Posts by Trevor_Pott 6991 publicly visible posts • joined 31 May 2010
"Would it be unfair to say this is an attempt by RH (and/or one individual) to do for GNU/Linux Classic what Google did for Linux/Android with Play Services?
Or would that be a complete misunderstanding?"
I think it would constitute a misunderstanding. Think of it more as "Red Hat trying to to for Linux what Apple did for BSD." They want to own the product. A vestigial community can exist outside of their control - they don't particularly care - but all main components of a commercially viable Linux platform must come under their direct control.
If you want the equivalent of the Google Play store for Linux, take a look at Docker.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/28/docker_part_1_the_history_of_docker/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/01/docker_part_2_the_libcontainer_evolution/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/02/docker_part_3_containers_versus_hypervisors/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/04/docker_part_4_prognostication_microsoft_and_the_red_wedding/
Lewis is one guy. (Though A.O. does post a lot of climate denier bullshit too.)
Simon Sharwood and Richard Chirgwin know their science and post proper articles with reasoned analyses. Until recently Rik Myslewski did too. Believe me, climate change denial is not institutionalized at The Register, any more than Worstall's Randianism is.
Systemd is both the spawn of the devil (Poettering) and something bordering on a useful technology. Here's a quick rundown:
1) The systemv init sytem in Linux is awful. Truly awful. A replacement is needed.
2) Poettering decided he had the One True Plan to replace it, and set about doing so...he even had some truly great ideas. He also had some real stinkers.
3) Poettering refused to listen to anyone about what might be good or bad ideas, and proceeded to push forward with creating a massive blob of interdependent and interconnected binaries that together form something suspiciously close to a second kernel living in userland. The thing isn't done yet, but if Poettering accomplishes everything he claims he is setting out to do, systemd will functionally become a second kernel: something that almost all Linux systems hook into and rely upon to work.
4) This places Poettering - and thus Red Hat - in a position of central control over Linux that has traditionally only ever been occupied by Linux Torvalds, with his control over the kernel.
5) Poettering is an ass, has behaved poorly when interacting with other devs, and has earned the wrath of Torvalds. In return, he has complained that everyone are big meanies and - more critically - they'll just all have to learn to fucking cope, because he's going to do what he wants, and damned be the first that says "hold, enough".
6) Which brings us to today. Today we are in the "in between time". today you can (sort of) build a distro without systemd, though you need shims to do so, and you'll need even more shims tomorrow. Poettering/Red Hat have completely cut off the rest of the community and have simply resorted to calling everyone who disagrees with them "loonies" because you can theoretically roll a systemd-less distro today. Red Hat claims that anyone worried about it "infecting" Linux and becoming a userland kernel are nuts. Look at it today, it's not there yet! But don't talk about tomorrow, or what the developers have discussed, etc. Because that isn't in the code, so there's no need to worry your pretty little head. Trust Red Hat and Poeterring. They know best.
What the whole debate boils down to, at it's core, is that Poettering and Red Hat honestly believe they know what's best for us (which, completely incidentally, is something that places Red Hat in control of virtually the entire Linux ecosystem). Thus any objections are considered the objections of people mentally unfit to make objections.
There are lots of bent feelers on all sides and discussions about the technology itself - which has both good and bad elements to it - are completely subsumed by politics.
The systemd debate is, at it's core, about who is in charge of Linux. The community, gated by Torvalds as a last sanity check at the kernel layer, or Red Hat and Poettering? Is it okay for Linux to become a web of interdependent choke points and lock-in gated by someone who is outright hostile to the Linux community? Is it okay for Linux to almost entirely come under the control of employees from one commercial entity?
This is what the debate is really about, and I can even tell you how it will play out: LInux will fracture (again).
Linux itself is currently "Android" and "Linux". (Heretofore referred to as Android/Linx and GNU/Linux, as while GNU/Linux is not 100% accurate, it does reflect the idea that it's main goal was to provide something that was an open source alternative to Unix, and adhered to many/most of the Unix principles.)
Nobody really looks at Android/Linux and says "wow, that's Linux". So much has changed in the basic architecture, toolchains, even file layouts that it doesn't look, feel or behave like LInux anymore. It is its own thing. It is walking its own path.
GNU/Linux is in the process of a very messy, very public fracture into GNU/Linux and systemd/Linux. Systemd/Linux will be the dominant flavour, used by all commercial distros because that's where the bulk of the paid developers are going to be working.
GNU/Linux will splinter off and become a much smaller community (similar to Linux when it first started). They will have to completely scrap everything infected by systemd and rebuilt them. Many things (like Gnome) will take crazy amounts of effort to replace. It will be a decade, maybe more before a commercial distribution emerges based around GNU/Linux.
