Awesome. That kind of attitude potentially bolsters a source's credibility. It's easy to be critical of those we despise; being critical of those we adore is a hallmark of introspection.
Anyone time someone says "consider the source," they've just committed argumentum ad hominem. Think about that for a moment.
Like many fallacies, this falls on a continuum. An information source does have a track record, and any thinking person familiar with that track record will consider it when digesting new information. It doesn't mean that once blemished, a source cannot be valid; it just means that trust is a part of evidence, and relying on trust is one of the tools at our disposal in validating information. It's not perfect, but it's not the same as argumentum ad hominem.
There are many other ways "consider the source" is used that highlight its potential validity. Campaign ads in many places must disclose their origin, because an important part of processing the information they contain is understanding the origin's motives in using certain facts, language and framing. Independent investigation of institutional crime is important because the institution can't necessarily be trusted to expose its own errors.
Not that I disagree that Canadians have it better than us in many ways, but to be fair, my experience has been that purchasing power is lower per dollar because goods tend to be more expensive in Canada. Has anyone done the math on purchasing power of minimum wage workers in Canada versus the US? That would be very interesting.
Credibility explores a source's track record, particularly on relevant topics. Does Gizmodo have a track record of inaccurate or misleading articles on Apple Stores? You certainly didn't shed any light on that. Press often leaks or exposes leaks of sensitive information. That doesn't undermine trust in their accuracy. I'm not aware of any reason to distrust Gizmodo's credibility any more than I trust other news outlets, and your argument certainly isn't convincing.
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
Yes. It is. Fantasizing about doing anything is permitted by freedom of thought; fantasizing verbally is permitted by freedom of speech. These freedoms exist to protect the thought and speech we're uncomfortable with, not the thought and speech we're comfortable with; the latter needs no protection.
He seemed legitimately angry and to legitimately believe in at least some of the mumbo jumbo he spewed.
Are anger and unusual ideas criminal offenses now?
It would have been pretty irresponsible for law enforcement to ignore him once it was brought to their attention.
It's hard for me to jump on board a suggestion that thought deserves law enforcement action, but I'll bite. Perhaps we can agree that law enforcement—having received a complaint that someone has posted something on the Internet that might be construed as threatening, although no targets were named specifically—should not ignore the person who posted those things. It's a pretty huge leap to the idea that said person should be arrested, detained, forced to undergo psychological treatment.
If a person's training in the military tips the scales between figure of speech and real threat, the fact of having trained people in the military seems highly irresponsible. If the fact of having seen combat is so psychologically damaging that soldiers are a threat to the people around them, then soldiers returning from war should be committed. I'd wager such a policy would really undermine recruitment. I like where this is going.
In societies without a strictly enforced caste system, that kind of genetic tinkering is a danger to everyone, not just the rich people who can afford it. And beyond that, I don't particularly like the idea of living through a time when the people running the world are deranged by eugenic tinkering, even if it does spell their eventual overthrow.
Its not "real ethics" which is more akin to an actual moral code regarding others (dont kill, dont steal). Instead its: dont kill/steal unless you wont get caught and/or really really need to.
You should consider a cursory study of ethics, because the latter very much represents an ethical consideration. Any moral system which disregards the conditions affecting moral considerations is a moral system with little value. Taking the "don't kill" example, it becomes clear that the idea is morally bankrupt when you instruct a person not to kill an aggressor who would otherwise kill them. This is why ethics is complex, and why we need to work at it rather than accept some code from on high.
"Practical ethics" sounds to me like a field where the considerations of ethics are compromised with considerations of the status quo—which may or may not be a valuable field, but certainly isn't a study of ethics.
