are the root of much sexism from IT men. Yes there are other causes, like general asshattery, but I'd say insecurity leads the pack. Of course, the other causes tend to focus the attentions of the incompetent/insecure on sexism as an outlet for their aggression. Be professional, seek support, and generally outshine your pale movenist shig cow-orker. Make sure that management knows things go better when you're involved, but don't be the source of that awareness. Be nonchalant and modest about your abilities and let the jackasses hang themselves. That being said, don't stay in an intolerable situation that has no remedy.
Also reduces a major cost and greenness problem: all those little redundant ac/dc power supplies in those rackmount machines. Further, it allosw you to take the heat generated by the power conversion to another nearby location, reducing the CFM reqs for your cooling system.
Indiana Jones says, "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
Any person who claims to be a standard of justice is:
1. a megalomaniac 2. not to be trusted to determine standards of justice for anyone.
I am not ethnocentrist or racist. If I were either I would have your viewpoints regarding interference in other's affairs. You continually seem to be looking for opportunities to use the most loaded words possible in order to avoid the subject at hand. You are abusive and immune to logic.
You are an imperialist looking, like so many before you, for a global empire to rule "justly" as a "benevolent" and loved dictator. You are not the future: you are the past coming around again. If you ever get to do any of the things you espouse, your failure will be written in the blood of those you claim to want to liberate. See the leaders of the French Revolution for an example of yourself.
I am a realist and a believer in the concept of free will. Perhaps you've heard the old canard "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I see the possibility for and yearn for all the world to be free, but unlike you I've learned the lessons history has taught. As such, I know that your proposed methods are doomed to failure.
I never said I wouldn't criticize slavery, just as you never answered the question contained in the excerpt you quoted.
I do criticize other nations or cultures. I don't advocate invading them to stop behavior I disagree with. Your arguments all along have tended to imply that this was a logical and desirable end to pursue. It's not. Bone up on your readings on "Justifiable War." Hint: there is a huge burden to overcome before initiating a war.
As to HUMAN values, I would contend that there are large subsets of HUMANITY that disagree with you on what those values ought to consist of. I'm not saying that I'm one of those people, but I am saying that if there is disagreement, then there is room for change, and further that changes might be inconsistent with what you or I believe should be the case.
By minimizing those who do or say things you don't like by calling them "tribal, etc." you are at once denying their humanity and denying responsibility for whole tracts of possible bad outcomes of your eventual direct intervention in their affairs.
Jefferson said, and I think it's reasonable, that freedom is not the natural state of humanity. Given that, don't you think we ought to defend the few relative bastions of freedom in the world as zealously as possible so we do not lose the light those nations shine into the rest of the world?
By the way, just because a UN rep from a given country claims to support something (say human rights) doesn't necessarily mean he or his country or culture actually do. It can also mean that he acknowledges that such a worldview is held by the current hegemony. Look for example at your famous UN whose ever changing human rights commission consistently lambasts Israel while ignoring or minimizing abuses committed elsewhere, say Africa or in Muslim nations... hmm... seems like reality isn't living up to your expectations as a world citizen.
It'll suck for the person accused of this, but maybe this could be the case that leads to a *serious* review of the weapons our representatives have given copyright holders. Then at least some good might come of it.
Dude, I don't support slavery: it is abhorrent to my worldview, but I also don't support policing the world.
Since you do, go join the Team UN World Police, you know the UN version of Team America, World Police.
Then you can see first hand how much indigenous people hate it when you destroy their country's economic and cultural heritage in your pursuit of their rights.
I'm sure their condition will be greatly improved by your warfare with their existing governments.
All i'm saying is: think gloablly, *ACT* locally.
