I hope their programmers are a lot better than their translators. Or was Putin's original Russian as rambling and incoherent? Reminded me of the rare times when Bush would talk at length without having written it out ahead of time.
Damn, I was really hoping they got that infernal Nancy Miller from DRS. I get several robocalls from her every week. Even if you pick up, it's just a message saying to call her. Googling it suggests it's some sort of scam (I'm shocked).
--
Well, I finally broke down and called them back to tell them to stop calling me. They claim to be a debt collector. The person who they are looking for has my same name, but a different social and was married to someone else. My name isn't THAT uncommon, so I have to wonder how many other people they are harassing about this same debt. They now claim my number will be taken off within 72 hours. Great! Well, except for this.
And thank you for not calling me stupid, which seems to always happen when I have a back and forth disagreement of opinion on slashdot that goes over two exchanges. Stay classy.
Ditto. Having started out with the Mike episodes, I never found the Joel episodes nearly as funny. This doesn't mean Mike was better, as I might just prefer Joel because that's what I was used to.
I don't disagree with your opinion of IE, but I do disagree with the reality of marketing a product that either doesn't work on IE or requires them to download and install something non-standard to run it. IE still has the lion's share of the installed base, plus there's the fact of all the older browsers that won't be getting upgraded or replaced anytime soon. Flash slips in a bit under the radar both with home users and business users, since you don't actually have to change the browser to update Flash. And people are much more likely to say yes to an update of Flash as opposed to installing a plugin from some company they've never heard of so your javascript can work right. Every speedbump you put up is lost money.
But if you want to limit yourselves to a niche market, feel free. And yes, it is a niche in comparison to your potential. Consider that the market share for IE is thought to be 70%. And even with that remaining 30%, a much smaller percent (we're talking single digits) are using next-gen javascript engines that are necessary to make the 3d stuff usable that can be done in Flash six months ago. While you're waiting on the world to catch up, you could be making money on the 70% right now. That's what I'M doing, at least.
And you're completely ignoring my point about non-desktop computing devices. Which is very much the topic at hand.
Huh. How do you reckon that? The comments that spun off my responding was about how the iPhone SHOULD get Flash support because it's a great app dev platform that's widely supported. Then you jumped in saying Flash can't do anything Javascript/DHTML can't, thus implying that Flash wouldn't bring anything to the iPhone. Even though what it would bring to the iPhone is being able to run the exact same code that is already, today, without some fancy browser cherrpicking, running on the vast bulk of personal computers.
It would be a moot point to argue that TODAY javascript/DHTML is a better platform on the iPhone than Flash since the iPhone doesn't support Flash today. It's not better, it's just what you have (other than native apps). But if you're wanting to talk about where mobile devices and general (and probably eventually the iPhone) will be in a few years, then I expect Adobe's big push into getting Flash Player 10 onto mobile devices (which should probably also translate to home devices like the PS3, the Wii, etc.) will make Flash even more of a leader.
But anyway, from my very first post, I stated my basic point was return on investment. Not about which platform people SHOULD use, but which they DO use. How much money you can get back from the amount of time/money you put into developing an application. That means developing an app that can work on a majority of PCs today, as they far overwhelm the mobile market. If you're just doing something as a hobby, then (monetary) return on investment isn't really applicable.
And that's probably the last you'll hear from me on the subject.
I really can't believe you so casually dismiss lack of IE support. Clearly you're not talking about commercial software. Because if you took that tone around my boss, you'd be in for a rude awakening. I think you've just made my point for me on why Flash is the better way to go if you're actually in the business as a business.
From the very first link: Canvas is currently supported by all browsers except IE. Although various techniques are available for bridging this gap, this engine is probably a few bridges too far to ever work without native support or a plugin.
From the second: Works in at least Firefox 2.0.0.14 and Safari 3.1.1 (a bit buggy, and the latest webkit nightlies don't work well). Opera is best with the beta. No Internet Explorer support.
And the third: Please use a canvas-enabled browser (Firefox, Opera or Safari).
That's pretty much where I stopped as you're sensing the pattern. That's where Flash really runs circles around the others. Yeah, they're not perfect, either, but I do think they have a much better game plan. And the tools like Flex Builder make it relatively painless to develop high quality applications in minimal time, which is only unimportant if you don't value your time.
Keep in mind in this year or two while it tries to mature, the Flash market will be getting even MORE mature. And there will always be far less to explain to your boss about why your app doesn't work on XYZ browser version Q because of it's implementation of feature A isn't... blah blah blah, you get the point.
