If a webapp is a request from a browser over http, why are webapps so
darn hard?
get the request......send a page.....get back text, parse, put in
variables....perform whatever calculation....put answer in html
tags....assembel page.....send back to browser.......
I mean ti seem amtter of simple varibales......parsing some
text....and sending back an answer page......why are there frameworks
and all kind of crap involved with this????/
On Jan 14, 9:06 pm, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a webapp is a request from a browser over http, why are webapps so
> darn hard?
>
> get the request......send a page.....get back text, parse, put in
> variables....perform whatever calculation....put answer in html
> tags....assembel page.....send back to browser.......
>
> I mean ti seem amtter of simple varibales......parsing some
> text....and sending back an answer page......why are there frameworks
> and all kind of crap involved with this????/
If a newsgroup reader is generally an intelligent person who is eager
to learn and/or contribute, why is gavino so stupid?
post a one-line question...... show ignorance..... get some friendly
and informative replies..... ignore most of them...... insult authors
whose replies just _seem_ to be offensive.... disappear for a
week...... and then post a similar question over and over
again.........
I mean ti seems tobe the same pattttern..... asking a
question..... ignoring the answer...... being not able to
learn..... why do you continue to ask your questions, gavino????/
On 15 Jan, 03:06, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a webapp is a request from a browser over http, why are webapps so
> darn hard?
>
> get the request......send a page.....get back text, parse, put in
> variables....perform whatever calculation....put answer in html
> tags....assembel page.....send back to browser.......
>
> I mean ti seem amtter of simple varibales......parsing some
> text....and sending back an answer page......why are there frameworks
> and all kind of crap involved with this????/
I'm not a web expert, but a brush with Perl convinced me that there
some awful web languages out there. It is intellectually trivial to
be sure but seems to end up being hard partly because of language
design.
I think another problem is that you are using a foreign computer and
as such you are forced to play along to their rules. I wanted to use
Lisp
for scripting but could find no way of getting the Windows 2003 server
to play along. I couldn't find anybody who had experience running
Lisp
on a Windows server and the ISP would not move my account to a Linux
machine.
Mark
Web programming is harder than one-platform programming of the past,
for the following reasons.
1. the output must work on a number of platforms (browsers), which
adds complexity, each of which may either interpret the standards
differently, or only implement a subset of features.
2. in most cases, web-app input is text that must be parsed in order
to respond. Some languages require you to create the classes that are
able to respond to the inputs at run-time and for each request, which
requires code/complexity.
3. the client platform is unstable, limited in resources, and in some
instances, uncontrollable. E.g., ever try to create 5,000 non-trivial
javascript objects in IE? Or a flash model with (200) 3D surfaces in
actionscript? Neither will make it out of alpha unless the developer
has extremely low UI standards.
4. the wire: it forces serialization in order for computers to
communicate, which forces compliance to all manner of standards if you
want reliable communication.
5. security: security used to mean just password management and
attention to a few details like buffer overflows and sql injection
attacks. Not only does the web create a larger attack surface, but it
allows greater access for a much larger population of malcontents and
script kiddies.
6. www was originally designed for document display, and we've
misappropriated it as a programming platform.
7. since HTTP is both stateless and must serve the world, much more
attention has to be made to efficient coding practices and caching
techniques.
8. international standards: before the web, utf-8/16 and localization
were afterthoughts, at best.
9. bandwidth constraint changes everything
10. centralization: now defensive coding for maximal uptime is
required, and, if there's a failure, all your clients (if not the
entire world) may see it. Added visibility requires additional
developer time if their employer cares about the corporate reputation
the software may tarnish.
Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
--
In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless,
but planning is indispensable - Dwight E. Eisenhower
In article
<····································@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> Web programming is harder than one-platform programming of the past,
> for the following reasons.
>
> 1. the output must work on a number of platforms (browsers), which
> adds complexity, each of which may either interpret the standards
> differently, or only implement a subset of features.
> 2. in most cases, web-app input is text that must be parsed in order
> to respond. Some languages require you to create the classes that are
> able to respond to the inputs at run-time and for each request, which
> requires code/complexity.
> 3. the client platform is unstable, limited in resources, and in some
> instances, uncontrollable. E.g., ever try to create 5,000 non-trivial
> javascript objects in IE? Or a flash model with (200) 3D surfaces in
> actionscript? Neither will make it out of alpha unless the developer
> has extremely low UI standards.
> 4. the wire: it forces serialization in order for computers to
> communicate, which forces compliance to all manner of standards if you
> want reliable communication.
> 5. security: security used to mean just password management and
> attention to a few details like buffer overflows and sql injection
> attacks. Not only does the web create a larger attack surface, but it
> allows greater access for a much larger population of malcontents and
> script kiddies.
> 6. www was originally designed for document display, and we've
> misappropriated it as a programming platform.
> 7. since HTTP is both stateless and must serve the world, much more
> attention has to be made to efficient coding practices and caching
> techniques.
> 8. international standards: before the web, utf-8/16 and localization
> were afterthoughts, at best.
> 9. bandwidth constraint changes everything
> 10. centralization: now defensive coding for maximal uptime is
> required, and, if there's a failure, all your clients (if not the
> entire world) may see it. Added visibility requires additional
> developer time if their employer cares about the corporate reputation
> the software may tarnish.
>
> Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
He doesn't. He is a troll.
> --
> In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless,
> but planning is indispensable - Dwight E. Eisenhower
On Jan 15, 7:56 am, Rainer Joswig <······@lisp.de> wrote:
> In article
> <····································@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> > Web programming is harder than one-platform programming of the past,
> > for the following reasons.
>
> > 1. the output must work on a number of platforms (browsers), which
> > adds complexity, each of which may either interpret the standards
> > differently, or only implement a subset of features.
> > 2. in most cases, web-app input is text that must be parsed in order
> > to respond. Some languages require you to create the classes that are
> > able to respond to the inputs at run-time and for each request, which
> > requires code/complexity.
> > 3. the client platform is unstable, limited in resources, and in some
> > instances, uncontrollable. E.g., ever try to create 5,000 non-trivial
> > javascript objects in IE? Or a flash model with (200) 3D surfaces in
> > actionscript? Neither will make it out of alpha unless the developer
> > has extremely low UI standards.
> > 4. the wire: it forces serialization in order for computers to
> > communicate, which forces compliance to all manner of standards if you
> > want reliable communication.
> > 5. security: security used to mean just password management and
> > attention to a few details like buffer overflows and sql injection
> > attacks. Not only does the web create a larger attack surface, but it
> > allows greater access for a much larger population of malcontents and
> > script kiddies.
> > 6. www was originally designed for document display, and we've
> > misappropriated it as a programming platform.
> > 7. since HTTP is both stateless and must serve the world, much more
> > attention has to be made to efficient coding practices and caching
> > techniques.
> > 8. international standards: before the web, utf-8/16 and localization
> > were afterthoughts, at best.
> > 9. bandwidth constraint changes everything
> > 10. centralization: now defensive coding for maximal uptime is
> > required, and, if there's a failure, all your clients (if not the
> > entire world) may see it. Added visibility requires additional
> > developer time if their employer cares about the corporate reputation
> > the software may tarnish.
