This movie is about South Africa. I know it's difficult sometimes, but try to remember that there are countries on this planet other than the United States of America.
Web developers are probably more likely to have IE6 around than your typical user since they need it for their job. I use Firefox exclusively at home, but when I'm having problems getting something to work on the job and need to look up a reference, I occasionally use IE either by mistake or just because I happen to be in it already.
1) Corporate personhood: the notion that a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as a natural person, or some subset of those rights (e.g. due process, free speech, etc.)
2) Money as free speech: the notion that campaign donations are a form of constitutionally protected speech
Therefore, a person - or company legally recognized as a person - cannot be restricted from donating money to a campaign because that would be an infringement on their constitutionally-recognized right to free political speech.
The legitimacy of this position, and either of its two components individually, has been and continues to be a matter of substantial debate.
Contradict just means to take a contrary position. The multiple definitions of contrary allow for the word to be used accurately in this context, in the sense that the opinions are opposite of one another. It does not necessitate, however, that those opinions cause any sort of conflict.
In other words, they are contradictory in the sense that they stake opposite positions, but not in the sense that one opinion will overrule or clash with the other.
I mean, what are they going to say if you only give them the accounts that you want them to see, or better yet, say that you don't have any, except an email address
In all likelihood, nothing. However, if they find out later that you lied, they'll fire you for lying on your application.
Still, nobody with any common sense would agree to this.... which is sort of a moot point since they're hiring for government work.
A rather specific point was made which I'm questioning: that threatening someone via the regular post is somehow more credible than threatening that same person via the internet. I want to see actual evidence that there's any truth in this statement, because, on its face, it's absurd.
We're so used to seeing random idiots with internet connection anonymously threaten other anonymous people, but this is not the same thing. This is a case of an anonymous idiot threatening a specific group of people who can be readily identified and found.
I'd love to see what you're basing your implied psychology on. You're arguing that people who make direct threats against other people on the internet are less serious than people who make direct threats via a letter. What proof do you have of such a claim?
The easier it is to make a threat, the less seriously the threat should be viewed? That doesn't make any sense. A threat's a threat. If someone made a threat, it should be treated in only one consistent way no matter what medium they used to convey it.
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
So 1 vote out of 535 and a continuation of someone else's policies and plans makes Obama more culpable than the man who actually proposed the idea - Paulson - and the only single man other than Paulson who ever had the ability to stop it - Bush.
You can keep telling yourself that, but your so-called conservatives are the ones that kept them in power. So either conservatives are idiots who can't evaluate the political philosophies of the people they support - which is apparently your position - or conservatives happily ignored the fact that the republican party was blatantly redefining the conservative political position in the United States.
Either conservatives in the U.S. have been happily voting against their own philosophy for about fifteen years, or they didn't mind the fact that the people they were voting for were blatantly redefining their political philosophy. Which is it?
And regardless of whether you like or not, the republican party is conservative. They may not be whatever narrow brand of conservatism you're referring to (I'm assuming you're picking paleoconservative as your arbitrary definition of the much larger group that is "conservative"), but they're still under the big tent of "conservatism".
Ah, yes, the old "no true scotsman" argument. Standby of the man who's lost every rationale he ever had to defend what means the most to him.
Republicans spent many years villifying anyone who dared to disagree with them on any issue while elevating filth such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck to spokespersons and role models for their movement.
Republicans opened religious and geopolitical extremists with open arms which relegated all the moderates to Independence or pushed them into the democratic party. They elected a stuttering buffoon who drove the country deep into debt with nothing to show for it, destroyed our standing with the rest of the world as a beacon of hope and leadership, and forced a division of loyalties not seen in this country for nearly 50 years.
For their troubles they've been pushed to the fringe by a reliably moderate majority of Americans who have had enough with their extremist views and tactics. Now the republicans are finding that fearmongering and hate only go so far before people get wise to those antics and reject them for more intelligent and useful ideas.
The republicans made this bed. Now they can lie in it until they decide to clean up their act and start acting in a responsible and adult manner again. Or, they can die and let a more thoughtful and reasonable opposition to the democrats replace them. Either way, the republicans are what they are, and it's rapidly sending them to the abyss of irrelevance.
All that said, democrats in this thread bashing Hatch because of the R next to his name would do well to remember that our democratic vice president is pretty friendly to the same people Hatch is, and our president is staffing key legal positions with ex-lawyers from the types of firms that would be more than happy to prosecute torrent users and hosters on American soil the way the Pirate Bay was tried.
If we're going to start arguing ridiculous technicalities...
