The rest of the world takes a calculated blind eye on terrorism, knowing that America will probably be the target and/or come to the defense of anyone hit hard.
Europe has been dealing with terrorism for YEARS.
Look up "Air France Flight 8969" for more information.
I've spent years in German and they take terrorism very seriously. Their cops patrol with Uzi's.
I understand your concern, but I believe it is the responsibility of the woman whether to get pregnant or not in the first place. But yes, I believe that once she has made that choice, the rights of the child are established.
In the case of rape. She didn't make a choice then.
This isn't about whether she chose to get pregnant. This is about the child. If it is about her choice, then rape would be a factor, and the life of the child would not be one.
If Osama is able to plan and carry out attacks, why have they been sitting on their thumbs?
They haven't. World-wide terrorist attacks are at a high right now.
They're just hitting the easiest places. We've lost more US citizens to terrorist attacks in the last year than in all of Clinton's 8 years combined (or in Bush I's 4 years, or in Ronnie's 8 years, etc).
It takes a lot more than a job title to make an effective operation planner or money launderer.
Actually, the money portion is getting easier because Afghanistan (remember where Osama was hiding in the first place) has started cranking out poppies like never before. Chunks of the drug money are going straight to terrorists.
Once there is no more mixing of 'A' and 'A.1' because 'A.1' has migrated away, their DNA lineages _would_ diverge, even if A.1 bred exclusively among _themselves_. This is because the mutations that A.1 accumulates will have almost no means of being transmitted back to A. And the mutations that A accumulates after A.1 brached off have few ways of being transmitted to A.1.
But the article shows 3 branches off of the original Eve line.
That is with a small population in a confined area, yet they still manage to maintain 3 pure lines.
If they can do that for a longer period of time than the lines in America, then it does not make sense that the American lines would diverge from the original.
If they do mutate over time, you'd see more lines in 140K years of the original 3 lines than you'd see in the 30K years of the American lines.
But it is REVERSED.
The original lines stay pure for 140K years.
While the 60K year lines split over and over and over.
WHY is there a difference that does NOT include breeding with other tribes?
Your own bias is clouding your thoughts. If you can't accept that 3 braches converge to 1 original, what makes you accept 7 branches converge to one of the 3?
I am not accepting it. I'm asking WHY they show that and HOW they determine a "line".
That diagram is easy to accept IF you ignore the article and accept that they inter-bred with other tribes.
If you read the article, that chart does not make sense. NO mutations in 2 of the 3 lines over 140,000 years while 1 of the 3 lines mutates THIRTEEN TIMES in ONE HALF THE TIME and EACH mutation coincides with a geographic relocation.
The question is WHY does that 1 line differ so remarkably from the other 2 lines?
Well, we're armchair generals here. All the hard work is done by the scientists and this is really their statement. If we accept their statement that there are three lineages, we should also be willing to accept their statements that the 3 lineages converge to one.
No. It is very possible that the person doing the research has a bias and will present the information in such a way as to reinforce that bias. From the material presented, there isn't any reason to link the original 3 lines to 1.
I'm simply pointing out similarities between their data and the Biblical record.
Yep. And that is your bias. Because having a single link supports your bias, you don't see anything wrong with it.
Whereas I look at the information and ask why they are linked.
It indicates human migration. When tribe A settles in an area, they share common DNA and mutations. But if tribe A.1 "branches off" from tribe A to migrate somewhere else, the only common DNA between A and A.1 is up until the point they branched.
Incorrect. Unless there are other people to breed with there, they should have the same DNA as the original tribe.
That was their whole point about using "mitochondrial DNA" for the female tracking.
From the article:
Mitochondria, which live inside human cells but outside the nucleus, escape the shuffling of genes that occurs between generations and are passed unchanged from mother to children.
"unchanged". Then.
In principle, all people should have the same string of DNA letters in their mitochondria. In practice, mitochondrial DNA has steadily accumulated changes over the centuries because of copying errors and radiation damage.
So why is are there so few changes and those changes only happen when migrating to a new geographic region (aside from the afore mentioned 3-become-1)?
In other words, 2 of Eve's 3 original lines have been 100% resistant to change over all the years. While 1 of the 3 has undergone change after change after change after change, but only when moving to new locations.
