Quite often, yes, the woman who gets beaten IS asking for it. This is why you find women who leave one abusive man, only to end up with another, and another, and another. It's in their personality - not that they're whiny. They're simply attracted to men who assert their dominance. And they know how to push the buttons of such men, and they do it for the turn-on.
But that doesn't make it their fault. It's still the hitter's fault. One who cannot control one's own behavior, surely doesn't deserve to dominate anyone else. They continue to try to do so - but not well.
Example: I know, and have worked with a lot of really smart engineers, and programmers. People who could code circles around me in their sleep.
On the other hand, when it comes to troubleshooting, they can't troubleshoot their way out of a wet paper bag.
Often, it's my work and skills that come into play to save their asses when they're blocked in a project with an approaching due date.
But because THEY are "the engineers" they make about 25% more than I do. If I sat down and learned to code (that is, took the time to memorize a bunch of API libraries; I already understand language syntax, and know my way around a stack trace), I suppose I could eventually get a job somewhere making that much money as an "engineer". But it's not what this Tigger does best, nor is it what I enjoy doing. It's a shame, because I really wish I could earn as much as I was earning 2 years ago when I was a living breathing Tulip Bulb. Unfortunately, now I'm just a "Technician".
Sure, "blaming the victim" sounds kind of harsh, but when you think about it, in life, there's really only ONE law. The law of the jungle. All other laws are made up by people, and enforced by people, people with the biggest guns - again, the law of the jungle.
There is no freedom that can be given to a person, that isn't some form of collar-and-lead. True Freedom must be TAKEN. (which is what you're talking about with your backlash).
Tragic, yes. But it's human nature. Learn to live with it, even channel it, harness it. But fight it, ignore it, supress it, and it will lead to disaster.
This topic has been discussed to death many times on Slashdot, going back to before Columbine.
There are basically a couple of patterns that have emerged:
- The geek whining about how bad life was, and thankful that they've found some way to escape that. Often rationalizing why things were that way, blaming parents, the school system, etc.
- The ex-geek, who used to have a hard time, but somehow "figured out" how to change things; often by learning to dress well, assert themselves socially, kicking someone's ass publicly.
- The non-geek, who just doesn't get it, never understood, never will understand, never had these problems, perhaps was a bully themselves, or a minion of a bully.
Your story, t0quer, maybe you're right, maybe it was your parents fault - maybe you had an overly-strong mother who never let your father assert himself, and never taught you to assert yourself.
But in the end, all the unhappiness has to do with having an inner urge to assert your dominance, and not having the skills or opportunity to do so. There's always a social framework which makes it impossible for some people to assert their dominance. Often, that framework is economics ("we were too poor for me to dress nice") or simple physics ("I was too small/weak/uncoordinated to excel at sports - or physically defend myself from bullies") or eloquence ("people called me names and I didn't have any good come-backs").
Well, it's all about looking at that framework, and finding another way. There are so many different avenues for people to channel dominance, if you think about it, it has truly driven human endeavors in many different directions. If you can't win at Football, win at Baseball. If you can't win at Baseball, win at Golf. If you can't win at any sport, win at academics. If you can't win at academics, find something else. In the end, yes - many of these avenues are marginal at best, within the context of all human endeavors. Look at how important professional sports are to the vast majority of Americans. Most people actually assert their dominance and channel their agression by rooting for their favorite team (and hopefully, that team wins). Or learning every useless sports statistic. Can these people punt, run, pass or score? No. But they live vicariously through their sports stars. Or Movie stars. Or political leaders. Or favorite academic pedagog. The point is - find your own path and win at it. Nobody thought that physics geeks were ever going to be all that important. Nobody considers someone like Goddard to have "Rock-Star" status. But when you look at American Domination of Space Launch back in the 60's and 70's - the moon landing sure was more important than football.
My final word on this - and it's the same overall message as my last post - for those who do find their path and assert their dominance, remember humility. Don't be a bully. This power is easily abused, and that is the source of everything that's wrong in the world today.
It has to do with the social politics of Domination and Submission.
