If we had followed the same policy at Gitmo, the detainees would probably be demanding to enlisted in the U.S. forces by now. But no, the only way Bushcheney knows how to deal with opposition is "get tough." This got modded insightful? Funny, I could see. Troll, maybe. But insightful?
The quote above is the kind of outrageous statement that should probably be simply ignored, but hey, this is slashdot. So:
Given your assertion that treating terrorists nicely causes them to like us, explain why the 9:11 highjackers still insisted on murdering thousands of innocent civilians despite having lived in this country, with all the benefits of a free resident, for a long period of time (years in most cases).
...if this will be a free upgrade similarly to the upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1. It would seem hard to justify a purchase price of anything more than $20 that adds only additional stability and developer tools. If anything, this version seems more geared for developers than end-users. No, it sounds geared toward corporate users. I work in an advertising shop that is very Mac-ish, and I can tell you that interoperability with Exchange is a huge, and very welcome, feature.
The performance and stability are welcome as well. We've already decided to take a collective pass on 10.5 due to it's general lack of not sucking. The features are great, but stability, compatibility, etc are paramount. (Ask a graphics professional what he really thinks about Apple's font decisions in 10.5, specifically the 'native' Helvetica. Bring a sandwich, asbestos underwear, and a comfy chair.)
Even the marketing name-- Snow Leopard-- suggests that the emphasis is squarely on turning 10.5 into a proper quality release that is a suitable successor to the excellent 10.4.
The framework of "collective rights" (meaning, in effect, the right only exists to whomever the government decides to permit to have it; which, in turn, means it is not a right at all) was established by our wonderfully progressive courts in order to circumvent slow-moving politically-backward legislative bodies who weren't really up to speed on certain social issues. The judiciary, being elite, know what the country needs far better than those pesky voters and their lapdog congresscritters.
The President of the United States has already used that framework to justify warrantless wiretapping-- it's a military issue, so the collective right to privacy in the 4th does not apply. (As opposed to individual Joe Blow simply having a right to privacy, period.)
The same tools will be brought to bear on freedom of speech as well.
So, everyone, be sure to be happy that you managed to destroy those unpopular 2nd and 10th Amendments, because in so doing you created the weapons that will allow each of the other to be rendered impotent as well-- just as soon as there is a popular reason to do so.
So certain groups can stage public displays insulting everyone and others can't. I suppose it's all in whether or not you've claimed the victim mantle in the media's eye.
I've found that Rails documentation falls into two categorys: (1) The annoyingly pedantic tutorial which falls apart if anything whatsoever goes wrong on your system, since the tutorial lacks any depth; and (2) Advanced docs that are moderately impenetrable to people not already very familiar with the relevant technologies.
I'm an experienced Perl and C guy who just wants to find a better way than CGI::Ajax to build slick web applications, but I found that I spent more time being annoyed with the documentation than actually learning. Intermediate indeed; Rails needs this.
And I strongly suspect these engineers you speak of have a lot of experience in the crossdisciplines *after* college. Conversely, I was able to start working effectively in computers "out of the box".
Is the idea that being trained in relevant subject matter is usually more valuable than irrelevant subject matter really that hard to understand?
While I suppose it's good to have specialized training in law for a specific field, this just seems silly. I mean, I'm sure there have been lawyers before (working for NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, etc,) that have "specialized" in space law. Who cares if the diploma lists "space law", really?
My BS says "Computer Engineering" on it, but an engineer is an engineer, so maybe I should go design a jet? No law says I had to specialize to participate in that design process.
The difference between an existing "space lawyer" and this guy is that the new breed has studied space law in a structured and formal setting, as opposed to picking it up during their experience. A relevant analogy: Think about programmers who do not have technical degrees, but picked up the skills on the side during their work. They might be quite competent and have valuable experience, but they often lack some of the tools that a person with a CS or CpE degree might have, especially with respect to information theory and mathematics.
