Were the Germans or the priest using the definition given in the posting you were responding to? No, they were duped by propaganda or were engaged in the spreading of that propaganda.
Then that poster made his point, and I think his definition is a reasonable one.
When people saw Muslim fundamentalists flying planes into buildings for the sole intent of wanton destruction of innocent human life, I think most rational human beings had what is called a moment of moral clarity...it didn't take long for some people to forget that moment, though.
Like what? Bin Ladens only demands are all Westerners leave all Arab countries. You feel like doing that?
I agree with most of what you said, but I have to clarify something...in the book American Jihad I believe it was, a Muslim fundamentalist said something like this, and I'm paraphrasing here:
"We don't wage jihad to try to get something from you, we wage jihad to kill you".
It wasn't Osama, but I'm sure getting infidels out of the Islamic world is only the first step in all of these groups' minds, if not just a red herring...some have already made clear their intentions. They want every Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. dead or converted.
That cannot be allowed, of course. The idea that America "got what it deserved" in 9/11 is one of the dumbest ideas ever foisted on society. As for you radical anti-American hard lefties out there, if Western society falls, the Muslim fundamentalists are going to come after you first, for you are the ones who most offend them. It turns out that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Seeing how the US treats mere suspects of terrorism in Cuba, seeing what little respect the US has for due process, I don't think they should be given more help in suspecting people.
Well, first of all, weren't these "suspects" foreign combatants? If our government is so horrible, why haven't they been tortured for any information and then executed, instead of being pampered and catered to? Their treatment looks like a cakewalk to me. Excuse me if I cannot take you seriously, even before you said this:
Capitalism is the new communism, all subcontracted out for profit. Free America is the new oppressive prison state, it's big and you are not encouraged to see the walls.
I assume by "capitalism", you mean the free market. Anyway, I have no idea what you are saying here. You surpassed your other silly statements with that one. Congrats. And as for that last part, America is the beacon of freedom, despite what your professor might say (or did say).
Allow me to illustrate: Western society did not start slavery, but it did END IT. The concept of property rights and individual freedom started in Western culture...and was expanded by American forefathers. Civil rights got their start here, as well.
And lastly: when's the last time you saw a boat of American refugees? That's right: NEVER. Think about that the next time you feel like launching into an anti-American diatribe.
Well, it turns out McCarthy was RIGHT, even if his methods were all wrong, and he was looking in the wrong places.
Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.
That being said, I do have reservations about national health databases and terrorist-sweeping software.
I think it's about time for some sensible religious profiling. Every single terrorist in the past few years (and maybe even the past decade, if those conspiracy theories about McVeigh's Iraqi connections turn out to be true) has been Muslim and/or had Muslim connections. It's about time to get some common sense, and start spying on the groups that have in the past spewed anti-Semitic rhetoric and called for jihad, call America the Great Satan, etc....and political correctness be damned.
The constitution never says directly that we have this right but the supreme court has made it clear, to have all of our other rights to speech as well as other we must have privacy.
When was this? Even if you can cite a source, I'd say this is yet another symptom of activist judges. The Supreme Court does NOT make law.
Let me say that again, and louder: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE LAW. "Interpretations" don't make law, either.
I think we need to continue to uphold the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights, especially the ones in Amendment I, II, and IV, rather than trying to concoct new ones. We have modern "liberals"* trying to get rid of the first two (see hate speech legislation and gun control legislation), or trim them back so far as to be irrelevant, and we have Drug Warriors trying to get rid of the 4th (among others).
* "Liberals" is in quotes because so-called modern-day liberals have more in common with Marxism or Nazism than they do traditional liberalism. Traditional liberalism was rooted in the ideals of freedom. Modern liberals hate freedom. That's why they try to shout down dissent on campuses today. Or burn newspapers. They are fond of calling people Nazis or Hitler, but they should take a hard look at history and then at their own behavior, especially on today's campuses.
During frosh year, my Physics book had discussed this very idea in one of those interesting tidbits that they sometimes put in the sidebars. Very cool. I think I remember them saying the potential would be to have the equivalent of one gallon of gasoline used to cross the country (U.S.)? And of course, a lot faster than any current monorail or airplane in existence, due to extremely low friction.