Rather, it appears that they are charting sections of the DNA code, and placing an arbitrary limit on what constitutes a "new" "line" and tracing back these "lines" to support their bias.
Population geneticists believe that the ancestral human population was very small -- a mere 2,000 breeding individuals, according to a calculation published last December. But the family tree based on human mitochondrial DNA does not trace back to the thousand women in this ancestral population. The tree is rooted in a single individual, the mitochondrial Eve, because all the other lineages fell extinct.
Yet it then goes to branch 3 times. To me, that indicates at least 3 individuals, not the one. Unless they can dig up the original and the 3 daughters.
I find it interesting that they seem to indicate that the original 1,000 women would have 1,000 different sets of mitochondrial DNA.
Which gets back to bias. If you take the religious point of view, then believing in 1 Eve is easy.
If you take the evolutionary bias, then believing that those 1,000 women could all have the same mitochondrial DNA is easy. They are all descended from the same stock and there was inter-breeding.
Which would also support my belief that they aren't talking exact matches but are imposing an arbitrary limit on what constitutes a "line".
Scientists that throw out the idea of any "god" figure performing an intelligent design on our planet just because they can make theories that fit the extremely limited view of time we have makes the scientists even MORE at fault than the religous people that ignore all of sciences facts.
Why is that?
The core of science cannot refer or rely upon a God figure who magically imposes his will upon the universe.
It is nothing but hypocrisy to claim you are doing everything scientifically and provide your theories as facts and automatically dismiss the theories of any other argument.
Learn what "hypocrisy" means. Again, the core of science cannot refer or rely upon magic.
If the omnipotent God that I believe in as a Christian decided to make the world in 7 days I don't see ANY evidence in any scientific journal that says or even implies it is impossible. Yet daily scientists rebuke religious types as "uninformed radicalists".
By definition, if it is an "omnipotent God", then nothing is "impossible".
Yet it is also 100% useless to refer or rely upon that in science. Science depends upon reproducible events. Miracles are not reproducible. Act of God are not reproducible.
Makes me think of a talk one professor of mine had in an archaeological discussion. Have you ever heard of an ancient civilization being dug up and the researchers finding a children's doll? Now we all know that kids must have played over the ages. Yet because scientists must place a meaning on everything and often preconceive that meaning we end up with hundreds of thousands of "statues" to this or that God when in reality a bunch of them were the prehistoric version of a cabbage-patch-kid.
Okay, Noah is at the top. He is represented as the top line.
Noah had 3 boys. They are represented by the 3 lines from the one top line.
Now, since Noah didn't reproduce asexually, how can we determine what his original line was since we only have the three lines of his sons?
Instead of the three lines merging to 1, they should be only the three original lines. Unless you could dig up Noah to map his genetics.
The same with Eve.
Also, those lines seem very tidy. Two of Eve's lines don't change at all while one of them changes based upon the geographical area. Why would it change based upon geography?
If it was because of radiation or food or whatever, wouldn't we expect to see a few more branches happening over time?
One of Eve's lines hit Asia and branches 6 times. And 2 of those branches never split again. In Asia, those original 6 branches are still shown. They only branch when they change geographic location.
To me, that indicates other tribes not connected to the original Eve and inter-breeding.
#1. Click as fast as you can to get the malpractice cap down to $50,000 (the lowest it will go).
#2. Up research to "medium".
#3. Click as fast as you can to get the "sick" people to move near a hospital and click on "go to doctor".
Do that and you'll "win" every time.
If no image is coming to mind, just think of any political science class you might have had in college. Now imagine the kids who took politics VERY seriously, ate it up and had very little to no life outside it. Those are the kind of people that will be pushing for these games most likely.
Bingo. Their "games" are beyond boring and so easy to "win" once you understand the agenda the developer had.
Nothing bad happens if you choose the LOWEST cap. There aren't any choices. There isn't any thought involved. This games SUCKS!
What happens if I drop the cap to $1? Will I start to see "sick" people coming out of the hospital with surgical instruments left inside them? Will I see mutants because mothers were given the wrong drugs? What negative effects happen at the lower levels?
As you noted the designer determines what actions "win" the game and what actions "lose" the game. It is pure propoganda.
Reading the article, I realized that I had never heard of any of the games or companies mentioned.
