Give Spy Handler the benefit of the doubt; they were using capitalization to emphasize "Mac", so as to distinguish it from the "App Store" (sans Mac) referring to the iOS version.
That sidesteps Gatekeeper enforcement of user settings to prevent running apps which are either not signed and-or not from the App Store. It doesn't, as far as I'm aware, disable sandboxing if the app is sandboxed. Those are different things. Sandboxing restricts what data and resources an app has access to, whether it's signed or not, and whether it's from the App Store or not.
There's this other even better method I heard of: don't catch it in the first place.
You're right! Children born with HIV (or infected through breastfeeding) are so stupid, reckless and careless! They need to fire up their time machines and kill their parents before conception. Patients receiving improperly screened blood transfusions are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should instead refuse treatment and just hurry up and die, rather than risk unwitting infection. Victims of rape by others who are infected are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should just... not get raped... somehow. Newlyweds, having been tested and one of whom having received a false negative, are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should magically know the test was incorrect and choose not to procreate.
Incidentally, while you're moralizing about the poor life choices of caricatured mythical drug-addict buttfuckers (or whatever other poorly conceived notion of the stupidity, recklessness and carelessness of people infected with HIV), you might want to consider the infection risks before you dig up the corpses (without help, lest you lose your boner) of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan for that threesome you've always wanted.
Do you realize how stupid, reckless and careless you sound?
And the term Human Resources is disgusting. A resource is, by this articulation, a commodity to be exploited. The fact that corporations can so brazenly announce that they regard their staff this way is a damning indictment of the state of labor in our society.
Your portrayal of primitive societies demands some evidence. While there have certainly been (and continue to be) primitive societies that feature one or more of the conditions you describe—perhaps even all of them—it's hardly safe to assume that this is representative of those societies in aggregate, much less of human society prior to the advent of civilization.
As far as the use of the term "communism" to refer to a government system, this use is radically at odds with the meaning as conceived, and your use here to defend the claim that communism has always been totalitarian rises to the level of tautology. Of course all communist regimes are totalitarian if you consider totalitarianism a requisite feature of such regimes. But it requires dismissing a tremendous body of work describing what is meant by communism. For sure, the regimes you reference have adopted the term without adhering to this conception, but that isn't damning to the conception, only to the implementation. You can only draw a conclusion that it's damning to the conception by using this tautological framing.
Your use of this to attack the philosophical framing of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is not a sound one, even if we accept all of the prior argument. You haven't shown how the one leads to the other, only claimed it. And don't take this to mean that there are no valid criticisms to be found, there certainly are; you just haven't offered any.
Proceeding to reference a work by Ayn Rand is suspect in its own right, particularly because you don't reference anything but its title, which amounts to little more than a wink and a nudge. How does Rand's work in Atlas Shrugged show that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is totalitarian or leads to totalitarianism? Speaking for myself, and putting aside the nasty taste it leaves in my mouth even discussing Rand, this isn't how I read her work. Her dystopia doesn't much resemble that of, say, Orwell*; she portrays a world run incompetently, bureaucratically perhaps, but ultimately not from a centralized power but rather a broad, caricatured groupthink. I'll concede that I never finished reading Atlas Shrugged, despite several attempts, because I have little patience for ham-fisted tomes; it may be that that novel progresses to a more canonical dystopia than other works that I've spent more time with (particularly The Fountainhead).
* Incidentally, while Orwell was an outspoken critic of the Socialist regimes emerging in the 20th century, he was a proponent of another approach to communism, particularly that of the anarchists like those in Spain, and he threw in with them in their fight not just against fascism but against the Stalinist communists who eventually allied with Spain's fascists. Ultimately, his critique of Leninism/Stalinism/etc carries much more power than Rand's by being substantially more clear in its understanding of totalitarianism, and his ability to distinguish that feature from its corrupted philosophical underpinnings.
