Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #223656 > unrolled thread

technical terms overhaul

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-19 21:20 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 21:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 21:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 22:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 22:10 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 22:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 02:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 05:00 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul ghe2001 <ghe2001@protonmail.com> - 2020-06-20 05:30 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 06:20 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 09:30 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 16:00 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 16:40 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 21:10 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-20 18:00 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-22 15:50 +0200
                        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-22 19:20 +0200
                          Re: technical terms overhaul Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-06-22 19:30 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 18:10 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-19 22:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 00:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-20 12:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 14:10 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 15:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2020-06-20 00:00 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2020-06-20 00:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 05:50 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-21 07:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 07:50 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@rootsland.net> - 2020-06-21 12:20 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul fmneto@gmail.com - 2020-06-19 21:50 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Marco Möller <talby@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> - 2020-06-19 22:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2020-06-19 23:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-06-20 16:10 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-20 18:10 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-06-19 22:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 01:10 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 01:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 13:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-20 14:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 17:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2020-06-19 23:40 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2020-06-20 11:30 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-19 23:50 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-06-20 01:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 01:20 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-20 03:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson@freevolt.org - 2020-06-20 04:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-20 03:10 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2020-06-20 03:30 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul elvis <elvis@dogonfire.com> - 2020-06-20 16:10 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 19:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-20 20:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 20:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-20 23:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:30 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 05:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 08:20 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Leslie Rhorer <lesrhorer@att.net> - 2020-06-21 09:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 11:10 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 11:40 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-06-20 21:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Francisco Mariano Neto <fmneto@usp.br> - 2020-06-20 21:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-20 21:40 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-21 08:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 08:40 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-06-21 19:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Weaver <weaver@riseup.net> - 2020-06-20 22:20 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 23:00 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 07:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-06-21 17:40 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul Rob van der Putten <rob@sput.nl> - 2020-06-21 12:20 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2020-06-21 13:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 14:00 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-21 14:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 16:50 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul Jude DaShiell <jdashiel@panix.com> - 2020-06-21 17:50 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 16:20 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 19:00 +0200
              Re: technical terms overhaul The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2020-06-21 19:10 +0200
                Re: technical terms overhaul Peter Ehlert <peter@sdi-baja.com> - 2020-06-21 20:30 +0200
                  Re: technical terms overhaul "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2020-06-21 21:00 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-06-21 22:50 +0200
                    Re: technical terms overhaul Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2020-06-21 23:30 +0200
                      Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 23:30 +0200
                        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson@freevolt.org - 2020-06-21 23:40 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2020-06-21 19:30 +0200
            Re: technical terms overhaul nemo <moelmoel2714@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 22:50 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-21 15:10 +0200
          Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 18:00 +0200
    Re: technical terms overhaul mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 21:30 +0200
      Re: technical terms overhaul John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2020-06-21 22:30 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-21 23:00 +0200
        Re: technical terms overhaul mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 23:10 +0200

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#223677

https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashProgramming/04?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9

I went with "blocklist" because it's so close to the original term that
it should be easily understood.  Then, to match that, I chose "passlist"
for the other one.  It's a less obvious choice, and a different winner may
eventually emerge, but it'll do for now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223743

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 19 iun 20, 17:44:46, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashProgramming/04?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9
> 
> I went with "blocklist" because it's so close to the original term that
> it should be easily understood.  Then, to match that, I chose "passlist"
> for the other one.  It's a less obvious choice, and a different winner may
> eventually emerge, but it'll do for now.

"blocklist" does already have the meaning of "a list of blocks" in some 
contexts though I believe it is already widely used in several 
communication apps (Signal, etc.) where one "blocks" specific users 
(from ever contacting you, or so).

