Communists? Come on, Bill, you can do better than that! Who cares about Communists anymore? Just look at all the business we're doing with Communist China these days. The word "Communism" has definitely lost its cache.
Here's some advice for your public relations folks: We're not communists, we're "software terrorists", Bill, and we're out to kill little babies and children in the name of FOSS. We hate freedom and the American way of life and we're out to destroy it.
Now, if you can get that message across and paint that picture to the American public, you'd kill FOSS forever. Hell, you could probably get the FBI to start raiding the homes of Linux users.
Good luck in your future endeavors, you Capitalist Pig.
A new world order has arisen with Microsoft now in charge of most of the world's armies, they have vowed to crush insurgents in countries with ties to the Open Source Software Initiative.
"We need to defend liberty and freedom everywhere," World Leader Gates said. "If we don't stop open source overseas, we'll soon be fighing Linux in our own homes."
From http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/faqs/how_pay.aspx
We cannot speculate whether construction and operation of the TTC will lead to an increase in the state fuel tax.
While private sector resources will be aggressively sought by TxDOT, it is possible that gas tax funding may be used. We expect the project will be paid for through a financing plan that includes bonds, tolls, private sector capital and other sources of revenue.
Yeah, and I suppose Cintra is paying for the high profile PR campaign and web site for this project, right?
Let me clue you in a little bit about how privatization works: Corporations leverage public resources to guarantee profits at taxpayers' expense with very little oversight. That is, they walk away with bags full of taxpayer dollars and the politicians that let them do it get rewared with cushy jobs also at taxpayer's expense).
If this is such a great money-making idea, why not get a loan from the federal government and make it happen? Tom Delay could certainly bring home that bacon if he wanted to.
This is nothing but a big fucking money grab, son. Yee-haw.
How many thinking people could you get to sit down and read a 400 page documented book that attempted to explore this theoretical outcome in any real depth?
Now ask yourself: How many idiots can you get to watch an 8 minute Flash animation and be awestruck by its "powerful" revelations and insight?
10. If a large coporation can fuck you out of a penny, they will.
9. Corporations will break anti-trust laws if they can make more money than adhering to their letter and spirit.
8. Corporations are prone to the blind following of rantings and ravings of men who have an immature needs to feel important.
7. #8 is only true because a) real people with real-sized egos have to feed their wives and children OR b) the employee is also an asshole with an overwhelming need to feel important.
6. Corporations just don't give a fuck about anything but making money.
5. Corporations will shift the blame onto consumers they create if they think the can get away with it. See Microsoft's 10 Immutable Laws of Security: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/community/columns/security/essays/10imlaws.mspx
4. In the coporate world, there is no truth, just good PR and bad PR. If good PR and the truth coincide, it's by coincidence only.
3. The people who rise to the top in corporations are those who are best at and enjoy playing mind fuck games with those they perceive as mentally inferior. This includes making people feel appreciated when the reality is they are actually kind of despised for being so dumb as to actually feel appreciated.
2. Corporations (and the men with small penises that run them) have created the cynical environment that cause people to despise them so much.
1. Corporations are not a panacea. By themselves, they cannot change the world and can quite literally destroy it if there is no oversight of these powerful entities.
Don't confuse the "nature of bureaucracies" with the nature of humans. We are imperfect. Every institution and everything we create is imperfect. Corporations are imperfect, unions are imperfect, civic organizations and organized religions are all imperfect.
And when you come down to it, there's just no way to avoid a bureaurcarcy, whether public or private. What's the alternative? A one man dictator or a small body of all-powerful engineers who make all decisions about how the Internet should be run? That's neither politically or practically possible.
As much as we may detest bureaucracies, you cannot deny the vital role they play. Are bureaucracies perfect? Nope. But you have to take the good with the bad.
If you want to take pictures of your family at the holidays and keep memories of your vactation to Disney World, you get a standard digital camera. If you are a more serious photographer interested in artistry, you buy an SLR.
I forgot to add the following paragraph to my last post:
"But you should not dismiss the study based on the experience of your one daughter. Question it, yes, but it's just as foolish to write it off. The best you can do is reserve judgment."
No doubt, social science is messy. You don't have a controlled environment. And to a degree, the questions you have will determine the answers you get. And scientists also have agendas. To paraphrase yours, it seems to be: "it's the parents, stupid."