Once the first one is GNU/Linux distribution is launched, most commercial systemd/Linux distributions (those few that are left which aren't Red Hat) will switch to GNU/Linux. They will have by this point discovered that they don't have a voice in an ecosystem in which Red Hat has crowned itself emperor and will attempt to embrace GNU/Linux in order to seek differential and commercial advantage.
Eventually, one of those commercial GNU/Linux distributions will try to pull some systemd-like shit one more time and the cycle will repeat.
The systemd thing is an argument of philosophies. To whom does Linux belong? The company that puts the most money into development and strategised the most about controlling all aspects of it? Or to the community?
Is Linux a means to preserve freedom/liberté, or merely a means to a commercial end?
So there you have it: the Great Debate. I hope that clears some things up.
"If Fedora sends you here to do PR work this means we got their attention."
Unlikely. Only those who agree with the devs receive attention. Everyone else is a raving loony. It's the old NSA conundrum: they demand unquestioning trust and faith, and anyone who doesn't deliver is the enemy. Of course, that very attitude is largely responsible for the increasing lack of both trust and faith...
*shrug*
No distro that sports syStEMD will get dime one from me. Those that offer a fully functional path forward without it will. There's kinda not much I can do except that, eh? The chances of getting the devs to sit down and come to any sort of reasonable, mediated compromise with the community are virtually nonexistant. It's their way or the hiway, and if you won't put your absolute trust and faith in them, then you're the enemy.
I'm oddly okay with that. After a decade of being a heathen traitor to the Windows admins because I ran heterogenous environments and championed RedHat/CentOS, I think I can handle being branded an enemy of the state by RedHat's elite as I go forth and seek a better alternative for the next decade.
There's a line between "passionate arguments" and abuse. It has been crossed multiple times. Your response to this has been "suck it up, that's what you get for working in a creative industry".
I submit you're an asshat. And if I had more time this close to crimbo I'd come up with something far more vulgar.
By all means, show passion and make arguments for change, where the existing design bothers you. If you take a few minutes you'll note I've a few posts of my own in this thread with my own suggestions for the brass hats. But there's no need to resort to abuse, which is absolutely what more than a little of this has been.
By saying "shit happens" and taking issue with someone calling out the abuse you absolutely are justifying it. And if you want to go twenty rounds with me on this one, I'll gladly go toe to toe. That gold badge isn't honourary, mate.
As for the rest: in your comments you very clearly stated that if The Register doesn't like receiving abuse, then they should "close the kitchen". Don't back out of your statements now, chap. Own them. Explain your viewpoint. Better yet, explain why the people who own and operate this site shouldn't simply nuke the account of people who are abusive? It's their house. We're all just guests in it.
"Bear in mind we are also the consumers and have our own opinions."
Have whatever opinions you want. Being a reader of the site is no justification for abuse, and it entitles you to nothing. You aren't paying anything. You are provided content in exchange for having advertisements displayed on the same pages as that content.
Literally everything else is a bonus. You aren't entitled to any of it, including posting to these forums. If we want to play here, we have to play by the rules. Sometimes we go over the lines. I'm probably one of the worst offenders for that.
But what's seen in this thread goes beyond any of the thrashings I regularly hand out to the slanted of foreheads. There has been outright abuse and bullying. That's no okay. It's not acceptable. And it's not to be tolerated "because that's the way it is" or in the name of the almighty sense of entitlement.
If you've a beef, go right ahead and list it. But don't abuse the staff.
The business they're in is providing content. Not putting up with ungrateful entitled prima donnas. That would be the job of an internet troll. And with that in mind...
...I'm at your service, monsieur.
"Sorry Trevor, my sympathy only goes so far; if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen (& stop cooking)."
So you want The Register to close up show and stop creating the content you presumably come here to read because you don' tlike the site design? Or do you want El Reg to close up because they object to taking abuse from commenters?
Please, do fill me in. While you're at it, you can hopefully explain to me how you believe your stance is moral.
"Although the vitriol was a bit heavy at times, man up and listen to your customers...."
Just so we're perfectly clear, you and I? We aren't the customer. We're the product. Also, to be perfectly clear, you're attempting to justify bully and abuse directed at decent people trying hard to create a website (and content to go in it) that you get for free.
So...um....what the fucking, fucking fuck, man?
You know, sir...nobody's perfect. But I promise you that @diodesign doesn't "deserve" any crap from anyone. He's a wonderful person, and he's my friend. In case you don't know me, I don't make friends easily. I'm a cynical, anti-social git who is far too introverted for his own good. But @diodesign is good people, and I'd stake my life on that claim.
