I'm sorry, but how is it possible that someone smart enough to post on/. can't see that there IS ONLY ONE PARTY? It's been that way for years.
No, they're not. That's just something people say when they don't really know what's going on but don't want to sound ignorant. Go watch C-SPAN, hell watch CNN--do you think we would be in Iraq if the Democrats had won the presidency in 2000? There are hundreds of thousands of deaths that probably wouldn't have happened, including thousands of US citizens--go tell their families that the parties are the same.
Look at all the money spent on lobbying--why do you think companies spend so much on it if the parties are the same?
If a country has a sole isp what makes you think they can afford to upgrade to IPv6
Ummm, it's a very wealthy country. They have less than a million people, which is why a sole ISP might make sense, but they're not exactly suffering from poverty.
Re:Posthumous Award.....
on
Darwin Awards 2006
·
· Score: 2, Informative
your body will tell you when you are doing something you shouldn't be doing. To over-hydrate and not know it is baloney
I strenuously disagree. Death by over-hydration happens frequently because people don't realize they're overhydrated. The symptoms of overhydration are similar to those for a lot of other medical conditions (bizarrely, a lot of them mimic the symptoms for dehydration).
The only tax on income in Florida is the federal income tax and a tax on intangibles such as devidents on stocks.
That's what I'm talking about. The New York State income tax is, at its highest, 7.7% (and that's if you're making over $500,001.00 a year). If you're making a more average salary it's 6.85%. State income taxes, while not negligible, are a lot smaller than the federal income tax across all income ranges.
The point is that if the NAME of the organization is the "American Civil Liberties Union", you might reasonably expect them to be interested in preserving civil liberties.
No, your point was the ACLU is for the ban 100%. "Not actively fighting something" is not the same as "supporting something 100%".
Coming from New York (a very pro-socialist state) to Florida (a very anti-socialist state) I can tell you from FIRST HAND experience that the patients recieve better care, the staff recieves better compensation (and that income is not taxed) and those without insurance are still able to recieve top-rate care, regardless of circumstances. Socialized healthcare is not in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
Coming from New York to Florida I've found the opposite. And of course their income is taxed down here. There may not be state taxes, but in NY state taxes are a very small chunk of the total income tax you pay.
Any so-called engineer would believes the moon hoax garbage wouldn't last half a day working for me.
Actually I've found that engineers are a little bit more likely to believe in weird stuff like that. Look at how many Intelligent Design theorists are engineers.
Depends on what you're teaching. The more likely a professor is able to find high-paying jobs outside academia, the higher their academic salary will be. At my law school the profs were pushing high six figures, and I'm sure it's similar for medical school. In many science and technology fields they get royalties as well.
The best thing to do is ask whatever lawyer you're presented with, "are you representing me or are you representing my company?". If he says both, be careful. If he says just you, you should be good. I do think in a lot of situations it's in the company's best interest to protect their employees; they're usually being the one sued, and the last thing they want is a vengeful, sold-out employee who's willing to testify against them now.
You have to wonder if some laws weren't created for the express purpose of making unnecessary work that benefits the lawyers more than the public at large. The rules for stock options gets changed, an army of auditors scours the book, the lawyers are called in and the media has a field day. The public may or may not benefit from this. Auditors and lawyers are making a ton of money. Shareholders are getting soaked either way.
Maybe, but I don't think that's the case here. It shouldn't take a lawyer telling you that modifying documents to reflect something that just isn't true could possibly be wrong. ESPECIALLY for a public company.
Ok, I'm a lawyer so I'm a bit biased here (all in all, I'd rather not be killed), but what exactly evoked this anti-lawyer sentiment? You think it's not fair that people were caught falsifying documents? I'm confused.
A store detective has no special powers above any citizen.
The other reply does a good job of defining the shopkeeper's privilege, I just wanted to mention that as an agent of the landowner (or leasor), the store detective does have a bit more power than a private citizen would in that store, the same way you have more power to deal with people in your house than someone else would (i.e. you can make other people leave, protect your property, etc.)
Actually in most, if not all states, a "shopkeeper's privilege" exists where they're allowed to detain you if they have a "reasonable belief" you've stolen something. Note a "reasonable belief" isn't as strict as "proof".
The biggest thing against games right now is how new they are. You get these hugely violent movies, above and beyond the pale, and no one cares.
What do you mean? There have been vocal opponents of violence in movies for decades. Same goes for TV, and I'm guessing they were successful because TV today is a lot less violent than it was in the 80's. Video games are not, and have never been, the sole targets for the anti-violence crowd.