Yes, it's tough to definitively prove anything but that doesn't mean you should stop trying. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this study unless I were qualified to and saw the hard data.
The article/study didn't say kids won't excel if they use a computer. They said if you compare a kid who uses a computer from a similar background to one that doesn't, the kid who doesn't use a computer does better.
The study does suggest that in the parallel universe, the one where you don't allow your daughter to use a computer, she's doing even better intellectually.
I've given up to Slashdot english
on
Given Up to Spyware?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
You can't escape it. Just have to learn to keep your mouth shut and live with it, right?
I wasn't trying to refute your memory or prove what an awesome researcher I am or what the cause of the accident or say anything else except to point out, with some humor, that you don't have to rely on your memory. Why would you even make a statement you aren't even sure is accurate? Why wouldn't you introduce at least one shred of evidence from some established authority that might back your claim up? It would take you all of 2 minutes to do that.
I seem to remember something called the "Internet" and I did something called a "Google" search and it turned up a "web page" that returned a bunch of "urls". This was one of them: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu21le/uu21l e0c.htm
Read on, it's pretty cool what you can do nowadays with a computer:
Legal battles and the "sabotage" defence
For Union Carbide, the legal battle with the Government of India was a major long-term effect of the Bhopal disaster. The company's legal defence was built around the claim that it was not liable for damages from the accident, because they were the result of "sabotage" by a disgruntled worker. UCC claimed it knew the saboteur's identity, and the firm of Arthur D. Little, Inc. was hired to verify and publicize this viewpoint (Kalelkar 1988). The company also circulated videos about the sabotage claim to the media and other interested observers.
How was sabotage supposed to have occurred? It was alleged that water could not have entered the MIC tanks during pipe-washing operations: pipes leading to the tanks were simply too long; passages were too complex and blocked with closed valves. These factors would have presented an insuperable physical barrier to water. The only way that so much water could get into the MIC storage tanks was through deliberate action by an individual. According to UCC, a disgruntled worker wanted to spoil the MIC in tank 610. The main evidence was a hose connected to a water main beside an open inlet pipe leading to the tank.
The UCC sabotage theory did not explain how several other simultaneous failures contributed to the accident. In addition to water entry, there were failures in four safety devices - the vent gas scrubber, the flare tower, the refrigeration system, and the water spray. There were failures in design, operating procedures, and staffing, as described earlier. The positive-pressure systems in the MIC tanks had failed, four to eight weeks before the accident.
Union Carbide's information about the sabotage came from interviews with unnamed witnesses conducted several years after the accident, in unreliable conditions. The interviews were held neither under oath nor in the presence of legal authorities or any independent (not paid by Union Carbide) observers. UCC did not reveal the name of the saboteur so that legal action could be initiated.
The sabotage claim did not explain why a disgruntled worker would want to destroy a batch of MIC. Far greater financial damage could have been inflicted on the company by smashing expensive equipment or pouring water on finished goods. Without convincing evidence, the sabotage claim remains just that - a claim.
The deliberate introduction of water into MIC storage tanks might have taken place without any intention to commit sabotage. A small quantity of water from pipe washing could have initiated the accident. Operators on duty might have been alarmed by the sight of a rumbling hot tank and could have introduced water to cool it. Such a scenario was hinted at by some witnesses and it accommodates most of the claims raised in the sabotage defence.
Gee, instead of wondering if your 20 year old memory serves you correctly, maybe you could possibly do a little research on something called the "internet" to back your facts up?
I'm interested to know. Who might oversee a system that would provide compensation for victims? The invisible hand of justice?
So-called libertarianism is classic "throw the baby out with the bath water" thinking. Just because government has a lot of power, that doesn't mean you should get rid of it. Power is a good thing. It means you can get a lot done. But you must work hard to make sure that power gets expended wisely and for the good of people.
The United States didn't become the most powerful economic and social force on the planet because it had a weak centralized government. But now our government is in grave danger of being captured by special interests. This is very bad and we must work to change it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? I thought he was hilarious. I think the crowd was just too uptight, especially Gates himself. He came across as a fucking android.
Oops, should be "cachet" not "cache."
Communists? Come on, Bill, you can do better than that! Who cares about Communists anymore? Just look at all the business we're doing with Communist China these days. The word "Communism" has definitely lost its cache.