Quite often, when a teenaged boy is given the awesome responsibility of being Dominant, due, usually either to Physical Prowess, Superior Economic Position, or Respect of Adults (usually in an environment where the other kids resect the adults in-turn; rare these days), there's a very good chance that they screw it up and abuse their position of power - typically by bullying. It's a mistake that the truly good leaders learn to avoid later in life (and the truly rotten leaders continue to make - to the detriment of ALL humanity).
The target of the bullying, of course, are the Submissives - either people who, by mild personality, or lack of the above listed dominant traits, are cast in the submissive role. Sure, the more a submissive "goes along" with that role, the more they'll be accepted by a good dominant leader. But the immature, abusive dominants, either out of fear, or simple arrogance, will continue to abuse them even more.
In the D/S community, there's an "Old Guard" that lives by the philosophy that no person can be a good Dominant, until they've lived (been trained) as a Submissive. That means learning humility. Not coincidentally, this is how good soldiers are trained. In basic training, their pride is broken down, and then built up based on confidence in their own acheivement. This is also the basis of the "rite of passage" ritual common to most "primative" cultures (and absent in our own culture). There's much to be said in favor of such a system, and perhaps the reason we end up with a lot of terrible bullies and rotten tyrants is due to this lack of systematic "rite of passage" rituals in our culture - or the fact that the "rite of passage" rituals have been watered down by the "political correctness" crew to the point of utter uselessness. Or when you get someone who's been "born with a silver spoon" - has been handed everything in life, never had to work for it. Their rites of passage were made easy for them by parents who just could not let go of their children and let them become their own person by their own hand.
Another factor is those who are forced to submit to a Dominant, but still have a Dominant urge - often try to change the rules of the game, or play a different game. If the person cannot dominate at sports, they learn to dominate in academics, or computers, or music, or bomb-making. Etc. (incidentally - the goal of prevention of "another Columbine" should be to identify those who need to channel this dominant agression, and giving them a way to channel it harmlessly - NOT imposing rules in order to enforce their submission further).
These are very important biological urges in the Human Animal - they should neither be denied, nor ignored. They need to be understood, and channeled in a positive manner. When they're not, they're the source of probably most of what troubles us in the world today.
No, I think an ICBM would just about do the trick too, take off the warhead, and your payload becomes the third stage, get the third stage out of LEO using about half it's fuel (very rough assumption, expecially since we also would have had to fit it with appropriate guidance and maneuvering systems), land the 3rd stage ass-end-up on the asteroid, and fire the remaining fuel.
ICBM doesn't necessarily mean "nuke".
FYI - Mercury's Redstone, Gemini's Titan, etc. were formerly Ballistic Missiles - adapted for use in manned spaceflight - FYI.2; Titans are still one of the premier spacelauch vehicles in use today, and many are actual decomissioned ICBMs. (they're pretty useless as ICBMs compared to Minuteman or Peacekeeper, because Titans are liquid fueled) - but even so, I think a Peacekeeper would make an excellent asteroid-shover in a pinch, but I'm not sure exactly how much of the third stage would be left for asteroid-shoving if one just removed the warheads and fitted it with guidance/maneuver equipment. Maybe with some strap-ons?
Now, we all KNOW that an ION engine would be better for this application, because you get your energy from solar radiation (or nuclear power), instead of burning your propellant and oxidizer, plus, you get to apply thrust over a much longer period of time, with much finer control. But on the other hand, we've had exactly ONE successful use of ION engines. It's a worthy wheel to reinvent, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get something rolling more quickly than development of an ION-based asteroid-shover would take. Then do ION-based technology later. In any case, we definately have adequate technology to get such a device positioned. Much of it sitting unused, waiting around for armageddon. If an asteroid strikes our world and ends all life because we were saving our launch capability (idle ICBMs) for a massive nuclear strike, we'll even be jilted of that.
As a DISH customer, I disagree. DISH really needs to get it's hardware act together, (set-top box wise, their hardware is utter CRAP!). Giving them a monopoly is *not* the way to do that. Making them compete for customers is the way tot make them do that.
If they need more bandwidth they can simply eliminate or reduce the buzillion home shopping and Pay Per View channels they ram down every customer's throat whether they ask for it or not. It's like SPAM in my program guide.
What I don't get, is why don't the stupid ISP's block all spam, and then allow some spam to pass through as long as the sender has given them a cash kickback, and as long as the header is valid (to verify the origin and measure payment).