As a non-native speaker "reject" or even "ignore" would be suitable in 
something like a spamfilter (reject / ignore messages from...) and 
"deny" in a security context (deny access to...). Consequently "accept" 
and "allow" for the opposite.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223679

On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 16:03:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:56:06PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:42:11 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?
> > > 
> > > If Eike is trying to start a social movement, this is... well, it's
> > > something.  But you'll need much broader exposure and more voices to
> > > join yours, if you hope to prevail.
> > 
> > Perhaps my question was too simple. I do not hope to prevail, just
> > obtain clarification. But maybe "you" does not mean "me".
> 
> True.  I got lazy, and mixed together sentences that are addressing
> both people in the cited material.  Also, I didn't want to get into
> the whole gendered pronoun issue.  Not in such a short email.


Not to worry, it happens. This is the sort of mail we get occasionally
in -user. Someone posts something that is contentious and likely to
stir up feelings without leading to a resolution. That someone then
disappears without providing any substantial information or engaging.
Theres's a name for this sort of behaviour but I have forgotten what
it is.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223670

Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > 
> > > What do you think?
> > 
> > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?
> 
> If Eike is trying to start a social movement, this is... well, it's
> something.  But you'll need much broader exposure and more voices to
> join yours, if you hope to prevail.
> 
> Think Twitter, Youtube, Facebook.  Not (just) debian-user@lists.debian.org.
> 

Microsoft's Github and LinkedIn. Google's Chrome and Android
projects. The UK Cybersecurity Agency. Cisco.

All have already made public announcements.


There's no context where whitelist/blacklist is objectively
better than pass/fail or allow/block or always/never.

Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well
matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker,
dispatcher/receiver may be more accurate.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223676

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Dan Ritter wrote:
[snip]
> Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well
> matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker,

Woah there. "Team Leader" / "Team Member", please.

-- 
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12518471 alexk already addressed
your concern: your keys, preferably issued by your org's CA (instead
of being generated by you) should be short-lived, oftentimes for the
duration of your "work shift". The tools listed above support this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223700

On 20/06/2020 09:45, davidson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Dan Ritter wrote:
>> Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well
>> matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker,
> Woah there. "Team Leader" / "Team Member", please.

"Secretary of the Workers' Revolutionary Committee" was once popular, 
but has not yet, as far as I know, been applied to technology. Some 
high-availablity clusters vote to elect their leaders so that a 
defective primary can be deposed.

"Associate" is a popular weasel word for lowly-paid employees.

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223681

> Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well
> matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker,
> dispatcher/receiver may be more accurate.

In my understanding, master/slave and boss/worker describe pretty much
the same (a relationship of power asymmetry, being generous, and labor
exploitation in variable degrees).
Source/sink and dispatcher/receiver, on the other hand, describe a
mere organization or task distribution.
Depending on the case, the two first couple of metaphors, or the two
lasts, would be more accurate.
The white/black case seems different, because the other four couples
describe well defined roles and functions, while this fifth example -
when criticized - appears as a legacy or remain of the master/slave
social relationship - maybe 'in disguise'.
For humans, white is also full-spectrum visible light refraction, and
black, full-spectrum visible light absorption - or absence of light.
So, not always black-and-white (as in typography, let's say) has a
necessary sociopolitical connotation, I guess.
Hope this has any utility.
Best regards!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223715

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:51:27 -0300
riveravaldez <riveravaldezmail@gmail.com> wrote:


> For humans, white is also full-spectrum visible light refraction, and
> black, full-spectrum visible light absorption - or absence of light.
> So, not always black-and-white (as in typography, let's say) has a
> necessary sociopolitical connotation, I guess.
> Hope this has any utility.

What *ought* to be done is make the skin colour descriptions more
representative of reality.

'White' people certainly aren't white, and there are very few genuinely
black people in the world. I've seen a few, basically Africans who spend
a lot of time outdoors near the Equator. Pretty much all non-'whites'
are really some shade of brown. Of course, 'pink' and 'brown' do not
form an obvious dichotomy for the purpose of rabble-rousing.