>
> > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> > --
> > In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless,
> > but planning is indispensable - Dwight E. Eisenhower
stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
being a bugger yet again
> > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> being a bugger yet again
i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
- attila
On Jan 16, 7:51 am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> > being a bugger yet again
>
> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>
> - attila
This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
vanekl wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:51 am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>>
>>>>He doesn't. He is a troll.
>>
>>>stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
>>>being a bugger yet again
>>
>>i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
>>sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>>
>>- attila
>
>
> This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
Nonsense. Why do you think we have the hounds? And they need their
exercise.
hth,kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
On Jan 16, 2:13 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
> vanekl wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 7:51 am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> >>>>He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> >>>stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> >>>being a bugger yet again
>
> >>i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
> >>sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>
> >>- attila
>
> > This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
>
> Nonsense. Why do you think we have the hounds? And they need their
> exercise.
>
> hth,kt
>
> --http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>
> "In the morning, hear the Way;
> in the evening, die content!"
> -- Confucius
Well, I haven't seen any evidence of the hounds, but that's probably
because I've been (mostly) behaving myself. Whoever is feeding them
that canned dog food had better stop and let the hounds forage on all
the treats that inhabit this forum. And if that doesn't work, I'm
giving 'em nun-chucks. Couldn't hurt. Couldn't hurt me. I don't think.
I still think moderators would be more effective than rabid dogs with
nun-chucks, but what do I know?
--
"I'm talking to 'Virtual You'."
"Do you do a lot of things with 'Virtual Me'?"
Roomie grins. "Yeah, 'Virtual You' is dirty..."
On Jan 16, 2:30 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:13 pm, Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > vanekl wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 7:51 am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> > >>>>He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> > >>>stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> > >>>being a bugger yet again
>
> > >>i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
> > >>sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>
> > >>- attila
>
> > > This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
>
> > Nonsense. Why do you think we have the hounds? And they need their
> > exercise.
>
> > hth,kt
>
> > --http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
>
> > "In the morning, hear the Way;
> > in the evening, die content!"
> > -- Confucius
>
> Well, I haven't seen any evidence of the hounds, but that's probably
> because I've been (mostly) behaving myself. Whoever is feeding them
> that canned dog food had better stop and let the hounds forage on all
> the treats that inhabit this forum. And if that doesn't work, I'm
> giving 'em nun-chucks. Couldn't hurt. Couldn't hurt me. I don't think.
>
> I still think moderators would be more effective than rabid dogs with
> nun-chucks, but what do I know?
> --
> "I'm talking to 'Virtual You'."
> "Do you do a lot of things with 'Virtual Me'?"
> Roomie grins. "Yeah, 'Virtual You' is dirty..."
And watch how just the threat of moderators shuts certain people up.
vanekl wrote:
> And watch how just the threat of moderators shuts certain people up.
You might want to bone up on Skinner's work on superstition in pigeons.
hth,kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
vanekl wrote:
> I still think moderators would be more effective than rabid dogs with
> nun-chucks, but what do I know?
Either you are over-sensitive or you need my killfile, this NG seems
just peachy compared to the good old days. But you do need to kill
anyone who never posts anything you want to read and sometimes post
things so disagreeable you cannot resist responding. Err on the kill
side, you'll never miss a noob and they are the only ones worth reading.
kt
--
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:55:32 -0800 (PST), vanekl <·····@acd.net> tried to
confuse everyone with this message:
>On Jan 16, 7:51=A0am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>>
>> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>>
>> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
>> > being a bugger yet again
>>
>> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
>> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>>
>> - attila
>
>This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
Nonsense. To think that group will turn to noise because of some clueless
fool is ridiculous. I also despise the idea that adding moderators would
actually improve anything.
Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
a fair discussion. Right now I'm developing a web forum (in Common Lisp of
course), that will destroy the paradigm of moderated web forums once and for
all. It actually deals with the problem of annoying users in the similar
way to Usenet, namely by using a personal killfile. If you've got a decent
newsreader software you can already filter gavino's posts. My newsreader
doesn't have a killfile, but then I don't want to censor what I read anyway.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
On Jan 16, 3:50 pm, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:55:32 -0800 (PST), vanekl <·····@acd.net> tried to
> confuse everyone with this message:
>
> >On Jan 16, 7:51=A0am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> >> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> >> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> >> > being a bugger yet again
>
> >> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
> >> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>
> >> - attila
>
> >This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
>
> Nonsense. To think that group will turn to noise because of some clueless
> fool is ridiculous. I also despise the idea that adding moderators would
> actually improve anything.
>
> Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
> a fair discussion. Right now I'm developing a web forum (in Common Lisp of
> course), that will destroy the paradigm of moderated web forums once and for
> all. It actually deals with the problem of annoying users in the similar
> way to Usenet, namely by using a personal killfile. If you've got a decent
> newsreader software you can already filter gavino's posts. My newsreader
> doesn't have a killfile, but then I don't want to censor what I read anyway.
>
> --
> |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
> |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
> |But we can take them on! | @ma |
> | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
I use the google groups web interface. I haven't found the killfile
knob. If you know where it is, I'm all ears.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:50:09 GMT, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov)
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:55:32 -0800 (PST), vanekl <·····@acd.net> tried to
>confuse everyone with this message:
>
>>On Jan 16, 7:51=A0am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>>>
>>> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>>>
>>> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
>>> > being a bugger yet again
>>>
>>> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
>>> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>>>
>>> - attila
>>
>>This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
>
>Nonsense. To think that group will turn to noise because of some clueless
>fool is ridiculous. I also despise the idea that adding moderators would
>actually improve anything.
>
>Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
>a fair discussion. Right now I'm developing a web forum (in Common Lisp of
>course), that will destroy the paradigm of moderated web forums once and for
>all. It actually deals with the problem of annoying users in the similar
>way to Usenet, namely by using a personal killfile. If you've got a decent
>newsreader software you can already filter gavino's posts. My newsreader
>doesn't have a killfile, but then I don't want to censor what I read anyway.
In the good ol' days we used to deal with persistent trolls by
emailing them the entire set of Unix man pages. After spending
several days cleaning 20 or 30 copies out of his inbox, the idiot
would either shape up or go away.
Then some a__hole from California sued a bunch of good people who did
it to him and thus everyone became afraid to take individual action
and moderated groups were born.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Jan 16, 7:50 am, ····@mail.ru (Timofei Shatrov) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:55:32 -0800 (PST), vanekl <·····@acd.net> tried to
> confuse everyone with this message:
>
> >On Jan 16, 7:51=A0am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> >> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> >> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> >> > being a bugger yet again
>
> >> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
> >> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>
> >> - attila
>
> >This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
>
> Nonsense. To think that group will turn to noise because of some clueless
> fool is ridiculous. I also despise the idea that adding moderators would
> actually improve anything.
