How the worm turns
A club was never meant to be used as a scalpel. I just love it when Conservatives talk about how unanalytical or how untruthful some position or approach on the Left is. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS!!! It's just supposed to win them power (so that ultimately they can perpetually chase after every one of their stupid ideas of "fairness"). Lefties don't give two shits about ethnic minorities; it's just about handing out from amongst a set of goodies, to cobble together enough of a coalition to grow their powerbase. Once the Left completely owns things, it won't matter if your skin is purple and your sexual preference is for pandas, you'll be robbed from and redistributed to just the same as everyone else.
like hot ice
That link sounds good, but it's an ideal, where everyone in the society is unified spiritually, like say the Amish.
But then what keeps such a community from being ripped to shreds by another community of a different mindset? A higher order level of governance, which, not having the luxury of presiding over a state of shared values, must try to remain neutral*, and only exist to protect our rights.
So maybe subsidiarity at the micro level, and libertarianism at the macro level, might be the least-worst.
*And must be kept small, so as not to be able to run roughshod over lower levels. Like overstepping a supporting role and trying to take over solving problems that are better addressed at a lower level.
like hot ice
I fail to see your point. All government in this life is government by man, so is doomed to failure. This is because we cannot resist the temptation to mistreat others. Most of the ability to mistreat others comes from having power over others. More power over others means more ability to mistreat them. Government is power, so small government is the least-worst.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
BTW, note that the thing you rail against Christians about, stubborn hubris, is exactly what you're exhibiting. You've become that which you hate. Better to take a more deferential stance, and understand that you don't have all the answers, and be less judmental (in your case about God and religion) as you'd wish His followers would be (about the kinds of things they're so negative and high-and-mighty about). We shouldn't be at war about things that are mistakes. (If I'm going to go to war with you, it'll be over Leftism, that man-made, Satan-stoked false religion that is actually the world's #1 religion.)
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
I apologize again for the pain that my side has wrongly inflicted upon you. I wish you wouldn't blame God for that.
Deut. 22.5: "A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."
I thought you insisted that you're actually a woman, just born with a male body. Then even if some others mistake your wearing women's clothes as a sin, God knows the truth about you.
God made you the way you are, it's not a mistake, and whether I understand it or not, I'm commanded to love you. Christians need to obey God more, and know their place (while God gave me a brain to reason with, and communicated to me certain prohibitions, when things get complicated, we should leave the judging to the Judge).
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
Here's a god who sets up his first two offspring for failure,...
He could've sanitized everything, but without temptation to disobey, how could there ever be a choice presented to us to ever not follow Him. Free Will would be meaningless then, because there'd be no possible way to ever exercise it, if the only things there are, are all things that are allowed.
Your skewed thinking on this subject is in your focusing on the one (1) thing that was disallowed. We lived in paradise with everything taken care of and not a worry in the world, and there was all of one whole prohibition in the whole place. So it's of course highly imbalanced thinking to paint the situation then as some kind of raw deal.
So the Garden shows us two things: 1) God loves us and wants us to be in paradise, and 2) what bigger fools are there than human beings. The takeaway is that God can provide paradise for us, and we certainly can't.
To be around him forever, worshiping him? No thanks.
And that's fully how I expect Hell to be populated. Frankly, I'd have a hard time loving a god who sent people to Hell, no matter how justified. But I'm convinced He'll actually not need to send anyone, that the lost will voluntarily choose it on their own.
The rest of this is too galling for me, complaining about a totalitarian system when that's exactly what the Left is actually setting up. Satan has you guys tricked into building hell here on earth. And you're convinced the Left is about teh freedom. This is why I cut off my visibility of DR's and Fusta's comments on Slashdot, because I got tired of hearing about some irrevelent opposite-world.
Look, you've obviously got a lot of rage and hate built up over God, accumulated over probably a long time, and that couldn't be undone over one weekend. I'll just say that I wish you peace.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
It appears that the nature of your error in the math is that you artificially constrain it to the unsupportable notion that if there is a God, He must be able to fit Himself completely in what He created.
On Romans 9, in general I don't subscribe to Calvinist intepretation. If I thought God chose some for damnation, I wouldn't be worshipping Him, as He would be undeserving of my love. I'm pretty sure that the Calvinist strain is a minority angle in Christianity (although may be over-represented in conservative sects, and hence appear central to Christianity, if that's all you know).
I gather that the historic context of this book of the Bible is that most of the Jews were unbelievers (in the Messiah) at the time, and yet God had promised Israel the kingdom of heaven. Paul was speaking to the Jews primarily, basically saying salvation is not a birthright, it comes through faith in Jesus. (9:6 - "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.") To them, the Gentiles around you have faith, so they are saved. And if you're angry about that, well, really, who are you question your Creator anyways. God makes the rules, and those are the rules.
But it does not say that it was God who fitted certain vessels for destruction. My Bible cross references 9:22 with Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord works out everything for his own ends -- even the wicked for a day of disaster." God took a haughty, stubborn unbeliever, Pharoah, and used him to show His power, that He is worthy of our respect, and His mercy to the Israelite slaves, despite being imperfect sinners, and therefore that He is worthy of our love. Because we're all sinners, and therefore vessels deserving of destruction. He does things to show the magnitude of His power, and the magnitude of His mercy.
It also does not say that I was fitted for glory. I believe my name was written in the Book of Life before the beginning of (this universe's) time, not because God chose me to be saved, but because He could foresee that I would accept His offer and be saved, and therefore prepared a place for me in Heaven. The off-putting view that God made some of us winners and some losers in the game of eternity is inconsistent with what seems to be our purpose to God. He's looking for us to love Him. Would He pick as winners in eternal life some who do not love Him? Have people in Heaven who are like, meh, about God? Of course not. So only those who love Him will get to Heaven. But then if He hand-picked those who were going to Heaven, He'd have to make sure all the hand-picked loved Him. It seems like the only ways He could do that are, 1) make us automatons and program those He picked for Heaven to have no choice but to love Him, or 2) foresee who would end up loving Him. But if He opted for 1), that's hardly true love.