If the racists can fix their terminology, we can continue to use the
words 'white' and 'black', which between them describe a lot of useful
things that really are black and white (for various colour temperatures
of white, of course). Ideally, completely new words should be made up
for skin colours, so that the people who are bothered about it don't
screw up life for the rest of us. Not that that is the intention, of
course...

The disc drives can be the more descriptive 'primary' and 'secondary',
now that we don't need those words for partitions. Or even 'drive 0'
and 'drive 1', which can be extended as necessary for more than two
drives, especially as few computers now have two drives hanging from a
single cable.

Unfortunately, 'master' and 'slave' are extremely descriptive of
several situations, such as some electronic buses. 'Master' doesn't
seem too bad, and it's the generic term for both sexes, we don't say
that a woman has 'mistressed' a skill. Why not 'servant' or 'serf'
instead of 'slave'?

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223721

Hi,

Joe wrote:
> What *ought* to be done is make the skin colour descriptions more
> representative of reality.

Correct observation. But i expect that racists would just replace the
discrimination of "black" people by discrimination of those who are
"darker than RAL 1015".


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in particular in reply to Joe:

The original proposal to fix social problems by renaming reminds me of
the short story "The New Reality" by Charles L. Harness of 1950. It is
based on the funny idea that the evolution of scientific views on the world
actually shaped the respective physical reality of their ages.

But the world is not like this. Words shape verbal expression, not reality.
To confuse both, one must confuse a library with the universe.

Enslaving humans is abominable regardless of the name that is given to it
or the means used to enforce it.
Discrimination of humans based on their ancestry is not disestablished
by reserving the word "black" to only positive contexts which involve
people with dark skin color.

So what about the two terms and the contexts in question:

Is it immoral to enslave a deterministic program or device ?

If i try to imagine a future civilization which looks back on our times
and our coarse biotope of humans, machines and software, i don't see my
relation to my computers less moral than a grazer's relation to the meadow.
The true victims are the wood and the sea which suffer from the fallout of
my readiness to buy hardware, to get or make software, and to supply power
to them. That's injust to nature, but not injust to computers.

Do blacklist and whitelist have anything to do with skin color ?

A "black list" is nothing nice, but i find no indication that in english or
german language it would be especially related to people of dark skin.

So where - except the coincidence of words - is the connection between the
fight against discrimination of black people and the terms that shall be
changed ?
Coincidence of words with widely different meanings is quite common in
english language. Just lookup "race" and "serve" in a dictionary.

In contrary, i think that the inavoidable connotations of the terms
"blacklist" and "master/slave" can positively remind their users that
there are still injustices in the world which go by the same names.
I hope for times in which the bad meanings are dim history.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223723

On Saturday 20 June 2020 08:07:31 Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Joe wrote:
> > What *ought* to be done is make the skin colour descriptions more
> > representative of reality.
>
> Correct observation. But i expect that racists would just replace the
> discrimination of "black" people by discrimination of those who are
> "darker than RAL 1015".
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Not in particular in reply to Joe:
>
> The original proposal to fix social problems by renaming reminds me of
> the short story "The New Reality" by Charles L. Harness of 1950. It is
> based on the funny idea that the evolution of scientific views on the
> world actually shaped the respective physical reality of their ages.
>
> But the world is not like this. Words shape verbal expression, not
> reality. To confuse both, one must confuse a library with the
> universe.
>
> Enslaving humans is abominable regardless of the name that is given to
> it or the means used to enforce it.
> Discrimination of humans based on their ancestry is not disestablished
> by reserving the word "black" to only positive contexts which involve
> people with dark skin color.
>
> So what about the two terms and the contexts in question:
>
> Is it immoral to enslave a deterministic program or device ?
>
> If i try to imagine a future civilization which looks back on our
> times and our coarse biotope of humans, machines and software, i don't
> see my relation to my computers less moral than a grazer's relation to
> the meadow. The true victims are the wood and the sea which suffer
> from the fallout of my readiness to buy hardware, to get or make
> software, and to supply power to them. That's injust to nature, but
> not injust to computers.
>
> Do blacklist and whitelist have anything to do with skin color ?
>
> A "black list" is nothing nice, but i find no indication that in
> english or german language it would be especially related to people of
> dark skin.
>
> So where - except the coincidence of words - is the connection between
> the fight against discrimination of black people and the terms that
> shall be changed ?
> Coincidence of words with widely different meanings is quite common in
> english language. Just lookup "race" and "serve" in a dictionary.
>
> In contrary, i think that the inavoidable connotations of the terms
> "blacklist" and "master/slave" can positively remind their users that
> there are still injustices in the world which go by the same names.
> I hope for times in which the bad meanings are dim history.
>
>
> Have a nice day :)
>
> Thomas
To further contribute to the spamminess of this thread, I might remind 
folks that skin "color" is persistent Back in the analog days of color 
tv, and I spent a conciderable amount of my working time in broadcasting 
from the Chief Engineers service bench keeping several tv stations on 
the air so I feel I can speak with some authority.