The existence of this program merely indicates that there is enough "space law" work to be done that people want to formally study it and presumably focus their careers around it.
No, if it gets modded flamebait, it'll be because we've all read posts like yours a million times, and not only do you know it, but the only reason you'd post it again is to encourage flames - so your post is both the epitome of flamebait, as well as redundant.
Ah, so it is impossible that perhaps I'm concerned about a technical news increasingly becoming the second incarnation of DailyKos instead of News For Nerds? Thanks for clarifying. Redundant or not, it bothers me that the spin on stories is increasingly mainstream-liberal rather than niche-techie, and I will point it out when I see it.
"...calling consumers on the National DNC Registry"
Maybe someone can help me understand something here. Why would a company want to waste their resources marketing to people who have made an overt effort to opt-out? Do they really think that people will make a purchase if they could through?
I've worked in 2 telemarketing companies when I was a young lad-- degrading work, but indoors and no heavy lifting-- and I can tell you that the First Rule Of Spammers applies to them: They're dumb.
As far as I could tell none of the floor managers had any interest whatsoever in making sales. They cared about other critical metrics such as minimizing bathroom breaks, total number of calls made, how many "objections" we "overcame" before disconnecting, script adherence, etc, but not about sales. I mean, of course they *officially* cared about sales and were paid on it, but they were generally too stupid to realize that forcing someone with a talent for salesmanship to 100% adhere to a poorly written script was NOT making anyone money.
Some of my favorite boneheaded moves I had to work with:
* Scripts written by non-native English speakers, loaded with grammatical errors
* Setting predictive dialers to such an aggressive setting that most people had been on a dead line saying "hello?" for 5-10 seconds before we came on, thus ensuring that they were good and pissed before the pitch even started
* Scripts starting with a horribly insincere line like "How are you today?", thus pissing away the 10-15 seconds of "grace time" most callers will give you before getting annoyed
* Forbidding drinking water at the desk because it resulted in "too many bathroom breaks"-- not a good move for people whose job is to talk fast and long
* Calling sequential numbers during evening hours, thus resulting in things like waking up an entire hospital ward, 1 room after another
* Having sales checked the next day by "callback verifiers", thus requiring the customer who just barely was willing to buy the newspaper have to sit through another annoying 3-minute call in order to put the sale thru, assuming you could actually get the guy on the horn
* Putting actual bonafide lies in the script, and forcing us to tell more lies when customers called us out on them
* Recycling calling lists so fast that people received 2-5 calls in the same day, thus guaranteeing that no sales would be made after the first go-thru and even rssulting in some customers calling to cancel previous sales out of sheer annoyance
* forbidding us from ending a call until the customer had said "no" *3* times, even though the call was clearly a waste of time an annoying to everyone after the first (or maybe 2nd) one
* And my favorite: At one place we were forbidden from ever hanging up first, thus *guaranteeing* that every call ended acrimoniously. In a few cases we got crazies or wiseasses who just set the phone down and walked away, leaving the TC (telmarketing consultant) sitting helplessly with his/her hand in the air waiting for the shift supervisor to eventually notice and then walk over and hit "disconnect" for them.
It was a dumb industry. Good riddance to it, even though it helped pay my rent for a while.
So let me get this straight-- you are claiming this is a lie based on what, the fact that you don't like Republicans?
A tad weak. Plenty of right-leaning folks in the old Warez school. It's only changed because it's done by younger kids nowadays, and like all younger kids they lean to the left. Back when most pirates were in their mid-20s or older it was a much more libertarian crowd.
Pirates are heroes, unless they are Republicans, in which case they are suddenly considered thieves. Disappointing, yet predictable. If this guy was a Democrat the slashdot crowd would be crowing about how this is a great example of how people who abuse intellectual property are really productive citizens, etc etc.
Embarassing.
And let me guess-- like most posts pointing out the left-leaning hypocrisy so rampant here in the last five years or so, this will get modded as 'flamebait'.:/
So your defense of Ballmer is that he's par with the market? "Mediocre" is a firing offense in the high places.
