And the fact that this was moderated +5 Insightful shows why the industry has such a long way to go - men overreact and get defended, women overreact and get a tirade of abuse. (This is entirely outside the issue of whether any of the events in this story were appropriate).
I am close to giving up on Slashdot because it seems more and more filled with the rants of angry right-wing men. Is this because Rupert Murdoch's organs are now paywalled? Or is the United States slowly turning into Saudi Arabia, only without burkhas?
This is a pointless comment because (a) this was not in the UK, (b) English and Welsh Law jurisdiction does not extend to the United States, and (c) English and Welsh libel law is not normative for the United States. So why make the observation?
It seems that, just as when Russia was fighting in Afghanistan, the US is supporting the guys who include the Islamic fundamentalists against the people who believe in a more or less secular State. Assad may be unpleasant, but like Saddam he is trying to keep the lid on Shiite/Sunni warring.
If the US arms the rebels, they will be supplying equipment to units of the Taliban who will, as sure as day, subsequently use them against the West. It is hard not to be cynical and think this is all about arms dealers staying in business.
This reminds me of the system for translating Pravda:
Fraternal discussions - nobody got hurt
Friendly discussions - we're still at the talking phase
Frank and friendly discussions - we told you to stop doing that, now stop doing it.
Frank discussions - the tanks are rolling.
They have no experience of another system of government and most people are conservative. It's just like Americans being fearful of "socialised" medicine - unless they've spent enough time in Europe to get to know another system.
Didn't you get the memo? They've been written off almost as often as Apple has. Anyway, their new gesture based UI built on QNX isn't intuitive like the iOS that users have been learning for several years.
In fact the human race as presently constituted is dependent on two pieces of technology: sharp edges and fire. Without those we are not going anywhere. With them we still nearly went extinct in the mesolithic ice age.
But also, as a self certified mystic, you do seem to write a lot of unverifiable tosh.
I don't think you understand how the moderation system is supposed to work. There is no 'disagree' moderation. And your opinion, Anonymous Coward, is no better than mine. (however, I would submit, having seen collegiality in action fighting an attempt to corporatise an academic institution, that you are wrong.)
I note I was down-nodded for an honest statement of opinion. It looks like a lot of people on/. approve of Big Brother. But you miss the point. Corporatism is giving rights to corporations that supersede what we in Europe call human rights. The existence of corporations does not imply corporatism if individual rights are protected.
As an example, the Netherlands has an army but is not militaristic. North Korea has an army, and it is.
The point is whether, given the supposedly Enlightenment ideals of the Western idea of a university, they should have done. If they are just a corporation that educates people for money, that is one thing. If they are a university set up to stand for the possibility of a better society, that is another. Personally I prefer universities when they fight corporatism, not when they support it.
That would seem to be the new HP tablet that looks like a BlackBerry PlayBook but with a worse display and camera. What has that got to do with Harvard seeming to have forgotten the difference between a university and a corporation?
Your figures are meaningless in context without knowing how many were lost, and what the operational cost was per tonne of ordnance.
In WW2, after the Battle of Britain the most successful British aircraft was probably the twin-engined Mosquito, an early stealth fighter/bomber. I was taught at school by the former wing commander of a Mosquito wing, and he told us that flying Mosquitos was considered a real privilege because you expected to survive the War. Mosquitos could fly to Germany, pathfind for heavy bombers, do a little precision bombing themselves and be back in time for breakfast, even if someone put a shell in an engine while over the target. Single engined fighters and 4 engined bombers had far higher loss rates.
The significant point is the kind of opposition you could expect. Bombing Third World countries is a bit different from bombing First World countries.
Oh that's cynical. Meanwhile in the UK, the Labour Party has just announced that if it wins the next election it will replace the Trident nuclear submarines, which has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Labour votes from the Scottish shipyards, and sabotaging the campaign for Scottish independence. $40 billion for a useless piece of kit that cannot influence any foreseeable wars, but keeps the Scots onside. Perhaps that's it: it's called a strategic deterrent because it strategically deters the Scots from becoming independent and losing the work.
Had the Spitfire not been a newer design that the German equivalent, this post might be in German (well, actually it wouldn't because my father would have gone to a concentration camp, but you know what I mean).
Unfortunately I make it the Saving HIgh-Tech INnovators From EgregIous Legal Disputes, or SHIT IN FEILD Bill. Spelling error apart, this is indeed likely to be as successful as trying to persuade bears not to poo in the woods.
It is in much of Europe. You're not suggesting that the freedom loving democratic USA has more corruption in Government than us Euro-weenies, are you?
The last British government (you know, the American(Murdoch)-Australian(Blair) one was heading down the same route, but amazingly most British judges are rather sensible and tend to discourage frivolous and exploitative lawsuits; companies that have tried it have gone bankrupt or even had the Law Society feeling their collars. Perhaps we should send you some redcoats like we did in 1814.
You must be awful fun when talking to customers. They tend not to understand the distinction between "shall" and "should".
"there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item" - in other words, this is a case where the feature should ALWAYS be applied to generic software because that must deal with all circumstances, not just "particular" ones.
It really should not be hard to have a popup that says "This web page wants to create local storage on your computer allow/disallow", for instance, and then let the user decide if this is a particular circumstance.
Indeed. And, since marketing persuaded the world that they wanted all-touchscreen phones, BlackBerry has been in the doo-doos. Yet I played with the most basic BB the other day - the 9320. It's built like Nokia used to be and it has a surprising amount of functionality. I didn't expect the GPS to work on such a cheap phone, but it was accurate. It's a little bit slow, but far more capable than a cheap Android phone. I now want a Q10, when it comes out.