We used a monitoring device called a vectorscope as the final judge of 
color accuracy. It decoded the color signal into a wheel with zero color 
in the center, and the color of a subject was shown as a vector from 
there, the longer the vector, the more saturated the color was.  The 
angle of the color changed according to the color.

And this device only measured the color, being totally immune to 
brightness.

Human skin, regardless of race, is exactly the same vector, with only 
minor variations in saturation, it was impossible to look at that 
display and tell if the blob of green that was generated by a talking 
heads face, was black or white, it was all the same angle from the 
center.  Think about that folks, because we are all the same color, only 
the brightness differs.

The language we use to describe software should NOT be confused with 
someones idea of being politically correct, so IMO it doesn't need 
putzed with.  Drop it.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223680

On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote:

> On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > What do you think?
>
> If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?

I got the impression the target is a more PC terminology in todays 
environment.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223683

Gene Heskett wrote: 
> On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote:
> 
> > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?
> 
> I got the impression the target is a more PC terminology in todays 
> environment.

Gene:

the target is to not remind people of how badly they
were treated.

Happy to help.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223795

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:41:11 -0400
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote: 
> > On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?
> > 
> > I got the impression the target is a more PC terminology in todays 
> > environment.
> 
> Gene:
> 
> the target is to not remind people of how badly they
> were treated.

I respect your position (and I'm not sure yet where I stand), but how
far does this go? Should we rename the "kill" command, since it can
remind people of how badly their friends and relatives were treated?

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223796

On 21-06-2020 13:41, Celejar wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:41:11 -0400
> Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> 
>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
>> > > > What do you think?
>> > >
>> > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link?
>> >
>> > I got the impression the target is a more PC terminology in todays
>> > environment.
>>
>> Gene:
>>
>> the target is to not remind people of how badly they
>> were treated.
> 
> I respect your position (and I'm not sure yet where I stand), but how
> far does this go? Should we rename the "kill" command, since it can
> remind people of how badly their friends and relatives were treated?

Yes!
I tender the term `Euthansia'.
Pending the approval of BLM and the LGBT movements, of course.

-- 
`Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful'.

— Lucius Annæus Seneca.

Terrorism, the new religion.

Registered Linux User: 554515

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223799

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 20 iun 20, 21:57:31, Weaver wrote:
> On 21-06-2020 13:41, Celejar wrote:
> > 
> > I respect your position (and I'm not sure yet where I stand), but how
> > far does this go? Should we rename the "kill" command, since it can
> > remind people of how badly their friends and relatives were treated?
> 
> Yes!
> I tender the term `Euthansia'.
> Pending the approval of BLM and the LGBT movements, of course.

In this case it should be PETA.

(Sorry, could not resist)

It's not at all clear to me why some insist on sticking with 
blacklist/whitelist and master/slave.

They are not exactly descriptive and are awkward to translate in other 
languages.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223816

On So, Jun 21, 2020 at 08:43:57 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>They are not exactly descriptive and are awkward to translate in other
>languages.

