I hated Bush, and I voted for Obama. But, at the same time, this is wrong, just Obama's support for warrant-less wiretaps was wrong, and the fact that Obama didn't pursue Bush's other illegal actions while in office was wrong. Just because my guy - Obama - is doing this doesn't make it right. Those of us who voted for and supported Obama are not above questioning him when he does something wrong. But where was the questioning by his supporters when Bush did wrong? And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the "left" and "right" in this country.
> But most people's goals are not 'others must lose so I can win.'
I'm not trying to start a flame-war, here - seriously - but this is, part and parcel, the Republican game plan. They came out and said as much after Obama won the presidency.
If you recall, it was because the planes, themselves, could be hijacked and turned into very large missiles capable of taking out large, strategic targets. The people on the plane were largely inconsequential - no offense, and may they rest in peace.
In fact, in this case, are those benevolent dictators currently in power doing anything to prevent some cash-rich terrorists from buying their own plane and performing kamikaze missions _without_ passengers on board?
Not that I'd ever intentionally encourage these assholes in charge, but this statement is kinda self-evident. If people sat in their seats and enjoyed the flight, rather than try to blow up planes with undie-bombs...
My son and I read C&H as we grew up - I was 20 years older, but not necessarily that much more mature. We had a blast with C&H and we can almost recall every punch-line. It's almost a game with us. I'll say, "Most babies are brought by the stork." And he'll finish, "But not you. You were a K-Mart Blue Light Special." His mother - my wife - just rolls her eyes.
I hope - really hope - that he'll provide the same experience to his daughter, now 4, when she's ready. She already knows when to drop a, "My mom loves me more than life itself. Not like you, you nasty old barracuda."
1. I'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway. I'm in the normal lane, on the right, and the trooper's in the passing lane, though he's not passing anyone; he's just cruising, there. A county sheriff comes up behind us, lights and siren going, in the passing lane, and the statie does nothing: doesn't move over to the right lane, doesn't speed up, doesn't slow down - nothing. After following the statie for a few seconds, the sheriff had to dodge into the right lane to get around him.
2. I'm in my home town, making a turn onto a 2-lane stretch leading out of town. Speed limit is 30 for at least half a mile. A police officer from another town turns onto the same street, right behind me and then - no lights, no siren - just blazes up street, leaving me in the dust, though I was doing 35.
The police are definitely above the law - at least in their own minds.
No, they adapt by finding another means of getting what they need. Like water wending its way around an obstacle.
The college I went to didn't have any special services to enable me to get the information from the lectures so, in effect, they were a complete waste of time, yet I still went. Don't ask me how I stayed awake. If I thought something was important, I'd ask the teacher, after class, to cover a particular point, or where in the book could I get the information. Even that was a struggle; they sometimes had to write things down on paper because I couldn't understand them. Reading lips is tough.
In spite of my complete lack of a critical sensory input, I still pulled a > 3.5 gpa. Because I adapted. I found other ways of getting what I needed.
You would think so. But you'll get the argument that the border is some sort of quasi-state where our inalienable rights aren't. In which case, I wonder if I can punch a border guard and not be punished for it. I mean, the normal rules don't apply, right? Who decides what's right and what's wrong in this grey area between being in the US and on the bubble?
Are they _pushing_ it or _requiring_ it? If they simply recommend it, then what's the problem? I'm free to use another device, if I prefer. Of course, it has to be available, but I still don't see a legal responsibility for simply recommending one device over another.
Is there a law that says devices of this sort must have equal access for handicapped users?
I'm deaf. When I go to movies, I get only half of the experience of "normal" viewers because I don't get the dialog. Should I sue the producers and the theater chains because they don't caption movies for me? No. I simply wait until it comes out on DVD and watch it on my TV, with captioning enabled.
It sucks for blind people, in general. Granted, the Kindle doesn't help them. However, they've no business taking it out on the Kindle or universities that find it a useful tool. Adapt. It's what we do.
Among the engineers / developers I know, I seem to be an isolated case, though a few people have expressed interest. Of course, it could have something to do with the fact that my MacBook Pro is personal property and I'm pretty sure I'm in a "grey area" as far as its use within the business. If someone from IT ever checked, I might get in trouble, but no one in my group has complained in the three years I've been doing this. The files I create are all interoperable; I'm not making anyone adapt to my way of doing things, so what's to complain about?
Actually, everything I do for my job - software engineering for the Solaris platform - is done on my Mac laptop. The only exception is Outlook, for which I switch the KVM over to the company supplied PC.
Certainly, but dying because you were denied care, or unable to secure care because you can't afford it due to policies set by for-profit health insurance corporations isn't far off from gassing a broad swath of people. If it's less violent, does that mean it's less effective?
> party affiliation is irrelevant; the conduct of a particular congress critter is what is important
If the particular congress critter could exhibit an ability to think and vote for himself, or his constituents, rather than his party, I might agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I hated Bush, and I voted for Obama. But, at the same time, this is wrong, just Obama's support for warrant-less wiretaps was wrong, and the fact that Obama didn't pursue Bush's other illegal actions while in office was wrong. Just because my guy - Obama - is doing this doesn't make it right. Those of us who voted for and supported Obama are not above questioning him when he does something wrong. But where was the questioning by his supporters when Bush did wrong? And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the "left" and "right" in this country.
Pardon my naivete, but couldn't this be an opportunity for some other company to step in and fill the gap left behind by Oracle?
I'd say as long as they keep producing products that fill a need and do so very well. That they're stylish is a bonus.
> But most people's goals are not 'others must lose so I can win.'