Don't buy stuff made in countries whose perspective on human rights is inconsistent with yours and mine. Discourage your government from doing business with or providing aid to those countries. Meanwhile, strive for perfection lacally, so others can see and desire and be motivated to work towards having the same freedoms as we do.
i didn't have to defend slavery, i merely pursued a line of reasoning that I had hoped would lead you to understand part of why your "world liberation army" concept would backfire.
and parroting your self-reassurance as armor against reason is quite weak.
BTW: where do you get your world citizen's passport?
""Net result: you == those you hate"
yes, i hate slaveholders"
You're a slaveholder? I think that's illegal in America. You might not want to admit that in a public forum, it might attract unwanted police attention.
So, the UN is your moral compass... I think you could have chosen better, given the trouble its own members have in abiding by those... and the political variance in enactment and enforcement of violations by members.
That aside, historically there have been legitimate cultural variances from those ideals that are generally amenable to the members of the cultures in question. Most arise in matters of justice.
e.g. in some cultures, the family of a murder victim is entitled to the fruits of the murderer's labor. In our society, this is done by means of a civil law suit. In other countries, this is done by indentured servitude, or yes, slavery. Sometimes the servitude has been to the state and other times to the family. Aside from risk of vigilantism on the part of the victims family, at the end of the day, what is the functional difference between garnishing wages to satisfy a civil law judgement and having to work (in)directly for someone? In both scenarios the result is less freedom and worse living conditions. Both are accepted by their respective cultures.
Besides which there are some cultures that do not accept a variety of these tenets out of hand.
You, sir, are an "Arrogant American."
Enforce your will for change in other cultures economically, I guarantee you'll see better results in the long haul. Enforcing your will by removing obstacles (as you refer to existing governments) by force will be counterproductive (in that people [even many of the oppressed] will not want your liberation) and every bit as bloody as those you despise.
I've wrapped my mind around that drivel and rejected it. Who decides what rights are ascribed to the set of human rights?
If it's done by the culture with the most population, then it'll be a knock-down, drag-out between the Chinese and Islam. Personally, I don't want to live under either of their ideas of human rights.
How many people will you deprive of their rights to freedom and possibly life in pursuit of your view of their rights?
And you obviously didn't get to the point in my previous post where I alter my behavior to avoid doing business with countries I consider evil.
Iran does not make claims that align with your (or my) worldview of human rights.
We do. Constantly. Even while at the same time infringing (or trampling) those rights.
It's called hypocrisy. And we can little afford it in the country that claims (there's that word again) to be the beacon of freedom.
True, occasionally one of these countries makes some claim or other about valuing freedom or about how the US is worse than they are and most of us scoff because of their lack of credibility and move on.
I have a conscience. It's rooted in the principle of free will and self determination. See Immanuel Kant's works for a dry, but good read. What right have I got (or have we as a country got) to interfere in the affairs of a group of people who (mostly) consent to be governed by and agree with their current political situation? Yes it's different from us! While I empathize and wish dearly that more of the world would see our (for the most part) example and want the freedoms we value and often possess, it is slavery to impose it on them against their aggregate will.
Is it conscionable of you to impose your beliefs on a group of people who by and large reject them?
And personally, I do take issue with things that occur in other countries, but I'm somewhat limited in my impact. For instance I avoid Chinese products as often as possible because of their record for killing and enslaving peaceful protesters. (Remember Tiannamen Square? I do. The problem is that few of us do, and our media is so caught up in the sensationalist now that they ignore history, even as it relates to that now.)
Again, I am, as was George Washington and many brighter persons than I or our current leadership in either authoritarian party, opposed to involving ourselves in entangling foreign alliances. That being said, the part of the reasoning for taking out Saddam that I agreed the most with as a *putative* UN action, before we went in without the UN was his ill treatment of large numbers of his people.
But they assured us it wouldn't impact legitimate customers, I mean "law-abiding citizens"! How could you have doubted the benign motives of our popularly elected government?
Seriously, though, I'd say someone in the executive is looking for a promotion. Based on where campaign donations go, I'd say they've read the tea leaves that say the GOP is out in 2008 and are even now currying favor with those funded by hollywood, etc.
