And yes, he failed to protect our privacy, but you know that he tried and choose to deliberately ignore the fact.
A "fact" which exists purely in your imagination. If he had tried, he wouldn't have used his power to our detriment. That's it. End of story.
So no, you would not be ecstatic to be wrong, or you'd have made being wrong a possibility.
And now we reach new, idiotic, heights of presumption. No, I will be ecstatic if I turn out to be wrong. Why the hell would I actually wish ill upon my country, and by extension, myself? I don't want Obama in office, but since I can't change that, I want to be floored by how wrong I was. I want him to be the best thing since sliced bread. I merely don't think it's going to happen.
The only way you could be wrong was if Obama was, in fact, perfect in a way that not only meant he never made a mistake, but could also accomplish things well beyond the power of his office with ease.
No, I'll be wrong if he's a good president who restores liberties which we have lost in the past 8 years. I'll be wrong if he works to reduce the abuses of power we saw under Bush. If you think I want him to be perfect, you've managed to read what I said without actually understanding a word. I don't want him to be perfect. I expect to disagree with people on things. What I do want is for him to have the fundamentals right, which he's shown he doesn't (so far).
is it then ? we are using linux, windows, php, asp, gmail, blackberry, mail, cpus to do our job done. and we are talking about these ALL day here. then these are 'fluff' too.
Gee, we talk about things that ARE our jobs! How could a thing that IS our job be relevant to our job, but not the president's job? This question left as an exercise for the reader.
excuse me but youre the first moron i saw on slashdot.
So according to you, a "lie" is anything someone states that is untrue, regardless of intent to deceive.
No. I did not say that. You're assuming I accept the explanation that Obama made a mistake. I do not. I believe he lied.
You are the opposite of those people; you are ready to condemn anyone who doesn't live up to your impossibly high expectations.
My expectations aren't high. I expect politicians to be honest in what they tell me. I expect them to be willing to protect certain fundamental rights. Obama has failed both of these tests (lied to us, and failed to protect our right to privacy), which is why I anticipate a bad presidency from him. I will be ecstatic, of course, if I'm wrong, but that's my belief based on what is known of him at this time.
If you don't like Geithner, come up with someone better and start writing letters.
I've written letters to my representatives before. I got a form letter response and no action was taken. I've since given up that useless form of action. When I had the chance to take action with my vote, I took it. Experience has taught me that, now, the die is cast and there's nothing I can do.
Take ex-Senator Ted Stevens, for instance. He was incredibly uninformed about technology and how it impacted our culture; as a result, he promoted some truly terrible legislation that no competent, informed person would consider. Would you put him at the head of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation knowing full well that he couldn't tell the difference between a cable modem and a brick?
I appreciate what you're saying, but ol' Ted is a bad example, because, as a member of that committee, he was expected to have specific knowledge of the issue being tackled. The president's scope is more general, so he doesn't need that intimate knowledge.
Now we have a president that is informed on the benefits of open source software and net neutrality; I'd argue that's hugely indicative of his potential to promote sane legislation.
I wouldn't be so ready to believe he has any more understanding of these issues than someone who's computer illiterate. Many PHB's have toys like blackberries, but are complete idiots with respect to technology. Use is not required for understanding (as long as you have a basic level of understanding, someone who knows more can fill you in), and does not imply understanding. So... why get all worked up over his use of technology? It tells us nothing.
That's true, but he also doesn't need to use the technology to be familiar with it. I'm not gay, but I have a decent understanding of the issues surrounding gay people in our society, for example. If I lacked a nuanced understanding because some issue didn't personally affect me, I know enough that someone closer to the situation could explain to me.
Furthermore, use does not imply understanding, as beleaguered IT workers all over would tell you. Many people use technology and are reasonably comfortable with it, but are complete idiots about it too.
A BLACKBERY ADDICT, TECH AFFLUENT PRESIDENT IS NEWS
No it isn't.
AN ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCING TO BE USING GMAIL TEMPORARLY IS NEWS.
No it isn't.
we the rest of the world do not give a crap about your party's (whatever it is) problems with other parties in your country. or your views on your president.
