Perhaps you should sit back down, or at least explain how "right of possession" makes his reasoning flawed.
As far as I can tell his logic is that renting computer "space" in the cloud is equal to tenancy of an apartment and you should obtain all the rights and privileges thereof for your "stuff".
As far as I can tell "right of possession" means it is legal for a person to occupy or use the "stuff" in question.
Looking a bit more closely, you are actually bolstering the parent's argument by claiming 'right of possession'. When a lease is contracted, the lessee gains right of possession to the property.
Given this, your attempt to dispute his points does not really appear to work. Cloud storage seems analogous to renting an apartment (which includes safeguards for those lessees living or storing their stuff there) than some other convoluted analogy with 'right of possession' (which you have not supplied).
Stating "Right of Possession" would mean something only if you can come up with that amazing analogy or show the logic about that "right" that illustrates your point.
>>The US military is famous for switching job descriptions once people have entered their ranks.
Yes and no.
A contract is a contract. If you sign a Contract for a specific MOS/AFSC (or whatever they call 'em these days) YOU WILL get that OR have the option of declining to remain in the service.
Yes, they might make that hard for you to understand and pressure you to go along with the flow anyways but KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (you still have some!).
In my case I contracted for a specialty position. Even after basic training, even after tech school, if they had decided to pull the rug on that I could have (and would have) walked.
Sure to the uniform dude in front of you this may be incomprehensible, morally suspect, and mean you hate America but to the (big G)Government it is just another set of forms to fill out.
On the other hand if you just sign up without specifics you may as well think of the recruiter as a Marketer. As long as it's not IN THE CONTRACT they are *provably* lying (as they cannot guarantee what is not in contract).
This is where the military gets their reputation having the ability to ignore recruitment promises - most people don't get them written in to the contract.
So my advice is is you WANT to join and have a SPECIFIC goal, get it in writing otherwise the military will put you where IT thinks it will need you.
When environments are artificially sustained, we no longer call them "wild".
Unless this is some twist on humans being considered as just part of nature.
But that kind of removes the utility of the word, no?
At best this is an unbounded zoo in that without maintenance by the zoo keepers the frogs would just die off. Now if they had recreated a sustainable environment and left the frogs there (as opposed to having to continue to induce an environment) then one might be able to say they had been reintroduced 'in the wild'.
I, on the other hand, prefer to think the exact opposite.
I think most people are born intelligent. You are either enabled to form the correct neural connections or raised in a way that makes your intelligence degrade significantly.
"The fact that there are no disc-shaped aircraft in the skies today, though, suggests that the USAF's flying saucer efforts probably never got past the prototype stage."
Not so! It in fact suggests that the Greys filed a cease-and-desist suit with the Galactic Court to stop humans from producing a craft in that shape. They won, and *that* was when the Americans really sat up and started taking notice of Patents.
Other galactic species are talking behind their back, though, because the Greys sued with a design patent based on "rounded corners" for a flying saucer...
Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.
The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.
Unfortunately, you have misread the parent and I will be charitable and say that, rather than you simply disagree and are clutching at straws.
Uncharitably, I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook.
I do hope you are never in any decision making capability where you can affect people's lives.
If you consider any water that has been in the interior or a cell of a human being as "human", then it is entirely correct to call most beer - diluted humans.
I have no idea where you get avoiding repercussions is a bad thing.
That is simply a stupid argument.
OF COURSE I want to be anonymous to avoid repercussions.
I find it obvious that one needs to avoid repercussions when discussing controversial and/or political topics with a worldwide audience.
I find it obvious that both governments, corporations, groups, and individuals might decide to act in a way I would find objectionable, based on comments I have/will make.
Well, we have folks say that this is entirely reasonable, and if Neflix makes enough profit they should be forced to do it.
We have folks say that Netflix is not the content creator and has no obligation whatsoever, as a distributor, to alter the items it is distributing.
Now, we have had someone say that adding subtitles is a $5-$9 dollar a minute thing.