How much enforcement has there been of this before now?
Yes, but 27 years ago when OEMs started bundling *-DOS and Windows both the price premium and the OEMs' margin share was larger than it is today (as a part of the price of the machine: obviously inflation and its counter efficiency might make the difference harder to distinguish these days). If demand was there for Linux at a margin premium for the OEMs you'd see more OEMs with Linux offerings (absent anticompetitive agreements with MS.) The problem is twofold: The other meaning of free that the FSF constantly has to steer away from and the perception and reality that liberated/open source software is usually either free of cost or dirt cheap. It's counterintuitive that demand would exist for an e.g. $50-$100 price premium for a Linux preinstall. Added to that is the large segment of the Linux user base that are too married to doing it themselves or want another distribution, etc. IMHO, the only glimmer of hope for this is in corporate IT where the cost of installing it yourself in person hours outweighs the price premium the OEM would charge.
Slashdot Mirror
Galactic Mergers and Acquisitions! And have I got a guilt-edged proposition for you, boy!
are the root of much sexism from IT men. Yes there are other causes, like general asshattery, but I'd say insecurity leads the pack. Of course, the other causes tend to focus the attentions of the incompetent/insecure on sexism as an outlet for their aggression. Be professional, seek support, and generally outshine your pale movenist shig cow-orker. Make sure that management knows things go better when you're involved, but don't be the source of that awareness. Be nonchalant and modest about your abilities and let the jackasses hang themselves. That being said, don't stay in an intolerable situation that has no remedy.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2000867,00.as p
Also reduces a major cost and greenness problem: all those little redundant ac/dc power supplies in those rackmount machines. Further, it allosw you to take the heat generated by the power conversion to another nearby location, reducing the CFM reqs for your cooling system.
SGI Volumizer did this like 10 years ago...
http://www.sgi.com/products/software/volumizer/
It'll come. Sooner than you think with all this direct-brain-computer interaction research.
something as complex as one of these here deep packet inspection thingys, and even that will fail against determined content providers. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packe t-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars
Wherever there's a person going through puberty, there you will most likely find prurient material.
"God does not play dice [with the universe]."
you say: "A truth is a fact,"
Indiana Jones says, "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."
but which way does the causality if any run? :P
;)p
just like pirates cause global cooling...
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.ph
i'd still have to agree with that partialpeople bloke commenting on your first story. By the way, pointing to your own postings as fact or as unbiased stories is perhaps still a touch megalomaniacal. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meg alomaniacal&defid=1285064
"i am a global standard of justice."
Any person who claims to be a standard of justice is:
1. a megalomaniac
2. not to be trusted to determine standards of justice for anyone.
I am not ethnocentrist or racist. If I were either I would have your viewpoints regarding interference in other's affairs. You continually seem to be looking for opportunities to use the most loaded words possible in order to avoid the subject at hand. You are abusive and immune to logic.
You are an imperialist looking, like so many before you, for a global empire to rule "justly" as a "benevolent" and loved dictator. You are not the future: you are the past coming around again. If you ever get to do any of the things you espouse, your failure will be written in the blood of those you claim to want to liberate. See the leaders of the French Revolution for an example of yourself.
I am a realist and a believer in the concept of free will. Perhaps you've heard the old canard "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I see the possibility for and yearn for all the world to be free, but unlike you I've learned the lessons history has taught. As such, I know that your proposed methods are doomed to failure.
As in a .Net embeddable widget for crapware.
Besides, even as a product, it was nagware/adware for office bundled by PC OEMs.
Honestly, I thought they only kept it around to keep people's expectations low and make them willing to shell out more for Office.
I never said I wouldn't criticize slavery, just as you never answered the question contained in the excerpt you quoted.