As for the rest, it's really verse 51 and beyond that you're citing in Luke 12, not 21, but I know your eyesight isn't perfect! But Jesus' (first) coming meant that now there would be the saved and the lost. In the Gospels it says that people will hate believers because of Him. Even within a family there could be strife between the saved and the lost wrt this touchy subject. As for the "black and white thinking", if you don't follow Jesus, then you follow something else; there is no middle ground. God wants us to live His way, and if we choose to live our own way instead, that's in opposition to what God wants.
And let's not even get into what was said about those like me in both the old and new testaments ...
Those like you?
I for one (and maybe the only one on Slashdot!) never hated js, always liked it, I just don't feel it belongs outside where it was invented, because it has compromises due to what is was created for, where outside that environment there are much more suitable choices. Neither would I like seeing SQL turned into a language across other layers of an application.
And I understand your point that less cost in development opens up more things for it to be economically sensible to automate. I just don't want my occupation to turn into writing shitty code for every little thing.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
Then you're an atheist because you did the math wrong. (Which, essentially, is how all atheists come to settle on atheism. For example, the reason my dad believes there is no god? "The vastness of space." In his mind, somehow, the billions and billions of planets out there means, in some way, that the likelihood that there is a god is infitesimally small.)
Where on earth did you get the idea that an infinite being must not be able to interact with the finite?!? If you create something, you're not bound by it, yet you can interact with it. And I don't know if you can say that about the universe; I would say it as our perception of our (His?) universe is bounded both in time and size. But we're dimensional beings of dimension n, whatever number you might want to give to n. A higher dimensional being could work with our n like we can work with all of our (n-1), (n-2), etc.
And finally, wisdom and propriety and respect for human sovereignty and dignity points to boundaries on how much you help, independent of how much is being asked.
Well, whatever emerges, will be about enabling the less-skilled (in software engineering), and hence lower paid, to take up programming.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
You're delusional on a couple of things. That the views you're against are religious and the ones you're for are not. And that getting obsessed with the affairs of others is just you being a little too good of a person, rather than bad. (Like the proverbial road and gate to Heaven is narrow vice the path to destruction, helping is a fine line and there's tons of room instead for meddling. (Maybe also like charity vice socialism.))
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
It's just a happy world to you. People who think like you are tolerant little cuddle bears, and not at all religious extremists.
America's two-tiered justice as seen from north of the border
I get my view of how the lower class is treated by the cops, from watching the TV show "Cops". Like I am right now. If you're lower class, don't show it, and certainly don't act it, to the cops. Drive a well-maintained car, and be very respectful.
I'm shocked at how things go down on that show. If I was treated like that in a traffic stop, I'd be livid. But somehow cops can sniff out who the troublemakers are. These people have illegal drugs and unregistered weapons in their car, and prior records.
Generally the poor are poor because they make bad choices. Generally. Fix the wealth gap "problem" and it changes nothing, because lower class is the person, not whatever their current economic conditions are.
People who have bills to pay and have to go to work in the morning don't have time to be out causing trouble. Cops get a read on what kind of person you are.
So we are a classless society, in that you're not stuck in one socioeconomic class no matter how hard you work. But you can never have a classless society in the sense that there'll never be equality in other ways, because people are different.
How many career changes will you make in a lifetime?
People are stupid and mean. I hate my species with a passion. It's a good thing I have a religion, that puts stipulations on me and things in a context. As an atheist I'd be a bad mofo, and not in a cool way. So working with tons of people, esp. the public in general, is definitely out for me. I can't afford anymore fuel on the fire.
I didn't work in any sweatshops during the dot com era nor know anyone who did. Rich people weren't trying to squeeze every last bit of productivity out of us at the time, they wanted us to rapidly build up things that would make them insanely rich. Accomplished software engineers who also had a good idea of what this new (to them) Internet thing was were their E tickets to building them wealth, they thought.
I really miss the optimism, however misguided it was, of that time. The positiveness. They didn't look at you when you came in for an interview like you were some nitwit fraud, they at least acted impressed. And they threw money at me, to the tune of 20% and 30% raises over prior positions. And they were happy to have me, I was happy to be there in that kind of positive and energetic environment, and to be well-compensated, and I worked hard. (Granted you may have had different experiences.)
I have to agree of course that one difference definitely between IT and other fields is the easy transferability of the work. That's a factor that sets us up for being treated less well that other occupations don't have. But I've heard that nurses are treated like shit, same for pharmacists. Even doctors are going to have worse treatment in this country, as we move on to a single-payer system and it's all about the race to the bottom in cutting costs and services to a minimum. In my area I believe dentists, once a path to a good life, are even struggling, for various reasons this is getting too long to go into.
TL;DR: I guess you're basically right about this, IT probably is worse than other fields. I just don't want to believe it, because it was so good before.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
I think in the U.S. we're more polarized than ever. The rhetoric seems to get nastier and nastier, and the tactics sleazier and sleazier. Piling on more and more rules doesn't seem to be helping us to get along at all. To me you already contradicted the claim that it's about us all getting along, with the whole, there's nothing universal, so we have nothing in common, so either we agree, or the stronger forces it on the other. I guess without (a Being giving us) a moral standard in the universe, that indeed would be how "morality" gets set. To me you've partly described Hell.
How many career changes will you make in a lifetime?
Part of my problem is that I dislike people. Of course I like the people I know; I'm talking people in general. So that kinda limits me to working mostly with machines.
And then there's the issue with my almost complete lack of physical coordination. Which pretty much then limits me to only working with machines that I can work with with my mental dexterity.
And finally, while I've definitely noticed us in this field being treated worse as the decades have progressed, for all I know it's not just an IT thing, but a simple labor supply and demand effect; we were treated well in the dot com surge, when we were hard to come by, and now that there's a glut of labor (not necessarily a glut of skill!), not so much. I.e. I'm not sure what field of work isn't a race to the bottom yet.
I Sure Some Sycophant Will Claim They Were "Just Doing Their Job"
The affected individual will win in court, even if they've signed a "morals clause," because the clause itself is discriminatory, and proves the intent to discriminate. Then what?
Then more and more divergence from the Leftie religion will be criminalized. "Discriminatory" is just a Leftie code word for resisting something the Left hath pronounced thou shalt accept. Other discrimination is fine, of course. It's not about what's right, it's simply about what the Left favors, and what they don't, because they have the power. So please spare me your moral high horsieness. The Left isn't teh side of teh Good, it's the side that has certain stances on things, with complex origins, some based on a twisted sense of morality, and some just to be contrary to Good.