>
> Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
> a fair discussion. Right now I'm developing a web forum (in Common Lisp of
> course), that will destroy the paradigm of moderated web forums once and for
> all. It actually deals with the problem of annoying users in the similar
> way to Usenet, namely by using a personal killfile. If you've got a decent
> newsreader software you can already filter gavino's posts. My newsreader
> doesn't have a killfile, but then I don't want to censor what I read anyway.
>
> --
> |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
> |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
> |But we can take them on! | @ma |
> | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
what does the kill file do?
gavino wrote:
> what does the kill file do?
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=killfile
--
1st European Lisp Symposium (ELS'08)
http://prog.vub.ac.be/~pcostanza/els08/
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:07:34 -0800 (PST), gavino <·········@gmail.com>
wrote:
>what does the kill file do?
It kills files. You can put a contract on a particular file to be
whacked whenever it appears or just turn it loose to murder
unsuspecting files at random.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Timofei Shatrov wrote:
> Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
> a fair discussion.
A moderator rejecting a posting for not following the rules of the forum
is no more censorship than is an editor of a magazine rejecting an
article because it does not meet the standards of that magazine.
<blockquote cite="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair">
After several more mistakes, poor evaluations and a period of leave
during which he was said to be dealing with "personal problems,"
[Jayson] Blair's editor Jonathan Landman sent a memo to management,
warning them "to stop Jayson from writing for The New York Times. Right
now." Instead, in 2002, Blair was promoted to the national desk.
</blockquote>
Jayson Blair was an accident. Jonathan Landman tried to protect us but
nobody listened. Blair was the failure of the proper application of
censorship. But gavino? gavino is no boating accident. I'm not
necessarily advocating c.l.lisp.moderated but please don't confuse
gavino with Guy Montag.
<blockquote cite=
"http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/16524/"
>
Now, Bradbury has decided to make news about the writing of his
iconographic work and what he really meant. Fahrenheit 451 is not, he
says firmly, a story about government censorship. Nor was it a response
to Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose investigations had already instilled
fear and stifled the creativity of thousands.
[...]
Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality
TV and one-hour dramas, says it is, in fact, a story about how
television destroys interest in reading literature.
�Television gives you the dates of Napoleon, but not who he was,�
Bradbury says, summarizing TV�s content with a single word that he spits
out as an epithet: �factoids.� He says this while sitting in a room
dominated by a gigantic flat-panel television broadcasting the Fox News
Channel, muted, factoids crawling across the bottom of the screen.
[...]
He says the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state � it is the
people. Unlike Orwell�s 1984, in which the government uses television
screens to indoctrinate citizens, Bradbury envisioned television as an
opiate. In the book, Bradbury refers to televisions as �walls� and its
actors as �family,� a truth evident to anyone who has heard a recap of
network shows in which a fan refers to the characters by first name, as
if they were relatives or friends.
</blockquote>
Guy Montag started burning books not in defense of The Government but
rather in defense of banality at the expense of books which promoted
thought and stirred emotions. Fortunately, by the end of the story,
Montag learned the error of his ways, and started to try to become a
walking embodiment of a great work of literature. I suppose that some
might think that Bradbury's reading of his own work is perhaps a bit
elitist. But I think he has an interesting point, if I understand him
correctly, is that sometimes the biggest danger to freedom of thought is
thought drowning in an endless sea of crap.
Of course, if this was c.l.lisp.moderated, I'm sure my article would
have been rejected as being *completely* off topic, so /hurray/ for crap...
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:58:59 -0600, Damien Kick wrote:
> Timofei Shatrov wrote:
>
>> Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
>> a fair discussion.
>
> A moderator rejecting a posting for not following the rules of the forum
> is no more censorship than is an editor of a magazine rejecting an
> article because it does not meet the standards of that magazine.
People often assume that moderators will only reject posts for valid reasons.
Moderators will be wise, impartial, and fair. This may be true for some
moderators, but it is not true for others People often change when
they get into positions of power. Or perhaps their true colors show.
This problem applies to censorship generally. In theory, censorship will
only eliminate works that we agree should be censored. In reality, you are
giving certain people the right to censor whatever they decide to censor.
A very different thing.
Given the long history of power going to people's heads, I prefer the
kill file to the censor.
I know google groups does not have this facility. It is deficient in a
number of ways. And there is no API so you can do it yourself. Bad google.
Tim Josling
tim Josling wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:58:59 -0600, Damien Kick wrote:
>
>> Timofei Shatrov wrote:
>>
>>> Moderation is a form of censorship and as such must be avoided to have
>>> a fair discussion.
>> A moderator rejecting a posting for not following the rules of the forum
>> is no more censorship than is an editor of a magazine rejecting an
>> article because it does not meet the standards of that magazine.
>
> People often assume that moderators will only reject posts for valid reasons.
> Moderators will be wise, impartial, and fair. This may be true for some
> moderators, but it is not true for others People often change when
> they get into positions of power. Or perhaps their true colors show.
And even if the moderators (or editors) are scrupulously fair by their
own lights, they are only human, and have only limited time and
cognitive resources to devote to the task of approval/rejection.
> Given the long history of power going to people's heads, I prefer the
> kill file to the censor.
You definitely need something -- a completely unfiltered discussion is
no fairer than a heavily moderated one.
paul
Paul Wallich <··@panix.com> writes:
> > Given the long history of power going to people's heads, I prefer the
> > kill file to the censor.
>
> You definitely need something -- a completely unfiltered discussion is
> no fairer than a heavily moderated one.
Precisely.
And, IMO, that argues for multiple forums with different protocols.
(The analogy in the political arena being "multiple sovereigns" rather
than a single world government. The analogy in the business world
being marketplace choice, not a monopoly.)
The critical thing is not for there to be censoring or not, but for
there to be forums offering a variety not just of content but of
filtering modes (where "not filtering" is an important kind of
filtering for purposes of this remark, just as, for example, "atheism"
is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
questions posed, not about the answers expected).
People publishing need a place to put things that might need to be
found, and people reading need ways to find things they need to read.
Humans reading need to choose a mode of receipt that they are
personally comfortable with, and while at least some forum should be
made reasonably accessible with unfettered posting access, as a way of
checking that the advertised filtering is being honest, that "catch
all" forum with no filtering and no a priori priority-setting is
necessarily not going to be everyone's first choice to draw from.
http://www.nhplace.com/kent/PFAQ/freedom-to-hear.html
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> for example, "atheism"
> is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
> protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
> questions posed, not about the answers expected).
Wrong example.
Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
Just like nothing isn't anything, the lack of it rather.
On Mar 22, 8:59 am, Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
> > for example, "atheism"
> > is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
> > protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
> > questions posed, not about the answers expected).
>
> Wrong example.
>
> Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
No, the absence of any religion is agnosticism. Atheism is the
dogmatic belief in the absence of a deity.