So I ask you - and everyone else here - cut him some slack. He honestly does want to do what's best for everyone, and I promise you he's really not a dick at all. If you want to yell at someone, yell at me. I'm the resident asshat at The Register.
So let's start this over. We all have off days, and he really is a good guy.
Re: "we don't think we're more white than [X]"...
There are some pages where I need to turn down my monitor. Most pages I don't have to. But The Register is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for me. Turning down my monitor for 1 page that I'm spending 15 minutes on is one thing, but when I am using El Reg for resource/reference all day long, it's really quite to bright.
I tried using Hacker Vision, which works well on Wikipedia and other offenders, but it really makes El Reg look quite silly. I'm working on fully converting the CSS so there's a proper dark theme that I can apply via greasemonkey, but the thing is eleventy squillion lines long.
I am not going to stamp my feet and demand El Reg fully support a dark theme. I'd love it if you had time to work one up, and provide us the option for logged in users. That would be nice.
But I think the idea of a vote is great. "Is it worth El Reg's time to invest in a dark theme" or somesuch. How many readers would like it? Does the site need to be viewed the exact same for every reader?
Anyways, them's the thoughts...
"has an employer not the right to determine if an employee is rorting the system?"
No. If they have these suspicions they should report them to the proper authorities and have an objective investigation started by a third party whose job it is to make these judgements and to keep the information of the individual's activities and private life private.
The individual is innocent unless proven guilty. There is no reason an employer should be poking about in their private life. If a person's privacy has to be breached it should be done only with the utmost care and attention and by individuals trained to maintain human dignity and respect throughout the process.
Why is this such a hard concept for so many to grasp? An employee doesn't belong to their employer. And if that employer feels there there is a case to be made for invading an employee's personal life then that situation has to be handled with care, respecting the rights of both parties.
"Does your house have window locks and a burglar alarm on your house?"
Nope, I'm Canadian
"Or do you leave the front door unlocked when you go out?"
Depends on how long I'm gone for. Rarely do I feel it necessary. Again, I'm Canadian. It's not really a thing here.
"You don't? Because that would be stupid and asking for trouble, right?"
Why would it be asking for trouble? Do you know how rare B&Es are here? And what is a locked door or window going to do to prevent one? If someone has made the decision to steal, they can get through such crude defenses with zero effort.
Nah, better to have a motion-triggered camera protecting the important things in the house and have good insurance. That way you can pass the video on to the cops if there's a break-in, and replace any of the things they stole. Keep some stuff near the front door that looks worth stealing so they take the easy score and leave.
The only time I've been broken into, someone decided to get into my unlocked car. They stole a first aid kit, the emergency winter gear and a cup full of loose change I keep around for parking meters. Total cost to me was 15 minutes to reorganize all my stuff and about $50 worth of replaced gear.
Now if I'd locked the car, the replacement window would have easily been $250, and I'd still have to replace that $50. Plus I'd have the added time sink of cleaning up the glass.
Now, is my computer security locked up? You bet. The internet isn't just Canadians, so I actually to have to lock my digital doors.
Sony should be shut down and all the money returned to the non-management, non-executive employees. Let them go forth to get better jobs elsewhere, with enough money to run for a few years while they search.
Let the shareholders reap absolutely nothing and send the executive layer to remote arctic island with nothing more than a knife and a shovel between them.
Aye, but a lot of the "improvements" have been pretty half-assed. See: the VDI licensing redux. Okay, they rationalized it, sort of. But it's still shit and it's still a horrid rip-off. Microsoft knows it has a problem. But it may be institutionally capable of understanding what needs to be done to resolve it.
There were plans on the table to get one in front of me before the end of the month. They went dark in the last week of November and then Skyera got bought. Now I have no idea what's going on, as their PR company has be let go while they are absorbed into WD.
I am still working on my connections at both Skyera and WD we'll see if anything emerges!
"You can run 2 x Synology in HA block level replication over a dedicated link"
Okay, sure. I do this all the time. I still have several configurations where server SANs are far cheaper, especially for a given required performance level.
Neither solution is all thing to all people. Not yet, anyways.
"From this article it seems that they are unable to deliver data fast enough to servers because of the network time involved in the data transfer, and so they would seem to be unsuitable for their core purpose - supplying data to apps."
Yeah, I really don't know where this comes from, TBH. You're going to have to go a long bloody way to convince me that server SANs can't deliver the IOPS or have any worse latency than arrays. What I get out of infiniband systems...well, there's reviews upcoming on that, naturally.
Of course, if you're relying on a single SAN and that SAN buys it, you're pooched. Server SANs can be configured to support multiple node failures without giving up the ghost.
Just use two SANs in block level replication to one another? Let's rerun the numbers...
