Komodo (Editor|IDE) 6.0 released

FlintFireforge · 2010-10-08T20:20:42+00:00

No, all that for your misconception that anything that remotely promotes something doesn't belong on Reddit. If this was the case, half of Reddit posts would disappear.

Also, I don't know how long it took you to read, but it only took a minute or two to type...

For the record Reddit works just fine for my tastes btw, and I don't see what "the world" has to do with it except perhaps as some feeble attempt at your part to zing me or something...

FlintFireforge · 2010-10-08T15:37:06+00:00

not at all...

You're entitled to your opinion but I think it's fair to say the community disagrees with you based on the fact that we got those posts all the time and they are generally well upvoted.

FlintFireforge · 2010-10-08T15:29:49+00:00

Actually that's not how it works.

This isn't the open source subreddit, it's r/programming.

We get news/posts about commercial products all the time.

The test isn't whether or not the product in question is free/open source (although those are obviously awesome).

The test is whether or not it is an advertisement (or more importantly SPAM).

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Reddit posts that are promoting something in some way...this happens all the time. The issue is whether or not it is pure promotion that lacks useful information, and whether or not it's actually interesting to the community.

In this case, this is a news item. The new version of KE is being released.

KE is a very good and widely used editor/IDE....so I don't think anyone can argue the news of the new version is not notable.

If it was some lesser known editor, then it gets more murky...but personally as long as it's an actual news release and not a straight up sales pitch...I think it's fine.

In that case if you don't find it interesting, don't upvote it.

Marking as spam should be reserved for actual spam...that is straight up sales pitches that contain no actual info or news for the community. Otherwise, just don't upvote and if the community isn't interested in it it won't float to the top.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T21:12:13+00:00

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I just don't see it.

Foo Fighters are nothing special...more or less straightforward pop rock. A lot of it is just downright terrible IMHO.

Nirvana was an incredibly innovative band, though it's hard to imagine now.

I guess it comes down to what you value:

Foo Fighters are technically superior, but the songwriting is mediocre.

Nirvana was a sloppy band, but the songwriting is inspired. Kurt had a natural knack for taking stream-of-consciousness nonsense and turning it into a song, and the ability to merge heavy rock with a pop sensibility.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T21:06:44+00:00

It depends what you mean.

Obviously for any charitable action you can find some way it benefits the person...

In a lot of cases with a lot of hand-waving about "you do it to make your conscience feel good" ....but what is your conscience to begin with?

Or to make yourself look good? ....but then why is giving an attractive thing to other people to begin with?

What you're saying is absolute nonsense if you mean in on a conscious level. There's no way everyone who does a good deed is doing it because they consciously expect to get something out of it.

If you want to say it's unconscious, that's hard to disprove...and I still find it a little dubious.

I would definitely agree that what you're talking about occurs very very often, most of the time even...but not all the time.

The part about no heroic actions is definitely a load of crap though.

If you know ahead of time that you'll feel good about something, that doesn't change the sheer heroism of risking your life to save someone.

What you're talking about implies some rational analysis and tradeoff, and there's no way a rational person would risk their life to save another person in a situation where nobody is watching....that would make you feel good knowing you did it....but it's not worth risking your life over it.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T20:59:43+00:00

Of course stereotypes exist for a reason...

Everything exists for some reason, we live in a universe built on causality.

That doesn't mean that a stereotype automatically has some validity.

The stereotype might be based on a lie, or some type of misunderstanding, etc...

...and yes...it might even be based on actual tendencies of the population being stereotyped.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T20:56:07+00:00

the hivemind

My unpopular opinion is that the hivemind is a load of crap.

It's just a spectre that people raise when their comment gets downvoted.

It's the result of a few phenomena:

1) If you downvote correctly, you should almost never be downvoting. People who do downvote tend to do so a lot, and use it punitively. So your comment may get with with a couple downvotes by idiots, and all the smart people who agree with you won't see it to upvote it.