Not really a great solution on the USER end, but it enforces economics onto the spammer, and gives the ISP an additional revenue stream.
The same ought to be done for banner ads as well.
Then the ISP could pay bulk viewer rates to pay-per-view sites, and insert their own banner ads onto such sites - so content sites can get paid, ISP users see ads, and ISPs can generate revenue on the markup, and they could also sell premium accounts that are adless and spamless.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me, for everyone but the poor people who can't afford the premium accounts - who will likely just block ads and filter spam on their own.
George Bush has taken the initiative for creating the Cashless Society of the Future (TM).
By decimating the government surplus, stock market, jobs, welfare, social security, and domestic investment, he has ensured that none of us will have any cash at all for a very long time.
in a conversation with a co-worker; the rhetorical question - what is the function of the IT department anyway?
A: They observe you carefully and determine whether you're doing your job. Then they try to find some rule or regulation about the machine or network they control, that you use, that will prevent you from doing your job. Then they enforce it.
The solitary confinement was probably for HIS protection. I've seen Kevin's picture, and I've heard what happens to pretty boys like him in prison. . .
I've read the reasons on space.com as to why the plan is; simply to ignore potential tile damage on-orbit because nothing can be done about it.
I think that's a bunch of lame bullcrap. Certainly, damage to the airframe or tiles once the shuttle's already up is an irrevokable death sentance for THOSE astronauts. But had we designed in a method to get some kind of observation of the underside of the shuttle or inspection of the leading edges of the wings, we'd at least have some solid data to go on as to the cause of the disintigration of this shuttle, which would really help in planning contingencies for future missions. What if they had a camera on the nose landing gear, and could extend that on orbit to inspect these critical areas? The 7 aboard the Columbia would have gotten some bad news, but they then could have done a space walk to get a closer look - maybe they could tell if the damage was done by a meteor hit, or space junk, or frozen foam insulation. Then MAYBE something could be done for the next crew that went up in Discovery, Atlantas, or Endeavour.
There was a LOT that NASA could have done, and should have done, and did not. And no matter what whacky event causes these things, or mechanical failure - the cause, really, is ALWAYS human-error. At the very least, some bean-counter sat down in front of a spreadsheet and said; nope, this is too expensive, we can't build in a lifeboat, or we can't attempt a tile-repair on orbit. And that's bullshit and - well, at least I know it.
As a support person, I'd say one of the biggest challenges facing any project is when there's a developer who has too much of their ego in the code - and does not tolerate any criticism of it.
In cases like this, the day-to-day business of making the customer happy becomes a political minefield - and ultimately what you want to do is just give the developer's phone number to the customer. Which would ultimately result in the loss of the customer.
My advice to any developer: learn to recognise when you have too much emotion invested in your code, and if so, bail. Immediately. Be the code's own worst critic.
10. Asking Ken Lay if he knew about the rampant fraud at Enron and Arthur Anderson and CitiGroup's complicity. 9. Asking Dick Cheney if he knew about the Enron/Dynergy price-fixing during California's 2000 energy crisis. 8. Asking Dubya about his Air National Guard appointment and discharge. 7. Asking Dubya about the profit made on the sale of the Rangers. 6. Asking Dubya about his late Harken stock sale report form to the SEC. 5. Asking Dubya about his DUIs. 4. Asking Dubya about proof of Saddam's WOMD program. 3. Asking Bill Gates about Microsoft's intentions for Palladium. 2. Asking Hillary Rosen about her close physical relationship with Satan. 1. Asking Trent Lott about his actual intent in stating his support for Thurmond's presidential candidacy. TIE 1. Asking King Faisal about House of Saud's covert support for Al Qaida.
Ooh, I'm sorry, did I do that? here, let me clean that up. . . .
I'm sure that Opera could add a few nice little features and beat the pants off of Safari.
Right now, the only reason I use Safari is due to speed - but I'm also rather annoyed at it's lack of Tabs, and "Block Images From This Server" feature (which Chimera is also missing, much to it's detriment to UTTERLY USELESS status).