It's because religions are actively making themselves less and less relevant, ...
Religions (vice sects of them) are about moral absolutes. Because you see religion drifting further away from you, does not mean that religion is moving. It's the world of the lost that is constantly decaying.
With all this said, I will say that, my ilk if you will, the Religious Right, are very sinful in how others are treated. God turns away no one, who doesn't turn away from Him. Whatever we don't understand or may even gross us out, my kind should remember that Jesus died for all. It's not religion that pushes people away, as the Bible is (among other things of lesser importance, to the Christian) the Good News about God's deal He's offering us. It's misguided followers of religion who push people away, by not really appreciating what God's holy book is mainly about. In short, people are weak, and sin against one another. Thankfully you seem to have, if I may characterize it this way, a Christian heart about it, by recognizing it as evil and declaring it so, and then forgiving them to whatever humanly extent possible and moving on.
Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?
So, do you think that a college that refused to admit non-white people would be accredited?
No, because the system has been corrupted. ABET should look at the engineering faculty and their programs, and parents and students should look at the administrators and their policies.
When you offer services to the general public that have to be licensed via some body...
Well there's another part of the problem right there. I'm growing furious, but I'm keeping it contained.
They can talk about their faith all they want when they're not on the job, ...
That's a nice opinion. I could hold the opinion (I don't) that you can talk about your gender issue all you want when you're not on Slashdot. So fucking what. There's no actual justification for either. I'm saddened that you can't seem to see the subjectiveness and arbitrariness in these opinions, beyond one of them you likey and the other you don't.
The Job Killing Virus...
Let's not, Mr. Moral Relativizing there. Winners in capitalism are largely picked by making good choices and who's willing to work harder. It brings about greater comfort and happiness in most people's lives by harnessing human nature. Socialism is a soul-sucking system not based on merit at all.
And if you're talking about political rulers, I still say you're wrong. Socialism already requires rule by an elite clique, since it goes against the grain of human nature. And capitalism is just a free market, and is orthogonal to the political system. If you don't like there being a ruling class in this country, talk to the voters. If you mean captains of industry by ruling elite, then you've fallen prey to Leftie hyperbole; no one can force me to buy an Apple product, for example.
TL;DR: Capitalism doesn't collapse power into the few, an apathetic citizenry does (in which case it's fine, because it's deserved).
How many career changes will you make in a lifetime?
I attempted to make just a technology change, at the midpoint in my career, and I was damn lucky to be given the chance to do so. As 50 approacheth, I don't dare risk even that again.
And good luck being offered a move into management. We already have plenty of managers. I have to keep programming until no one wants me anymore. Because it's all I can do. Really. YMMV, OTOH.
like hot ice
Thanks to smitty for spurring a little Wikipedia journey, with:
Yeah, I don't mind the label "classical liberal", in the Hayekian sense.
So it seems that one way of looking at the Liberalism scale, politically L to R (at least in the U.S.), is:
Social Justice - Large amount of governmental intervention in peoples's lives.
Social Liberalism - Medium amount of governmental intervention in people's lives.
Classical Liberalism - Small amount of governmental intervention in people's lives.
And with Conservatism:
There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time.
In the U.S. at least, a free market and a free society are for now still recognized as our traditional form.
Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
So I'm a Liberal Conservative. Reactionary (and growing moreso, the more we move "forward") in my Conservatism (roll the country back to much of its traditional ways) and Classical in my Liberalism.
p.s. But when I look up Liberal conservatism, it says not to be confused with Libertarian conservatism. Yet I'm not seeing the difference between the two. I especially don't get this bit:
It contrasts with classical liberalism and especially aristocratic conservatism, rejecting the principle of equality as something in discordance with human nature, instead emphasizing the idea of natural inequality.
I believe in both, so maybe it's really splitting hairs by this point. This is me too:
Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values.
That is, I have very Conservative values, yet don't think they should be imposed by law. And I come at my libertarian bent from the Right, vice those who come at it from the Left, like my sister and John Stossel, which to me doesn't not make for a very predictable libertarian.
Finally, I like this:
Nelson Hultberg wrote that there is "philosophical common ground" between libertarians and conservatives. "The true conservative movement was, from the start, a blend of political libertarianism, cultural conservatism, and non-interventionism abroad bequeathed to us via the Founding Fathers." He said that such libertarian conservatism was "hijacked" by neoconservatism, "by the very enemies it was formed to fight â" Fabians, New Dealers, welfarists, progressives, globalists, interventionists, militarists, nation builders, and all the rest of the collectivist ilk that was assiduously working to destroy the Founders' Republic of States."
precious phone spam
Had two identical messages on my machine, arriving at about 10am and then around noon.
In an unrecognized accent, the recorded voice said:
Hi, uh, this is <unintelligible> Jefferson.
I'm calling you from Internal Revenue Service, Tax Audit Department.
Please listen to this important message really carefully.
The nature of my call is to inform you that we have received a legal petition notice against your name
under your Social Security number regarding tax fraud.
The lawsuit is going to be filed in federal claim courthouse today.
So, [to] receive more information about this lawsuit you can reach us at 509-590-0195.
I repeat, 509-590-0195.
And now please note that, a <unintelligible> arrest warrant has been issued on your name
as five criminal allegations are been pressed on you.
So please take care about it. Goodbye.
Not even a "This message is for Mr. Bill Dog..." opener, like all my official business messages begin. I guess Mr. Jefferson doesn't even know my name.
Googling that phone number, apparently Mr. Jefferson is also known as Brian Smith, to others from earlier this month. Maybe that's why he had to pause a moment before stating his name.
new job criteria, prologue
As with any job, there are some plusses and minusses at where I currently slave away. A pro is that our newish sys admin pushes us onto newer versions of things software. In contrast to our senior developers, who don't want the group to move to more modern development practices.
I plan to start looking for a new job after the raises come out next year, which happens beginning of March. This is also in part timed to the graphic in this FA that shows what the biggest hiring months have been. I've reordered it chronologically, and see that I really need to try to get in somewhere before the beginning of summer:
I'm mostly looking to leave over money. I do C#/.NET web development now, and was hired there based on prior web dev experience in classic ASP, and having completed a certificate program in .NET at the local university's extension program. And this after being out of work for two and a third years, being laid off at the beginning of the Great Recession, and seeing zippo employment action (in my area) going on with my old Win32 C/C++ desktop application skills.