"Not buying their stuff" doesn't affect Sony's behavior at all. They simply blame "pirates" or any other convenient group then set about attempting to have laws changed such that they get paid regardless. (See "blank media levies" in many countries.)
To Sony, if you aren't buying their stuff you're committing a crime, and they'll do everything except actually provide what people want at a price they are willing to pay with support that is useful in order to get your money. Sorry, but the odd product that isn't mediocre isn't enough to offset the rest of their actions as a company.
But you have been treated like shit, even if you refuse to recognize it. One example: they have sunk billions into trying to turn copyright into the "forever gift", denying future generations the right to build on the mythos of today. They have tried to subvert several standards processes numerous times, ultimately driving up time to market and cost for what are today common products. They have played patent hardball quite a lot, also driving up the cost of everyday products.
Finally, they have sat on proprietary technologies attempting to create a monopoly by refusing to participate in standards processes (or license that technology) resulting in A) aborted product lines as those product saw an initial surge, then death as they didn't interoperate and B) less suited technologies becoming the standard.
These are all things that have affected you, and are Sony treating you like shit, even if you neither believe it nor care.
It is incorrect to say Sony hasn't treated you like shit. They have. What is correct to say is that you don't care that Sony treats you like shit. Thus, apparently, nobody else should.
" I'm guessing it was nowhere near as critical to the PS3's success as you are making it out to be."
I said it was "critical to the PS3's success" somewhere? Where? Please point it out. I believe I said it was disrespectful. Demeaning, even.
"And they still make plenty of kit reckoned to be amongst the best you can buy "
I'll give you that they make decent cameras in the midrange. We'll debate the Xperias and the Bravias quite a bit, I suspect.
"All I can tell you is, the current Sony kit I have does exactly what it was advertised to do"
And thus, to you, it's okay if they treat everyone like shit. Good show. Carry on, then.
"The Other OS thing is a complete non-issue imo"
So "it doesn't affect me, thus it's not a real issue"? Cute.
"Like them or loathe them, they still make some bloody good kit "
Not really. They make shite. Overpriced shite that doesn't work as advertised anymore and is accompanied by some of hte worst service I've had the misfortune of encountering..
Basically your entire viewpoint seems to boil down to "I like a few of the gizmos they make, so it's perfectly okay to handwave away how the utter contempt with which they treat the rest of the world". That's...pretty damned shallow, man.
And we haven't even gotten into things like "hollywood accounting" yet.
"ot sure why a dodgy decision taken by one of its subsidiaries (without Sony Head Office's knowledge) 10 years ago should promote such bile"
It's far from one decision. It's decades of constantly pushing proprietary formats, horrible customer service from multiple tentacles of the company, funding the RIAA/MPAA, being the primary company opposed to copyright reform amongst those entities, the rootkit fiasco, the Linux on PS3 bit, and on and on and on and on and on and on for 25 years.
I loved my Walkman. But Sony itself is a whole bunch of horrible little subentities that together form a far more horrible whole.
I don't people to lose their jobs. But I really don't want Sony to continue on either. It would be great if you could just carve out the top 10% of the company and replace it's leadership entirely, but there's no mechanism in our society to do that. The best we can hope for is that it collapses and that a better company (or companies) fill the void.
It doesn't matter what you run, if you are unable to act with some semblance of decency and honour to your clients/citizens/subjects then I will cheer your downfall. Just like I will cheer the downfall, humiliation and ruination of any sociopath. Yourself included.
You may think it's "adult" to champion greed and worship self interest, but you're wrong. There's nothing "grown up" about it. That's just Randian douchbaggery. It's not cool. It's not mature. It's just an indication that you're a bad person.
Now, what is "grown up" is realizing that we all have to share this world with one another, and thus striving to treat others with respect and honour. And that means ostracizing those that act only in self their own self interest. (See: tragedy of the commons as a starting point. I realize Ethics for Randians is futile, but maybe you can go rage on Wikipedia instead of wasting your time professing your love for unrestrained capitalism here.)
Sony is run bad bad people who treat others badly. Those who run it deserve no sympathy and no compassion, for they have evidenced non, and demonstrated a great deal of malice, which they have acted up from positions of power.
If you are unable to see that as evil, then sir, you aren't "grown up" at all. You're just an evil wannabe.
"But I can assure you there are 2 or 3 dozen IT folks in there that are no longer employed."
I cannot disagree with you more. There may have been two or three dozen IT staff fired. Sure, okay, why not? But I bet they were subsequently hired on for more money elsewhere.
They witnessed the creation of an infrastructure that allowed this to happen. Their experience in what not to do - from levels ranging from technical to political - is now invaluable. If you are former Sony IT, you'll have no trouble getting work. Lots of people now want your help preventing this from happening to them.