So when can I expect your Javascript/DHTML version of this?:D
Seriously, though. It's not so much about what you CAN do in Javascript/DHTML, but how much you have to invest to make certain things a reality. I've been coding in Flex for the last year and I cannot imagine how much work I'd have to go through to reproduce some of the applications I've built in Javascript/DHTML, much less to have it work consistently on a variety of operating systems.
If they can't tell that the other end has already collapsed when they check one end, then how do they know this whole entangling thing works and both ends collapse in tandem?
I still strongly disagree with how you're interpreting the OJ stuff, but it's so far off the subject that I'm not going to write a tome going over it point by point.
The simple fact is that video evidence of something like torture stands on its own. There is nothing that can be edited out that would make it ok. Similar to the amount of force used against Rodney King. There's no reason to obscure faces because whether or not they are ever charged or convicted, the video is a record of something that happened on federal property involving federal employees. As such, I believe it's up to the public to decide what should be done with it.
What, you're saying that we didn't realize that power corrupts before those experiments? Good luck with that thesis.
We may find that 90% of people would commit a heinous crime if they thought they could get away with it. That doesn't mean we should legalize it and not punish those who do commit it.
No, our system has the highest rate due to our inane drug laws and locking up people for non-violent crimes in general. It says that right there in the article you linked to if you'd read it.
Not because we refuse to take a moral relativist standpoint on violent crimes, as is the topic of discussion here. And dress it up how you want, but that IS what you're proposing. It would be wrong for a person here in the US to torture a random convicted serial killer. If you say it's not wrong for them to do it in another situation, then that is relativism by the book.
I believe in a much more relativist system when it comes to NON-violent crime. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family should be a slap on the wrist. But when it comes to violent crime, it just has no place.
To charge a solider with torture when they return to the states is like charging you for murder for eating meat today 10 years from now.
So if you take a gang member who was brought up and indoctrinated in extreme violence, they can just get off the charges of murdering the guy who runs the quick-e-mart simply by using the "it doesn't count because I didn't know better" defense, right?
Didn't think so. Our entire criminal system is based on the fact that some things are right and some are wrong. You may not agree with it, but society does.
You'll also notice there's a big difference in the oaths in the Army between enlisted men and officers. Part of the enlisted oath is "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me." Enlisted personnel are supposed to obey orders, officers are supposed to think. That's the basic idea.
How can you stand to repeatedly post such blatantly wrong information.
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Notice how you left out the part in bold. That's a pretty big fucking deal. The UCMJ is the part that says what constitutes an illegal order and how it's your duty to not follow it.
Oh, and just FYI, though the Nuremberg trials were limited in scope to the targets higher up in the chain due to necessity, plenty of lower levels guards HAVE been tried at camp-specific trials:
Hell, in these trials they even tried and executed prisoners who collaborated with the camp guards. They also included doctors, dentists and orderlies. Basically, anyone who they could find evidence of having committed war crimes, no matter what their rank or position.
Yes. Many posters cannot conceive of what it's like for soldiers in this situation.
Is it somehow worse than what they face on a regular basis - death in fighting or capture and possible torture by the enemy? Because they signed up for duty knowing full well those were very high risks. Somehow I can't see how getting sent to the brig, getting your rank lowered or losing some money is really on the same order of magnitude. And getting shipped to a dangerous job where you might be killed sounds like the very definition of being in the military. Somebody has the do the dangerous job, no?
They took an oath that says they will support and defend the Constitution (you remember that bit about cruel and unusual punishment, right?) and obey order according to the UMCJ. If they can't uphold that oath, they have no business being in the military to begin with.
Nope, sorry, can't agree with you on that one. The people who bear all of the responsibility are those who took action against your family. They created the entire situation. You start down this path, and now you're responsible for people getting mugged because you COULD have been outside patrolling the streets instead of reading a book or watching TV. You're also responsible for poor people who can't get medical help because you didn't give them your life savings and live as modestly as possible. This is a distinction that I believe most people recognize.
You missed the entire point. Did the police say "we have arrested someone for the murders" or did they say "we have arrested OJ Simpson"? Did they televise and broadcast the trial, even though at that point he had not been found guilty?
I think you know the answers to this. I'm also very puzzled by you asking "when did they release evidence to the public?" The answer is before the trial. LOTS of evidence was released and police made statements keeping the public informed of the state of the case. The prosecutor didn't release as much as the police did, but release they did.
The trial began on January 25, 1995, btw. So does that satisfy your request? It's even specifically about the DNA test. I would try to track down more for you, but have you ever tried to google for just stuff written before the Simpson trial? It's a pain.
It's off the subject, but the reason they failed to convict Simpson was pure bungling on the prosecutor's side combined with the fact that OJ being a well-liked celebrity could help but prejudice the jury.