The volume industry is driven by fashion, not function.
At one point in a voyage, at night, the Matthew was intercepted by a military ship - probably American - who demanded to know what she was and got the reply "Sailing ship Matthew, on a voyage from Bristol to Rio". The immediate reply was "I don't believe you, identify yourself correctly or we will board you".
The captain instructed that the Diesel be started and then had all the display lights turned on - it must have been quite impressive out there in the Southern Atlantic. Very soon after a one word message arrived: "Sorry".
Auxiliary Diesels on sailing ships can come in very handy at times.
No, that wasn't the reason. It was the phrase in the GGPP "could not dilate more than three inches". Ships don't dilate, they expand. I was commenting on the abuse of English.
Slashdot Mirror
I am close to giving up on Slashdot because it seems more and more filled with the rants of angry right-wing men. Is this because Rupert Murdoch's organs are now paywalled? Or is the United States slowly turning into Saudi Arabia, only without burkhas?
Citation definitely needed.
This is a pointless comment because (a) this was not in the UK, (b) English and Welsh Law jurisdiction does not extend to the United States, and (c) English and Welsh libel law is not normative for the United States. So why make the observation?
If the US arms the rebels, they will be supplying equipment to units of the Taliban who will, as sure as day, subsequently use them against the West. It is hard not to be cynical and think this is all about arms dealers staying in business.
Fraternal discussions - nobody got hurt
Friendly discussions - we're still at the talking phase
Frank and friendly discussions - we told you to stop doing that, now stop doing it.
Frank discussions - the tanks are rolling.
They have no experience of another system of government and most people are conservative. It's just like Americans being fearful of "socialised" medicine - unless they've spent enough time in Europe to get to know another system.
Didn't you get the memo? They've been written off almost as often as Apple has. Anyway, their new gesture based UI built on QNX isn't intuitive like the iOS that users have been learning for several years.
For 'people' read the bonkers Dionysius Lardner, a 19th century equivalent of a climate change denier.
But also, as a self certified mystic, you do seem to write a lot of unverifiable tosh.
I don't think you understand how the moderation system is supposed to work. There is no 'disagree' moderation. And your opinion, Anonymous Coward, is no better than mine. (however, I would submit, having seen collegiality in action fighting an attempt to corporatise an academic institution, that you are wrong.)
As an example, the Netherlands has an army but is not militaristic. North Korea has an army, and it is.
Unique barcodes. Either the counterfeiter will duplicate an existing one - identified as dupe - or uses an invalid one -identified as invalid.
The point is whether, given the supposedly Enlightenment ideals of the Western idea of a university, they should have done. If they are just a corporation that educates people for money, that is one thing. If they are a university set up to stand for the possibility of a better society, that is another. Personally I prefer universities when they fight corporatism, not when they support it.
That would seem to be the new HP tablet that looks like a BlackBerry PlayBook but with a worse display and camera. What has that got to do with Harvard seeming to have forgotten the difference between a university and a corporation?
Why would I go to a right-wing, pro-Fascist science fiction novel full of grand guignol guff for advice on military policy?
This is hardly his highest profile ever case. Perhaps for the geek community, but for him it's small change.
In WW2, after the Battle of Britain the most successful British aircraft was probably the twin-engined Mosquito, an early stealth fighter/bomber. I was taught at school by the former wing commander of a Mosquito wing, and he told us that flying Mosquitos was considered a real privilege because you expected to survive the War. Mosquitos could fly to Germany, pathfind for heavy bombers, do a little precision bombing themselves and be back in time for breakfast, even if someone put a shell in an engine while over the target. Single engined fighters and 4 engined bombers had far higher loss rates.
The significant point is the kind of opposition you could expect. Bombing Third World countries is a bit different from bombing First World countries.
Oh that's cynical. Meanwhile in the UK, the Labour Party has just announced that if it wins the next election it will replace the Trident nuclear submarines, which has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Labour votes from the Scottish shipyards, and sabotaging the campaign for Scottish independence. $40 billion for a useless piece of kit that cannot influence any foreseeable wars, but keeps the Scots onside. Perhaps that's it: it's called a strategic deterrent because it strategically deters the Scots from becoming independent and losing the work.
Analysts usually don't have to fly combat missions.
Had the Spitfire not been a newer design that the German equivalent, this post might be in German (well, actually it wouldn't because my father would have gone to a concentration camp, but you know what I mean).
Unfortunately I make it the Saving HIgh-Tech INnovators From EgregIous Legal Disputes, or SHIT IN FEILD Bill. Spelling error apart, this is indeed likely to be as successful as trying to persuade bears not to poo in the woods.
The last British government (you know, the American(Murdoch)-Australian(Blair) one was heading down the same route, but amazingly most British judges are rather sensible and tend to discourage frivolous and exploitative lawsuits; companies that have tried it have gone bankrupt or even had the Law Society feeling their collars. Perhaps we should send you some redcoats like we did in 1814.
Yes, this is not intended to be taken seriously.
"there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item" - in other words, this is a case where the feature should ALWAYS be applied to generic software because that must deal with all circumstances, not just "particular" ones.
It really should not be hard to have a popup that says "This web page wants to create local storage on your computer allow/disallow", for instance, and then let the user decide if this is a particular circumstance.
The volume industry is driven by fashion, not function.
The captain instructed that the Diesel be started and then had all the display lights turned on - it must have been quite impressive out there in the Southern Atlantic. Very soon after a one word message arrived: "Sorry".
Auxiliary Diesels on sailing ships can come in very handy at times.
No, that wasn't the reason. It was the phrase in the GGPP "could not dilate more than three inches". Ships don't dilate, they expand. I was commenting on the abuse of English.