From the article:
Take, for example, a game Mr. Bogost, with advice from Mr. Frasca, recently designed for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Called Activism: The Public Policy Game, it lets players decide how to allocate 10,000 virtual campaigners among six interactive scenes that represent different policy areas: education, economy, corporate policy, security, the military, and international affairs. Players who neglect any one policy area end up losing the game. The game coincides with the committee's real-world efforts to recruit 10,000 canvassers for Democratic candidates.
Now that sounds like a fun, fascinating game to play (sarcasm).
It seems this type of propoganda has a very real problem. IT'S BORING! It's hard enough to make a decent game WITHOUT having the political agenda. It seems almost impossible for these people.
Got any pointers? This technical genius would like to further himself out of the cannon fodder box and into something more lucrative.
Start with "Death March". It's a good book on why projects fail and introduces the concepts of politics with agendas.
I'd also recommend "The Prince" by Machiavelli. Also, take a few MBA courses. It helps to know how they think and what their phrases actually mean.
But no book will ever be able to replace the insights gained from person-to-person interaction. You have to learn how to be "friends" with people who annoy you and how to manipulate them into supporting your agenda. That takes practice and you shouldn't practice it at work. They probably already know it better than you do and will be able to spot your amateur attempts. Instead, look at non-work groups. Your local church is a great place to start. They are usually packed with inter-personal relationships and petty politics. A friend once gave me this bit of insight: "The politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small".
Politics is about manipulating people to achieve your agenda. Before you become good at politics, you have to be comfortable with that.
Fuck 'em. I want a company that's interested in getting the job done right, not playing stupid blame games when they screw up.
In which case, you need a boss who understands the politics and is ACTIVELY working to counter them AND has the support of HIS boss.
Politics happen in companies. Politics happen anytime you get 3 or more people working together.
It all comes down to different people having different agendas working together in a company with limited resources.
The sad thing is that once your technical skills are at the "minimally competent" level, you'd be better advised to learn corporate politics to further your career.
A technical genius without political skills can be used and abused by a mediocre technologist with good political skills.
It isn't about getting anything out of Microsoft. It isn't about the EULA.
It's about being able to say that it isn't YOUR fault. You did what EVERYONE ELSE was doing. Then you pull out the magazines and articles about how whatever just happened to you has been happening all over to other companies.
In many companies, it is more important to not be blamed for a problem than it is to be the one who solved a problem.
I would happily chose Linux over windows anytime if not for its crippling weaknesses.
What are those "crippling weaknesses"? Please be specific.
But for a normal user it is hell. It is
hard to configure, and learning to configure it takes ages to find out. The value saved by the free-ness of it is taken back by the amount of time needed to learn to use and configure it. It is hard to configure and can be very daunting.
Emphasis added.
Yes, I can see that you keep saying Linux is "hard to configure". But what, specifically, do you mean by that?
Most of the end users I deal with do NOT configure their systems. They take the defaults of the OS install and any app installs. The only things they "configure" are their backgrounds and sounds.
They say that its power and configure-ability is why so many geeks love it. Thats allright for geeks and all, but to the average user they do not care about such things.
But now you're saying that the end-users don't do much configuration. Which I would agree with. But then, why is "hard to configure" a problem when most end-users would not do it much anyway?
So I would like to ask the slashdot crowd. Linux is not ready for use with the general user yet. And until it is ready do not push it down the throat of the general public. It is bad for linux, it is bad for you(since linux would not get the acceptance you desire) and it is bad for them.
That's not a question. Those are statements.
This is a question that I will ask you: Aside from backgrounds and sounds, what will the typical (non-geek) end-user try to configure that will be more difficult than in Windows?
Also:
As a personal comment in regards to security, viruses et al., I would say that the amount of viruses, spywars, adwares depend on the market share of the operating system.
Actually, it depends upon the security model and the implementation of such. You are confusing "marketshare" with "security".
To me, Windows is "hard to configure" because I want the OS/apps installed in one partition and the data in a different one. With Windows, I have to trick it into moving "Program files" to another disk.
So, how did a comment without any specifics about what is "hard to configure" AND the classic "marketshare == security" dodge get mod'ed up 3 times?
I don't either. But, please, show me an example of a case were the United States intentionally attacked civilian targets in Iraq for only that purpose. Many people would like to pretend that the men in street-clothes armed with AK-47s and RPGs were, in fact, civilians, but that's bullshit and you know it.