[Can you say "serious thread drift", boys and girls? :) ]
-- Scott
Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 22, 8:59 am, Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> wrote:
>> Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
>
> No, the absence of any religion is agnosticism. Atheism is the
> dogmatic belief in the absence of a deity.
atheism is the absence of belief in any deity. agnosticism is somewhere
in between belief and non-belief for some specific deity/deities.
absence of religion doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe in a
deity. you may just not like the deity involved.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Joost Diepenmaat wrote:
> Scott Burson <········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>On Mar 22, 8:59 am, Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> wrote:
>>
>>>Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
>>
>>No, the absence of any religion is agnosticism. Atheism is the
>>dogmatic belief in the absence of a deity.
>
>
> atheism is the absence of belief in any deity.
A subtlety vital to this anecdote:
While being processed on the way into the clink for anti-war activity
the jailer asks Bertrand Russell his religion, Russell responds he is
Agnostic. The jailer screws up his eyes, has Russell spell it out then
says, Well, there are a lot of strange religions but I guess we all
worship the same god.
Kept Russell cheerful for a week.
hth, kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
>> for example, "atheism"
>> is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
>> protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
>> questions posed, not about the answers expected).
>
> Wrong example.
>
> Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
> Just like nothing isn't anything, the lack of it rather.
I disagree. Agnosticism is closer to lack-of-religion than true
atheism. It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
there is no God.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> writes:
>
>> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>
>>> for example, "atheism"
>>> is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
>>> protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
>>> questions posed, not about the answers expected).
>>
>> Wrong example.
>>
>> Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
>> Just like nothing isn't anything, the lack of it rather.
>
> I disagree. Agnosticism is closer to lack-of-religion than true
> atheism. It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
> there is no God.
There are a lot of things I don't believe in. Why would it become a
matter of "a lot of conviction" if the thing in quesion were a diety?
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> writes:
>> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>>> for example, "atheism" is an important kind of religion for the
>>> purpose of religious protections ... that is, the category name
>>> ought really be about the questions posed, not about the answers
>>> expected).
>>
>> Wrong example.
>>
>> Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion. Just
>> like nothing isn't anything, the lack of it rather.
>
> I disagree. Agnosticism is closer to lack-of-religion than true
> atheism. It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe
> that there is no God.
The positive claim that there are no gods is called "strong
atheism". "Weak atheism" is the absence of belief in any gods.
Calling weak atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
As can be seen from its roots, agnosticism is a claim to be
without "a-" knowledge "gnosis". Agnosticism is the claim that gods
are unknowable and is hence orthogonal to the theist/atheist axis.
It is possible to be either a theist or an atheist and an agnostic at
the same time, since the former refer to beliefs and the latter to
knowledge.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | Large scale, mission-critical, distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, middleware, SOA)
Duane Rettig wrote:
> It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
> there is no God.
I was thinking "independence from socio-cultural habit". Occam's Razor
does not hurt, either. :)
kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> writes:
>
> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> >
> >> for example, "atheism"
> >> is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
> >> protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
> >> questions posed, not about the answers expected).
> >
> > Wrong example.
> >
> > Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
> > Just like nothing isn't anything, the lack of it rather.
>
> I disagree. Agnosticism is closer to lack-of-religion than true
> atheism. It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
> there is no God.
I could take a position on this to clarify my earlier remarks, but I
will let them stand. I have particular meanings for those terms, as
do others. No one's answers will be seen as canonical, so there's no
point in pushing deeply in that direction in this thread.
In the context spoken, though, my point was that in order to see why
First Amendment protection should exist for Atheism, you have to see
that religion is a question, not an answer... or, it is a type that
can be predicated, not any specific instance of that type. The
question, in the context I asked it, wasn't what are the meanings of
the various terms, since we all assign them in subtly different ways,
but rather: is it even valid to construe that the answers to these
terms are covered under the heading of Religion. I claim they are.
So if you want to talk about a function that passively returns either
a character or the fact of end-of-file, you either have to say that
end-of-file is a character, or you have to create a type system such
that you can talk about the union of character and end-of-file, or you
have to create an out-of-band protocol for reporting (through control
rather than data) the fact of an end-of-file. It matters less whether
functions do or don't take any of these approaches; what matters is
that people understand that this question is central to understanding
the total effect of functions of this kind--is the caller responsible
or not for handling the various cases.
The situation is no different for religion, it's just a matter of
naming. No matter how you name things, certain people either do or
don't have protections in this regard. And so it matters whether
society is required to protect these behaviors and whether individuals
are entitled to rely on that protection. In that sense, the analogy
does hold.
And, btw, insisting that atheism is not a religion is under US law
tantamount to asserting that it is not a protected behavior. So I
would tread lightly there unless your intent is to enable oppression.
That is not a philosophical observation, just a practical one, since
it is a practical truth that some subset of the US population seeks to
assert that the US is, by definition, a nation only of the religious.
Religion, suitably (and I think reasonably) construed, protects the
non-religious. Moreover, there is ample historical data to suggest
that this was intentional on the part of the framers. But the modern
Republican party, particularly the neo-cons (ironically those who
promote strict constructionism and original intent) usually like to
claim otherwise, notwithstanding the evidence.
Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>> Aleksej Saushev <····@inbox.ru> writes:
>>
>> > Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> for example, "atheism"
>> >> is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
>> >> protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
>> >> questions posed, not about the answers expected).
>> >
>> > Wrong example.
>> >
>> > Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
>> > Just like nothing isn't anything, the lack of it rather.
>>
>> I disagree. Agnosticism is closer to lack-of-religion than true
>> atheism. It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
>> there is no God.
>
> I could take a position on this to clarify my earlier remarks, but I
> will let them stand. I have particular meanings for those terms, as
> do others. No one's answers will be seen as canonical, so there's no
> point in pushing deeply in that direction in this thread.
>
> In the context spoken, though, my point was that in order to see why
> First Amendment protection should exist for Atheism, you have to see
> that religion is a question, not an answer... or, it is a type that
> can be predicated, not any specific instance of that type. The
> question, in the context I asked it, wasn't what are the meanings of
> the various terms, since we all assign them in subtly different ways,
> but rather: is it even valid to construe that the answers to these
> terms are covered under the heading of Religion. I claim they are.
Agreed.
> So if you want to talk about a function that passively returns either
> a character or the fact of end-of-file, you either have to say that
> end-of-file is a character, or you have to create a type system such
> that you can talk about the union of character and end-of-file, or you
> have to create an out-of-band protocol for reporting (through control
> rather than data) the fact of an end-of-file. It matters less whether
> functions do or don't take any of these approaches; what matters is
> that people understand that this question is central to understanding
> the total effect of functions of this kind--is the caller responsible
> or not for handling the various cases.
Beautiful seque back to the topic of the NG :-)
> The situation is no different for religion, it's just a matter of
> naming. No matter how you name things, certain people either do or
> don't have protections in this regard. And so it matters whether
> society is required to protect these behaviors and whether individuals
> are entitled to rely on that protection. In that sense, the analogy
> does hold.
>
> And, btw, insisting that atheism is not a religion is under US law
> tantamount to asserting that it is not a protected behavior. So I
> would tread lightly there unless your intent is to enable oppression.
I'm assuming that you're not speaking to me here; I'm the one saying
that atheism is a religion.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
> there is no God.
That would only be true if there was any objective evidence for a god.
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>> It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
>> there is no God.