Speaking for myself, I would argue that it might be right to say that Leninism or even Stalinism is an inevitable consequence of classical Marxism—that ultimately the Marxist formulation of communism is corrupt or at least flawed—but this brings us straight back to the point that even Marx and Engels identified other implementations of communism which conflicted with their own.
There is no communist regimen up to this day that managed to be non totalitarian
Only most of human history, at least according to those most famous for articulating communist theory. And of course they used the term derisively, as it would be hard to sell a political program to achieve communism through starkly opposite arrangements if those of us to whom communism appealed realized that communism is evidently in our nature, needing to be beaten out of us.
I think I understand: you're calling out the particular poster for scrutinizing others while avoiding scrutiny in kind. I think we should be careful, though, with this line of reasoning. There are valid reasons to be hypocritical about scrutiny. As a contrived example, suppose you have identified a poster as a paid campaigner for an abusive corporation, and you are a whistleblower who has exposed that corporation's abuse. It's perfectly valid to expose the other poster's conflict of interest without revealing your own loyalties.
That said, the AC's contribution clearly isn't valid in that way. But I think it's possible to challenge that contribution without resorting to an attack on their anonymity. I know you are saying that you weren't attacking the anonymity specifically, but rather the hypocrisy, but I think the distinction is vague and ultimately it's not a valid attack. If you want a person to challenge ideas rather than personality, it's important to stick to their ideas in your criticism. I suppose it is valid to point out the hypocrisy, but recognize that it isn't necessarily a powerful argument. Hypocrisy, while suspect, isn't inherently damning.
Normally when you publish you either have a page limit, or have to pay for more pages (this may not be true in social sciences, I'm not sure). Adding a dozen disclaimers costs you money.
So? Higher cost does not excuse us from responsibility for reasonably predictable consequences. That said, I think you're too caught up in particulars. There are plenty of mechanisms to disclaiming reasonably predictable abuse, many probably more effective than dumping them into the body of your study.
It's your responsibility, as this guys work does, to state what your work is applicable to, and that generally happens.
If I write an AI paper on how to build and AI to manage an economy in a game - which is a particularly strong constraint, and then the media decides that means I'm trying to use computers to run a communist state then there's only so much you can do.
There is always "only so much you can do", which is a vague and dismissive comment used to deflect responsibility. Your scenario isn't particularly harmful, except to you... so I can't really say much about your responsibility in that scenario. If we take another scenario—wherein you have devised AI to manage an economy in a game, and it is actually applied to running a harmful economy—you absolutely have a responsibility to challenge this abuse. This kind of amoral disconnection from the consequences of one's actions is a hallmark of fascism, a prerequisite for accepting "the way things are done". If your work is used to ends you consider harmful, accepting that consequence without challenge is further harm.
It's quite possible I read too much into cpu6502's post, but I think it was clearly intended to use the television series to figuratively refer to real recent events: the fact is that the Obama administration did define everyone killed by drone strikes as "militants" (the administrations preferred language for "enemy combatant"). I don't know the first thing about Babylon 5 but I was able to see the parallel because I'm familiar with the recent events in question. That is why I said, "it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of recent events". A reader does not necessarily need background knowledge on a piece of cultural art to understand an excerpt drawn as parallel to current events; only a familiarity with (and willingness to acknowledge the reality of) those current events.
The person I responded to was explicitly upset about another person's popularity on an internet discussion forum. The person who prompted that was upset about the message of cpu6502's post, claiming that the analogy represents a "bullshit scenario with no basis in fact"—and I knew, and we all should now know, that the scenario is based entirely in fact.
And mainstream US media isn't ideologically driven? I calll bullshit on that. Most US sources of news are incredibly ideologically slanted and gung-ho. Democracy Now is one of the few US news programs that doesn't spoonfeed its viewers Whitehouse press releases unthinkingly.
I think you must be confused. I didn't say corporate media isn't ideologically driven. I didn't say I listen to Democracy Now! in order to criticize its ideological bias. I said I regularly listen to openly biased media, and I provided a positive example of academics taking proper responsibility for how their work might be mischaracterized toward unintended ends.