I'm not trying to start a flame-war, here - seriously - but this is, part and parcel, the Republican game plan. They came out and said as much after Obama won the presidency.
That's unpossible. A true /.-er wouldn't bother to rtfa, thus leaving the server unmolested.
If you recall, it was because the planes, themselves, could be hijacked and turned into very large missiles capable of taking out large, strategic targets. The people on the plane were largely inconsequential - no offense, and may they rest in peace.
In fact, in this case, are those benevolent dictators currently in power doing anything to prevent some cash-rich terrorists from buying their own plane and performing kamikaze missions _without_ passengers on board?
> that obedience is the way to safety.
Not that I'd ever intentionally encourage these assholes in charge, but this statement is kinda self-evident. If people sat in their seats and enjoyed the flight, rather than try to blow up planes with undie-bombs...
"Boy, the trees are really sneezing, today."
My son and I read C&H as we grew up - I was 20 years older, but not necessarily that much more mature. We had a blast with C&H and we can almost recall every punch-line. It's almost a game with us. I'll say, "Most babies are brought by the stork." And he'll finish, "But not you. You were a K-Mart Blue Light Special." His mother - my wife - just rolls her eyes.
I hope - really hope - that he'll provide the same experience to his daughter, now 4, when she's ready. She already knows when to drop a, "My mom loves me more than life itself. Not like you, you nasty old barracuda."
Methinks you protest too much. Even Doyle gave Poe credit for being the "father of the detective story", and Dupin the "first" detective.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Murders_in_the_Rue_Morgue
Doyle's contributions are certainly welcome and valuable, but he's not the alpha-and-omega.
> if it's made with pig anus and old fore skin
You mean hot dogs...?
> Law enforcement officers are not above the law.
Sure they are. Two recent events:
1. I'm driving a little behind a NY state trooper on the expressway. I'm in the normal lane, on the right, and the trooper's in the passing lane, though he's not passing anyone; he's just cruising, there. A county sheriff comes up behind us, lights and siren going, in the passing lane, and the statie does nothing: doesn't move over to the right lane, doesn't speed up, doesn't slow down - nothing. After following the statie for a few seconds, the sheriff had to dodge into the right lane to get around him.
2. I'm in my home town, making a turn onto a 2-lane stretch leading out of town. Speed limit is 30 for at least half a mile. A police officer from another town turns onto the same street, right behind me and then - no lights, no siren - just blazes up street, leaving me in the dust, though I was doing 35.
The police are definitely above the law - at least in their own minds.
How 'bout "biological intelligence" instead?
And if the US military is involved, is there any hope?
Terminator, to start with. Is anyone surprised?
No, they adapt by finding another means of getting what they need. Like water wending its way around an obstacle.
The college I went to didn't have any special services to enable me to get the information from the lectures so, in effect, they were a complete waste of time, yet I still went. Don't ask me how I stayed awake. If I thought something was important, I'd ask the teacher, after class, to cover a particular point, or where in the book could I get the information. Even that was a struggle; they sometimes had to write things down on paper because I couldn't understand them. Reading lips is tough.
In spite of my complete lack of a critical sensory input, I still pulled a > 3.5 gpa. Because I adapted. I found other ways of getting what I needed.
You would think so. But you'll get the argument that the border is some sort of quasi-state where our inalienable rights aren't. In which case, I wonder if I can punch a border guard and not be punished for it. I mean, the normal rules don't apply, right? Who decides what's right and what's wrong in this grey area between being in the US and on the bubble?
Are they _pushing_ it or _requiring_ it? If they simply recommend it, then what's the problem? I'm free to use another device, if I prefer. Of course, it has to be available, but I still don't see a legal responsibility for simply recommending one device over another.
Or legs. "it's just a flesh wound!"
Is there a law that says devices of this sort must have equal access for handicapped users?
I'm deaf. When I go to movies, I get only half of the experience of "normal" viewers because I don't get the dialog. Should I sue the producers and the theater chains because they don't caption movies for me? No. I simply wait until it comes out on DVD and watch it on my TV, with captioning enabled.
It sucks for blind people, in general. Granted, the Kindle doesn't help them. However, they've no business taking it out on the Kindle or universities that find it a useful tool. Adapt. It's what we do.
Among the engineers / developers I know, I seem to be an isolated case, though a few people have expressed interest. Of course, it could have something to do with the fact that my MacBook Pro is personal property and I'm pretty sure I'm in a "grey area" as far as its use within the business. If someone from IT ever checked, I might get in trouble, but no one in my group has complained in the three years I've been doing this. The files I create are all interoperable; I'm not making anyone adapt to my way of doing things, so what's to complain about?
Actually, everything I do for my job - software engineering for the Solaris platform - is done on my Mac laptop. The only exception is Outlook, for which I switch the KVM over to the company supplied PC.
Oi, those crazy Slovaks, always kidding around. I'm sure all involved will get a good laugh out of it...
Just curious, but couldn't your co-workers figure out from your absence that you get more time off than they do?
> Getting sick and dying is natural.
Certainly, but dying because you were denied care, or unable to secure care because you can't afford it due to policies set by for-profit health insurance corporations isn't far off from gassing a broad swath of people. If it's less violent, does that mean it's less effective?
> party affiliation is irrelevant; the conduct of a particular congress critter is what is important
If the particular congress critter could exhibit an ability to think and vote for himself, or his constituents, rather than his party, I might agree with you.
Don't forget term limits. Why should the Pres be limited to two terms, but Congress-people get to make a life-time "career" out of it?