[OT] Religion (was: god 0.1.0 released)
Gregory Brown
> Florian Frank wrote:
>
> > Why? At least now the name refers to *something*.
>
> I've never seen a "name" that didn't refer to something. Perhaps you
> meant "implies" something. And yes, it implies a sense of arrogance on
> Tom's part.
>
> And your comment, Benj, about the Gaming industry already doing it - so
> it must be "ok"... and your initial thoughts on objections for the use
> of the name, and then signing as "mostly agnostic"... You sir - have
> given me the best laugh of the day! Your first thoughts must have come
> from your non-"mostly agnostic" side, and by the definition of agnostic,
> you are uncertain anyway. So, your post is a trip, (a riot, it's
> hilarious), anyway you look at it! And yes, in this case, it's
> perfectly relevant.
>
> Perhaps its my age (44), which to some might suggest a certain level of
> maturity and/or discretion, but I would have spent a bit more mental
> time to come up with a name, like I said before, that was more
> appropriate, or perhaps, OK, I'll quit beating around the bush on my
> real feelings - less inappropriate.
>
> But, being a candidate for an old fuddy-duddy, I could be looking at
> this all wrong too. With God (the real one) being taken out of schools,
> and His commandments being taken out of our courthouses, and in all the
> other ways society has found to remove or otherwise pidgeon-hole God out
> of our lives, perhaps this reference, however infinitesimally minute in
> the scheme of things, will raise someone's curiosity enough to do some
> exploration for themselves on the matter.
Okay, I have to be honest. What about the non-Judaic practitioners
in the US? Frankly, I'm glad that "His" commandments are no longer in
courthouses in a country where free religious exercise is supposed to
be practiced.
As far as schools, same things go there. I don't think the state has
a place in picking the spiritual views for students, that seems to
really push the envelope if you ask me.
It seems like you used the name of this library which really is just
clever and appropriate as a soap stand for your particular religious
beliefs, and it seems pretty far out of the scope of discussion here.
We've had religious discussions here in the past, and I think they
can be quite interesting, but let's at least break the thread at this
point so those looking for technical content don't find themselves
disappointed.
-greg
Trans
On Jul 10, 10:42 am, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You're right, good idea to split this thread....
On the topic, I don't see it as a religious thing in-itself, merely a
matter of general sensibilities. For instance, I would likewise anyone
not to name a project a curse word or racial slur, despite how well
they might correspond to the projects functionality. Sure, "God" is
not a "bad" word, but it's just as emotionally heavy. In the end, you
could use any such name, if you really wanted, but you'd probably be
doing yourself a disservice b/c some people simply won't approach your
project b/c of it.
T.
James Edward Gray II
> Sure, "God" is
> not a "bad" word, but it's just as emotionally heavy. In the end, you
> could use any such name, if you really wanted, but you'd probably be
> doing yourself a disservice b/c some people simply won't approach your
> project b/c of it.
It seems to be drumming up business to me.
James Edward Gray II
Gregory Brown
> You're right, good idea to split this thread....
>
> On the topic, I don't see it as a religious thing in-itself, merely a
> matter of general sensibilities. For instance, I would likewise anyone
> not to name a project a curse word or racial slur, despite how well
> they might correspond to the projects functionality. Sure, "God" is
> not a "bad" word, but it's just as emotionally heavy. In the end, you
> could use any such name, if you really wanted, but you'd probably be
> doing yourself a disservice b/c some people simply won't approach your
> project b/c of it.
> > T.
That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
extremely offensive to me.
Lyle Johnson
Only if you believe there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Trans
On Jul 10, 11:23 am, James Edward Gray II <j...@grayproductions.net>
wrote:
Well, perhaps. Sadly the adage "any publicity is good publicity" does
seem to rule the day. Probably explains why "Dick and Bush" run our
country ;)
T.
James Edward Gray II
See the Grand Theft Auto games.
James Edward Gray II
Lionel Bouton
>
> Well, perhaps. Sadly the adage "any publicity is good publicity" does
> seem to rule the day. Probably explains why "Dick and Bush" run our
> country ;)
>
>
They rule our beloved Japan too?!?
Sorry, couldn't resist :-) Seems several of us have to let some steam
go, myself included. I'll go out put fresh air in my lungs instead of
polluting this list any more...
Peace,
Lionel, ... from France by the way.
Todd Benson
No doubt. I agree the publicity works for a popularity contest. One
could argue that such a thing might attract some brilliant
contributors, even; or, as the case may be, shoddy ones.
The namespace (set of all useful names) of shared libraries/apps/gems
is a limited resource. Some names carry more weight than others, as
evidenced by Mr. Burch's and others' replies, and so, unintentionally
become commodities. I'd like to think we're all smart enough to say
"a word is just a word," but that just isn't the case. The word "god"
is especially weird because it has an exceptional amount of baggage
surrounding it.
I think it would be prudent and polite to use weird and heavy names as
objects/variables/etc. inside of an application or library, and not as
the name of a library.
But I know that will never happen. How could it? First one to lay
claim to a name gets it, right? I keep thinking of the pour lost
souls typing in http://www.god.com to find solace because some
guy(s)/gal(s) homesteaded that territory.
Todd
Todd Burch
>
> Okay, I have to be honest. What about the non-Judaic practitioners
> in the US? Frankly, I'm glad that "His" commandments are no longer in
> courthouses in a country where free religious exercise is supposed to
> be practiced.
>
Ok, I think I understand. The Judeo-Christian group has had their
articles of religious expression removed from public display, and you
are basking in that. Good for you. Free religous exercise does not
mean "free only on the condition that it does not offend some vocal
minority". It means free!
> As far as schools, same things go there. I don't think the state has
> a place in picking the spiritual views for students, that seems to
> really push the envelope if you ask me.
>
I don't think the state is doing that here in the US. As a matter of
fact, they are doing the opposite. They are squelching religous
expression, because Group "ABC" might offend Group "DEF".
> It seems like you used the name of this library which really is just
> clever and appropriate as a soap stand for your particular religious
> beliefs, and it seems pretty far out of the scope of discussion here.
I don't agree the name is clever or appropriate.