This has nothing to do with political affiliation, this has to do with recognizing what's important. What tools our president uses to get his job done is fluff, not substance. It is not news, even on the slowest news day.
Obviously, he meant "World War Two" rather than "Two World Wars." I'll give you FISA, but that's about the stupidest complaint about any politician I've ever heard.
I did say it was a minor issue. But minor or not, it's still a lie, and shows Obama to be in the same lying, opportunistic political mold we know and love.
Also, the IRS audited him and found the problem long before he had any involvement with Obama. The Obama team actually made him pay back taxes that were beyond the statue of limitation, and that he was therefore not legally required to pay.
It doesn't matter. The fact that the Obama team would appoint someone who is either a) uncaring enough about the law, or b) stupid enough, to somehow not pay multiple years of taxes speaks volumes about their standards for who they work with. I don't care that he's paid the amount. The fact that he let it go untouched for so long shows a lack of either character or intelligence, and either way, he shouldn't be running our treasury!
If they are audited and found to be non-compliant, they pay back-taxes plus interest and penalties.
I know that you have to do that, but I was under the impression that the IRS had a very short leash (a couple of years or so) before they prosecuted you for tax evasion. If I'm wrong, so be it, but it doesn't change the fact that Geithner does not belong in the Cabinet.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I posted for about a year as AC because I posted so infrequently that I wasn't going to bother signing up for an account. I didn't run around seeing how much trouble I could stir up, I posted normal and reasonable things. Equating AC to troll is baseless and unfair.
Just because I have a sense of perspective about what's important and what's not doesn't make me stupid. What is important is the president's ability to do his job. His technology use does not impact that in any meaningful way except to make whatever he does do more efficient: he will still be a good or bad president, just be a bit faster at sending us in whatever direction. Now, that's not a bad thing, but it's not something to get worked up about either.
excuse me, pal, but I do care. if you cant fathom the amount of i.t./tech/nerdiness/geekery/internet culture in this, turn in your geek card on your way out.
If you can't think about the issue rationally, instead of getting all caught up in the "THAT'S SO COOL!" emotional impulse, turn in your geek card on the way out. If you can't think about something rationally, you're not a geek.
So you had me until you decided to say that knowledge of technology was worthless.
Ah, but I didn't say that. I said that it's irrelevant to the ability of the president to do his job. It's valuable knowledge, but not indicative of ability to lead the country, and should not be used to judge a candidate's worth, as it has been.
Obama is the most technologically fluent President ever.
You know, this gets tossed around a lot, and it bugs the living hell out of me. Who the fuck cares? It's irrelevant! Praising Obama for using technology is no different than something like praising him because he likes rock music. It's a completely superficial thing, and doesn't affect his ability to be president in the least.
What's not to like?
So far? Lying to us, ranging from the petty ("My grandma survived WWI, which she was born after") to the serious ("I oppose telecom immunity in the wiretapping fiasco"). Spouting elitist bullshit that implies only those pitiable poor people are religious, and favor strong gun rights (and, by extension, implying that these are things which are to be stamped out, rather than the purely personal choice they are). He appointed a man who didn't pay his fucking taxes to be Secretary of the Treasury. If you or I don't pay taxes? We go to jail. If Obama's buddy doesn't pay taxes? He gets appointed to a high government position.
The tragic part about Obama, especially his FISA vote, and Sec. Treas. appointment, is that he's shown us that, contrary to what he'd like us to believe, he's just another politician serving his ends, not ours. And yes, there is stuff to like. I'm happy he ordered the closing of Gitmo (assuming he doesn't quietly back down on that, but we'll see). I'm happy he's been pushing an open government, not a closed one (again, only time will tell if this is sincere, or mere rhetoric that is spouted while the public's eye is focused upon him).
I hope he makes our country a much better one, but so far, there's as much bad as there is good. Let's not pretend the man is unblemished. At the same time, let's not pretend he's worthless either, since he seems to be doing some good. As usual, the die-hards on both sides are wrong.
