Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal: CthulhuCoin! 2

Journal by rk

So this is a thing. It inspired me to write this:

Day 1: A "git clone git@github.com:thegreatoldone/offerings.git", "make -f makefile/unix" and I'm off generating Cthulhu Offerings cryptocoins!

Day 2: I managed to find a couple optimizations. It's almost as if the code is speaking to me! Also, switched to clang 5.1 and got an extra 8% performance boost with the LLVM toolchain. Awesome!

Day 4: My cryptocurrency generation is going quite well! I'm hoping to have enough to pay my tuition at Miskatonic University by the fall term.

Day 9: A quiet scraping noise seems to be coming from one of my hard drives. I should maybe have sprung for SSDs to save my coins.

Day 12: I awoke with a fever in the night, and the scraping noise has transformed into a frightful howling. Though the console monitor is off, strange non-Euclidean symbols reveal themselves from time to time on the screen. What it means I cannot say.

Day 17: My fever has broken, but I can no longer tolerate the sound from my compute cluster. I have pried the cover off to diagnose the problem, and the drive array is not in there. There is only a horrific eldritch non-emptiness that sears my very soul.

Day 22: Turning, turning, falling falling, Oh! How you speak! It is so...

Day 26: vvvvvvvvvvvmggggngl;l;;m122222

NO CARRIER

User Journal

Journal: Once again - I was right. 19

Journal by RailGunner
Barack Obama is a fascist who is authorizing the use of the US Military against US Citizens ON US SOIL.

Link this story with the militarization of Federal Agencies (such as the Post Office, the DHS Hollowpoint ammo buy, and others, and you can see HOW he's doing this.

If you aren't concerned about this... you aren't paying attention. And if you're not paying attention, when the shit hits the fan, you'll deserve what you get.
User Journal

Journal: Axl Rose listed as best rock vocalist? 4

Journal by RailGunner
Link

Congrats to Axl Rose.

Apparently Michael Sweet, Bruce Dickinson, Rob Halford, Tarja Turunen, Geoff Tate, Rey Parra, James LaBrie, Ronnie Dio, Dave Mustaine, Ozzy Osbourne, Alice Cooper, James Hetfield, Trevor McNevan, Jon Sumrall, Mark Slaughter, Jani Lane, Joe Elliott, Brendan Small, Bon Scott, Steven Tyler, Jeff Scott Soto, Eric Bloom, Robert Plant, David Lee Roth, Sammy Hagar, Brad Delp, Robin Zander, Tom Keifer, Jack Blades, Tommy Shaw, Dennis DeYoung, Paul Stanley, Daniel McMaster, Jason McMaster, Ian Gillian, Ryan Clark, Amy Lee, Chris Jericho, Andi Deris, James Paul Luna, Jesse James, Jimi Hendrix, Steve Perry, Steve Augheri, Joan Jett, Lenny Kravitz, Lita Ford, Cristina Scabbia, Kevin Dubrow, Klaus Meine, Vince Neil, David Coverdale, Phil Anselmo, Ralf Scheepers, Bret Michaels, Freddy Mercury, Steven Pearcy, Rob Zombie, Tommy Christ, Sebastian Bach, Ted Nugent, Justin Hawkins, Ian Astbury, Jim Morrison, Roy Orbison, Maynard Keenan, Rik Emmet, Dee Snider, Peter Steele, Weird Al Yankovic and George Fischer were all unavailable for the "contest".
User Journal

Journal: Mark Callahan for US Senate 3

Journal by RailGunner
Pretty good. I'd have handled this a little differently. Reminds me a little of Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" moment.

And for my buddy smitty -- it's just another example if liberals and their perpetual pre-pubescence.

"Global Warming, Fact or Myth"
"Myth" -- Correct answer, by the way

And note how the thin-skinned liberal asshole (but I repeat myself) then asks him what he thinks of the Easter Bunny... Callahan points out the asshole nature of the liberal reporter and ends up getting thrown out of the meeting.

My response would have been that there's more credible evidence to support the existence of the Easter Bunny than there is for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Video
User Journal

Journal: Technical Stupidity 3

Journal by RailGunner
Link to i-Programmer

Wow, talk about a trollbait article.

The author attempts to make a case for managed code because of the "saving graces" of the runtime, but what, pray tell, was the runtime written in?

If a bug similar to Heartbleed was found in .NET or the JVM, for example, it arguably would have had an even greater impact.