So despite being a senior software engineer, I hired in to a level II position, and probably near the bottom of the pay scale for it at that. And don't get me wrong, I'm damn glad to have gotten the opportunity at all! But my raises have averaged 1%, and we seem to be kind of a low budget shop as it is, and the boss is not (the kind of guy who would be) impressed with me, and I'm 48 and burned a bunch of savings during the downturn, and have only been (able to be) putting away the bare minimum to take maximal advantage of the 401K matching.
So it's not like I'm greedy or I live extravagantly, and I'll wait and see, to be sure, but I'm not exactly expecting a boost in my income from this place any time soon. And at my age and how I've been only able to sock away a modest amount for retirement in my career so far, and how I can only afford to put away very little with what I'm making now, it comes to the point where it seems like it would actually be financially irresponsible to remain at my current job, if I could find better.
But better for me isn't just more money, but then lesser learning, say. In the mid 2000's I was paid well, where I was able to do most of my retirement saving, but I had a lot of down time between projects, and my skills atrophied. And I stayed almost 7 years, and lost touch with what was going on in the job market.
I really like getting experience on the newer versions of things and don't want to give that up in a job change. (For example a place I had interviewed at during the recession ran an ad recently, and they're *still* stuck on 2005's MS technology. Which would be giving up a lot, i.e. 9 years of nicer features and better ways of doing things.) And I want to get into newer development practices, which is what the follow-on will be about, but I don't want to be at a place where they exercise those development chops sporadically.
I.e. it's not really worth it to me to be paid more, but then be in danger again in my next job search.
So what do I want in a new organization, besides recent versions of things and steady development work, and how am I going to select for that in the portion of the interview where I get to ask a few questions? That's next.
familiar faces from film and TV in commercials
I was shocked when Laurence Fishburne first showed up in those Capitol One commercials. He was so great in Pulp Fiction and the Matrix, I thought, oh no, is his career over already? And now Jennifer Garner (no doubt the daughter of Jim Rockford) is shilling for the same.
The creepiest is Matthew McConaughey driving around at night in a butt-ugly Lincoln SUV softly waxing sweet philosophical nothings to us.
The latest is (the now forgettable) Sarah Marshall and Punk'd Employee of the Month (who I just found out are married (to each other, I mean)) doing like a minute and a half mongo commercial where a Samsung Galaxy tablet is part of every aspect of their lives.
And just like that, poof, the shame and presumed damage to one's career for resorting to "acting" in TV commercials is now gone evidently.
It used to be just voices. Like I can never forget a face, I can pick out a famous actor's voice (I just can't remember names for shit). That way an actor could lend a brand some familiarity, without getting himself all soiled in it. For example I most recently heard a new spot with King Ralph as the voice of it. Have no idea what the product or service was, as in my case I'm usually distracted by the familiar voice.
Which I would think is even more of a down-side when they actually appear in the commercials. As in, the focus is on the spokesperson and not the product or service being pitched. When I see Flo (who, incidently, was in that Ben Stiller honeymoon movie before becoming Ms. Progressive) or Red, I think car insurance or Wendy's. When I think of Matthew McHowdoyouspellhisnameagain, I think of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, not a dying carmaker division whose vehicles' front ends all look like hideous barn owl faces.
one of my mental problems
Yes, that was plural. One other is that I'm deeply misanthropic. No, not like the Leftie kind. I'm totally with the Left on the belief that people can't be trusted to make the right decisions. But my religion (which is a reference point to my politics, and not one in the same), or my God, commands me to love and forgive others for their failings [if only I could apply that to myself!], and to recognize that despite being highly flawed, my species (i.e. not realy about race, or gender, or other, for me, although I have my prejudices) that I despise so much was made in the image of God and unlike the rest of creation possess cores that will live on past this very beautiful and at the same time very ugly physical world.
So I've never been like for example my sister when she was in college (studying biology/chemistry at UC Berkeley) who wanted to invent something that would, as she put it, wipe out all the human beings so that the animals could live in peace. Nor am I like more adult-thinking Lefties, in feeling that the masses should be enslaved in some sense, for their own good (and that of the earth, and fairness/some universal cosmic karma I guess, etc.)
But though I'm not as bad as maybe around 1/3rd of Americans who are solid Left, it's still something I want to work on.
And then another would be the constant mini-digressions, that I'm prone to, that can be seen in the first couple of paragraphs here. I think this condition of mine manifests itself, in my writing, in lots of parenthetical clauses, and lots of commas, to break up the subthoughts of a thought, and to separate out the hyperlinked if you will related illuminating or context-adding pieces to a thought.
You see, if I don't try really hard to control it, I'm naturally an incoherent mess. So that's another I continously try to work on.
But it's also this second one that leads me to the third and last one I can think of, which is the real topic of this JE. (!)
I constantly get caught up in my own little world, in my head.
From a work performance aspect, I think I was born to be a programmer because I can get in the zone quickly, and get in deep. And I think I create stuff expressed in a way that makes sense, and is robust.
But from a soft skills aspect of work performance, it hurts me badly.
1) In meetings I'm constantly zoning out. My mind frequently wanders back to the issues at hand in the quiet, individual, at-my-desk part of my job. Sometimes unnoticed by me the conversation has meandered to something I've worked on and a question gets posed to me all of sudden, requiring the context of what has transpired so far to interpret. This is hugely embarassing, and is not so swell for my career.
I don't know what to do about this except just try to remember to stay focused on all the floundering around and illogic that the idiots I work with do in meetings, and probably in their own minds.
2) Now I don't think everyone is an idiot of course, and I actually like some of the idiots I work with, because they're nice (goes a long way with me/I can overlook a lot with that), and so my frustration and disappointment with another manifestation of this condition. So I'm deep in thought in what I'm doing, and someone comes by at the end of the (or their) day just to be friendly and social and say goodnight. Like a slug I often just mumble uh-huh or something.
This really hurts, because I don't want to be that way, I'm not really that way when I'm, well, of a fully conscious (of my surroundings) mindset. I really like to socialize with the nice people (who are so few (in today's working world in general?)), I'm just not my "normal" self when I'm engrossed in something. So I come across as a cretan, and so undoubtedly also affecting my working relationships and success.
