Windows 9 (And Pandora) appreciation thread
-
which of course goes back to the original hypothesis, that the launcher for the game was poorly written. leading back to my original complaint, why the fuck can't I whitelist that application so it can do what it wants, because currently I'm basically whitelisting it by forcing it to run in administrator mode 100% of the time, but it requires that stupid popup to do it....
Or even better, run it chrooted so it thinks it can do whatever it wants. [I may just be tossing these out to stir up @blakeyrat...]
-
Or even better, run it chrooted so it thinks it can do whatever it wants. [I may just be tossing these out to stir up @blakeyrat...]
Good luck. I don't even know what "chrooted" means, except it's funny to say.
-
You said:
gay marriage proponents' mainly appears to simply be "fuck history or any concerns about whether changing things is a good idea or the idea of unintended consequences, let's just change things."
This can reasonably be paraphrased as "most proponents of gay marriage demonstrate a disregard for the risks inherent in altering social institutions generally which is ill-considered to the point of recklessness".
It's a straw man because the disregard that most proponents of gay marriage demonstrate for the risks inherent in the proposed alteration to this particular social institution is not at all reckless. It's carefully considered.
The obvious improvement in fairness and civility that will flow from altering this particular social institution in this particular way clearly outweigh the ill-defined risks of doing so, even taking the law of unintended consequences firmly into account.
If a blanket unwillingness to alter the meaning of marriage had always been allowed to be the main driver of relevant public policy, we would still be arranging marriages for our twelve-year-old children, jailing or killing people for marrying somebody with a different skin color, and denying married women property and employment rights.
-
I don't even know what "chrooted" means, except it's funny to say.
Basically, it means 'run with the process' notion of 'root directory' pointed at somewhere else on the filesystem, so it gets its own little sandbox of files and folders to play in'. Handy, actually: it's both used to provide a degree of sandboxing for processes, and to provide isolated environments for, say, package building.
It's also used by Linux installers during the later stages of the install, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Windows 7 installer did a similar thing.
-
I don't even know what "chrooted" means, except it's funny to say.
Chrooting is all kinds of fscked up.
-
is not at all reckless. It's carefully considered.
We disagree here. I've repeatedly seen proponents flat-out refuse to even consider the possibility.
The obvious improvement in fairness and civility
Nonsense. You can gain all those from civil unions.
Here's something that will probably shock your iconoclasm: I don't disapprove of even traditional marriage being separated out into civil and religous/cultural components. I am 100% in favor of gay couples gaining the civil rights like inheritence and the things I've previously mentioned. I am not in favor of redefining the religous/cultural concept.
-
jailing or killing people for marrying somebody with a different skin color
Why don't you find a black American and ask him how he feels about having gay marriage co-opting the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement.
-
I am not in favor of redefining the religous/cultural concept.
How do you deal cognitively with the arranged marriage / marrying a twelve-year-old objection, then? Because that has certainly been part of the religious/cultural concept in past times. Are you suggesting that the religious/cultural view we have of marriage now is the one we ought properly to keep forever? If so, on what basis?
-
I'd agree with that, and note in passing that the disease is common to demagogues of all political persuasions.
Somewhat.
Personally I find it more distressing when done by people whose fundamental positions I have more sympathy with, which is why I've always been somewhat surprised to find you so eager to tip this particular bucket on leftists specifically.
I am indeed distressed when that happens, but the examples of inversion of meaning that I can recall come from one side. I'm not talking about being somewhat deceptive or omitting details. I'm talking about deep surgery on the language. "Slavery is Freedom" sort of stuff.
-
Basically, it means 'run with the process' notion of 'root directory' pointed at blah blah blah blah
I didn't say I cared.
-
Why don't you find a black American and ask him how he feels about having gay marriage co-opting the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement.
Rhetoric!? Now that's an interesting choice of word. I suggest: choose more carefully in future.
-
I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be made to have more information. Something knows that the process user doesn't own that file or have permissions, or else UAC couldn't have been triggered.
The argument seems to be very circular. UAC was designed to not give you any useful information. Therefore there is no way UAC could do this, so your desire to have this information is stupid. Which is all the more rich from the guy who likes to yell until he's blue in the face about what he thinks is ideal, and how people who counter with reality are just Luddites who hate technological progress.
A day in the life of TDWTF.