So, someone presents a rational argument, and it's mocked because they're defending Palin? Nice. Maybe you think his facts are BS. That's fair. Attack his facts, provide a reputable source of evidence that things are not as he claims they are.
If things are as he says they are (and I have no idea if that's the case), his statement is very reasonable. If you refuse to counter his statement with fact, then you're just spouting partisan drivel.
So true. Amazing how little has changed about politics in the last 38 years, eh? Replace one thief with another, decry the last thief, praise the current thief. Over and over and over.
I do not. This obligation is utterly misguided. Do you pay those who make roads each time you drive on those roads they made?
Oh, please. If you really wish to justify your desire to steal games, you need to come up with an analogy that actually works. I do, in fact, pay the people who make roads on a regular basis, in the form of taxes. I pay for upkeep on existing roads, new roads, all that. Furthermore, your analogy suggests that I claim you should continue to pay for games after you own a copy, which is false. You'd better damn well pay for it the first time, though, much like you have to pay your share if you wish to drive on the road. After that, it's been paid for once, so you don't continue paying for it in either case.
You have an obligation to pay them to obtain the fruit of their labor for yourself, unless someone else paid them for you. This is not a new concept. The lengths to which people will go to justify stealing software confound me.
You must be new here:) Some of the people in any undertaking are petty assholes, but Slashdot has meta-moderation, which seems to be the best way to deal with that in a way that is as fair as possible. I only wish I could meta-moderate in real life - politicians, television, comments made by my girlfriend... The other thing is that pretty much everyone can become eligable to moderate; it's not some elitist core.
No, I know about meta-moderation, and how the moderation system works... I've moderated a few times myself, and used to meta-mod all the time until they fucked up the interface for it. Still, though, even with that supposed check, petty abuses of power run rampant, so it doesn't seem to be doing its job very well.
They are mostly interested in hiring smart people, which includes many gays but fewer religious bigots.
This statement reveals a great deal of prejudice on your part, you know. Stupid ideas can reside in the head of any person, whether that person be stupid themselves or not. There's no real reason to believe that CA will see any decline in the number of smart people living there.
Not quite. At Circuit City I could buy a tube of thermal grease in a pinch. You can't do that at Best Buy, or anywhere else in my town. I'll be sad to see them go, just because they were the one business willing to carry somewhat niche products like that.
Because I'm a thinking being engaged with the world around me, not a navel-gazing mystic.
get modded insightful 3???
You must be new here. Some of the people who moderate are petty, petty abusers of power. Express a sentiment they agree with, even in a completely flamebait fashion, and you get modded up. Express a sentiment they disagree with, even if you're reasonable about it, and you get modded down.
Fairness and the slashdot moderation system don't have much in common.
Moderators: grow a pair, and stop abusing your power. As much as I disagree with this poster's opinion, it is not trolling to point out the serious flaw in the "opposing Prop 8 is practical for them" argument.
Many of us folks would like it if you didn't drag this thread down into flaming. I understand you disagree with him: so do I. Nonetheless it's pointless to turn this into personal attack time.
For that matter, he has a valid point. If one tries to argue that Google should oppose this for practical reasons, that falls flat on its face, because there will be just as many people who would want to work for them because of a lack of gays as there will be gays who don't want to work there. Practicality doesn't enter the equation here, this is a moral issue.
No, the click-wheel was a stroke of idiocy. You accidentally hit buttons when you're trying to turn the wheel constantly, it's stupidly unusable. With the G3 iPod, you could hit buttons precisely, without even looking. That was a masterpiece of MP3 player design. They fucked it up, and there hasn't been a good iPod since then (except maybe the Touch, they might finally have a good one with that).
The Touch aside, though, the G3 iPod was the only one that was worth a dime.
Fair point, but the OP is still correct. You can't sell the software itself, merely copies of it.
It's a pointless discussion, though. It's an argument of semantics that adds no clarification in meaning. We can just as well say we're selling the software, and everyone will know what's really meant, so it's silly to try to harp on the technicalities. Still, the OP is correct, silly as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
And yes, he failed to protect our privacy, but you know that he tried and choose to deliberately ignore the fact.