To be 100% clear Heartbleed happened not because a programmer screwed up, but because the language was too primitive to know better.

Wow, that's a money quote for trolling.

This statement is ludicrous. It was because a developer screwed up. When a person gets shot, do we blame the gun or the shooter? Exactly, we blame the shooter. The fault never lies with the tool, it lies with the user of the tool. If you don't know how to use the tool correctly, don't fucking use the tool.

For example: Let's say there's an idiot -- there's enough around here to pick from -- who improperly uses a table saw and slices off a finger. Do we blame the table saw or the sloppy idiot?

Blaming C/C++ for Heartbleed is just as stupid.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised i-programmer posted such a trolling, flamebait rant and called it an article. I'd expect that sort of lame-ass shit from Slashdot...
User Journal

Journal: REPOST: Brandon Eich 20

Journal by squiggleslash

(One last edit. After constructive criticism of my style from JC I'm going to lead this with a quote from a part of a post I made previously that sums up why Eich was unsuitable to be CEO without all the "It's not about X", "Hate campaign", and other stuff that is totally right but makes it all TL;DR. Original post after the -----, you don't have to read it any more)

It's not about what you think, it's about how you treat other people and how you deal with being, quite legitimately, associated with a set of actions (whatever the motive) that many find offensive. We would not be here today had Eich not, two years ago, thought this was a good thing to write:

Second, the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society. To such assertions, I can only respond: no.

about people who might possibly think he has animosity about gays because he donated, twice, totalling $1,000, after it became obvious what the nature of the campaign was, to an organization that repeatedly ran TV ads claiming married homosexuals were a danger to children.

That was a particularly dumb thing to write. It's something most of us feel sometimes when we're under attack, but that's kinda why the job of CEO doesn't go to just about anyone. There are so many useful positions Eich could have gone to, why-oh-why did they make him CEO?

-----

(Just three additional notes: First, I've reposted this because the original was open to everyone, and it turned out the same illiterate idiots who've insisted that questioning Eich's handling of revelations of his donations to an active hate campaign is the same thing as wanting him fired for his opinion are now trolling my journal. So, regretfully, I'm deleting the old JE. Second: this was originally written before Eich resigned. Some minor updates since this was originally published: additional line about "what Slashdotters believe", and removal of comment about other Mozilla board members resigning as this appears to have been misrepresented by media. Finally: actually the situation is worse than described below. In the below I presumed Eich hadn't known exactly what he donated to, thinking it was a generic pro-Prop 8 campaign. It turns out Eich knew it was a hate campaign before he made his donations. This significantly changes the relevence of "Strike 2" below.)

Let's get a few things out of the way first.

There is no issue with Eich's private views, and to a certain extent even his opposition to "gay marriage", however backward and unreasonable such a position might be. It is not about whether he supported Prop 8, whether his name appeared on any petitions in favor of it, or whether he voted for it - again, however unreasonable and backward and pathetic such a position might be.

The problem is this.

I remember the pro-Prop 8 campaigns. Those campaigning for Prop 8 did not focus exclusively on a small set of arguments focussed entirely on some kind of practical, or even religious, argument in favor of Prop 8.

The campaigns themselves were, objectively, homophobic and bigoted. They smeared. They lied. Dog whistles about "protecting our children" (couched with plausable deniability type justifications along the lines of "If it doesn't pass, children will think gay marriages are normal" - uh, right..) were common, as one obvious example.

And Eich donated money to that.

And having basically co-funded a campaign whipping up hate against 5-10% of Mozilla's workforce, he's now in charge of them.

That's strike one.

Strike two is that he's never acknowledged that this was ever a problem. My reading, both of his 2012 "explanation" (which lacks any justifications, it's more a "Don't call me a bigot, you're a bigot" type piece of crap we usually hear from right wing nuts caught with their heads in white hoods) and his current "Let bygones by bygones, of course I'll be nice to the gheys that's Mozilla policy!" comments) is that he's pointedly refused to distance himself from the campaigning he co-funded. No "I never had any problems with gay people and I was disappointed to see how the funds I donated were used", let alone support for groups combatting homophobia.

So... what happens next?