If Opera could beat Chimera on speed (not too difficult), offer tabs, and image blocking - I'm pretty sure that Safari will never have image blocking, just like Netscape and IE will never have image blocking - then I'd probably pay upwards of about, oh, maybe $10. Add in Flash and other plugin compatability out of the box, (another weakness of any browser other than IE) and maybe I'd pay $15.
Picking the dominant player on the grounds that competitors are weak, unreliable, and have less "resources" is just flawed logic.
In a sense, it's really a variation the Prisoner's Dilemma - should I choose what's best for ME if it's going to screw the next guy?
Well - if you ALWAYS choose the dominant market player, and if everyone does that, the dominant market player soon becomes the ONLY market player - then everybody gets screwed (except the vendor), because just because a company has the theoretical resources to create a "best of breed" product, does not mean that they'll sink those resources into doing it.
An alternate argument could be - if you're a believer in Capitalism, you must accept that Monopolies are fundamentally opposed to the theory behind why Capitalism is a great system. (because competition is what drives Vendors to produce the best product for the marketplace, not simply having more resources). Therefore, if you're a red-blooded American, or a staunch believer in freedom and Capitalism, ALWAYS choosing the top player (whether by virtue of them just being the top player, or whether they really do offer a superior value at that point in time) is really an UnAmerican, UnPatriotic choice. One should ALWAYS consider supporting the "underdog" from time to time.
what I want to know is, once they finish and ship this "next generation secure computing base" what are they going to call the next one they start working on?
or maybe, their standard offer of "A blowjob from your choice of Christina Aguillera or Brittney Spears, in exchange for seeing things our way" didn't appeal to her as it appealed to the other male execs. . .
well, Hollywood sure don't like the Repubs because the Repubs want to regulate them out of business (Social Conservatism says: Titties=bad - Fiscal Conservatism says: Titties=$).
The Repubs, of course, probably salivate over the ability to legislate technology to prevent people from seeing titties. The Repubs, also salivate over kickbacks and bribes from tech companies to allow them to pollute and exploit third world labor. So the tech industry must like the Repubs.
But if they let the Repubs clamp down on the Titties, then there's no more compelling content, and nobody will want to buy DVD players and TV's that automatically put a black-bar over their titties.
This is why the Repub platform and philosophy is just plain broken. It conflicts with itself.
The Dems, on the other hand, claim to defend the "little people" while selling them out to the big media corps with fascist copyright policy. (Hollings, Bono, etc.). So they're broken too.
"I'm 23 years old and I feel exactly the same. From personal experience it seems that the music industry is unable to capture the interest of anyone over 20."
Not unable. Unwilling.
Here's my take on it.
Back in the 90's, when America was full of 40-somethings who were suddenly millionaires on paper due to their stock portfolios, which were artificially inflated (for whatever reason) beyond all reason, these parents spoiled their teenage sons and daughters with buttloads of cash. How else can a 16 year old afford a BMW 830? These kids went on spring break trips, bought $200 Nikes, and drank $5 bottled water. They bought lots and lots of $20 CD's of whatever crap they saw on eMpTyVee. And it made them "popular" with their friends.
Now, their parents have cut them off, because they're working two jobs to pay off their McMansion and Lexus, that they thought they could afford back when they were being paid $140k to be a "Product Manager" at a Web Design firm or other.com.
While the market was hot - it was a false economy. Those kids would spend $20 for a CD of crap, because they didn't know any better, and they didn't work for the money, and the RIAA was all too happy and eager to take it off their hands. Never before have so many fools parted with so much money.
Now the RIAA is bitching and moaning because the collapse of the "new economy" has taken the wind out of the sails of their favorite suckers. Dumb teens with rich parents who use money as a tool to love them. There's still a huge market out there for crappy pop bands. Just not at $20 a CD. Maybe P2P plays into it by offering an alternative way for the formerly rich kids to get their brittney fix. But face it - statistically, it's been the Hot Pop acts which have always been downloaded many orders of magnatude higher than the "good music" we older and wiser (and poorer) folks typically download.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite often, yes, the woman who gets beaten IS asking for it. This is why you find women who leave one abusive man, only to end up with another, and another, and another. It's in their personality - not that they're whiny. They're simply attracted to men who assert their dominance. And they know how to push the buttons of such men, and they do it for the turn-on.
