Hmm. How about that. I wonder where I can find an expert in 1970's Lebanese crayon technology...
Either Rather (and now Reuters) deliberately introduced the fakes (in which case they are liars, but very stupid ones) or they were gulled by very very obvious fakes (in which case they are honest but still stupid).
There's no getting away from the fact that all the people involved are IDIOTS. Karl Rove doesn't even have to work up a sweat if this is what he's facing; he can show up at 11, destroy the credibility of a major media network, and then take the afternoon off to play golf.
Think about the fact that we have created a system by which the rich make their money by exploiting the poor.
We haven't.
Think about the fact that when earnings reports are king and share price is all important, then a company is forced to constantly squeeze every penny out of every place, and that means paying lower wages, paying suppliers less, and charging customers more.
Instead they should pay higher wages, pay suppliers more, charge customers less - and go broke? Which means that all their employees, instead of having crappy minimum-wage jobs, now have NO jobs.
The economy needs to be about the fact that as a people, we all have needs (food, shelter, etc) and we all have skills or resources.
That's exactly what it is about. You trade your labour for the products of other people's labour. If your personal skills and resources are not in demand, you don't get much for them.
Instead of focusing entirely on profit and greed, we need to focus on having an efficient and effective system.
It IS efficient and effective. Extremely so. Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes wealth, and in the process, destroys it.
The cost of redundancy is linear; the protection afforded is exponential.
Redudnancy at their scale can easily cost HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, depending on the requirements. EASILY.
Sure, it can cost that much. If you are utterly clueless. Database replication simply isn't that hard, particularly for a site like MySpace that doesn't need to worry about little things like consistent transaction ordering between the redundant sites.
I actually DO build systems at this scale for a living, and I know my job quite well, thank you very much.
Considering Bob Brown's starve-in-the-dark economic policy and Mark Latham's post-election meltdown, John Howard was the least worst of the choices offered to us.
On the topic at hand, never mind the porn, can't we ban Big Brother for being offensively stupid?
...
What am I thinking? We'd have to ban three quarters of all human activity.
I wasn't particularly fussed about net neutrality. If the carriers think they can get away charging more, let them try it. I'm far from convinced that government intervention is going to improve things.
But if the carriers are promoting this type of self-serving bullshit, then they've pushed me into the enemy camp. Let them rot.
For Marx, the processor in your PC has an exact, objective value which can be derived by summing all labor costs directly involved in making the processor.
But like, that has never been true. People have been haggling since time began. Besides which, what's a labor cost? Typically it's how much you pay your help. You could pay them more, but you don't, because they'll work for n dollars.
Exactly.
Which is why socialist countries invariably go broke.
Basic had goto and gosub, rather than procedures and functions? No decent data structures? No proper error checking?
Welcome to how computers actually work.
Sure it doesn't scale. But it's a good thing to learn about that sort of problem early, because every language and programming tool has scaling problems.
A wizard can do wizard stuff in Basic. A non-wizard is a non-wizard whether he's equipped with Common Lisp or Smalltalk or Objective-C or Algol.
Basic didn't ruin thousands of potential wizards a year, because there aren't that many potential wizards. Realistically? Couple of hundred a year, world-wide. Tops.
Actually most of the European policital forces usually mislabeled as 'Socialists' or even 'Communists' by US right wingers are actually modern Social Democrats who have become moderate to the point where they generally do not see a conflict between a democratic society with a capitalist market economy and their own goals which in turn means they have very little in common with Marxism, Communism or classical Socialism. To call political parties like the British labor party or even the German PDS/Linkspartei Socialists would actually be considered an insult by a true die-hard Socialist.
Their economic policies are definitely socialist. Which is why so many European countries are in an economic death spiral.
Not purely socialist, this is true. That's why France and Germany haven't collapsed financially - yet - the way Russia did. But their government spending is simply not supportable by their economies, and that's entirely due to socialist policy.
(The US is presently running a huge budget deficit, but in contrast to the other countries I mentioned, economic growth is more than sufficient to make up for it. US government debt as a proportion of GDP is trending downwards.)
The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday.
Yes, that is the quote from the article. The article is only very loosely connected to the actual ruling.
It's a newspaper. If you have ever read a newspaper article on a subject you are intimately familiar with, you would have found that they got most of the major facts wrong. The thing is, they do this to every story. Newspapers are just hopelessly inaccurate, not necessarily due to bias, but because reporters are incredibly lazy. And sub-editors - who have the job of creating the headlines - care about catching your attention, not about accurately summarising facts.
Tomorrow morning all the law-professor blogs will have picked the ruling apart line by line, and then you'll be able to see what it actually means. Or, as the parent poster did, you could read it yourself. But if you are going to announce the end of the world based on one line from an AP wire article, don't be surprised if everyone ignores you.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh great, replying to myself.
But anyway, that really is the argument:
Look! Documentary proof!
It's fake.
It can't be a fake! It's on paper!
It's written in crayon, for crying out loud.
Hmm. How about that. I wonder where I can find an expert in 1970's Lebanese crayon technology...
Either Rather (and now Reuters) deliberately introduced the fakes (in which case they are liars, but very stupid ones) or they were gulled by very very obvious fakes (in which case they are honest but still stupid).
There's no getting away from the fact that all the people involved are IDIOTS. Karl Rove doesn't even have to work up a sweat if this is what he's facing; he can show up at 11, destroy the credibility of a major media network, and then take the afternoon off to play golf.
Much simpler to assume that Dan Rather and the staff and executives at CBS and Reuters are just very, very stupid.
Think about the fact that we have created a system by which the rich make their money by exploiting the poor.
We haven't.
