I guess we should establish what does a good teacher is. Someone, who actually teaches the subject (and students learn)? Or is it a good person, who would never say anything, that could hurt someone? At least in the video it was pointed out, that no particular student was named.
Is she a bad teacher or simply not being Mary Poppins? You talk as if children have no will of their own and just reflect the what teachers expect. This is quite absurd. I have worked as a teacher for few years and I have seen all sorts. And just being nice/respectful/whatever helps, but if you happen to be in a class full of psychopathic bastards, just respecting them is not going to help.
So, if teacher has to deal with difficult kids and she can't turn them into normal human beings, is she a bad teacher, or just not a super teacher?
This is relevant how? Windows is as open as it was 15 years ago. Linux is not fading anywhere (it was never shining in this sense), it doesn't have a 'killer app', because it is free platform, so no one is locked in it, therefore those 'killer apps' get ported. Gates was considered borg because of his business practice ('you will be assimilated' and 'resistance is futile'). I guess they are not borg now. Resistance is rather easy and they don't have the assimilation power of the past. I guess google is the new borg.
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
Looks quite cleat to me. The licence text doesn't even mention "commercial".
The full version has no drawn in lines, only extra is the subtitles. If you have problems with those, you are nitpicking. Now, why couldn't you download the frikin' video and verify yourself? That is the whole point of WL – you can see for yourself. But what is the point for them to do it, if even you can't be bothered to check.
Is there any reason to believe that too was not edited, or can we trust that THIS time, it was the full video?
You will be disappointed to find that you can't trust anyone. It is that simple. Even if Wikileaks is totally honest, the source could have distorted the documents. Or the original material was a honey pot.
And I thought the point of a site like wikileaks was to be a neutral, third party publishing site;
Where did you get that idea? Imagine, that wikileaks is a news organization, which publishes the original material. You can get one perspective from them directly, other perspective form other news organizations who republish their material, or you can see for yourself. If they just dumped the video, would anybody notice?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Usually in classics it doesn't feel like someone is stabbing your ears with awl. Ok, sometimes it does, but I am not a fan of all classics anyway.
Lets compare two movies – Avatar (physical and emotional pain) and Ultraviolet (enjoyed a lot).
In Ultraviolet (not popular) plot is scarce: love story – one innuendo; description of the times they live in – few paragraphs. To understand anything, you really have to follow. But the part of the plot that is there is OK and makes sense, id est, I can understand why each character is doing what what they do, or at least imagine valid reason.
In Avatar, the things that happen simply don't make this emotional sense:
Harmony with nature – we plug them and own them (mind you that only Navi can pwn others)
Dialogues, that are cheesy and hard to believe.
Bad guys are sooooo evil and despicable. I can feel, how script writer is poking my brain to make me feel hate towards them. It is like super-stimuli and I am no fan of it.
Well there you have it. One talks about Al Jazeera in Arabic, the other – in English. I have noticed that if one media organization publishes news in two different languages, then they publish different things. In Latvia, the Latvian reporters don't write articles for Russian part of their own newspaper and vice versa. For some reason I think the Russian media write BS. I wonder what Russians think of Latvian media.
[..] But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.[...]
WTF? If I recognise existence, I agree to its policies? Care to elaborate?
It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.
I am not sure if you have noticed, but that kind of is the point of Anonymous. And I can support them or denounce them all I want, provided I point out for what exactly.
The US Constitution was adopted in 1787. What did "press" mean back then?
Specific sense "machine for printing" is from 1530s; extended to publishing houses by 1570s and to publishing generally (in phrases like freedom of the press) c.1680. This gradually shifted c.1800-1820 to "periodical publishing, journalism." Meaning "journalists collectively" is attested from 1926.
It seems that at the time, the word meant "publishing", not "machine for printing" or "journalism". Thus, "freedom of the press" is the freedom of publishing, not the freedom of journalists, and although the grandparent is wrong about the meaning of "press", it's still closer to the originally intended meaning than you are.