>
> That would only be true if there was any objective evidence for a god.
Interesting retort. Are you then saying that you strongly believe
that there is no such evidence? Those who believe otherwise would say
otherwise, and so there is the question of how to prove one way or the
other whether the evidence exists or not. I'm not going to take up
that argument; I'm just saying that the implication in your reply that
no evidence of a god exists is itself an unprovable faith, and as such
is a religion. But perhaps that's not really what you're saying...
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> writes:
>
>
>>Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
>>>there is no God.
>>
>>That would only be true if there was any objective evidence for a god.
>
>
> Interesting retort. Are you then saying that you strongly believe
> that there is no such evidence?
This is why I brought up the Jabberwocky. And cultural habit. Many
people who simply do not buy the idea of God worry about being wrong.
Would they worry about being wrong in John Lennon's imagined world of no
religion? Not that any such thing is possible, hell, even pigeons form
superstitions. But speaking of Skiiner, let's turn the table. How many
religious people really believe what they say and think they believe?
Behaviorists like Skinner say don't ask them, look at how they act. I
don't mean going to church on Easter Sunday, I mean living as if what
they say they believe were in fact true.
Oops. Consider the mountaineer who set out to climb the highest steepest
peak ever alone and with little equipment. The route got steeper and
more challenging and then the weather turned, his progress slowed, he
weakened, and now clinging like a fly to a sheer wall his last foothold
breaks away and he is left hanging my his hands with a thousand foot
abyss below.
In terror and despair he cries out.
"Dear, Lord, save me! Oh, Lord, help me! Oh Lord Oh God oh no help me!!!!!"
Suddenly from nowhere comes a strong, comforting voice.
"I am here, My son."
The mountaineer is stunned but quickly recovers.
"Oh, Lord, oh God! Save me lord! Save me!"
"I can save you, My son, but only if you have Faith in Me."
"Yes Lord! Oh Yes! I have faith! Save me lord!"
"You must prove your faith."
"Yes Lord! Oh yes! Just tell me how, I will prove my Faith!!!"
"To prove your faith just let go of the rock and I will catch you."
Long pause.
"Is there anybody else up there?"
hth,kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Interesting retort. Are you then saying that you strongly believe
> that there is no such evidence?
Yes.
> Those who believe otherwise would say
> otherwise, and so there is the question of how to prove one way or the
> other whether the evidence exists or not. I'm not going to take up
> that argument;
That's fine, I'm just saying that for people who don't think there is
(enough) evidence for gods, it's not hard at all to belief they don't
exist.
> I'm just saying that the implication in your reply that
> no evidence of a god exists is itself an unprovable faith, and as such
> is a religion. But perhaps that's not really what you're saying...
I haven't seen any convincing objective evidence, and I've looked at the
arguments enough to think that if there was any, I would know about
it. Of course, what's convincing to you may not be convincing to me.
I don't really want to turn this into an argument over the evidence,
except that the burden of providing the evidence for /whatever/ is on
the people claiming that /whatever/ exists...
--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
On 2008-03-23, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> writes:
>
>> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>>
>>> It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
>>> there is no God.
>>
>> That would only be true if there was any objective evidence for a god.
>
> Interesting retort. Are you then saying that you strongly believe
> that there is no such evidence? Those who believe otherwise would say
> otherwise, and so there is the question of how to prove one way or the
> other whether the evidence exists or not. I'm not going to take up
> that argument; I'm just saying that the implication in your reply that
> no evidence of a god exists is itself an unprovable faith, and as such
> is a religion. But perhaps that's not really what you're saying...
>
I think that this whole matter is like Fermat's last theorem around
1900. The only thing that could be said about it was that it has
not been proved or disproved and investigations are still ongoing.
And that you could choose to believe it true, believe it false or
just say I don't know.
One thing I always find amusing about the prove G_d exists arguement
is that if G_d exists and he wants you to have the choice to believe or
not then why would he not cover all the bases and make it impossible to
prove one way or the other? As this is the only thing he could do to
preserve free will.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> writes:
> On 2008-03-23, Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>> Joost Diepenmaat <·····@zeekat.nl> writes:
>>
>>> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> It takes a lot of religious conviction to truly believe that
>>>> there is no God.
>>>
>>> That would only be true if there was any objective evidence for a god.
>>
>> Interesting retort. Are you then saying that you strongly believe
>> that there is no such evidence? Those who believe otherwise would say
>> otherwise, and so there is the question of how to prove one way or the
>> other whether the evidence exists or not. I'm not going to take up
>> that argument; I'm just saying that the implication in your reply that
>> no evidence of a god exists is itself an unprovable faith, and as such
>> is a religion. But perhaps that's not really what you're saying...
>>
>
> I think that this whole matter is like Fermat's last theorem around
> 1900. The only thing that could be said about it was that it has
> not been proved or disproved and investigations are still ongoing.
> And that you could choose to believe it true, believe it false or
> just say I don't know.
Actually, until it's proven one way or the other, you should indeed
choose one or the other hypothesis, and see where it leads you to. If
by chance you happen to find an inconsistency, you would have proved
eventually.
> One thing I always find amusing about the prove G_d exists arguement
> is that if G_d exists and he wants you to have the choice to believe or
> not then why would he not cover all the bases and make it impossible to
> prove one way or the other? As this is the only thing he could do to
> preserve free will.
Is it not what He did? Since there's no proof either way.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On 2008-03-27, Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, until it's proven one way or the other, you should indeed
> choose one or the other hypothesis, and see where it leads you to. If
> by chance you happen to find an inconsistency, you would have proved
> eventually.
>
Investigating the theory, pro or con, in no way supposes
belief in it either way.
> Is it not what He did? Since there's no proof either way.
>
And that is exactly where faith/choice kicks in. There are two
equally logical reasons for this, G_d does not exist or G_d does
and is very smart and sneaky about it. If you choose one or the
other it is a matter of pure faith in both cases. The only answer
that is not faith based is "I do not know"
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Aleksej Saushev wrote:
> Kent M Pitman <······@nhplace.com> writes:
>
>
>>for example, "atheism"
>>is an important kind of religion for the purpose of religious
>>protections ... that is, the category name ought really be about the
>>questions posed, not about the answers expected).
>
>
> Wrong example.
>
> Atheism isn't religion, it is the absense of any religion.
Right, tho sometimes understood to mean active opposition to the idea of
a god.
Seems to me atheism gives God too much credit. I am neither atheist nor
ajabberwockyist.
hth, kenny
--
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/
"In the morning, hear the Way;
in the evening, die content!"
-- Confucius
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:55:32 -0800, vanekl wrote:
> On Jan 16, 7:51 am, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>>
>> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>>
>> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
>> > being a bugger yet again
>>
>> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
>> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>>
>> - attila
>
> This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
Kill files are just as effective as moderators, but don't have the problem
of power going to the moderators' heads, delays in approving postings, and
suppression of alternate views.
Tim Josling
On Jan 16, 9:10 pm, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
...
> Kill files are just as effective as moderators, but don't have the problem
> of power going to the moderators' heads, delays in approving postings, and
> suppression of alternate views.
