Giving an application a window icon in a sensible way

[Twisted]

Yes. My impression is that some of the most knowledgeable people are
the quickest to snap at minor transgressions.

Which is seriously bad, since it discourages newbies and too much of
that kills the whole field. I FINALLY found a spot on the 'net where
someone else says something I keep saying regarding patronizing
responses, particularly "RTFM" and "Google is your friend", and
something I keep saying regarding searching being easy when you know
the answer but not so often when you only know the question:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/How_dumb_can_GNU_Linux_users_be/#c4028847

This arose in connection to a discussion of things discouraging
adoption of GNU/Linux on the desktop, but it seems just as applicable
here (or in comp.text.tex)...

Even you, who sympathize with the n00bs, makes the mistake of referring
to these things as "transgressions", as if they should nonetheless
somehow be avoided, and are minor crimes not worthy of prosecuting
rather than not crimes at all.

Anyway, the tendency of a subset of knowledgeable people to snap at
n00bs is a problem far more serious than n00bs not knowing stuff,
especially since the latter is only addressable by educating them, and
trying to do so in a way that puts them off even trying, discourages
them from entering some field entirely, or forces them onto an
entrenched defensive is doomed to failure. Of course, it depends on
whether you consider the problem to be "n00bs not knowing stuff" or
"n00bs not knowing stuff AND POSTING TO MY NEWSGROUP!!"; the latter is
"solved" by driving them all away, but the latter is not the real
problem. In fact, the real problem is people with the "MY NEWSGROUP!!"
proprietary attitude and anyone being hostile or condescending to
n00bs.

Given the above, I think it behooves us all to call the "smarmy
know-it-all" subset on their attitude and tone whenever it shows, far
from criticizing the lone voice to (thus far) do so for getting uppity!
(And see above for evidence that I may not, in fact, *be* a "lone
voice" anymore. Now there are at least two...)

I'm usually willing to put up with less than perfect behavior from someone who has expert
knowledge and is willing to share it -- I think it's a fair tradeoff.

If that behavior drives away the lifeblood of progress, the n00bs who
must someday replace them in big enough numbers "or else", then it has
crossed the line. Same if it forces n00bs to entrench a (possibly)
misguided approach or position just to save face, since then their
efforts to educate are actually actively hindering that cause. And
*anyone* whose primary motive is ego masturbation can go stuff
themselves of course.

Could be. Again speaking for myself, if I get an answer that seems
incomplete or doesn't work "out of the box", I'm apt to try first to
figure out for myself why it doesn't work, and then ask a follow-up
question if I can't figure it out.

Fine, but the experts should:
* Not expect you to succeed at adapting it to make it work; if you had
sufficient knowledge to do that, you probably had sufficient knowledge
to solve your original problem anyway, so you would probably not have
asked the original question to begin with. That you did is strong
evidence that anything low-level or technical that needs fixing in
their solution is going to be beyond you. Minor tweaks, like
substituting your name for "insert your name here" or changing
something from "center" to "right-justified" as a matter of taste or
something are another matter of course.
* Not snap at you if you do, as is likely, complain that it didn't work
out of the box and ask for something that will.
* Seriously contemplate, if this happens a lot, if there may not be
deep architectural flaws in need of addressing that make problem
solutions brittle and prone to fail when copied and pasted. Things like
lack of namespacing, lack of encapsulation or implementation/interface
separation, bogus/missing abstraction more generally ...

I suspect that on the whole the
folks in c.t.t. are more apt than the folks here (in c.l.j.p.) to
expect that the people being helped are willing to fill in some
gaps themselves.

Their error is in assuming that they are able to, and in assuming that
everyone posting is a techie when many are just writers. (Usually
technical writers, but knowledge of physics (say) doesn't maye you any
more likely than a lay person, on average, to be able to fix a TeX
problem yourself.

In c.l.j.p we have a somewhat different situation: people posting
questions here are ipso facto programmers, with a presumed
greater-than-layperson knowledge of software development and related
concepts. That lets the experts make more assumptions about the state
of knowledge of the questioner. I'm guessing the other difference of
substantial effect may be that Java has a lot of abstraction and
namespacing to make cut-and-paste code much less likely to fail, that
Java things are specifically designed to be unlikely to fail in obscure
ways instead of failing in obvious ways or working (e.g. "fast-fail"
use of ConcurrentModificationException, specifically done to reduce
obscure failures involving collections and concurrency), and of course
that when pasted code does fail it's much closer to certain that the
paster has the knowledge to diagnose and fix the problem himself to
adapt it to his own needs.

 

[Twisted]

What I think they can train themselves to do is manage the anger.
That's more difficult to do in a real-time exchange, but in Usenet,
one can usually just set the infuriating post aside for some period
of time while one goes off and does whatever one does to relieve
stress...

