You're being too permissive -- what's lacking from that sentence is the word "boondoggle". We shouldn't permit them to leave that out, because it's a slippery slope, and next thing you know they'll be claiming that innovative government projects are leveraging synergy in order to enhance the ROI of tax revenues.
You are being monitored and given that these servers are also being used in and for federally funded work, you have attracted the attention of a number of people who are taking this pretty seriously.
Nice to hear that sanity still exists inside the walls of our fine educational institutions.
The irony of this case is mind-boggling: a teacher being investigated for using the tools that he's going to be teaching about. Didn't any of those people, walking over to see the prof, think to themselves "wait, this is a university... why are we investigating one of our profs for communicating over a network?"
I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your perspective, and had thought about posting on this point myself (except I'm not even remotely a bomb tech, I'm in software). Most civilians are oblivious idiots about this kind of stuff, which is precisely why we need people like you to deal with these things from a more serious perspective. Thanks.
So wait, let me get this straight: you're concerned that terrorists will use an online picture of your house to find weaknesses in it and come and blow it up? Doesn't your tinfoil hat protect you from that sort of thing?
As much as people want to react to this as though this photographing project is somehow problematic, it's not currently legally problematic.
If there's a problem here, someone is first going to have to do a better job of articulating what it is, not to mention what can be done about it without entirely banning photos taken from public places.
Ah, but are you sure that the post isn't X? By giving the answers it did, the post in question demonstrated something about the vagueness of the questions. Quite informative, in its way.
As for supporting or recognising abuse of the moderation system, it's an interesting exercise in the law of unintended consequences, arising from removing the karma benefit from Funny mods. Why do you support and recognise the arbitrary choices of "lawmakers" (the Slashdot admins) which lead to such unintended consequences, while not supporting (or recognising, wow) a natural reaction to those consequences? Is it blind respect for authority and (written) rules, or perhaps simply that you hadn't thought about it? What if I told you "it is an unwritten rule of Slashdot that...", would that change your perspective?
I mean, among other things, deficiency in the ability to detect communications that aren't intended literally, such as irony, sarcasm, and yes, humor. Humans use non-literal communications for all sorts of purposes, and not all of them have to end up in a belly laugh. Your comment about "echoing my own beliefs" was close to the mark, since the OP's responses echoed the questions quite cleverly, which could certainly have led some moderators to mark the comment as Informative. Then again, that may also have been an example of the moderation system being used ironically, since Funny mods don't give the recipient karma. Don't take everything you see at face value.
Congratulations, you were this close to actually getting the joke, which despite the OP's modesty in his response to you, was actually pretty good. Now read the other answers. What do you notice about them? Write an analysis, it'll help you reason about it.
The logical error you're making is assuming that it takes roughly equal effort to support anything that's closed ("[SMB] was closed like Exchange was"). That's clearly not true, and particularly isn't true in the case of SMB vs. Exchange.
Sure it is. With the battalion of intergalactic missiles, your adrenaline starts pumping, everyone pitches in, it's glorious and exciting and it's the reason we go to see action movies. When last did you go to see a movie about someone cleaning their bedroom? See the problem now?
It seems to me that one side is saying 'We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons"
Really? I'm seeing very little of that. What I'm seeing is the same misinformation repeated over and over, and a refusal to actually address the facts of the situation by the "skeptics". It's a frustrating situation for anyone who's interested in figuring the issue out on a rational basis, and it's to be expected that some people are going to react badly to the lack of honesty from the skeptical side of the debate. Some of the people on the skeptic side do deserve some kind of consequences, because they're not acting in good faith, they're gambling with the future of the human race so they can afford the lease payments on a better Mercedes.
Are you sure the problem isn't with the procedures on your end? When I tried to help one of your countrymen in a similar situation, instead of simply depositing the money in my bank account, he wanted me to jump through all sorts of hoops first, and really, how hard do you expect anyone to work for a mere 5% of sixty million? Just deposit the money already!
Gates joins Carnegie and other robber barons in improving public relations for himself and his company through charity. I don't know about his heart, but his PR strategy is in the right place.
Perhaps you aren't aware of the history behind the use of the RICO law, going back at least to Rudolph Giuliani's use of the law against Michael Milken. For your further amusement, see e.g. The continuing expansion of RICO in business litigation.
Slashdot Mirror
You're being too permissive -- what's lacking from that sentence is the word "boondoggle". We shouldn't permit them to leave that out, because it's a slippery slope, and next thing you know they'll be claiming that innovative government projects are leveraging synergy in order to enhance the ROI of tax revenues.