The extra bonus is no Islamic whackos will be able to drive these things into buildings.
I still maintain that this country would be much better off with income caps.
WHAT?! How would this makes things better? Who gets to decide on the cap? Who is going to pay your salary if all people have caps on their income? Why would anyone drive themselves toward entrepeneurial heights if they are going to be capped by a Marxist policy?
I've heard some pretty silly ideas, but this takes the cake, at least for this week....I don't even know where to start explaining how anti-American (at least, as it was conceived as having laissez-faire economics; lately, we've had what I'd call the "enemy within" - Marxist professors deconstructing everything good about this great nation and LYING to the younger generations about the good and blowing way out of proportion the bad) this concept is. Do you know that being free means ECONOMIC freedom as well as social freedom? How, then, can you justify the iron fist of government setting a cap on the incomes in a free market economy?
I won't even ask what your thoughts on property rights are, or how old you are, or your stance on the first, second, and other amendments are...
When was IT ever glitzy? I think you are connecting IT with other things.
IT has always made my eyes want to glaze over. IT brings to mind people plugging in un-plugged printers, helping people with Word, and resetting people's passwords, at least in the 90's and 00's. And it doesn't get any less glitzy than that. IT is stuff for idiots and liberal arts majors. Maybe for people doing internships that are on their way to better things. But it was never glitzy.
I see people saying that this won't work because companies have more money than RIAA.
I would say that needs some rethinking. It works for Jesse Jackson. Jackson shows up and mumbles something about "grievances" about "race" and companies bend over backwards to give him money. When he first started out, he had little more than the muscle of a street gang and no money, but somehow he made companies tremble.
The secret to his extortion is that companies want to avoid a PR debacle - no one want to be called "racist" and then have to defend themselves from that position. The only thing the common man will remember of the situation is what the headlines scream, even if they are later vindicated. So the companies just pay him off.
I suspect companies might want to avoid the label "software/music pirate", too. I think that's one reason BSA still exists...they have no legal authority, so I can't see what else would explain their continued existence...
I wonder how effective this will be, since about half the people I know in software development (and myself) are laid off and have been for some time. Maybe they should warn unemployment offices next?
So, let the psychology department play with computer science for a while, not just the art department. The math-heads have had their turn for long enough.
Huh? This is like saying "let the art department have the electrical engineers, the math-heads have had their turn..." or "let the programming geeks handle the marketing, the dippy marketing people have had their turn..."
This is just silly talk...someone taking a dual degree in psych and comp sci might get some nice insights, but I can tell you that if I was still in school, and there was even *talk* of switching comp sci to art or the psychology departments (neither of which are science, BTW), I'd be looking to transfer immediately.
Yeah, well supposedly, we had "overemployment" a few years back in the "IT industry", and that brought on the H-1B system. So, if the situation ever becomes in favor of employees, companies can lobby politicians to rig it in their favor instead - notice the reverse doesn't happen.
My guess is that within the software community, in Denver, anyway, it might be more like 15-20%. Nearly every developer I know has been laid off for two months or more during the past 2 years. Some have left the industry entirely.
As for one poster's comments about the qualified still being able to find jobs, I'd say this economy favors brown-nosers more than it does the best people...at least in my experience. The last two places I've been laid off, there were people still working at those jobs with 1/2 the experience, 1/2 the intelligence, and 1/2 the credentials as myself and others that were laid off...and these were people who always said the boss' ideas were wonderful ideas, no matter how dumb, and also made sure to go and personally kiss ass a lot, too.
Now, I have a BSCS, nearly 10 years of experience, and I also have what I consider a good attitude and work ethic(but I'm not a sycophant)...but I have no job. Go figure.
Run, don't walk, away from that place. Anyone even considering increasing hours to 15 is nuts. I have not worked more than 40 hours for the past 6-7 years except on very limited occasions, and every time I was "asked" to work overtime in that time I was getting an hourly rate, and annoyed with the foolish project management. Even getting paid hourly, I make a conscious effort to have a LIFE. Anyone asking you to work overtime is might as well tell you they failed, because it's their job to do timelines, and having their team work overtime is an obvious failure on the MANAGER'S part.