The US does not target civilians. The US targets "training sites" and "safe houses" and "supporters", but never civilians.
Yet a lot of civilians tend to die during those attacks.
By your logic, as long as the WTC and Pentagon had some military/economic value, then it wasn't the "civilians" that were targetted.
The fact of the matter is, the modern-day U.S. military doesn't intentionally target civilians and does its absolute best to minimize civilian casualties. Can you honestly say the same for the terrorists you seem to sympathize with? You know--the same bastards who intentionally target EMS personnel (the people trying to SAVE lives) in Israel after a suicide bombing?
Hey, let's keep this on the topic at hand. Don't branch out to any other terrorist organization.
No it's not! There's an EXTREME psychological (and ethical) difference between a soldier who accidently kills a non-combatant and terrorist who intentionally kills as many innocent "infidels" as possible.
No. It's the same lack of concern for civilian lives. As long as the target is hit, it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed.
What makes you say that? A democratic, free Iraq is in the both Iraq's AND United State's best interests. It would undermine the legitimacy of every extremist Islam theocracy and finally give us an ally other than Israel in the region.
It is in our best interests, that is correct. But the GP's original statement that we are "not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq" is also correct.
We are creating a situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that will draw and create terrorists for years to come.
What kind of idealistic world do you live in? Were you honestly expecting a democratic Iraq to be established the day after Saddam was ousted?
Nope. But within a year, yes. After all, we only went in to take out Saddam and Co. Instead, we are STILL dropping BOMBS on their cities.
After World War II, Germany was in shambles and remained so for nearly a decade.
Yep, but we had done a LOT of damage to their cities. They had to rebuild almost everything.
In fact, with regard to recovery after a war and decades under a brutal regime, Iraq is doing amazingly well with respect to history.
If you want to compare it to history, Saddam had electricity and water back to pre-war conditions within a month after Gulf War I. Why can't we even accomplish what Saddam did?
These things have and always will take time. Temporary solutions, as uncomfortable as they may be for all sides, will have to do in the meantime. However, I assure you, once the Iraqi people are back on their feet, the U.S. will leave--just like we said we will.
I guess that depends upon how you define "once the Iraqi people are back on their feet".
I mean, why would we stay a second longer than we have to?
To make sure the new government does what we want it to.
Please don't tell me you're one of the people that buys that "No Blood for Oil" crap.
Some things done recently (Patriot Act, et al) have the potential to threaten civil liberties... IF ABUSED.
Can you show me where this has happened? Can you point to one instance where civil liberties have been actually curtailed? I'm really tired of this argument because no one seems to be able to point to something concrete. It seems as baseless as the fear-mongering about the draft.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/padilla_12-1 8- 03.html another example http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012286/site/news week/
US citizens. Arrested. No charge. No lawyer. No trial.
The deadline to pay off the national debt is NEVER. The debt can keep growing forever as long as GDP grows more.
Incorrect. The debt has interest. Eventually, all of the taxes you're collecting will go to pay for the interest on the debt.
So, you'd have to have a continuing increase in tax revenue that would at least match the increase in the interest upon the debt. And just matching it would mean that you're not improving the situation.
And here you reinforce my suspicion that you have no clue about how to raise children, and I'll go on a limb and say that you're probably not even in a committed relationship, to boot.
Whatever. I'll skip over the personal questions and focus on real examples.
At night, a mother will wake at the slightest cry from a newborn.
There are recorded instances of mothers killing their children and also allowing their children to be raped in exchange for drugs.
Learn what "continuum" means.
Fathers usually sleep the night through.
There are recorded instances of fathers risking their lives to save children from burning buildings.
Between mothers and fathers, and between men and women for that matter, there are deep, proven and well-understood differences which are psychological, emotional, and intellectual. Millions of years of evolution have seen to that. I suggest that you do a little research.
I have done the research. That is why I know that there are more differences between women at the extremes then there are between men and women at the middle.
So what does that prove? That alcoholics or psychogically damaged people make bad parents, nothing more.
It shows that your belief that basing "good" on sexual orientation is flawed.
To continue with your logic, an abusing, alcoholic father can raise a child better than a rabid pack of wolves.