I'll leave that to you to prove. Or will I ? . . . You tell me what I'm thinking.
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. On that cold morning of Dec. 26, Defendant put on his reflective hunting vest, grabbed his shotgun, and headed out. He sees what appears to be a deer; the very deer that we showed you in this trial. Lifelike, wasn't it? Now he's here, insulting your intelligence and mine, by claiming that he in fact knew it was a fake deer, but shot it anyway. He seems to be under the delusion that because we can't read his mind, there's no way to disprove this. But what his intent was is a question of fact, something that which it is YOUR duty, ladies and gentleman, to decide. You can base your decision on his actions, and what a reasonable person would believe in his situation."
In order to have a legitimate cause of action for a civil tort you need some sort of injury; sounds like her jury heard either some kind of emotional distress case, which can qualify as an injury, or an assault case, where the "threat of imminent harm" counts as an injury, legally speaking.
But if someone sees the fake deer and decides that it's reckless to put it on the side of the road (even if it is), but doesn't really suffer some sort of personal injury because of it, they can't sue.
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to an attempt crime. Just because the gun was unloaded even though you thought it was loaded, or that the cocaine you tried to buy is baking powder, or that 16-year-old girl on AIM was really a deputy sheriff, does not mean you're getting away scott-free.
Companies try that a lot; it's not a very successful thing to do, though. Under the law in most states the company can be held responsible for acts of their employees if those acts are done in the scope of their employment. Giving bonuses to employees falls in that category.
I disagree. He's a shameless self-promoter but in the long run he's been less responsible for the corporate adoption of linux than a lot less well-known people, such as Matt Szulik, Marc Ewing, or Rob McCool. He has a tendency of taking over projects and putting his name on them, which I also find arrogant. Look at popclient, for example. Or the Jargon File, which not only did he take over against the wishes of many of the original creators, but then proceeded to implant his own political beliefs in.
Sure, he may be largely a pundit but dismissing him seems foolish and short-sighted.
Why? If I feel a pundit is wrong most of the time, why shouldn't I dismiss him? Besides which, he doesn't just present himself as a pundit; he considers himself an elite hacker, or in his words he's "one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work". Considering his singularly unimpressive coding portfolio, that comes off as arrogant and pretentious.
Anyway I've been reading more and more comments on/. lately that show a surprising A) disregard or B) ignorance regarding the actual figures behind the movement we fallen into.
Now you've shifted the conversation, turning it into "if you don't like ESR you must hate Torvalds too". I've been using Linux off and on since 1994; I make no pretense about being an expert on it, but I have seen how it's evolved and I have a great deal of respect for the people who effected that evolution. I just don't consider Raymond one of them to any appreciable degree. And I think you're wrong in that the people who seem to have the highest regard for Raymond are the newer users who don't really have a good grasp of the history of Linux, not the people who have been around for a while.
I read the Cathedral and the Bazaar on a trip to SF about 6 years ago (on my old Franklin eBook!)
There's also a certain hypocrisy in what he says and what he does. For someone who likes to promote the "bazaar"-style of development, his behavior regarding fetchmail and CML2 seems to contradict his advocacy. And the man actually told Richard Stallman to "shut up and show them the code". Stallman, whether or not you agree with most of his beliefs (I personally am sympathetic towards them, but I understand the problem people have with him) is a superlative coder, one of the best that's been around. For Raymond, a mediocre coder at best, to tell Stallman to stop advocating free software and get back to coding is pretty damn presumptuous.
Seeing these people speak has definitely helped me understand their motives and inspiration. I've gained respect for people who started a fight for ideas long before it was trendy or smartly debatable.
You don't need much courage to champion Linux or denigrate Microsoft, and you never have. We're not resistance fighters in danger of life and limb here, and plenty of people have been advocating unixlike systems well before Raymond (or Linux).
If ESR has something to say I'll listen to it. He's proven himself already.
Again, I disagree. Every once in a while he'll come up with some grand prediction or plan. How often does it actually come true? This is the man who predicted that Sun was "doomed" back in 2003.
And I'm not even going to get into his racism, his thuggish behavior towards people he disagrees with (threatening Bruce Perens, for example), or his repulsive political views.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but how is it possible that someone smart enough to post on /. can't see that there IS ONLY ONE PARTY? It's been that way for years.
No, they're not. That's just something people say when they don't really know what's going on but don't want to sound ignorant. Go watch C-SPAN, hell watch CNN--do you think we would be in Iraq if the Democrats had won the presidency in 2000? There are hundreds of thousands of deaths that probably wouldn't have happened, including thousands of US citizens--go tell their families that the parties are the same.