If knowing drones may be over your head bombing at any time isn't terror I don't know what is.
That's because "terrorism" is not framed as a set of behaviors with certain characteristics, it's framed as a class of ideological perspectives which foster or permit a subset of those behaviors. Seriously, if you have any doubt about the motives involved in identifying what constitutes "terrorism", just listen to the language: it's as if a bunch of black-hatted evil cartoon characters convene in a secluded island mountain lair to determine how to be evil... rather than a set of circumstances and modes of sociopolitical strategic thinking that make certain ugly acts of war attractive or even just acceptable.
"Terror" is whatever the speaker defines it to be. Few if any people sign up to inflict terror for nefarious ends. Which is just as true when we're doing it as when others are doing it. If we wanted to fight real terrorism, we'd be undermining the conditions that allow it to emerge by fostering a world where real people can live a peaceful and fulfilling life, rather than as expendable pawns in an endless churn of progress, growth and power.
People and institutions have interests... so nothing is true? If that's true (which it probably isn't, if I consider your advice), I find it even more naive to expect we'd be getting bad news. Many of us are quite aware that media messaging is shaped by a variety of conflicted interests... but that messaging doesn't particularly trump up bad news unless there's political gain on the table. What is the gain in undermining US success in the global war on some terror?
If it turns out that a future with ubiquitous drones is as bleak as portrayed, and if you think that the way to prevent ubiquitous drones is to prevent the emergence of modern computing devices, wouldn't you oppose the emergence of those devices? If we value our little conveniences so much as to consciously welcome unimaginable fascist torment in order to foster those conveniences, we're... so fucking fucked. If anything, your argument underscores the validity of a skeptical approach to new technology: technology isn't truly neutral, even if it's conceived to be, and we're charged with considering the course new technology puts us on before we accept its integration into our lives.
Whether the media fabricates that into a garbage narrative isn't his fault.
I take issue with that. There are always going to be consequences from our actions, and when those consequences are reasonably predictable we have a moral obligation to ensure they lead to acceptable outcomes. If you produce a study that will obviously be corrupted to ends you find harmful, it's your duty to soak that study with disclaimers and prevent your work from being misappropriated. By not doing so, you are at least passively accepting this abuse. And don't think this is a utopian expectation. I listen, regularly, to fairly ideologically driven media (e.g. Democracy Now!), and in interviews academic guests routinely correct hosts when the hosts attempt to draw overly broad conclusions or oversimplify the message.
If your work is to produce meaningful analysis of raw data, your work is also to make sure that the meaning is clear.
I also don't think someone who posts as AC has much business judging registered users.
Since I already went off on the AC about judging personality over content, I'll extend the same to you. This mentality is actively harmful to discussion, and frankly undermines your message: "I like to judge posters here based on the posts I read, not who or how many likes or dislikes them. That's sheep behavior." People have many reasons for choosing to use or not use a handle. I understand the double standard you point out, but I think you create your own by taking a cheap shot about posting anonymously. If anything, the overall conversation would benefit from an entirely anonymous comments section. There was plenty wrong with the AC's comment without an AC cheap shot; I think I did a fine job attacking the position without attacking personality.
Interestingly, you chose to verify a claim about a personality rather than that personality's own claims. I think if you step away from the popularity contest and toward facts, you'll realize that they posted an analogy to real-world events that are quite relevant, both to the subject of the Slashdot post and the subject of the parent post they replied to. The Obama administration did, in fact, redefine "collateral damage" casualties in drone strikes as "militants" unless proven otherwise, drastically reducing reported casualties of noncombatants and innocents, and taking advantage of a media trend where "officials say" is reported essentially as fact. It's quite possible that cpu6502 is a horrible asshole, I can't say based on the post I read here and have little interest in exploring further based on evidence presented so far. The analogy presented is still appropriate, the facts alluded to are still correct, and the diversion to popularity are ugly and speak more of you detractors than they do of anyone else.