We had someone else say that the total catalogue was around 4400 items that are not CC'd.
We had others say that everything distributed since "X" is already CC'd.
At (being generous) 150 minutes a film, that comes to... $3.3M on the low and ~$6M on the high.
Now, are they also to provide CC translations in any other language than English?
If so, which?
What I have not heard is that it is probably the obligation of the distributors to go fix their own Items, since they are the ones actually disaccomodating the deaf.
Of course, that would not go over too well. They would probably just pull the titles instead of incur the ~$6M cost.
Why aren't they suing the content providers?
If someone could answer this, I would really appreciate it!
What would it take to convince you that computers understand abstract concepts?
You would first have to convince me that computers "understand" anything.
I'm sure that if you come up with a definition of "understand" that allows computers to "understand" I will be able to come up with a word or words that better fits your description than "understand".
When that happens, the signal to noise ratio on FB will become so bad that even people who own their own profiles won't be believed to be the "real" person.
So there doesn't appear to be a down side to just not playing.
This is very similar to a lot of these types of "games" - your best bet appears to never play.
Rules of war exist when some force or forces have an overpowering superiority, as well as soft spots (whether they be population, infrastructure, resources, or heritage) they would like to be off limits.
The agreement between these Powers become the "Rules" of war.
For forces that do not have an overpowering superiority or do not have the "status quo" soft spots, these "Rules" can make little to no sense.
On the other hand, if the overwhelmingly powerful can have everyone play nicely by the rules they have created, they have already won.
So, there are competing opinions of rules of war. Of course, one opinion that is universally held is that *my* rules of war are morally defensible while *yours* are not.
I'm also not sure how I can have a "pretend moderate" voice. Either I'm being moderate or I'm not? Do you see me raging and cursing at anyone?
Of course you are. You just want to distort the meaning so that you don't fit.
One can calmly, with a smile, advocate just about anything. That's a "pretend moderate" voice. One *seems* reasonable, affable and moderate - yet if another actually digs into the meat the animal is rabid.
Whether or not this accurately describes your position is left to the readers.
I actually have a similar question to the person who you responded to, but on a different level.
As far as utility of expressing ideas of various types, which do you find best? Is it always one or another for certain types of mental activities? Does one or another have a richer set of aphorisms or ability to express types of concepts not available to the others?
I guess I am looking at what affordances one provides over the other.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if you could point me to the contract you signed with Facebook promising you a free service I would appreciate it.
Otherwise, I fail to understand why you believe Facebook promised you anything.
They built something and let you use it. Is that what you refer to as a "promise"?
Perhaps you should sit back down, or at least explain how "right of possession" makes his reasoning flawed.
As far as I can tell his logic is that renting computer "space" in the cloud is equal to tenancy of an apartment and you should obtain all the rights and privileges thereof for your "stuff".
As far as I can tell "right of possession" means it is legal for a person to occupy or use the "stuff" in question.
Looking a bit more closely, you are actually bolstering the parent's argument by claiming 'right of possession'. When a lease is contracted, the lessee gains right of possession to the property.
Given this, your attempt to dispute his points does not really appear to work. Cloud storage seems analogous to renting an apartment (which includes safeguards for those lessees living or storing their stuff there) than some other convoluted analogy with 'right of possession' (which you have not supplied).
Stating "Right of Possession" would mean something only if you can come up with that amazing analogy or show the logic about that "right" that illustrates your point.
Please do.
Regards.
>>The US military is famous for switching job descriptions once people have entered their ranks.
Yes and no.
A contract is a contract. If you sign a Contract for a specific MOS/AFSC (or whatever they call 'em these days) YOU WILL get that OR have the option of declining to remain in the service.
Yes, they might make that hard for you to understand and pressure you to go along with the flow anyways but KNOW YOUR RIGHTS (you still have some!).
In my case I contracted for a specialty position. Even after basic training, even after tech school, if they had decided to pull the rug on that I could have (and would have) walked.