Here's some advice for your public relations folks: We're not communists, we're "software terrorists", Bill, and we're out to kill little babies and children in the name of FOSS. We hate freedom and the American way of life and we're out to destroy it.
Now, if you can get that message across and paint that picture to the American public, you'd kill FOSS forever. Hell, you could probably get the FBI to start raiding the homes of Linux users.
Good luck in your future endeavors, you Capitalist Pig.
NPR's logo is almost identical to Sun Microsystem's logo for java.
A new world order has arisen with Microsoft now in charge of most of the world's armies, they have vowed to crush insurgents in countries with ties to the Open Source Software Initiative.
"We need to defend liberty and freedom everywhere," World Leader Gates said. "If we don't stop open source overseas, we'll soon be fighing Linux in our own homes."
Yeah, well, do a google search on them:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-pblie.htm
Fucking high-priced conmen. This is PR and they are being paid handsomely by the State of Texas, I'm sure.
Cintras is only going to pony up 6 bills. A drop in the bucket of the total cost.
o rdID=6869
See http://www.worldhighways.com/news/article.cfm?rec
From http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/faqs/how_pay.aspx
We cannot speculate whether construction and operation of the TTC will lead to an increase in the state fuel tax.
While private sector resources will be aggressively sought by TxDOT, it is possible that gas tax funding may be used. We expect the project will be paid for through a financing plan that includes bonds, tolls, private sector capital and other sources of revenue.
Yeah, and I suppose Cintra is paying for the high profile PR campaign and web site for this project, right?
Let me clue you in a little bit about how privatization works: Corporations leverage public resources to guarantee profits at taxpayers' expense with very little oversight. That is, they walk away with bags full of taxpayer dollars and the politicians that let them do it get rewared with cushy jobs also at taxpayer's expense).
If this is such a great money-making idea, why not get a loan from the federal government and make it happen? Tom Delay could certainly bring home that bacon if he wanted to.
This is nothing but a big fucking money grab, son. Yee-haw.
Good fucking luck. Ever try to explain DRM to a sheep? It's much easier to lead one to slaughter.
How many thinking people could you get to sit down and read a 400 page documented book that attempted to explore this theoretical outcome in any real depth?
Now ask yourself: How many idiots can you get to watch an 8 minute Flash animation and be awestruck by its "powerful" revelations and insight?
10. If a large coporation can fuck you out of a penny, they will.
y /columns/security/essays/10imlaws.mspx
9. Corporations will break anti-trust laws if they can make more money than adhering to their letter and spirit.
8. Corporations are prone to the blind following of rantings and ravings of men who have an immature needs to feel important.
7. #8 is only true because a) real people with real-sized egos have to feed their wives and children OR b) the employee is also an asshole with an overwhelming need to feel important.
6. Corporations just don't give a fuck about anything but making money.
5. Corporations will shift the blame onto consumers they create if they think the can get away with it. See Microsoft's 10 Immutable Laws of Security: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/communit
4. In the coporate world, there is no truth, just good PR and bad PR. If good PR and the truth coincide, it's by coincidence only.
3. The people who rise to the top in corporations are those who are best at and enjoy playing mind fuck games with those they perceive as mentally inferior. This includes making people feel appreciated when the reality is they are actually kind of despised for being so dumb as to actually feel appreciated.
2. Corporations (and the men with small penises that run them) have created the cynical environment that cause people to despise them so much.
1. Corporations are not a panacea. By themselves, they cannot change the world and can quite literally destroy it if there is no oversight of these powerful entities.
oops.
So let's just treat the planet like one big fucking toilet so our ancestors can be treated to hell on eearth.
Not only did you not get first post, you didn't even RTFA. Sad.
Don't confuse the "nature of bureaucracies" with the nature of humans. We are imperfect. Every institution and everything we create is imperfect. Corporations are imperfect, unions are imperfect, civic organizations and organized religions are all imperfect.
And when you come down to it, there's just no way to avoid a bureaurcarcy, whether public or private. What's the alternative? A one man dictator or a small body of all-powerful engineers who make all decisions about how the Internet should be run? That's neither politically or practically possible.
As much as we may detest bureaucracies, you cannot deny the vital role they play. Are bureaucracies perfect? Nope. But you have to take the good with the bad.
If you want to take pictures of your family at the holidays and keep memories of your vactation to Disney World, you get a standard digital camera. If you are a more serious photographer interested in artistry, you buy an SLR.