Then maybe the people you grief should sue you for theft of services. Your sole intent in your actions is, by your own admission, to inflict mental anguish on other people who are paying to play a game that you're interfering with. As a result, they could show that they were financially harmed by your actions. Sue you for a buck and tack on fifty grand for the pain and suffering caused by your harassment....
Or you could just grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child when you're on the internet. Whichever.
Much like the heavily fantasized notion of an idyllic suburban 50's culture, the ultra-PC "everybody wins" culture never really existed. It's a nice bogeyman, though, for people who want to drone about how much better their upbringning was than everyone else's. The worst it ever really culminated in was "participant"-style rewards like ribbons and whatnot. And it's a moot point now anyway since 90% of school time is devoted to drilling kids with standardized testing preparation.
A movement did take foot in public schools in the the early and mid 90s that emphasized self-esteem as a major factor in success, and it makes sense. If you feel bad about yourself to the point of pathology you're probably not going to strive for anything better. You can quibble about the effectiveness of specific attempts to rectify these situations, or the value in taking emphasis and public resources away from students with healthier attitudes to try and help moody kids, but stop trying to create a false history just so you have something to point a finger at in lieu of any specific concerns or solutions.
My wife has been teaching for 2 decades now and has seen every half-baked trend come and go as administrators bounce from one artificial one-size-fits-all solution to another. There's been one thing that's been consistent through it all, and one thing only: loudmouth parents who won't shut up and let schools teach. The majority of overprotectiveness and excuse-making for failure doesn't come from the schools at all, especially not now that we have NCLB and even stricter state mandates that practically demand that children be hammered mercilessly with bullet points regardless of their performance.
The majority of feel-good nonsense and excuse for repeated or consistent failure emanates from, and has always emanated from, parents.
First of all, those other updates don't get installed silently among other, legitimate updates. Secondly, it affected anyone that installed that.NET update regardless of how they did it.
Like someone else said, this should have been an option in the installation process for that could be unchecked. You shouldn't make changes to other people's software without their permission. So, yea, Microsoft certainly did screw up.
Is it the end of the world? No. They offered a fix, so it's more like a minor annoyance for those who don't want it, but it's still a screw-up.
Oh, I don't need to flee for another job or anything like that. Nobody blames me for the poor state of the system, they just won't work with me to make it right. Not the most rewarding work I've ever done, having to run around and hotfix catastrophes each time Microsoft issues a security fix, but it's nothing I feel compelled to run from. I've pointed out several times that it will inevitably collapse. When it does, I'll be responsible for "fixing" it, but I won't get blamed or yelled at. Like I said, not the most rewarding work, but it's not nearly as bad as it could be given the state of things.
I actually have some systems for a sister company that I was able to get almost uninhibited control over. They run on PHP 5.2.6 and Server 2008. They're coded to either HTML 4.01 Transitional or XHTML 1.0 Transitional standards, CSS is entirely separated from the markup, Javascript not loading doesn't break anything, etc. etc. That stuff runs great. I rarely even have to look at it. Amusingly, nobody who's preventing me from fixing the other system seems to notice that.
I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.
If I say I don't believe in you, will that make you disappear?
I have one application sitting here right in front of me that is comprised of over 5618 files (about half of which are ASP or HTML) that were orginally built around IE5. When IE6 came out they broke. When IE7 came out, they broke. IE8 won't even render half the site.
The people who were commissioned to build it were done and gone years before I started working here. I have no documentation, the code is laced with inline SQL,.HTCs, and, in some places, 7 or 8 layers of includes. The database is undocumented, I'm the only person in the company who understands any of it.
COULD it be fixed? Yes. But it would take months for me to do it, and it would cost too much to hire someone else. Scrapping it and rebuilding it is the only viable option, but management spent a ton of money on this app and nobody will admit that it's a disaster and a $1 million+ mistake.
Whether you admit it or not, a lot of early web code out there was written by a lot of people who never had any business being anywhere near the profession. It's not going away any time soon.
Prove what otherwise? None of your statements are supported by anything at all. As far as I can tell, your entire argument is that WoW is an addictive game because of how you hypothesize another person you've never met might behave if he were to start playing with you under a set of conditions you came up with.
play WoW for a few months, tell me your not feeling the itch!
I've been playing WoW for three and half years. I have one 80 and one 30, and my/played time on my main toon, last I checked, was just barely over 20 days.
Gee. I'm out of control with my addiction, huh? Better get the calamine lotion for that itch.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really all that needs to be said of Arpaio, and since it's the first instance of the statement, it's the most insightful post in the story.
You fail.
Nine more posts and I have a degree!