Sure to the uniform dude in front of you this may be incomprehensible, morally suspect, and mean you hate America but to the (big G)Government it is just another set of forms to fill out.
On the other hand if you just sign up without specifics you may as well think of the recruiter as a Marketer. As long as it's not IN THE CONTRACT they are *provably* lying (as they cannot guarantee what is not in contract).
This is where the military gets their reputation having the ability to ignore recruitment promises - most people don't get them written in to the contract.
So my advice is is you WANT to join and have a SPECIFIC goal, get it in writing otherwise the military will put you where IT thinks it will need you.
When environments are artificially sustained, we no longer call them "wild".
Unless this is some twist on humans being considered as just part of nature.
But that kind of removes the utility of the word, no?
At best this is an unbounded zoo in that without maintenance by the zoo keepers the frogs would just die off. Now if they had recreated a sustainable environment and left the frogs there (as opposed to having to continue to induce an environment) then one might be able to say they had been reintroduced 'in the wild'.
So, who should the judge jail, Apple's CEO?
I, on the other hand, prefer to think the exact opposite.
I think most people are born intelligent. You are either enabled to form the correct neural connections or raised in a way that makes your intelligence degrade significantly.
Sure it does!
You also don't make any speling mistakes, are never WRONG about your FACTS, and you rule the physics with your intellect.
No, you see this is an individual.
Of course individuals have no right to "Trade" - that's for corporations.
"The fact that there are no disc-shaped aircraft in the skies today, though, suggests that the USAF's flying saucer efforts probably never got past the prototype stage."
Not so! It in fact suggests that the Greys filed a cease-and-desist suit with the Galactic Court to stop humans from producing a craft in that shape. They won, and *that* was when the Americans really sat up and started taking notice of Patents.
Other galactic species are talking behind their back, though, because the Greys sued with a design patent based on "rounded corners" for a flying saucer...
Fortunately, we do not let the people who feel themselves directly harmed decide upon criminal punishments.
The parent was saying that AS A SOCIETY we should ignore it, not that the people directly involved would be able to do so.
Unfortunately, you have misread the parent and I will be charitable and say that, rather than you simply disagree and are clutching at straws.
Uncharitably, I then read your next line and must conclude that you are willing to equate desecration of Jewish cemeteries (presumably to incite the Nazi knee-jerk response) with someone REPOSTING SOMETHING THEY FOUND to Facebook.
I do hope you are never in any decision making capability where you can affect people's lives.
Oh no, Matthew Woods is the big winner in this.
He has clear insight, in a way that most of use are only peripherally aware of, into where government is trying to take us.
No doubt that although he will keep his head a bit lower profile, there has been a sea change in his heart.
You can't get that sort of Win without having that sort of experience.
If you consider any water that has been in the interior or a cell of a human being as "human", then it is entirely correct to call most beer - diluted humans.
Cheers!
"Clever of them to patent this, since knock-off space-junk removal systems are in such high demand"
If one does not think that the orbit around earth is going to be increasingly cluttered on is just not looking very far.
It is sad on a supposed tech and science site for someone to suggest that the clutter will not become a problem.
The refrain seems to be why patent anything that doesn't have immediate use.
What a crock of shit.
I would rather not give any money to people driving this type of frame of ideology for the internet.
That's one more site I need to stay away from, I'm glad that they are self-flagging.
I hope that all similar sites follow their awesome lead, it provides a wonderful signalling mechanism.
I hardly need to do any work at all if they would all just do that.
It would be like the 'evil bit" made manifest.
I wish that were the case...
caveat - this is talking about as the poster requested, production deployment of web services from big companies.
The software should be able to be deployed by nearly anyone familiar. Any changes to deployment are modifications of install scripts or applications.
Actual deployment to a production environment should be able to be done by a lot of different roles.
I prefer not to have developers deploy because they have access to a lot of different possible packages.
Build should be produced by CM.
Test should be able to install on their test systems, as checking the install is part of the test process.
Once a gold build is produced, the people administering the production application servers or ESBs should probably manage the package deployment.