Now, time for me to be perfectly honest. This is the first time in my
life I have ever taken a stand for my beliefs in a public forum. Call
me a slow starter. I typically steer away from these discussions like
the plague. However, I wanted to make a point that Tom could have
picked a better name. I think I've made that point now.
Todd Burch
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
kha...@enigo.com
> That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
> many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
> extremely offensive to me.
Going with that, using "god" as the name of a software package is likely
as offensive to Muslims and Jews, as well. Heck, the religious Jews I
know won't even type 'God', preferring 'G-d' or something similar instead.
Kirk Haines
Gregory Brown
> >
> > Okay, I have to be honest. What about the non-Judaic practitioners
> > in the US? Frankly, I'm glad that "His" commandments are no longer in
> > courthouses in a country where free religious exercise is supposed to
> > be practiced.
> >
>
> Ok, I think I understand. The Judeo-Christian group has had their
> articles of religious expression removed from public display, and you
> are basking in that. Good for you. Free religous exercise does not
> mean "free only on the condition that it does not offend some vocal
> minority". It means free!
It's a matter of context. The 10 commandments in courthouses make it
seem as if we are subject to government enforced divine law.
If the ten commandments are displayed in a museum, on the side of the
church, or heck, even on a taxi, you won't hear complaints from me.
But if you're going to put the 10 commandments on the side of a court
house, let's leave room for the four pillars, the five Buddhist
precepts, and let's really leave room for *anyones* religion.
Anything short of that amounts to endorsement.
Free exercise is entirely different than state supported endorsement.
The notion that the US is a Christian nation is only settling for
Christians.
And I'm not basking in anything really, I'm not a big fan of
courthouses in general.
> > As far as schools, same things go there. I don't think the state has
> > a place in picking the spiritual views for students, that seems to
> > really push the envelope if you ask me.
> >
>
> I don't think the state is doing that here in the US. As a matter of
> fact, they are doing the opposite. They are squelching religous
> expression, because Group "ABC" might offend Group "DEF".
I don't really like that, either. If students in a public school want
to start up a prayer group, I think they should be allowed to. If a
student is chastised for not saying the "Under God" part of the pledge
of allegiance, that's a straight up breach of freedom.
> > It seems like you used the name of this library which really is just
> > clever and appropriate as a soap stand for your particular religious
> > beliefs, and it seems pretty far out of the scope of discussion here.
>
> I don't agree the name is clever or appropriate.
>
> Now, time for me to be perfectly honest. This is the first time in my
> life I have ever taken a stand for my beliefs in a public forum. Call
> me a slow starter. I typically steer away from these discussions like
> the plague. However, I wanted to make a point that Tom could have
> picked a better name. I think I've made that point now.
It's a good discussion, just next time, be sure to immediately change
the subject header to read Off-Topic because it has nothing to do with
Ruby. As you can see, there are plenty of folks who are interested in
sharing their opinions on this, myself included. But honestly, this
discussion might have been better held off list or on a different
forum.
That having been said, I'm not questioning your beliefs, I'm simply
noting that touting them on a technical forum isn't a great idea.
There are plenty of generalized reasons to be upset about the name of
the library, so "His Commandments" needn't ever enter the discussion,
IMO.
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
Guys, get a grip!
If the name he chose for the library is god, so be it.
He could have used many other more offensive words than god:
- holy_cow_killa
- nirvana_disturber
- cross_nailer
- pork_meat_eater
Making out of this a religious discussion is completely out of the
scope of this mailing list and only makes me feel that some
christians are just to feeble on their believe. If you believe in God
(note that I spelled it starting with big caps) than nothing should
shake your believes.
If someone likes to name his code / library / project or whatever
with a name that can be traced back to any religion it is fine. Don't
make a religious flame out of this any longer...
Thank you.
Todd Benson
> sharing their opinions on this, myself included. But honestly, this
> discussion might have been better held off list or on a different
> forum.
Emphasis on "might". It's not easy to suddenly displace a thread into
a different forum. As for off-list, well, then you'd miss the benefit
of your fellow programmers' witticisms :)
>
> That having been said, I'm not questioning your beliefs, I'm simply
> noting that touting them on a technical forum isn't a great idea.
It isn't the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.
Todd
Gregory Brown
> It isn't the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
> an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
> modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.
As long as you mark them that way rather than hijacking the thread.
Chad Perrin
> Gregory Brown wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I have to be honest. What about the non-Judaic practitioners
> > in the US? Frankly, I'm glad that "His" commandments are no longer in
> > courthouses in a country where free religious exercise is supposed to
> > be practiced.
>
> Ok, I think I understand. The Judeo-Christian group has had their
> articles of religious expression removed from public display, and you
> are basking in that. Good for you. Free religous exercise does not
> mean "free only on the condition that it does not offend some vocal
> minority". It means free!
Any time tax money is spent to display a set of religious precepts like
that, it amounts to official endorsement. Endorsement of one set of
religious precepts without endorsing all of them (including precepts of
atheism and agnosticism which, for these purposes, might as well be
counted as religions) is equivalent to an act establishing a specific
relationship between government and a given religion. You may recall
that the First Amendment specifically forbids that.
There are *actual* Christian nations in the world -- nations where the
government's constitution (if it even has a constitution) does not forbid
establishing a state religion, and where it is customary for the
government to endorse one religion in particular -- just as there are
Muslim religions. These nations might be more suitable to display of the
Ten Commandments at courthouses. I speak, of course, as one US citizen
to another.
>
> > As far as schools, same things go there. I don't think the state has
> > a place in picking the spiritual views for students, that seems to
> > really push the envelope if you ask me.
> >
>
> I don't think the state is doing that here in the US. As a matter of
> fact, they are doing the opposite. They are squelching religous
> expression, because Group "ABC" might offend Group "DEF".
I agree with you insofar as schools actually forbid children to form
prayer groups and otherwise express themselves. I do not, however, agree
with you in cases where teachers lead prayers in class, "intelligent
design" is taught in science classes, and the "under God" part of the
Pledge of Allegiance is enforced (despite only having been added to the
Pledge relatively recently). In fact, I disagree with the enforcement of
any recitation of the Pledge in "public" school at all, but it doesn't
surprise me that a government-funded institution would enforce recitation
of an oath of fealty to the government -- but that's a separate matter.