Yes, that is correct.
Try to see the forest despite of all of those trees that you keep describing. You seem to talk about exceptions and aberrations of normal parenting, about the extremes of that continuum which you mention.
The forest is the trees.
The "normal parenting" that you're now retreating to is far different from the ideal parenting that you were originally talking about.
However, you completely ignore the center, where most families actually are, where the government is interested in because it provides for the most efficient institution for securing a healthy next generation.
I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I've mentioned it. Again, in the middle, there is less of a difference between men and women then there is between men and men at the extremes of the male continuum.
So you cannot say that sexual orientation defines a "good" parent relationship or a "good" role model.
That is the most assinine, useless approach I've ever heard, because it's impossible to thoroughly evaluate each situation of anything, and because trying to do so leads nowhere.
Actually, it is rather easy. Is there a history of violence or substance abuse etc.
Once you start defining your criteria for a "good" role model without including sexual orientation, you'll find that many homosexual couples are "better" parents than the hetrosexual couples who birth the children.
Have you ever heard the term "paralysis by analysis?" That is exactly what you're describing.
Nope. Just evaluating the relevent factors.
Your position is analogous to arguing against voting or sales tax because after all, each situation is different since each person earns differtly and can pax sales tax differently. How can you give the same value to the vote of the guy that didn't research as to the vote of the guy that spent months researching every candidate?
Okay, whatever. Have fun with your life. But the facts do not support your bias.
Slashdot Mirror
Look up "Air France Flight 8969" for more information.
I've spent years in German and they take terrorism very seriously. Their cops patrol with Uzi's.
What is the logic behind not having a firewall now? If you're typing this on
It is your fault. It is always the fault of the adminstrator UNLESS the vendor did NOT warn you that there was a vulnerability.
Whatever. An inexpensive hardware firewall is the first step.
If you don't want to pay for the firewall, then you need to spend the time learning how to secure your system.
If you are vulnerable to a known exploit, you are the only one to blame.
You make the claim, you support it. You have failed to support it.
:D
I said that he did not fund suicide attacks on Americans. You can either show that he did or accept that he did not.
Or are you asking me to show evidence of a financial transaction NOT EXISTING?
Nice talking to you.
Hmmm, you present, as evidence, a single unsubstantiated claim by an unreliable source.
:)
hehehehehehe
Sounds like you have a case of the Dan's.
The official government one. Look here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
This isn't about whether she chose to get pregnant. This is about the child. If it is about her choice, then rape would be a factor, and the life of the child would not be one.
They're just hitting the easiest places. We've lost more US citizens to terrorist attacks in the last year than in all of Clinton's 8 years combined (or in Bush I's 4 years, or in Ronnie's 8 years, etc).
Actually, the money portion is getting easier because Afghanistan (remember where Osama was hiding in the first place) has started cranking out poppies like never before. Chunks of the drug money are going straight to terrorists.
I must have completely mis-read that report. How silly of me.
Israel != The USofA
Sorry to the be one to break that to you.
I don't agree, but you are the first person I've seen who opposes abortion yet holds a consistent opinion on it.
For my part, I believe that the woman's right to her body outweighs any of the child's rights.
Otherwise, we would be legally demanding women be wombs first and foremost. Women still die (although it is uncommon now) during delivery.
That is with a small population in a confined area, yet they still manage to maintain 3 pure lines.
If they can do that for a longer period of time than the lines in America, then it does not make sense that the American lines would diverge from the original.
If they do mutate over time, you'd see more lines in 140K years of the original 3 lines than you'd see in the 30K years of the American lines.
But it is REVERSED.
The original lines stay pure for 140K years.
While the 60K year lines split over and over and over.
WHY is there a difference that does NOT include breeding with other tribes?
I am not accepting it. I'm asking WHY they show that and HOW they determine a "line".
That diagram is easy to accept IF you ignore the article and accept that they inter-bred with other tribes.
If you read the article, that chart does not make sense. NO mutations in 2 of the 3 lines over 140,000 years while 1 of the 3 lines mutates THIRTEEN TIMES in ONE HALF THE TIME and EACH mutation coincides with a geographic relocation.
The question is WHY does that 1 line differ so remarkably from the other 2 lines?
Yep. And that is your bias. Because having a single link supports your bias, you don't see anything wrong with it.