Please don't tell me the developers are also administering the production boxes!
But really, test is familiar, development is familiar, systems should even be familiar... It could really be any of them.
"Should" then just becomes a choice made, and someone puts it down on their time card.
Now, a lot of people have come up with the work around exposed by this mandate - smile when committing a crime.
So the next logical step is to make smiling in public illegal.
Then, they will have less trouble IDing criminals.
Hell, even police officers can ID smiling people.
Perhaps we can then save money by getting rid of the cameras, since criminals are now easy to identify.
QED //or something like that
I have no idea where you get avoiding repercussions is a bad thing.
That is simply a stupid argument.
OF COURSE I want to be anonymous to avoid repercussions.
I find it obvious that one needs to avoid repercussions when discussing controversial and/or political topics with a worldwide audience.
I find it obvious that both governments, corporations, groups, and individuals might decide to act in a way I would find objectionable, based on comments I have/will make.
Please let me know what you find wrong with that.
in fact, I want my "phone" to be a tablet with the ability to hook up a bluetooth headset.
A normal phone and data plan.
Now, why doesn't anyone make that?
Well, we have folks say that this is entirely reasonable, and if Neflix makes enough profit they should be forced to do it.
We have folks say that Netflix is not the content creator and has no obligation whatsoever, as a distributor, to alter the items it is distributing.
Now, we have had someone say that adding subtitles is a $5-$9 dollar a minute thing.
We had someone else say that the total catalogue was around 4400 items that are not CC'd.
We had others say that everything distributed since "X" is already CC'd.
At (being generous) 150 minutes a film, that comes to... $3.3M on the low and ~$6M on the high.
Now, are they also to provide CC translations in any other language than English?
If so, which?
What I have not heard is that it is probably the obligation of the distributors to go fix their own Items, since they are the ones actually disaccomodating the deaf.
Of course, that would not go over too well. They would probably just pull the titles instead of incur the ~$6M cost.
Why aren't they suing the content providers?
If someone could answer this, I would really appreciate it!
What would it take to convince you that computers understand abstract concepts?
You would first have to convince me that computers "understand" anything.
I'm sure that if you come up with a definition of "understand" that allows computers to "understand" I will be able to come up with a word or words that better fits your description than "understand".
When that happens, the signal to noise ratio on FB will become so bad that even people who own their own profiles won't be believed to be the "real" person.
So there doesn't appear to be a down side to just not playing.
This is very similar to a lot of these types of "games" - your best bet appears to never play.
Rules of war exist when some force or forces have an overpowering superiority, as well as soft spots (whether they be population, infrastructure, resources, or heritage) they would like to be off limits.
The agreement between these Powers become the "Rules" of war.
For forces that do not have an overpowering superiority or do not have the "status quo" soft spots, these "Rules" can make little to no sense.
On the other hand, if the overwhelmingly powerful can have everyone play nicely by the rules they have created, they have already won.
So, there are competing opinions of rules of war. Of course, one opinion that is universally held is that *my* rules of war are morally defensible while *yours* are not.
Well, good!
We on the internet really do appreciate that!
Unfortunately it only takes a tenth of a percent to make reasonable people skittish.
I guess it depends on how closed your enviornment is how many griefers (or is that Reavers?) you run into.
I'm also not sure how I can have a "pretend moderate" voice. Either I'm being moderate or I'm not? Do you see me raging and cursing at anyone?
Of course you are. You just want to distort the meaning so that you don't fit.
One can calmly, with a smile, advocate just about anything. That's a "pretend moderate" voice. One *seems* reasonable, affable and moderate - yet if another actually digs into the meat the animal is rabid.
Whether or not this accurately describes your position is left to the readers.
Regards.
I actually have a similar question to the person who you responded to, but on a different level.
As far as utility of expressing ideas of various types, which do you find best? Is it always one or another for certain types of mental activities? Does one or another have a richer set of aphorisms or ability to express types of concepts not available to the others?
I guess I am looking at what affordances one provides over the other.
Regards.