Besides, it's not a sane comparison. MSFT is such a big chunk of the NASDAQ computer index that of course the two will correleate highly. That's like saying my ass tends to follow my body around. Not rocket science, nor insightful.
You can't really be so paranoid as to think that screwing around in Wikipedia was a serious policy initiative by DOJ.
All this means is the bored interns who were pushing their politics have to stop now, and get back to collating and stapling memos like they should have been doing in the first place. I assure you, major branches of the US Government are not sitting around making policy decisions regarding unflattering press in Wikipedia. They get a lot more flak from much bigger players, and they *do* take it lying down because that's their job.
This reads as if it were an attempt by a person working a maters's thesis to determine if a pro-linux, pro-privacy crowd would stick with their principles or instead defer to the humanity of helping a family get over a tagedy.
Given the shaky grasp of data integrity, control groups, and other scientific trappings usually displayed by the sociology crowd, you might be right.
What makes this really smell like a soft-science thesis is that the whole thing hinges on the assumption that cracking a dead guy's laptop is inherently unethical. Which means the "scientist" doesn't understand the connection between pro-privacy crowds and the libertarian notion of "victimless crime isn't". In other words, the guy made a flawed base assumption that will totally ruin the integrity of his results-- and that is utterly typical sociology work.
Your ethics in this case extend to the living, not the dead. "First, do no harm..." might be a good motto here. You are going to be mucking about in some content that might not be what anyone is expecting, but there is a story there and the living want it told-- at least to them.
So long as you are discreet and have the consent of the family, do what you need to do to bring them closure.
I've lost a child. I can assure you that it is important to the family that the tragedy not be a pointless one. A tragedy happened, and at the very least they want to know that they handled it well, that perhaps they are wiser for it, SOMETHING. It's called closure, and it doesn't ease the loss but it does help with the frustration.
everyone is suspected of being a pedophile, which is now defined as communicating in any form with a minor.
Not true. It can also include communicating in any form with an adult pretending to be a minor. You can be convicted of pedophile-esque crimes without an actual minor ever being in the picture, much less being harmed. Fascinating, really.
WOW! An organization tries to present itself in a favorable light! And military analysts have ties to military-related organizations! Unbelievable! Apalling!
Next you'll be telling me that every other large organization in the world does the same thing, and that subject matter experts in every field generally have ties to relevant organizations...
And how many of those people have the proverbial (and literal) keys to hundreds of "nukular" bombs? Those other people have a valid excuse for saying it wrong. The Pres. does not. of ALL the people in the world, HE, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE should know the difference.
So by your logic, we should attack JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis because his regional accent precluded him from saying "Cuba" correctly?
Down South a lot of people pronounce words differently than whatever the media has declared to be standard American pronunciation. One of those words is "nuclear". Get over it.
As a previous poster said, there are plenty of legitimate critcisms of this President. This isn't one of them. Displaying blind regional predjudice only undermines your legitimate arguments.
It's only unconstitutional or net infringement if a conservative does it. This guy is a Dem, so we should all whole-heartedly support his noble efforts to uplift the poor. Or something.
Slashdot Mirror
The quote above is the kind of outrageous statement that should probably be simply ignored, but hey, this is slashdot. So:
Given your assertion that treating terrorists nicely causes them to like us, explain why the 9:11 highjackers still insisted on murdering thousands of innocent civilians despite having lived in this country, with all the benefits of a free resident, for a long period of time (years in most cases).
Thanks!
...if this will be a free upgrade similarly to the upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1. It would seem hard to justify a purchase price of anything more than $20 that adds only additional stability and developer tools. If anything, this version seems more geared for developers than end-users. No, it sounds geared toward corporate users. I work in an advertising shop that is very Mac-ish, and I can tell you that interoperability with Exchange is a huge, and very welcome, feature.The performance and stability are welcome as well. We've already decided to take a collective pass on 10.5 due to it's general lack of not sucking. The features are great, but stability, compatibility, etc are paramount. (Ask a graphics professional what he really thinks about Apple's font decisions in 10.5, specifically the 'native' Helvetica. Bring a sandwich, asbestos underwear, and a comfy chair.)