But sure. Talk about how many people have clicked an "I don't like this person" button on some website, rather than the content of their message. Sure, it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of recent events; then the appropriate question is "what do you mean by that?" rather than "wow what a jerk!"
Personally, I scarcely notice anyone's handle on here. They're conveniently under-emphasized compared to discussion content. It serves a useful purpose: judge the content of a post before the character of the person posting. Yes, you might become skeptical and look for patterns, and that's reasonable. But Slashdot is already biased strongly against minority viewpoints, by its moderation system and default viewing settings. I also browse at -1 so that I can read all comments in sequence, because a lot of gems are missed if you rely on prior moderation, not to mention basic conversation flow. If you're reading a comments section, try to at least read the comments and cognize them, instead of looking for conflict and unpopular handles. You'll learn more, and grow as a critical person.
Translation: In a society where there are private institutions which wield enormous power and influence—vastly more than any person, and increasingly exceeding that of even the most organized public institutions—and they use that power and influence to ends that are harmful, whether objectively or subjectively, the people who are affected should refrain from comment which might besmirch these powerful institutions, and should instead volunteer to suffer a life of arbitrary self-denial and misery. It is inappropriate for a person to present their thoughts to others about undesired attributes of this mode of commerce; it is, after all, an arrangement which those people are evicted from by virtue of having such thoughts. We must pay fealty, stay silent, or become unpersons.
It's not a style thing. UA string is not reliable, there is a long history of vendors spoofing other browsers' UA strings. Many, if not most, end users are able to alter their browser's UA string. There aren't any non-Trident browsers (that I'm aware of) that parse conditional comments, and if they do they would not mimic IE's conditional paths. Conditional comments are the most reliable way to do this, and that's why they exist.
Three short lines of HTML hardly compares to the dozens of lines of jQuery devoted to old IE support. I'll probably have a snippet in my editor and won't write a thing.
Ok, but doesn't jQuery 2.0 have some new feature not present on 1.9?
Nope. That's the point, at least for now. 1.9 and 2.0 have the same API features, but 2.0 loses the cruft necessary to support oldIE, reducing jQuery's footprint and preparing for a time when that cruft is superfluous. Surely 2.x will eventually diverge from 1.9, but probably not for a while.
That said, even if that were already the case, another point of 2.0 is modularity; presumably, as new features for 2.x are introduced, it will be possible to develop modules for 1.9 that support oldIE, allowing 2.x to progress and allowing developers with greater need for backward-compatible support to progress as well.
If you look at a set of the available conditional comments in an editor with proper syntax highlighting, it'll become obvious immediately how they work: everything that is targeted at IE (or specific versions thereof) is technically inside an HTML comment and ignored by other browsers; IE parses these comments and, in the presence of conditional directives it determines (by version) whether to treat them as if outside an HTML comment. Everything that targets non-IE browsers is outside of a comment, but IE will treat it as a comment.
This is a comment, unless loaded in IE versions 8 and below: <!--[if lte IE 8]><script src="/path/to/jquery19.js"><![endif]-->
This is a comment, unless loaded in IE versions 9 and above: <!--[if gte IE 9]><script src="/path/to/jquery20.js"><![endif]-->
This is not a comment, unless loaded in IE: <!--[if !IE]><!--><script src="/path/to/jquery20.js"><!-- <![endif]-->
Your claim is debatable (and I disagree; IE9 is conservative in its adoption of emerging standards, but otherwise competitive in existing standards), but note that I was responding to the claim that MS doesn't "care about" IE, which does not necessarily depend on "modernness".
I would say that's a valid point: mobile probably was the motivation to overhaul IE for IE9. But it's not fair to then say MS hasn't cared about IE since Netscape failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Give Spy Handler the benefit of the doubt; they were using capitalization to emphasize "Mac", so as to distinguish it from the "App Store" (sans Mac) referring to the iOS version.