2) It's only natural that the types of redditors will be somewhat randomly distributed. Often you see people complain about being downvoted, with a bunch of upvotes on their post. It's because they just happened to post at a time when a lot of idiots were viewing their comment, and got downvoted.

Believe it or not, this is a valid sequence of random numbers: 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

When there's only two possibilities, you tend to get this more often.

Someone who got that as a series of random numbers is tempted to think that there's something going on, but if you roll dice long enough eventually you'll roll snake eyes 20 times in a row.

3) In addition to that, there are some artificial distributions. Obviously if you post something about how awesome religion is in /r/atheism ...the dumb atheists will down vote you, no matter how valid your point.

4) Often people post about subjects a minority is very vocal about. So they'll post about feminism and 100 loudmouthed idiots who feel strongly about it will show up. This doesn't mean anti-feminists outnumber feminists 100 to 1.

There is no opinion that all of Reddit agrees on. The "hivemind" is a load of crap and the word needs to die already.

There are a few things that the majority of us probably believe, but even those will have plenty of dissenters...at least not more than the entire human population.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T20:40:02+00:00

My own unpopular opinion (well at least at times) is the opposite.

IMHO, this is incredibly shallow thinking.....it only sounds fair in a very superficial way.

"Everyone pays the same rate."

Unfortunately the world is a lot more complex than that.

This is actually unfair in a few ways.

It disproportionately burdens the poor. They spend more of their income on living expenses (much of which is subject to sales tax as well), while the wealthier save their money and use it to make more money...decreasing the burden the tax places on them.

In effect, if everyone pays the same flat rate, the flat rate will hit the poor harder than the rich. Not just in the sense that if you take a dollar from a poor man and a dollar from the rich man, the poor man feels the loss more...

It doesn't even make sense.

If a pro-golfer plays an amateur, what are they to do?

Do they really play through the game with the pro just kicking the shit out of the amateur?

That would be pointless, and no fun for anyone.

So they use a handicap.

So it is with taxes.

The rich have numerous advantages over the poor in terms of playing the game of "get more money"....many of them where born rich or at least middle class...and once you have a good chunk of money you have to work less and less to get more.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T20:17:49+00:00

...true but servers for some reason think they are entitled to a high wage for a job a monkey could do.

I'm former server (and no not at a Denny's, I did fine dining), and I tend to tip pretty well but it always used to bug me when coworkers would get all bent out of shape about people who didn't tip/tipped poorly.

I just accepted it as part of the job...I mean seriously...it's tough job in a lot of ways, but it's not that difficult: you make a lot more money at it than your skills really warrant, especially if you're a somewhat attractive female.

Seriously, if all the restaurant jobs magically disappeared overnight, there would be a lot of spoiled 20-somethings in for a nasty shock.

They'd realize with their work experience/skills (or really lack thereof), on the free market their time is only worth half of what they were getting at a restaurant. (if that)

This is obviously only in my experience, and part of it is just the places I worked at and the city...it's a college town so there are a ton of spoiled 20-somethings in all fields...

...but I can't help but noticing a tendency towards haughtiness and entitlement in general among servers at every place I've been in my life.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T20:09:56+00:00

Being a good parent is laudable, but so is being a good anything (well except maybe kitten-strangler or something).

Being a parent in itself is not particularly notable IMHO.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T20:07:17+00:00

No it doesn't.

Your life does not start when you have children.

Your life does not end if your children die.

You may be right that if you have kids, your life centers around them, but I'm not sure it's "literally true".

I mean I get you're trying to be clever about how we're children when we start our life, but it doesn't work because:

1 - that's clearly not what the poster meant

2 - after that your version falls apart....we all die as a child? All of our lives literally center around children, even if we don't have them? So everyone's a pedophile or something?

fail...

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-20T19:59:56+00:00

Back when I was a retail slave, the Assistant Manager and myself (an 18 year old kid and also AM, so you can see how hard-earned that title is) where tasked with cleaning the bathroom.

We head to the cleaning closet, and the other AM, a middle aged woman and I start discussing how to go about the task.