Oh, wait, no... I actually had to prove that I'd learned some facts to get my degree.
This movie is about South Africa. I know it's difficult sometimes, but try to remember that there are countries on this planet other than the United States of America.
Web developers are probably more likely to have IE6 around than your typical user since they need it for their job. I use Firefox exclusively at home, but when I'm having problems getting something to work on the job and need to look up a reference, I occasionally use IE either by mistake or just because I happen to be in it already.
Absolutely and unequivocally false:
Two things:
1) Corporate personhood: the notion that a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as a natural person, or some subset of those rights (e.g. due process, free speech, etc.)
2) Money as free speech: the notion that campaign donations are a form of constitutionally protected speech
Therefore, a person - or company legally recognized as a person - cannot be restricted from donating money to a campaign because that would be an infringement on their constitutionally-recognized right to free political speech.
The legitimacy of this position, and either of its two components individually, has been and continues to be a matter of substantial debate.
Contradict just means to take a contrary position. The multiple definitions of contrary allow for the word to be used accurately in this context, in the sense that the opinions are opposite of one another. It does not necessitate, however, that those opinions cause any sort of conflict.
In other words, they are contradictory in the sense that they stake opposite positions, but not in the sense that one opinion will overrule or clash with the other.
It just struck me reading that... it must really, REALLY suck being the first person to ever have a particular disease.
In all likelihood, nothing. However, if they find out later that you lied, they'll fire you for lying on your application.
Still, nobody with any common sense would agree to this.... which is sort of a moot point since they're hiring for government work.
A rather specific point was made which I'm questioning: that threatening someone via the regular post is somehow more credible than threatening that same person via the internet. I want to see actual evidence that there's any truth in this statement, because, on its face, it's absurd.
We're so used to seeing random idiots with internet connection anonymously threaten other anonymous people, but this is not the same thing. This is a case of an anonymous idiot threatening a specific group of people who can be readily identified and found.
I'd love to see what you're basing your implied psychology on. You're arguing that people who make direct threats against other people on the internet are less serious than people who make direct threats via a letter. What proof do you have of such a claim?
The easier it is to make a threat, the less seriously the threat should be viewed? That doesn't make any sense. A threat's a threat. If someone made a threat, it should be treated in only one consistent way no matter what medium they used to convey it.
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
So 1 vote out of 535 and a continuation of someone else's policies and plans makes Obama more culpable than the man who actually proposed the idea - Paulson - and the only single man other than Paulson who ever had the ability to stop it - Bush.
Makes perfect sense to me.
You can keep telling yourself that, but your so-called conservatives are the ones that kept them in power. So either conservatives are idiots who can't evaluate the political philosophies of the people they support - which is apparently your position - or conservatives happily ignored the fact that the republican party was blatantly redefining the conservative political position in the United States.
Either conservatives in the U.S. have been happily voting against their own philosophy for about fifteen years, or they didn't mind the fact that the people they were voting for were blatantly redefining their political philosophy. Which is it?
And regardless of whether you like or not, the republican party is conservative. They may not be whatever narrow brand of conservatism you're referring to (I'm assuming you're picking paleoconservative as your arbitrary definition of the much larger group that is "conservative"), but they're still under the big tent of "conservatism".
Ah, yes, the old "no true scotsman" argument. Standby of the man who's lost every rationale he ever had to defend what means the most to him.
Republicans spent many years villifying anyone who dared to disagree with them on any issue while elevating filth such as Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck to spokespersons and role models for their movement.
Republicans opened religious and geopolitical extremists with open arms which relegated all the moderates to Independence or pushed them into the democratic party. They elected a stuttering buffoon who drove the country deep into debt with nothing to show for it, destroyed our standing with the rest of the world as a beacon of hope and leadership, and forced a division of loyalties not seen in this country for nearly 50 years.
For their troubles they've been pushed to the fringe by a reliably moderate majority of Americans who have had enough with their extremist views and tactics. Now the republicans are finding that fearmongering and hate only go so far before people get wise to those antics and reject them for more intelligent and useful ideas.
The republicans made this bed. Now they can lie in it until they decide to clean up their act and start acting in a responsible and adult manner again. Or, they can die and let a more thoughtful and reasonable opposition to the democrats replace them. Either way, the republicans are what they are, and it's rapidly sending them to the abyss of irrelevance.
All that said, democrats in this thread bashing Hatch because of the R next to his name would do well to remember that our democratic vice president is pretty friendly to the same people Hatch is, and our president is staffing key legal positions with ex-lawyers from the types of firms that would be more than happy to prosecute torrent users and hosters on American soil the way the Pirate Bay was tried.
