No, what it means is that you're not supposed to be trying to "hook up" at work if you have a position of power.
Hook with people you don't work with. Easy!
Reminds me of a friend... in her 20s she kept feeling guilty because she'd have flings with guys at work, who usually held higher positions than her, and then they all kept quitting their jobs and moving to different companies. Why? Because she only wanted to fuck the nice, decent guys! And it was only managers who had enough time to be doing it at work. Nobody ever made any accusations; nobody needed to! They had all had workplace ethics training, they all understood it is unprofessional to have an affair with a person below you in the organization. So they'd end up feeling guilty, or scared for their future aspirations, and quit. It is what decent people were already doing, and what they were already teaching in ethics for people that bothered to learn the ethics rules. That was in the 90s.
Nobody cares what your jobs are, they care about the context; if you're only meeting the person for professional reasons, you do not have permission to hit on them! That is private behavior. If you want to flirt, you need to do it in a social setting, and by that I do not mean "business social" or "team building events" or "drinks with the team after work." Those are not actually social events, they are simply casual work events. They are still work events.
And smart guys know that hitting on every random woman you feel attracted to will only get you a disease. That is not actually how the human mating ritual normally works. At all.
Are these actually the nerds, or just people in careers where nerds would know their names?
Aren't these things that actual nerds would only do in a roleplaying game, but would be too shy to do in person?
Maybe the people whose names become famous are mostly the non-nerds? And the ones like Wozniak who do become famous lead more private lives?
When they show up at a convention and have hordes of teenage groupies, wouldn't a nerd run away? And, doubly so if aroused? If they were going to abuse one of them, they have to run home, send an email, and arrange to meet for coffee! And then sleaze out when nobody is looking.
Maybe it is just that the gamergater neckbeards think playing games makes you a nerd? That's the same as what those engineering majors are doing, right? Touching the computer and sometimes laughing? Same?
If you're opening it in a new tab, there is no good reason for it; if you're embedding it in a document you're already rendering, there is a potential performance benefit. But if you're loading it in a new tab, the user isn't going to see any benefit; the only thing they gain is that they don't have to choose between using a temp file or using memcache or whatever!
That's easily enough to distract me from teasing poor DAV.
The sad part is, instead of fixing their crap people are just going to use extra JS and still serialize it into the URL.
IMO the problem isn't having the data in the URI, it is having the data in the URL! If it is in the URI or not, who cares? Is it stored somewhere inside the stuff in the location bar of the browser, instead of on a server? That seems the real problem.
So to you the terrorism isn't in the act, instead it is thought crime? I'm not really clear, are you saying it is a thought crime, or just that it depends on the perp's religion? Please say words that involve the religious issues because that is part of what you're replying to and your response is substantially lacking.
No, I'm saying that the term "Open Source" wasn't coined by the OSI and when people use the words "open source" they are not declaring allegiance to OSI! In fact, there are numerous "camps" with different opinions; some people actually hate the OSI, and yet are proponents of things that other people would describe as "Open Source."
In short, the meaning of a loose term that isn't a proper noun is not determined by what one person (you) says, it is determined instead by how people actually use the word. On Plant Earth.
They have classes at schools where you can learn about where words come from, and how to know what they mean. Spoiler: you read how people used the word, and all those things is what it means!
So I'm saying my analysis of the meaning of the world is based on "the rest of the world" as you put it. And yours is just one example of using the word.
Oh, that's interesting. So, you only heard the opinions bouncing off the basement walls? Because the extensions people are talking about are very popular, actively-maintained ones. And huge numbers of people already switched browsers. It is a thing.
Probably nobody ever stopped using KDE or Gnome when they made large unpopular changes, right? Complaints don't matter, because.... ? Because why? Because we don't have any power to choose, or... ?
Maybe they're not failing, maybe they were always vapid and shallow and lame and there was just less communication!
Maybe this is the correct result of an "open" system?
