I take issue with more with the fact that the politician is dishonest than what he political system he adheres to.
Uhhh...huh? Paraphrasing: the guy says "I used to be a communist." Then he says in the same interview "after a few years of that my beliefs started change." Finally he says "now I believe the private sector is necessary and is the best way to solve these important problems." Where's the dishonesty?
You don't know what "communist" means, do you? You do realize "believ[ing] that the private sector is the only organization capable of actually solving the problems he believes faces the country" is very strong evidence that he's not a communist, don't you?
No. You've obviously read the first paragraph, and the last paragraph, but there's good stuff in the middle:
So Jones was a self-avowed communist. But is he still? The answer lies in the very same article.
Even before the group disbanded in 2002, the Express article says, "Jones began transforming his politics and work..."
According to the article, "He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists -- shudder, shudder -- who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said."
And even better:
"There will surely be an important role for nonprofit voluntary, cooperative, and community-based solutions," Jones writes on page 86. "But the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither the government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.
"So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs -- and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world -- and everyone else."
In context, yes, Beck is a liar for saying the guy's a communist.
On the face of it, it seems to be a slanderous/libelous accusation intended specifically to smear someone in public, so there was a legitimate case to be made against it.
Yes, in a US COURT...not before an international tribute designed to resolve trademark and copyright issues.
It doesn't look like he did abuse the system, unless I'm missing some fine point.
He brought this to the WIPO, which is intended to resolve intellectual property rights, not defamation torts. A proper use of the system would have been to file a defamation action in a US court of general jurisdiction.
I think that's what the case was about. Mr. Beck and his attorneys thought the site was libelous, the creator thought it was parody/satire. The judge sided with the creator. I don't see where it was incorrect to bring about a suit and from all reports it was handled correctly and professionally.
No, that's the thing; it was a libel suit, brought before a domain name tribunal. Completely improper and inappropriate. And it was brought there because they knew they'd have no chance in an actual court, trying to show libel.
The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers.
The result is this is preaching to the base and will do nothing but amuse one base and rally the other.
End result more polarization which is exactly what WE DON"T NEED.
Beck's base cannot be any more polarized, or rallied. They live in a fantasyland.
Irrelevant. The question isn't whether it provokes outrage, it's whether it was legal. Glenn Beck and his fans are all perfectly entitled to be enraged, but Beck shouldn't try to abuse the system in order to shut the website down.
There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe? Because that would be the biggest legal news in years.
I think you read too much into that exchange. A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades. Why did it take so long? Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause. They didn't want to bring just any case - they wanted the "perfect" case where they could be certain of the outcome (i.e. SCOTUS sides with the gun owner).
The NRA was petrified about Heller and didn't want to go for it because they thought the risks were too great. It took a non-gun-owning lawyer to actually start the case, and the NRA tried to torpedo it. Of course they took credit for it after it passed.
Did you finish it? Did you (not) notice the absurd truncation and lack of ending?
Yes, that really, really sucked, but even with that KOTOR was still a good game. It just missed being amazing; the potential was there, in fact up to the truncation I think it was better than KOTOR 1 storywise.
Mocking up? You might as well just make it up. Stick a few trekkish terms in there - quasitron throughput and such - and see if anyone bites.
And when the CFO, who unbeknownst to you has a BS in physics, gets angry? Executives aren't as dumb as people here like to think, generally they just tend to lack practical, hands-on knowledge of the technology, because they honestly don't really have to know.
how about asking them what they want to see? Prepare a short document listing what information you can provide them and in what format, and ask them what they want to see. How often, what detail, etc.
That's a good idea; I'd also suggest maybe mocking up 2 or 3 examples and letting them see.
But then I've long thought Puritan americans have a mental aberration where they can see violence on television without concern (think 24), but fear nudity (like Janet Jackson's naked breast). That can't be normal.
I have never understood this weird and insupportable belief on slashdot that this is somehow restricted to Americans. In terms of acceptance of violence vs. acceptance of sex in media, America falls somewhere in the middle--less permissive of sex than England, but more than say India, or several Asian countries, or just about the entire Middle East. Dismissing it as uniquely American is pure eurocentrism.
I think you're confused about the English language! "In America" certainly includes any country in either North or South America.
English is defined by customary usage. If you said "In America" to 100 English speakers, MAYBE one would include any other country than the US. If you're lucky.
Ok, grasshopper, ant, etc. I guess. I think I just thrive on uncertainty and change. I'm not where I wanted to be, but I've been to some interesting places in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
I take issue with more with the fact that the politician is dishonest than what he political system he adheres to.
Uhhh...huh? Paraphrasing: the guy says "I used to be a communist." Then he says in the same interview "after a few years of that my beliefs started change." Finally he says "now I believe the private sector is necessary and is the best way to solve these important problems." Where's the dishonesty?
Tribunal I meant, not tribute.
You don't know what "communist" means, do you? You do realize "believ[ing] that the private sector is the only organization capable of actually solving the problems he believes faces the country" is very strong evidence that he's not a communist, don't you?