I do criticize other nations or cultures. I don't advocate invading them to stop behavior I disagree with. Your arguments all along have tended to imply that this was a logical and desirable end to pursue. It's not. Bone up on your readings on "Justifiable War." Hint: there is a huge burden to overcome before initiating a war.
As to HUMAN values, I would contend that there are large subsets of HUMANITY that disagree with you on what those values ought to consist of. I'm not saying that I'm one of those people, but I am saying that if there is disagreement, then there is room for change, and further that changes might be inconsistent with what you or I believe should be the case.
By minimizing those who do or say things you don't like by calling them "tribal, etc." you are at once denying their humanity and denying responsibility for whole tracts of possible bad outcomes of your eventual direct intervention in their affairs.
Jefferson said, and I think it's reasonable, that freedom is not the natural state of humanity. Given that, don't you think we ought to defend the few relative bastions of freedom in the world as zealously as possible so we do not lose the light those nations shine into the rest of the world?
By the way, just because a UN rep from a given country claims to support something (say human rights) doesn't necessarily mean he or his country or culture actually do. It can also mean that he acknowledges that such a worldview is held by the current hegemony. Look for example at your famous UN whose ever changing human rights commission consistently lambasts Israel while ignoring or minimizing abuses committed elsewhere, say Africa or in Muslim nations... hmm... seems like reality isn't living up to your expectations as a world citizen.
It'll suck for the person accused of this, but maybe this could be the case that leads to a *serious* review of the weapons our representatives have given copyright holders. Then at least some good might come of it.
Dude, I don't support slavery: it is abhorrent to my worldview, but I also don't support policing the world.
Since you do, go join the Team UN World Police, you know the UN version of Team America, World Police.
Then you can see first hand how much indigenous people hate it when you destroy their country's economic and cultural heritage in your pursuit of their rights.
I'm sure their condition will be greatly improved by your warfare with their existing governments.
All i'm saying is: think gloablly, *ACT* locally.
Don't buy stuff made in countries whose perspective on human rights is inconsistent with yours and mine.
Discourage your government from doing business with or providing aid to those countries.
Meanwhile, strive for perfection lacally, so others can see and desire and be motivated to work towards having the same freedoms as we do.
Thanks for the ad hominem insults.
Enjoy your ignorance.
i didn't have to defend slavery, i merely pursued a line of reasoning that I had hoped would lead you to understand part of why your "world liberation army" concept would backfire.
and parroting your self-reassurance as armor against reason is quite weak.
BTW: where do you get your world citizen's passport?
""Net result: you == those you hate"
yes, i hate slaveholders"
You're a slaveholder? I think that's illegal in America. You might not want to admit that in a public forum, it might attract unwanted police attention.
getting in early doesn't preclude others from bracketing you. :(
So, the UN is your moral compass... I think you could have chosen better, given the trouble its own members have in abiding by those... and the political variance in enactment and enforcement of violations by members.
That aside, historically there have been legitimate cultural variances from those ideals that are generally amenable to the members of the cultures in question. Most arise in matters of justice.
e.g. in some cultures, the family of a murder victim is entitled to the fruits of the murderer's labor. In our society, this is done by means of a civil law suit. In other countries, this is done by indentured servitude, or yes, slavery. Sometimes the servitude has been to the state and other times to the family. Aside from risk of vigilantism on the part of the victims family, at the end of the day, what is the functional difference between garnishing wages to satisfy a civil law judgement and having to work (in)directly for someone? In both scenarios the result is less freedom and worse living conditions. Both are accepted by their respective cultures.
Besides which there are some cultures that do not accept a variety of these tenets out of hand.
You, sir, are an "Arrogant American."
Enforce your will for change in other cultures economically, I guarantee you'll see better results in the long haul. Enforcing your will by removing obstacles (as you refer to existing governments) by force will be counterproductive (in that people [even many of the oppressed] will not want your liberation) and every bit as bloody as those you despise.
