People say racist things to me all the time. No, they don't mean any offense (usually), but that doesn't mean that I don't get offended. But I didn't used to.
"In 1999, 99.4% of the population was Japanese while only 0.6% belonged to other ethnic groups (mostly Korean)."
Dude, you look like a tourist, what did you expect? The US, on the other hand, is the biggest melting pot of genes and cultures on the planet. How many people compliment a black guy on speaking English?
However, what is total bullshit about your analysis is that you think "talking casually about it and being fine with it" is not racism. Duh! You judge an entire group based on the attributes of a few individuals, but because you joke about it you aren't racist?
Who said I judge anyone? I just don't shy away from the topic of skin color any more than from the topic of hair color. Consider the following joke: "How long is a gypsy girl a virgin? As long as she's stronger than her younger brother, runs faster than her older brother, and her dad's still in jail." If you can't tell it to your best friend, who happens to be a gypsy, and expect a good laugh from it over a beer at the pub, it's you who thinks way too much about ethnicity.
it wasn't until years later that I really understood that there was anything wrong about the things I had said.
Translation: they finally brainwashed you. People are not equal, never were, and never will be, no matter how hard you try to believe it. But now we need a $8 million study to acknowledge the fact that men and women think differently.
Of course kids will joke at each others' expense: you're fat, she's blonde, he's black. That's all perfectly normal. The fact that people think merely making a nigger joke is racist means things are seriously fucked up. Quoting Troy: "It's not an insult to say a dead man - is dead."
Racism is when you hate those who are different for no logical reason, not merely talk about it casually and be fine with it. Also, most people here accept evolution for a fact, yet deny that it applies to humans as well. Ever heard the term "doublethink"?
That's not necessarily true. In Central Europe, nationalism is alive and well (actually increasing due to the perceived cultural threat from the EU), and a picture with three different skin colors for three people will not be interpreted as affirmative action, but unwanted external cultural influence.
Particularly the black guy, as you don't expect to see black people every day.
In Hungary, at least, the original picture would cause outrage from the far-right and a measurable decrease in sales.
The browser effectively turns into a sandboxed application, which is what the banks here want.
Why not just make a separate application? You're trying to force a browser to be essentially different than what it was designed to be, and then you're complaining that it's not really working.
I know cross-platform availability is great, but you can also do that with say Qt. Not to mention you'd have your own nicely designed UI instead of the clunky pile of shit most banks today do, without inheriting the security problems of every fucking browser out there. One would think that because this is an absolutely critical task in terms of security, banks would at least try to minimize the amount of code involved, or at least the amount of code they have no fucking control over whatsoever.
I know Web 2.0 is hyped right now, but stop acting like the browser is the only application capable of establishing a network connection. As a famous cat put it: THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.
I have tried to correct those mistakes but everytime within 15 minutes the old entry are back, and finally I was warned by someone (supposed to be volunteer for Wikipedia) to STOP meddling with that particular entry
That's not an argument against bureaucracy, that's an argument for better hierarchy. Imagine if a maintainer in the Linux kernel deliberately accepted the same patch that fuck up a driver.
I've said it many times already: what Wikipedia needs is responsibility. Each article should have exactly one maintainer who has total control over it, and an appeal process to replace him if he's caught deliberately changing to incorrect and/or biased versions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: every piece of information presented there should be independently verifiable anyway.
I'm serious about the Linux kernel analogy. Do what they do and the problems will be solved.
A "bureaucratic" layer is actually necessary, and it's already there. That's because you need a human to judge if a change is acceptable or not. The change here is merely about when the check will occur. As it stands now, someone changes stuff, it goes live, and later someone from the bureaucratic layer comes in and takes a look at it. As you can see, for every edit, there's a period of time when unchecked versions are produced to the public. The more edits happen, the less reliable Wikipedia as a whole becomes.
Can you imagine something like that with the Linux kernel sources?
And in other news, our glorious leader has raised the chocolate ration to 25 grams, from the already generous 30 grams of last month.
So, if I look up something there, and the information is not correct, who gets the blame? And if I do, because Wikipedia cannot be trusted, why bother with an encyclopedia in the first place?
Let's see... there's an absurd amount of information, and it all has to be correct, all the time, with allowing as many people as possible to contribute? Sounds familiar? It's the exact same problem the Linux kernel people already solved. Here's how it works: for every piece of information, there's a maintainer, who takes responsibility for the content. All changes go through him, and we all trust him to act in good faith. If he doesn't, we'll find someone else who does. There are also periodic releases, so if something unwanted slips in, the public can use a known good version.
Now go ahead and show me one instance an unbootable kernel was released because someone vandalized the sources.
I merely assumed that people putting up information specifically for the purpose of others reading it, will consider the fact that other people will read it.