>
> Tim Josling
Except some news readers don't have kill files, some posters are
posting under numerous, every-changing psuedonyms, and moderation
doesn't have to mean pre-moderation (it can be retroactive).
But I see your point.
--
Data is the Intel Inside
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:07 -0800, vanekl wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:10 pm, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> ...
>
>> Kill files are just as effective as moderators, but don't have the problem
>> of power going to the moderators' heads, delays in approving postings, and
>> suppression of alternate views.
>>
>> Tim Josling
>
> Except some news readers don't have kill files, some posters are
> posting under numerous, every-changing psuedonyms, and moderation
> doesn't have to mean pre-moderation (it can be retroactive).
>
> But I see your point.
Yes it's not black and white. But try posting a well-reasoned critique of
feminism in soc.feminism. When it was originally moderated, debate was
supposed to be allowed. This was changed unilaterally and nothing can be
done. Moderators are unchallengeable dictators.
Tim Josling
On Jan 16, 11:02 pm, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:07 -0800, vanekl wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 9:10 pm, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > ...
>
> >> Kill files are just as effective as moderators, but don't have the problem
> >> of power going to the moderators' heads, delays in approving postings, and
> >> suppression of alternate views.
>
> >> Tim Josling
>
> > Except some news readers don't have kill files, some posters are
> > posting under numerous, every-changing psuedonyms, and moderation
> > doesn't have to mean pre-moderation (it can be retroactive).
>
> > But I see your point.
>
> Yes it's not black and white. But try posting a well-reasoned critique of
> feminism in soc.feminism. When it was originally moderated, debate was
> supposed to be allowed. This was changed unilaterally and nothing can be
> done. Moderators are unchallengeable dictators.
>
> Tim Josling
amen brother, freenode irc suffers from thsi bigtime
On Jan 17, 8:02 am, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> done. Moderators are unchallengeable dictators.
>
> Tim Josling
Agreed, absolute power leads to absolute corruption.
But even if there is some perfect system that would prevent trolls
like gavino to post rubbish, I still don't think it's a good thing to
have him in our cll ecosystem. Many of his "stupid" questions lead to
brilliant answers that I doubt will ever come to light if it wasn't
for him. Like Duane Rettig said "There are no stupid questions>". So I
think that trolls play some kind of role in our ecosystem, the best
defence to them is educating the user not to take the bait.
But I would definately for banning the spammers like those MI5 idiot
and the toad.
Slobodan
On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
...
> But I would definately for banning the spammers like those MI5 idiot
> and the toad.
>
> Slobodan
and the Jew-Haters and the religious fanatics, and the next group of
toxic wash that wanders by.
But your argument that trolls are good for the ecosystem is
interesting. I agree, impotent, harmless trolls could be tolerated.
On Jan 17, 5:16 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> ...
>
> > But I would definately for banning the spammers like those MI5 idiot
> > and the toad.
>
> > Slobodan
>
> and the Jew-Haters and the religious fanatics, and the next group of
> toxic wash that wanders by.
>
> But your argument that trolls are good for the ecosystem is
> interesting. I agree, impotent, harmless trolls could be tolerated.
Few things for a potential forum software:
1. Include a search for previous posts whe there's new thread, like in
ubuntu forums. Many times I tried to ask something but when I wrote
the title of the thread system just showed me old releveant answers ,
that will cut a lot of noise.
2. Rating system, there's a good people, bad people and good people
with bad day.
I think that everybody should be allowed to join the forum as that's
the core of open societies, with prevention from automatic
subscription, but they should get something like few personal fouls
credit. When you lose them all you're gone. With time of good
behaviour they should be refilled.
2. Spam button
Whenever users encounter a post they consider a spam they will just
press spam button, and it'll show in the post that it's marked as
such, if there are more than 3 votes and 2/3 think it's spom post
will be deleted and poster will lose credit.
3. Killfile user
All threads started certain user and all his replies and replies to
his replies will be invisible to those who exercised that option.
Of course this is just an idea finding good numbers for credits and
pardon time is left as an exercise to the reader.
cheers
Slobodan
On Jan 17, 4:53 pm, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:16 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > But I would definately for banning the spammers like those MI5 idiot
> > > and the toad.
>
> > > Slobodan
>
> > and the Jew-Haters and the religious fanatics, and the next group of
> > toxic wash that wanders by.
>
> > But your argument that trolls are good for the ecosystem is
> > interesting. I agree, impotent, harmless trolls could be tolerated.
>
> Few things for a potential forum software:
> 1. Include a search for previous posts whe there's new thread, like in
> ubuntu forums. Many times I tried to ask something but when I wrote
> the title of the thread system just showed me old releveant answers ,
> that will cut a lot of noise.
> 2. Rating system, there's a good people, bad people and good people
> with bad day.
> I think that everybody should be allowed to join the forum as that's
> the core of open societies, with prevention from automatic
> subscription, but they should get something like few personal fouls
> credit. When you lose them all you're gone. With time of good
> behaviour they should be refilled.
>
> 2. Spam button
> Whenever users encounter a post they consider a spam they will just
> press spam button, and it'll show in the post that it's marked as
> such, if there are more than 3 votes and 2/3 think it's spom post
> will be deleted and poster will lose credit.
>
> 3. Killfile user
> All threads started certain user and all his replies and replies to
> his replies will be invisible to those who exercised that option.
>
> Of course this is just an idea finding good numbers for credits and
> pardon time is left as an exercise to the reader.
>
> cheers
> Slobodan
I like your ideas but we are stuck with the NG software with which we
are stuck. I don't think it's possible to add modules to Google
Groups. I'd love to be proven wrong. (Expanded below.)
My own thoughts are that anything goes as long as it is kinda/sorta
Lisp related up until you have proven you are an unmitigable bore, a
blight upon humanity, and deserve a time-out. This would mainly apply
toward Haters, Religious Fanatics, Political Freaks, and those who
just spew naughty language because they've never programmed a day in
their lives and cannot formulate cogent arguments in their heads.
Secondly, you discuss details about what's on the other side of the
bridge even though the bridge has not been crossed, nor does it seem
likely to be crossed.
Third, since I don't think the Google NG sofware can be customized, at
least some of it would have to be moderated manually. This can be a
good thing, because that would eliminate most of the moderator-
adventurism since it's just too much work to oversee the entire
kingdom. Only the worst of the worst would be expunged/warned since
this would most likely have to be done by hand.
[I guess the moderators can write software to automate some of the
tasks, though, and have it run on their own computers and have it
moderate the NG remotely. The hardest part about being a moderator
couldn't be automated, though.]
--
"After the first glass, you see things as you wish they were. After
the second, you see things as they are not. Finally, you see things as
they really are, and that is the most horrible thing in the world."
Oscar Wilde, describing drinking absinthe
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:35:57 -0800 (PST), vanekl <·····@acd.net>
wrote:
>On Jan 17, 4:53�pm, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 5:16 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 17, 10:51 am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > ...
>>
>> > > But I would definately for banning the spammers like those MI5 idiot
>> > > and the toad.