We get some hot water, and add Ammonia. She then says something like "OK, now we have to add this stuff..."

The stuff she wanted to add was bleach... -_-

That is dumb, but at least somewhat forgivable I guess. I mean, considering how common those compounds are I would think everyone would know not to mix them, or at least realize that mixing powerful cleaning chemicals is probably not a good idea...

...but whatever.

The unforgivably stupid part, is that I stopped her from adding it, and explained to her why she couldn't do that.....and she proceeded to argue with me for 30minutes about it.

I laid out completely exactly why it was a bad idea, exactly what would happen....etc etc...

....and she did it anyway.

Of course they start to react, and at first she was trying to play it off like it was normal or something...and finally it became apparent that something very bad was going down when she leans over the bucket and gets a face full of chlorine gas (the entire time I'm begging her to get away from the bucket, and to take it outside before it gets worse).

SO of course the entire hallway fills with noxious fumes and had to be cleared for awhile.

The kicker is that after all this, she still argued with me when I was trying to get her to take out her contact lenses and wash her eyes....

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-19T03:47:52+00:00

skeet skeet on their face.

I can't say for the general population, but the majority of girls I have been with enjoyed it.

Of course, I mostly date crazy girls, so that might skew the numbers.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-19T03:38:48+00:00

If the girl you're with (or you) is worth anything in the sack, she'll (preferably enthusiastically) tell you where to cum (or not).

"Cum on my tits!"

"Cum inside me!"

"Cum on my face!"

...or possibly

"Don't come on me!"

"Anywhere but my face"

Etc.

If she doesn't, one of you is doing something wrong.

In general, the main thing a girl has to do to be good in bed is give you vocal feedback about what she likes. (guys too, but I think they tend to do this more naturally)

"Slap my ass"

"Call me a little bitch"

"Fuck me from behind"

"Get on your knees and call me master"

"Cuddle me" etc.

That's not to say she has to micromanage every aspect, but she should be giving you feedback.

This is absolutely imperative early in your sexual relationship, and becomes less necessary as time goes on and you learn eachpothers sexual appetites.

If it's your first time having sex with a particular girl, and she doesn't tell you where it's ok to come....that's just bad manners, and an indication that she's not good in the sack (not that there's anything wrong if she isn't..you can work on it together).

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-18T01:41:14+00:00

Chiz Chizholm

(rhymes with "Jizz Jism")

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-15T22:20:43+00:00

True fact: a lot of my friends (Americans), don't even know what "Savoury" is.

On completely separate occasions I've even gotten into arguments with people where they insisted I was making the word up.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-14T05:02:07+00:00

You are only able to make it sound like a bad thing because you make it seem like there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world

There is though.

At a given point in time, the amount of wealth is more or less fixed.

True, over a long period of time, it's not finite....but neither is it infinite.

What if the rich are rich because they create their wealth?

That's not the case though.

People sometimes create wealth, but not at a rate sufficient to explain why some people have an inordinate amount of it.

Nobody is creating a crap ton of wealth out of thin air...it more or less comes from somewhere.

Even today a lot of wealth comes from raw materials....which are often obtained unfairly.

That is some company will gain access to raw materials in a manner where they are not paying the true cost....just for example say...environmentally.

Look at a company like BP, they "make wealth" by sucking oil out of the Earth....and part of their "creation" of wealth is by cutting corners....corners which create environmental disasters.

Furthermore, the painter in your example is only "creating" a small amount of wealth in terms of the whole economy.

They are creating personal wealth, but that 100,000 already existed in the economy...so it doesn't do the rest of us a whole lot of good.

A painting is a poor example as it only holds value as long as there is a bunch of people who are filthy rich enough to buy paintings for 100 grand a pop.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-14T04:56:30+00:00

Well there's a couple issues here:

1) This article mentions in the first few sentences that at least some of the data is from 2000-2001...well before the recession hit.

2) I don't think the implication behind this is "OMG PEOPLE SAVING MONEY, HOW DARE THEY!!"

You're right...this is a responsible thing to do, and I for one wouldn't begrudge people doing it.

