"Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage?"
Yes. It really is. People have their own shit they need to deal with, and can't manage the internal baggage of the world. Expecting them to be able to recognize, at a glance and without any knowledge of every -other- individuals' unique and snowflake like bullshit, and then choose the appropriate response (oh, they want to talk about it, oh, they want me to ignore it, blah blah blah) is waaaaaay to much to ask.
"It's not too much to want others to help, and while you can't *make* them do so, they ought to."
Here's my problem with your statement: Yes, we should be willing to help others deal with their emotional baggage by not saying or doing shit that's going to cause them to have a nervous breakdown. But from my understanding of TFA, this isn't an "ought not" situation. This is a "being physically barred from doing" situation. That's the opposite of an ought not. That's a can not.
Incidentally, why the hell are you telling someone what is or isn't too much for him to want? It's like the whole tone of your post is YOU defining what others "ought" to feel, in addition to YOU defining how they "ought" to act.
The world is a big place with diverse people who have the inherent right to choose for THEMSELVES how they feel and act. If some of them abuse that and cause others to confront their own bullshit existence, then it is their RIGHT as individuals to make that choice (standard caveat about their fist and your nose). Westboro OUGHT NOT be pricks, but they have every right to be, and you trying to censor them makes you MUCH worse than they ever could be.
Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action"
That's a far f*cking cry from exoneration.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
I'm confused. If I accuse you of murdering a girl in 1990, and the prosecutor lacks any direct evidence of misconduct and closes the investigation, does that mean that you're not exonerated? Does that perhaps imply that you DID in fact murder a girl in 1990, despite no direct evidence of misconduct?
As for any data missing, your understanding seems a bit shoddy at best. Citation Needed, please.
It's my understanding his boss's boss asked for the passwords over an intercom, with police and HR present. The boss's boss was authorized, those others, not so much.
I think Terry fscked up. I think he should have been fired. I don't think he should have served 2 years, with the probability of 3 more plus a lifetime stain of FELON for being a paranoid system admin. And apparently I'm not the only one.
My least favorite part about this whole trial is that they removed a guy who was going to vote not guilty. It doesn't matter why he was going to vote not guilty. They decided they didn't like his verdict, and replaced him. Talk about a fscking miscarriage of justice.
"We were not swayed at all by emotional opinion, because if we were we probably would have acquitted because we all agreed that the situation Terry Childs was put in was not called for. However, the facts in the case bore out the verdict we reached.
Quite simply, we followed the law. I personally, and many of the other juror, felt terrible coming to this verdict."
You just did what you were told to do. When one of your fellow jurors refused to go along, he or she was replaced.
"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." - Milgram
You've punished a man for something you don't think was wrong. May those who judge you be of greater morality.
I take offense to the notion that I haven't read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy; that I haven't studied Kandinsky and Chagall; that I don't have an intricate understanding of the ramifications of Russia's socialist past; that I don't speak fluent Russian; and am not on the most comradely terms with many of the motherland's great sons and (particularly) daughters.
I take offense, not because I have such broad knowledge, but because I am an overweight loafer who knows he's better than everyone else. After all, that's what being an American is all about, right?
McDonald's wasn't putting anyone in the hospital. People who couldn't handle a cup were putting themselves into the hospital. Whatever happened to personal accountability?
"When opening the lid, the cup slipped and spilled on to her lap."
If you're unable to competently handle a paper cup of a burning hot liquid, don't blame it on McDonald's and ffs don't try to blame it on the cup.
In the spirit of George Carlin, Pesci rest his soul.
ar bi trary
a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
mish mash
A collection or mixture of unrelated things; a hodgepodge.
Are you trying to imply that the internet is a random unrelated collection, or an unrelated collection chosen by something other than an intrinsic order? Either way, isn't arbitrary implied?
Clothes are just a communication protocol: Learn the spec and use it when appropriate. Or be a leet slashdot haxxorz and learn to spoof when appropriate. By the time the morons who only look at headers realize that you're not what you seem, you're already in the system collecting a paycheck.
1) Using your mouse, highlight the last couple of words "but eventually dominates gameplay; the RvR 'city capture' system is Warhammer's 'end game'." Continue highlighting down until you get to the first comment.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage?"