I know that what I see around me is exactly what I pictured the future being like when I first moved from the BBS to the internet! Lots and lots of vapid crap, and also some great content for people who are looking for it! Duh
It may be that the problems he describes with fake news can be dealt with by regulating the advertisers in the places that the news is intended to affect. Similar to how a pawn shop has to check who the owner is on certain types of regulated items, and gets in trouble if they buy stolen stuff without having checked. We're not going to change people's petty motives, after all!
"Everybody is doing what they want instead of following my vision that they didn't share... the `system' is failing!" Well, maybe not. Maybe it is you that don't share their vision?
I mean, I'm sure I personally prefer his vision, but why would "the system," ie everybody collectively, be following him? Should we also find all the engineers that built our cars and let them choose where we drive? It seems rather silly that an engineer building a tool would also tell us about policy and politics and business and all that.
He complains about content and advertising, why isn't he publishing better content? It is open, people just aren't publishing what he wanted. He can fix that himself if he's actually talking about anything that is lacking; but no, instead he wants to tell people what NOT to publish. It won't work, they won't care.
Not that gives the story clearly, the local TV stations are all Sinclair Media and don't explain any of their stories, they just alternate between pictures of flashing police lights, and kittens. I only found out about it because I was downtown one of the days they were yelling at each other... about a week before the fights started.
The local weekly did some good coverage of the other groups, but they're also having their papers stolen and burned by nazis, so I wouldn't expect them to feature any more of the conflict for a few months; they can't afford to have more than one group burning their papers at a time.
I find it strange that it took Trump getting elected before everyone in the country (and the world) started referring to our president by the color of his skin.
It would have happened sooner, but Boehner lost in 2008!
It sure didn't read that way to me! You sounded to me like you were trying to virtue-signal to the racists that you're one of them, and doing whatever that anime powerbar thing they do where they lie through their teeth and pat each other on the back.
The difference is that Pandora's Box was filled with bad things, and Twitter's box is only filled with whatever things Twitter wants to have in their box. They can dump it out on the floor, they don't have to fit it back in unless they want to! And unlike Pandora, they don't have any magic preventing them from just putting the things back in the box that they want in the box. If they wanted anything in a box.
They can literally just put something in the box, or not, and that is where it is. You saying bad things about their box isn't going to equate to evil escaping from Pandora's box. It only escapes your lips, and it only lasts a few seconds, your words fade automatically without being put back in the box.
Sorry to double-reply, but I just wanted to add a little public service announcement:
Hispania is an archaic name for part of what is now Spain. Hispanic is a non-racial term used to describe a cultural affinity among the Spanish-speaking nations in the Americas. Hispanic people can be of any race; indeed, Mexico has Hispanic people of all races! When you say that Mexican generally want non-Hispanics to not be in Mexico, you're accusing them of linguistic elitism, not racism. And it isn't true; they have many indigenous groups who speak their own languages are not driven out, but rather they're granted significant local autonomy.
The only Asians that I know of being referred to as fruits are the Thais who support Thaksin but are working for the Army. They're called watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside. (red is the chosen political color of Thaksin supporters)
But that is in Thailand, not in America. Over here we have to get the translations via the Bangkok Post.:)
I do frequently say, "Asian farmers should be growing more bananas, because it takes years to develop the trees and they have a lot of varieties; the store variety is dying from disease, small farmers are missing a huge future opportunity here!"
I'll have my wife ask her ESL class if anybody has ever been called a banana in a racist way!
Actually, most Asians would have a hard time even finding the insult in being called "white on the inside." You'd probably need a more political term instead of "white" to let them know you were associating them with America, rather than just saying they have a nice personality. They may all be brown to some, but many Asians want to have "white" skin, and they don't mean they want to be Caucasian; they mean they want to have skin like the other Asian people who lighter colored skin. The idea that western ideals would be connected to being white, that would probably sound pretty strange to them. There seems to be a tendency to associate "western ideals" with being European, rather than with skin color, and they don't necessarily have the same assumption of skin color being the sole defining racial characteristic; or even the same opinions about what the different skin colors are!
