a house on top of a giant mud pit? No, of course not. You're going to find some good dirt and build a pretty foundation, then build it on top of that. However, you can't do a whole lot with just a foundation. You'll be pretty pissed the first time it rains if you're unfortunate enough to live there. Come ooonnn..
..if you're going to school to learn programming, you aren't going to learn much. Potential programmers are well advised to know something about programming before going to school. The most exciting thing you're likely to learn inside an educational institution is probably assembly language. College should be viewed as a way to get a degree, and thus, respect from most businesses who might be looking to hire programmers (many of which appear to be utterly clueless). Or at least you should study/practice some real programming languages outside of school during your stay there.
Hell, even people who want Web designers have ridiculous requirements. A while back I was doing Web searches for such jobs (just to be cute), and most of them required two years experience in Java (I don't think Java had been public for two years at the time =P). Not that I can grasp why you would need Java to do Web design, but whatever.. I've found that having Java applets on your page is generally a good way to make people never come back to your crappy Web site.. =P
How anyone could tell whether or not I interpreted or misinterpreted anything from my post is clearly beyond my mental radar. Hee hee.. I didn't exactly say a whole lot. =P
Rating systems enable censorship.. They are not synonyms..
Actually, they make the decision for all of us, as you clearly pointed out immediately thereafter..
Ayup.. I wish more parents thought this way. I mean, do you really want Big Brother deciding what is or what isn't good for you? Or your kids? If so, why do you bother even thinking about freedom? You've clearly shown a strong desire to give up your freedom in order to be "taken in" and protected from the "bad elements" of society. Once you give up a little bit of your freedom.. more and more of it will slip out of your grasp.. The only way to keep your freedom is to fight for it. Giving it up is like giving up life itself.
Precisely.
We already have rating systems for movies, video games, and CDs (and lots of other things, for that matter). I'm thinking most adults are pretty aware of how these things are used. Seriously, who here actually thinks that watching a rated-R movie is going to warp some kid's mind? Even if it did, which part?
Sex? Well, it's something kids need to learn about anyway, and if you ask me, sex ed. is the worst place (that class made me sick.. ugh..). Not that I know the best, but you know, kids are going to learn about sex no matter what, and if you ask me, it's probably better that they learn about it some other way than by having it at 13 or 14 when they probably don't know enough about STDs and whatever to be too health-conscious about it. However, if that's what they want to do anyway, it would be good if they learned about it in a healthy fashion beforehand so maybe they won't screw their lives over so early on.
Besides which, the "child" in question viewing the movie is either old enough that they've probably already had sex (surprise mom/dad!) or they're too young and don't even care.
Violence? I'd just like to say that after watching Nightmare on Elm Street, I went on a homicidal rampage and butchered my whole neighborhood. I'm typing this behind prison walls on Death Row. They treat us good in here. Good food.. Yeah, right. Get real. Kids in general think it's cool to see violence in movies, not to reenact it in real life. Those who are violent irl are fscked in the head to begin with, and not because of the movie.
Profanity? I'm sorry, but even in Catholic school will you hear more profanity than any other part of your life other than a real high school. The profanity found in movies will not be nearly as creative, either.
In short, I could probably give a fsck less what movies my kids watch when they get "old enough" (this being determined on a case by case basis, though I can assure everyone it will be at much lowers ages than the MPAA or U.S. gov. would like it to be), should I ever choose to have them (I just might, just so that more intelligent people roam the land =P). Besides, if you can't keep your kids from seeing movies you disapprove of, you're probably a bad parent one way or the other, and need to relax your death grip on them or actually spend time with them for once. Ratings are abstract, and serve no purpose other than to attach a stigma to "bad" movies (you have to stay under the dread NC-17 mark or else no one will ever see your movie.. well, or else over it, and even then only porn freaks will). An "R-rated" movie could be a total homicidal freak show, or it could just say "fuck" once too often. Real specific, guys!
Video games.. Pretty much the same thing, except there's not likely to be too much sex or profanity. And guess what? The violence isn't likely to be too realistic. But you get to control the violence! I'll sum it up right here: After playing Mortal Kombat for the first time, I ripped my friend's spine out! It kicked ass! Yeah.. I definitely see people's point when they say violent video games and role-playing games are the cause for why our children are fucked up. Personally, I think it's because our delusional parents are twisted renditions of the Antichrist painted in biggotry and ignorance. Grr.
Down with Big Brother and all his evils! CDs with sexual/explicit content.. Oh come the fuck off it already! I already said we'd have more profanity in high schools! You have to be 18 to buy CDs with "explicit content"? I'm not sure if that's the age limit, I thought I remembered my favorite girl mentioning something about that. That's straight up stupid. What do they expect kids to listen to? Country/western music? Ugh.. Not for all of us, thanks.