Whereas I look at the information and ask why they are linked.
Incorrect. Unless there are other people to breed with there, they should have the same DNA as the original tribe.
That was their whole point about using "mitochondrial DNA" for the female tracking.
From the article: "unchanged". Then.
So why is are there so few changes and those changes only happen when migrating to a new geographic region (aside from the afore mentioned 3-become-1)?
In other words, 2 of Eve's 3 original lines have been 100% resistant to change over all the years. While 1 of the 3 has undergone change after change after change after change, but only when moving to new locations.
Rather, it appears that they are charting sections of the DNA code, and placing an arbitrary limit on what constitutes a "new" "line" and tracing back these "lines" to support their bias.
Yet it then goes to branch 3 times. To me, that indicates at least 3 individuals, not the one. Unless they can dig up the original and the 3 daughters.
I find it interesting that they seem to indicate that the original 1,000 women would have 1,000 different sets of mitochondrial DNA.
Which gets back to bias. If you take the religious point of view, then believing in 1 Eve is easy.
If you take the evolutionary bias, then believing that those 1,000 women could all have the same mitochondrial DNA is easy. They are all descended from the same stock and there was inter-breeding.
Which would also support my belief that they aren't talking exact matches but are imposing an arbitrary limit on what constitutes a "line".
The core of science cannot refer or rely upon a God figure who magically imposes his will upon the universe.
Learn what "hypocrisy" means. Again, the core of science cannot refer or rely upon magic.
By definition, if it is an "omnipotent God", then nothing is "impossible".
Yet it is also 100% useless to refer or rely upon that in science. Science depends upon reproducible events. Miracles are not reproducible. Act of God are not reproducible.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~u
Some did have religious links, but others seem to have been toys for children. Archaeologists have been digging up toys for years.
Okay, Noah is at the top. He is represented as the top line.
Noah had 3 boys. They are represented by the 3 lines from the one top line.
Now, since Noah didn't reproduce asexually, how can we determine what his original line was since we only have the three lines of his sons?
Instead of the three lines merging to 1, they should be only the three original lines. Unless you could dig up Noah to map his genetics.
The same with Eve.
Also, those lines seem very tidy. Two of Eve's lines don't change at all while one of them changes based upon the geographical area. Why would it change based upon geography?
If it was because of radiation or food or whatever, wouldn't we expect to see a few more branches happening over time?
One of Eve's lines hit Asia and branches 6 times. And 2 of those branches never split again. In Asia, those original 6 branches are still shown. They only branch when they change geographic location.
To me, that indicates other tribes not connected to the original Eve and inter-breeding.
#2. Up research to "medium".
#3. Click as fast as you can to get the "sick" people to move near a hospital and click on "go to doctor".
Do that and you'll "win" every time.
Bingo. Their "games" are beyond boring and so easy to "win" once you understand the agenda the developer had.
Nothing bad happens if you choose the LOWEST cap. There aren't any choices. There isn't any thought involved. This games SUCKS!
What happens if I drop the cap to $1? Will I start to see "sick" people coming out of the hospital with surgical instruments left inside them? Will I see mutants because mothers were given the wrong drugs? What negative effects happen at the lower levels?
As you noted the designer determines what actions "win" the game and what actions "lose" the game. It is pure propoganda.
Reading the article, I realized that I had never heard of any of the games or companies mentioned.
From the article:
Now that sounds like a fun, fascinating game to play (sarcasm).
It seems this type of propoganda has a very real problem. IT'S BORING! It's hard enough to make a decent game WITHOUT having the political agenda. It seems almost impossible for these people.
http://www.takebackillinoisgame.com/play.aspx
Try it and see if you aren't as bored as I was.
I'd also recommend "The Prince" by Machiavelli. Also, take a few MBA courses. It helps to know how they think and what their phrases actually mean.
But no book will ever be able to replace the insights gained from person-to-person interaction. You have to learn how to be "friends" with people who annoy you and how to manipulate them into supporting your agenda. That takes practice and you shouldn't practice it at work. They probably already know it better than you do and will be able to spot your amateur attempts. Instead, look at non-work groups. Your local church is a great place to start. They are usually packed with inter-personal relationships and petty politics. A friend once gave me this bit of insight: "The politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small".