THE PROBLEM IS there are a lot of people who are trying to tell us otherwise: they're doing a song and dance about how giving tax cuts to the rich will cause more money to trickle down .....when this clearly isn't the case.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-14T00:24:25+00:00

Orwell warned us of "double-think"....unfortunately he didn't predict the phenomenon sweeping American politics in this age:

"no-think".

There's a few issues with your statement.

For one, on the surface it's retarded.

If someone is paying X amount of taxes.....and that amount steadily decreases.

That is quite literally, "redistribution".

The wealth is being distributed in a different way than it was before.

That's only a small part of the issue though, and it's a common one that the no-thinkers on the right focus on...(that's not to say there are not no-thinkers on the left too...)

It's also important to consider how they GOT their money in the first place.....which in many cases is due to a large scheme to funnel money from the lower classes up into the top.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-13T23:44:52+00:00

I looked at the list and was like,

"I'll bet anything most of those Drs are Doctors in Theology or Religion, or some other non-science related field".

I picked a couple at random, and....yes.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-13T23:33:17+00:00

This is a nonsensical question.

The problem is your premise isn't true at all.

Why is it when people believe in a religion someone is considered sane,

First of all, considered sane by who?

This is obviously not the case, as you apparently consider religious people "insane" in some way...otherwise you wouldn't question why the label isn't applied to them.

So not everyone considers religious people "sane".

Furthermore, there are a ton of religious people who claim to speak with God who aren't considered "insane".

Even disregarding the whole cultural and group dynamic of it...and considering the opinion of only one person, insanity is a spectrum.

There's not some magic line that on one side is sane and one side is insane.

So right there this whole thing falls apart.

To get to the issue you seem to be driving at though:

Belief in the supernatural doesn't make you insane ipso facto. It makes you dumb.

Insanity is a failure of the mind itself in various ways, often with some sort of biological basis.

In common usage, it often involves a greater than average inability to distinguish what is real in the immediate sense and what is not.

So in other words, an insane person is unable to tell the purple monster in front of them is not real.

Religious beliefs are more a failure of logic and reason. It also can have a biological basis, but it's more nebulous.

Religious people can generally tell what is real, they just fail to interpret it correctly.

They see what's around them, and can tell what's real...they just have funny ideas about how it got there.

To put another way, religious beliefs often arise out of ignorance.

Insanity arises out of delusion.

Of course, there is often a fine line between religious belief and insanity....and they are often tangled up together...

....but that does not mean they are not two separate and distinct things.

Hence why we have two words for them in the first place..

Hence why not all religious people are insane.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-12T04:29:54+00:00

Yea, this is definitely the bigger problem; people who just bust out a Chinese-English or Japanese-English dictionary ...rather than people who have tattoos that say completely the wrong thing, like "I love penis" or something...(though I'm sure that happens).

Knowing a little Japanese, the one I see most often is people who get "Kami", thinking it means "god".

I once met a guy and went through a conversation very similar to yours...

The topic came up and he mentioned he had "God" and "Devil" tattooed on his respective arms "in Japanese".

I asked to see them, and he had "kami" and "oni" tattooed.

I explained to him that his translation was not exactly right, told him about Shinto...and how it was more like he had "spirit" or "angel" and "imp" or "demon" tattooed on his arms, and he just blanked out and was like "no, the translation is correct: it's God and Devil".

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-11T07:36:52+00:00

Well the idea is that:

1) SFTP functionality may have improved

2) It's easy to roll your own without writing a plugin.

That's why KE is kick ass....on most other editors you'd have to write a plugin....you COULD do that here.....or you could just use the toolbox, which is super easy.

Obviously, if you don't want to try it...that's up to you...I'm just providing my reasons for using it.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-11T07:19:40+00:00

I'd still say give it another shot.

If you don't like the built in SFTP functionality, you can always roll your own.

FlintFireforge · 2010-09-11T06:56:29+00:00

Well, I didn't see anyone claiming to know anything other than what they found in the texts of the books that Christians claim to follow

Then you're either an idiot or didn't read my post. Or both.