If that's truly the case, it would be quite easy to take the spotlight off of him, by allowing him to stand trial for the actual crimes he may have committed (rape and sexual assault) and guarantee that he won't be extradited for non-crimes (journalism). There will certainly be coverage of the trial, but that would be the end of that. Instead, his opponents have made him into a martyr by taking advantage of an unrelated charge and trying overtly to destroy him and his activism with that charge. I personally think that Assange does good work, and I hope that he will continue to do so. I also hope that the allegations of rape are false, but we certainly can't know that if those allegations are being trampled to try to destroy his career. If you really want to have him treated like anybody else, you should favor granting political asylum so that he isn't a clear target of political repression.
I count myself among the people defending Assange from the political assault he's suffered due to his association with WikiLeaks, but I object to the level of dismissiveness this group attaches to the accusations of sexual assault. We don't know if Assange is guilty of sexual assault; a trial may reveal the truth, and he should stand trial, because there's an arrest warrant for that. This does not mean that he should be politically persecuted, and it does not mean that he shouldn't be granted political asylum.
It's entirely possible for a person to be a great journalist (or a great journalistic resource) and also a raping scumbag. Assange's defenders would do well to recognize that, and avoid casting themselves as rape deniers.
Undo is much improved in TM2. It still prefers to undo the single most recent character change (which I've come to appreciate) but on subsequent steps through history it basically goes word-by-word.
I have limited experience of other editors, so I can't defend the claim, but it is usually touted for its extensibility. It provides a very powerful but fairly easy API for adding language support (including syntax highlighting, vocabulary, matching pairs, indentation, patterns for matching "words"), snippets (very flexible macros), off-process operations (you can shell script input/output however you see fit, integrate with other services*, pretty much whatever), GUI integration (drag-drop, menus, custom keyboard commands) — these are just the features I have used to extend TextMate, there's more I couldn't really comment on.
The TextMate bundle model is so popular that a number of newer editors** (Sublime Text, Chocolat, e) have adopted (or augmented) the same bundle format. There's a pretty good bundle community around, with a lot of functionality available to extend all of these editors.
* I spent a trivial amount of time writing a script to integrate TextMate with Transmit (FTP/SFTP client) such that, in a context where a project is tied to a Transmit favorite, it would sync a single file upon save. There are endless possibilities like this. And while it's a trivial feature, and one which a lot of other editors/IDEs have, it's a feature that can be left out to keep the editor lean, and to allow integration with the user's preferred tools rather than imposing limited, parallel functionality.
** Many former TextMate users prefer one or another of these editors due to concerns over TextMate's future, or desire for specific editor functionality not native in TextMate. I have tried all of them, and they're all fairly close, but I've become accustomed to some of the finer details of TextMate's editor—particularly since TM2 alphas surfaced—and so that's the one I've stuck with. Some of these newer editors are cross-platform (I believe Sublime and e) and you may be able to get an idea of the appeal of TextMate by checking out one of those.
They pushed web apps as their "SDK", and they stopped the moment a real SDK was released. It was clearly an unfinished aspect of the platform, and one they saw fit to delay while they determined the platform's viability. A pretty good strategy, all in all, but not quite the same as you're portraying it.
That was a fun read, but even if I could pretend it wasn't decorated with red flags (weird conspiracy theory intro, Illuminati references, weird references to unfamiliar alphabet soup, insinuation of a Zionist conspiracy), the story isn't very plausible, and actually lacks some of the hallmarks you'd expect if it were really true. There's a great deal of detail at the front, but as the conclusion comes rushing along it lacks any sort of detail about the fallout, the cultish stop-loss. Would such a shady organization just let this person go, to tell the world? And ultimately the story is fanciful, what you might expect from a dramatization; the world is far more banal than that.
I doubt it will be faster than gmail, what with the extra javascript required for metro.
Uh, what? "Metro" is a design language; in the various OS incarnations, it certainly has a fair amount that one might use JavaScript to approximate on a website, but that's not particularly key to the "Metro" language. It essentially embraces very minimalist design; bright, solid colors; typography over iconography. None of that requires any JavaScript at all. In fact, it requires a fairly minimal amount of CSS, at least by its nature.