Oh, and on your way out hand that dickhead a copy of Peopleware, and dog-ear the section dealing with Teamicide, because that's what he's doing. The only way to improve situations is try to get these types of "managers" either fired or removed to some other industry. And the best way to do that is to go to their manager and complain and back up your complaints, or else make the companies they own fail - by leaving.
Obviously, your mind is made up, so why even throw out these red herrings and strawmen?
Anyway, to your "points":
1. No one is looking for "all" of the transitional fossils, but many have been found.
2-6. Totally irrelevant to evolution, really. You are mixing up your theories, but that's no surprise given your obvious fundamentalist leanings.
Lastly, evolution is fact. We have witnessed radical changes in our recorded history, and in labs. There is no doubt of the fact of evolution in any but a few American fundamentalist mules like yourself. The only point being argued by educated people is the finer points of the process of evolution.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Linus started doing the kernel, had many significant portions done, AND THEN people started helping in other areas. I certainly don't think anyone who wants to give it a go should be discouraged, though. Just because they are not currently a "rocket scientist" doesn't mean they won't become one.
No, I don't. Ironically, I just finished reading Jakob Nielsen's "Designing Web Usability", and he rants against the same thing that you apparently think is a Good Thing.
I *hate* having my font selection overridden by a web site. In a medium where the users have all the control, it only makes sense to relinquish that control to them...it's too easy for them to go somewhere else. When I see my fonts being overridden, esp. to much smaller ones I can barely read, I move elsewhere. If I can't move elsewhere, I switch to Lynx/Links to view the site.
Anyone remember the good old days of Wired when they used radical page design? It was cool, if unreadable at times.
Yes, and it's one of the reasons why I cancelled my subscription, eventually...that, and, IMHO, Wired went downhill fast as soon as the Internet got the attention of big corps.
In any case, I'll never forget when one of the MST3K crew said, "Well, at least this is easier to read than Wired magazine", about some horrible movie credits. It's too bad MST3K is gone. Few shows (or any other media, for that matter) did such a fine job of commenting on pop culture than that show did.
You must have learned your style of writing and reasoning from Eric Cartman. *Sigh*. I never should have fed the troll, anyway. For all I know, your comments could have been banged out by a million monkeys for all the intelligence they contain. Have a nice day.
There is little doubt that M$ has used BSD code. Debug symbols that were not stripped out in beta versions of NT leave little doubt, no? The extent is what is in question.
There is nothing illegal about this. I was merely pointing this out since the original flamer was implying that either a) he, or b) Microsoft was self-reliant. So yes, my point is still valid, and YES, I still have one, AC.
Oh...and I use BSD, not Linux. And I'm no hippie. If you want to talk about folks being self-reliant, let's talk about where M$ got their TCP/IP stack from.
Well, if by "U.S. values", he is pointing out the laissez-faire economics and the rights that we believe are given to everyone (via a Creator, not a bureacrat) he's sorta right: The United States, was, and is, a radical concept. And it's based on what the Libertarian party has claimed for its platform.
Most countries refuse to give their citizens these same rights. Rights such as free speech and gun ownership are, by definition, radical, since so many "reasonable" and more "civilized" countries place heavy restrictions on (or deny) both, and having such a concept in place that defies kings and bureaucrats (rights given to us by a Creator, remember, OUT OF REACH from a bureaucrat or king) is threatening to most of those who seek power. And make no mistake, bureaucrats seek power. From the minute these precepts were laid out, politicians and others have sought to undermine these rights.
So the dude writing this ridiculous bit of flamage did have some of his notions right: America is *supposed* to be libertarian in spirit, also known as "classically liberal" (nothing like the modern liberal platform as it applies in America, which is just socialism plain and simple).
But a libertarian Internet is not a problem UNLESS you are an elitist asshole who thinks it's not going the way that you think it ought to. And that's when this guy's fascist side comes out, apparently. The Europeans don't seem to learn too many lessons from history. Remember: the "final solution" was a government program. This guy just needs to learn to create his own damned content, and learn how to "change the channel".
Slashdot Mirror
Were the Germans or the priest using the definition given in the posting you were responding to? No, they were duped by propaganda or were engaged in the spreading of that propaganda.
Then that poster made his point, and I think his definition is a reasonable one.