If there are people to weep for, it won't be IT. It will be mid-wage types who get canned when it all goes south. The low wage workers will always be in demand and have no trouble finding work. The excutive layer can cover themselves in wax and serve as candles, they deserve it. But the mid-wage earners will be the ones who have the hardest time finding jobs. Accountants, administrative, HR, etc. The back office staff that make the wheels turn.
"I have heard about Hillary gloating on comera* about the frank assassination of the Lybian head of state"
Madam has nuclear weapons. Sony has lobbyists.
What one can get away with I suspect may be greater than the hijinx the other could be reasonably expected to be able to pursue.
"Oh grow the f*ck up. Those "evil" execs are just running a business. "
And? Doesn't mean they aren't sociopaths. In fact, given their actions and overwhleming hubris, I'd say that "sociopaths" is pretty likely. Cognate with fact that the executive and political layers are where sociopaths tend to congregate.
"Real evil are psychopathic murderers like Isis or child killers. Get a f*cking sense of perspective."
Evil comes in many forms. Just because a worse evil exists doesn't mean we shouldn't cheer the downfall of a lesser one.
Weep for the staff: many of them probably are as innocent as it is possible to be in such affairs. But for the executives? Nothing.
"Embarrass the evil execs and pull the pants down of overpaid and pampered stars but give the average employees a break."
Well, personally, I'd leave the "stars" out of it too, but by all means go after the executives, management and the body corporate. With all guns blazing.
"The other parties do as they please. So far that has been to ignore voters as they all aim for the centrist policies. "
How can centrist policies both be popularist (as per one of your previous posts) and "ignoring voters"? Surely by catering to the opinion of the majority the main parties are in fact listening quite clearly to voters.
"Not varying policies representing views of voters so a choice can be made, just the same choice no matter which of the 3 parties no matter how damaging. A status quo where they do as they please and ignore the voter."
How can they be ignoring the voter if they are being popularist? Also: If you are correct and that voters are just crying out for something - anything - different to vote for, then in what rational universe would all three parties choose the exact same policies? Surely one of them would differentiate themselves in some fashion so as to pick up votes and win.
Or are you suggesting a conspiracy between the 3 main parties? Because I'm pretty sure that would be illegal and you could use the court systems to rectify it.
"Now with the rise of UKIP the main 3 parties have to offer choice and have to appeal to voters. How you see that as wrong I dont know unless you oppose democracy."
They had to offer choice to the voter before. And they did. They were - and are - quite differentiated. I see the UKIP as wrong because everything they stand for is wrong. I have no problems with democracy. I have all sorts of problems with any organization that seeks an end to human rights.
"I have no interest in convincing you to change your opinion."
Yet you keep commenting.
"I just dont like you misrepresenting my comments to promote an anti-democratic view. If that is your view then stand by it, but dont try to attribute your bigotry to me."
I don't have an anti-democratic view. You're the one who is completely twisting the facts of UK politics into a knot in a desperate attempt to justify the existence - daresay try to convince us of the need - of a political party that seeks an end to human rights.
"But as you will roundly reject my viewpoint no matter what I ask that you reread your early comment where you believe your opinions can be changed.
Quoting portal2: 'This statement is false'"
You have to actually provide evidence, logic and some semblance of rationality to change my viewpoint. You have not done so. You have used a bunch of brodering-on-conspiracy-theory assertions about the 3 main political parties backed by some really fucked up logic (ignore voters by catering to the whims of the majority of voters!)
I can have my opinion changed. It has happened before, it will happen again. But repeatedly asserting bunk isn't the path to achieving that end.
I have read and reread your statements on that in multiple comments. I don't agree with your take on the matter. I have explained why several times.
I get that you think you are right, and that "forcing" other parties to behave more like you wish they would is somehow a good thing, but I completely disagree. Not only does this open up a world of threats from the UKIP, it doesn't let the old parties die a natural death.
No political party should last forever. They all evolve and either die off or reinvent themselves. if you don't like the parties that exist, get out there and start a new one. Your whole premise is based on the false assumption that in order for anything to get done the existing three major parties must be the ones to go forth and make it so. That's bull.
A new party with a strong message, resources and a charismatic leader can create change. They can do that without needing to let a threat come to power and without forcing others to behave the way they want. They can do it by uniting those of like belief and advocating for others to join them. That democracy, and it's how you enable choice.
I live in a country where it has been the "common wisdom" that there were only two parties of consequence: the conservatives and the liberals. Both those parties have within my lifetime been nearly annihilated; reduced to a handful of seats while other parties took the parliament by storm. Politics are dynamic, and you are using your false belief in voter intractability to attempt to justify the UKIP's rise to power.
I wholly and roundly reject your viewpoint as flawed an inaccurate. Not matter how many times you restate it, I will still reject it.