The key here is that habit can lead to belief, and habitual exposure to
one particular belief system is tantamount to teaching it as the "right"
belief system. This is so far outside the legitimate functions of
government in a free nation as to be laughable, if it wasn't so
disturbing in its implications.
It's also antithetical to the core values of mainstream Christianity,
since faith -- the single most important concept in such religious
practice -- is entirely dependent upon the exercise of free will.
There's nothing free about brainwashing. An intellectually honest and
logically consistent Christian philosopher should be more strenuously
opposed to any state endorsement of Christianity over other religious
belief systems than even a secularist, in my estimation at least.
Don't kid yourself -- as long as tax revenue is poured into mandatory
education, anything thusly-funded schools do (in line with established
policies attached to that funding) to present the precepts of one
religious belief system while ignoring another is in effect a form of
endorsement, even if it wasn't intended to be. One must be diligent even
in avoiding mistakes.
One would hope that, as someone who takes offense from the use of the
term "god" to name a gem even if it was not intended, you would recognize
the similarly detrimental effects of accidental endorsement of religion
in government-funded (and -regulated) schools.
>
> > It seems like you used the name of this library which really is just
> > clever and appropriate as a soap stand for your particular religious
> > beliefs, and it seems pretty far out of the scope of discussion here.
>
> I don't agree the name is clever or appropriate.
I didn't think it was all that clever, either -- though it does create
plenty of opportunity to be clever with method names. Appropriateness is
(at least in this case) entirely in the eyes of the beholder.
On the other hand, it's also easy (at least in retrospect) to see how it
could be seen as inappropriate by many, especially in the relatively
Christian-leaning political climate of the US in the last few years.
Unless controversy was the intent, I think "deus" would be a much better
name than "god", and would probably have been my choice given those
options for other reasons as well (such as the fact it's just a
cooler-sounding name -- Latin always makes things sound smarter).
>
> Now, time for me to be perfectly honest. This is the first time in my
> life I have ever taken a stand for my beliefs in a public forum. Call
> me a slow starter. I typically steer away from these discussions like
> the plague. However, I wanted to make a point that Tom could have
> picked a better name. I think I've made that point now.
I guess that depends on your definition of "better". If the goal is to
stir up controversy without unduly offending *too* many people, he could
definitely have done worse than to call it "god". Programmers tend to be
fairly tolerant of vague references to religious issues in this manner,
so the ratio of offended to unoffended parties is probably fairly optimal
in this regard, whereas racial slurs would be well past the point of
effectiveness -- at least, based on my experience of programmers. If the
intent, however, was just to name it something that fits the
functionality without offending anyone, then I agree -- it could have
been a "better" name.
As for my beliefs: there's no reason to specifically identify them here.
If you really want to know, you might be able to find out via Google,
because I'm not shy about them -- but be aware that making assumptions
based on my arguments and common American expectations of what arguments
go with what belief systems is prone to failure in my case. Regardless,
take what I have to say on its own merits, as I have made a distinct
effort to divorce my reasoning in this email from my religious and/or
philosophical beliefs.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Thomas McCauley: "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out."
Chad Perrin
I tend to agree with *both* of you, in this case.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Larry Wall: "A script is what you give the actors. A program is what you
give the audience."
Chad Perrin
Sure there's such a thing as bad publicity. That's what happens when you
lose more people than you gain.
That doesn't seem to be what's happening here, so far, though.
Chad Perrin
On the other hand, "god" is a generic term for a deity. Some religions
have many gods. I think the perspective of most monotheists is
unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the words
their religions have appropriated.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Peter Seebach
ory Brown" writes:
>Free exercise is entirely different than state supported endorsement.
>The notion that the US is a Christian nation is only settling for
>Christians.
And only some Christians; many find the notion offensive or even blasphemous.
-s
John Joyce
> I wonder if the *nix command kill garnered as many wasted
> keystrokes debating its naming?
Robert Parker
>
> That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
> many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
> extremely offensive to me.
Agreed, but "God == Islam" or "God == Judaism" is equally loathsome.
Robert Parker
I worked for a firm once who employed some management consultants who
used the slogan "When Your organization is in trouble turn to GOD",
GOD being Grid Organisational Development. Their program was total bs
also.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
>
>
>> I wonder if the *nix command kill garnered as many wasted keystrokes
>> debating its naming?
>
>
Well, I for one don't like the name "kill" for a command/system call
that merely sends a *signal* to a process. "kill" is simply one of the
possible signals it can send. I would have called it "signal". It has
nothing to do with the offensiveness or lack thereof of the name -- it's
simply an overspecialized name for a more general function.
John Joyce
Usually any organization that resorts to sloganeering is bs. Well,
there's a lot of that kind of bs in acronyms in the computer world
anyway...
Gregory Brown
Wow Ed, you've managed to get off-topic on an off-topic thread. :)
(that having been said, I've had similar feelings about the command.)
-greg
George
> Is it just me, or as ActiveRecord's .destroy method seemed a bit too much?
> Isn't .delete enough? :)
There already is a #delete, which is different to #destroy.
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html#M000997
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html#M001041
Regards,
George.
(Apologies for being off-off-off-topic.)
Robert Dober
I adhere 100% which what you say, but we are not living in the 22nd century :(.
In other words if people are offended -- on grounds you consider
irrational, and I might consider irrational -- they are offended.
They might rightfully be offended by my sentence that I consider their
offense irrational, please read again, I do not, I just might not be
able to understand the reasons, that is all.
Sometimes you might wish to offend them nevertheless for some greater
reason of course like Freedom of Speech. And I admire people doing so,
expressing their philosophical believes and risking their lives, they
are my heroes.
However, Enrique, do you really feel this is an assessment to Freedom
of Speech here, the name of a SW package?
Well if you feel so you spoke out bravely, but are you sure?
Cheers
Robert
<snip>
>
>
--
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck
John Joyce
On Jul 10, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Robert Oliver wrote:
> I agree with you and wondered the reasoning for the "kill" command
> myself.
>
> Is it just me, or as ActiveRecord's .destroy method seemed a bit
> too much?