Even the marketing name-- Snow Leopard-- suggests that the emphasis is squarely on turning 10.5 into a proper quality release that is a suitable successor to the excellent 10.4.
The answer to that will always be "the minority party".
The framework of "collective rights" (meaning, in effect, the right only exists to whomever the government decides to permit to have it; which, in turn, means it is not a right at all) was established by our wonderfully progressive courts in order to circumvent slow-moving politically-backward legislative bodies who weren't really up to speed on certain social issues. The judiciary, being elite, know what the country needs far better than those pesky voters and their lapdog congresscritters.
The President of the United States has already used that framework to justify warrantless wiretapping-- it's a military issue, so the collective right to privacy in the 4th does not apply. (As opposed to individual Joe Blow simply having a right to privacy, period.)
The same tools will be brought to bear on freedom of speech as well.
So, everyone, be sure to be happy that you managed to destroy those unpopular 2nd and 10th Amendments, because in so doing you created the weapons that will allow each of the other to be rendered impotent as well-- just as soon as there is a popular reason to do so.
Wow. And my wife told me nothing useful would come from correcting people on Slashdot.
> Not that I ever heard off Hanlon before looking the quote up.
It's Heinlein's Razor. Somebody mispelled it on Usenet eons ago and it somehow stuck.
Robert A Heinlein said it in Logic of Empire, I believe
So certain groups can stage public displays insulting everyone and others can't. I suppose it's all in whether or not you've claimed the victim mantle in the media's eye.
I've found that Rails documentation falls into two categorys: (1) The annoyingly pedantic tutorial which falls apart if anything whatsoever goes wrong on your system, since the tutorial lacks any depth; and (2) Advanced docs that are moderately impenetrable to people not already very familiar with the relevant technologies.
I'm an experienced Perl and C guy who just wants to find a better way than CGI::Ajax to build slick web applications, but I found that I spent more time being annoyed with the documentation than actually learning. Intermediate indeed; Rails needs this.
And I strongly suspect these engineers you speak of have a lot of experience in the crossdisciplines *after* college. Conversely, I was able to start working effectively in computers "out of the box".
Is the idea that being trained in relevant subject matter is usually more valuable than irrelevant subject matter really that hard to understand?
My BS says "Computer Engineering" on it, but an engineer is an engineer, so maybe I should go design a jet? No law says I had to specialize to participate in that design process.
The difference between an existing "space lawyer" and this guy is that the new breed has studied space law in a structured and formal setting, as opposed to picking it up during their experience. A relevant analogy: Think about programmers who do not have technical degrees, but picked up the skills on the side during their work. They might be quite competent and have valuable experience, but they often lack some of the tools that a person with a CS or CpE degree might have, especially with respect to information theory and mathematics.
The existence of this program merely indicates that there is enough "space law" work to be done that people want to formally study it and presumably focus their careers around it.
Ah, so it is impossible that perhaps I'm concerned about a technical news increasingly becoming the second incarnation of DailyKos instead of News For Nerds? Thanks for clarifying. Redundant or not, it bothers me that the spin on stories is increasingly mainstream-liberal rather than niche-techie, and I will point it out when I see it.
I've worked in 2 telemarketing companies when I was a young lad-- degrading work, but indoors and no heavy lifting-- and I can tell you that the First Rule Of Spammers applies to them: They're dumb.
As far as I could tell none of the floor managers had any interest whatsoever in making sales. They cared about other critical metrics such as minimizing bathroom breaks, total number of calls made, how many "objections" we "overcame" before disconnecting, script adherence, etc, but not about sales. I mean, of course they *officially* cared about sales and were paid on it, but they were generally too stupid to realize that forcing someone with a talent for salesmanship to 100% adhere to a poorly written script was NOT making anyone money.