Unfortunately, this solution neglects the constraints imposed when
there is a danger that third parties will be influenced to dislike you
by the "infuriating post". It is then imperative that those third
parties hear your side of the story as well. This must, obviously, be
in a direct followup to the "infuriating post" to maximize the
probability that whoever reads the one reads the other. It likewise
must be ASAP to maximize this probability. It's bad enough that there's
a first-mover advantage to the attacker -- in modeling the third
party's credence of the nasty belief promulgated by the attack post, it
should be noted that they read this, raise their credence in the nasty
belief, and lower their estimate of the target's credibility. The
target posting his side of the story is then starting off with a slight
handicap instead of equality...

Also, the question of whether the post was intended as an attack post
is moot. If it implies something nasty about someone even by accident,
and readers are likely to catch this implication, then the need to set
the record straight is unchanged versus if the insult was intentional.

Setting aside the "infuriating post" for "some period of time" allows
the influence the attacker (accidental or intentional attacker, it
doesn't matter which) has had on third parties to fester for a
dangerously long time before they get a chance to hear the other side
of things.

Unfortunately, your solution seems only universally workable in email
where there is no audience whose beliefs may be affected by the initial
posting and who you need to see your side of the story as well ASAP
because of the possible long-term consequences.

On the other hand, it *is* strongly applicable to encountering a usenet
post that infuriates you but *does not* publicly impugn your reputation
in any way -- such as, say, a newbie asking a question that you think
they should already know the answer to, or someone posting a
defense/explanation of their actions that you nonetheless think were
wrong, or whatever.

Perhaps if my *attackers* had been following advice like yours at the
outset, none of this would have happened. But I could not have even if
I'd wanted to, since my reputation was called into question pretty much
right away and had to be defended in a timely manner.

 

[Twisted]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:
[accuses me of incompetence, this time in the conducting my own
defense]

Now we're back to insults then are we? And on the most unoriginal theme

why isn't one of them speaking up in your defense?

How the hell should I know? Most likely, because people are most likely
to jump in and post something to attack, rather than to defend. Human
nature. One thing I have seen is at least a little criticism of some of
my nastier attackers, which fits the theory.

That might be. However, it's also not very reasonable to believe
everything everyone says, and in some cases the more often an assertion
is repeated the less credible it becomes

My model accounts for this if you permit people to have negative
credulousness -- what they hear influences them in the reverse
direction to what it claims. The effects still cancel out, because the
insults make them believe me to be a saint and my defense then brings
their opinion of me back down to approximately neutral.

Anti-bias bias is also not a problem, where it's assumed that people
lower their credence in self-elevating claims -- either a)
self-aggrandizing or b) other-denigrating to raise one's relative
ranking in some manner. These might lower their credence in this
situation, but the insults and the defenses would again be affected
equally.

To have the rather unlikely (and irrational) effect claimed, what would
be needed was to consider a class of people who consistently believe
insults but disbelieve defenses. In other words, they are biased to
believe the bad things they hear and disbelieve the good things, no
matter what. Those people are, however, going to think ill of me no
matter what I do so I may as well ignore them. Affecting their beliefs
in my favor is a lost cause.

But you haven't provided any details that would help make your case.
You've made reference to personal experience, but without providing
any details

The details are none of your fucking beeswax, that's why.

Disclosing details would in fact carry some fairly grave risks, vis a
vis my privacy for one thing. I expect that this would be the absolute
worst blunder I could make, in fact, because if my privacy were
sufficiently breached the attackers would potentially be able to taint
my reputation offline as well as on. And then it would be all-out war,
because I'd have everything to lose. I would no longer have qualms, for
instance, about finding ways to forcibly pull the plug on any of their
internet accounts, or other ways of shutting them up without their
getting a say in the matter. I doubt any of us want it to reach that
level.

You don't seem willing to be
swayed by Oliver's experience; why should he be swayed by yours?

Because his experience is based on something not having happened to him
yet, and mine is based on it having happened to me.

This is exactly the same as whether the kid should believe the parent
saying touching the hot stove will burn, or the parent who actually HAS
been burned should become skeptical of this because the kid is
skeptical.

The latter would certainly be irrational; the kid believing the more
experienced person is not; and we all know what actually tends to
happen (the kid remains skeptical and gets burned once; the parents say
"I told you so", but at no time actually begin to be skeptical
themselves). Which means in all likelihood Oliver will go around
talking the bulletproof-monk line right up until he has a serious life
setback, such as a lost job or a girlfriend leaving him, that's
directly attributable to a nasty online rumour, unfortunately for him.

Whereupon he'll start using pseudonyms and not his real name online
(unless he's already doing so, albeit using a phony name that's
plausible rather than an obvious pseudonym) and becoming much more
concerned for a) his online privacy and b) any attempts by others to
tarnish his name in the presence of a live audience, particularly when
the scope of consequences is potentially global.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Bent C Dalager wrote:
As for game theory, if that is what you are trying to apply here then
it seems to me you are entirely ignoring the shadow of the future in
your analysis, and you may be stuck in a trivial model where you think
there are only two distinct players in the game.