3) The final aspect of this is that so much time or such frequent trips to my own little world, also coincides with an unhealthy amount of introspection. Don't get me wrong, I treasure my introspective abilities, in a land of what I think are mostly oblivious dullards. But in the workplace, and sometimes in social situations, I would really like some effing obliviousness, as far as internal that is.
Because one deadly way this manifests is in, broadly, public speaking. My somewhat proneness to anxiety attacks are physiological and not psychological, it seems to me, so that's not really part of what I'm talking about here. But examining my voice and my self for cues of it, worrying about if or how much it's coming across, really makes me dysfunctional in orally presenting.
Because of this I dropped most every course in college that included a speech, because I know how my body freaks out (while mentally I'm not worrying about anything, except my body freaking out!). I.e. it's not a preparedness thing, about knowing my topic well enough, or anything like that.
But whatever it is, this also holds me back (as another example I can totally block during a job interview, on something I know full well), and I don't know what to do about that. My mind wants to zone out and focus inward, at the most inopportune times, and it means I don't get to convey to the team everything that I want to about something I've done or researched, and it means I can sometimes just stop, and then the anxiety builds as I can't get myself to focus on getting back to where I was because I'm stuck in worrying about how long it's going to take for me to regain focus! (Usually it's an external stimulus that snaps me back to the task at hand, like someone speaking or otherwise some kind of noise.)
I don't have ADHD or whatever, as I can almost always get myself to sit and read a book and study something for long periods of time. I get engrossed in a movies.
So I'm normal, yet I also grapple with being normal. I don't know how people switch so fast, between deep thinking and social awareness, and how they think and communicate* at the same time without their minds being violently distracted by related thoughts.
*Maybe that programming involves being constantly mindful of related concerns is why I can think and communicate to a computer at the same time.
[Edit: Hit the wrong button while checking for typos; regret if this means redundant notifications get sent out by this system.]
greatest spamming of /. evar
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644037)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644039)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644041)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644043)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644045)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644047)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644049)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644051)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644053)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644055)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644057)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644059)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644061)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644063)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:10PM (#47644063) 15
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644075)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644077)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644079)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644081)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644083)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644085)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644087)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644089)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644091)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644093)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644095)
by jelIomizer (3670957) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:12PM (#47644097) 12
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644113)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644115)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644117)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644119)
(#121 is by a real user who happened to post within this barrage)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644123)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644125)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644127)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644129)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644131)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644135)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644137)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644139)
by jeIlomizer (3670951) Alter Relationship on Sunday August 10, 2014 @04:16PM (#47644141) 13
Someone posted an ad to Slashdot, it looks like 40 times, in 3 batches.
* How did they get the system to accept 12-15 posts a minute from one account?
* In looking at the message ID's, I thought maybe it involved every other post being to somewhere else, such as to foil the moronic "slow down, cowboy" filter. But then I looked at the user ID's between these two accounts, and apparently /. had at some point gone to odd numbers only (to make activity levels look bigger?), as there are only two accounts created between them, #'s 53 and 55, and 52, 54, and 56 are "not found".
* Not new news, as RG got spoofed some time ago, but it was an unfortunate font choice that was made by /. that makes capital eye and lowercase ell look the same. The real "jellomizer" has a 103300 user ID, not a 3 million something.
* The spoofer even replicated the bio text from the real account's bio. This is pretty cold to poor old real jellomizer.
* I don't really have any way of telling how recently these accounts were created. But my what is maybe the non-subscriber's view of their comment histories shows only the spamming of two articles, today and Friday. And yet, they have "achievements". One they both have is a +5 score comment achievement. Which I guess would, of course, be all too easy to quickly garner if having just read /. for a little while.
* The newest account in the system as of this moment is #3781073, which is 55,061 account numbers away from this person's first here. I can't think of any way to estimate how many account creations /. sustains on average every day (sans going to the trouble of checking daily for a few days, which I won't), so can't tell if said spammer created these a while back, or say right before the weekend to do the posts this weekend.
Anyways, surely the system should disallow such things. Points to how /. is truly the one of the big dumpsters of the Internet (where at least the trash from spammers and trollers provides a little, humorous break from the tired, common trash from the hoards of commies that post here), and that the owners/operators, as always, do not care.
p.s. I wonder how said spammer picked that jello person to spoof.
it boggles the mind
So tonight around 12:30 am, and I'm sitting downstairs watching TV. It's hot right now, so I had the windows closed and the central A/C on. Set to 76, so it hadn't run in a while.
My "living room" (it's an open concept downstairs in my townhome condo, so it's really just one big room) part is right by the front door, and I have my ceiling fan on at its highest speed during the hot months.
So the vertical blinds are flapping away in the window by the front door, and my TV is on this end, facing towards the front door, so at my doorstep you can hear that it's on.
And my recliner is 12-18 inches from the door handle. At about ear level where I'm sitting.
So I'm sitting there, and plain as day, someone tries the door handle. Now the setup here is that the door handle turns freely (although outside there's nothing to turn, you grab the handle and depress the latch with your thumb), but there's a deadbolt above it, keyed on the outside and with a switch on the inside, and that's what locks the door.
So whoever it was, clearly could tell that someone was home, up/awake, and most likely downstairs, given the blinds were flapping and the TV was semi-blaring (I play it a little loud, having lost some hearing or quality of from too much loud heavy metal with headphones, such that sometimes I have a little trouble making out what someone said).
And unless the person's watched me for a while and knew I was single and lived alone, would think potentially there was another person in the house, because I left the light on in my 2nd bedroom upstairs. (It's a CFL, and those I like to not cycle too much, and just leave on if I plan to come back into the room in a little while.)
And yet this person tried to come into my house. Now I've got 3 other doors around me, to my neighbors' places, but I can hear when they come and go from my recliner, because one door is right next to mine and the other two are in the next building just a skinny walkway's width away (we're packed in pretty good here).
Now I've heard reports of prowlers coming into peoples' homes when they're asleep at night, through an open or unlocked window. But this person had evidence to the contrary that the folk(s) who live here had gone to bed.
Which brings to mind the question, what if I hadn't had the top latched. What was this person prepared to say or do upon entry into my house, to the person(s) downstairs they would expect to encounter.