Here in Germany you don’t have to translate blacklist/whitelist. They are 
part of the technical language.

Shade and sweet water!

	Stephan

-- 
|    If your life was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.    |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223661

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Greetings!


	I think that's a wonderful idea! It's about time we got rid of
terms like that. The terms might need some work but they are definitely
an improvement on the previous ones.

	And this matters regardless of context.

Cheers,
Francisco

On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 15:14 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> On the danger of starting a flame war ...
> thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian
> 
> instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the
> terms:
> "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like
> to propose
> the terms:
> "lead" and "lag" which are e.g. used when electrically managing two
> pumps
> working on the same hydraulic circuit.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> All the best
> Eike
> --
> Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
> 
> Paradox: Getting live-updates about fatalities
> 
> 
> 
-- 
 <fmneto@gmail.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223669

On 19.06.20 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> On the danger of starting a flame war ...
> thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian
> 
> instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms:
> "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to propose
> the terms:
> "lead" and "lag" which are e.g. used when electrically managing two pumps
> working on the same hydraulic circuit.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> All the best
> Eike
> --
> Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
> 
> Paradox: Getting live-updates about fatalities
> 
> 
> 
This is a very good choice of names. I like it especially because it is 
also not speaking about good or bad, or passed and failed, which would 
be a technical classification, but simply it pronounces well what it is 
all about: accepted or banned, wished or not wished. So, I like much 
"allowlist" and "rejectlist", for me as a not native english speaker it 
becomes perfectly clear what is meant and what it is not meant to 
inlcude (it is nicely not including any statement about the quality of 
the items in the list).
Thanks al lot for the proposal! Marco.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223672

On 6/19/2020 4:28 PM, Marco Möller wrote:
> On 19.06.20 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
>> On the danger of starting a flame war ...
>> thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian
>>
>> instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the 
>> terms:
>> "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
>> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like 
>> to propose
>> the terms:
>> "lead" and "lag" which are e.g. used when electrically managing two 
>> pumps
>> working on the same hydraulic circuit.
>>
>> What do you think?

What I think is that you're barking up the wrong fire-hydrant. Who knows 
or cares about pumps?

--doug

>>
>> All the best
>> Eike
>> -- 
>> Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
>>
>> Paradox: Getting live-updates about fatalities
>>
>>
>>
> This is a very good choice of names. I like it especially because it 
> is also not speaking about good or bad, or passed and failed, which 
> would be a technical classification, but simply it pronounces well 
> what it is all about: accepted or banned, wished or not wished. So, I 
> like much "allowlist" and "rejectlist", for me as a not native english 
> speaker it becomes perfectly clear what is meant and what it is not 
> meant to inlcude (it is nicely not including any statement about the 
> quality of the items in the list).
> Thanks al lot for the proposal! Marco.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223727

On 20/6/20 6:28 am, Marco Möller wrote:
> On 19.06.20 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
>> On the danger of starting a flame war ...
>> thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian
>>
>> instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the 
>> terms:
>> "allowlist" and "rejectlist"
>> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like 
>> to propose
>> the terms:
>> "lead" and "lag" which are e.g. used when electrically managing two 
>> pumps
>> working on the same hydraulic circuit.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> All the best
>> Eike
>> -- 
>> Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE
>>
>> Paradox: Getting live-updates about fatalities
>>
>>
>>
> This is a very good choice of names. I like it especially because it 
> is also not speaking about good or bad, or passed and failed, which 
> would be a technical classification, but simply it pronounces well 
> what it is all about: accepted or banned, wished or not wished. So, I 
> like much "allowlist" and "rejectlist", for me as a not native english 
> speaker it becomes perfectly clear what is meant and what it is not 
> meant to inlcude (it is nicely not including any statement about the 
> quality of the items in the list).
> Thanks al lot for the proposal! Marco.


If you are not a native English speaker then how do you know what allow 
and reject mean?

-- 
God is not dead. He is alive and autographing bibles today at QBD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web