So, people think the check means Twitter is endorsing the verified person. So, now it officially does.
I checked the etymology of endorse and it turns out that it comes from medieval Latin indorsare, meaning "in or on" + "back." So signing on the back of something to verify identity is the literal original meaning of endorse.
The check literally means that twitter checked their identity! It is about as literal an "endorsement" as is possible.
And so it actually makes more sense and is more consistent than people might realize at first glance; they're simply withholding their endorsement. They endorse the identity of people they like, and other people will have to have somebody else vouch for them! Sounds normal to me.
The DNC criminally cheated Bernie Sanders out of the race.
Hillary and her supporters are indeed morally broken.
Lets remember also that Hillary Clinton was a Senator (D) and that Bernie is a Senator (I) not a (D).
As a longtime Democrat, it appears that he was graciously allowed to run under our banner, and it was probably a mistake because his supporters aren't Democrats and apparently didn't join the party.
I'd like to see a system with preferential voting where parties don't matter, but we don't have that, and perhaps we should pay more attention to cohesiveness of the whole instead of just trying to have the biggest umbrella?
Slashdot Mirror
No, what it means is that you're not supposed to be trying to "hook up" at work if you have a position of power.
Hook with people you don't work with. Easy!
Reminds me of a friend... in her 20s she kept feeling guilty because she'd have flings with guys at work, who usually held higher positions than her, and then they all kept quitting their jobs and moving to different companies. Why? Because she only wanted to fuck the nice, decent guys! And it was only managers who had enough time to be doing it at work. Nobody ever made any accusations; nobody needed to! They had all had workplace ethics training, they all understood it is unprofessional to have an affair with a person below you in the organization. So they'd end up feeling guilty, or scared for their future aspirations, and quit. It is what decent people were already doing, and what they were already teaching in ethics for people that bothered to learn the ethics rules. That was in the 90s.
Nobody cares what your jobs are, they care about the context; if you're only meeting the person for professional reasons, you do not have permission to hit on them! That is private behavior. If you want to flirt, you need to do it in a social setting, and by that I do not mean "business social" or "team building events" or "drinks with the team after work." Those are not actually social events, they are simply casual work events. They are still work events.
And smart guys know that hitting on every random woman you feel attracted to will only get you a disease. That is not actually how the human mating ritual normally works. At all.
Children are always the victim, it doesn't matter if you claim the child "consented." They didn't.
Victims are not guaranteed to be conspirators. And the accusations in this case, if true, involve victims who were absolutely not "conspirators."
Are these actually the nerds, or just people in careers where nerds would know their names?
Aren't these things that actual nerds would only do in a roleplaying game, but would be too shy to do in person?
Maybe the people whose names become famous are mostly the non-nerds? And the ones like Wozniak who do become famous lead more private lives?
When they show up at a convention and have hordes of teenage groupies, wouldn't a nerd run away? And, doubly so if aroused? If they were going to abuse one of them, they have to run home, send an email, and arrange to meet for coffee! And then sleaze out when nobody is looking.
Maybe it is just that the gamergater neckbeards think playing games makes you a nerd? That's the same as what those engineering majors are doing, right? Touching the computer and sometimes laughing? Same?
If you're opening it in a new tab, there is no good reason for it; if you're embedding it in a document you're already rendering, there is a potential performance benefit. But if you're loading it in a new tab, the user isn't going to see any benefit; the only thing they gain is that they don't have to choose between using a temp file or using memcache or whatever!
That's easily enough to distract me from teasing poor DAV.
The sad part is, instead of fixing their crap people are just going to use extra JS and still serialize it into the URL.