Gmail is itself fairly JavaScript heavy: it is a single-page web app which offloads a lot of interaction to asynchronous requests and a fairly comprehensive client-side UI implementation. From playing around a little with Outlook.com, I can tell that it has a lot of similar features (in terms of UI/UX implementation), but I sincerely doubt it's heavier in JS than Gmail is, at least not substantially.
And who has trouble remembering their email address domain? Seriously?
I would wager many people, possibly most. Too many people refer to "their" Internet as "the Google" and other silliness for me to believe otherwise. The whole concept of "address" or "domain" is conceptually challenging for many, many people. That said, I don't think "Outlook.com" is a particularly memorable email domain for these people, it's far more likely Gmail succeeds there.
And why would I want integration for my email.
For most purposes, I certainly wouldn't. But since Gmail has been so successful, its integration with Gchat (Jabber) has been a boon for getting some of my technophobe friends to use chat. It really depends what your workflow is, but I'd imagine for the people who like the Facewitters and Twatbooks, the integration will be a boon for them as well.
Not joining Facebook is not an antisocial indicator.
I very much agree, but evidently others do not.
There are plenty of other social networks, some people run their own blog/site and want nothing to do with the sociopath who runs Facebook and the massive tracking of all internet activity they indulge in.
And some people do not use the Internet for social purposes at all, but are plenty social otherwise.
Profiling people based on their internet usage - for "national security" - is likely to become a reality in some countries before long.
I'm fairly sure the NSA has been doing this for years. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out they regard anti-social indicators with similar suspicion. It's not a very novel notion.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome. That kind of attitude potentially bolsters a source's credibility. It's easy to be critical of those we despise; being critical of those we adore is a hallmark of introspection.
Anyone time someone says "consider the source," they've just committed argumentum ad hominem. Think about that for a moment.
Like many fallacies, this falls on a continuum. An information source does have a track record, and any thinking person familiar with that track record will consider it when digesting new information. It doesn't mean that once blemished, a source cannot be valid; it just means that trust is a part of evidence, and relying on trust is one of the tools at our disposal in validating information. It's not perfect, but it's not the same as argumentum ad hominem.
There are many other ways "consider the source" is used that highlight its potential validity. Campaign ads in many places must disclose their origin, because an important part of processing the information they contain is understanding the origin's motives in using certain facts, language and framing. Independent investigation of institutional crime is important because the institution can't necessarily be trusted to expose its own errors.
Not that I disagree that Canadians have it better than us in many ways, but to be fair, my experience has been that purchasing power is lower per dollar because goods tend to be more expensive in Canada. Has anyone done the math on purchasing power of minimum wage workers in Canada versus the US? That would be very interesting.
Credibility explores a source's track record, particularly on relevant topics. Does Gizmodo have a track record of inaccurate or misleading articles on Apple Stores? You certainly didn't shed any light on that. Press often leaks or exposes leaks of sensitive information. That doesn't undermine trust in their accuracy. I'm not aware of any reason to distrust Gizmodo's credibility any more than I trust other news outlets, and your argument certainly isn't convincing.
So fantasizing about chopping peoples' heads off is "talking about anything freedom related" now?
Yes. It is. Fantasizing about doing anything is permitted by freedom of thought; fantasizing verbally is permitted by freedom of speech. These freedoms exist to protect the thought and speech we're uncomfortable with, not the thought and speech we're comfortable with; the latter needs no protection.
He seemed legitimately angry and to legitimately believe in at least some of the mumbo jumbo he spewed.
Are anger and unusual ideas criminal offenses now?
It would have been pretty irresponsible for law enforcement to ignore him once it was brought to their attention.