But that doesn't make it their fault. It's still the hitter's fault. One who cannot control one's own behavior, surely doesn't deserve to dominate anyone else. They continue to try to do so - but not well.
Example:
I know, and have worked with a lot of really smart engineers, and programmers. People who could code circles around me in their sleep.
On the other hand, when it comes to troubleshooting, they can't troubleshoot their way out of a wet paper bag.
Often, it's my work and skills that come into play to save their asses when they're blocked in a project with an approaching due date.
But because THEY are "the engineers" they make about 25% more than I do.
If I sat down and learned to code (that is, took the time to memorize a bunch of API libraries; I already understand language syntax, and know my way around a stack trace), I suppose I could eventually get a job somewhere making that much money as an "engineer". But it's not what this Tigger does best, nor is it what I enjoy doing. It's a shame, because I really wish I could earn as much as I was earning 2 years ago when I was a living breathing Tulip Bulb. Unfortunately, now I'm just a "Technician".
Sure, "blaming the victim" sounds kind of harsh, but when you think about it, in life, there's really only ONE law. The law of the jungle. All other laws are made up by people, and enforced by people, people with the biggest guns - again, the law of the jungle.
There is no freedom that can be given to a person, that isn't some form of collar-and-lead. True Freedom must be TAKEN. (which is what you're talking about with your backlash).
Tragic, yes. But it's human nature. Learn to live with it, even channel it, harness it. But fight it, ignore it, supress it, and it will lead to disaster.
This topic has been discussed to death many times on Slashdot, going back to before Columbine.
There are basically a couple of patterns that have emerged:
- The geek whining about how bad life was, and thankful that they've found some way to escape that. Often rationalizing why things were that way, blaming parents, the school system, etc.
- The ex-geek, who used to have a hard time, but somehow "figured out" how to change things; often by learning to dress well, assert themselves socially, kicking someone's ass publicly.
- The non-geek, who just doesn't get it, never understood, never will understand, never had these problems, perhaps was a bully themselves, or a minion of a bully.
Your story, t0quer, maybe you're right, maybe it was your parents fault - maybe you had an overly-strong mother who never let your father assert himself, and never taught you to assert yourself.
But in the end, all the unhappiness has to do with having an inner urge to assert your dominance, and not having the skills or opportunity to do so. There's always a social framework which makes it impossible for some people to assert their dominance. Often, that framework is economics ("we were too poor for me to dress nice") or simple physics ("I was too small/weak/uncoordinated to excel at sports - or physically defend myself from bullies") or eloquence ("people called me names and I didn't have any good come-backs").
Well, it's all about looking at that framework, and finding another way. There are so many different avenues for people to channel dominance, if you think about it, it has truly driven human endeavors in many different directions. If you can't win at Football, win at Baseball. If you can't win at Baseball, win at Golf. If you can't win at any sport, win at academics. If you can't win at academics, find something else. In the end, yes - many of these avenues are marginal at best, within the context of all human endeavors. Look at how important professional sports are to the vast majority of Americans. Most people actually assert their dominance and channel their agression by rooting for their favorite team (and hopefully, that team wins). Or learning every useless sports statistic. Can these people punt, run, pass or score? No. But they live vicariously through their sports stars. Or Movie stars. Or political leaders. Or favorite academic pedagog. The point is - find your own path and win at it. Nobody thought that physics geeks were ever going to be all that important. Nobody considers someone like Goddard to have "Rock-Star" status. But when you look at American Domination of Space Launch back in the 60's and 70's - the moon landing sure was more important than football.
My final word on this - and it's the same overall message as my last post - for those who do find their path and assert their dominance, remember humility. Don't be a bully. This power is easily abused, and that is the source of everything that's wrong in the world today.
It has to do with the social politics of Domination and Submission.
Quite often, when a teenaged boy is given the awesome responsibility of being Dominant, due, usually either to Physical Prowess, Superior Economic Position, or Respect of Adults (usually in an environment where the other kids resect the adults in-turn; rare these days), there's a very good chance that they screw it up and abuse their position of power - typically by bullying. It's a mistake that the truly good leaders learn to avoid later in life (and the truly rotten leaders continue to make - to the detriment of ALL humanity).