Function keys – sortcuts, most popular – F11 (full screen). Option to customize helps productivity a lot. Caps Lock – I have noticed that some use it as a sticky key for writing capital letters, while writing normal sentences. Break – BIOS info reading. Windows (super) key – on compiz it is widely used, also helps making shortcuts. Menu key – when using keyboard to manipulate text or whatnot, context menu is much easier to call using this key. So, just because YOU don't use it, doesn't mean that others don't.
I didn't get it as well - why Assange didn't make is stance all the way. It is actually very easy point to make – governments are screwing everyone over. Diplomats say they operate in the interest of their state and I believe them. But hat are those interests? If it is secret, then people cannot state their interests. Would US spying on British and vice versa be supported, if it was open? Most likely not.
This is basically government cheating on us. Maybe it is beneficial, but betrayal of our trust none the less. As for analogy – is it OK to cheat on your spouse, it they won't find out? (Opinions differ on this one as well).
To go even further, politeness in international relations is a devalued currency – everybody is polite and lies a lot. That is why everyone with half a brain don't believe what diplomats say. Do you know why lying is bad? It is because it shows complete disrespect for the other party involved. And this disrespect is painfully obvious. Not only that, but countries manipulate each other as if they are natural recourse or something.
When these things come to light, of course they are ugly and damage is done and whatnot, but if it can change the culture international relations to something less disturbing, I am all for it.
And to make a counter attack, I would have asked, what exact deals can only be made under secrecy. So far I have only generic claims and no explanations what so ever. And even if there are such deals, are they morally right.
About assholes. We live in the world of assholes, where they believe they are loved and whatnot. If Saudi Arabia would say out loud "Iran, we would feel much safer, if your country was ran by a mad cow", maybe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would respect opinions outside his make believe world. Maybe you should visit the assholes in your office and say "You are an asshole. People around you suffer direct mental pain." Or maybe you are ready to sacrifice well being of your employees for the well being of your own?
And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?
mind the "more or less". Fine, I should have said "evidence" instead;
OP is making a point (as brief as it is), that conformation to suspicions are pointless. I am saying, that the more evidence the better. Because, you know, a lot of people don't believe all the crap that is said on the internet, and internal US intelligence is a nice second opinion.
There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?
Factory workers fought for, and won, the health and safety protections they enjoy today, but went no further. Communism arose entirely out of agrarian societies.
Parent said it gave birth to communism. Communist movement in industrialized Europe was significant. Just because it died off for one reason or another is different issue.
Point almost taken. But still, these movies have non-nice persons. For example in Bridget Jones's Diary one of the main characters is clearly an ass. In Pretty Woman, the good guy has its moments of being an ass.
I am not saying it is not possible, it is just much more simple. To be "good" there have to be something to be "good" against. One can be good compared with other characters (good guy, bad guy). Or good against circumstances. But those are rare things.
In your example, you talk about all being bad guys, but the rule is "There has to be a bad guy if there's going to be a good guy." Know any example of everybody being good guys? I guess it is bit difficult to find such example, because then it would just be a film about normal people.
As an end-user, when I compile applications configure-make-install usually works much better than cmake procedure. In fact, I have never successfully compiled anything using cmake. Maybe ubuntu has broken cmake version, maybe I can't interpret the error messages about dependencies right, but as an end-user,./configure make install works quite nice.
Religious fundamentalism is inherently incompatible with science in the same sense that one could not simultaneously be a both a humanist and a racist. There's no reason though why a racist couldn't be an absolute angel to white people, or why someone with fervent religious beliefs can't excel in a field of science that can be reconciled with their beliefs.
Then what does "incompatible" practically mean? Should these scientists be banned form research? If scientists can do their job well and be religious, they can be "incompatible" to the bone for all I care. Or are you just throwing fancy words?
Slashdot Mirror
I sure hope that as a English teacher she doesn't teach math. And why you are accusing her of racism is beyond me. Do you know anything we don't?