This person did not ring my doorbell nor knock on the door. I can't hear doorbells of my neighbors', but I can hear knocks on their doors, and their weren't any, so it wasn't some lost person in need of some kind of assistance.
The last neighbor who left their light on all the time for our walkway moved out recently, and my outside light on the light-sensitive controller broke a few years ago, so it's been completely dark out there, unfortunately. Apparently I should get that fixed and be the one who leaves that switch on all the time.
And maybe it's time to think about getting my first firearm. (And some lessons some where, having only ever shot a BB gun before.) I live in a nice neighborhood, but maybe that makes us a target.
And since I'm a heavy sleeper, maybe even getting an alarm system. Although I think those only detect a window opening, and not breaking.
Which leads to the other question that had come to mind about this person of the night. S/he was evidently prepared to confront this residence's awake occupants, so why not break a window to get in. The only thing I can think of is that the person wanted the element of surprise, and quietly slipping in through a mistakenly unlocked door would enable that, that a shattering window would not.
And yet occupants could come from other parts of the place, potentially with guns, so even if surprise was had on a downstairs occupant, it still potentially could've gone very badly for the presumably would-be intruder.
Oh, and no one tried the keyhole on the deadbolt, so it wasn't a neighbor who was just coming home drunk or something and walked down the wrong walkway, in this row of buildings.
And so I'll close with the ultimate question that came to mind: Why does really weird shit, happen to me. And no it wasn't a dream/I wasn't asleep, I'm a night owl kind of person, and had slept in until about noon-thirty today. I was watching stupid Friends reruns, after coming downstairs to catch Stossel's "Security and Liberty" special from 10-11. (Who's a whole topic unto himself.)
weather.com's Faces of Death
"Featured Videos" for just the afternoon of today included:
* (Something like "boy dies after stunning collapse", before I saw some of these others and noticed a pattern)
* "Boys Perish Soon After This Selfie"
* "Teen Dies While Attempting World Record"
* "Exchange Student Falls to Death"
<Goes there right now to see if there are any more>
* "Study Abroad Trip Turns Tragic" (the still for the video showing a young guy's face)
* "Cause of Death Released for Teen"
What the heck is it with their fascination for young people dying? I just wanted to see how fucking hot it was today (work on-site in fed. govt. bldg, and they don't give us A/C, in SoCal). I don't want to see death porn or whatever.
p.s. "Incredible Photos of People Laying in a Week's Worth of Trash" WTF?
I'll bet the book is better
So they're advertising a new movie coming out, starring then presidential candidate BHO's penpal, that explores the fascinating idea of given that we use only about 10% of our brains, what would it be like if we were to use 100% of them.
And apparently the answer involves lots of guns (and some knives), kung fu, car crashes, 'splosions, and gravity-defying flying across the room brought on by blunt force trauma, that curiously, for the amount of force that would be occuring, does not instead have a disintegrating or hole-punching result.
private enterprise discouraged
From some FA on the Hobby Lobby ruling:
"But the government points to a long line of cases holding that for-profit companies may not use religion as a basis for failing to comply with generally applicable laws."
Earlier this month we learned that the FAA decrees that it's legal to use drones for fun, but not for profit.
Why do I lose rights in America simply by virtue of trying to make money on my own time, or with my own association with others?
why shouldn't it work both ways
Stossel's show was irritating tonight. The topic was Conservatism vs. Libertarianism. As a Libertarian, Stossel misrepresented Conservatism, and various Conservatives were on appealing to the same things Lefties appeal to; the greater good, majority norms.
Stossel said he used to be a Liberal, so that explains enough of an inability to think straight about things to be able to be a Libertarian. But it's shocking how Conservatives seem blithely unaware that effectively saying it's okay to legislate morality, means then the other side can legislate its morality on us. (And where we're only for it in certain cases, the Left is for doing it all but a few cases. I.e. it's a patently dangerous idea, and used vastly more against us than in what we favor.)
I might journal about some of the topics later (maybe if I can find a refresher of my memory of it on youtube), but the show spurred a chain of thinking on a particular topic that led me to the following.
Let's say I'm a landlord, and I'm also bigoted against homosexuals (which I am, but not in the following way), and refused to rent to them. Most people would say the government should step in and force me to rent to them. I.e. Despite homosexuals offending my sensibilities, I should be forced to associate with them anyways. Because otherwise they could potentially have a hard time finding a rental place to live.
Now let's say that instead I'm a landlord, and I don't refuse to rent to them, but I'm a very outspoken disparager of them in the region, and the homosexual community knows it. And let's say the homosexual community represents a significant %-age of the region. What if I'm having trouble keeping the complex full all the time? Should the government force some homosexuals to live in my complex and pay me rent, despite my offending their sensibilities?
And what about quotas. Lefties say that if a community is 10% Black, then roughly 10% of the programming jobs in that community must be filled with Blacks. Else there's racial inequities.
Well janitorial jobs, at least around here, seem to be disproportionately filled by Hispanics. Should the government tell Black people in that area that 10% of them need to switch careers into the custodial arts?
It seems like either quotas are a good idea or they aren't. And it seems like if it's good to force association between parties when one desires not to do so, then it's good.
If it's one thing I can respect Libertarians for, it's at least they're consistent*
*Well, except for their being pro-choice, which flies squarely in the face of being for individual rights.
TV idiocrisy is coming
It started with the ability to show a network logo watermark. Networks would show a translucent version of their logo in the bottom corner for a few seconds, after resuming from a commerical break. Evidently someone who makes tons of money thought it was important that you be reminded where you're seeing the currently airing content.
I didn't mind that, at all. Stupid, but not really obnoxious. Then they moved onto the phase where they left that up all the time. I took me a while to train my brain to tune that out. Until I was able to, it annoyed the hell out of me.
Then they moved on to the next phase, of colored-in/opaque logos, that they leave up all the time. I.e. blocking part of the content (in that corner), all the time.
Then came promos for other shows on the network, after coming back from an ad break, that took up much or all of the bottom portion of what you're fucking trying to watch. I.e. all the commercials played, the movie has resumed, and you're trying to get back into it, and then here comes an overlay commercial, while the movie is still going. Sometimes it's animated, so basically you miss part of the movie they're showing.