The target of the bullying, of course, are the Submissives - either people who, by mild personality, or lack of the above listed dominant traits, are cast in the submissive role. Sure, the more a submissive "goes along" with that role, the more they'll be accepted by a good dominant leader. But the immature, abusive dominants, either out of fear, or simple arrogance, will continue to abuse them even more.
In the D/S community, there's an "Old Guard" that lives by the philosophy that no person can be a good Dominant, until they've lived (been trained) as a Submissive. That means learning humility. Not coincidentally, this is how good soldiers are trained. In basic training, their pride is broken down, and then built up based on confidence in their own acheivement. This is also the basis of the "rite of passage" ritual common to most "primative" cultures (and absent in our own culture). There's much to be said in favor of such a system, and perhaps the reason we end up with a lot of terrible bullies and rotten tyrants is due to this lack of systematic "rite of passage" rituals in our culture - or the fact that the "rite of passage" rituals have been watered down by the "political correctness" crew to the point of utter uselessness. Or when you get someone who's been "born with a silver spoon" - has been handed everything in life, never had to work for it. Their rites of passage were made easy for them by parents who just could not let go of their children and let them become their own person by their own hand.
Another factor is those who are forced to submit to a Dominant, but still have a Dominant urge - often try to change the rules of the game, or play a different game. If the person cannot dominate at sports, they learn to dominate in academics, or computers, or music, or bomb-making. Etc. (incidentally - the goal of prevention of "another Columbine" should be to identify those who need to channel this dominant agression, and giving them a way to channel it harmlessly - NOT imposing rules in order to enforce their submission further).
These are very important biological urges in the Human Animal - they should neither be denied, nor ignored. They need to be understood, and channeled in a positive manner. When they're not, they're the source of probably most of what troubles us in the world today.
No, I think an ICBM would just about do the trick too, take off the warhead, and your payload becomes the third stage, get the third stage out of LEO using about half it's fuel (very rough assumption, expecially since we also would have had to fit it with appropriate guidance and maneuvering systems), land the 3rd stage ass-end-up on the asteroid, and fire the remaining fuel.
ICBM doesn't necessarily mean "nuke".
FYI - Mercury's Redstone, Gemini's Titan, etc. were formerly Ballistic Missiles - adapted for use in manned spaceflight - FYI.2; Titans are still one of the premier spacelauch vehicles in use today, and many are actual decomissioned ICBMs. (they're pretty useless as ICBMs compared to Minuteman or Peacekeeper, because Titans are liquid fueled) - but even so, I think a Peacekeeper would make an excellent asteroid-shover in a pinch, but I'm not sure exactly how much of the third stage would be left for asteroid-shoving if one just removed the warheads and fitted it with guidance/maneuver equipment. Maybe with some strap-ons?
Now, we all KNOW that an ION engine would be better for this application, because you get your energy from solar radiation (or nuclear power), instead of burning your propellant and oxidizer, plus, you get to apply thrust over a much longer period of time, with much finer control. But on the other hand, we've had exactly ONE successful use of ION engines. It's a worthy wheel to reinvent, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't get something rolling more quickly than development of an ION-based asteroid-shover would take. Then do ION-based technology later. In any case, we definately have adequate technology to get such a device positioned. Much of it sitting unused, waiting around for armageddon. If an asteroid strikes our world and ends all life because we were saving our launch capability (idle ICBMs) for a massive nuclear strike, we'll even be jilted of that.
As a DISH customer, I disagree. DISH really needs to get it's hardware act together, (set-top box wise, their hardware is utter CRAP!). Giving them a monopoly is *not* the way to do that. Making them compete for customers is the way tot make them do that.
If they need more bandwidth they can simply eliminate or reduce the buzillion home shopping and Pay Per View channels they ram down every customer's throat whether they ask for it or not. It's like SPAM in my program guide.
What I don't get, is why don't the stupid ISP's block all spam, and then allow some spam to pass through as long as the sender has given them a cash kickback, and as long as the header is valid (to verify the origin and measure payment).
Not really a great solution on the USER end, but it enforces economics onto the spammer, and gives the ISP an additional revenue stream.
The same ought to be done for banner ads as well.