> Isn't .delete enough? :)
>
> Robert
>
I think there was probably some reasoning behind it. Delete is
arguably overused and people might be desensitized to it.
'destroy' really does give the sense that if you destroy it, it is
not coming back!
It would be interesting to hear the rationale on some naming schemes
in the Rails stuff.
Many if not most are sensible, but some are just bizarro sometimes or
worse, incongruent.
acts_as_tree should have been has_and_belongs_to_self
Chad Perrin
>
> Usually any organization that resorts to sloganeering is bs. Well,
> there's a lot of that kind of bs in acronyms in the computer world
> anyway...
I think that usually any organization that doesn't do any sloganeering is
doomed. The real reason you think that usually any organization that
"resorts to sloganeering" is BS is probably that 98% of organizations are
BS, period.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."
Chad Perrin
I don't recall anyone suggesting those particular two-way equivalencies.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Baltasar Gracian: "A wise man gets more from his enemies than a fool from
his friends."
Michal Suchanek
easier to type, even one-handed while eating pizza ;-)
Note that the function in C is called signal, only the user command is kill.
BTW the name of the library reminds me of games that include deities,
both computerized and compter-free. Like the good old Populous ;-)
Michal
Robert Dober
May I suggest a politically correct rewrite of Posix
kill --> signal_process (aliased to kindly_ask_process_to_leave)
rm --> set_file_size_to-1 (kindly_ask_file_to_go_away)
rm -r --> put_directory_off_payroll (suggest_directory_existence_limitation)
did I miss something else ?
Oh well I just forgot to put the smilies !!!
Robert
Tim Hunter
> On 7/11/07, Michal Suchanek <hram...@centrum.cz> wrote:
> May I suggest a politically correct rewrite of Posix
>
> kill --> signal_process (aliased to kindly_ask_process_to_leave)
> rm --> set_file_size_to-1 (kindly_ask_file_to_go_away)
> rm -r --> put_directory_off_payroll
> (suggest_directory_existence_limitation)
> did I miss something else ?
>
> Oh well I just forgot to put the smilies !!!
>
> Robert
>
Didn't work.
--
RMagick OS X Installer [http://rubyforge.org/projects/rmagick/]
RMagick Hints & Tips [http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=1618]
RMagick Installation FAQ [http://rmagick.rubyforge.org/install-faq.html]
Robert Dober
> Robert Dober wrote:
> > On 7/11/07, Michal Suchanek <hram...@centrum.cz> wrote:
> > May I suggest a politically correct rewrite of Posix
> >
> > kill --> signal_process (aliased to kindly_ask_process_to_leave)
> > rm --> set_file_size_to-1 (kindly_ask_file_to_go_away)
> > rm -r --> put_directory_off_payroll
> > (suggest_directory_existence_limitation)
> > did I miss something else ?
> >
> > Oh well I just forgot to put the smilies !!!
> >
> > Robert
> >
> I once suggested replacing "abend" with "succeed_at_alternate_goal".
> Didn't work.
>
> --
> RMagick OS X Installer [http://rubyforge.org/projects/rmagick/]
> RMagick Hints & Tips [http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=1618]
> RMagick Installation FAQ [http://rmagick.rubyforge.org/install-faq.html]
>
>
>
Michal Suchanek
> On 7/11/07, Michal Suchanek <hram...@centrum.cz> wrote:
> May I suggest a politically correct rewrite of Posix
>
> kill --> signal_process (aliased to kindly_ask_process_to_leave)
> rm --> set_file_size_to-1 (kindly_ask_file_to_go_away)
> rm -r --> put_directory_off_payroll (suggest_directory_existence_limitation)
> did I miss something else ?
>
> Oh well I just forgot to put the smilies !!!
>
difference but dog was supposed to be superior. It did not catch up.
Perhaps dog, as reversed 'god' was already way too offensive ? ;-)
Michal
Anthony Eden
trademarked, is it Enrique? ;-)
-A
On 7/10/07, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen <eco...@mac.com> wrote:
--
Cell: 808 782-5046
Current Location: Melbourne, FL
Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
On 11/07/2007, at 14:13, Anthony Eden wrote:
> I am *sooo* naming my next project pork_meat_eater...that's not
> trademarked, is it Enrique? ;-)
>
> -A
LOL!
Be my guest ;)
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
> Robert Dober wrote:
>> On 7/11/07, Michal Suchanek <hram...@centrum.cz> wrote:
>> May I suggest a politically correct rewrite of Posix
>>
>> kill --> signal_process (aliased to kindly_ask_process_to_leave)
>> rm --> set_file_size_to-1 (kindly_ask_file_to_go_away)
>> rm -r --> put_directory_off_payroll
>> (suggest_directory_existence_limitation)
>> did I miss something else ?
>>
>> Oh well I just forgot to put the smilies !!!
>>
>> Robert
>>
> I once suggested replacing "abend" with "succeed_at_alternate_goal".
> Didn't work.
>
And of course, there's the famous DOS triple-entendre Abort/Retry/Ignore :)
Gregory Brown
> And of course, there's the famous DOS triple-entendre Abort/Retry/Ignore :)
With Retry and Ignore never working, so you always had to abort anyway. :)
Robert Dober
> And now abortion.
You are a great spotter :)
R.
Will Parsons
> On 11/07/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <zn...@cesmail.net> wrote:
>> Well, I for one don't like the name "kill" for a command/system call
>> that merely sends a *signal* to a process. "kill" is simply one of the
>> possible signals it can send. I would have called it "signal". It has
>> nothing to do with the offensiveness or lack thereof of the name -- it's
>> simply an overspecialized name for a more general function.
>>
> However, there was no command completion back then. Kill is shorter,
> easier to type, even one-handed while eating pizza ;-)
> Note that the function in C is called signal, only the user command is kill.
Actually, no. The C equivalent of the kill command is kill(). (At least
on POSIX-type platforms, that is. There is no equivalent in the standard
C library - signal() has another purpose.)
- Will
MenTaLguY
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:51:34AM +0900, kha...@enigo.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Gregory Brown wrote:
>>
>> >That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
>> >many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
>> >extremely offensive to me.
>>
>> Going with that, using "god" as the name of a software package is likely
>> as offensive to Muslims and Jews, as well. Heck, the religious Jews I
>> know won't even type 'God', preferring 'G-d' or something similar
>> instead.