Nice to hear that sanity still exists inside the walls of our fine educational institutions.
The irony of this case is mind-boggling: a teacher being investigated for using the tools that he's going to be teaching about. Didn't any of those people, walking over to see the prof, think to themselves "wait, this is a university... why are we investigating one of our profs for communicating over a network?"
I just put my fingers on the bulb and didn't feel anything. Wait, does that mean I'm an insensitive clod?
I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your perspective, and had thought about posting on this point myself (except I'm not even remotely a bomb tech, I'm in software). Most civilians are oblivious idiots about this kind of stuff, which is precisely why we need people like you to deal with these things from a more serious perspective. Thanks.
Has anyone ever called you inflexible?
Bridges can be photographed. It's just that in doing so, you may be subject to unusual scrutiny.
So wait, let me get this straight: you're concerned that terrorists will use an online picture of your house to find weaknesses in it and come and blow it up? Doesn't your tinfoil hat protect you from that sort of thing?
As much as people want to react to this as though this photographing project is somehow problematic, it's not currently legally problematic.
If there's a problem here, someone is first going to have to do a better job of articulating what it is, not to mention what can be done about it without entirely banning photos taken from public places.
Won't help. When they get to your street, they're just going to go door to door, asking "Which one is Scutter's house, eh?"
Ah, but are you sure that the post isn't X? By giving the answers it did, the post in question demonstrated something about the vagueness of the questions. Quite informative, in its way.
As for supporting or recognising abuse of the moderation system, it's an interesting exercise in the law of unintended consequences, arising from removing the karma benefit from Funny mods. Why do you support and recognise the arbitrary choices of "lawmakers" (the Slashdot admins) which lead to such unintended consequences, while not supporting (or recognising, wow) a natural reaction to those consequences? Is it blind respect for authority and (written) rules, or perhaps simply that you hadn't thought about it? What if I told you "it is an unwritten rule of Slashdot that...", would that change your perspective?
I mean, among other things, deficiency in the ability to detect communications that aren't intended literally, such as irony, sarcasm, and yes, humor. Humans use non-literal communications for all sorts of purposes, and not all of them have to end up in a belly laugh. Your comment about "echoing my own beliefs" was close to the mark, since the OP's responses echoed the questions quite cleverly, which could certainly have led some moderators to mark the comment as Informative. Then again, that may also have been an example of the moderation system being used ironically, since Funny mods don't give the recipient karma. Don't take everything you see at face value.
They're only "vain" attempts when the readers are, shall we say, deficient in the non-logical arts.
Yeah, but putting the wrong words in Lisa Simpson's mouth is just plain...a crime.
"It's not your fault... you don't control the birds. Someday you will, but not now."
The logical error you're making is assuming that it takes roughly equal effort to support anything that's closed ("[SMB] was closed like Exchange was"). That's clearly not true, and particularly isn't true in the case of SMB vs. Exchange.
Sure it is. With the battalion of intergalactic missiles, your adrenaline starts pumping, everyone pitches in, it's glorious and exciting and it's the reason we go to see action movies. When last did you go to see a movie about someone cleaning their bedroom? See the problem now?
Really? I'm seeing very little of that. What I'm seeing is the same misinformation repeated over and over, and a refusal to actually address the facts of the situation by the "skeptics". It's a frustrating situation for anyone who's interested in figuring the issue out on a rational basis, and it's to be expected that some people are going to react badly to the lack of honesty from the skeptical side of the debate. Some of the people on the skeptic side do deserve some kind of consequences, because they're not acting in good faith, they're gambling with the future of the human race so they can afford the lease payments on a better Mercedes.
It's the unintended consequences of "Being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma." Moderation is wackier now than ever!
Dude, you are totally not living up to your nick.
L.A. doesn't need natural disasters, its movies are disastrous enough all by themselves!
Are you sure the problem isn't with the procedures on your end? When I tried to help one of your countrymen in a similar situation, instead of simply depositing the money in my bank account, he wanted me to jump through all sorts of hoops first, and really, how hard do you expect anyone to work for a mere 5% of sixty million? Just deposit the money already!
Gates joins Carnegie and other robber barons in improving public relations for himself and his company through charity. I don't know about his heart, but his PR strategy is in the right place.
Perhaps you aren't aware of the history behind the use of the RICO law, going back at least to Rudolph Giuliani's use of the law against Michael Milken. For your further amusement, see e.g. The continuing expansion of RICO in business litigation.
No, it was gblues, a commenter about three levels up from this comment, who said "I think you mean 'du jour'". You can stop talking in bold font now.