So last night I'm flipping thru, and FX is showing some Ice Age or other cartoon animals movie (not at all my cup of tea, so I don't really know). Now I don't know if it had just come back from break or not, but it popped up an ad for the sequel to whatever it was, evidently now playing in theaters or coming soon.
I.e. they've taken the overlays from just promos for the network, to content-related adverts. I don't have for example a "smart TV", so maybe this has already started in other things.
I used to look forward to progress. When it meant a better picture, or more hp at an affordable price point, or easier and more advanced programming ways.
It's like standard of living is a bell curve. As technologies and advancement of capabilities has increased, our standard of living increased. But ever increasing capabilities doesn't seem to equal better quality of living, forever. My DVD player says "operation not permited by disc". WTF? Cars now have gadgetry to wrench the steering wheel from you or press the brakes behind your back. My dad can't go to a favorite finance site anymore, because it watched a few of his clicks and now doesn't show him general news but only the things relating the few topics it last remembers him clicking on. (I could try deleting cookies, as long as it's not fingerprinting him in other ways.)
So I don't think it's just old-fogeyism. I just like things that are better, not worse. And when you start running out of ways to make things better, I guess it's human nature to just keep on going, because the capabilities do. Didn't we used to be thinkers, or is that just another faulty assumption, about how the world works, of mine from childhood?
p.s. I have the flu, and feel miserable so I'm probably more babbling here than my normal level of babbling on.
note to Slashdot
You put "Microsoft Won't Bring Back the Start Menu Until 2015" on the front page on Monday June 02, 2014 @11:25AM. It got 407 comments.
Then you put "Windows 8.1 Finally Passes Windows 8 In Market Share" on the front page on Monday June 02, 2014 @07:10PM. It got only 78 comments.
See what you did there? You put up Microsoft flamebait topics _on the same day_. This is sub-optimal because all the little Slash spazzes were all tuckered out from whipping themselves into a mindless hate frenzy earlier.
To maximize ad impressions, it would behoove you to space these out to one per day. Thereby also giving Slashdotters a reason to visit each and every day; there would be no more slow news days!
And while you're at it, consider endowing the system with a set of canned posts, for convenience with such topics. Similar to how a greeting card store provides you with the known small set of ways you can say happy birthday, without having to come up with one yourself, Slashdot could for example provide all the typical variations of "The only thing Internet Explorer is good for is to download another browser".
Like the polls, the UI could be a simple list of radio buttons and a Submit button. Present a different list depending on the specific subclassification of flamebait topic, comprised of all the inevitable "insights" that would get posted. And might as well have them post already at +5, and Slashdot would attain new levels of user friendliness, saving the user base collectively a ton of time.
Contact me for my consulting fee amount.
p.s. One more hint: Flip the sign on the Redundant mod and it'll get more use.
the morality of the profit motive
I wrote in a post here today:
When in actuality what it really boils down to is whether one thinks that the death panel effect would be worse under the cost-cutting and profit motive of private healthcare, or the cost-cutting and social engineering motive of public healthcare.
I'm not about to say that capitalism is moral. I'm just saying it's more moral (or less immoral, for those who want it worded that way instead) than the alternative. I know that sounds lame in the sense that ideally we'd have something that's moral, but I'm just coming at this pragmatically here.
I have to assume that part of my preference for the system of unfairness that is the free market must be due to it being the only thing I've ever known. But I think most of it is that it is almost strictly predictable in the outcomes it leads to, and that I accept those outcomes. Sort of "better the devil you know...", but not exactly.
My philosophy on wealth as far as I can remember is that you're working to attain whatever levels you might be able to in life, for greater comfort in life and access to greater luxuries. You figure out how much you want to work and how well you want to live and figure out the balance that's right for you, factoring in the kind of brains, drive, and luck that you know yourself to have.
And then be happy where you are, when you reach that. I don't begrudge the richer man for having a better car than mine, because his fate in life is not mine. I feel sorry for the poorer man, but he probably makes worse decisions in life than I do. Or at least worse from my POV.
So I guess I'm okay with the inequalities inherent in life (like brains and luck) and that are a function of what each individual chooses for himself (like drive).
And consequently what I'm not okay with is forced, collective, man-made alterations to this. For example I'm okay with a rich man offering some kid a scholarship to college and possibly thereby altering his chances of attaining a higher wealth level in life than he normally would. But I'm not okay with for example Affirmative Action.
Firstly in the alternative, it can be more chaotic, being based on man's whim, for whichever kind of men are in power in that era. Today's members of a govt. death panel may decide to favor the young, but tomorrow's may favor the old. Whereas under the profit motive, directors can come and go but the goal stays the same. Profit is a uniting goal and one that's orthogonal to differences in politics/religion.
Secondly, but BD you may say, for now and the foreseeable future a federal govt. run anything will be entirely predictable; predictably Leftist. True in a way, and that's why it's not "...the devil that I don't know". But I also don't like many of the outcomes targeted, not to mention outcomes that I might like but never get achieved.
Capitalism has been very successful in raising standards of living. Leftism, not so much. (Granted, maybe it's in part a function of how corrupted that ism has been.)
In short, unproven political preferences has a large tinge of arbitrariness to me. And part of what's fair and right is that which you can count on.
How do UNIX/Linux people make web applications?
I'm trying to make sense of the dizzying array of languages/technologies purportedly used in the customer-facing portion of the HealthCare.gov site. I understand ASP.NET, JSP, and JavaServer Faces to be web templating engines, comprising 39 files. I don't see PHP or ColdFusion listed. And there's 1635 HTML files. It doesn't seem like all of these could be just static content.
It's possible a lot of them could get their dynamic data via AJAX, and maybe that's what a lot of the XSLT is for. But I think most people these days move JSON back and forth and not XML. But in any event, how are placeholders in the HTML files getting replaced? There's only 23 files between Perl and Python, and 248 Bourne shell files, so are they using [showing my age/what little I know] SED and/or AWK to do this? Or would the .sh's be calling the Perl and Python files?
coding rules of thumb vs. monitor size
I was perusing the comments under the article about a new ultra-wide 3440 x1440 monitor, and this comment sparked a side thought:
[...] I'd consider taking one of these displays and turning it 90 degrees so I can see more of my code at once without scrolling.
