Heh... For a split second, I mentally substituted "USPS" for "USPTO" and thought, "but they would care wouldn't they? They certainly have prior art on "Postal Facility 1st person shooter"...
Re:Don't take away freedoms to "improve" productiv
on
Improving Company Morale?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Heh. I don't have to imagine that because the staring into submission doesn't work on me. The easiest way to get me to dig in my heels is to try to exert peer pressure.
They chose to come in late. Screw them guys, I'm going home.
Agreed. The President has unilaterally committed us and our fighting men and women to this and the only way out that doesn't screw us even worse at this point is perfect and decisive execution of this campaign.
Actually, by law I don't believe you're allowed to blaze away simply because you know there's a gun out there and that it may (or may not be) pointed in your direction. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're legally obligated to take every action possible to extricate yourself from the situation before using lethal force as a last resort, and that a jury will look disfavorably on anything less. That I'm ok with. However, the President that I didn't vote for is writing checks that my ass can't cover and I'm not terribly pleased about it. I don't see myself or my country as backed up against a wall in an alleyway here.
But again, entirely off the subject and likely to get me downmodded.
"nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life
A little off-topic, maybe... But I've come to to the same conclusion regarding a nation's "soverign right" to wage war...
In other words, if it's right to pre-emptively strike another country on the basis of what it might do, then it's perfectly right for me to shoot someone in the parking lot for looking at me funny. Any reasonable being can agree that's not the case, so why the double-standard? Nations are just organisms that have people for cells, after all.
Hey, I'm all for that. It'll be an even more graphic reminder to Joe Sixpack of what the situation already is. Maybe even graphic enough to get him off his duff and doing something about it.
"Why can't the government learn to keep its fucking hands off private businesses so they can do what they were designed to do - making profits for their shareholders by hiring the best people for the job?"
Because for the most part, our geeky ideal of meritorcracy isn't reality. You seem to be equating "best person for the job" as "best at doing the job". And though I agree that that's the way it should be, I have to recognize that there are people in power for whom that would mean "best caucasian able to do the job" or "best male able to do the job". Private businesses are run by individuals with their own biases on what "best person for the job" means, and government standards are at least a little more equal than what you'd see if it was left up to an individual decision on who's "employable".
Do I think merit should be the main qualifying factor in determining whether to hire someone? Absolutely. Do I believe for a second that that's the way it really is? Hell no.
Parent comment was a low blow and totally out of line. Moderating it as funny is adding insult to injury, and has to be one of the most callous, unthinking things I've seen on/. since I started reading regularly three years ago. (Ok, so I browse at 1+. Sue me.)
At risk of bringing back memories of Jon Katz and "The Hellmouth"... A lot of the postings I'm seeing is that we geeks object more to the fact that information about us can be twisted to the benefit of those in power than to the fact that it's available in the first place. I also gather that this concern is totally lost on the "average" American.
Could it be that the sorts of experiences we had as teenagers fosters these particular kinds of fears? One of the things that hurt me the most in high school was the way anything I said got twisted around as something to make fun of me for until the only way to escape was to never say anything. I've also got an enormous distrust of those in power and a persecution complex from hell, and all this is suddenly sounding very familiar now that I sit and think about it.
Of course it's not a scientific argument by any means, but I have to wonder if there's something to debate here...
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm pretty sure that if MS didn't approve your software simply because of the license agreement, you'd have strong grounds to sue them."
You'd think that, wouldn't you? But with the Justice Department playing U.N. Security Council to their Saddam Hussein...
What? You mean they actually have the funding to hire?
Heh... For a split second, I mentally substituted "USPS" for "USPTO" and thought, "but they would care wouldn't they? They certainly have prior art on "Postal Facility 1st person shooter"...
Yeah, that's 'cause he was in court trying to fend off a cease-and-desist from Monster.com...
I hear rushing for fraternities is like that. Glad I didn't bother...
Yeah, that's HR's job.
Heh. I don't have to imagine that because the staring into submission doesn't work on me. The easiest way to get me to dig in my heels is to try to exert peer pressure.