Net result: you == those you hate.
that's a pretty trivial, oversimplified, and tangentially related reductio ad absurdam, so I won't go any further on it.
As i asked above, what is the source of the values in your "human conscience"?
Judeo-Christian?
Evolutionist (Social or Biological)?
Hindu?
Muslim?
Shinto?
Communism?
Buddhism?
Something Else?
If it is a synthesis, how will you resolve differences?
Population supporting a given belief?
Your divine right to impose your belief on others?
How can you not see that imposing your beliefs on others contradicts your alleged beliefs?
I've wrapped my mind around that drivel and rejected it. Who decides what rights are ascribed to the set of human rights?
If it's done by the culture with the most population, then it'll be a knock-down, drag-out between the Chinese and Islam. Personally, I don't want to live under either of their ideas of human rights.
How many people will you deprive of their rights to freedom and possibly life in pursuit of your view of their rights?
And you obviously didn't get to the point in my previous post where I alter my behavior to avoid doing business with countries I consider evil.
Iran does not make claims that align with your (or my) worldview of human rights.
We do. Constantly. Even while at the same time infringing (or trampling) those rights.
It's called hypocrisy. And we can little afford it in the country that claims (there's that word again) to be the beacon of freedom.
True, occasionally one of these countries makes some claim or other about valuing freedom or about how the US is worse than they are and most of us scoff because of their lack of credibility and move on.
I have a conscience. It's rooted in the principle of free will and self determination. See Immanuel Kant's works for a dry, but good read. What right have I got (or have we as a country got) to interfere in the affairs of a group of people who (mostly) consent to be governed by and agree with their current political situation? Yes it's different from us! While I empathize and wish dearly that more of the world would see our (for the most part) example and want the freedoms we value and often possess, it is slavery to impose it on them against their aggregate will.
Is it conscionable of you to impose your beliefs on a group of people who by and large reject them?
And personally, I do take issue with things that occur in other countries, but I'm somewhat limited in my impact. For instance I avoid Chinese products as often as possible because of their record for killing and enslaving peaceful protesters. (Remember Tiannamen Square? I do. The problem is that few of us do, and our media is so caught up in the sensationalist now that they ignore history, even as it relates to that now.)
Again, I am, as was George Washington and many brighter persons than I or our current leadership in either authoritarian party, opposed to involving ourselves in entangling foreign alliances. That being said, the part of the reasoning for taking out Saddam that I agreed the most with as a *putative* UN action, before we went in without the UN was his ill treatment of large numbers of his people.
But they assured us it wouldn't impact legitimate customers, I mean "law-abiding citizens"! How could you have doubted the benign motives of our popularly elected government?
Seriously, though, I'd say someone in the executive is looking for a promotion. Based on where campaign donations go, I'd say they've read the tea leaves that say the GOP is out in 2008 and are even now currying favor with those funded by hollywood, etc.
How much enforcement has there been of this before now?
Yes, but 27 years ago when OEMs started bundling *-DOS and Windows both the price premium and the OEMs' margin share was larger than it is today (as a part of the price of the machine: obviously inflation and its counter efficiency might make the difference harder to distinguish these days). If demand was there for Linux at a margin premium for the OEMs you'd see more OEMs with Linux offerings (absent anticompetitive agreements with MS.) The problem is twofold: The other meaning of free that the FSF constantly has to steer away from and the perception and reality that liberated/open source software is usually either free of cost or dirt cheap. It's counterintuitive that demand would exist for an e.g. $50-$100 price premium for a Linux preinstall. Added to that is the large segment of the Linux user base that are too married to doing it themselves or want another distribution, etc. IMHO, the only glimmer of hope for this is in corporate IT where the cost of installing it yourself in person hours outweighs the price premium the OEM would charge.
Thus why i used it.
Yes, it's just now becoming clear that MS would produce a candidate standard as a knee-jerk reaction to a threat to their profit stream.
However, maybe this will make it clearer to policy wonks.