>
> On the other hand, "god" is a generic term for a deity. Some religions
> have many gods. I think the perspective of most monotheists is
> unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
> fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the words
> their religions have appropriated.
"God" (a proper name) and "god" (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.
It's worth noting that this distinction between God and gods is not at all
unique to Judaism and its inheritors, nor even to monotheistic religions
in general: one need only (for instance) read the pagan philosophers or
examine traditional African religions to find that polytheists often have
the notion of an omnipotent Ultimate Being of an entirely different kind to
the subordinate gods or divinities.
Comparing a monitoring tool to a god in the generic sense really shouldn't
be too controversial, as it isn't too different to the usual analogy drawn
between system services and daemons. If Tom intended otherwise, it was
either a misunderstanding of what the terms actually mean, or a choice
of a bad analogy simply for the sake of being provocative.
-mental
Chad Perrin
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:11:27 +0900, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:51:34AM +0900, kha...@enigo.com wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Gregory Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> >That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
> >> >many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
> >> >extremely offensive to me.
> >>
> >> Going with that, using "god" as the name of a software package is likely
> >> as offensive to Muslims and Jews, as well. Heck, the religious Jews I
> >> know won't even type 'God', preferring 'G-d' or something similar
> >> instead.
> >
> > On the other hand, "god" is a generic term for a deity. Some religions
> > have many gods. I think the perspective of most monotheists is
> > unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
> > fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the words
> > their religions have appropriated.
>
> "God" (a proper name) and "god" (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
> English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
> generic term for deity.
Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we're
discussing was announced as "god", not "God".
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others
we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of
ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
Benjohn Barnes
On 10 Jul 2007, at 18:37, Todd Benson wrote:
> It isn't the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
> an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
> modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.
>
> Todd
Damn strait.
Speaking of which, is XKCD fantastic, or what? Here's my favourite:
Cheers,
Benj
MenTaLguY
>> "God" (a proper name) and "god" (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
>> English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
>> generic term for deity.
>
> Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we're
> discussing was announced as "god", not "God".
Nonetheless, he's using it unmodified as a proper noun. Unless Tom cares
to be more explicit, the intent of the analogy is ambiguous.
-mental
Gregory Brown
But god can't be a constant in Ruby.
Robert Dober
>
> On 10 Jul 2007, at 18:37, Todd Benson wrote:
>
> > It isn't the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
> > an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
> > modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.
> >
> > Todd
>
> Damn strait.
Hmm this has been discussed before here and there was no consenus for
it, it was however expressed by many -- YHS included -- that this
might change with more traffic.
So maybe that could be brought up again.
And watch your language Benji, did you forget the thread we are in ;)
Robert
MenTaLguY
Of course. The naming of the God class isn't any more signficant than
the fact that Tom necessarily capitalized god at the beginning of
sentences, or that he followed the common convention of giving his gem
a lower-case name, as such.
Chad and I were both thinking of the opening sentence, "I'm proud to
announce the initial public release of god!"
-mental
MenTaLguY
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:39AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:11:27 +0900, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com>
> wrote:
>> > On the other hand, "god" is a generic term for a deity. Some
>> > religions have many gods. I think the perspective of most monotheists is
>> > unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
>> > fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the
>> > words their religions have appropriated.
>>
>> "God" (a proper name) and "god" (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
>> English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
>> generic term for deity.
>
> Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we're
> discussing was announced as "god", not "God".
To be honest, I was more concerned with addressing the notion that the
idea of God was some sinister monotheist invention, which stems from
popular (but jaundiced) modern ideas about both Christianity and pagan
religions.
If we can either end this thread, take it offlist somewhere, or convert
it back into a thread about the need to consider cultural factors when
selecting package names, that'd be great though.
-mental
Chad Perrin
In the fact of ambiguity, I prefer to assume good faith.
. . and, anyway, meaning in a case like this is in the eye of the
beholder. If you want to think of it as God, that's your choice. If I
want to think of it as god, that's mine. Ultimately, it's just something
like a thirty-seventh-hand translation of a term whose origins are quite
ambiguous themselves.
It's the concept that really matters, not the collection of phonemes that
we use to refer to it.
Maybe that's just me, though.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."
Chad Perrin
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:26:14 +0900, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:41:39AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:11:27 +0900, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com>
> > wrote:
> >> > On the other hand, "god" is a generic term for a deity. Some
> >> > religions have many gods. I think the perspective of most monotheists is
> >> > unnecessarily limited to the point that they often do not think of the
> >> > fact that there are other, entirely valid, meanings to some of the
> >> > words their religions have appropriated.
> >>
> >> "God" (a proper name) and "god" (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
> >> English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
> >> generic term for deity.
> >
> > Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we're
> > discussing was announced as "god", not "God".
>
> To be honest, I was more concerned with addressing the notion that the
> idea of God was some sinister monotheist invention, which stems from
> popular (but jaundiced) modern ideas about both Christianity and pagan
> religions.
I don't see anything sinister about monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or
ferrotheism, or for that matter about any use of "god", "God", "gods",
$DEITY, or whatever else you like. In that respect, then, I don't think
we're disagreeing about anything in particular.
>
> If we can either end this thread, take it offlist somewhere, or convert
> it back into a thread about the need to consider cultural factors when
> selecting package names, that'd be great though.
Okay. My thought, repeated: I would have more likely called it Deus,
both to avoid unnecessary potential for offense and to make it sound
smarter (everything sounds smarter in Latin, it seems). The fact it was
called "god" instead, however, is no skin off my nose. If it was thusly
named with full cognizance of the potential cultural response to it, so
be it. If not, I think someone could stand to think a little more about
cultural associations when naming things in the future.
. . and that really seems to be all there is to it, for me.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
awj @reddit: "The terms never and always are never always true."
James Edward Gray II
> If we can either end this thread, take it offlist somewhere, or
> convert
> it back into a thread about the need to consider cultural factors when
> selecting package names, that'd be great though.
If a farmer starts complaining that the Hoe library implies we are
all backwater hicks, will we need to take that down?
James Edward Gray II
Robert Parker
> It isn't the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
> an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
> modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.