Then the ISP could pay bulk viewer rates to pay-per-view sites, and insert their own banner ads onto such sites - so content sites can get paid, ISP users see ads, and ISPs can generate revenue on the markup, and they could also sell premium accounts that are adless and spamless.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me, for everyone but the poor people who can't afford the premium accounts - who will likely just block ads and filter spam on their own.
George Bush has taken the initiative for creating the Cashless Society of the Future (TM).
By decimating the government surplus, stock market, jobs, welfare, social security, and domestic investment, he has ensured that none of us will have any cash at all for a very long time.
What it REALLY means is that Apple is dying.
I mean, with SJ as CEO of both Pixar AND Apple, you'd think he'd buy up a buttload of X-Serves, and run Darwin. . .
Exactly.
To quote the crusty old computer scientist in TRON: "User requests are what computers are for"
Here's a nickel, go buy yourself a clue.
in a conversation with a co-worker; the rhetorical question - what is the function of the IT department anyway?
A: They observe you carefully and determine whether you're doing your job. Then they try to find some rule or regulation about the machine or network they control, that you use, that will prevent you from doing your job. Then they enforce it.
you tell me? :)
The solitary confinement was probably for HIS protection. I've seen Kevin's picture, and I've heard what happens to pretty boys like him in prison. . .
Yeah, Kev-, can you PROVE that you can't start a nuclear war from a payphone?
I've read the reasons on space.com as to why the plan is; simply to ignore potential tile damage on-orbit because nothing can be done about it.
I think that's a bunch of lame bullcrap. Certainly, damage to the airframe or tiles once the shuttle's already up is an irrevokable death sentance for THOSE astronauts. But had we designed in a method to get some kind of observation of the underside of the shuttle or inspection of the leading edges of the wings, we'd at least have some solid data to go on as to the cause of the disintigration of this shuttle, which would really help in planning contingencies for future missions.
What if they had a camera on the nose landing gear, and could extend that on orbit to inspect these critical areas? The 7 aboard the Columbia would have gotten some bad news, but they then could have done a space walk to get a closer look - maybe they could tell if the damage was done by a meteor hit, or space junk, or frozen foam insulation. Then MAYBE something could be done for the next crew that went up in Discovery, Atlantas, or Endeavour.
There was a LOT that NASA could have done, and should have done, and did not. And no matter what whacky event causes these things, or mechanical failure - the cause, really, is ALWAYS human-error. At the very least, some bean-counter sat down in front of a spreadsheet and said; nope, this is too expensive, we can't build in a lifeboat, or we can't attempt a tile-repair on orbit. And that's bullshit and - well, at least I know it.
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
As a support person, I'd say one of the biggest challenges facing any project is when there's a developer who has too much of their ego in the code - and does not tolerate any criticism of it.
In cases like this, the day-to-day business of making the customer happy becomes a political minefield - and ultimately what you want to do is just give the developer's phone number to the customer. Which would ultimately result in the loss of the customer.
My advice to any developer: learn to recognise when you have too much emotion invested in your code, and if so, bail. Immediately. Be the code's own worst critic.
'cmon everybody! Let's spill the beans!
10. Asking Ken Lay if he knew about the rampant fraud at Enron and Arthur Anderson and CitiGroup's complicity.
9. Asking Dick Cheney if he knew about the Enron/Dynergy price-fixing during California's 2000 energy crisis.
8. Asking Dubya about his Air National Guard appointment and discharge.
7. Asking Dubya about the profit made on the sale of the Rangers.
6. Asking Dubya about his late Harken stock sale report form to the SEC.
5. Asking Dubya about his DUIs.
4. Asking Dubya about proof of Saddam's WOMD program.
3. Asking Bill Gates about Microsoft's intentions for Palladium.
2. Asking Hillary Rosen about her close physical relationship with Satan.
1. Asking Trent Lott about his actual intent in stating his support for Thurmond's presidential candidacy.
TIE
1. Asking King Faisal about House of Saud's covert support for Al Qaida.
Ooh, I'm sorry, did I do that? here, let me clean that up. . . .
I'm sure that Opera could add a few nice little features and beat the pants off of Safari.
Right now, the only reason I use Safari is due to speed - but I'm also rather annoyed at it's lack of Tabs, and "Block Images From This Server" feature (which Chimera is also missing, much to it's detriment to UTTERLY USELESS status).