(Explanation)

Very well, then, it seems that [snip insult]

1) It completely disregards the shadow of the future.

If you'd care to speak English, I might be able to debate you further
on this matter. If you refuse to, then I will have to just blanket
disclaim whatever negative things about me you are saying or implying
and have done with it.

The shadow of the future is an effect that will tend to reduce the
viability of a tit-for-tat strategy in repeated games. There seems to
be something on it at
http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Pedro_Dal_Bo/theshadow.pdf

I don't know how good that paper is but at least it seems to explain
the concept.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Why were "we" discussing it at all, once I made the post indicating I
had a working solution? Certainly not with the intention of solving the
problem, given that it no longer needed solving. I definitely did
nothing specifically to invite continued discussion. That doesn't mean
I wouldn't have welcomed a constructive response, but what I got was a
questioning/doubtful one, followed closely by an outright incredulous
one.

If someone posts a suggestion to Usenet that others consider either
wrong or unoptimal, it is considered good manners for them to point
this out so as to not trick other Usenet readers into making use of
it without realising what its pros and cons may be.

In this case, the initial responses, as I remember, was a mixture of
trying to point out that a different, more standard solution existed
and to ask you if the alternative solution had any benefits above the
standard one. This is behaviour to be expected on a newsgroup.

Cheers,
Bent D

 

[Twisted]

The shadow of the future is an effect that will tend to reduce the
viability of a tit-for-tat strategy in repeated games.

Blocking is different from tit-for-tat, which uses retaliation as a
deterrent rather than blocking to make the incoming attacks
ineffective.

There seems to
be something on it at
[snip url to file in evil proprietary format]

Got anything in a format my computer and I are *not* allergic to?

 

[Twisted]

If someone posts a suggestion to Usenet that others consider either
wrong or unoptimal, it is considered good manners for them to point
this out so as to not trick other Usenet readers into making use of
it without realising what its pros and cons may be.

On the other hand, it is considered bad manners for them to do so in a
way that insults or belittles the poster, or calls the poster's
intelligence, sanity, competence, etc. into question. Basically,
anything of the sort should be focused on the thing itself and not on
the person.

Also, if something is not actually wrong or suboptimal in some
particular instance, bashing it in that instance (or worse, the guy who
posted it) is unwarranted.

In this case, the initial responses, as I remember, was a mixture of
trying to point out that a different, more standard solution existed
and to ask you if the alternative solution had any benefits above the
standard one. This is behaviour to be expected on a newsgroup.

It's when I answered that question re: the benefits that things started
to get nasty. Apparently because the expected answer was for me to go
crawl under a rock and wind up looking like an idiot instead. But
obviously I'm not going to do that...

 

[Bent C Dalager]

1:
Someone insults you.
You let it stand unchallenged.
Everyone else believes it.

I'm not sure why you think that this is how it goes. In my experience,
if Bob calls Bill an idiot in a Usenet group, the bystanders will
largely conclude that Bob is a moron for getting personal and forget
about the whole thing a few seconds later.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Got anything in a format my computer and I are *not* allergic to?

Not having the powers of prescience, I really don't know.

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Beyond what I've already told you, that's none of your business.

You haven't said anything except that you are from a glorious place. And
I would like to know where that is, so I can better judge the statements
you have made about where I am from. So I ask again:

- where are you from?
- and where do you think I am from?

[Suggests I should be treated unequally because I'm incompetent]

Why do you intentionally misunderstand? (or is it?)

Its not a statement about you. its a generalisation of the principle.
(only a narcissist would think its about himself)
What i am saying is e.g. if two people apply for a job, the only thing
that should affect who gets hired is competence, not race, religion and
so forth. And the same goes in a discussion forum, the only thing that
matters i competence, and if a person is not competent enough about a
matter, then its perfectly ok to not listen to that person. but its not
ok to be e.g. condescending towards that person because he is not as
competent. Thats what equality is about, not that you can claim same
beneficial treatment independent of competence.

At last, a frank admission from one of those namecallers! Now please go
crawl back under your rock and leave me alone.

You really don't understand irony...

Please don't come back until you understand the criminal justice
system. Preferably *all* of them, and not just the usual western ones.
Preferably just plain don't come back, period.

Clue 1: over here, at least, juries must come to a unanimous verdict. A
majority of 9 of the 12 jurors voting to acquit is still a hung jury
and a mistrial.

and that's *all* of them? you know that the judicial system is different
in each country ion the world. But you don't care about that, you only
care about your own system, and then you start accusing me of not
knowing your system... lol

[snip this particular attacker making excuses for his own shitty
behavior, including -- and this is a gem -- using the observation that
he seems to be able to get away with it as one supposed justification!]