If we're going to start arguing ridiculous technicalities...
Then maybe the people you grief should sue you for theft of services. Your sole intent in your actions is, by your own admission, to inflict mental anguish on other people who are paying to play a game that you're interfering with. As a result, they could show that they were financially harmed by your actions. Sue you for a buck and tack on fifty grand for the pain and suffering caused by your harassment....
Or you could just grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child when you're on the internet. Whichever.
Much like the heavily fantasized notion of an idyllic suburban 50's culture, the ultra-PC "everybody wins" culture never really existed. It's a nice bogeyman, though, for people who want to drone about how much better their upbringning was than everyone else's. The worst it ever really culminated in was "participant"-style rewards like ribbons and whatnot. And it's a moot point now anyway since 90% of school time is devoted to drilling kids with standardized testing preparation.
A movement did take foot in public schools in the the early and mid 90s that emphasized self-esteem as a major factor in success, and it makes sense. If you feel bad about yourself to the point of pathology you're probably not going to strive for anything better. You can quibble about the effectiveness of specific attempts to rectify these situations, or the value in taking emphasis and public resources away from students with healthier attitudes to try and help moody kids, but stop trying to create a false history just so you have something to point a finger at in lieu of any specific concerns or solutions.
My wife has been teaching for 2 decades now and has seen every half-baked trend come and go as administrators bounce from one artificial one-size-fits-all solution to another. There's been one thing that's been consistent through it all, and one thing only: loudmouth parents who won't shut up and let schools teach. The majority of overprotectiveness and excuse-making for failure doesn't come from the schools at all, especially not now that we have NCLB and even stricter state mandates that practically demand that children be hammered mercilessly with bullet points regardless of their performance.
The majority of feel-good nonsense and excuse for repeated or consistent failure emanates from, and has always emanated from, parents.
First of all, those other updates don't get installed silently among other, legitimate updates. Secondly, it affected anyone that installed that .NET update regardless of how they did it.
Like someone else said, this should have been an option in the installation process for that could be unchecked. You shouldn't make changes to other people's software without their permission. So, yea, Microsoft certainly did screw up.
Is it the end of the world? No. They offered a fix, so it's more like a minor annoyance for those who don't want it, but it's still a screw-up.
Oh, I don't need to flee for another job or anything like that. Nobody blames me for the poor state of the system, they just won't work with me to make it right. Not the most rewarding work I've ever done, having to run around and hotfix catastrophes each time Microsoft issues a security fix, but it's nothing I feel compelled to run from. I've pointed out several times that it will inevitably collapse. When it does, I'll be responsible for "fixing" it, but I won't get blamed or yelled at. Like I said, not the most rewarding work, but it's not nearly as bad as it could be given the state of things.
I actually have some systems for a sister company that I was able to get almost uninhibited control over. They run on PHP 5.2.6 and Server 2008. They're coded to either HTML 4.01 Transitional or XHTML 1.0 Transitional standards, CSS is entirely separated from the markup, Javascript not loading doesn't break anything, etc. etc. That stuff runs great. I rarely even have to look at it. Amusingly, nobody who's preventing me from fixing the other system seems to notice that.
If I say I don't believe in you, will that make you disappear?
I have one application sitting here right in front of me that is comprised of over 5618 files (about half of which are ASP or HTML) that were orginally built around IE5. When IE6 came out they broke. When IE7 came out, they broke. IE8 won't even render half the site.
The people who were commissioned to build it were done and gone years before I started working here. I have no documentation, the code is laced with inline SQL, .HTCs, and, in some places, 7 or 8 layers of includes. The database is undocumented, I'm the only person in the company who understands any of it.
COULD it be fixed? Yes. But it would take months for me to do it, and it would cost too much to hire someone else. Scrapping it and rebuilding it is the only viable option, but management spent a ton of money on this app and nobody will admit that it's a disaster and a $1 million+ mistake.
Whether you admit it or not, a lot of early web code out there was written by a lot of people who never had any business being anywhere near the profession. It's not going away any time soon.
You can call me whatever you want, you're still full of crap.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about and I don't think you do either.
Prove what otherwise? None of your statements are supported by anything at all. As far as I can tell, your entire argument is that WoW is an addictive game because of how you hypothesize another person you've never met might behave if he were to start playing with you under a set of conditions you came up with.
I've been playing WoW for three and half years. I have one 80 and one 30, and my /played time on my main toon, last I checked, was just barely over 20 days.
Gee. I'm out of control with my addiction, huh? Better get the calamine lotion for that itch.
I suspect that about 90% of what you just said is a load of bullhonkey.