When people saw Muslim fundamentalists flying planes into buildings for the sole intent of wanton destruction of innocent human life, I think most rational human beings had what is called a moment of moral clarity...it didn't take long for some people to forget that moment, though.
Like what? Bin Ladens only demands are all Westerners leave all Arab
countries. You feel like doing that?
I agree with most of what you said, but I have to clarify something...in the book American Jihad I believe it was, a Muslim fundamentalist said something like this, and I'm paraphrasing here:
"We don't wage jihad to try to get something from you, we wage jihad to kill you".
It wasn't Osama, but I'm sure getting infidels out of the Islamic world is only the first step in all of these groups' minds, if not just a red herring...some have already made clear their intentions. They want every Jew, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. dead or converted.
That cannot be allowed, of course. The idea that America "got what it deserved" in 9/11 is one of the dumbest ideas ever foisted on society. As for you radical anti-American hard lefties out there, if Western society falls, the Muslim fundamentalists are going to come after you first, for you are the ones who most offend them. It turns out that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.
Seeing how the US treats mere suspects of terrorism in Cuba, seeing what little respect the US has for due process, I don't think they should be given more help in suspecting people.
Well, first of all, weren't these "suspects" foreign combatants? If our government is so horrible, why haven't they been tortured for any information and then executed, instead of being pampered and catered to? Their treatment looks like a cakewalk to me. Excuse me if I cannot take you seriously, even before you said this:
Capitalism is the new communism, all subcontracted out for profit.
Free America is the new oppressive prison state, it's big and you are not encouraged to see the walls.
I assume by "capitalism", you mean the free market. Anyway, I have no idea what you are saying here. You surpassed your other silly statements with that one. Congrats. And as for that last part, America is the beacon of freedom, despite what your professor might say (or did say).
Allow me to illustrate: Western society did not start slavery, but it did END IT. The concept of property rights and individual freedom started in Western culture...and was expanded by American forefathers. Civil rights got their start here, as well.
And lastly: when's the last time you saw a boat of American refugees? That's right: NEVER. Think about that the next time you feel like launching into an anti-American diatribe.
Well, it turns out McCarthy was RIGHT, even if his methods were all wrong, and he was looking in the wrong places.
Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.
That being said, I do have reservations about national health databases and terrorist-sweeping software.
I think it's about time for some sensible religious profiling. Every single terrorist in the past few years (and maybe even the past decade, if those conspiracy theories about McVeigh's Iraqi connections turn out to be true) has been Muslim and/or had Muslim connections. It's about time to get some common sense, and start spying on the groups that have in the past spewed anti-Semitic rhetoric and called for jihad, call America the Great Satan, etc....and political correctness be damned.
The constitution never says directly that we have this right but the supreme court has made it clear, to have all of our other rights to speech as well as other we must have privacy.
When was this? Even if you can cite a source, I'd say this is yet another symptom of activist judges. The Supreme Court does NOT make law.
Let me say that again, and louder: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE LAW. "Interpretations" don't make law, either.
I think we need to continue to uphold the rights recognized by the Bill of Rights, especially the ones in Amendment I, II, and IV, rather than trying to concoct new ones. We have modern "liberals"* trying to get rid of the first two (see hate speech legislation and gun control legislation), or trim them back so far as to be irrelevant, and we have Drug Warriors trying to get rid of the 4th (among others).
* "Liberals" is in quotes because so-called modern-day liberals have more in common with Marxism or Nazism than they do traditional liberalism. Traditional liberalism was rooted in the ideals of freedom. Modern liberals hate freedom. That's why they try to shout down dissent on campuses today. Or burn newspapers. They are fond of calling people Nazis or Hitler, but they should take a hard look at history and then at their own behavior, especially on today's campuses.
During frosh year, my Physics book had discussed this very idea in one of those interesting tidbits that they sometimes put in the sidebars. Very cool. I think I remember them saying the potential would be to have the equivalent of one gallon of gasoline used to cross the country (U.S.)? And of course, a lot faster than any current monorail or airplane in existence, due to extremely low friction.
The extra bonus is no Islamic whackos will be able to drive these things into buildings.
I still maintain that this country would be much better off with income caps.
WHAT?! How would this makes things better? Who gets to decide on the cap? Who is going to pay your salary if all people have caps on their income? Why would anyone drive themselves toward entrepeneurial heights if they are going to be capped by a Marxist policy?