Firefox is Firefox. It's the world's best browser, albeit one that has suffered many knocks over the last few years both with its well documented issues with memory and reliability, and the user interface changes that continue to blur the line between it and its competitors. People aren't switching from Firefox to Chrome because they want Chrome for the most part, they're just switching because Firefox is becoming Chrome anyway, leaving no compelling reason to stick with it during the periods Firefox is especially unstable.

A political boycott of the browser is unfortunate and I'm not entirely sure it would be effective. At the same time, there's a feeling of powerlessness one has a result of this.

Moreover, there is an education problem within the community that's obvious from reading and engaging in the discussions on the subject. The same points come up over and over again:

- The equation of Eich's personal views with his public actions, as if all public actions have a shield if they're rooted somewhere in a personal view somewhere, no matter how slimy or despicable.
- The assumption that criticism of generic support for Prop. 8 is the same as criticism of specific campaigns for Prop. 8 that were objectively hate campaigns, with many refusing to believe any of the campaigns that were pro-Prop 8 contained hate propaganda.
- The failure to recognize that necessary and required qualifications for leadership include a requirement that mutual respect should exist between leader and lead.
- A failure to recognize the special role of a CEO within an organization
- An obsession with supporting those accused of homophobic actions because of some perceived disagreement with "Political Correctness", regardless of context.

I have a gut feeling that if Eich had donated $1,000 to a campaign calling for the re-enslavement of blacks, a campaign which used dog-whistles like "Welfare" et al, we'd still be having this conversation. Really. I do.

Eich is, objectively, not qualified for the Mozilla CEO job. I know some people say "Well, look at all his other qualities", and I'm sure they're right and great and all, but a blind man can know the rules of the road and the layout of New York City like the back of his hand but I still wouldn't want him driving a bus there. It is difficult to get good people some times, but you have to be patient. Good CEOs need to be good figureheads, they need to be respected inside and outside the organization. Eich isn't. Maybe one day he will be.

User Journal

Journal: Brandon Eich knew he was funding a hate campaign. He did it anyway. 1

Journal by squiggleslash

I had sympathy for Eich, despite wanting him to exit the Mozilla CEO position. We're a community of people with no social graces and the idea that someone might end up having their career choices limited beause their lack of human interaction skills - or so I thought - seemed depressing and obvious. To recap, Eich's stone-age views on equality weren't what bothered me so much as his failure to adequately handle the consequences of $1,000 in donations to an actual hate campaign.

That evaporated today. Eich knew exactly what he had donated to before he made the donation. Here's the link. And here's the money quote:

This is the campaign to which Eich contributed. It's proper to note that his two donations of $500 each came on Oct. 25 and 28, days before the Nov. 4 vote and well after the style of the TV campaign was established.

Quoting Eich, defending himself in his "I'm not a bigot, you're a bigot, so there, I win" post of 2012: (My bolding)

Second, the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society. To such assertions, I can only respond: âoenoâ.

If deliberately, intentionally, funding a campaign that calls gays and gay marriage a danger to children isn't evidence of animosity against gays, what the hell is?

It had been my previous position that Eich had simply mishandled the situation. He'd obviously made some donations, but I'd assumed he was telling the truth in claiming there was no animosity or homophobia on his part. I reconciled the two by assuming he didn't know that the funds he donated would be used in the way they were. I criticized him for not distancing himself from the campaign he donated to after it became apparent it was a hate campaign, not simply a pro-Prop 8 campaign. I said this was evidence of poor judgement.

This appears to have been a mistake on my part. The truth appears to be uglier.

User Journal

Journal: Depressing 4

Journal by squiggleslash

So you argue X. You make it clear your view is X, and not Y. You explicitly and repeatedly distance yourself from position Y as it's not what you believe. You explain X in clear detail and how X works.

ALL the responses to you start with the position that you're arguing Y. I'm modded through the floor long before I can get responses out pointing out that they're arguing against strawmen.

I'm losing faith but I don't know what in. Is it me, is it them? Part of me thinks "Well, I must be not explaining this well enough", but...

Genuinely asked for help here. Got kinda an answer, but it only semiexplains the whole thing. Getting the impression people read one phrase in my comments and once they've read it they completely switch off and ignore everything before and after it, including the explanation of why I'm using that phrase.

This may or may not be true, but if you can't call a spade a spade because people think you're talking about coffee grounds (OK, it's early in the morning and I'm tired), then how the hell do you proceed and explain that the problem starts with an actual fucking spade, not vaguely related pile of coffee grounds?

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...