I forgot to add the following paragraph to my last post:
"But you should not dismiss the study based on the experience of your one daughter. Question it, yes, but it's just as foolish to write it off. The best you can do is reserve judgment."
No doubt, social science is messy. You don't have a controlled environment. And to a degree, the questions you have will determine the answers you get. And scientists also have agendas. To paraphrase yours, it seems to be: "it's the parents, stupid."
Yes, it's tough to definitively prove anything but that doesn't mean you should stop trying. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this study unless I were qualified to and saw the hard data.
The article/study didn't say kids won't excel if they use a computer. They said if you compare a kid who uses a computer from a similar background to one that doesn't, the kid who doesn't use a computer does better.
The study does suggest that in the parallel universe, the one where you don't allow your daughter to use a computer, she's doing even better intellectually.
You can't escape it. Just have to learn to keep your mouth shut and live with it, right?
I wasn't trying to refute your memory or prove what an awesome researcher I am or what the cause of the accident or say anything else except to point out, with some humor, that you don't have to rely on your memory. Why would you even make a statement you aren't even sure is accurate? Why wouldn't you introduce at least one shred of evidence from some established authority that might back your claim up? It would take you all of 2 minutes to do that.
I seem to remember something called the "Internet" and I did something called a "Google" search and it turned up a "web page" that returned a bunch of "urls". This was one of them: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu21le/uu21l e0c.htm
Read on, it's pretty cool what you can do nowadays with a computer:
Legal battles and the "sabotage" defence
For Union Carbide, the legal battle with the Government of India was a major long-term effect of the Bhopal disaster. The company's legal defence was built around the claim that it was not liable for damages from the accident, because they were the result of "sabotage" by a disgruntled worker. UCC claimed it knew the saboteur's identity, and the firm of Arthur D. Little, Inc. was hired to verify and publicize this viewpoint (Kalelkar 1988). The company also circulated videos about the sabotage claim to the media and other interested observers.
How was sabotage supposed to have occurred? It was alleged that water could not have entered the MIC tanks during pipe-washing operations: pipes leading to the tanks were simply too long; passages were too complex and blocked with closed valves. These factors would have presented an insuperable physical barrier to water. The only way that so much water could get into the MIC storage tanks was through deliberate action by an individual. According to UCC, a disgruntled worker wanted to spoil the MIC in tank 610. The main evidence was a hose connected to a water main beside an open inlet pipe leading to the tank.
The UCC sabotage theory did not explain how several other simultaneous failures contributed to the accident. In addition to water entry, there were failures in four safety devices - the vent gas scrubber, the flare tower, the refrigeration system, and the water spray. There were failures in design, operating procedures, and staffing, as described earlier. The positive-pressure systems in the MIC tanks had failed, four to eight weeks before the accident.
Union Carbide's information about the sabotage came from interviews with unnamed witnesses conducted several years after the accident, in unreliable conditions. The interviews were held neither under oath nor in the presence of legal authorities or any independent (not paid by Union Carbide) observers. UCC did not reveal the name of the saboteur so that legal action could be initiated.
The sabotage claim did not explain why a disgruntled worker would want to destroy a batch of MIC. Far greater financial damage could have been inflicted on the company by smashing expensive equipment or pouring water on finished goods. Without convincing evidence, the sabotage claim remains just that - a claim.
The deliberate introduction of water into MIC storage tanks might have taken place without any intention to commit sabotage. A small quantity of water from pipe washing could have initiated the accident. Operators on duty might have been alarmed by the sight of a rumbling hot tank and could have introduced water to cool it. Such a scenario was hinted at by some witnesses and it accommodates most of the claims raised in the sabotage defence.
Gee, instead of wondering if your 20 year old memory serves you correctly, maybe you could possibly do a little research on something called the "internet" to back your facts up?
I'm interested to know. Who might oversee a system that would provide compensation for victims? The invisible hand of justice?
So-called libertarianism is classic "throw the baby out with the bath water" thinking. Just because government has a lot of power, that doesn't mean you should get rid of it. Power is a good thing. It means you can get a lot done. But you must work hard to make sure that power gets expended wisely and for the good of people.
The United States didn't become the most powerful economic and social force on the planet because it had a weak centralized government. But now our government is in grave danger of being captured by special interests. This is very bad and we must work to change it.