I've heard some pretty silly ideas, but this takes the cake, at least for this week....I don't even know where to start explaining how anti-American (at least, as it was conceived as having laissez-faire economics; lately, we've had what I'd call the "enemy within" - Marxist professors deconstructing everything good about this great nation and LYING to the younger generations about the good and blowing way out of proportion the bad) this concept is. Do you know that being free means ECONOMIC freedom as well as social freedom? How, then, can you justify the iron fist of government setting a cap on the incomes in a free market economy?
I won't even ask what your thoughts on property rights are, or how old you are, or your stance on the first, second, and other amendments are...
When was IT ever glitzy? I think you are connecting IT with other things.
IT has always made my eyes want to glaze over.
IT brings to mind people plugging in un-plugged printers, helping people with Word, and resetting people's passwords, at least in the 90's and 00's. And it doesn't get any less glitzy than that. IT is stuff for idiots and liberal arts majors. Maybe for people doing internships that are on their way to better things. But it was never glitzy.
This book is devoted to just that. It's what you're looking for...go get it and read it.
I see people saying that this won't work because companies have more money than RIAA.
I would say that needs some rethinking. It works for Jesse Jackson. Jackson shows up and mumbles something about "grievances" about "race" and companies bend over backwards to give him money. When he first started out, he had little more than the muscle of a street gang and no money, but somehow he made companies tremble.
The secret to his extortion is that companies want to avoid a PR debacle - no one want to be called "racist" and then have to defend themselves from that position. The only thing the common man will remember of the situation is what the headlines scream, even if they are later vindicated. So the companies just pay him off.
I suspect companies might want to avoid the label "software/music pirate", too. I think that's one reason BSA still exists...they have no legal authority, so I can't see what else would explain their continued existence...
is it normal if i jerkoff while i'm at work, like in a bathroom stall?
Well, you'll have to come up with a code to enter on the your timesheets. And it might push back the Gantt chart estimates.
I wonder how effective this will be, since about half the people I know in software development (and myself) are laid off and have been for some time. Maybe they should warn unemployment offices next?
So, let the psychology department play with computer science for a while, not just the art department. The math-heads have had their turn for long enough.
Huh? This is like saying "let the art department have the electrical engineers, the math-heads have had their turn..." or "let the programming geeks handle the marketing, the dippy marketing people have had their turn..."
This is just silly talk...someone taking a dual degree in psych and comp sci might get some nice insights, but I can tell you that if I was still in school, and there was even *talk* of switching comp sci to art or the psychology departments (neither of which are science, BTW), I'd be looking to transfer immediately.
It was *always* set up that they'd go home anyway, dumbass. 3 years, one renewal, for a total of six years. That's all the H-1B allows.
Yeah, well supposedly, we had "overemployment" a few years back in the "IT industry", and that brought on the H-1B system. So, if the situation ever becomes in favor of employees, companies can lobby politicians to rig it in their favor instead - notice the reverse doesn't happen.
My guess is that within the software community, in Denver, anyway, it might be more like 15-20%. Nearly every developer I know has been laid off for two months or more during the past 2 years. Some have left the industry entirely.
As for one poster's comments about the qualified still being able to find jobs, I'd say this economy favors brown-nosers more than it does the best people...at least in my experience. The last two places I've been laid off, there were people still working at those jobs with 1/2 the experience, 1/2 the intelligence, and 1/2 the credentials as myself and others that were laid off...and these were people who always said the boss' ideas were wonderful ideas, no matter how dumb, and also made sure to go and personally kiss ass a lot, too.
Now, I have a BSCS, nearly 10 years of experience, and I also have what I consider a good attitude and work ethic(but I'm not a sycophant)...but I have no job. Go figure.
Run, don't walk, away from that place. Anyone even considering increasing hours to 15 is nuts. I have not worked more than 40 hours for the past 6-7 years except on very limited occasions, and every time I was "asked" to work overtime in that time I was getting an hourly rate, and annoyed with the foolish project management. Even getting paid hourly, I make a conscious effort to have a LIFE. Anyone asking you to work overtime is might as well tell you they failed, because it's their job to do timelines, and having their team work overtime is an obvious failure on the MANAGER'S part.