Look at all the money spent on lobbying--why do you think companies spend so much on it if the parties are the same?
If a country has a sole isp what makes you think they can afford to upgrade to IPv6
Ummm, it's a very wealthy country. They have less than a million people, which is why a sole ISP might make sense, but they're not exactly suffering from poverty.
your body will tell you when you are doing something you shouldn't be doing. To over-hydrate and not know it is baloney
I strenuously disagree. Death by over-hydration happens frequently because people don't realize they're overhydrated. The symptoms of overhydration are similar to those for a lot of other medical conditions (bizarrely, a lot of them mimic the symptoms for dehydration).
The only tax on income in Florida is the federal income tax and a tax on intangibles such as devidents on stocks.
That's what I'm talking about. The New York State income tax is, at its highest, 7.7% (and that's if you're making over $500,001.00 a year). If you're making a more average salary it's 6.85%. State income taxes, while not negligible, are a lot smaller than the federal income tax across all income ranges.
The point is that if the NAME of the organization is the "American Civil Liberties Union", you might reasonably expect them to be interested in preserving civil liberties.
No, your point was the ACLU is for the ban 100%. "Not actively fighting something" is not the same as "supporting something 100%".
Coming from New York (a very pro-socialist state) to Florida (a very anti-socialist state) I can tell you from FIRST HAND experience that the patients recieve better care, the staff recieves better compensation (and that income is not taxed) and those without insurance are still able to recieve top-rate care, regardless of circumstances. Socialized healthcare is not in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
Coming from New York to Florida I've found the opposite. And of course their income is taxed down here. There may not be state taxes, but in NY state taxes are a very small chunk of the total income tax you pay.
Any so-called engineer would believes the moon hoax garbage wouldn't last half a day working for me.
Actually I've found that engineers are a little bit more likely to believe in weird stuff like that. Look at how many Intelligent Design theorists are engineers.
Depends on what you're teaching. The more likely a professor is able to find high-paying jobs outside academia, the higher their academic salary will be. At my law school the profs were pushing high six figures, and I'm sure it's similar for medical school. In many science and technology fields they get royalties as well.
A Wall Street Journal columnist
Cool, you establish the lack of credibility with the first sentence; that's very convenient.
The best thing to do is ask whatever lawyer you're presented with, "are you representing me or are you representing my company?". If he says both, be careful. If he says just you, you should be good. I do think in a lot of situations it's in the company's best interest to protect their employees; they're usually being the one sued, and the last thing they want is a vengeful, sold-out employee who's willing to testify against them now.
You have to wonder if some laws weren't created for the express purpose of making unnecessary work that benefits the lawyers more than the public at large. The rules for stock options gets changed, an army of auditors scours the book, the lawyers are called in and the media has a field day. The public may or may not benefit from this. Auditors and lawyers are making a ton of money. Shareholders are getting soaked either way.
Maybe, but I don't think that's the case here. It shouldn't take a lawyer telling you that modifying documents to reflect something that just isn't true could possibly be wrong. ESPECIALLY for a public company.
...need to kill all the lawyers.
Uhhh...huh?
Ok, I'm a lawyer so I'm a bit biased here (all in all, I'd rather not be killed), but what exactly evoked this anti-lawyer sentiment? You think it's not fair that people were caught falsifying documents? I'm confused.
A store detective has no special powers above any citizen.
The other reply does a good job of defining the shopkeeper's privilege, I just wanted to mention that as an agent of the landowner (or leasor), the store detective does have a bit more power than a private citizen would in that store, the same way you have more power to deal with people in your house than someone else would (i.e. you can make other people leave, protect your property, etc.)
Actually in most, if not all states, a "shopkeeper's privilege" exists where they're allowed to detain you if they have a "reasonable belief" you've stolen something. Note a "reasonable belief" isn't as strict as "proof".
Not relevant to my point. I was simply pointing out that the statement "no one cares" about violent movies is demonstrably false.
The biggest thing against games right now is how new they are. You get these hugely violent movies, above and beyond the pale, and no one cares.
What do you mean? There have been vocal opponents of violence in movies for decades. Same goes for TV, and I'm guessing they were successful because TV today is a lot less violent than it was in the 80's. Video games are not, and have never been, the sole targets for the anti-violence crowd.
And if the jury decides that he thought it was real, they can convict him of the crime of attempt.
Sure they explode, because they have foil inlays in them, and we all know what happens when you microwave foil. But they don't have RFIDs.