They chose to come in late. Screw them guys, I'm going home.
Agreed. The President has unilaterally committed us and our fighting men and women to this and the only way out that doesn't screw us even worse at this point is perfect and decisive execution of this campaign.
Doesn't mean I have to like it, though.
Bang on. Very nice summation.
Actually, it's more like:
"You keep using dhat whord. I do no think eet means what you think eet means."
Hey, if you're going to be pedantic, it better be phonetic. *chuckle*
So all the deterrent force the Chinese really need is to train all their citizens to jump at the exact same time?
Actually, by law I don't believe you're allowed to blaze away simply because you know there's a gun out there and that it may (or may not be) pointed in your direction. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're legally obligated to take every action possible to extricate yourself from the situation before using lethal force as a last resort, and that a jury will look disfavorably on anything less. That I'm ok with. However, the President that I didn't vote for is writing checks that my ass can't cover and I'm not terribly pleased about it. I don't see myself or my country as backed up against a wall in an alleyway here.
But again, entirely off the subject and likely to get me downmodded.
"nobody, even God if you believe, has the right to terminate another human being's life
A little off-topic, maybe... But I've come to to the same conclusion regarding a nation's "soverign right" to wage war...
In other words, if it's right to pre-emptively strike another country on the basis of what it might do, then it's perfectly right for me to shoot someone in the parking lot for looking at me funny. Any reasonable being can agree that's not the case, so why the double-standard? Nations are just organisms that have people for cells, after all.
Dude, some of us actually do have a smidge more sensitivity than a neanderthal on thorazine... Give it a rest, huh?
"Sorry, Sir. He didn't buy it. I'll be asking for my retainer in advance from now on. Have a nice day!"
It's not the cost to you that's the draw, it's the cost to them.
Microwave clothes before wearing.
I thought it was your dominant hand. Er... Did I say that?
Maybe... "an em-eye-ell site"?
Hey, I'm all for that. It'll be an even more graphic reminder to Joe Sixpack of what the situation already is. Maybe even graphic enough to get him off his duff and doing something about it.
"Why can't the government learn to keep its fucking hands off private businesses so they can do what they were designed to do - making profits for their shareholders by hiring the best people for the job?"
Because for the most part, our geeky ideal of meritorcracy isn't reality. You seem to be equating "best person for the job" as "best at doing the job". And though I agree that that's the way it should be, I have to recognize that there are people in power for whom that would mean "best caucasian able to do the job" or "best male able to do the job". Private businesses are run by individuals with their own biases on what "best person for the job" means, and government standards are at least a little more equal than what you'd see if it was left up to an individual decision on who's "employable".
Do I think merit should be the main qualifying factor in determining whether to hire someone? Absolutely. Do I believe for a second that that's the way it really is? Hell no.
Note to moderator:
/. since I started reading regularly three years ago. (Ok, so I browse at 1+. Sue me.)
Parent comment was a low blow and totally out of line. Moderating it as funny is adding insult to injury, and has to be one of the most callous, unthinking things I've seen on
Shame. *frown*
I = Information.
M = Money.
P = Power.
For all I, M, and P, I = M = P. They can be traded equally on a 1-to-1 basis, with Power being the benchmark currency.
And you know what they say about power and corruption...
At risk of bringing back memories of Jon Katz and "The Hellmouth"... A lot of the postings I'm seeing is that we geeks object more to the fact that information about us can be twisted to the benefit of those in power than to the fact that it's available in the first place. I also gather that this concern is totally lost on the "average" American.
Could it be that the sorts of experiences we had as teenagers fosters these particular kinds of fears? One of the things that hurt me the most in high school was the way anything I said got twisted around as something to make fun of me for until the only way to escape was to never say anything. I've also got an enormous distrust of those in power and a persecution complex from hell, and all this is suddenly sounding very familiar now that I sit and think about it.
Of course it's not a scientific argument by any means, but I have to wonder if there's something to debate here...
...does a creepy disembodied voice chant "Microsoft developers are weenies"?