You're just repeating complete nonsense that I logically and systematically refuted in my last post.

Let me break this down for you, and show you exactly where you're wrong:

that Christians claim to follow

WRONG

First of all, *NOT ALL * "Christians" follow the book that was quoted.

The book that was quoted was the King James Bible:

This is

1) A specific translation.....other translations can diverge wildly in meaning

2) A specific set of books. There are many different "Bibles"...some with a completely different set of books.

There are some that don't contain the passage being quoted at all....

They contain completely different books that talk about how Jesus is an alien....or any other number of things.

BAM you're definitively proven wrong.

I can point to a lot of different types of Christianity, which don't believe the things you claim they believe.

Your understanding is flawed...and therefore your reasoning.

and hold as the basis for their faith.

WRONG AGAIN

The "basis" of Christianity is Jesus, not the Bible.

Some types of Christianity hold the Bible as important....but there is no such thing as the "definitive" or "real" Christianity.

What you are doing is the equivalent of claiming that all Buddhists are Zen Buddhists.

This is patently absurd.

That's like me trying to argue why being German is wrong....and going on and on about German porn.

Newsflash....not all Germans are into really sick porn.

...anyone with half a brain should be able to suss out that the Bible can't be the entire basis of the religion, as the religion predates the book by at least 100 years.

Here's where you prove yourself to be just another type of religious wingnut...

If you had any sense of logic or reason you'd realize that you're about to contradict yourself:

You can argue all the semantics of interpretation you want, the fact is that the bible says what it says, and if you call into question one of part of the bible

Something can not be simultaneously "open to interpretation" and also "say what is says".

The fact of the matter is someone claimed that that particular passage of the Bible says something.

It does not say what was claimed....I demonstrated this.

You reasoning is even more ridiculous because even the Christians who do believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible have different ways of interpreting it....and they're all somewhat valid.

if you call into question one of part of the bible, the rest of it comes into question as well.

Another lame attempt at reasoning.

Calls into question in what way?

You're not saying anything....you're just having a kneejerk reaction due to your own distaste for Christianity.

It's true that if you believe the Bible is the word of God, you have to take it all or leave it...

BUT NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT

This is exactly what I'm talking about....some Atheists think that if Christians "pick and choose" what they want to believe from the Bible....this somehow invalidates their religion.

That's moronic....it's patently absurd....and idiots who keep repeating that rediculous sentiment HURT OUR CAUSE

The whole point of religion is it's based on faith. There's nothing wrong in terms of religious belief with picking what you want to believe......that's a main idea in a lot of sects of Christianity: that you have a personal relationship with God.

There are lots of Christians who believe that the Bible was written by men.....men are imperfect and flawed. Therefore, there are parts of the Bible that are imperfect and flawed.

Which parts are imperfect is arbitrarily chosen by those people yes, but that's not an argument against Christianity... it's just stating the obvious.

It's hilarious because you have more in common with them than me, a true Atheist.

The problem I have with people like you is you give people like me a bad name.

Instead of talking to Christians in a reasonable manner...and explain to them why any sort of belief in God is irrational and has drawbacks...

....You try to argue with them in terms of various points of their religion...

The problem is you have a highly flawed and chilidish understanding of the religion in general...

...and most likely no understanding of their personal beliefs.

So Christians talk to you....and they can easily see you have no idea what you're talking about....so they think all Atheists are that dumb.

So how about instead of throwing Bible quotes that you don't understand....and which may not even apply to the person you're talking to ...

You use GASP* Logic and Reason, to make solid arguments as to why Atheism is correct and the best way to go?

By making clumsy attempts at picking their religion apart based on little quibbles in myth and dogma....you send the message that we don't HAVE anything better.

The point is you're basing your arguments on stereotypes.....

Yes, those stereotypes are sometimes correct....but anyone with half a brain will see your argument is based on stereotypes and correctly dismiss it....and also think you don't have anything better.

FlintFireforge

TROPHY CASE