That sidesteps Gatekeeper enforcement of user settings to prevent running apps which are either not signed and-or not from the App Store. It doesn't, as far as I'm aware, disable sandboxing if the app is sandboxed. Those are different things. Sandboxing restricts what data and resources an app has access to, whether it's signed or not, and whether it's from the App Store or not.
There's this other even better method I heard of: don't catch it in the first place.
You're right! Children born with HIV (or infected through breastfeeding) are so stupid, reckless and careless! They need to fire up their time machines and kill their parents before conception. Patients receiving improperly screened blood transfusions are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should instead refuse treatment and just hurry up and die, rather than risk unwitting infection. Victims of rape by others who are infected are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should just... not get raped... somehow. Newlyweds, having been tested and one of whom having received a false negative, are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should magically know the test was incorrect and choose not to procreate.
Incidentally, while you're moralizing about the poor life choices of caricatured mythical drug-addict buttfuckers (or whatever other poorly conceived notion of the stupidity, recklessness and carelessness of people infected with HIV), you might want to consider the infection risks before you dig up the corpses (without help, lest you lose your boner) of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan for that threesome you've always wanted.
Do you realize how stupid, reckless and careless you sound?
I hate when people "fix" other people's words, but I have a hard time leaving this one alone:
You have clearly never been to Earth. Attempting to get the police here to investigate the police will result in fuck-all getting done.
And the term Human Resources is disgusting. A resource is, by this articulation, a commodity to be exploited. The fact that corporations can so brazenly announce that they regard their staff this way is a damning indictment of the state of labor in our society.
Your portrayal of primitive societies demands some evidence. While there have certainly been (and continue to be) primitive societies that feature one or more of the conditions you describe—perhaps even all of them—it's hardly safe to assume that this is representative of those societies in aggregate, much less of human society prior to the advent of civilization.
As far as the use of the term "communism" to refer to a government system, this use is radically at odds with the meaning as conceived, and your use here to defend the claim that communism has always been totalitarian rises to the level of tautology. Of course all communist regimes are totalitarian if you consider totalitarianism a requisite feature of such regimes. But it requires dismissing a tremendous body of work describing what is meant by communism. For sure, the regimes you reference have adopted the term without adhering to this conception, but that isn't damning to the conception, only to the implementation. You can only draw a conclusion that it's damning to the conception by using this tautological framing.
Your use of this to attack the philosophical framing of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is not a sound one, even if we accept all of the prior argument. You haven't shown how the one leads to the other, only claimed it. And don't take this to mean that there are no valid criticisms to be found, there certainly are; you just haven't offered any.
Proceeding to reference a work by Ayn Rand is suspect in its own right, particularly because you don't reference anything but its title, which amounts to little more than a wink and a nudge. How does Rand's work in Atlas Shrugged show that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is totalitarian or leads to totalitarianism? Speaking for myself, and putting aside the nasty taste it leaves in my mouth even discussing Rand, this isn't how I read her work. Her dystopia doesn't much resemble that of, say, Orwell*; she portrays a world run incompetently, bureaucratically perhaps, but ultimately not from a centralized power but rather a broad, caricatured groupthink. I'll concede that I never finished reading Atlas Shrugged, despite several attempts, because I have little patience for ham-fisted tomes; it may be that that novel progresses to a more canonical dystopia than other works that I've spent more time with (particularly The Fountainhead).
* Incidentally, while Orwell was an outspoken critic of the Socialist regimes emerging in the 20th century, he was a proponent of another approach to communism, particularly that of the anarchists like those in Spain, and he threw in with them in their fight not just against fascism but against the Stalinist communists who eventually allied with Spain's fascists. Ultimately, his critique of Leninism/Stalinism/etc carries much more power than Rand's by being substantially more clear in its understanding of totalitarianism, and his ability to distinguish that feature from its corrupted philosophical underpinnings.