I'm sick of rating systems! I'm sick of censorship! I'm sick of regulation! I'm sick of "editing" for what-the-fuck ever content! All it does it make me angry, and make those cavorting devils in the extreme right all warm and fuzzy inside because they can sleep better at night knowing they've raped me so that parents everywhere can sleep soundly knowing their children have no rights to decide for themselves! Did I say rape ?? Yes, I did! Why? Because my freedom has been taken away from me by force ! My freedom, you say? Well.. yes!
Everyone has the right to choose for themselves (or should). It's my life. I decide who I'm going to be. I decide what I'm going to watch, listen to, play, whatever. Someone else wants to force their ethical/moral values upon me? They're going to get a clue-by-four upside their fscking skull! They should live their own lives, decide their own decisions, not take the "burden" off of the rest of us by deciding for us too. Those kind of people make me sick, and ought to be ejected from this country and sent to a true police state where they'll feel right at home. They don't want to go? We have plenty of electric chairs, guys.. *evil grin*
In short, Joe Public may not know much about computers, but even if he did, he wouldn't give a fuck. He'd still want the censorship to continue. Why? He's a lazy fucking idiot who shouldn't have procreated in the first place.
P.S. If my favorite girl is reading this, I'm not suggesting we have kids. Don't hurt me. =P
This will probably have low signal/noise ratio due to the fact that I stayed out of the last censorship discussion (though I was a very active part of the one before that), and have some pent-up energy about it all.. You've been warned. =P
You know, after seeing all the crazy laws in Europe and Australia, I find it quite laughable when the true "intellectuals" from those parts of the world who post here on Slashdot talk about how horrible and stupid the U.S. government is.. Sorry, I just can't get it out of my head when people say things like "it's good to snub your nose at America". That said, I'm still above slamming countries and regions myself. I see little to condemn about long stretches of dirt, anyway. =P
Hmm. The "Bertelsman industry" (sp?) maybe. =P
If it's so widely accepted and agreed upon, why are they "trying to negotiate".. and why would it matter that:
What.. people wanting their civil liberties? They are maniacs! This is just slanderous. Certainly "low-grade".. Speaking of which!
Talk about a total fscking hypocrite! You'd think this guy could think of something more intellectual to say. Hell, I could think of a more eloquent way to put it, and I'm still blown away by how well-versed spokespeople from, say, the ACLU, are in the English language.
I've heard that it is often difficult to find something you are not looking for..
Anarchy!? That's really funny. If I have to deal with one more "save the children" campaign that is aimed at censoring the Internet (or anything else), I'm going to murder someone. I think it's interesting to note that someone said in a previous discussion that once Australia and/or Europe have workable laws in place concerning "regulation" of Internet content, the U.S. will follow suit.. What, like a cow being led to slaughter? I kind of doubt it. The one thing the judicial branch excels at is protecting the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. =P
At any rate.. Isn't anarchy a political "structure"? This guy obviously has not a clue what true anarchy really is .. I swear, the zero responsibility attitude of parents these days is dragging the world down into the bowels of hell itself. Would it be so bad if more people learned how to raise children effectively or were forced to give them up for adoption (or better yet, not have them at all)? This "pass the buck" mentality is driving.. me.. in.. sane..
China, India, and the United States. Yeah, sort of offtopic. So what? =P
In short, "very populous" is an understatement. :)
Practically everything you said is an indication to me that you are either attempting to troll, or.. no, I won't bother flaming too much today. I'll just examine the point you made which almost made sense as opposed to the others which were apparently the work of an underdeveloped brain..
Any OS could be insecure.. If you want total security, don't install any new applications, and don't connect yourself to a network. OpenBSD would be just as subject to security holes as GNU/Linux if you installed the same easily exploitable application onto both systems. OpenBSD may be the most secure "out of the box", but do you expect me to believe, for even one second, that you have never ever installed any other application onto your OpenBSD system since you've got it? Even if that were true, I think you're missing the entire point of having a computer. So.. next time I suggest using the preview button ("Linux can be just as insecure as Linux"??), and I highly recommend you actually try thinking for once in your life. You obviously haven't been lately.
I'm sick of clueless fanatics trying to press their opinions onto us as if they were documented facts. I don't make up shit about *BSD, so why should others make up shit about GNU/Linux? Because they're bitter? Because they're fscking idiots? They want more "mind share" and will do anything to get it, including lie their asses off? It seems the more *BSD folks I meet, I find that almost all of them are assholes and liars. Damn, I want to join that community right away.. However, I know that the grand majority of *BSD users are probably good people, despite what I think of those I have met so far. As such.. Would the actual "clued in" *BSD advocates please be more vocal than those who do a disservice to *BSD users everywhere, and make it so that the signal/noise ratio appears to be a little higher from that community than it looks like right now? =P