Agreed. I am a member of a couple of lists wherein the "wasted"
bandwidth discussing the evils of being OT is about 5 to 10 * the
actual waste of the off topic posts. A similar ratio applies to
discussions on the evils of spam.
Bob
--
69 next birthday and still wondering what I will do when I grow up.
MenTaLguY
> If a farmer starts complaining that the Hoe library implies we are
> all backwater hicks, will we need to take that down?
While I don't personally know as many farmers as some people, I have
to ask: is that a realistic example?
In the case of any unforseen conflict, it's always going to be a
matter of prudence what actions a maintainer should or should not
take. While the particular complaint above seems a bit silly, if
the maintainer really felt the need to make a change in response to
it, renaming the package seems a more reasonable course of action
than pulling it entire.
Really, though, I think it's better to consider this in positive
terms: what are some best practices when coming up with a project
name?
Also, what are some particularly successful names which play on
cultural factors in positive ways? How do they work?
-mental
Bill Guindon
Then I tried...
gem install God
But I got an error:
Bulk updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org
ERROR: While executing gem ... (Gem::GemNotFoundException)
God does not exist in any repository
It's probably my environment, since I have DEVOUT_ATHIEST set to true
(I blame the NoneGodInstaller!)
Flame away, it doesn't matter to me. We're more alike than you think.
I just believe in one god less than you (ok, or more for you
polytheists).
btw, rumor has it this library isn't all it's cracked up to be, so
I'll live without it.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
The best answer to most questions is "it depends".
James Edward Gray II
> Really, though, I think it's better to consider this in positive
> terms: what are some best practices when coming up with a project
> name?
>
> Also, what are some particularly successful names which play on
> cultural factors in positive ways? How do they work?
I agree and do believe we should be having those discussions. That's
just not the angle we've been taking, in my opinion.
James Edward Gray II
Robert Dober
> You're the first atheist I meet that could ever proove that God doesn't
> exist ^^
>
You got it all wrong, arrrg does anybody respect my believes here ;)
The existence of a superior being shall not interfere with my code of
conduct on this low existence. I can -- and actually I do -- think
about such a potential existence all I want.
That is my definition of a practical atheist.
R.
Robert Dober
James what about a Ruby Quiz?
Write a Ruby program that creates readable Package names that will not
have any meaning in any ancient, modern or future language of the
planet.
Bonus: Implement it for all languages in the Universe.
Robert
John W. Kennedy
> On 7/11/07, Gregory Brown <gregory...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
>> many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
>> extremely offensive to me.
>
They're all nonsense, in fact. You might as well say "Computer == Linux".
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Joe Wiltrout
>
> On the topic, I don't see it as a religious thing in-itself, merely a
> matter of general sensibilities. For instance, I would likewise anyone
> not to name a project a curse word or racial slur, despite how well
> they might correspond to the projects functionality. Sure, "God" is
> not a "bad" word, but it's just as emotionally heavy. In the end, you
> could use any such name, if you really wanted, but you'd probably be
> doing yourself a disservice b/c some people simply won't approach your
> project b/c of it.
>
> T.
If someone named a program "God", and people don't like people
complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Joe Wiltrout
> Robert Parker wrote:
>> On 7/11/07, Gregory Brown <gregory...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
>>> many folks in the thread assumed "God == Christianity" and that is
>>> extremely offensive to me.
>>
>> Agreed, but "God == Islam" or "God == Judaism" is equally loathsome.
>
> They're all nonsense, in fact. You might as well say "Computer ==
> Linux".
I'm not seeing your anology. Islams have a God. Judaism has a God.
Sunnis and Shiites (srry if i misspelled that) have a God. Computers
could or could not have the operating system Linux, they could have
Windows. They might even run of Mac OS. But all those religions have one
or more Gods. Except Aethiests. They belive in Science.
Gregory Brown
We're really spinning off on a tangent here, well a tangent of a
tangent of a tangent. If nothing else, perhaps Robert thought I was
making a "Christian specific" comment, but it really wasn't, it was
about the assumptions in this thread alone that equated God with
christianity that rubbed me the wrong way.
This is pretty insane how far away from any original point there was,
so maybe we can let the thread die by now?
Todd Benson
> If someone named a program "God", and people don't like people
> complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
> the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
> the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.
For me, it's not about taking offense. It's about absconding with a
'heavy' name for their library. I'm sure people would not like it
that much if I came up with a library and named it bluntly 'ftp' or
'telnet' or 'ruby' or 'rubyquiz'.
Todd
Hassan Schroeder
> If someone named a program "God", and people don't like people
> complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
> the word Satan?
Sigh. How soon they forget :-)
<http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1995-06.html>
--
Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.s...@gmail.com
Joe Wiltrout
Good idea. So many threads and comment sections of AOL and MSN stories
have turned to religion. I'v seen frozen baby mammoth comments turn into
hellish (that might imply religion to some people. Sorry. I use it in
the meaning " Chaotic and Hateful".) religion comment wars. It's best if
everyone just lets the discussion die, and then talk about the technical
aspect, or the well preserved dead baby mammoth. And with the dead baby
mammoth, people went on and on about people cloning it, when the story
said specificly that the cells had burst, and they couldn't clone it.
Some people can't read.
The world is filled with three kinds of people. Those who can count, and
those who can't. 9/8 of the world's population has trouble with
fractions.
Joe Wiltrout
I'm sorry if I don't exactly know what these library things are, or ftp
or telnet. But I don't see why people wouldn't like it. Besides the
people who made these things and may have copyrighted them. And it would
confuse people if they searched for said thing and found your 'library'
instead. But smart people get over it, and smart people don't make other
smart people have to get over things dumb people do.
Chad Perrin
You mean like this?
http://www.porcupine.org/satan/
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."
Joe Wiltrout
> On 7/10/07, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen <eco...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jeezzz...
>>
>> Guys, get a grip!
>>
>> If the name he chose for the library is god, so be it.
>
>
> Hear, hear! That sums up the whole issue at a logical level.