Anyhow, this is all actually much more similar to the Rodney King beating. The videotape in that case is a direct parallel to the torture tapes and photos. The videotape shows what it shows. People should be able to view it and judge for themselves. It's even more applicable because they were never able to meet the legal standard to convict the police officers of anything. But it was very important that the public saw the video so they could judge for themselves.
When it comes to human rights, I do not believe in moral relativism. Slavery in the US was wrong, even if everybody was doing it. Torturing is wrong, no matter what the situation.
Otherwise the concepts of right and wrong vanish in a puff of smoke and no one is ever truly guilty for anything. People have argued over this for far longer than this slashdot thread. In the end, it's simply a matter of belief. You're welcome to your beliefs, though.
A court trial is only for legal consequences. You're muddling that with public opinion, which does not have legal consequences. You pretend that legal proceeding are a black box that can and should be partitioned off. How is this any different than OJ Simpson, for example? Should we never have known anything about his being accused of murder? Should we never have seen the evidence against him, simply because it wasn't enough to secure a conviction?
I say let us see the evidence, especially considering that these actions in question were performed by government employees.
The context of my comments were about this situation, but there is still a larger picture. If someone threatened to imprison your family if you didn't torture someone else, isn't it still wrong/unethical/immoral/bad for you to torture that person? Aren't you still guilty? The people who are forcing you to make this decision are ALSO guilty. But that doesn't take away your part in the crime.
You have made a judgment that one person's suffering is less important than another person's. Included in that is your own suffering because of the connection you have with them. You could stretch my point a bit further and say yes, you are a mercenary if you accept that bargain. You're accepting your family as payment to do something that you would otherwise consider wrong.
Methinks like every ever person who took Psych 101, I have.
The "normal" people who played the part of the guards bear guilt for their actions. I never claimed that most people aren't malleable and will do unethical things when put in positions of power over others. If most people would do the ethical thing in those situations, the human condition would not be what it was.
Again, though, the excuse "everybody was doing it" or "I just wasn't thinking and was caught up in the moment" don't absolve a person's guilt if what they did was unethical.
Slashdot Mirror
I never claimed he wrote it from his own thoughts. He has to rewrite what Dick and Karl dictate to him in his own special phonetics.
I hope their programmers are a lot better than their translators. Or was Putin's original Russian as rambling and incoherent? Reminded me of the rare times when Bush would talk at length without having written it out ahead of time.
Luckily for Kevin, no one has ever asked him to do a sequel.
(I kid, I kid. I'm actually one of the few people who enjoy his movies.)
Yeah, cause that's like totally what he did in The Departed. It's in one of the hard to find deleted scenes.
Damn, I was really hoping they got that infernal Nancy Miller from DRS. I get several robocalls from her every week. Even if you pick up, it's just a message saying to call her. Googling it suggests it's some sort of scam (I'm shocked).
--
Well, I finally broke down and called them back to tell them to stop calling me. They claim to be a debt collector. The person who they are looking for has my same name, but a different social and was married to someone else. My name isn't THAT uncommon, so I have to wonder how many other people they are harassing about this same debt. They now claim my number will be taken off within 72 hours. Great! Well, except for this.
And thank you for not calling me stupid, which seems to always happen when I have a back and forth disagreement of opinion on slashdot that goes over two exchanges. Stay classy.
Ditto. Having started out with the Mike episodes, I never found the Joel episodes nearly as funny. This doesn't mean Mike was better, as I might just prefer Joel because that's what I was used to.
I don't disagree with your opinion of IE, but I do disagree with the reality of marketing a product that either doesn't work on IE or requires them to download and install something non-standard to run it. IE still has the lion's share of the installed base, plus there's the fact of all the older browsers that won't be getting upgraded or replaced anytime soon. Flash slips in a bit under the radar both with home users and business users, since you don't actually have to change the browser to update Flash. And people are much more likely to say yes to an update of Flash as opposed to installing a plugin from some company they've never heard of so your javascript can work right. Every speedbump you put up is lost money.
But if you want to limit yourselves to a niche market, feel free. And yes, it is a niche in comparison to your potential. Consider that the market share for IE is thought to be 70%. And even with that remaining 30%, a much smaller percent (we're talking single digits) are using next-gen javascript engines that are necessary to make the 3d stuff usable that can be done in Flash six months ago. While you're waiting on the world to catch up, you could be making money on the 70% right now. That's what I'M doing, at least.