-
How do you deal cognitively with the arranged marriage / marrying a twelve-year-old objection
Because I'm not opposed to the entire concept of arranged marriage.
Pay attention to every word in that sentence. I'm merely saying I don't think it's an inherently evil thing. Don't draw any other inferences about it--I certainly haven't mapped the boundaries of what I feel is acceptable and what isn't.
-
the examples of inversion of meaning that I can recall come from one side
Then I suggest you start paying closer attention to the other side's rhetoric.
I'm talking about deep surgery on the language. "Slavery is Freedom" sort of stuff.
Show me a left winger who has actually said that slavery is freedom, and I'll dig out a right winger who has actually said that everybody I serve in some way is my (ugh!) customer.
-
I suggest: choose more carefully in future.
You must be new here. I wasn't going to spend a bunch of time finding le mot juste, so you can just cope.
Assume I meant something like "I bet black people LOVE hearing that the struggle for gay marriage is JUST LIKE the struggle for black people to be treated like white people." Here's a hint for you: watch the face of a black person as you tell them that Obama favors gay marriage. Just in case, here's an anecdote for you: I've actually done this.
-
I presume that's a reference to "arbeit macht frei", which the Nazis used. Americans regard the Nazis as left wing because they were anti-capitalist and most other people regard them as right wing because they were conservative.
This is getting out of hand.
-
Show me a left winger who has actually said that slavery is freedom, and I'll dig out a right winger who has actually said that everybody I serve in some way is my (ugh!) customer.
It's so hard to choose. How about all of them who are so serious about positive rights? Or using the political term "liberal" to mean less freedom?
I'm not sure what your "right winger" thing is all about. I mean, that analogy may be stretched, but at least it's still going in the right direction. Based on what you wrote.
-
Why don't you find a black American and ask him how he feels about having gay marriage co-opting the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement.
Drawing attention to the completely obvious parallels between unreasonable race-based restrictions on marriage and unreasonable gender-based restrictions on marriage does not constitute "co-opting the rhetoric".
Your own rhetoric could use a little calming down.
-
completely obvious parallels
Oh, like blacks being segregated from society, not allowed in certain schools, and not allowed in certain jobs, versus a tiny percentage of the country who's only legal issue is they can't get a slip of paper?
-
right wing because they were conservative.
What do you mean by that word here? It can be difficult to apply modern labels to historic philosophies or parties or whatever, especially when geographical differences separate the modern labels, too. It does seem that Europe and like minded places have no concept of what Americans consider to be right wing.
But here's the thing, early 20th century American Progressives were the American analog to European Fascism and Socialism. Modern American left wingers are directly descended and still very similar to early Progressives, and not much like the then (classical) liberals who have largely become today's conservatives. Given that, it shouldn't be a surprise why Nazis look like left wingers to Americans.
-
I'm not opposed to the entire concept of arranged marriage.
The point at issue is whether or not the concept of marriage ought properly to be frozen at one particular point in history - this one - never to be altered again. The arranged marriage and child marriage issues serve to illustrate that social norms concerning marriage have not in fact been frozen in this way before.
Your own personal opinions on arranged marriage and pedophilia do not alter the fact that both of those things have been integral parts of the institution of marriage in the past but are not so now. The obvious conclusion is that marriage is a far more fluid social construct than the opponents of marriage equality would have us all believe.
-
completely obvious parallels
ROFL. Wake me up when two guys show up at City Hall and have dogs set on 'em.
Yes, I realize gays do actually get attacked. It generally is more because they're gay and less because they want to get married.
-
pedophilia
What the fuck, asshole?
This is why I said "don't assume anything else." I knew you'd do something like this, but I wasn't expecting this level of fucktardery.
In the past, people didn't get sexually active until they were older than today. I've heard that in Europe in the middle ages, the average age was closer to 18. I've also read that consummation generally didn't happen until sexual maturity.
Tell me where the inherent problem is other than "the two people didn't get to pick who they were married to."
Obviously--oh, sorry, it should be obvious to anyone who's not an asshole like you--I'm not in favor of Muslim-style "have sex with 9 year olds" marriage. But those aren't necessarily arranged marriages in the Western sense.
-
Oh, like blacks being segregated from society, not allowed in certain schools, and not allowed in certain jobs, versus a tiny percentage of the country who's only legal issue is they can't get a slip of paper?