You announce your birthday or put up an invitation to a party, but you don't put the steamy details of last night up there.
but when they leave their entire network of 'Facebook friends' information public by proxy (even if their friend has done everything 'right' in terms of securing their information) that's where the real problem lies.
You're assuming that all these people only have 'friends' they actually know and trust.
If you put it up for others to see it, others will see it. It's that simple.
That's relative time, and relative velocity, and as the name implies, relative only to something else. Your subjective time only changes when you don't pay attention.
Perhaps two dimensions of time is like you could go not only forward and backward in time (not that you can), but also up and down, moving "within" what we now think of as a unit of time.
I can imagine it, but I probably won't ever understand how we can interact with it if we create it. We're not even capable of altering our speed in this time plane, let alone our direction, even if nothing in quantum mechanics even hints at time being unidirectional.
The very idea of two time planes makes my head hurt. Who the hell thought this could be something that can interact with our universe, or rather, our perception thereof?
For all intents and purposes, we're firmly locked in our own time. Maybe dreams, meditation, etc. are an exception to this, but afaik science doesn't care about those.
Obviously you've never had a vampyric, somatic narcissistic woman sink her fangs into you. Bedroom skills have nothing to do with what makes them happy. what makes them happy is taking every social, psychological and financial resource you have for themselves, they feed off your pain.
Of course I haven't. Why the fuck would I want to keep someone like that in my life?
I care about Internet Explorer because even though I do want to code to standards, I don't want to alienate over 60% of my audience.
So, if those people suddenly couldn't use half their favorite websites properly, and all of them had a disclaimer saying "This site only uses international standards. If you have problems, please try another browser.", how long would it take for most of them to do so?
IE had an impact on web developers for way too fucking long. It's about time we change that. BTW, last I heard IE8 actually has some decent standards support, so it might not be that hard to switch. And even Microsoft thinks IE6 needs to die already.
Slashdot Mirror
People say racist things to me all the time. No, they don't mean any offense (usually), but that doesn't mean that I don't get offended. But I didn't used to.
"In 1999, 99.4% of the population was Japanese while only 0.6% belonged to other ethnic groups (mostly Korean)."
Dude, you look like a tourist, what did you expect? The US, on the other hand, is the biggest melting pot of genes and cultures on the planet. How many people compliment a black guy on speaking English?
On the other hand, all the black people living in Hungary would make up for the loss of sales. Right?
Yes, all three of them.
However, what is total bullshit about your analysis is that you think "talking casually about it and being fine with it" is not racism. Duh! You judge an entire group based on the attributes of a few individuals, but because you joke about it you aren't racist?
Who said I judge anyone? I just don't shy away from the topic of skin color any more than from the topic of hair color. Consider the following joke: "How long is a gypsy girl a virgin? As long as she's stronger than her younger brother, runs faster than her older brother, and her dad's still in jail." If you can't tell it to your best friend, who happens to be a gypsy, and expect a good laugh from it over a beer at the pub, it's you who thinks way too much about ethnicity.
And here is what I consider a normal approach on the topic.
A gypsy who doesn't live like one isn't one anymore, as far as I'm concerned.
Therein lies the problem: the term gypsy means both ethnicity and lifestyle. There is no distinction analogous to "black guy" and "nigger".
Anyway, what do you call a gypsy in a suit? Defendant.
it wasn't until years later that I really understood that there was anything wrong about the things I had said.
Translation: they finally brainwashed you. People are not equal, never were, and never will be, no matter how hard you try to believe it. But now we need a $8 million study to acknowledge the fact that men and women think differently.
Of course kids will joke at each others' expense: you're fat, she's blonde, he's black. That's all perfectly normal. The fact that people think merely making a nigger joke is racist means things are seriously fucked up. Quoting Troy: "It's not an insult to say a dead man - is dead."
Racism is when you hate those who are different for no logical reason, not merely talk about it casually and be fine with it. Also, most people here accept evolution for a fact, yet deny that it applies to humans as well. Ever heard the term "doublethink"?
Microsoft Poland doesn't like black people.
That's not necessarily true. In Central Europe, nationalism is alive and well (actually increasing due to the perceived cultural threat from the EU), and a picture with three different skin colors for three people will not be interpreted as affirmative action, but unwanted external cultural influence.
Particularly the black guy, as you don't expect to see black people every day.
In Hungary, at least, the original picture would cause outrage from the far-right and a measurable decrease in sales.
What surprises me is that the black guy had to go, while the asian is alright.
They couldn't just take a new fucking picture with Polish people on it, now could they?
There are just not so many black people in Poland.
Mod parent up. People in Central Europe don't give a shit about USian prejudices. We have our own.
Do you hate gypsies?
it's nearly impossible to figure out what money is going where.
At least we know where it comes from.
The browser effectively turns into a sandboxed application, which is what the banks here want.
Why not just make a separate application? You're trying to force a browser to be essentially different than what it was designed to be, and then you're complaining that it's not really working.