Huh. How do you reckon that? The comments that spun off my responding was about how the iPhone SHOULD get Flash support because it's a great app dev platform that's widely supported. Then you jumped in saying Flash can't do anything Javascript/DHTML can't, thus implying that Flash wouldn't bring anything to the iPhone. Even though what it would bring to the iPhone is being able to run the exact same code that is already, today, without some fancy browser cherrpicking, running on the vast bulk of personal computers.
It would be a moot point to argue that TODAY javascript/DHTML is a better platform on the iPhone than Flash since the iPhone doesn't support Flash today. It's not better, it's just what you have (other than native apps). But if you're wanting to talk about where mobile devices and general (and probably eventually the iPhone) will be in a few years, then I expect Adobe's big push into getting Flash Player 10 onto mobile devices (which should probably also translate to home devices like the PS3, the Wii, etc.) will make Flash even more of a leader.
But anyway, from my very first post, I stated my basic point was return on investment. Not about which platform people SHOULD use, but which they DO use. How much money you can get back from the amount of time/money you put into developing an application. That means developing an app that can work on a majority of PCs today, as they far overwhelm the mobile market. If you're just doing something as a hobby, then (monetary) return on investment isn't really applicable.
And that's probably the last you'll hear from me on the subject.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the "+1 Off-topic" option.
I really can't believe you so casually dismiss lack of IE support. Clearly you're not talking about commercial software. Because if you took that tone around my boss, you'd be in for a rude awakening. I think you've just made my point for me on why Flash is the better way to go if you're actually in the business as a business.
From the very first link:
Canvas is currently supported by all browsers except IE. Although various techniques are available for bridging this gap, this engine is probably a few bridges too far to ever work without native support or a plugin.
From the second:
Works in at least Firefox 2.0.0.14 and Safari 3.1.1 (a bit buggy, and the latest webkit nightlies don't work well). Opera is best with the beta. No Internet Explorer support.
And the third:
Please use a canvas-enabled browser (Firefox, Opera or Safari).
That's pretty much where I stopped as you're sensing the pattern. That's where Flash really runs circles around the others. Yeah, they're not perfect, either, but I do think they have a much better game plan. And the tools like Flex Builder make it relatively painless to develop high quality applications in minimal time, which is only unimportant if you don't value your time.
Keep in mind in this year or two while it tries to mature, the Flash market will be getting even MORE mature. And there will always be far less to explain to your boss about why your app doesn't work on XYZ browser version Q because of it's implementation of feature A isn't... blah blah blah, you get the point.
So when can I expect your Javascript/DHTML version of this? :D
Seriously, though. It's not so much about what you CAN do in Javascript/DHTML, but how much you have to invest to make certain things a reality. I've been coding in Flex for the last year and I cannot imagine how much work I'd have to go through to reproduce some of the applications I've built in Javascript/DHTML, much less to have it work consistently on a variety of operating systems.
If they can't tell that the other end has already collapsed when they check one end, then how do they know this whole entangling thing works and both ends collapse in tandem?
I still strongly disagree with how you're interpreting the OJ stuff, but it's so far off the subject that I'm not going to write a tome going over it point by point.
The simple fact is that video evidence of something like torture stands on its own. There is nothing that can be edited out that would make it ok. Similar to the amount of force used against Rodney King. There's no reason to obscure faces because whether or not they are ever charged or convicted, the video is a record of something that happened on federal property involving federal employees. As such, I believe it's up to the public to decide what should be done with it.
What, you're saying that we didn't realize that power corrupts before those experiments? Good luck with that thesis.
We may find that 90% of people would commit a heinous crime if they thought they could get away with it. That doesn't mean we should legalize it and not punish those who do commit it.
No, our system has the highest rate due to our inane drug laws and locking up people for non-violent crimes in general. It says that right there in the article you linked to if you'd read it.
Not because we refuse to take a moral relativist standpoint on violent crimes, as is the topic of discussion here. And dress it up how you want, but that IS what you're proposing. It would be wrong for a person here in the US to torture a random convicted serial killer. If you say it's not wrong for them to do it in another situation, then that is relativism by the book.
I believe in a much more relativist system when it comes to NON-violent crime. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family should be a slap on the wrist. But when it comes to violent crime, it just has no place.
So if you take a gang member who was brought up and indoctrinated in extreme violence, they can just get off the charges of murdering the guy who runs the quick-e-mart simply by using the "it doesn't count because I didn't know better" defense, right?
Didn't think so. Our entire criminal system is based on the fact that some things are right and some are wrong. You may not agree with it, but society does.
How can you stand to repeatedly post such blatantly wrong information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Notice how you left out the part in bold. That's a pretty big fucking deal. The UCMJ is the part that says what constitutes an illegal order and how it's your duty to not follow it.