Your attempt to derail a discussion about marriage equality into an oppression ratings contest is contemptible, as is the disrespect you show for the institution of marriage by dismissing it as "a slip of paper".
-
You must be new here. I wasn't going to spend a bunch of time finding le mot juste, so you can just cope.
Assume I meant something like "I bet black people LOVE hearing that the struggle for gay marriage is JUST LIKE the struggle for black people to be treated like white people." Here's a hint for you: watch the face of a black person as you tell them that Obama favors gay marriage. Just in case, here's an anecdote for you: I've actually done this.
I am. Nonetheless, I think you should have in this instance and not for my benefit.
Replace the word rhetoric with "desire for civil rights and equality" and it takes on a different meaning and a more realistic and objective one.
Since when were black people (or any other people of a particular race) moral arbiters of this or any other issue? Can black people not be bigoted in your view? Homophobia is very rife in many black communities and countries.
Nobody is saying it is "just like" but the fundamental aspect of one group of people being denied their freedoms that others enjoy and struggling against that is exactly the same. What's more, there are further similarities such as people being murdered just because they are [insert minority].
I think you're stooping very low to say "black people don't like it". Have you asked them all? And even if most don't: this isn't a matter for democracy, it's a matter of morality. To call what that movement was saying at the time "rhetoric" suggests a philosophy that if true, and if I were you, I would want to keep hidden and if it weren't true, and if I were you, I would not want to imply.
-
It does seem that Europe and like minded places have no concept of what Americans consider to be right wing.
I think most don't and vice versa. The thing is: left and right wing (and liberal and progressive) are words with different meanings in different places so I think they should not be used at all because they are so unhelpful and prone to misinterpretation.
-
Nobody is saying it is "just like" but the fundamental aspect of one group of people being denied their freedoms that others enjoy and struggling against that is exactly the same.
I don't think I would use exactly here. "Analogous" is a better word.
Replace the word rhetoric with "desire for civil rights and equality" and it takes on a different meaning and a more realistic and objective one.
Somewhat. But the analogy starts to break down with the attack on opponents, who are not actively segregating, beating, etc. And that's where a lot of the power of this sort of rhetoric comes from. That's distasteful.
-
I think most don't and vice versa.
One of my favorite examples of this is how lefty Australians seem to be much more favorable towards republicanism than righty Australians. Which is very much the reverse case in the US.
-
Just a couple of points. When you say "nobody is saying "just like"" that's not actually true.
Also, no, obviously I have not asked all black people. Have you asked any, though? I'm going by the spot checks I've done and surveys, the latter of which shows that black people generally but obviously not monolithically have the opinions I have mentioned.
I know morons like flabdablet are going to attack the next thing I say, but you do understand there's a difference between being attacked for something you are and for something you do, right? Morons like flabdablet reflexively spout the current party line that homosexuality is inbuilt and not something you can change, except that we know that's not 100% true, by the example of all the people who've gotten married and had kids as cover. My point here is that there is a certain difference between the two issues, and some black people DO not appreciate having their struggle co-opted.
Also, don't be hung up on that one word, I already admitted it wasn't the perfect choice.
Finally, the attitude that I can't even say "I am not in favor of gay marriage" is itself intolerant.
-
Yes, I realize gays do actually get attacked. It generally is more because they're gay and less because they want to get married.
Removing gender-based restrictions from the institute of marriage is a step on the road to shifting the general perception of homosexuality away from something abnormal, aberrant and abhorrent that's a reason to beat people up. Personally I think that's a change that should get started as soon as possible.
If you were to suggest (with an equally clearly implied shoulder shrug) that black people get attacked more because they're black and less because they want to get married, most educated people would think less of you.
-
In the past, people didn't get sexually active until they were older than today. I've heard that in Europe in the middle ages, the average age was closer to 18. I've also read that consummation generally didn't happen until sexual maturity.
-
VaelynPhi:
A badly written script might fail because it erroneously invokes sudo when, say, it's intended to be run automaticallyThe point of sudo is to allow scripts to do exactly that in a safe and controlled way, by setting up the sudoers file in such a way that all users authorized to run the script in question get permission to use the specific sudo command line required by the script without needing to supply a password.
The traditional Windows approach to the same kind of use case has generally involved baking passwords into the scripts, with varying degrees of obfuscation. This is of course Wrong From The Start.
