She was a press secretary. Either she didn't know she was on the record (in which case she's incompetent) or she did, and made the statements anyway (which also means she's incompetent). One way or the other, she's not qualified to do the job she was being paid to do.
If someone has consistently demonstrated they're an idiot when they're not working for you, should you really expect different between the hours of 9 and 5?
Anytime you post anything using your real identity (or merely reasonably well connected to it) you should always keep in mind this very simple question: "Could I get in serious trouble if this were published in a newspaper under my real name?"
If the answer is "yes" or even "maybe", then don't do it.
People snoop, they overcharge. If you want your privacy respected, don't give anyone else access to your car. Otherwise, don't be surprised if the mechanics bug your vehicle and listen in whenever they please.
There's something wrong with this picture, but I don't think it's a bad analogy.
Or maybe she might learn something. Teenagers do that all the time, even though many of them would hate to admit it.
Perhaps she had better die, and decrease the surplus population? Seriously, Scrooge, there is an important difference between "some idiot needs to learn to watch where she's going" and "someone kill this idiot".
To put the point more directly, don't try to get a job as a game designer, then start designing games. Once upon a time, in the late eighties, this is how things were done. Now, trying to become a game designer is like trying to become a movie star. Huge numbers of applicants mean the few entry level designer positions that ARE available, are snapped up immediately by people with better qualifications than you.
You want to be a game designer? Then design games. If you have programming skills, grab XNA or Flash, or even (like I'm using) Java and start coding something. You don't? Then get an existing games with already-developed toolsets like Neverwinter Nights or any of the several FPS'es with level editors, and get cracking. Even this is beyond you? Go buy a pen and paper RPG system, and start desigining adventures.
If you can't hack it, then this is a sign you have not got what it takes.
The RIAA isn't SCO. The only rational explanation for SCO's actions is they aren't playing to win, they're playing for time. SCO's problem is they're going to be annihilated, it's essentially inevitable, all they appear to be doing now is stalling. The value of these cases as a deterrent to the RIAA is nil if it appears they have weak cases. They have a need to overplay their hand, not underplay it.
Fundamentally, having lousy evidence is better than having no evidence. At this point SCO's executives and counsel must know their goose is cooked. But the RIAA honestly believes they've been wronged; they have proof! What's dishonest is the way they are being lax with the standard of proof, not the part where you need to have some.
Having followed this case since pretty early on, it seemd clear to me that she in actuality did it. The RIAA has a panoply of cases, many of them very weak cases, some of them much stronger. This is one of the strong cases that they have, not only was her machine directly connected to the cable modem the entire time, the music matches her tastes, and the username matches other usernames she used elsewhere. One of the jurors went on record saying they ruled against her because they thought "she's a liar">
Some people just can't admit that they're wrong. The classic example brought up in tech circles is the boss, or coworker, or luser who just can't admit they made a mistake and feel compelled to tell obvious lies. Usually, the individual needs to lie to themselves so they can continue believing it isn't their fault.
I think the defendant in this case fits this description. She seems hell-bent on getting reamed. The judge instructed the two parties to hold a settlement conference a few weeks ago. Not only was there no settlement, the defendant issued a statement that she would never settle. She has more than $130K in legal bills, and the last verdict was for $220K. That was overturned, but it could be more, much more, on retrial. She could have made it go away for two orders of magnitude less money. Instead she is fighting to the bitter end to go down with the ship.
Such behavior from someone who is (I think) guilty is so self-destructive I conclude she needs to believe she is blameless more than she needs seven figures' worth of cash.
If I were a lawyer, I would be telling my client this case is worse than a loser, it is doomed, and she needs to settle it right away. NYCL, feel free to rip me a new one if (when?) you think I got any of that wrong.
Exactly; he even said as much -- 90% of the plagiarism that she sees. There is an obvious selection bias at work here; the figure is self-reported from one party of an adversarial relationship.
However, it is also true that, in general, people plagiarize because it's easy. It takes all of a few minutes to swipe half the text of an article. Taking the time to cleverly and non-obviously plagiarize that same article isn't really all that much quicker than actually writing the term paper properly, with one major exception: one has zero risk of consequences (which are quite severe).
The anti-cheating measures don't have to catch everybody in order to accomplish their objective (never mind the fact that 100% detection is impossible). All they have to do is change the risk-reward calculation enough to make it not worth trying to cheat. It's sufficient to catch most people using the trivial methods. After all, people with the skills and determination to get around the new measures probably won't get caught no matter what you do anyway.