Oh, and just FYI, though the Nuremberg trials were limited in scope to the targets higher up in the chain due to necessity, plenty of lower levels guards HAVE been tried at camp-specific trials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stutthof_concentration_camp#Stutthof_Trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Auschwitz_Trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belsen_Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_Trials
and on and on...
Hell, in these trials they even tried and executed prisoners who collaborated with the camp guards. They also included doctors, dentists and orderlies. Basically, anyone who they could find evidence of having committed war crimes, no matter what their rank or position.
Is it somehow worse than what they face on a regular basis - death in fighting or capture and possible torture by the enemy? Because they signed up for duty knowing full well those were very high risks. Somehow I can't see how getting sent to the brig, getting your rank lowered or losing some money is really on the same order of magnitude. And getting shipped to a dangerous job where you might be killed sounds like the very definition of being in the military. Somebody has the do the dangerous job, no?
They took an oath that says they will support and defend the Constitution (you remember that bit about cruel and unusual punishment, right?) and obey order according to the UMCJ. If they can't uphold that oath, they have no business being in the military to begin with.
Nope, sorry, can't agree with you on that one. The people who bear all of the responsibility are those who took action against your family. They created the entire situation. You start down this path, and now you're responsible for people getting mugged because you COULD have been outside patrolling the streets instead of reading a book or watching TV. You're also responsible for poor people who can't get medical help because you didn't give them your life savings and live as modestly as possible. This is a distinction that I believe most people recognize.
You missed the entire point. Did the police say "we have arrested someone for the murders" or did they say "we have arrested OJ Simpson"? Did they televise and broadcast the trial, even though at that point he had not been found guilty?
I think you know the answers to this. I'm also very puzzled by you asking "when did they release evidence to the public?" The answer is before the trial. LOTS of evidence was released and police made statements keeping the public informed of the state of the case. The prosecutor didn't release as much as the police did, but release they did.
Two examples:
OJ's Statement to the LAPD
November 29, 1994 issue of STAR
Prosecutors say the results of DNA tests done on samples found at the crime site and at Mr. Simpson's Brentwood estate convincingly identify him as the killer.
Thursday, January 23, 1995
The trial began on January 25, 1995, btw. So does that satisfy your request? It's even specifically about the DNA test. I would try to track down more for you, but have you ever tried to google for just stuff written before the Simpson trial? It's a pain.
It's off the subject, but the reason they failed to convict Simpson was pure bungling on the prosecutor's side combined with the fact that OJ being a well-liked celebrity could help but prejudice the jury.
Anyhow, this is all actually much more similar to the Rodney King beating. The videotape in that case is a direct parallel to the torture tapes and photos. The videotape shows what it shows. People should be able to view it and judge for themselves. It's even more applicable because they were never able to meet the legal standard to convict the police officers of anything. But it was very important that the public saw the video so they could judge for themselves.
When it comes to human rights, I do not believe in moral relativism. Slavery in the US was wrong, even if everybody was doing it. Torturing is wrong, no matter what the situation.
Otherwise the concepts of right and wrong vanish in a puff of smoke and no one is ever truly guilty for anything. People have argued over this for far longer than this slashdot thread. In the end, it's simply a matter of belief. You're welcome to your beliefs, though.
A court trial is only for legal consequences. You're muddling that with public opinion, which does not have legal consequences. You pretend that legal proceeding are a black box that can and should be partitioned off. How is this any different than OJ Simpson, for example? Should we never have known anything about his being accused of murder? Should we never have seen the evidence against him, simply because it wasn't enough to secure a conviction?
I say let us see the evidence, especially considering that these actions in question were performed by government employees.
The context of my comments were about this situation, but there is still a larger picture. If someone threatened to imprison your family if you didn't torture someone else, isn't it still wrong/unethical/immoral/bad for you to torture that person? Aren't you still guilty? The people who are forcing you to make this decision are ALSO guilty. But that doesn't take away your part in the crime.
You have made a judgment that one person's suffering is less important than another person's. Included in that is your own suffering because of the connection you have with them. You could stretch my point a bit further and say yes, you are a mercenary if you accept that bargain. You're accepting your family as payment to do something that you would otherwise consider wrong.
Methinks like every ever person who took Psych 101, I have.
The "normal" people who played the part of the guards bear guilt for their actions. I never claimed that most people aren't malleable and will do unethical things when put in positions of power over others. If most people would do the ethical thing in those situations, the human condition would not be what it was.
Again, though, the excuse "everybody was doing it" or "I just wasn't thinking and was caught up in the moment" don't absolve a person's guilt if what they did was unethical.