A "fact" which exists purely in your imagination. If he had tried, he wouldn't have used his power to our detriment. That's it. End of story.
So no, you would not be ecstatic to be wrong, or you'd have made being wrong a possibility.
And now we reach new, idiotic, heights of presumption. No, I will be ecstatic if I turn out to be wrong. Why the hell would I actually wish ill upon my country, and by extension, myself? I don't want Obama in office, but since I can't change that, I want to be floored by how wrong I was. I want him to be the best thing since sliced bread. I merely don't think it's going to happen.
The only way you could be wrong was if Obama was, in fact, perfect in a way that not only meant he never made a mistake, but could also accomplish things well beyond the power of his office with ease.
No, I'll be wrong if he's a good president who restores liberties which we have lost in the past 8 years. I'll be wrong if he works to reduce the abuses of power we saw under Bush. If you think I want him to be perfect, you've managed to read what I said without actually understanding a word. I don't want him to be perfect. I expect to disagree with people on things. What I do want is for him to have the fundamentals right, which he's shown he doesn't (so far).
is it then ? we are using linux, windows, php, asp, gmail, blackberry, mail, cpus to do our job done. and we are talking about these ALL day here. then these are 'fluff' too.
Gee, we talk about things that ARE our jobs! How could a thing that IS our job be relevant to our job, but not the president's job? This question left as an exercise for the reader.
excuse me but youre the first moron i saw on slashdot.
Apparently you don't examine yourself very often.
So according to you, a "lie" is anything someone states that is untrue, regardless of intent to deceive.
No. I did not say that. You're assuming I accept the explanation that Obama made a mistake. I do not. I believe he lied.
You are the opposite of those people; you are ready to condemn anyone who doesn't live up to your impossibly high expectations.
My expectations aren't high. I expect politicians to be honest in what they tell me. I expect them to be willing to protect certain fundamental rights. Obama has failed both of these tests (lied to us, and failed to protect our right to privacy), which is why I anticipate a bad presidency from him. I will be ecstatic, of course, if I'm wrong, but that's my belief based on what is known of him at this time.
If you don't like Geithner, come up with someone better and start writing letters.
I've written letters to my representatives before. I got a form letter response and no action was taken. I've since given up that useless form of action. When I had the chance to take action with my vote, I took it. Experience has taught me that, now, the die is cast and there's nothing I can do.
Take ex-Senator Ted Stevens, for instance. He was incredibly uninformed about technology and how it impacted our culture; as a result, he promoted some truly terrible legislation that no competent, informed person would consider. Would you put him at the head of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation knowing full well that he couldn't tell the difference between a cable modem and a brick?
I appreciate what you're saying, but ol' Ted is a bad example, because, as a member of that committee, he was expected to have specific knowledge of the issue being tackled. The president's scope is more general, so he doesn't need that intimate knowledge.
Now we have a president that is informed on the benefits of open source software and net neutrality; I'd argue that's hugely indicative of his potential to promote sane legislation.
I wouldn't be so ready to believe he has any more understanding of these issues than someone who's computer illiterate. Many PHB's have toys like blackberries, but are complete idiots with respect to technology. Use is not required for understanding (as long as you have a basic level of understanding, someone who knows more can fill you in), and does not imply understanding. So... why get all worked up over his use of technology? It tells us nothing.
That's true, but he also doesn't need to use the technology to be familiar with it. I'm not gay, but I have a decent understanding of the issues surrounding gay people in our society, for example. If I lacked a nuanced understanding because some issue didn't personally affect me, I know enough that someone closer to the situation could explain to me.
Furthermore, use does not imply understanding, as beleaguered IT workers all over would tell you. Many people use technology and are reasonably comfortable with it, but are complete idiots about it too.
A BLACKBERY ADDICT, TECH AFFLUENT PRESIDENT IS NEWS
No it isn't.
AN ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCING TO BE USING GMAIL TEMPORARLY IS NEWS.
No it isn't.
we the rest of the world do not give a crap about your party's (whatever it is) problems with other parties in your country. or your views on your president.
This has nothing to do with political affiliation, this has to do with recognizing what's important. What tools our president uses to get his job done is fluff, not substance. It is not news, even on the slowest news day.