Whitelisting an operation required in a script is also A Bad Thing (TM), though; that script should be writeable only by an admin (whether that's root or some user/group), executable only by the group of users who've been authorized, and be specifically listed in sudoers for that group. IE, the script itself shouldn't invoke sudo, but should be invoked using sudo. If it requires automation, you are correct in stating that sudoers is where that script should be declared to require no password entry.
If the individual operation requiring sudo is whitelisted for them, that opens up all kinds of doors.
-
omething abnormal, aberrant, abhorrent and an reason to beat people up.
I'm probably going to regret giving you this chance to misunderstand me and lie about me, but "abnormal" is a perfectly cromulent word for homosexuality. First off, the latest surveys show that homosexuals amount to about 1.5% of each gender. That's not normal, by definition. Now here's the thing I want you to read very closely: when I use the word abnormal in this context I am not using it with any negative connotation. I'm using it strictly in the dry sense of "it's different from the norm." Abnormal != bad. Abnormal, when used the way I just used it, does NOT belong with the other words in your list. I hold no truck with the rest of those words...except to point out "aberrant" is a synonym for "abnormal," although with a more negative connotation. Go Google aberrant and you'll see there's a range of synonyms with a range of connotations, like irregular, atypical, and so on. There's nothing wrong with being abnormal or atypical. Aberrant is kind of borderline. Neither of them mean the same thing as abhorrent. It's not possible to have a meaningful conversation with you as long as you insist on packing divergent (see what i did there?) things into one place.
-
Finally, the attitude that I can't even say "I am not in favor of gay marriage" is itself intolerant.
Well, you're a tolerant fellow, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble tolerating what I'm about to say to you:
Fuck off.
-
Well, you're a tolerant fellow, so I'm sure you'll have no trouble tolerating what I'm about to say to you:
Fuck off.
I knew I should've added "but I could stop with the first ten words" of the last sentence of my previous post to this one.
-
I don't think I would use exactly here. "Analogous" is a better word.
I stand by 'exactly' as logical. The sentence "[minority] is denied their freedoms that others enjoy and are struggling against that." is exactly the same for both. It is not quantitative. It is just boolean.
the analogy starts to break down with the attack on opponents, who are not actively segregating, beating, etc.
Both movements (and their opposites) had and have their assholes who would attack the other side by distasteful means.
And that's where a lot of the power of this sort of rhetoric comes from. That's distasteful.
There's that word again. Rhetoric has a few definitions, not all of them derogatory but, as some are, I think that word (like left wing and right wing and liberal and progressive) is a bad choice for a discussion such as this.
-
And of course when I say "Fuck off", it's not because I bear you ill will.
It's just that you're clearly one of those people who spends his life trying to get rid of red telephones. That apparently makes you incapable of formulating a coherent, non-fallacious argument.
You're so determined to be offended that I thought I'd make it easier for you.
So fuck off.
-
Actually flabdablet thinks your argument against liberalizing present-day marriage law, apart from being poorly researched and historically inaccurate, is fallacious.
I'm sorry, you need elevated permissions to have this argument here. Since the thread didn't prompt for them at the beginning, this argument has been denied.
(I'm actually surprised the thread isn't 1390 comments long, now I've seen this come up...)
Hey, that would be a novel argument against same-sex marriage. I'm sorry, but editing marriage requires elevated permissions, and since civilization didn't ask for those back when it started, your write permissions have been denied. I really want to see someone makes this argument now. It wouldn't be the craziest one I've heard.
-
The problem is, you're reinforcing an issue I have with so many people who think they're fighting for justice and equality.
We have one side saying, "I don't like this, but don't care too much. These surveys show that some people agree with me."
We have another side saying, "You are an evil homophobe who cannot speak without fallacy."
Accusing someone of something you find repulsive does not make it true. Yes, it will make people like your posts and agree with you, because you've applied the label of "bigot" to someone, and no one likes a bigot.
This is used so frequently, so violently lately that I have to call it out now every time I see it. The fact that you disagree with someone doesn't make them Hitler. Stop it.
-
Also, no, obviously I have not asked all black people. Have you asked any, though?
No I can't say that I have but I do know gay black people so I wouldn't want to presume their opinions were as opposed as those of the likely majority.
homosexuality is inbuilt and not something you can change, except that we know that's not 100% true
Do we?
by the example of all the people who've gotten married and had kids as cover
The last two words explain that.