This made me think, as monitors have gotten bigger, maybe a certain couple of old programming rules of thumb need to be restated, in terms of something else that is:
1) Wrap your lines of code at 80 columns, and
2) A function generally should not be more than a screenful in length.
MS continues really pissing me off lately
(Aside from the normal level of pissing me off they do every time I have to go into Word or Project.)
1) In IE 11 they got rid of the ability to quickly test your web page with js disabled, by removing that feature from the browser's developer tools window. Now you have to drill down in menus and dialogs and past confirm prompts and change it like a normal user would in the regular browser UI. Why?!?
2) In Visual Studio 2012 they got rid of the ability to record a quick macro to for example play back a series of repetitive editing tasks, by removing the entire macros feature completely. In an IDE? Are you fucking kidding me?!? Now people are saying ya gotta get Notepad++ and copy and paste into that and back. I'm not familiar with that tool, but... WHY!!!!???
3) In Security Essentials for Windows XP they've programmed it to pop up nag screens several times an hour, ever since the OS has gone out of support. It doesn't just pop up once, and its window is always on top so it can't just be ignored. There's apparently no way to disable it and still have the protection aside from installing the previous version if you happen to have a copy of it laying around. So XP is out of support, so no more patches, but why basically force people to uninstall the security suite as well? To get XP machines pwned even faster? Why?!?
In short, WhyTF actually *remove* functionality? It costs virtually nothing to just leave it there.
p.s. I'm in no hurry to upgrade my XP-based netbook, esp. sans any real carrots from MS (and I don't respond well to sticks). So I'm not sure what to do about that, except not use it for anything serious on the WWW. Accepting all serious suggestions (from those who are visible to me here, that is). I don't have a portable optical drive with it.
p.p.s. So MS knew about a remote code execution vulnerability in IE 8 for at least 6 months, and chose to do nothing about it? Hmm, and IE 8 is the latest browser you can install on XP. Ya know, it's almost like they were dropping support for XP early.
DRM in FF
So nerd Lefties are getting their panties in a bunch over Mozilla supporting DRM content.
This is because to them DRM is like so-called "closed source" software, and what Mozilla has done is gone with a permissive license model instead of the GPL.
That is, zero tolerance for that which is opposed, no matter how much that marginalizes your entrant in the market, and therefore also how much you're in a position of power to effect change, does not seem to be the path for the Firefox folks.
Maybe like MS's "embrace and extend", it's "accept until it can be changed". The question is, when is it smart to compromise principles and when isn't it. (Where by "compromising principles" I don't mean "selling out" or something unseemly like that, but just biding your time and/or choosing your battles wisely.) Especially when they're very strongly-held principles.
why I won't buy Windows 8.x
First a parenthetical caveat: I plan on getting the Windows 8 *Phone* OS.
I've been on the lookout for a flagship-model Nokia Windows phone. I still have a flip/dumbphone, and at least for my first smartphone I want a top-end model, to explore, until I learn what I don't need/never use. A Nokia model because I was an adv amat photog in a previous (i.e. film) era, and their emphasis caters to that interest.
And I've been on AT&T (and its prior incarnations for my area) since I got my first, mini brick phone, and the call quality has always been borderline unusable. So it's going to be a Verizon smartphone, and they got a flagship Windows Phone model, the Lumia Icon, earlier this year.
So basically I'm just waiting a little longer until Nokia's "Cyan" software update gets pushed out to people with that model, which will include the OS upgrade from 8.0 to 8.1, and then I'll give it about a month and see if people are reporting success and if there's any problems.
And then I'm just hoping it won't be for mobile what I think is happening on the desktop. And that is, MS technically supporting unpopular OS versions, but not really working at it or giving a shit.
And this is what pisses me off. I bought a new PC (because I fried my previous one, and needed one) with the much-maligned Windows Vista OS, about the time SP 2 for it was being released. So of course I didn't have any problems with it. Yes I did it because I was in a pickle, timing-wise, and had to, but still, I got Vista x64 Ultimate, their most expensive version, at a time when they were probably hurting for sales.
And what thanks do I get? A shitty patch last month that screws my whole system. Works fine on all the Windows 7 systems that I've seen. So I believe the problem is that Vista is purportedly down to less than 3% marketshare, lower than even the paltry %-age that desktop Windows 8 and 8.1 have. I believe that, like Windows XP and IE 6 before that, MS wants Vista to just go away and be a mostly-forgotten bad memory.
Great, so I bought your product in good faith, and I get short-shrift support. I wasn't one of the ones decrying the OS. So what am I supposed to do then. It looks like one can no longer get Windows 7. And I'm sure as hell not going to get Windows 8.x, since people are stupid sheep and irrationally bagging on that bigtime, so MS will probably treat it like Vista as soon as Windows 9 comes out and all the morons flip-flop their tune.
So, there is no way I would get a new Windows version until 9 comes out (some time next year, is expected). That is, unless bad luck, such as an unrecoverable bad patch, befalls me again.
Luckily this one was recoverable, barely. I.e. I was still able to log in via the admin account. And while uninstalling the update didn't do anything, rolling back to the restore point it created before installing it did the trick. But I did a lot of fretting and Google searching, with no success, and was applying last month's patches individually after rolling the whole set back, to track down which one(s) was the perpetrator. I.e. a huge PITA way of spending my time that I don't need.
As it turns out, all just to fix an issue with paths that should be unreachable if someone tricks you into running a .bat or .cmd file off the Internet. I think I'll manage without this patch. I might have to set that update "hidden" in Windows Update, to not be bugged about it every month.
there is no confusing; only ignorance
Regarding this subthread:
my sentiment boils down to:
Learn the language; don't be a lazy ass and whine about it.
If something's part of the language, but you're not familiar with it, that does not constitute it being "confusing".
Americans these days can't cognitively separate their perspective and the more general one. If I find something hard, then it just must be hard, right? I mean, a whole host of other people couldn't possibly have a completely different experience. That's unfathomable to today's human beings.
I've decided that I don't need to live in a big house. Therefore no one does. Therefore there's no moral problem with passing a law that forbids anyone from living in more than a 1032 sq ft abode (like mine). My experience must the universal one.
I should fucking market a line of t-shirts and baseball caps with "YMMV" with a red circle and slash over it. Because no one is capable of the concept donning on them anymore.