I'll leave that to you to prove. Or will I ? . . . You tell me what I'm thinking.
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury. On that cold morning of Dec. 26, Defendant put on his reflective hunting vest, grabbed his shotgun, and headed out. He sees what appears to be a deer; the very deer that we showed you in this trial. Lifelike, wasn't it? Now he's here, insulting your intelligence and mine, by claiming that he in fact knew it was a fake deer, but shot it anyway. He seems to be under the delusion that because we can't read his mind, there's no way to disprove this. But what his intent was is a question of fact, something that which it is YOUR duty, ladies and gentleman, to decide. You can base your decision on his actions, and what a reasonable person would believe in his situation."
US money doesn't have RFID tags. Yet.
In order to have a legitimate cause of action for a civil tort you need some sort of injury; sounds like her jury heard either some kind of emotional distress case, which can qualify as an injury, or an assault case, where the "threat of imminent harm" counts as an injury, legally speaking.
But if someone sees the fake deer and decides that it's reckless to put it on the side of the road (even if it is), but doesn't really suffer some sort of personal injury because of it, they can't sue.
Screw that, I'd consider suing the warden or the state for reckless endangerment if they put it on the side of the road.
You might be able to--if it actually resulted in you getting shot. You can't sue people because you might have been injured.
What a great idea! Goading hunters to shoot at a target just a few feet/meters of the road where cars pass.
I don't see the "goading".
Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to an attempt crime. Just because the gun was unloaded even though you thought it was loaded, or that the cocaine you tried to buy is baking powder, or that 16-year-old girl on AIM was really a deputy sheriff, does not mean you're getting away scott-free.
Hangs her out in the breeze nicely.
Companies try that a lot; it's not a very successful thing to do, though. Under the law in most states the company can be held responsible for acts of their employees if those acts are done in the scope of their employment. Giving bonuses to employees falls in that category.
He's been central for a very long time.
/. lately that show a surprising A) disregard or B) ignorance regarding the actual figures behind the movement we fallen into.
I disagree. He's a shameless self-promoter but in the long run he's been less responsible for the corporate adoption of linux than a lot less well-known people, such as Matt Szulik, Marc Ewing, or Rob McCool. He has a tendency of taking over projects and putting his name on them, which I also find arrogant. Look at popclient, for example. Or the Jargon File, which not only did he take over against the wishes of many of the original creators, but then proceeded to implant his own political beliefs in.
Sure, he may be largely a pundit but dismissing him seems foolish and short-sighted.
Why? If I feel a pundit is wrong most of the time, why shouldn't I dismiss him? Besides which, he doesn't just present himself as a pundit; he considers himself an elite hacker, or in his words he's "one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work". Considering his singularly unimpressive coding portfolio, that comes off as arrogant and pretentious.
Anyway I've been reading more and more comments on
Now you've shifted the conversation, turning it into "if you don't like ESR you must hate Torvalds too". I've been using Linux off and on since 1994; I make no pretense about being an expert on it, but I have seen how it's evolved and I have a great deal of respect for the people who effected that evolution. I just don't consider Raymond one of them to any appreciable degree. And I think you're wrong in that the people who seem to have the highest regard for Raymond are the newer users who don't really have a good grasp of the history of Linux, not the people who have been around for a while.
I read the Cathedral and the Bazaar on a trip to SF about 6 years ago (on my old Franklin eBook!)
There's also a certain hypocrisy in what he says and what he does. For someone who likes to promote the "bazaar"-style of development, his behavior regarding fetchmail and CML2 seems to contradict his advocacy. And the man actually told Richard Stallman to "shut up and show them the code". Stallman, whether or not you agree with most of his beliefs (I personally am sympathetic towards them, but I understand the problem people have with him) is a superlative coder, one of the best that's been around. For Raymond, a mediocre coder at best, to tell Stallman to stop advocating free software and get back to coding is pretty damn presumptuous.
Seeing these people speak has definitely helped me understand their motives and inspiration. I've gained respect for people who started a fight for ideas long before it was trendy or smartly debatable.
You don't need much courage to champion Linux or denigrate Microsoft, and you never have. We're not resistance fighters in danger of life and limb here, and plenty of people have been advocating unixlike systems well before Raymond (or Linux).
If ESR has something to say I'll listen to it. He's proven himself already.
Again, I disagree. Every once in a while he'll come up with some grand prediction or plan. How often does it actually come true? This is the man who predicted that Sun was "doomed" back in 2003.
And I'm not even going to get into his racism, his thuggish behavior towards people he disagrees with (threatening Bruce Perens, for example), or his repulsive political views.