Tea Party Chapter 1 may be only slightly different from Tea Party Chapter 2 which is only slightly different from Tea Party Chapter 3...but 50 is quite a bit different from 1 and 500 is way out in the weeds workin gon something altogether dissimilar.
Pretty much just like every religion, ever. We humans don't do "consistent" very well.
"The problem is that government has become quite intrusive and is forcing people to do things they disagree with. It would be bizarre for the Labour party to be forced hire UKIP members or the British Atheist Society forced to hire ISIS members as secretaries and receptionists just because they aren't spokesmen or policy makers, but that is just what is happening for religious groups."
I think you'll find that my feelings on this subject are as yet rather undefined. I can see both sides of the argument, and think that we have not yet found the right compromise as a society. I don't think you should be able to fire someone because they're gay. But I also don't think you should have to have a minimum quota of gay people on staff. This is a really complex issue.
"Do you want to set up a B&B for people with like beliefs to come and stay with you? That's banned. "
See, it's not, here. If I operated a B&B I couldn't ban people who had different beliefs for staying there - the service must be available to all - but there's nothing preventing me from advertising exclusively to those who share my beliefs.
"Want to put biblical text up in your obviously christian-themed cafe? The police will shut you down. Neither of those things damage the public, but some lobby groups have pushed hard to try to eradicate all opposition to their beliefs from the public arena. They are the intolerant ones."
Yep, that sounds pretty dickish. Is that really a law there? That's pretty crap. I presume pictures of the flying spaghetti monster are also banned? I would hope so. Equality for all, not just for some!
"I shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on what you are. I should be able to discriminate based on your beliefs and actions."
And here we'll vehemently disagree. I don't believe you should be able to discriminate based on belief. Only on actions. What a person believes is not your purview, nor the governments. This is the basis of human rights. You don't get to treat me differently because of what I believe, only only I behave.
Honestly, i can't even begin to understand what rationale or logic you could use to justify discrimination based on belief. You don't have to be friends or go out for beers with people who believe something in opposition to you, but you do have to treat them with all the same legal rights and privileges as everyone else.
"The so-called "centre" of politics isn't about moderation, its about not being associated with any given course of action which might be unpopular in the future. "
Again, I have to disagree. I'm largely a centrist. I absolutely have strongly held beliefs and they focus on pragmatism and finding the best solution for society as a whole. Usually that involves negotiation, compromise, and working with the extremes to forge a future everyone can live with.
The ideal most important to he centrist is that of unity. The concept that we're all stuck together and we have to learn to live with one another. That we won't convert everyone else to our way of thinking and that killing people who disagree with us is a dick move. As a Canadian, this is easier for me than for someone from another nation: multiculturalism works here. We have a unique culture that is founded on our ability to find a happy medium, seek compromise and recognize the value of different belief systems. So being a centrist is pretty natural for us.
Where it goes wrong - where it always goes wrong - is the belief that your particular ideology needs to "win". That the end goal is the eradication of other beliefs, or at least the subjugation of those who believe differently.
But at least you admit that you want to discriminate against people based on their beliefs. I can respect that, even if I believe that it is a dangerous and foolhardy approach to building a society. So, kudos for that.
"You also seem to think that you are arguing for choice while I argue for less choice. I suggest you re-read the comments and try processing them accurately."
Okay, I re-read them. You are arguing that the UKIP is a force for good and that by allowing them power you can force the other political parties in the UK to do what you wan them to do (take more extremist stances, away from "the center", which you hate.) This is a Good Thing to you despite the fact that the UKIP stand for removing a great deal of choice from tens of millions of people.
So...you get one additional choice (that of voting for an extreme right wing bigotry party) and many - many - others get less choice. (All those people in the other parties that were "forced' to behave the way you wan them to, to say nothing of those people who will be affected if the UKIP gains real power.)
I, meanwhile, have said that by working to counter the false pretense that the UKIP are "the good guys" people who actually do care about things like human rights can help prevent (or at least slow) the rise of the UKIP to power, and thus preserve choice. This is done by preventing people who would have as their stated goals the removal of choice from others from reaching power.
So I would provide arguments that allow people to make a choice (support/don't support the UKIP) as fully informed as possible in the hopes that they choose not to support the UKIP. In turn, if enough people choose not to support the UKIP then they won't achieve a position of great enough power to remove choice from others.
Yep, I think I got this thread taped up tight.
"I am not sure what you are arguing about as you seem to be randomly calling people nazies and thinking you have some sort of point."
I can't help you comprehend what you choose not to comprehend. But there is nothing random about my comparing the UKIP to the Nazi party circa 1920. That you can't distinguish that from "calling them Nazis" (and there was quite a bit of nuance and context provided) is only a further indication of your choice not to understand.