I know cross-platform availability is great, but you can also do that with say Qt. Not to mention you'd have your own nicely designed UI instead of the clunky pile of shit most banks today do, without inheriting the security problems of every fucking browser out there. One would think that because this is an absolutely critical task in terms of security, banks would at least try to minimize the amount of code involved, or at least the amount of code they have no fucking control over whatsoever.
I know Web 2.0 is hyped right now, but stop acting like the browser is the only application capable of establishing a network connection. As a famous cat put it: THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.
I have tried to correct those mistakes but everytime within 15 minutes the old entry are back, and finally I was warned by someone (supposed to be volunteer for Wikipedia) to STOP meddling with that particular entry
That's not an argument against bureaucracy, that's an argument for better hierarchy. Imagine if a maintainer in the Linux kernel deliberately accepted the same patch that fuck up a driver.
I've said it many times already: what Wikipedia needs is responsibility. Each article should have exactly one maintainer who has total control over it, and an appeal process to replace him if he's caught deliberately changing to incorrect and/or biased versions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: every piece of information presented there should be independently verifiable anyway.
I'm serious about the Linux kernel analogy. Do what they do and the problems will be solved.
It can't get any more on-topic than this! WTF!
Needs more car analogies.
A "bureaucratic" layer is actually necessary, and it's already there. That's because you need a human to judge if a change is acceptable or not. The change here is merely about when the check will occur. As it stands now, someone changes stuff, it goes live, and later someone from the bureaucratic layer comes in and takes a look at it. As you can see, for every edit, there's a period of time when unchecked versions are produced to the public. The more edits happen, the less reliable Wikipedia as a whole becomes.
Can you imagine something like that with the Linux kernel sources?
And in other news, our glorious leader has raised the chocolate ration to 25 grams, from the already generous 30 grams of last month.
So, if I look up something there, and the information is not correct, who gets the blame? And if I do, because Wikipedia cannot be trusted, why bother with an encyclopedia in the first place?
Let's see... there's an absurd amount of information, and it all has to be correct, all the time, with allowing as many people as possible to contribute? Sounds familiar? It's the exact same problem the Linux kernel people already solved. Here's how it works: for every piece of information, there's a maintainer, who takes responsibility for the content. All changes go through him, and we all trust him to act in good faith. If he doesn't, we'll find someone else who does. There are also periodic releases, so if something unwanted slips in, the public can use a known good version.
Now go ahead and show me one instance an unbootable kernel was released because someone vandalized the sources.
It's like saying you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your email communication, just because it technically *could* be intercepted.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your email communication.
I merely assumed that people putting up information specifically for the purpose of others reading it, will consider the fact that other people will read it.
You announce your birthday or put up an invitation to a party, but you don't put the steamy details of last night up there.
but when they leave their entire network of 'Facebook friends' information public by proxy (even if their friend has done everything 'right' in terms of securing their information) that's where the real problem lies.
You're assuming that all these people only have 'friends' they actually know and trust.
If you put it up for others to see it, others will see it. It's that simple.
Public information is public. News at 11.
RIAA: making Microsoft look ethical since 2003.
(The BSA lets you go when you only pay for the software you actually use.)
That's relative time, and relative velocity, and as the name implies, relative only to something else. Your subjective time only changes when you don't pay attention.
Perhaps two dimensions of time is like you could go not only forward and backward in time (not that you can), but also up and down, moving "within" what we now think of as a unit of time.
I can imagine it, but I probably won't ever understand how we can interact with it if we create it. We're not even capable of altering our speed in this time plane, let alone our direction, even if nothing in quantum mechanics even hints at time being unidirectional.
The very idea of two time planes makes my head hurt. Who the hell thought this could be something that can interact with our universe, or rather, our perception thereof?
For all intents and purposes, we're firmly locked in our own time. Maybe dreams, meditation, etc. are an exception to this, but afaik science doesn't care about those.
Obviously you've never had a vampyric, somatic narcissistic woman sink her fangs into you. Bedroom skills have nothing to do with what makes them happy. what makes them happy is taking every social, psychological and financial resource you have for themselves, they feed off your pain.
Of course I haven't. Why the fuck would I want to keep someone like that in my life?
I care about Internet Explorer because even though I do want to code to standards, I don't want to alienate over 60% of my audience.
So, if those people suddenly couldn't use half their favorite websites properly, and all of them had a disclaimer saying "This site only uses international standards. If you have problems, please try another browser.", how long would it take for most of them to do so?
IE had an impact on web developers for way too fucking long. It's about time we change that. BTW, last I heard IE8 actually has some decent standards support, so it might not be that hard to switch. And even Microsoft thinks IE6 needs to die already.
She married a guy, then she divorced him because she was flirting with guy #2.
Yes, and the poor fella had nothing to do with it, like, say, suck in bed. Happy women don't cheat.