Oh, and on your way out hand that dickhead a copy of Peopleware, and dog-ear the section dealing with Teamicide, because that's what he's doing. The only way to improve situations is try to get these types of "managers" either fired or removed to some other industry. And the best way to do that is to go to their manager and complain and back up your complaints, or else make the companies they own fail - by leaving.
What a clueless ass you are.
Obviously, your mind is made up, so why even throw out these red herrings and strawmen?
Anyway, to your "points":
1. No one is looking for "all" of the transitional fossils, but many have been found.
2-6. Totally irrelevant to evolution, really. You are mixing up your theories, but that's no surprise given your obvious fundamentalist leanings.
Lastly, evolution is fact. We have witnessed radical changes in our recorded history, and in labs. There is no doubt of the fact of evolution in any but a few American fundamentalist mules like yourself. The only point being argued by educated people is the finer points of the process of evolution.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Linus started doing the kernel, had many significant portions done, AND THEN people started helping in other areas. I certainly don't think anyone who wants to give it a go should be discouraged, though. Just because they are not currently a "rocket scientist" doesn't mean they won't become one.
No, I don't. Ironically, I just finished reading Jakob Nielsen's "Designing Web Usability", and he rants against the same thing that you apparently think is a Good Thing.
I *hate* having my font selection overridden by a web site. In a medium where the users have all the control, it only makes sense to relinquish that control to them...it's too easy for them to go somewhere else. When I see my fonts being overridden, esp. to much smaller ones I can barely read, I move elsewhere. If I can't move elsewhere, I switch to Lynx/Links to view the site.
Anyone remember the good old days of Wired when they used radical page design? It was cool, if unreadable at times.
Yes, and it's one of the reasons why I cancelled my subscription, eventually...that, and, IMHO, Wired went downhill fast as soon as the Internet got the attention of big corps.
In any case, I'll never forget when one of the MST3K crew said, "Well, at least this is easier to read than Wired magazine", about some horrible movie credits. It's too bad MST3K is gone. Few shows (or any other media, for that matter) did such a fine job of commenting on pop culture than that show did.
You must have learned your style of writing and reasoning from Eric Cartman. *Sigh*. I never should have fed the troll, anyway. For all I know, your comments could have been banged out by a million monkeys for all the intelligence they contain. Have a nice day.
It's not a "notion":
http://www.daemonnews.org/200108/dadvocate.html
There is little doubt that M$ has used BSD code. Debug symbols that were not stripped out in beta versions of NT leave little doubt, no? The extent is what is in question.
There is nothing illegal about this. I was merely pointing this out since the original flamer was implying that either a) he, or b) Microsoft was self-reliant. So yes, my point is still valid, and YES, I still have one, AC.
Have you heard of decaf?
Oh...and I use BSD, not Linux. And I'm no hippie. If you want to talk about folks being self-reliant, let's talk about where M$ got their TCP/IP stack from.
Well, if by "U.S. values", he is pointing out the laissez-faire economics and the rights that we believe are given to everyone (via a Creator, not a bureacrat) he's sorta right: The United States, was, and is, a radical concept. And it's based on what the Libertarian party has claimed for its platform.
Most countries refuse to give their citizens these same rights. Rights such as free speech and gun ownership are, by definition, radical, since so many "reasonable" and more "civilized" countries place heavy restrictions on (or deny) both, and having such a concept in place that defies kings and bureaucrats (rights given to us by a Creator, remember, OUT OF REACH from a bureaucrat or king) is threatening to most of those who seek power. And make no mistake, bureaucrats seek power. From the minute these precepts were laid out, politicians and others have sought to undermine these rights.
So the dude writing this ridiculous bit of flamage did have some of his notions right: America is *supposed* to be libertarian in spirit, also known as "classically liberal" (nothing like the modern liberal platform as it applies in America, which is just socialism plain and simple).
But a libertarian Internet is not a problem UNLESS you are an elitist asshole who thinks it's not going the way that you think it ought to. And that's when this guy's fascist side comes out, apparently. The Europeans don't seem to learn too many lessons from history. Remember: the "final solution" was a government program. This guy just needs to learn to create his own damned content, and learn how to "change the channel".