Obviously, he meant "World War Two" rather than "Two World Wars." I'll give you FISA, but that's about the stupidest complaint about any politician I've ever heard.
I did say it was a minor issue. But minor or not, it's still a lie, and shows Obama to be in the same lying, opportunistic political mold we know and love.
Also, the IRS audited him and found the problem long before he had any involvement with Obama. The Obama team actually made him pay back taxes that were beyond the statue of limitation, and that he was therefore not legally required to pay.
It doesn't matter. The fact that the Obama team would appoint someone who is either a) uncaring enough about the law, or b) stupid enough, to somehow not pay multiple years of taxes speaks volumes about their standards for who they work with. I don't care that he's paid the amount. The fact that he let it go untouched for so long shows a lack of either character or intelligence, and either way, he shouldn't be running our treasury!
If they are audited and found to be non-compliant, they pay back-taxes plus interest and penalties.
I know that you have to do that, but I was under the impression that the IRS had a very short leash (a couple of years or so) before they prosecuted you for tax evasion. If I'm wrong, so be it, but it doesn't change the fact that Geithner does not belong in the Cabinet.
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I posted for about a year as AC because I posted so infrequently that I wasn't going to bother signing up for an account. I didn't run around seeing how much trouble I could stir up, I posted normal and reasonable things. Equating AC to troll is baseless and unfair.
oh boy - are you stupid?
Just because I have a sense of perspective about what's important and what's not doesn't make me stupid. What is important is the president's ability to do his job. His technology use does not impact that in any meaningful way except to make whatever he does do more efficient: he will still be a good or bad president, just be a bit faster at sending us in whatever direction. Now, that's not a bad thing, but it's not something to get worked up about either.
excuse me, pal, but I do care. if you cant fathom the amount of i.t./tech/nerdiness/geekery/internet culture in this, turn in your geek card on your way out.
If you can't think about the issue rationally, instead of getting all caught up in the "THAT'S SO COOL!" emotional impulse, turn in your geek card on the way out. If you can't think about something rationally, you're not a geek.
So you had me until you decided to say that knowledge of technology was worthless.
Ah, but I didn't say that. I said that it's irrelevant to the ability of the president to do his job. It's valuable knowledge, but not indicative of ability to lead the country, and should not be used to judge a candidate's worth, as it has been.
Obama is the most technologically fluent President ever.
You know, this gets tossed around a lot, and it bugs the living hell out of me. Who the fuck cares? It's irrelevant! Praising Obama for using technology is no different than something like praising him because he likes rock music. It's a completely superficial thing, and doesn't affect his ability to be president in the least.
What's not to like?
So far? Lying to us, ranging from the petty ("My grandma survived WWI, which she was born after") to the serious ("I oppose telecom immunity in the wiretapping fiasco"). Spouting elitist bullshit that implies only those pitiable poor people are religious, and favor strong gun rights (and, by extension, implying that these are things which are to be stamped out, rather than the purely personal choice they are). He appointed a man who didn't pay his fucking taxes to be Secretary of the Treasury. If you or I don't pay taxes? We go to jail. If Obama's buddy doesn't pay taxes? He gets appointed to a high government position.
The tragic part about Obama, especially his FISA vote, and Sec. Treas. appointment, is that he's shown us that, contrary to what he'd like us to believe, he's just another politician serving his ends, not ours. And yes, there is stuff to like. I'm happy he ordered the closing of Gitmo (assuming he doesn't quietly back down on that, but we'll see). I'm happy he's been pushing an open government, not a closed one (again, only time will tell if this is sincere, or mere rhetoric that is spouted while the public's eye is focused upon him).
I hope he makes our country a much better one, but so far, there's as much bad as there is good. Let's not pretend the man is unblemished. At the same time, let's not pretend he's worthless either, since he seems to be doing some good. As usual, the die-hards on both sides are wrong.
So, someone presents a rational argument, and it's mocked because they're defending Palin? Nice. Maybe you think his facts are BS. That's fair. Attack his facts, provide a reputable source of evidence that things are not as he claims they are.