IMO the problem isn't having the data in the URI, it is having the data in the URL! If it is in the URI or not, who cares? Is it stored somewhere inside the stuff in the location bar of the browser, instead of on a server? That seems the real problem.
So to you the terrorism isn't in the act, instead it is thought crime? I'm not really clear, are you saying it is a thought crime, or just that it depends on the perp's religion? Please say words that involve the religious issues because that is part of what you're replying to and your response is substantially lacking.
No, I'm saying that the term "Open Source" wasn't coined by the OSI and when people use the words "open source" they are not declaring allegiance to OSI! In fact, there are numerous "camps" with different opinions; some people actually hate the OSI, and yet are proponents of things that other people would describe as "Open Source."
In short, the meaning of a loose term that isn't a proper noun is not determined by what one person (you) says, it is determined instead by how people actually use the word. On Plant Earth.
They have classes at schools where you can learn about where words come from, and how to know what they mean. Spoiler: you read how people used the word, and all those things is what it means!
So I'm saying my analysis of the meaning of the world is based on "the rest of the world" as you put it. And yours is just one example of using the word.
Oh, that's interesting. So, you only heard the opinions bouncing off the basement walls? Because the extensions people are talking about are very popular, actively-maintained ones. And huge numbers of people already switched browsers. It is a thing.
Probably nobody ever stopped using KDE or Gnome when they made large unpopular changes, right? Complaints don't matter, because .... ? Because why? Because we don't have any power to choose, or ... ?
Maybe they're not failing, maybe they were always vapid and shallow and lame and there was just less communication!
Maybe this is the correct result of an "open" system?
I know that what I see around me is exactly what I pictured the future being like when I first moved from the BBS to the internet! Lots and lots of vapid crap, and also some great content for people who are looking for it! Duh
It may be that the problems he describes with fake news can be dealt with by regulating the advertisers in the places that the news is intended to affect. Similar to how a pawn shop has to check who the owner is on certain types of regulated items, and gets in trouble if they buy stolen stuff without having checked. We're not going to change people's petty motives, after all!
"Everybody is doing what they want instead of following my vision that they didn't share... the `system' is failing!" Well, maybe not. Maybe it is you that don't share their vision?
I mean, I'm sure I personally prefer his vision, but why would "the system," ie everybody collectively, be following him? Should we also find all the engineers that built our cars and let them choose where we drive? It seems rather silly that an engineer building a tool would also tell us about policy and politics and business and all that.
He complains about content and advertising, why isn't he publishing better content? It is open, people just aren't publishing what he wanted. He can fix that himself if he's actually talking about anything that is lacking; but no, instead he wants to tell people what NOT to publish. It won't work, they won't care.
Not that gives the story clearly, the local TV stations are all Sinclair Media and don't explain any of their stories, they just alternate between pictures of flashing police lights, and kittens. I only found out about it because I was downtown one of the days they were yelling at each other... about a week before the fights started.
The local weekly did some good coverage of the other groups, but they're also having their papers stolen and burned by nazis, so I wouldn't expect them to feature any more of the conflict for a few months; they can't afford to have more than one group burning their papers at a time.
WebDAV, is he still around?!
They're spending a lot of money to try to counteract the negative press over getting rid of extensions.
I find it strange that it took Trump getting elected before everyone in the country (and the world) started referring to our president by the color of his skin.
It would have happened sooner, but Boehner lost in 2008!
BillyBob! BiiiiiiiiilllyBob... ! Dinner TIIIiiiime!
Hurry home Billy, mommas callin!
It sure didn't read that way to me! You sounded to me like you were trying to virtue-signal to the racists that you're one of them, and doing whatever that anime powerbar thing they do where they lie through their teeth and pat each other on the back.
The difference is that Pandora's Box was filled with bad things, and Twitter's box is only filled with whatever things Twitter wants to have in their box. They can dump it out on the floor, they don't have to fit it back in unless they want to! And unlike Pandora, they don't have any magic preventing them from just putting the things back in the box that they want in the box. If they wanted anything in a box.