It's hard for me to jump on board a suggestion that thought deserves law enforcement action, but I'll bite. Perhaps we can agree that law enforcement—having received a complaint that someone has posted something on the Internet that might be construed as threatening, although no targets were named specifically—should not ignore the person who posted those things. It's a pretty huge leap to the idea that said person should be arrested, detained, forced to undergo psychological treatment.
If a person's training in the military tips the scales between figure of speech and real threat, the fact of having trained people in the military seems highly irresponsible. If the fact of having seen combat is so psychologically damaging that soldiers are a threat to the people around them, then soldiers returning from war should be committed. I'd wager such a policy would really undermine recruitment. I like where this is going.
Or you buy a Logitech mouse which was made the way the gods intended.
R U ASTROTURFING 4 AMAZON? JK
In societies without a strictly enforced caste system, that kind of genetic tinkering is a danger to everyone, not just the rich people who can afford it. And beyond that, I don't particularly like the idea of living through a time when the people running the world are deranged by eugenic tinkering, even if it does spell their eventual overthrow.
Its not "real ethics" which is more akin to an actual moral code regarding others (dont kill, dont steal). Instead its: dont kill/steal unless you wont get caught and/or really really need to.
You should consider a cursory study of ethics, because the latter very much represents an ethical consideration. Any moral system which disregards the conditions affecting moral considerations is a moral system with little value. Taking the "don't kill" example, it becomes clear that the idea is morally bankrupt when you instruct a person not to kill an aggressor who would otherwise kill them. This is why ethics is complex, and why we need to work at it rather than accept some code from on high.
"Practical ethics" sounds to me like a field where the considerations of ethics are compromised with considerations of the status quo—which may or may not be a valuable field, but certainly isn't a study of ethics.
Although hilarious, that would be unethical. Doubly so because it's apparently a moral obligation to engineer people.
Anyway. the effects will be about the same if they're sent with a Randian chaperone.
Please cite all of those claims.
If that's truly the case, it would be quite easy to take the spotlight off of him, by allowing him to stand trial for the actual crimes he may have committed (rape and sexual assault) and guarantee that he won't be extradited for non-crimes (journalism). There will certainly be coverage of the trial, but that would be the end of that. Instead, his opponents have made him into a martyr by taking advantage of an unrelated charge and trying overtly to destroy him and his activism with that charge. I personally think that Assange does good work, and I hope that he will continue to do so. I also hope that the allegations of rape are false, but we certainly can't know that if those allegations are being trampled to try to destroy his career. If you really want to have him treated like anybody else, you should favor granting political asylum so that he isn't a clear target of political repression.
I count myself among the people defending Assange from the political assault he's suffered due to his association with WikiLeaks, but I object to the level of dismissiveness this group attaches to the accusations of sexual assault. We don't know if Assange is guilty of sexual assault; a trial may reveal the truth, and he should stand trial, because there's an arrest warrant for that. This does not mean that he should be politically persecuted, and it does not mean that he shouldn't be granted political asylum.
It's entirely possible for a person to be a great journalist (or a great journalistic resource) and also a raping scumbag. Assange's defenders would do well to recognize that, and avoid casting themselves as rape deniers.
You've never used TextMate, it seems.
Wow, you're an ass. And wrong. You're a wrong ass.
Undo is much improved in TM2. It still prefers to undo the single most recent character change (which I've come to appreciate) but on subsequent steps through history it basically goes word-by-word.
From the looks of it, it looks almost exactly like I'd expect TextMate to look in a GTK+ build.
What does Textmate have that other editors don't?
I have limited experience of other editors, so I can't defend the claim, but it is usually touted for its extensibility. It provides a very powerful but fairly easy API for adding language support (including syntax highlighting, vocabulary, matching pairs, indentation, patterns for matching "words"), snippets (very flexible macros), off-process operations (you can shell script input/output however you see fit, integrate with other services*, pretty much whatever), GUI integration (drag-drop, menus, custom keyboard commands) — these are just the features I have used to extend TextMate, there's more I couldn't really comment on.