"but because you think people who dont agree with you are nazis or that choice is evil"
Yeah, you're off the plank here. I like people who don't agree with me. They make for great arguments, and I like arguing. I view very few people as evil.
But I absolutely do view as evil anyone who would seek to regress away from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, I'm pretty sure that "people who what to violate the UDHR on a nation scale" is not only the definition of evil, it's the definition of monster. Sorry mate, but you're not going to convince me that wanting to back out of human rights is somehow "just a choice" no different than which pair of pants to wear. No matter how many times you keep posting that you think I'm crazy.
"I dont know why you argue to force people to be your way."
Funny, I don't appear to be using any of the techniques that are generally recognized by law enforcement of practicing psychologists as "coercion". There's no "forcing" involved in my words at all. There's discussion. There's argumentation. There is questioning. But these all lead to the reader being able to make a choice about what to believe - or not.
Even by the most outside definition of the word "force", I have at no point applied force in this thread. Sorry mate, but you'll have to do better than that.
"I dont know why you argue against discussion, democracy or free thought."
Did you not just tell me that by presenting my viewpoint and arguing it with some modicum of passion I was "trying to use force"? How can discussion or democracy be anything other than an exercise of force to stifle free thought if the mere questioning of a political party on an internet forum is somehow an exercise of force?
Also: how does defending human rights make me against "discussion, democracy and free thought"? You'll have to spell it out for me, because I don't understand at all how you joined those dots up.
"However I do suggest you look in the mirror when talking about a threat. Because you are scarily nutty"
You find me "threatening" because I asked hard questions?
You could pay a journalist no higher compliment. Thank you.
"Trevor, do you really think that if there was no DRM, the media would be pirated so much as to be non-commercially viable?"
Actually, yes, I do. The short answer is cost. Movies - and especially TV shows - cost a lot more than music. More to the point, they cost a lot more to make. Believe it or not, "not commercially viable" doesn't take a huge jump in piracy rates to be achieved, and right now TV shows are by far the most heavily pirated copywritten material out there.
Remember how TV shows make money. It's not by you paying for them. It's through advertising. If everyone walks away from the ads, then they don't make money. If they don't have ads to rely on, they have to charge quite a bit per episode to make it viable. If half the population pirate, they have to double what they need to charge, which leads to more pirating...
The easier you make it to pirate, the more socially acceptable it becomes. The commercial viability of copywritten works relies entirely on piracy not being socially acceptable by enough people that they choose to purchase the material.
We all know that everything will always be available on pirate sites. The point is to make it easier to purchase than to pirate and to make piracy not a socially acceptable phenomenon. Otherwise, there simply won't be anything left to pirate.
Remember, "commercially viable" means something different to a businessman than a pirate. A pirate assumes that something is commercially viable if you can make $1 profit on it. The businessman only sees a venture as commercially viable if he can reasonably expect a better return on his investment by investing in this creative work than he could investing that same money in some other avenue. (Say Apple stock.)
People who make create works rarely have the money to self-fund. Certainly AAA works won't be self funded. So there needs to be a business case for those people to invest if we want to continue to see the development of new content.
Any idiot can pick up a guitar and and a bongo and belt out a bunch of mediocre shit into their iPad and put it on the internet. Even shitty videos, however, are a pain in the ass to make. I know; we make them.
And you know what? At the end of the day I likes Guardians of the Galaxy. It was a good laugh. I want Firefly and Dollhouse and Battlestar Gallactica. I want Arrow and the Flash and SHIELD and Castle.
I want people not only to be able to barely make a living at this if they make Tabletop or The Guild, but I want them to have the investment to make Interstellar and The Avengers too.
I am by no means a copyright maximalist. I believe strongly in limiting copyright to 20 years, and I am anti-DRM in virtually all circumstance. But when it comes to television shows at least, our society has not yet evolved to the point where it will be commercial viable to continue to produce them for much longer. Videos probably aren't far behind.
This isn't me "drinking the industry kool-aid" here. I'm a staunch freetard and proud of it. But I also recognize economic reality. There needs to be a compromise between the two extremes.
Yes, I honestly believe DRM does a lot to prevent piracy. Will it prevent the techno-weenies and the dedicated types? No. But it does prevent casual piracy. Ultimately, that's all that's needed. To raise the barrier to piracy beyond simply copying the file over to your buddy's iPad or USB drive. All it takes is making it that little bit more inconvenient than buying the thing legitimately and most people won't pirate.
As for the 10% of dedicated pirates that will never be stopped? Meh, cost of doing business.
There's nothing crazy about asking hard questions, mate. There's lots crazy about denying the answers when those answers come in the form of informed opinions from the overwhelming number of experts involved.