I guess we should establish what does a good teacher is. Someone, who actually teaches the subject (and students learn)? Or is it a good person, who would never say anything, that could hurt someone? At least in the video it was pointed out, that no particular student was named.
Is she a bad teacher or simply not being Mary Poppins? You talk as if children have no will of their own and just reflect the what teachers expect. This is quite absurd. I have worked as a teacher for few years and I have seen all sorts. And just being nice/respectful/whatever helps, but if you happen to be in a class full of psychopathic bastards, just respecting them is not going to help.
So, if teacher has to deal with difficult kids and she can't turn them into normal human beings, is she a bad teacher, or just not a super teacher?
This is relevant how? Windows is as open as it was 15 years ago. Linux is not fading anywhere (it was never shining in this sense), it doesn't have a 'killer app', because it is free platform, so no one is locked in it, therefore those 'killer apps' get ported.
Gates was considered borg because of his business practice ('you will be assimilated' and 'resistance is futile'). I guess they are not borg now. Resistance is rather easy and they don't have the assimilation power of the past. I guess google is the new borg.
Form http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode Section 4 subsection b.
Looks quite cleat to me. The licence text doesn't even mention "commercial".
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
The full version has no drawn in lines, only extra is the subtitles. If you have problems with those, you are nitpicking. Now, why couldn't you download the frikin' video and verify yourself? That is the whole point of WL – you can see for yourself. But what is the point for them to do it, if even you can't be bothered to check.
Is there any reason to believe that too was not edited, or can we trust that THIS time, it was the full video?
You will be disappointed to find that you can't trust anyone. It is that simple. Even if Wikileaks is totally honest, the source could have distorted the documents. Or the original material was a honey pot.
And I thought the point of a site like wikileaks was to be a neutral, third party publishing site;
Where did you get that idea? Imagine, that wikileaks is a news organization, which publishes the original material. You can get one perspective from them directly, other perspective form other news organizations who republish their material, or you can see for yourself. If they just dumped the video, would anybody notice?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Usually in classics it doesn't feel like someone is stabbing your ears with awl. Ok, sometimes it does, but I am not a fan of all classics anyway.
Lets compare two movies – Avatar (physical and emotional pain) and Ultraviolet (enjoyed a lot).
In Ultraviolet (not popular) plot is scarce: love story – one innuendo; description of the times they live in – few paragraphs. To understand anything, you really have to follow. But the part of the plot that is there is OK and makes sense, id est, I can understand why each character is doing what what they do, or at least imagine valid reason.
In Avatar, the things that happen simply don't make this emotional sense:
Well there you have it. One talks about Al Jazeera in Arabic, the other – in English. I have noticed that if one media organization publishes news in two different languages, then they publish different things.
In Latvia, the Latvian reporters don't write articles for Russian part of their own newspaper and vice versa.
For some reason I think the Russian media write BS. I wonder what Russians think of Latvian media.
Sounds like he was giving his visiting card.
More like, it is not safe to view this at work.
[..] But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.[...]
WTF? If I recognise existence, I agree to its policies? Care to elaborate?
It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.
I am not sure if you have noticed, but that kind of is the point of Anonymous. And I can support them or denounce them all I want, provided I point out for what exactly.
The US Constitution was adopted in 1787. What did "press" mean back then?
Specific sense "machine for printing" is from 1530s; extended to publishing houses by 1570s and to publishing generally (in phrases like freedom of the press) c.1680. This gradually shifted c.1800-1820 to "periodical publishing, journalism." Meaning "journalists collectively" is attested from 1926.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=press
It seems that at the time, the word meant "publishing", not "machine for printing" or "journalism". Thus, "freedom of the press" is the freedom of publishing, not the freedom of journalists, and although the grandparent is wrong about the meaning of "press", it's still closer to the originally intended meaning than you are.
What cause is that? Releasing a stream of illegally-released classified information from a democratic nation?