Having thought about it a lot, I realized that they simply couldn't name it Colbert. There are thousands of famous people with enough popularity to pull exactly the same stunt; NASA just doesn't have enough things that need naming to go around. And if they give Colbert his node, then the precedent has been set. Would it really be good for NASA to name things the way sports stadiums are named now? Then we would end up with much more embarassing faux pas like having part of the ISS named 'Enron' or 'Madoff'
So instead it'll just wreak havoc on power lines, currently-operating motor vehicles, and in general act like an EMP device you might see in the movies?
The only way this results in an only temporary boost for NASA is if Colbert drops the issue once the node is named after him. Nothing says he needs to do that. All Colbert really has to do is use the fact he won the contest as an opportunity to bring it up as often as possible. His whole schtick is how self-inflated he is -- it would fit right in with the rest of his show.
Why would it follow that because the government can prevent you from one mode of travel, it must necessarily mean it has the right to prevent you from using any of them? This presumes a false all-or-nothing dichotomy. All modes of transportation are not equivalent. A car is a lethal weapon easily capable of mowing down others, a bicycle much less so, and walking hardly at all. Insurance is required by law to protect bystanders, not vehicle operators. This is, or should be, immediately apparent, yet the parent post disingenuously ignores the effects on innocent bystanders in order to cast it as a matter of personal responsibility.
Too many people forget that the web is public. Saying something online is like taking out an ad in the newspaper, only (essentially) free. This is simultaneously the great strength of the web, and its biggest liability. Companies have been declining to hire people based on similar out-of-band activities ever since the idea of a corporation was invented. All that's happening is that the web did what it is designed to do -- disseminate information -- in a way that is novel.
If you post pictures, and a detailed explanation, of how you (say) faked results of a drugtest online, and your employer knows how to use Google, why shouldn't they fire you?
Slashdot Mirror
She was a press secretary. Either she didn't know she was on the record (in which case she's incompetent) or she did, and made the statements anyway (which also means she's incompetent). One way or the other, she's not qualified to do the job she was being paid to do.
If someone has consistently demonstrated they're an idiot when they're not working for you, should you really expect different between the hours of 9 and 5?
Anytime you post anything using your real identity (or merely reasonably well connected to it) you should always keep in mind this very simple question: "Could I get in serious trouble if this were published in a newspaper under my real name?"
If the answer is "yes" or even "maybe", then don't do it.
People snoop, they overcharge. If you want your privacy respected, don't give anyone else access to your car. Otherwise, don't be surprised if the mechanics bug your vehicle and listen in whenever they please.
There's something wrong with this picture, but I don't think it's a bad analogy.
Or maybe she might learn something. Teenagers do that all the time, even though many of them would hate to admit it.
Perhaps she had better die, and decrease the surplus population? Seriously, Scrooge, there is an important difference between "some idiot needs to learn to watch where she's going" and "someone kill this idiot".
To put the point more directly, don't try to get a job as a game designer, then start designing games. Once upon a time, in the late eighties, this is how things were done. Now, trying to become a game designer is like trying to become a movie star. Huge numbers of applicants mean the few entry level designer positions that ARE available, are snapped up immediately by people with better qualifications than you.
You want to be a game designer? Then design games. If you have programming skills, grab XNA or Flash, or even (like I'm using) Java and start coding something. You don't? Then get an existing games with already-developed toolsets like Neverwinter Nights or any of the several FPS'es with level editors, and get cracking. Even this is beyond you? Go buy a pen and paper RPG system, and start desigining adventures.
If you can't hack it, then this is a sign you have not got what it takes.
So what you're saying is that we need to be making Soylent Black?
The RIAA isn't SCO. The only rational explanation for SCO's actions is they aren't playing to win, they're playing for time. SCO's problem is they're going to be annihilated, it's essentially inevitable, all they appear to be doing now is stalling. The value of these cases as a deterrent to the RIAA is nil if it appears they have weak cases. They have a need to overplay their hand, not underplay it.
Fundamentally, having lousy evidence is better than having no evidence. At this point SCO's executives and counsel must know their goose is cooked. But the RIAA honestly believes they've been wronged; they have proof! What's dishonest is the way they are being lax with the standard of proof, not the part where you need to have some.