Politics is about manipulating people to achieve your agenda. Before you become good at politics, you have to be comfortable with that.
Politics happen in companies. Politics happen anytime you get 3 or more people working together.
It all comes down to different people having different agendas working together in a company with limited resources.
The sad thing is that once your technical skills are at the "minimally competent" level, you'd be better advised to learn corporate politics to further your career.
A technical genius without political skills can be used and abused by a mediocre technologist with good political skills.
It isn't about getting anything out of Microsoft. It isn't about the EULA.
It's about being able to say that it isn't YOUR fault. You did what EVERYONE ELSE was doing. Then you pull out the magazines and articles about how whatever just happened to you has been happening all over to other companies.
In many companies, it is more important to not be blamed for a problem than it is to be the one who solved a problem.
Emphasis added.
Yes, I can see that you keep saying Linux is "hard to configure". But what, specifically, do you mean by that?
Most of the end users I deal with do NOT configure their systems. They take the defaults of the OS install and any app installs. The only things they "configure" are their backgrounds and sounds.
But now you're saying that the end-users don't do much configuration. Which I would agree with. But then, why is "hard to configure" a problem when most end-users would not do it much anyway?
That's not a question. Those are statements.
This is a question that I will ask you: Aside from backgrounds and sounds, what will the typical (non-geek) end-user try to configure that will be more difficult than in Windows?
Also:Actually, it depends upon the security model and the implementation of such. You are confusing "marketshare" with "security".
To me, Windows is "hard to configure" because I want the OS/apps installed in one partition and the data in a different one. With Windows, I have to trick it into moving "Program files" to another disk.
So, how did a comment without any specifics about what is "hard to configure" AND the classic "marketshare == security" dodge get mod'ed up 3 times?
Is it okay to target the police in a police state?
Is it okay to target someone giving aid to the enemy's troops?
Is it okay to target someone giving information to the enemy about the resistance's membership/plans?
Yet a lot of civilians tend to die during those attacks.
By your logic, as long as the WTC and Pentagon had some military/economic value, then it wasn't the "civilians" that were targetted.
Hey, let's keep this on the topic at hand. Don't branch out to any other terrorist organization.
No. It's the same lack of concern for civilian lives. As long as the target is hit, it doesn't matter how many civilians are killed.
It is in our best interests, that is correct. But the GP's original statement that we are "not fighting for a democratic, free Iraq" is also correct.
We are creating a situation in Iraq and Afghanistan that will draw and create terrorists for years to come.
Nope. But within a year, yes. After all, we only went in to take out Saddam and Co. Instead, we are STILL dropping BOMBS on their cities.
Yep, but we had done a LOT of damage to their cities. They had to rebuild almost everything.
If you want to compare it to history, Saddam had electricity and water back to pre-war conditions within a month after Gulf War I. Why can't we even accomplish what Saddam did?
I guess that depends upon how you define "once the Iraqi people are back on their feet".
To make sure the new government does what we want it to.
So we should do the blood for oil thing?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/padilla_12-
another example
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012286/site/new
US citizens. Arrested. No charge. No lawyer. No trial.
So, you'd have to have a continuing increase in tax revenue that would at least match the increase in the interest upon the debt. And just matching it would mean that you're not improving the situation.
There are recorded instances of mothers killing their children and also allowing their children to be raped in exchange for drugs.
Learn what "continuum" means.
There are recorded instances of fathers risking their lives to save children from burning buildings.
I have done the research. That is why I know that there are more differences between women at the extremes then there are between men and women at the middle.
It shows that your belief that basing "good" on sexual orientation is flawed.
Yes, that is correct.
The forest is the trees.
The "normal parenting" that you're now retreating to is far different from the ideal parenting that you were originally talking about.
I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I've mentioned it. Again, in the middle, there is less of a difference between men and women then there is between men and men at the extremes of the male continuum.
So you cannot say that sexual orientation defines a "good" parent relationship or a "good" role model.
Actually, it is rather easy. Is there a history of violence or substance abuse etc.
Once you start defining your criteria for a "good" role model without including sexual orientation, you'll find that many homosexual couples are "better" parents than the hetrosexual couples who birth the children.
Nope. Just evaluating the relevent factors.
Okay, whatever. Have fun with your life. But the facts do not support your bias.