No. You've obviously read the first paragraph, and the last paragraph, but there's good stuff in the middle:
And even better:
In context, yes, Beck is a liar for saying the guy's a communist.
On the face of it, it seems to be a slanderous/libelous accusation intended specifically to smear someone in public, so there was a legitimate case to be made against it.
Yes, in a US COURT...not before an international tribute designed to resolve trademark and copyright issues.
It doesn't look like he did abuse the system, unless I'm missing some fine point.
He brought this to the WIPO, which is intended to resolve intellectual property rights, not defamation torts. A proper use of the system would have been to file a defamation action in a US court of general jurisdiction.
I think that's what the case was about. Mr. Beck and his attorneys thought the site was libelous, the creator thought it was parody/satire. The judge sided with the creator. I don't see where it was incorrect to bring about a suit and from all reports it was handled correctly and professionally.
No, that's the thing; it was a libel suit, brought before a domain name tribunal. Completely improper and inappropriate. And it was brought there because they knew they'd have no chance in an actual court, trying to show libel.
The thing that I don't understand is that Glenn gets on his show and shows video of some member of saying something like, "I used to be a communist. Now I'm a radical communist." and people attack Glenn Beck!!??!! The only refutations of what Glenn Beck says are personal insults against him and his viewers.
Refuted.
I don't really see how it's that "big" a claim. I'm not like saying the earth is flat or all our politicians were replaced with aliens. Those would be pretty big claims. But anyway:
"Alan Gura, the Alexandria, Va., lawyer who masterminded the challenge to the D.C. handgun ban, says the NRA has joined him "ever so grudgingly" only in recent weeks, after years of trying to wreck the litigation and avoid a Second Amendment showdown. At earlier stages, the NRA sought to consolidate its own case, which challenged the D.C. law on a "kitchen sink" array of rationales, with Gura's. In a 2003 filing, Gura called the NRA case "sham litigation" aimed at muddying his Second Amendment claim."
The result is this is preaching to the base and will do nothing but amuse one base and rally the other. End result more polarization which is exactly what WE DON"T NEED.
Beck's base cannot be any more polarized, or rallied. They live in a fantasyland.
Irrelevant. The question isn't whether it provokes outrage, it's whether it was legal. Glenn Beck and his fans are all perfectly entitled to be enraged, but Beck shouldn't try to abuse the system in order to shut the website down.
There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe? Because that would be the biggest legal news in years.
I think you read too much into that exchange. A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades. Why did it take so long? Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause. They didn't want to bring just any case - they wanted the "perfect" case where they could be certain of the outcome (i.e. SCOTUS sides with the gun owner).
The NRA was petrified about Heller and didn't want to go for it because they thought the risks were too great. It took a non-gun-owning lawyer to actually start the case, and the NRA tried to torpedo it. Of course they took credit for it after it passed.
In order to re-release a game like Torment they would have to track down everyone with rights to the game and secure permission.
Trust me, with Planescape it would be worth the effort. Best game ever.
Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade."
Computer scientists and economists? What about the actual mathematicians?
Did you finish it? Did you (not) notice the absurd truncation and lack of ending?
Yes, that really, really sucked, but even with that KOTOR was still a good game. It just missed being amazing; the potential was there, in fact up to the truncation I think it was better than KOTOR 1 storywise.
Mocking up? You might as well just make it up. Stick a few trekkish terms in there - quasitron throughput and such - and see if anyone bites.
And when the CFO, who unbeknownst to you has a BS in physics, gets angry? Executives aren't as dumb as people here like to think, generally they just tend to lack practical, hands-on knowledge of the technology, because they honestly don't really have to know.
If you are concerned about supporting the reasoning behind the existence of your job, it is time to depart.
Never a better time than moving now, the job market is BOOMING...
how about asking them what they want to see? Prepare a short document listing what information you can provide them and in what format, and ask them what they want to see. How often, what detail, etc.
That's a good idea; I'd also suggest maybe mocking up 2 or 3 examples and letting them see.
You need to be careful about talking about "Asian countries".
Which is why I said "several Asian countries," not just "Asian countries."
Or a monorail.
Is there a chance the track could bend?
But then I've long thought Puritan americans have a mental aberration where they can see violence on television without concern (think 24), but fear nudity (like Janet Jackson's naked breast). That can't be normal.
I have never understood this weird and insupportable belief on slashdot that this is somehow restricted to Americans. In terms of acceptance of violence vs. acceptance of sex in media, America falls somewhere in the middle--less permissive of sex than England, but more than say India, or several Asian countries, or just about the entire Middle East. Dismissing it as uniquely American is pure eurocentrism.
I think you're confused about the English language! "In America" certainly includes any country in either North or South America.
English is defined by customary usage. If you said "In America" to 100 English speakers, MAYBE one would include any other country than the US. If you're lucky.
What is guaranteed? Does being on top guarantee that you'll stay on top?
Actually, kinda. The superwealthy, though their fortunes might fluctuate, are forever out of the rat race.
Ok, grasshopper, ant, etc. I guess. I think I just thrive on uncertainty and change. I'm not where I wanted to be, but I've been to some interesting places in the meantime.