Having followed this case since pretty early on, it seemd clear to me that she in actuality did it. The RIAA has a panoply of cases, many of them very weak cases, some of them much stronger. This is one of the strong cases that they have, not only was her machine directly connected to the cable modem the entire time, the music matches her tastes, and the username matches other usernames she used elsewhere. One of the jurors went on record saying they ruled against her because they thought "she's a liar">
Some people just can't admit that they're wrong. The classic example brought up in tech circles is the boss, or coworker, or luser who just can't admit they made a mistake and feel compelled to tell obvious lies. Usually, the individual needs to lie to themselves so they can continue believing it isn't their fault.
I think the defendant in this case fits this description. She seems hell-bent on getting reamed. The judge instructed the two parties to hold a settlement conference a few weeks ago. Not only was there no settlement, the defendant issued a statement that she would never settle. She has more than $130K in legal bills, and the last verdict was for $220K. That was overturned, but it could be more, much more, on retrial. She could have made it go away for two orders of magnitude less money. Instead she is fighting to the bitter end to go down with the ship.
Such behavior from someone who is (I think) guilty is so self-destructive I conclude she needs to believe she is blameless more than she needs seven figures' worth of cash.
If I were a lawyer, I would be telling my client this case is worse than a loser, it is doomed, and she needs to settle it right away. NYCL, feel free to rip me a new one if (when?) you think I got any of that wrong.
Exactly; he even said as much -- 90% of the plagiarism that she sees. There is an obvious selection bias at work here; the figure is self-reported from one party of an adversarial relationship.
However, it is also true that, in general, people plagiarize because it's easy. It takes all of a few minutes to swipe half the text of an article. Taking the time to cleverly and non-obviously plagiarize that same article isn't really all that much quicker than actually writing the term paper properly, with one major exception: one has zero risk of consequences (which are quite severe).
The anti-cheating measures don't have to catch everybody in order to accomplish their objective (never mind the fact that 100% detection is impossible). All they have to do is change the risk-reward calculation enough to make it not worth trying to cheat. It's sufficient to catch most people using the trivial methods. After all, people with the skills and determination to get around the new measures probably won't get caught no matter what you do anyway.
Revenge is dish, oh so sweet ... always turns sour in the end.
I would have been before you, but I've been having reliability issues with hawk-on-pigeon packet loss. Both ways, in the snow. So there.
Having thought about it a lot, I realized that they simply couldn't name it Colbert. There are thousands of famous people with enough popularity to pull exactly the same stunt; NASA just doesn't have enough things that need naming to go around. And if they give Colbert his node, then the precedent has been set. Would it really be good for NASA to name things the way sports stadiums are named now? Then we would end up with much more embarassing faux pas like having part of the ISS named 'Enron' or 'Madoff'
So instead it'll just wreak havoc on power lines, currently-operating motor vehicles, and in general act like an EMP device you might see in the movies?
The only way this results in an only temporary boost for NASA is if Colbert drops the issue once the node is named after him. Nothing says he needs to do that. All Colbert really has to do is use the fact he won the contest as an opportunity to bring it up as often as possible. His whole schtick is how self-inflated he is -- it would fit right in with the rest of his show.
Who are you, and why are you impersonating the Captain?.
I don't know. That sounds kind of nasty. Pork, the green meat?
Famous last words. See also "What could possibly go wrong?"
Why would it follow that because the government can prevent you from one mode of travel, it must necessarily mean it has the right to prevent you from using any of them? This presumes a false all-or-nothing dichotomy. All modes of transportation are not equivalent. A car is a lethal weapon easily capable of mowing down others, a bicycle much less so, and walking hardly at all. Insurance is required by law to protect bystanders, not vehicle operators. This is, or should be, immediately apparent, yet the parent post disingenuously ignores the effects on innocent bystanders in order to cast it as a matter of personal responsibility.
Point to the exact sentence in the constitution that specifically permits the government to outlaw murder.
Forty-two. Now, what were we talking about?
And of course, it might throw an error, so you probably also need WeGetSignal()
Too many people forget that the web is public. Saying something online is like taking out an ad in the newspaper, only (essentially) free. This is simultaneously the great strength of the web, and its biggest liability. Companies have been declining to hire people based on similar out-of-band activities ever since the idea of a corporation was invented. All that's happening is that the web did what it is designed to do -- disseminate information -- in a way that is novel.
If you post pictures, and a detailed explanation, of how you (say) faked results of a drugtest online, and your employer knows how to use Google, why shouldn't they fire you?
How do you expect them to reroute auxiliary power thru the deflector dish when they haven't even got a deflector dish?
I think I'm going with Decepticon.