Speaking for myself, I would argue that it might be right to say that Leninism or even Stalinism is an inevitable consequence of classical Marxism—that ultimately the Marxist formulation of communism is corrupt or at least flawed—but this brings us straight back to the point that even Marx and Engels identified other implementations of communism which conflicted with their own.
There is no communist regimen up to this day that managed to be non totalitarian
Only most of human history, at least according to those most famous for articulating communist theory. And of course they used the term derisively, as it would be hard to sell a political program to achieve communism through starkly opposite arrangements if those of us to whom communism appealed realized that communism is evidently in our nature, needing to be beaten out of us.
I think I understand: you're calling out the particular poster for scrutinizing others while avoiding scrutiny in kind. I think we should be careful, though, with this line of reasoning. There are valid reasons to be hypocritical about scrutiny. As a contrived example, suppose you have identified a poster as a paid campaigner for an abusive corporation, and you are a whistleblower who has exposed that corporation's abuse. It's perfectly valid to expose the other poster's conflict of interest without revealing your own loyalties.
That said, the AC's contribution clearly isn't valid in that way. But I think it's possible to challenge that contribution without resorting to an attack on their anonymity. I know you are saying that you weren't attacking the anonymity specifically, but rather the hypocrisy, but I think the distinction is vague and ultimately it's not a valid attack. If you want a person to challenge ideas rather than personality, it's important to stick to their ideas in your criticism. I suppose it is valid to point out the hypocrisy, but recognize that it isn't necessarily a powerful argument. Hypocrisy, while suspect, isn't inherently damning.
Normally when you publish you either have a page limit, or have to pay for more pages (this may not be true in social sciences, I'm not sure). Adding a dozen disclaimers costs you money.
So? Higher cost does not excuse us from responsibility for reasonably predictable consequences. That said, I think you're too caught up in particulars. There are plenty of mechanisms to disclaiming reasonably predictable abuse, many probably more effective than dumping them into the body of your study.
It's your responsibility, as this guys work does, to state what your work is applicable to, and that generally happens.
If I write an AI paper on how to build and AI to manage an economy in a game - which is a particularly strong constraint, and then the media decides that means I'm trying to use computers to run a communist state then there's only so much you can do.
There is always "only so much you can do", which is a vague and dismissive comment used to deflect responsibility. Your scenario isn't particularly harmful, except to you... so I can't really say much about your responsibility in that scenario. If we take another scenario—wherein you have devised AI to manage an economy in a game, and it is actually applied to running a harmful economy—you absolutely have a responsibility to challenge this abuse. This kind of amoral disconnection from the consequences of one's actions is a hallmark of fascism, a prerequisite for accepting "the way things are done". If your work is used to ends you consider harmful, accepting that consequence without challenge is further harm.
It's quite possible I read too much into cpu6502's post, but I think it was clearly intended to use the television series to figuratively refer to real recent events: the fact is that the Obama administration did define everyone killed by drone strikes as "militants" (the administrations preferred language for "enemy combatant"). I don't know the first thing about Babylon 5 but I was able to see the parallel because I'm familiar with the recent events in question. That is why I said, "it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of recent events". A reader does not necessarily need background knowledge on a piece of cultural art to understand an excerpt drawn as parallel to current events; only a familiarity with (and willingness to acknowledge the reality of) those current events.
The person I responded to was explicitly upset about another person's popularity on an internet discussion forum. The person who prompted that was upset about the message of cpu6502's post, claiming that the analogy represents a "bullshit scenario with no basis in fact"—and I knew, and we all should now know, that the scenario is based entirely in fact.
And mainstream US media isn't ideologically driven? I calll bullshit on that. Most US sources of news are incredibly ideologically slanted and gung-ho. Democracy Now is one of the few US news programs that doesn't spoonfeed its viewers Whitehouse press releases unthinkingly.
I think you must be confused. I didn't say corporate media isn't ideologically driven. I didn't say I listen to Democracy Now! in order to criticize its ideological bias. I said I regularly listen to openly biased media, and I provided a positive example of academics taking proper responsibility for how their work might be mischaracterized toward unintended ends.