>>
>> > > Slobodan
>>
>> > and the Jew-Haters and the religious fanatics, and the next group of
>> > toxic wash that wanders by.
>>
>> > But your argument that trolls are good for the ecosystem is
>> > interesting. I agree, impotent, harmless trolls could be tolerated.
>>
>> Few things for a potential forum software:
>> 1. Include a search for previous posts whe there's new thread, like in
>> ubuntu forums. Many times I tried to ask something but when I wrote
>> the title of the thread system just showed me old releveant �answers ,
>> that will cut a lot of noise.
>> 2. Rating system, there's a good people, bad people and good people
>> with bad day.
>> I think that everybody should be allowed to join the forum as that's
>> the core of open societies, with prevention from automatic
>> subscription, but � they should get something like few personal fouls
>> credit. When you lose them all you're gone. With time of good
>> behaviour they should be refilled.
>>
>> 2. Spam button
>> Whenever users encounter a post they consider a spam they will just
>> press spam button, and it'll show in the post that it's marked as
>> such, if there are more than 3 votes �and 2/3 think it's spom post
>> will be deleted �and poster will lose credit.
>>
>> 3. Killfile user
>> All threads started certain user and all his replies and replies to
>> his replies will be invisible to those who exercised that option.
>>
>> Of course this is just an idea finding good numbers for credits and
>> pardon time is left as an exercise to the reader.
>>
>> cheers
>> Slobodan
>
>I like your ideas but we are stuck with the NG software with which we
>are stuck. I don't think it's possible to add modules to Google
>Groups. I'd love to be proven wrong. (Expanded below.)
>
>My own thoughts are that anything goes as long as it is kinda/sorta
>Lisp related up until you have proven you are an unmitigable bore, a
>blight upon humanity, and deserve a time-out. This would mainly apply
>toward Haters, Religious Fanatics, Political Freaks, and those who
>just spew naughty language because they've never programmed a day in
>their lives and cannot formulate cogent arguments in their heads.
>
>Secondly, you discuss details about what's on the other side of the
>bridge even though the bridge has not been crossed, nor does it seem
>likely to be crossed.
>
>Third, since I don't think the Google NG sofware can be customized, at
>least some of it would have to be moderated manually. This can be a
>good thing, because that would eliminate most of the moderator-
>adventurism since it's just too much work to oversee the entire
>kingdom. Only the worst of the worst would be expunged/warned since
>this would most likely have to be done by hand.
>
>[I guess the moderators can write software to automate some of the
>tasks, though, and have it run on their own computers and have it
>moderate the NG remotely. The hardest part about being a moderator
>couldn't be automated, though.]
Google isn't the whole world - I use a stand alone reader (Agent),
Emacs can interface to several *nix text mode readers, web browsers
like Netscape and several mail programs all have their own NG readers.
Google isn't a terribly good interface as far as I'm concerned, and
over time I've observed that using it (and other web forums with
similar interfaces) leads people to some bad behaviors like failing to
quote the original message, or quoting as "message #141 in this
thread" or "the 2nd response to Joe's message" ... as if those
designations have meaning.
Not all of this (and other) behavior can be ascribed solely to noobies
- there's a long time idiot in one group I follow who generally quotes
but leaves out the attributions (e.g., "gneuner wrote:") because "the
tree view makes it obvious which message he responded to", making it
very hard to follow any discussion he gets involved in. So far, all
attempts to convince this person that others don't share his "tree
view" of the discussion have failed.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:16:52 -0800 (PST), vanekl <·····@acd.net>
wrote:
>On Jan 17, 10:51�am, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>...
>> But I would definately for banning the spammers like those MI5 idiot
>> and the toad.
>>
>> Slobodan
>
>and the Jew-Haters and the religious fanatics, and the next group of
>toxic wash that wanders by.
>
>But your argument that trolls are good for the ecosystem is
>interesting. I agree, impotent, harmless trolls could be tolerated.
As long as there are enough billy-goats to keep them under the bridge.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
On Jan 17, 7:02 am, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:07 -0800, vanekl wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 9:10 pm, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > ...
>
> >> Kill files are just as effective as moderators, but don't have the problem
> >> of power going to the moderators' heads, delays in approving postings, and
> >> suppression of alternate views.
>
> >> Tim Josling
>
> > Except some news readers don't have kill files, some posters are
> > posting under numerous, every-changing psuedonyms, and moderation
> > doesn't have to mean pre-moderation (it can be retroactive).
>
> > But I see your point.
>
> Yes it's not black and white. But try posting a well-reasoned critique of
> feminism in soc.feminism. When it was originally moderated, debate was
> supposed to be allowed. This was changed unilaterally and nothing can be
> done. Moderators are unchallengeable dictators.
>
> Tim Josling
The wisdom of the crowds has spoken, and I will not try to argue for
something that nobody wants, but I would like to mention that there
may be ways of getting around ornery moderators:
1. have lots of them.
2. periodically vote some off the island, so to speak, and replace
them.
3. they aren't Supremes---no life terms.
Just something to think about.
On Jan 17, 4:13 pm, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 7:02 am, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:23:07 -0800, vanekl wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 9:10 pm, tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > >> Kill files are just as effective as moderators, but don't have the problem
> > >> of power going to the moderators' heads, delays in approving postings, and
> > >> suppression of alternate views.
>
> > >> Tim Josling
>
> > > Except some news readers don't have kill files, some posters are
> > > posting under numerous, every-changing psuedonyms, and moderation
> > > doesn't have to mean pre-moderation (it can be retroactive).
>
> > > But I see your point.
>
> > Yes it's not black and white. But try posting a well-reasoned critique of
> > feminism in soc.feminism. When it was originally moderated, debate was
> > supposed to be allowed. This was changed unilaterally and nothing can be
> > done. Moderators are unchallengeable dictators.
>
> > Tim Josling
>
> The wisdom of the crowds has spoken, and I will not try to argue for
> something that nobody wants, but I would like to mention that there
> may be ways of getting around ornery moderators:
> 1. have lots of them.
> 2. periodically vote some off the island, so to speak, and replace
> them.
> 3. they aren't Supremes---no life terms.
> Just something to think about.
One last point:
Banning doesn't have to be binary, it can come with an expiration date
on the package, like Cheetos.
http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal-attacking-noise-in-chat/
tim Josling <·············@westnet.com.au> writes:
>
> Yes it's not black and white. But try posting a well-reasoned critique
> of feminism in soc.feminism. When it was originally moderated, debate
> was supposed to be allowed. This was changed unilaterally and nothing
> can be done. Moderators are unchallengeable dictators.
Fortunately Usenet moderation is pretty weak--all you have to do is wave
a rubber chicken and your posts will be accepted...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
I'm reminded of the day my daughter came in, looked over my shoulder at
some Perl 4 code and said, `What is that, swearing?' --Larry Wall
v> This group needs moderators. or it will devolve into noise.
yes, take a look at comp.lang.c++ -- they have pretty strict policies, and
posters simply love to bash people if they sense a even a bit of offtopic.
i so much liked it when asked 100% legitimate C++ question, but was bashed
because i've mentioned concrete compiler and library as an example.
making group pre-moderated is of course even better -- nothing will disturb
silence of arrogant pricks then.