Think about the fact that when earnings reports are king and share price is all important, then a company is forced to constantly squeeze every penny out of every place, and that means paying lower wages, paying suppliers less, and charging customers more.
Instead they should pay higher wages, pay suppliers more, charge customers less - and go broke? Which means that all their employees, instead of having crappy minimum-wage jobs, now have NO jobs.
The economy needs to be about the fact that as a people, we all have needs (food, shelter, etc) and we all have skills or resources.
That's exactly what it is about. You trade your labour for the products of other people's labour. If your personal skills and resources are not in demand, you don't get much for them.
Instead of focusing entirely on profit and greed, we need to focus on having an efficient and effective system.
It IS efficient and effective. Extremely so. Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes wealth, and in the process, destroys it.
Redundancy is exponentially expensive.
No it's not.
The cost of redundancy is linear; the protection afforded is exponential.
Redudnancy at their scale can easily cost HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, depending on the requirements. EASILY.
Sure, it can cost that much. If you are utterly clueless. Database replication simply isn't that hard, particularly for a site like MySpace that doesn't need to worry about little things like consistent transaction ordering between the redundant sites.
I actually DO build systems at this scale for a living, and I know my job quite well, thank you very much.
Apparently not.
There's more to life than hanging out at a website.
Guards! Seize the blasphemer!!
So.....then. If invading a country on a lie, killing 100-140,000 of their citizens, ignoring habeas corpus and international law
Agreed. If any of those things happen, we'll have a problem. Since they haven't...
Whatever you're on, you need to adjust the dosage.
The blogs in question were inciting violence against India's muslim population in response to the train attacks.
No. They. Weren't.
This is simply, completely, utterly untrue.
They're still doing well on the "uninformed" part, though. The draft age is presently set at infinity.
Have babies.
For such a smart guy, that's an amazingly dumb question.
In my opinion, it's about time the economy (businesses) suffered a little bit for the community (people) to be better off.
Because that worked out so well in Russia... Uh, China... North Korea... Vietnam... Cuba... Cambodia...
Okay, ever mind then.
Yay for us! (Us, Australia, that is.)
Considering Bob Brown's starve-in-the-dark economic policy and Mark Latham's post-election meltdown, John Howard was the least worst of the choices offered to us.
On the topic at hand, never mind the porn, can't we ban Big Brother for being offensively stupid?
...
What am I thinking? We'd have to ban three quarters of all human activity.
...
No, that would not be a good thing!
But no one has the right to accumulate masses of wealth without consideration for others
Actually, everyone has that right. It's fundamental to economic freedom.
This is exactly the sort of thing they should be doing.
Thanks a bunch for blowing it, NYT.
I wasn't particularly fussed about net neutrality. If the carriers think they can get away charging more, let them try it. I'm far from convinced that government intervention is going to improve things.
But if the carriers are promoting this type of self-serving bullshit, then they've pushed me into the enemy camp. Let them rot.
Bzzt!
They had a warrant.
So it was the Executive plus the Judiciary taking on the Legislative.
That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Exactly.
Which is why socialist countries invariably go broke.
Your lack of lack of faith in human competence is disturbing.
Too true.
Basic had goto and gosub, rather than procedures and functions? No decent data structures? No proper error checking?
Welcome to how computers actually work.
Sure it doesn't scale. But it's a good thing to learn about that sort of problem early, because every language and programming tool has scaling problems.
A wizard can do wizard stuff in Basic. A non-wizard is a non-wizard whether he's equipped with Common Lisp or Smalltalk or Objective-C or Algol.
Basic didn't ruin thousands of potential wizards a year, because there aren't that many potential wizards. Realistically? Couple of hundred a year, world-wide. Tops.
Actually most of the European policital forces usually mislabeled as 'Socialists' or even 'Communists' by US right wingers are actually modern Social Democrats who have become moderate to the point where they generally do not see a conflict between a democratic society with a capitalist market economy and their own goals which in turn means they have very little in common with Marxism, Communism or classical Socialism. To call political parties like the British labor party or even the German PDS/Linkspartei Socialists would actually be considered an insult by a true die-hard Socialist.
Their economic policies are definitely socialist. Which is why so many European countries are in an economic death spiral.
Not purely socialist, this is true. That's why France and Germany haven't collapsed financially - yet - the way Russia did. But their government spending is simply not supportable by their economies, and that's entirely due to socialist policy.
(The US is presently running a huge budget deficit, but in contrast to the other countries I mentioned, economic growth is more than sufficient to make up for it. US government debt as a proportion of GDP is trending downwards.)
Yes, that is the quote from the article. The article is only very loosely connected to the actual ruling.
It's a newspaper. If you have ever read a newspaper article on a subject you are intimately familiar with, you would have found that they got most of the major facts wrong. The thing is, they do this to every story. Newspapers are just hopelessly inaccurate, not necessarily due to bias, but because reporters are incredibly lazy. And sub-editors - who have the job of creating the headlines - care about catching your attention, not about accurately summarising facts.
Tomorrow morning all the law-professor blogs will have picked the ruling apart line by line, and then you'll be able to see what it actually means. Or, as the parent poster did, you could read it yourself. But if you are going to announce the end of the world based on one line from an AP wire article, don't be surprised if everyone ignores you.
Learn Python. Seriously.
Who cares? Take the money and run!
[Goes searching for open-source web portal software.]
I get 3 million trackback spams a month. They can have those if they want them.
Unless they capture a bunch of paranoid sheepophobes or something...
What connection do you have with Al Qaeda?
I tell you nothing, son of a monkey and a pig!
Bring in the sheep!
BAAAA!
Okay, and Osama's MSN Messenger ID? Good, good.