If knowing drones may be over your head bombing at any time isn't terror I don't know what is.
That's because "terrorism" is not framed as a set of behaviors with certain characteristics, it's framed as a class of ideological perspectives which foster or permit a subset of those behaviors. Seriously, if you have any doubt about the motives involved in identifying what constitutes "terrorism", just listen to the language: it's as if a bunch of black-hatted evil cartoon characters convene in a secluded island mountain lair to determine how to be evil... rather than a set of circumstances and modes of sociopolitical strategic thinking that make certain ugly acts of war attractive or even just acceptable.
"Terror" is whatever the speaker defines it to be. Few if any people sign up to inflict terror for nefarious ends. Which is just as true when we're doing it as when others are doing it. If we wanted to fight real terrorism, we'd be undermining the conditions that allow it to emerge by fostering a world where real people can live a peaceful and fulfilling life, rather than as expendable pawns in an endless churn of progress, growth and power.
People and institutions have interests... so nothing is true? If that's true (which it probably isn't, if I consider your advice), I find it even more naive to expect we'd be getting bad news. Many of us are quite aware that media messaging is shaped by a variety of conflicted interests... but that messaging doesn't particularly trump up bad news unless there's political gain on the table. What is the gain in undermining US success in the global war on some terror?
If it turns out that a future with ubiquitous drones is as bleak as portrayed, and if you think that the way to prevent ubiquitous drones is to prevent the emergence of modern computing devices, wouldn't you oppose the emergence of those devices? If we value our little conveniences so much as to consciously welcome unimaginable fascist torment in order to foster those conveniences, we're... so fucking fucked. If anything, your argument underscores the validity of a skeptical approach to new technology: technology isn't truly neutral, even if it's conceived to be, and we're charged with considering the course new technology puts us on before we accept its integration into our lives.
Whether the media fabricates that into a garbage narrative isn't his fault.
I take issue with that. There are always going to be consequences from our actions, and when those consequences are reasonably predictable we have a moral obligation to ensure they lead to acceptable outcomes. If you produce a study that will obviously be corrupted to ends you find harmful, it's your duty to soak that study with disclaimers and prevent your work from being misappropriated. By not doing so, you are at least passively accepting this abuse. And don't think this is a utopian expectation. I listen, regularly, to fairly ideologically driven media (e.g. Democracy Now!), and in interviews academic guests routinely correct hosts when the hosts attempt to draw overly broad conclusions or oversimplify the message.
If your work is to produce meaningful analysis of raw data, your work is also to make sure that the meaning is clear.
I also don't think someone who posts as AC has much business judging registered users.
Since I already went off on the AC about judging personality over content, I'll extend the same to you. This mentality is actively harmful to discussion, and frankly undermines your message: "I like to judge posters here based on the posts I read, not who or how many likes or dislikes them. That's sheep behavior." People have many reasons for choosing to use or not use a handle. I understand the double standard you point out, but I think you create your own by taking a cheap shot about posting anonymously. If anything, the overall conversation would benefit from an entirely anonymous comments section. There was plenty wrong with the AC's comment without an AC cheap shot; I think I did a fine job attacking the position without attacking personality.
Interestingly, you chose to verify a claim about a personality rather than that personality's own claims. I think if you step away from the popularity contest and toward facts, you'll realize that they posted an analogy to real-world events that are quite relevant, both to the subject of the Slashdot post and the subject of the parent post they replied to. The Obama administration did, in fact, redefine "collateral damage" casualties in drone strikes as "militants" unless proven otherwise, drastically reducing reported casualties of noncombatants and innocents, and taking advantage of a media trend where "officials say" is reported essentially as fact. It's quite possible that cpu6502 is a horrible asshole, I can't say based on the post I read here and have little interest in exploring further based on evidence presented so far. The analogy presented is still appropriate, the facts alluded to are still correct, and the diversion to popularity are ugly and speak more of you detractors than they do of anyone else.
