Normal people don't give two shits about any particular company.
So that guy every one of us knows who has an iPad, an iPhone, an iMac, an iPod and has Apple stickers plastered all over the back of his Prius and/or Corolla is not normal? Or is he just a shill? Which is it?
Perhaps next we'll have officially-sanctioned teachings that points-out that the US has been at war (or involved in armed military-conflict) every year since 1890 (apart from six years scattered around non-contiguously) ?
You could at least mention the Muslims - they'll feel left out.
I can't wait to see the changes that come from this new level of awareness of the nature of the political system in the US. Oh wait...
Perhaps next we'll have officially-sanctioned teachings that points-out that the US has been at war every year since its inception (apart from thirteen years scattered around non-contiguously) ?
I understand that it's not enough to just write one's idea out, unaccompanied by an analogy but... please show some creativity and make it a car analogy:D
I'm not saying that that should be part of his legal defense. It's clear that he has no defence - he's completely controlled within the framework of rules defined by his opponents - those who place themselves into a position of unquestioned virtue, despite committing/sanctioning unimaginable acts of horror, nominally on 'our' (I'm in the UK) behalf.
I'm often reminded of Jack Nicholson's character's rant in "A few good men" (below) and wonder whether in fact, the way forward is for those of us who are 'ignorant of harsh reality', those of us who are beneath the blanket, to push those who provide it into offering it to those who are currently left uncovered. Something needs to be done. No longer can a country have a 'hard coating and a soft chewy interior' - internal ethics and morality need to be extended to all levels of society and then out into the world community such that we can all live together in peace (man).
This man, Bradley Manning, apparently took a stand for what he believed was right. Surely it's clear that morality is larger than the rule of law and only partly contains it as a set? Yet, we act as if law is morality. Indeed, take a look at the comments on this thread, "PayPal didn't break any law so everything's ok. waaaa" - again and again. It's quite clear that PayPal must be aware that this man's future in large part depends on his ability to mount a legal defence in his David vs Goliath - style battle yet because 'the rules were not broken', we are to consider that they acted appropriately. Please!
It's one step in a generations-long battle to eradicate hypocrisy and abuse by those in power. Roll-on the next step and the next. Let's get this thing moving!
</incoherent_rant>
- “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don’t want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!” [Jack Nicholson, as Colonel Jessup]
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): “You want answers?” Tom Cruise (Kaffee): “I think I’m entitled.” Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): “You want answers?” Tom Cruise (Kaffee): “I want the truth!” Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): “You can’t handle the truth!”
He joined the military. Despite the fact that he decided to betray his own oaths by lying, stealing sensitive material, etc.
Perhaps when he made those oaths he believed that those nominally in-charge were morally superior, that they were leading the defence of his countrymen and so in a sense, rightfully 'in-charge' and that he was 'one of the good guys' ?
Perhaps, once he realised his misunderstanding, he decided to do something about it ?
I know. You'd think they'd be overjoyed. I mean, pretty soon, someone will want to create a 'Modern Warfare: Invasion Iraq' or 'Battlefield: Afghanistan' game and will need to pay big licensing bucks to the US government, the trademark-holder on war-related activities:-)
Slashdot Mirror
It's fine if they don't believe in it but they should be prevented from participating in it.
Although, I guess they've already got that in-hand :D
Due to a peculiarity of maths - that amount of respect can be shared between them equally without the ID mob losing out :-)
It's tantamount to documentation. Print it out and there's your user-manual.
Nice. I've not seen that technique used for ages. Elegant piece of code :D
And still managing to turn a profit from it :-(
Re. your sig: "Yes! well-written code is self-documenting!" :D
Drinking the blood of the casualties?
Both. duh.
Cops have a high tolerance to donuts so millidonuts are too granular. You'll be wanting a megadonut scale.
It's the people you wanna watch.
What source do you refer to? Or is this all from memory? :D
Clearly I'm out of my comfort zone. I half-quoted something I heard in one of Noam Chomsky's rants but couldn't find the document he referred-to. This seems fairly similar:
* http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Uhh not to mention the fact that it's not a gas, it's a liquid?
Hmmn. My ignorance is showing.
1890 - 2010
1897
1955
1957
1959
1995
2007
You could at least mention the Muslims - they'll feel left out.
I can't wait to see the changes that come from this new level of awareness of the nature of the political system in the US. Oh wait...
Perhaps next we'll have officially-sanctioned teachings that points-out that the US has been at war every year since its inception (apart from thirteen years scattered around non-contiguously) ?
meh. :P
I'm still not feeling it. Come on. Try harder!
meh :P
I understand that it's not enough to just write one's idea out, unaccompanied by an analogy but... please show some creativity and make it a car analogy :D
Get off my lawn!
I'm not saying that that should be part of his legal defense. It's clear that he has no defence - he's completely controlled within the framework of rules defined by his opponents - those who place themselves into a position of unquestioned virtue, despite committing/sanctioning unimaginable acts of horror, nominally on 'our' (I'm in the UK) behalf.
I'm often reminded of Jack Nicholson's character's rant in "A few good men" (below) and wonder whether in fact, the way forward is for those of us who are 'ignorant of harsh reality', those of us who are beneath the blanket, to push those who provide it into offering it to those who are currently left uncovered. Something needs to be done. No longer can a country have a 'hard coating and a soft chewy interior' - internal ethics and morality need to be extended to all levels of society and then out into the world community such that we can all live together in peace (man).
This man, Bradley Manning, apparently took a stand for what he believed was right. Surely it's clear that morality is larger than the rule of law and only partly contains it as a set? Yet, we act as if law is morality. Indeed, take a look at the comments on this thread, "PayPal didn't break any law so everything's ok. waaaa" - again and again. It's quite clear that PayPal must be aware that this man's future in large part depends on his ability to mount a legal defence in his David vs Goliath - style battle yet because 'the rules were not broken', we are to consider that they acted appropriately. Please!
It's one step in a generations-long battle to eradicate hypocrisy and abuse by those in power. Roll-on the next step and the next. Let's get this thing moving!
</incoherent_rant>
-
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don’t want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!” [Jack Nicholson, as Colonel Jessup]
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): “You want answers?”
Tom Cruise (Kaffee): “I think I’m entitled.”
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): “You want answers?”
Tom Cruise (Kaffee): “I want the truth!”
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup): “You can’t handle the truth!”
-
PS. wth slashdot? line-height: 40px ? !!
Perhaps when he made those oaths he believed that those nominally in-charge were morally superior, that they were leading the defence of his countrymen and so in a sense, rightfully 'in-charge' and that he was 'one of the good guys' ?
Perhaps, once he realised his misunderstanding, he decided to do something about it ?
I wonder if they used the same data as this pie-chart: http://www.hemmy.net/2007/12/01/pacman-pie-chart/
This one is notable by virtue of the absence of Jack Thompson in the proceedings.
I know. You'd think they'd be overjoyed. I mean, pretty soon, someone will want to create a 'Modern Warfare: Invasion Iraq' or 'Battlefield: Afghanistan' game and will need to pay big licensing bucks to the US government, the trademark-holder on war-related activities :-)
Cue a story about Sony being denied access to the personal details of their critics.
Maybe if they had taken care to hire decent developers they could have used their rootkit to do the discovery for them :-)
FTFY :-)