>
> Whatever next? People complaining about the word "daemon" being satanic,
> "slave" drives being unfairly domineered, and pro-lifers against
> "aborting"
> processes?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter Cooper
> http://www.rubyinside.com/
If your definition of daemon matches mine of Demon, then I think that
demon is far from satanic. It's origins maybe be from biblical history,
but people now-a-days use the terms "demon" and "demonic" just to mean
evil. And they use them alot in video games. But they never end up
getting sued, or making them change their monsters names, etc. So I
think your anolgies are just plain stupid. As for aborting proccesses,
abort has multiple meanings. and why would you name a drive 'slave'?
That's just waiting to get you yelled at, or sued.
Joe Wiltrout
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:17:30AM +0900, Joe Wiltrout wrote:
>> >
>> > T.
>>
>> If someone named a program "God", and people don't like people
>> complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
>> the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
>> the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.
>
> You mean like this?
> http://www.porcupine.org/satan/
Yes. Exactly like that. I don't have a problem with it if it doesn't
make any Satanist references. Like a black goat symbol, or the maker of
the programs idea of what Satan looks like. Because each of the letters
in Satan stands for something in the programs longer name. Some Security
program or something.
Joe Wiltrout
> On 7/12/07, Joe Wiltrout <wiltr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If someone named a program "God", and people don't like people
>> complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
>> the word Satan?
>
> Sigh. How soon they forget :-)
>
> <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1995-06.html>
That link led me to a 404 error page. Am I supposed to beleive that I
forgot about 404 error pages? Just tell me straight forward what I
forgot? And who is this 'they' of which you speak? Because that, my
friend, is an unspecific term that probably also targets people who
might not have forgotten whatever it is which you think 'they' forgot.
Joe Wiltrout
> On 7/13/07, Joe Wiltrout <wiltr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If your definition of daemon matches mine of Demon, then I think that
>> demon is far from satanic. It's origins maybe be from biblical history,
>> but people now-a-days use the terms "demon" and "demonic" just to mean
>> evil. And they use them alot in video games. But they never end up
>> getting sued, or making them change their monsters names, etc. So I
>> think your anolgies are just plain stupid.
>
>
> using
> sarcasm to say, yes, this is stupid and, yes, words /do/ have different
> meanings, which is why it makes no sense people getting their panties in
> a
> twist.
>
> and why would you name a drive 'slave'?
>> That's just waiting to get you yelled at, or sued.
>
>
> for
> "slave drive." It's a common term. Amusingly, however, the term "slave
> drive" was idiotically banned in some Los Angeles city departments for
> the
> potential of "offense."
>
> Anyway, people should take a leaf out of DHH's book with his infamous FU
> slide and just name their projects, software, or anything whatever they
> like
> ;-) (or take why's approach and use rather more abstract names to
> confuse us
> all ;-))
Lol. I thought you were being serious. Sorry if I dont know what a slave
drive is, but I just started trying to learn how to code. I'v spent the
last 5 days using search engines to try to find how to make a game, and
got all bologna. All the websites just told me to learn the basics
before trying something big. They compared it to stupid things like
running before walking, and diving before swimming. I have one thing to
say. I ran before I could walk. Could have been classified as stumbling,
but never the less, I stayed on my feet at a pace too fast to be called
walking. And I dived long before I could 'swim'. Of course it was an
accedent. I fell into a small pool about 6 inches taller than me, but I
still swam back up to the surface and bobbed until someone noticed. So I
am going to ignore their advice and such, and only listen to Why's
guide. but as for abstract names, how would you like your favorite video
game to be called The Mexican Lepresy Tornado Flatulated Monkey Chair
Hops?
John Joyce
usually with hard drives.
On many older shared controllers you could plug in two devices (hard
drive, optical drive, floppy, etc...)
One connector was the master, and it got priority communication with
the system (and generally more bandwidth) the other device was a
slave and got less.
In the 90's it became controversial although the term was around for
a LONG time and only implied the relationship between the devices.
Joe Wiltrout
It does seem rather offensive when you say put it that way. I think the
term should be changed. Maybe Parent/Child, or Teacher/Student, or
CEO/Mail Clerk.
All less offensive, all same meaning. Depending on what kind of parents
you had. Master/Pupil. Theres another one.
Chad Perrin
So . . . what do you think of this?
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/daemon.html
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
Chad Perrin
I *really* don't think the IT industry in general is going to stop
calling them "master" and "slave" drives any time soon. You'd be about
as likely to get people to change "client" and "server" to "red" and
"black", or "functional" and "object oriented" to "poppy" and
"sunflower". These are not terms that just came into use last week.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Marvin Minsky: "It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could
actually spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game."
Marc Heiler
Giving good names is not so easy!
SPS: btw "daemons" is not the same as "demons" - not that either one
would be a good, meaningful name. :P
sy1234
> SPS: btw "daemons" is not the same as "demons" - not that either one
> would be a good, meaningful name. :P
>
Chris Carter
I vote "Long running processes that run in the background, and will
often just shutdown beacause people code them bad and their isn't a
long running process manager to control them, well there are but no
good ones, oh wait god came out? Then the problem is solved"
But I suppose that's a mouthful. Let's stick with daemon
--
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com
Aureliano Calvo
> Doesn't sound very biblical to me.
>
> Ok, it would be a mouthfull too. Perhaps initialed ?...
I always understood that "god" means "god over daemons"
A recursive acronym is very old tradition in programming.
MenTaLguY
> SPS: btw "daemons" is not the same as "demons" - not that either one
> would be a good, meaningful name. :P
Really? While "demons" would obviously be a poor name, the ancient
greek notion of daemons (eudaemons, particularly) seems like a pretty
decent analogy for such background processes.
-mental
Gregory Brown
I was under the impression that daemon was just an archaic spelling of
demon, honestly.
I guess it has several meanings and the greek notion is the closest to
the technical term, I suppose.
MenTaLguY
> If your definition of daemon matches mine of Demon, then I think that
> demon is far from satanic.
The term is a little overloaded; while daemon and demon share an etymology,
the former spelling was chosen to unambiguously refer to greek notions about
lower demigods (rather than fallen angels), and they mean different things
at this point.
> It's origins maybe be from biblical history,
> but people now-a-days use the terms "demon" and "demonic" just to mean
> evil. And they use them alot in video games.