Some of my favorite boneheaded moves I had to work with:
It was a dumb industry. Good riddance to it, even though it helped pay my rent for a while.
So let me get this straight-- you are claiming this is a lie based on what, the fact that you don't like Republicans?
A tad weak. Plenty of right-leaning folks in the old Warez school. It's only changed because it's done by younger kids nowadays, and like all younger kids they lean to the left. Back when most pirates were in their mid-20s or older it was a much more libertarian crowd.
Pirates are heroes, unless they are Republicans, in which case they are suddenly considered thieves. Disappointing, yet predictable. If this guy was a Democrat the slashdot crowd would be crowing about how this is a great example of how people who abuse intellectual property are really productive citizens, etc etc.
:/
Embarassing.
And let me guess-- like most posts pointing out the left-leaning hypocrisy so rampant here in the last five years or so, this will get modded as 'flamebait'.
So your defense of Ballmer is that he's par with the market? "Mediocre" is a firing offense in the high places.
Besides, it's not a sane comparison. MSFT is such a big chunk of the NASDAQ computer index that of course the two will correleate highly. That's like saying my ass tends to follow my body around. Not rocket science, nor insightful.
You can't really be so paranoid as to think that screwing around in Wikipedia was a serious policy initiative by DOJ.
All this means is the bored interns who were pushing their politics have to stop now, and get back to collating and stapling memos like they should have been doing in the first place. I assure you, major branches of the US Government are not sitting around making policy decisions regarding unflattering press in Wikipedia. They get a lot more flak from much bigger players, and they *do* take it lying down because that's their job.
This reads as if it were an attempt by a person working a maters's thesis to determine if a pro-linux, pro-privacy crowd would stick with their principles or instead defer to the humanity of helping a family get over a tagedy.
Given the shaky grasp of data integrity, control groups, and other scientific trappings usually displayed by the sociology crowd, you might be right.
What makes this really smell like a soft-science thesis is that the whole thing hinges on the assumption that cracking a dead guy's laptop is inherently unethical. Which means the "scientist" doesn't understand the connection between pro-privacy crowds and the libertarian notion of "victimless crime isn't". In other words, the guy made a flawed base assumption that will totally ruin the integrity of his results-- and that is utterly typical sociology work.
Your ethics in this case extend to the living, not the dead. "First, do no harm..." might be a good motto here. You are going to be mucking about in some content that might not be what anyone is expecting, but there is a story there and the living want it told-- at least to them.
So long as you are discreet and have the consent of the family, do what you need to do to bring them closure.
I've lost a child. I can assure you that it is important to the family that the tragedy not be a pointless one. A tragedy happened, and at the very least they want to know that they handled it well, that perhaps they are wiser for it, SOMETHING. It's called closure, and it doesn't ease the loss but it does help with the frustration.
... the one question we care about-- is she hot?
Not true. It can also include communicating in any form with an adult pretending to be a minor. You can be convicted of pedophile-esque crimes without an actual minor ever being in the picture, much less being harmed. Fascinating, really.
WOW! An organization tries to present itself in a favorable light! And military analysts have ties to military-related organizations! Unbelievable! Apalling!
Next you'll be telling me that every other large organization in the world does the same thing, and that subject matter experts in every field generally have ties to relevant organizations...
So by your logic, we should attack JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis because his regional accent precluded him from saying "Cuba" correctly?
Down South a lot of people pronounce words differently than whatever the media has declared to be standard American pronunciation. One of those words is "nuclear". Get over it.
As a previous poster said, there are plenty of legitimate critcisms of this President. This isn't one of them. Displaying blind regional predjudice only undermines your legitimate arguments.
It's only unconstitutional or net infringement if a conservative does it. This guy is a Dem, so we should all whole-heartedly support his noble efforts to uplift the poor. Or something.
10% there! We can do it! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!