Yes. It really is. People have their own shit they need to deal with, and can't manage the internal baggage of the world. Expecting them to be able to recognize, at a glance and without any knowledge of every -other- individuals' unique and snowflake like bullshit, and then choose the appropriate response (oh, they want to talk about it, oh, they want me to ignore it, blah blah blah) is waaaaaay to much to ask.
"It's not too much to want others to help, and while you can't *make* them do so, they ought to."
Here's my problem with your statement: Yes, we should be willing to help others deal with their emotional baggage by not saying or doing shit that's going to cause them to have a nervous breakdown. But from my understanding of TFA, this isn't an "ought not" situation. This is a "being physically barred from doing" situation. That's the opposite of an ought not. That's a can not.
Incidentally, why the hell are you telling someone what is or isn't too much for him to want? It's like the whole tone of your post is YOU defining what others "ought" to feel, in addition to YOU defining how they "ought" to act.
The world is a big place with diverse people who have the inherent right to choose for THEMSELVES how they feel and act. If some of them abuse that and cause others to confront their own bullshit existence, then it is their RIGHT as individuals to make that choice (standard caveat about their fist and your nose). Westboro OUGHT NOT be pricks, but they have every right to be, and you trying to censor them makes you MUCH worse than they ever could be.
Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing this investigation with no further action"
That's a far f*cking cry from exoneration.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
I'm confused. If I accuse you of murdering a girl in 1990, and the prosecutor lacks any direct evidence of misconduct and closes the investigation, does that mean that you're not exonerated? Does that perhaps imply that you DID in fact murder a girl in 1990, despite no direct evidence of misconduct?
As for any data missing, your understanding seems a bit shoddy at best. Citation Needed, please.
I prefer http://www.xkcd.com/836/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html
You're a criminal too. You just haven't been charged yet.
It's my understanding his boss's boss asked for the passwords over an intercom, with police and HR present. The boss's boss was authorized, those others, not so much.
I think Terry fscked up. I think he should have been fired. I don't think he should have served 2 years, with the probability of 3 more plus a lifetime stain of FELON for being a paranoid system admin. And apparently I'm not the only one.
My least favorite part about this whole trial is that they removed a guy who was going to vote not guilty. It doesn't matter why he was going to vote not guilty. They decided they didn't like his verdict, and replaced him. Talk about a fscking miscarriage of justice.
"We were not swayed at all by emotional opinion, because if we were we probably would have acquitted because we all agreed that the situation Terry Childs was put in was not called for. However, the facts in the case bore out the verdict we reached.
Quite simply, we followed the law. I personally, and many of the other juror, felt terrible coming to this verdict."
You just did what you were told to do. When one of your fellow jurors refused to go along, he or she was replaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." - Milgram
You've punished a man for something you don't think was wrong. May those who judge you be of greater morality.
-L4N
I take offense to the notion that I haven't read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy; that I haven't studied Kandinsky and Chagall; that I don't have an intricate understanding of the ramifications of Russia's socialist past; that I don't speak fluent Russian; and am not on the most comradely terms with many of the motherland's great sons and (particularly) daughters.
I take offense, not because I have such broad knowledge, but because I am an overweight loafer who knows he's better than everyone else. After all, that's what being an American is all about, right?
McDonald's wasn't putting anyone in the hospital. People who couldn't handle a cup were putting themselves into the hospital. Whatever happened to personal accountability?
"When opening the lid, the cup slipped and spilled on to her lap."
If you're unable to competently handle a paper cup of a burning hot liquid, don't blame it on McDonald's and ffs don't try to blame it on the cup.
In the spirit of George Carlin, Pesci rest his soul.
ar bi trary
a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
mish mash
A collection or mixture of unrelated things; a hodgepodge.
Are you trying to imply that the internet is a random unrelated collection, or an unrelated collection chosen by something other than an intrinsic order? Either way, isn't arbitrary implied?
1) Using your mouse, highlight the last couple of words "but eventually dominates gameplay; the RvR 'city capture' system is Warhammer's 'end game'." Continue highlighting down until you get to the first comment.
2)Shift + C
3) ????
4) Shift + V
5) Profit
FaceBook? For someone who thinks that verification of data is such a good thing, maybe you should try some of that yourself.