There's lots crazy about asking questions that have already been debunked, and of then returning to those questions after having had things explained to you as though by re-asking those same questions you are somehow proving something.
Look: long story short? The official explanations for how the thing came down make sense. A combination of warm (and hence deformable) truss joints, damage to the core supports and impulse shock absolutely could (and evidently did) cause those towers to collapse.
As for the lady in the hole, that's one I actually can explain. Here goes: if you look at all the simulations, the very bottom of that hole (where the lady is) is on a floor that was only barely damaged by the plane impact. A part of a wingtip hit it. A goodly chunk of one side (I can't remember which) was left undamaged by the impact and likely still had most of a roof over it.
Now, that roof would have been crumbling and deforming and the core of the building where the stairs were would have been a hellish inferno. Smoke and heat would drive what few survivors there were to the edges where, presto, a hole in the building appears.
That isn't magic. Studying the images of where the lady is as well as the simulations of the impact can show you a viable path for her to have made her way there, even as her world literally burned around her.
But that right there is my point. That's one little thing amongst hundreds that the truthers hold up as each somehow independently proving that the whole thing was a lie. You could spend a lifetime whacking those moles but not only will they only find new ones to feed their paranoia...they'll go back to the ones you've already debunked and claim that you were lying/it was somehow impossible/minor tidbit #58709438 means that your debunking is false thus the original assumption must be true...
...it doesn't end. The fact that you keep returning to these items and that you are basically repeating the truther dialogue item for item, rejecting any and all formal debunking work done by experts means that I could waste my life on this and never get anywhere.
It has become more than simply a matter of intellectual curiosity. It has become religion. It is part of your core identity and how you relate to the world.
I could no more convince you of the truth of what occurred to those towers than you could convince me that we should tear up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For me, the UDHR is a foundational belief item from which all other things I hold to be true - the structure of my ethics and how I judge right and wrong - flow.
For you, the idea of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11 has become the exact same thing. A foundational element of your personality. You can't accept that the truth of the physical events are more or less as told to us because that would tear up your entire world view. It would utterly shatter your belief system to accept such a thing.
Now the problem is that between the two items, we call one normal and the other crazy.
A human without an ethical center inevitably succumbs to an ever greater spiral of existential despair. So most people cling to religion. Others find their ethical center in various other documents, like the UDHR, law, the Hippocratic oath, etc.
But we need something upon which to build a framework of reference by which to judge the world around us. Our minds aren't evolved to function in a world lacking ethical referents. If I didn't believe in something like the UDHR as a foundation for right and wrong, I would be mad.
But believing in a conspiracy, against all evidence and expert opinion...that is mad. Am I peckerheaded asshole for actually having the gall to say so? You know what...I probably am. I was raised by shrinks, so talking about mental health issues openly and publicly and is a pretty normal part of my childhood. I realize it violates social conventions.
But I also know that mild paranoid schizophrenia is treatable. What's more, it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's just a state of being. I have ADHD. It's on the autism spectrum, basically the exact opposite of mild paranoid schizophrenia. The primary ailment is massively poor impulse control.
But here's the thing, sir. You can prove me wrong. Sit down with a qualified psychiatrist and discuss all this with them. If they prescribe you some drugs, take them for the full length of the dosage period. If they prescribe CBT (or a combination of CBT and drugs) go to all the sessions.
If I'm wrong, then a full course of treatment won't affect the steadfastness of your beliefs at all. If, however, I am right, then getting help will cause the importance of those beliefs to your identity to evaporate, and you'll be able to consider the incident as the rest of us are able to.
And then you know. You have a condition. You were born that way. There are drugs and/or CBT that can level it out..cool. It's just a state of being. There is no dishonour in it any more than being born blind...or "normal".
But by refusing to believe that we might have a problem...that's where we move into shameful choices. We shame ourselves and those around us by having the arrogance to presume that we are somehow able to see things that much clearer than everyone else. That we are somehow "normal" while everyone else is crazy.
Statistically, that's really, really unlikely.
So yeah, I'm not going to argue each and every little point until the end of time. I probably could, but to be perfectly honest with you, I would go stark raving looney-toons from the repetition long before you conceded even a single point.
If I'm particularly lucky, however, I will have planted a seed of doubt in your mind that maybe - just maybe - your quality of life could improve if you sought psychiatric help. And maybe - just maybe - one day you will. I honestly believe that if you did so, your life would improve. And even if you (and others) hate me for being an arrogant asshat, if one day I can make your life (or the life of someone else who reads this) better by convincing them to seek help...it's all been worth it.
Never stop asking hard questions. But also don't fear the the answers may be mundane.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