As far as I can tell, these days a lot of culturally illiterate fantasy
authors (up to and including a lot of game writers) simply use "demon"
to mean a sort of monster, whether evil or ambivalent.
-mental
MenTaLguY
> I guess it has several meanings and the greek notion is the closest to
> the technical term, I suppose.
Pretty much. I wonder if most get the reference, though.
I'm fine with its use as the technical term, though I probably
would have chosen a different word if it were up to me to choose
from scratch.
-mental
MenTaLguY
Lessee... tiny ground-dwellers (gnomes), or squat creatures that
sabotaged WWII aircraft (gremlins). I dunno...
-mental
Joe Wiltrout
> What do we learn?
>
> Giving good names is not so easy!
>
> SPS: btw "daemons" is not the same as "demons" - not that either one
> would be a good, meaningful name. :P
Read em and weep sucker. This is from whatever page that was that the
dude linked to about some kind of Daemon program.
"Many people equate the word ``daemon'' with the word ``demon,''
implying some kind of Satanic connection between UNIX and the
underworld. This is an egregious misunderstanding. ``Daemon'' is
actually a much older form of ``demon''; daemons have no particular bias
towards good or evil, but rather serve to help define a person's
character or personality. The ancient Greeks' concept of a ``personal
daemon'' was similar to the modern concept of a ``guardian angel'' ---
``eudaemonia'' is the state of being helped or protected by a kindly
spirit. As a rule, UNIX systems seem to be infested with both daemons
and demons." (p403)
Joe Wiltrout
Good idea. Let's go and sue Runescape, Dungeons and Dragons, World of
Warcraft, Diablo, and every other company that uses the word Demon!
Huzah!
Joe Wiltrout
Why would you need the Largely Used part? If I know one thing about
advertising, you don't have your popularity in the name of your product.
How would you like it if your favorite chewing gum became know as Orbit
9285638 people use this daily White? So , if I was them, I would cut it
down to Cifer. Why do you need the silenly part? Do Executed Runnables
normally make noise? I don't think anyone wouldn't like the acronym
C.I.F.E.R.
MenTaLguY
>> As far as I can tell, these days a lot of culturally illiterate fantasy
>> authors (up to and including a lot of game writers) simply use "demon"
>> to mean a sort of monster, whether evil or ambivalent.
> Good idea. Let's go and sue Runescape, Dungeons and Dragons, World of
> Warcraft, Diablo, and every other company that uses the word Demon!
> Huzah!
While I have to admit that fantasy settings which strip-mine the
world's mythologies and religions as a source of names for random things
is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, I can't say I see a benefit to lawsuits.
-mental
Joe Wiltrout
Benefit to lawsuits? MONEY! I hate Runescape. Let's sue them. They lose
money, we gain money, all around good. If we are lucky, Jagex Inc goes
out of business. I inform everybody about some inexpensive new game they
can play, everyone goes to that game. The makers of the game (Me and my
coder friend Matt) get filthy rich because we listen to suggestions and
people tend to like that. We hire teams of coders and even more
suggestions are taken. And BINGO! We have the next WoW on
our hands. Even if it isn't pirate themed. Then we can make another
game. Sky Pirate themed of course, entirely my idea. Just like the game
that I spoke of earlier. Which Matt is going to start working on as soon
as he learns C++. Can someone tell me if it's easy to learn C++ if you
already know C?
Gregory Brown
i'm in ur computer. lernin' ur C++.
I can has video game?
Joe Wiltrout
Could you speak in proper English? I can't understand you if you talk
like a drunk teenage girl who spends too much time IMing.
MenTaLguY
>> i'm in ur computer. lernin' ur C++.
>>
>> I can has video game?
>
> Could you speak in proper English? I can't understand you if you talk
> like a drunk teenage girl who spends too much time IMing.
omg u now lolcats rite lol
aysos 4rt gtg pos
Joe Wiltrout
Umm... Was that supposed to be mocking or something? Because I didn't
stand it. If I translated it, it would be "O my god you now laughing out
loud cats right laugh out loud aysos art got to go post.
Bill Kelly
Gregory Brown
can has irony? kthxbye.
Robert Dober
Whats ist Iron-Y?
BTW are we breaking all records of OT, craz-Y etc?
Greogor-Y what is this Y-Calculus about an-Y wa-Y?
Robert
--
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck
MenTaLguY
>>> Could you speak in proper English? I can't understand you if you talk
>>> like a drunk teenage girl who spends too much time IMing.
>>
>> omg u now lolcats rite lol
>> aysos 4rt gtg pos
>
> Umm... Was that supposed to be mocking or something? Because I didn't
> stand it. If I translated it, it would be "O my god you now laughing out
> loud cats right laugh out loud aysos art got to go post.
Heh, sorry. I couldn't help volunteering an impression of an actual
teenage SMS.
It translates to:
Oh my God... you know about lolcats, right? *laughs*
Are you stupid or something? For real, though...
I have to go now; my parents are looking over my shoulder!
Not that I actually think you're stupid for being unfamiliar with lolcats,
which may actually indicate that you have a life. :)
There's a Wikipedia article if you're interested, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat
-mental
MenTaLguY
>> > i'm in ur computer. lernin' ur C++.
>> >
>> > I can has video game?
>>
>> Could you speak in proper English? I can't understand you if you talk
>> like a drunk teenage girl who spends too much time IMing.
>
> can has irony? kthxbye.
In an attempt to wring some on-topic from what's become a very strange
thread, I think this illustrates a principle which is important when
choosing a project name:
If you elect to allude to something obscure in your name, does the
name still work if people don't get the reference? Are there other
references it could be mistaken for? Are people likely to be confused
or offended if they don't get the reference?
-mental
Robert Dober
>
> In an attempt to wring some on-topic from what's become a very strange
> thread,
:)))
>I think this illustrates a principle which is important when
> choosing a project name:
>
> If you elect to allude to something obscure in your name, does the
> name still work if people don't get the reference? Are there other
> references it could be mistaken for? Are people likely to be confused
> or offended if they don't get the reference?
>
Well maybe a little pun is in order -- if it works I am not sure.
"Better use talking names than calling names" -- optionally one could
put a comma somewhere ;)
Cheers
Robert
> -mental