If things are as he says they are (and I have no idea if that's the case), his statement is very reasonable. If you refuse to counter his statement with fact, then you're just spouting partisan drivel.
At best, we're neutral, then, since he also endorsed immunity for the telecoms for their illegal wiretaps.
Plenty of people praised him when he took office. It wasn't until after he became president that he became unpopular.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
So true. Amazing how little has changed about politics in the last 38 years, eh? Replace one thief with another, decry the last thief, praise the current thief. Over and over and over.
I do not. This obligation is utterly misguided. Do you pay those who make roads each time you drive on those roads they made?
Oh, please. If you really wish to justify your desire to steal games, you need to come up with an analogy that actually works. I do, in fact, pay the people who make roads on a regular basis, in the form of taxes. I pay for upkeep on existing roads, new roads, all that. Furthermore, your analogy suggests that I claim you should continue to pay for games after you own a copy, which is false. You'd better damn well pay for it the first time, though, much like you have to pay your share if you wish to drive on the road. After that, it's been paid for once, so you don't continue paying for it in either case.
You have an obligation to pay them to obtain the fruit of their labor for yourself, unless someone else paid them for you. This is not a new concept. The lengths to which people will go to justify stealing software confound me.
You must be new here :) Some of the people in any undertaking are petty assholes, but Slashdot has meta-moderation, which seems to be the best way to deal with that in a way that is as fair as possible. I only wish I could meta-moderate in real life - politicians, television, comments made by my girlfriend... The other thing is that pretty much everyone can become eligable to moderate; it's not some elitist core.
No, I know about meta-moderation, and how the moderation system works... I've moderated a few times myself, and used to meta-mod all the time until they fucked up the interface for it. Still, though, even with that supposed check, petty abuses of power run rampant, so it doesn't seem to be doing its job very well.
They are mostly interested in hiring smart people, which includes many gays but fewer religious bigots.
This statement reveals a great deal of prejudice on your part, you know. Stupid ideas can reside in the head of any person, whether that person be stupid themselves or not. There's no real reason to believe that CA will see any decline in the number of smart people living there.
Not quite. At Circuit City I could buy a tube of thermal grease in a pinch. You can't do that at Best Buy, or anywhere else in my town. I'll be sad to see them go, just because they were the one business willing to carry somewhat niche products like that.
How the hell does
Because I'm a thinking being engaged with the world around me, not a navel-gazing mystic.
get modded insightful 3???
You must be new here. Some of the people who moderate are petty, petty abusers of power. Express a sentiment they agree with, even in a completely flamebait fashion, and you get modded up. Express a sentiment they disagree with, even if you're reasonable about it, and you get modded down.
Fairness and the slashdot moderation system don't have much in common.
Moderators: grow a pair, and stop abusing your power. As much as I disagree with this poster's opinion, it is not trolling to point out the serious flaw in the "opposing Prop 8 is practical for them" argument.
Many of us folks would like it if you didn't drag this thread down into flaming. I understand you disagree with him: so do I. Nonetheless it's pointless to turn this into personal attack time.
For that matter, he has a valid point. If one tries to argue that Google should oppose this for practical reasons, that falls flat on its face, because there will be just as many people who would want to work for them because of a lack of gays as there will be gays who don't want to work there. Practicality doesn't enter the equation here, this is a moral issue.
No, the click-wheel was a stroke of idiocy. You accidentally hit buttons when you're trying to turn the wheel constantly, it's stupidly unusable. With the G3 iPod, you could hit buttons precisely, without even looking. That was a masterpiece of MP3 player design. They fucked it up, and there hasn't been a good iPod since then (except maybe the Touch, they might finally have a good one with that).
The Touch aside, though, the G3 iPod was the only one that was worth a dime.
Fair point, but the OP is still correct. You can't sell the software itself, merely copies of it.
It's a pointless discussion, though. It's an argument of semantics that adds no clarification in meaning. We can just as well say we're selling the software, and everyone will know what's really meant, so it's silly to try to harp on the technicalities. Still, the OP is correct, silly as it is.