My point here is that there is a certain difference between the two issues, and some black people DO not appreciate having their struggle co-opted.
Of course there is but there are similarities. What 'black people' (I'm really hating this pigeon-holeing and generalisations: my apologies to any black people reading) appreciate or not is no more important than what anybody else appreciates or not. Such struggles can be analogous and comparable without being co-opted. Calling it co-opted is what I call rhetoric (with the derogatory definition). To accept one minority's claim to fair treatment as just and proper but to reject another's suggests some sort of hypocrisy. That needs answering with something better than the deflection of "you're co-opting their rhetoric".
-
Good luck. I don't even know what "chrooted" means, except it's funny to say.
It's actually an old Unix-y trick that I think Windows has slowly learned; you run a process isolated from others, with phantoms that act like the OS's usual components. This way, if it wants to modify some random file that might screw up all kinds of things, you don't care, because the file it gets access to is exclusive to its chroot environment. It basically does a copy-on-write kind of thing. Linux containers may have made it obsolete, though they seem a little unwieldy to me.
-
There's that word again. Rhetoric has a few definitions, not all of them derogatory but, as some are, I think that word (like left wing and right wing and liberal and progressive) is a bad choice for a discussion such as this.
No, it's the exact perfect word. We're talking about making arguments in order to persuade. How is rhetoric not exactly what we're talking about?
-
I don't disapprove of even traditional marriage being separated out into civil and religous/cultural components.
It certainly seems like the rational thing would be a separation of concerns. The civil component, in the form of tax benefits and healthcare/legal rights, should follow the nondiscrimination model: you want a civil union between two individuals, go ahead, you get all the usual stuff. The religious component likewise: government has no business saying whether a qualified practitioner of a certain religion can perform a marriage (or equivalent) ceremony or not (or requiring them to, as the case may be, though I don't think anyone has EVER suggested this).
Either way you consider it, there's no reason to deny same-sex marriages, or even polyamorous marriages. If some question about federal benefits comes into the picture (like, say, a group trying to marry merely to reduce their collective tax footprint), then a review process similar to that involved in our ridiculous immigration system could be put in place.
-
the latest surveys show that homosexuals amount to about 1.5% of each gender
Depends very strongly on how the question is asked. For example, face-to face questionnaires tend to show a much lower incidence of homosexuality than more anonymous polling methods. Other surveys show more in the region of 10-15% IIRC
-
The fact that you disagree with someone doesn't make them Hitler. Stop it.
The fact that I told somebody I can no longer be bothered putting together arguments for to fuck off doesn't mean it was me who just Godwinned this thread.
-
Do we?
Feminists (not the ones for whom feminism is just voting Democrat, but the ones, e.g., running gender studies departments) believe that it's all choice. And women need to choose to be lesbians. For them, sexuality is purely a social thing. But that's the sort of thing you'd expect from people who aren't interested in reality.
-
Why don't you find a black American and ask him how he feels about having gay marriage co-opting the rhetoric of the black civil rights movement.
Unfortunately, most of my non-white friends are probably more liberal than I am, so asking them is probably not indicative. Either way, most of the black people I've ever discussed this with were actually elated. They saw the parallels as validating the civil rights struggle over race and expanding on it, not as some kind of takeover.
Either way, this is a non-argument. Civil rights are civil rights, regardless of which group we're talking about. If 50 years from now it's cracker-white ultraconservative Christians fighting for them, the same language would apply just as well.
-
It certainly seems like the rational thing would be a separation of concerns. The civil component, in the form of tax benefits and healthcare/legal rights, should follow the nondiscrimination model: you want a civil union between two individuals, go ahead, you get all the usual stuff. The religious component likewise: government has no business saying whether a qualified practitioner of a certain religion can perform a marriage (or equivalent) ceremony or not (or requiring them to, as the case may be, though I don't think anyone has EVER suggested this).
+1. This is a reasonable compromise. Gays get what they want, the religious folks aren't forced to redefine things.
-
What's this, more personal jabs?
Try actually saying something.
I'm not attacking anyone here. I just want to hear a real conversation. I have no qualms calling out posts that try to win arguments with personal attacks. This isn't about what you think, or what anyone else thinks about the topic in question. It's about respect. It's about equality. Argue. Please do. Just use real tactics, rather than playing on emotions.
-
It certainly seems like the rational thing would be a separation of concerns.