Had they released documents from Russia, would it still be wrong thing to do? For all I know, it is democratic.
"WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."
And US honours due process, when they "nudge" private companies to block services to Wikileaks?
Since it is generally accepted in US that free speech is good thing (see Pentagon papers AC pointed out before), burden of proof is on your side. So:
Function keys – sortcuts, most popular – F11 (full screen). Option to customize helps productivity a lot.
Caps Lock – I have noticed that some use it as a sticky key for writing capital letters, while writing normal sentences.
Break – BIOS info reading.
Windows (super) key – on compiz it is widely used, also helps making shortcuts.
Menu key – when using keyboard to manipulate text or whatnot, context menu is much easier to call using this key.
So, just because YOU don't use it, doesn't mean that others don't.
I didn't get it as well - why Assange didn't make is stance all the way. It is actually very easy point to make – governments are screwing everyone over. Diplomats say they operate in the interest of their state and I believe them. But hat are those interests? If it is secret, then people cannot state their interests. Would US spying on British and vice versa be supported, if it was open? Most likely not.
This is basically government cheating on us. Maybe it is beneficial, but betrayal of our trust none the less. As for analogy – is it OK to cheat on your spouse, it they won't find out? (Opinions differ on this one as well).
To go even further, politeness in international relations is a devalued currency – everybody is polite and lies a lot. That is why everyone with half a brain don't believe what diplomats say. Do you know why lying is bad? It is because it shows complete disrespect for the other party involved. And this disrespect is painfully obvious. Not only that, but countries manipulate each other as if they are natural recourse or something.
When these things come to light, of course they are ugly and damage is done and whatnot, but if it can change the culture international relations to something less disturbing, I am all for it.
And to make a counter attack, I would have asked, what exact deals can only be made under secrecy. So far I have only generic claims and no explanations what so ever. And even if there are such deals, are they morally right.
About assholes. We live in the world of assholes, where they believe they are loved and whatnot. If Saudi Arabia would say out loud "Iran, we would feel much safer, if your country was ran by a mad cow", maybe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would respect opinions outside his make believe world.
Maybe you should visit the assholes in your office and say "You are an asshole. People around you suffer direct mental pain." Or maybe you are ready to sacrifice well being of your employees for the well being of your own?
And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?
There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?
Factory workers fought for, and won, the health and safety protections they enjoy today, but went no further. Communism arose entirely out of agrarian societies.
Parent said it gave birth to communism. Communist movement in industrialized Europe was significant. Just because it died off for one reason or another is different issue.
Sounds like this one: http://lotrgames.wikia.com/wiki/Nazgul#Behind_the_Scenes
They (=woman) call it a "romantic movie".
Point almost taken. But still, these movies have non-nice persons. For example in Bridget Jones's Diary one of the main characters is clearly an ass. In Pretty Woman, the good guy has its moments of being an ass.
I am not saying it is not possible, it is just much more simple. To be "good" there have to be something to be "good" against. One can be good compared with other characters (good guy, bad guy). Or good against circumstances. But those are rare things.
.
In your example, you talk about all being bad guys, but the rule is "There has to be a bad guy if there's going to be a good guy." Know any example of everybody being good guys?
I guess it is bit difficult to find such example, because then it would just be a film about normal people.
As an end-user, when I compile applications configure-make-install usually works much better than cmake procedure. In fact, I have never successfully compiled anything using cmake. Maybe ubuntu has broken cmake version, maybe I can't interpret the error messages about dependencies right, but as an end-user, ./configure make install works quite nice.
Religious fundamentalism is inherently incompatible with science in the same sense that one could not simultaneously be a both a humanist and a racist. There's no reason though why a racist couldn't be an absolute angel to white people, or why someone with fervent religious beliefs can't excel in a field of science that can be reconciled with their beliefs.
Then what does "incompatible" practically mean? Should these scientists be banned form research? If scientists can do their job well and be religious, they can be "incompatible" to the bone for all I care. Or are you just throwing fancy words?