But sure. Talk about how many people have clicked an "I don't like this person" button on some website, rather than the content of their message. Sure, it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of recent events; then the appropriate question is "what do you mean by that?" rather than "wow what a jerk!"
Personally, I scarcely notice anyone's handle on here. They're conveniently under-emphasized compared to discussion content. It serves a useful purpose: judge the content of a post before the character of the person posting. Yes, you might become skeptical and look for patterns, and that's reasonable. But Slashdot is already biased strongly against minority viewpoints, by its moderation system and default viewing settings. I also browse at -1 so that I can read all comments in sequence, because a lot of gems are missed if you rely on prior moderation, not to mention basic conversation flow. If you're reading a comments section, try to at least read the comments and cognize them, instead of looking for conflict and unpopular handles. You'll learn more, and grow as a critical person.
Wait, are you saying that Yahoo and Youtube are the same? I'm confused.
Google owns Youtube, but not Yahoo; Yahoo has no affiliation with Youtube.
Translation: In a society where there are private institutions which wield enormous power and influence—vastly more than any person, and increasingly exceeding that of even the most organized public institutions—and they use that power and influence to ends that are harmful, whether objectively or subjectively, the people who are affected should refrain from comment which might besmirch these powerful institutions, and should instead volunteer to suffer a life of arbitrary self-denial and misery. It is inappropriate for a person to present their thoughts to others about undesired attributes of this mode of commerce; it is, after all, an arrangement which those people are evicted from by virtue of having such thoughts. We must pay fealty, stay silent, or become unpersons.
It's not a style thing. UA string is not reliable, there is a long history of vendors spoofing other browsers' UA strings. Many, if not most, end users are able to alter their browser's UA string. There aren't any non-Trident browsers (that I'm aware of) that parse conditional comments, and if they do they would not mimic IE's conditional paths. Conditional comments are the most reliable way to do this, and that's why they exist.
Three short lines of HTML hardly compares to the dozens of lines of jQuery devoted to old IE support. I'll probably have a snippet in my editor and won't write a thing.
Ok, but doesn't jQuery 2.0 have some new feature not present on 1.9?
Nope. That's the point, at least for now. 1.9 and 2.0 have the same API features, but 2.0 loses the cruft necessary to support oldIE, reducing jQuery's footprint and preparing for a time when that cruft is superfluous. Surely 2.x will eventually diverge from 1.9, but probably not for a while.
That said, even if that were already the case, another point of 2.0 is modularity; presumably, as new features for 2.x are introduced, it will be possible to develop modules for 1.9 that support oldIE, allowing 2.x to progress and allowing developers with greater need for backward-compatible support to progress as well.
If you look at a set of the available conditional comments in an editor with proper syntax highlighting, it'll become obvious immediately how they work: everything that is targeted at IE (or specific versions thereof) is technically inside an HTML comment and ignored by other browsers; IE parses these comments and, in the presence of conditional directives it determines (by version) whether to treat them as if outside an HTML comment. Everything that targets non-IE browsers is outside of a comment, but IE will treat it as a comment.
This is a comment, unless loaded in IE versions 8 and below:
<!--[if lte IE 8]><script src="/path/to/jquery19.js"><![endif]-->
This is a comment, unless loaded in IE versions 9 and above:
<!--[if gte IE 9]><script src="/path/to/jquery20.js"><![endif]-->
This is not a comment, unless loaded in IE:
<!--[if !IE]><!--><script src="/path/to/jquery20.js"><!-- <![endif]-->
Your claim is debatable (and I disagree; IE9 is conservative in its adoption of emerging standards, but otherwise competitive in existing standards), but note that I was responding to the claim that MS doesn't "care about" IE, which does not necessarily depend on "modernness".
I would say that's a valid point: mobile probably was the motivation to overhaul IE for IE9. But it's not fair to then say MS hasn't cared about IE since Netscape failed.