If Opera could beat Chimera on speed (not too difficult), offer tabs, and image blocking - I'm pretty sure that Safari will never have image blocking, just like Netscape and IE will never have image blocking - then I'd probably pay upwards of about, oh, maybe $10. Add in Flash and other plugin compatability out of the box, (another weakness of any browser other than IE) and maybe I'd pay $15.
Picking the dominant player on the grounds that competitors are weak, unreliable, and have less "resources" is just flawed logic.
In a sense, it's really a variation the Prisoner's Dilemma - should I choose what's best for ME if it's going to screw the next guy?
Well - if you ALWAYS choose the dominant market player, and if everyone does that, the dominant market player soon becomes the ONLY market player - then everybody gets screwed (except the vendor), because just because a company has the theoretical resources to create a "best of breed" product, does not mean that they'll sink those resources into doing it.
An alternate argument could be - if you're a believer in Capitalism, you must accept that Monopolies are fundamentally opposed to the theory behind why Capitalism is a great system. (because competition is what drives Vendors to produce the best product for the marketplace, not simply having more resources). Therefore, if you're a red-blooded American, or a staunch believer in freedom and Capitalism, ALWAYS choosing the top player (whether by virtue of them just being the top player, or whether they really do offer a superior value at that point in time) is really an UnAmerican, UnPatriotic choice. One should ALWAYS consider supporting the "underdog" from time to time.
what I want to know is, once they finish and ship this "next generation secure computing base" what are they going to call the next one they start working on?
or maybe, their standard offer of "A blowjob from your choice of Christina Aguillera or Brittney Spears, in exchange for seeing things our way" didn't appeal to her as it appealed to the other male execs. . .
well, Hollywood sure don't like the Repubs because the Repubs want to regulate them out of business (Social Conservatism says: Titties=bad - Fiscal Conservatism says: Titties=$).
The Repubs, of course, probably salivate over the ability to legislate technology to prevent people from seeing titties.
The Repubs, also salivate over kickbacks and bribes from tech companies to allow them to pollute and exploit third world labor.
So the tech industry must like the Repubs.
But if they let the Repubs clamp down on the Titties, then there's no more compelling content, and nobody will want to buy DVD players and TV's that automatically put a black-bar over their titties.
This is why the Repub platform and philosophy is just plain broken. It conflicts with itself.
The Dems, on the other hand, claim to defend the "little people" while selling them out to the big media corps with fascist copyright policy. (Hollings, Bono, etc.). So they're broken too.
"I'm 23 years old and I feel exactly the same. From personal experience it seems that the music industry is unable to capture the interest of anyone over 20."
.com.
Not unable. Unwilling.
Here's my take on it.
Back in the 90's, when America was full of 40-somethings who were suddenly millionaires on paper due to their stock portfolios, which were artificially inflated (for whatever reason) beyond all reason, these parents spoiled their teenage sons and daughters with buttloads of cash. How else can a 16 year old afford a BMW 830? These kids went on spring break trips, bought $200 Nikes, and drank $5 bottled water. They bought lots and lots of $20 CD's of whatever crap they saw on eMpTyVee. And it made them "popular" with their friends.
Now, their parents have cut them off, because they're working two jobs to pay off their McMansion and Lexus, that they thought they could afford back when they were being paid $140k to be a "Product Manager" at a Web Design firm or other
While the market was hot - it was a false economy. Those kids would spend $20 for a CD of crap, because they didn't know any better, and they didn't work for the money, and the RIAA was all too happy and eager to take it off their hands. Never before have so many fools parted with so much money.
Now the RIAA is bitching and moaning because the collapse of the "new economy" has taken the wind out of the sails of their favorite suckers. Dumb teens with rich parents who use money as a tool to love them. There's still a huge market out there for crappy pop bands. Just not at $20 a CD. Maybe P2P plays into it by offering an alternative way for the formerly rich kids to get their brittney fix. But face it - statistically, it's been the Hot Pop acts which have always been downloaded many orders of magnatude higher than the "good music" we older and wiser (and poorer) folks typically download.
Nirvanna ws the "next big thing?"
Just more teen angst bullcrap - the same thing you're railing against. Curt Cobain was nothing more than a spoiled brat pop star.