They can literally just put something in the box, or not, and that is where it is. You saying bad things about their box isn't going to equate to evil escaping from Pandora's box. It only escapes your lips, and it only lasts a few seconds, your words fade automatically without being put back in the box.
I looked it up, and it turns out that is already exactly what one of the dictionary definitions of "endorsement" already means!
Maybe it is only the ignorant shouting at each other, and they don't even have a valid disagreement?
Sorry to double-reply, but I just wanted to add a little public service announcement:
Hispania is an archaic name for part of what is now Spain. Hispanic is a non-racial term used to describe a cultural affinity among the Spanish-speaking nations in the Americas. Hispanic people can be of any race; indeed, Mexico has Hispanic people of all races! When you say that Mexican generally want non-Hispanics to not be in Mexico, you're accusing them of linguistic elitism, not racism. And it isn't true; they have many indigenous groups who speak their own languages are not driven out, but rather they're granted significant local autonomy.
No. Telling 4 lies about others is not enough to mean that other people have a "double standard."
There are no number of lies you could tell that would mean anything about anyone other than yourself.
They want to have their own country
Except, they want that "own country" to be a country that already exists. They're not advocating to all move to an artificial island somewhere.
They don't want "their own" country. They want my country . And it is already taken.
The only Asians that I know of being referred to as fruits are the Thais who support Thaksin but are working for the Army. They're called watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside. (red is the chosen political color of Thaksin supporters)
But that is in Thailand, not in America. Over here we have to get the translations via the Bangkok Post. :)
I do frequently say, "Asian farmers should be growing more bananas, because it takes years to develop the trees and they have a lot of varieties; the store variety is dying from disease, small farmers are missing a huge future opportunity here!"
I'll have my wife ask her ESL class if anybody has ever been called a banana in a racist way!
Actually, most Asians would have a hard time even finding the insult in being called "white on the inside." You'd probably need a more political term instead of "white" to let them know you were associating them with America, rather than just saying they have a nice personality. They may all be brown to some, but many Asians want to have "white" skin, and they don't mean they want to be Caucasian; they mean they want to have skin like the other Asian people who lighter colored skin. The idea that western ideals would be connected to being white, that would probably sound pretty strange to them. There seems to be a tendency to associate "western ideals" with being European, rather than with skin color, and they don't necessarily have the same assumption of skin color being the sole defining racial characteristic; or even the same opinions about what the different skin colors are!
You do not need to actually do anything to be a racist . . . if you are a white, middle-aged male . . . "You racist!"
As a white, middle-aged male I've not had that experience at all.
Maybe there is some other difference between us that causes you get called a racist, and me not to?
So, people think the check means Twitter is endorsing the verified person. So, now it officially does.
I checked the etymology of endorse and it turns out that it comes from medieval Latin indorsare, meaning "in or on" + "back." So signing on the back of something to verify identity is the literal original meaning of endorse.
The check literally means that twitter checked their identity! It is about as literal an "endorsement" as is possible.
And so it actually makes more sense and is more consistent than people might realize at first glance; they're simply withholding their endorsement. They endorse the identity of people they like, and other people will have to have somebody else vouch for them! Sounds normal to me.
Yeah, their only hope was to go all-in and support the players!
Instead they chose to be hated from all sides.
The DNC criminally cheated Bernie Sanders out of the race.
Hillary and her supporters are indeed morally broken.
Lets remember also that Hillary Clinton was a Senator (D) and that Bernie is a Senator (I) not a (D).
As a longtime Democrat, it appears that he was graciously allowed to run under our banner, and it was probably a mistake because his supporters aren't Democrats and apparently didn't join the party.
I'd like to see a system with preferential voting where parties don't matter, but we don't have that, and perhaps we should pay more attention to cohesiveness of the whole instead of just trying to have the biggest umbrella?