Go away.

I will go away when you answer my questions!

 

[Tom Forsmo]

Do not publicly contradict me.

You arrogant bastard! And you claim that everybody is equal under the
law? You are behaving exactly the opposite yourself. What you do is bend
reality to fit your need...

 

[Andrew Thompson]

The shadow of the future is an effect that will tend to reduce the
viability of a tit-for-tat strategy in repeated games.

Blocking is different from tit-for-tat, which uses retaliation as a
deterrent rather than blocking to make the incoming attacks
ineffective.

There seems to
be something on it at
[snip url to file in evil proprietary format]

Got anything in a format my computer and I are *not* allergic to?

Same format as Google..
<http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...l_Bo/theshadow.pdf+shadow+future+filetype:pdf>

Andrew T.

 

[Twisted]

I'm not sure why you think that this is how it goes. In my experience,
if Bob calls Bill an idiot in a Usenet group, the bystanders will
largely conclude that Bob is a moron for getting personal and forget
about the whole thing a few seconds later.

Amend it then to "Some other people believe it"; my experience is that
the number definitely tends to exceed zero. Especially if the attacker
repeats it. Especially if the attacker is one of a gang, or has a bunch
of sockpuppets to appear to have the concordance of others.

 

[Twisted]

- where are you from?

None of your beeswax.

- and where do you think I am from?

Somewhere with a current/recent tradition of castes or similar, where
some people are "more equal" or flat-out "superior" as a matter of
course. India comes to mind, or Japan, or somewhere like North Korea
(which you yourself seemed to suggest before) that's downright
regimented right now.

Why do you intentionally misunderstand? (or is it?)

This is the pot calling the freshly-fallen snow black, nevermind the
kettle.

(only a narcissist would think its about himself)

Everything you write in one of these posts is about me, either directly
or obliquely, and nearly all of it is intentionally hostile. You are
just trying to trick me into letting you slip some insults by under the
radar, but it isn't gonna wash.

What i am saying is e.g. if two people apply for a job, the only thing
that should affect who gets hired is competence, not race, religion and
so forth.

I'm sure that's not what you meant before, where you were obviously
intending to suggest that because I'm allegedly incompetent I should be
treated like shit. Of course I'm *not* incompetent, so your
justification for harassing me and calling me names is begging the
question...

but its not
ok to be e.g. condescending towards that person because he is not as
competent.

Really. Now you're suddenly claiming that even if your allegations
*were* true, the treatment I've received was unjustified? (And since it
isn't? I guess not just unjustified but outrageous?)

and that's *all* of them?

No, that's "over here", dimbulb.

I will go away when you answer my questions!

This isn't an inquisition; this is a newsgroup. Your particular
questions are off-topic in that newsgroup. You will go away now.

 

[Twisted]

Do not publicly contradict me.

You [bleep bleep!] And you claim that everybody is equal under the
law? You are behaving exactly the opposite yourself. What you do is bend
reality to fit your need...

This is completely bogus reasoning. Of course, since everybody is
equal, publicly and bluntly contradicting any of them is rude, not just
me.

 

[Twisted]

Andrew Thompson wrote:
<http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...l_Bo/theshadow.pdf+shadow+future+filetype:pdf>

Links to pdf files are objectionable.
Links to pdf files (I see "filetypedf" in this url) that are to a
webserver at an anonymous IP address rather than a proper hostname are
outright suspicious.
'Nuff said.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Andrew Thompson wrote:
<http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...l_Bo/theshadow.pdf+shadow+future+filetype:pdf>

Links to pdf files are objectionable.
Links to pdf files (I see "filetypedf" in this url) that are to a
webserver at an anonymous IP address rather than a proper hostname are
outright suspicious.
'Nuff said.

Trimmed, reinstated..

"Same format as Google.. "

(..and that is something that is possible to verify, with
about as many lines of java code, as the reply above.)

Andrew T.

 

[Twisted]

Trimmed, reinstated..

"Same format as Google.. "

?

 

[Andrew Thompson]

?

(trimmed, reinstated)

"(..and that is something that is possible to verify, with
about as many lines of java code, as the reply above.)"

Of course, a disparate '?' is shorter still, but will not get
you any better informed, or better prepared to face
any one of the many links you might face in the future.

You spend far more time and effort finding ways
to fail, than ways to succeed. Unless the task
is 'trolling'* of course, at which you are already
exceedingly good.

(* ..and yes, I do have to revise my earlier score.
The ability a keep a thread running this long,
deserves at least a '9.5'.)

Andrew T.

 

[Twisted]

Andrew Thompson wrote:
[finally comes right out and attacks me]

The insults in the message to which this is a followup are all false.
Disregard them.