The TextMate bundle model is so popular that a number of newer editors** (Sublime Text, Chocolat, e) have adopted (or augmented) the same bundle format. There's a pretty good bundle community around, with a lot of functionality available to extend all of these editors.
* I spent a trivial amount of time writing a script to integrate TextMate with Transmit (FTP/SFTP client) such that, in a context where a project is tied to a Transmit favorite, it would sync a single file upon save. There are endless possibilities like this. And while it's a trivial feature, and one which a lot of other editors/IDEs have, it's a feature that can be left out to keep the editor lean, and to allow integration with the user's preferred tools rather than imposing limited, parallel functionality.
** Many former TextMate users prefer one or another of these editors due to concerns over TextMate's future, or desire for specific editor functionality not native in TextMate. I have tried all of them, and they're all fairly close, but I've become accustomed to some of the finer details of TextMate's editor—particularly since TM2 alphas surfaced—and so that's the one I've stuck with. Some of these newer editors are cross-platform (I believe Sublime and e) and you may be able to get an idea of the appeal of TextMate by checking out one of those.
They pushed web apps as their "SDK", and they stopped the moment a real SDK was released. It was clearly an unfinished aspect of the platform, and one they saw fit to delay while they determined the platform's viability. A pretty good strategy, all in all, but not quite the same as you're portraying it.
That was a fun read, but even if I could pretend it wasn't decorated with red flags (weird conspiracy theory intro, Illuminati references, weird references to unfamiliar alphabet soup, insinuation of a Zionist conspiracy), the story isn't very plausible, and actually lacks some of the hallmarks you'd expect if it were really true. There's a great deal of detail at the front, but as the conclusion comes rushing along it lacks any sort of detail about the fallout, the cultish stop-loss. Would such a shady organization just let this person go, to tell the world? And ultimately the story is fanciful, what you might expect from a dramatization; the world is far more banal than that.
I doubt it will be faster than gmail, what with the extra javascript required for metro.
Uh, what? "Metro" is a design language; in the various OS incarnations, it certainly has a fair amount that one might use JavaScript to approximate on a website, but that's not particularly key to the "Metro" language. It essentially embraces very minimalist design; bright, solid colors; typography over iconography. None of that requires any JavaScript at all. In fact, it requires a fairly minimal amount of CSS, at least by its nature.
Gmail is itself fairly JavaScript heavy: it is a single-page web app which offloads a lot of interaction to asynchronous requests and a fairly comprehensive client-side UI implementation. From playing around a little with Outlook.com, I can tell that it has a lot of similar features (in terms of UI/UX implementation), but I sincerely doubt it's heavier in JS than Gmail is, at least not substantially.
And who has trouble remembering their email address domain? Seriously?
I would wager many people, possibly most. Too many people refer to "their" Internet as "the Google" and other silliness for me to believe otherwise. The whole concept of "address" or "domain" is conceptually challenging for many, many people. That said, I don't think "Outlook.com" is a particularly memorable email domain for these people, it's far more likely Gmail succeeds there.
And why would I want integration for my email.
For most purposes, I certainly wouldn't. But since Gmail has been so successful, its integration with Gchat (Jabber) has been a boon for getting some of my technophobe friends to use chat. It really depends what your workflow is, but I'd imagine for the people who like the Facewitters and Twatbooks, the integration will be a boon for them as well.
Not joining Facebook is not an antisocial indicator.
I very much agree, but evidently others do not.
There are plenty of other social networks, some people run their own blog/site and want nothing to do with the sociopath who runs Facebook and the massive tracking of all internet activity they indulge in.
And some people do not use the Internet for social purposes at all, but are plenty social otherwise.
Woosh!
Profiling people based on their internet usage - for "national security" - is likely to become a reality in some countries before long.
I'm fairly sure the NSA has been doing this for years. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out they regard anti-social indicators with similar suspicion. It's not a very novel notion.