On Jan 15, 11:51 pm, ··············@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Not sure how the OP ties this into Lisp.
>
> > > He doesn't. He is a troll.
>
> > stainer cockswing piss off I am getting great info here and you are
> > being a bugger yet again
>
> i would ban everyone from internet replying threads like this. and
> sometimes i think i wouldn't mind including myself...
>
> - attila
so I of course get abused, and tell the abuser whos a royal pain to
piss off, yet Im the bad guy...
g> If a webapp is a request from a browser over http, why are webapps so
g> darn hard?
g> get the request......send a page.....get back text, parse, put in
g> variables....perform whatever calculation....put answer in html
g> tags....assembel page.....send back to browser.......
it's not hard at all for a simple web applications. for example, a page that
calculates a sum of two numbers is just one function with ABCL-web's tiny
"framework":
(defun sum-demo-page ()
(make-page
"sum-demo"
(:body
(:h1 "sum")
(:p
(action-form
(((:input :name "a"))
((:input :name "b"))
(form-submit "add"))
(with-form-fields (a b)
(make-page
"sum-demo: result"
(:body
(:h1 "sum result")
(:p (:princ a "+" b "=" (+ (parse-integer a)
(parse-integer b))))
(:p (action-link "start page" (start-page)))))))))))
do you see anything complex or hard to understand here?
it just goes along your description:
get the request -- sum-demo-page called
send a page -- make-page is called
get back text, parse, put in variables -- action-form and with-form-fields
work here
perform whatever calculation and rest of stuff -- you see this in second
make-page
g> why are there frameworks and all kind of crap involved with this????
ABCL-web's "framework" is very simple -- it defines just few easy to use
functions and macros so you can make your pages in easy way. no kind of crap
involved.
but some people need more complex web applications consisting of hundreds
pages with different logic, having some common functionality, so they just
want to make it more automatic/maintanable.
other people are making front-ends for databases, and they like to describe
their applications as a mapping between database and web page, so they do
not need to think how to parse input and send output each time.
it's indeed an issue when you're using over-engineered framework for a
simple task -- it's very hard to understand what all the stuff does and how
to use it.
On Jan 15, 4:29 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> g> If a webapp is a request from a browser over http, why are webapps so
> g> darn hard?
>
> g> get the request......send a page.....get back text, parse, put in
> g> variables....perform whatever calculation....put answer in html
> g> tags....assembel page.....send back to browser.......
>
> it's not hard at all for a simple web applications. for example, a page that
> calculates a sum of two numbers is just one function with ABCL-web's tiny
> "framework":
>
> (defun sum-demo-page ()
> (make-page
> "sum-demo"
> (:body
> (:h1 "sum")
> (:p
> (action-form
> (((:input :name "a"))
> ((:input :name "b"))
> (form-submit "add"))
> (with-form-fields (a b)
> (make-page
> "sum-demo: result"
> (:body
> (:h1 "sum result")
> (:p (:princ a "+" b "=" (+ (parse-integer a)
> (parse-integer b))))
> (:p (action-link "start page" (start-page)))))))))))
>
> do you see anything complex or hard to understand here?
> it just goes along your description:
>
> get the request -- sum-demo-page called
> send a page -- make-page is called
> get back text, parse, put in variables -- action-form and with-form-fields
> work here
> perform whatever calculation and rest of stuff -- you see this in second
> make-page
>
> g> why are there frameworks and all kind of crap involved with this????
>
> ABCL-web's "framework" is very simple -- it defines just few easy to use
> functions and macros so you can make your pages in easy way. no kind of crap
> involved.
>
> but some people need more complex web applications consisting of hundreds
> pages with different logic, having some common functionality, so they just
> want to make it more automatic/maintanable.
>
> other people are making front-ends for databases, and they like to describe
> their applications as a mapping between database and web page, so they do
> not need to think how to parse input and send output each time.
>
> it's indeed an issue when you're using over-engineered framework for a
> simple task -- it's very hard to understand what all the stuff does and how
> to use it.
link to this framework? seems cool..
??>> it's indeed an issue when you're using over-engineered framework for a
??>> simple task -- it's very hard to understand what all the stuff does
??>> and how to use it.
g> link to this framework?
it is part of ABCL-web project:
http://abcl-web.sourceforge.net/
more information about "framework" itself:
http://abcl-web.sourceforge.net/web-engine.html
g> seems cool..
caveat: it works only on one implementation (ABCL). it should be trivial to
port "web engine" to other web servers on other implementations though..
On Jan 16, 10:37 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
wrote:
> ??>> it's indeed an issue when you're using over-engineered framework for a
> ??>> simple task -- it's very hard to understand what all the stuff does
> ??>> and how to use it.
>
> g> link to this framework?
>
> it is part of ABCL-web project:
>
> http://abcl-web.sourceforge.net/
>
> more information about "framework" itself:
>
> http://abcl-web.sourceforge.net/web-engine.html
>
> g> seems cool..
>
> caveat: it works only on one implementation (ABCL). it should be trivial to
> port "web engine" to other web servers on other implementations though..
"ABCL-web's web-engine is a very simple (essentially, it's just two
macros!) 'framework' for developing web applications. It's very good
for prototyping, but might be not useful for production use. "
GAK!!
pain!
P� Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:07:01 +0100, skrev gavino <·········@gmail.com>:
> On Jan 16, 10:37 am, "Alex Mizrahi" <········@users.sourceforge.net>
> wrote:
>> ??>> it's indeed an issue when you're using over-engineered framework
>> for a
>> ??>> simple task -- it's very hard to understand what all the stuff
>> does
>> ??>> and how to use it.
>>
>> g> link to this framework?
>>
>> it is part of ABCL-web project:
>>
>> http://abcl-web.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> more information about "framework" itself:
>>
>> http://abcl-web.sourceforge.net/web-engine.html
>>
>> g> seems cool..
>>
>> caveat: it works only on one implementation (ABCL). it should be
>> trivial to
>> port "web engine" to other web servers on other implementations though..
>
> "ABCL-web's web-engine is a very simple (essentially, it's just two
> macros!) 'framework' for developing web applications. It's very good
> for prototyping, but might be not useful for production use. "
> GAK!!
> pain!
Since when did you ever write a application? Let alone in Lisp. If you
could you could extend the framework as well of cource.
You had better stick with PHP. (4 million users can't be wrong..) This
should provide a module for anything under the sun so you will never have
to program much, just cut and paste and write glue code.
--------------
John Thingstad
g> "ABCL-web's web-engine is a very simple (essentially, it's just two
g> macros!) 'framework' for developing web applications. It's very good
g> for prototyping, but might be not useful for production use. "
g> GAK!!
g> pain!
well, you were asking for a simple thing, doesn't it fit your requirements?
or you simply do not have requirements, because you're not going to do
programming,
and you're just a troll annoying people in newsgroups with silly questions?