We have a huge defense budget for a reason, we could enforce that 200 limit if we really wanted.
Yeah, and issue letters of marquee. Now that we are talking about shooting other nationality boats unprovoked in international water anyway. Once you go rogue why not take some plunder too? Arrrrrrr
That's simply offensive to those of us who do have migraine headaches without blurring of vision. Had about one per week throughout my childhood, and had it diagnosed as migraine by a specialist, after which I responded to medication that mostly doesn't do anything unless you actually have migraine. I tried some pretty strong pain medication that didn't do much before that. You can't imagine the pain of a real migraine headache and playing it off based on your misconceptions is simply aggressive ignorance. I almost missed an important flight because I was incapable of standing up even after taking an overdose of various medications. So go fuck yourself.
In saying that people inflate their own importance, you are suggesting that importance is absolute, since the word "inflate" implies exaggeration of importance above the true, absolute level of ACTUAL importance. In reality importance is always measured in relation to some - WHO is it important TO. There is no such thing as global, absolute, actual, true importance. Of course people are very important TO themselves. If someone else gets sick, I don't suffer the consequences of that. If I get sick, I do suffer the consequences. It's not about inflating one's own importance, it's about perspective.
Seeing as this is modded troll, and your original post is modded insightful, it's pretty clear that lots of people on Slashdot believe seriously in what you were only joking about.
It was weird, in America they have this whole thing about individualism and being an individual. Turns out that means something completely different from what it sounds like. It comes with an evaluation of how much (WTF!) of an individual you are. The view seems to be that since everyone has opportunity to make a lot of money or excel in some other way, we should honor those who do so because they are the true individuals, giving the word individualism a whole new meaning. It follows that those who do not excel need to recognize that and pay deference to those who do excel. This is where leadership comes in. In America leadership means conforming to your place in society. So a follower displays leadership when recognizing that he is expected to follow and then doing everything possible to please the (actual) leader. So American individualism and leadership actually means top-down hero worship. I was completely confused by how they were using the word leadership until I figured out what it really means. This isn't how Americans like to explain these terms, but from my outside perspective it is what they are talking about when they use them, and that is why I figured you were serious.:)
This an answer to the question: what would you, as a senior person, want the junior people to do? This kind of prostration won't earn you any respect, it won't even make your life easy and conflict-free, since people will realize that you are their bitch and they can make you do whatever they want, and then different people will start asking you to do conflicting things and be annoyed when you can't do both. After all, all your submission has made it clear that you are far below them, so who are you to say no to them?
If replenishing office supplies are part of the duties you get assigned, then yeah the best move is to do it with a smile. Pro-actively asking for or taking on such tasks sends entirely the wrong message on several levels.
From this argument we should expect people with regular access to sex to start viewing more porn than they did when they didn't get regular access to sex. Still doesn't make sense. It is a funny quote, though:)
Isn't it embarrassing for you to be proving his point so blatantly without yourself even being aware of it? He didn't write that AGW (whatever that stands for, I don't know) were wrong, he said that the consequences of their advice is very far-reaching, and since that is the case, it is prudent to make sure that it is right, and that is only possible if the science is open, and the science isn't open. I have no idea if that last claim is true. If you had wanted to say something sensible, that is probably what you would have written about. What you are doing instead is inventing a straw man and using it to shout him down in a most aggressive manner, so you are proving his point that in fact critics are shouted down. Then again, this is Slashdot, so perhaps we already knew that.
That doesn't make sense. Child molesters are already molesting children, or they wouldn't be child molesters, so having that avenue for their urges they would actually have less of a need to access this job over non-child molesting pedophiles.
Your arguments are red herrings laden with a smattering of pure bullshit.
It's funny, I've found that on Slashdot, people very often pretty accurately describe what they are doing, but they do so by attributing that exact behavior to the person they are having a discussion with, no matter how inaccurate that clearly is. This turns out to be more true the more profanity the description contains. It would be ironic if it were not so obvious that it kind of must be apparent to the people doing it, such as you. Why you people persist in this is a mystery to me, given how stupid it makes you look to everyone with half a brain. Perhaps in a moment you will tell me that I'm a moron with no idea what I'm saying, further proving my point.
But, like the parent said: if you want to be a drunk who revels in causing problems for the police while they're trying to do their job (problems that you have the constitutional right to cause, yes, but problems nonetheless), expect problems in return.
That's the most fucked up thing I've read all week. A police officer simply must have knowledge of whether people are required to show ID. This police officer was annoyed for something he had no right being annoyed about, and chose to misuse his authority to enforce that annoyance on his victim. That is the one single thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated from police - knowing misuse of authority. After being victimized by this police officer, it then took thousands of dollars to make the case go away, and the truth only came out because the victim was extraordinarily resourceful in uncovering evidence. Evidence that had been reviewed by other police officers who then lied about the case.
That may be normal procedure, but you make it sound as though that is something that is acceptable, and that's the most fucked up thing I've read all week.
Exactly, and that's the problem - terrorism shouldn't shut anything down for three days, yet it does because American leadership made that choice. The terrorists had only the power to destroy property and kill many people. Everything else Americans did on their own.
Doing something extra for airplane security in the time immediately following a multi-plane incident makes sense. It should have been business as usual the day after.
It's very understandable that American leadership chose and continue to choose to overreact. If they overreact and there are no further incidents, no one will blame them for taking action in response to such terrible events. If they behave reasonably and there is another terrorist murder, people will blame them for not overreacting. The problem is that people don't want to face that crime happens whether we like it or not, and that applies as well to the most heinous of crimes imaginable.
Think of the response there would be if 4000 people died in the whole US over 10 years. Police would look into those murders, and there would be an effort to prevent them. Civil liberties would not be curtailed and industries would not be bankrupted. That is the appropriate level of response. Terrorism is just another crime and it needs to be treated as such. Especially because terrorism is perpetrated exactly in order to cause terror in people who were not victims of the crime, and having that be successful is in large part dependent on an inappropriate response from the authorities, media and populace. The 9/11 bombers CONTINUE to this day to be successful in having Americans terrorize themselves and influencing American politics, so many years after their deaths.
Most anything is a bigger problem than terrorism. The big problem is the public's response to terrorism, and not many things are a bigger problem than that.
Neither did terrorism. The main cost associated to terrorism in the US is the cost of the emotion-based, expensive and ineffectual responses the American people demand to see from their leadership. The direct financial cost of terrorism is infinitesimal compared to that. Terrorism is "just" another kind of murder, and treating it as such in a low-public-profile way is exactly what Americans could do to make terrorism unattractive as a method of attack. It is the response of the American people to terrorism that is driving terrorism. It is the response of the American people through their politicians that inflicted great costs on American Airlines - the terrorists didn't. The terrorists killed lots of people, and that is the entire extent of *their* crime. Everything else you can blame your neighbors for, if you live in the US. Not that many other countries would respond in a better way, mind you, which is exactly what makes terrorism effective.
What he said. +inf insightful over lots of computer science professors who don't know what asymptotic complexity means and does not mean, or at least don't care to admit it.
The person viewing it could have unencrypted the video with the keys, and then sent it unencrypted to wikileaks. Wikileaks do not need to know the key the video used to be encrypted by.
The only worth of anything is the worth that someone finds in it. Worth only exists in the combination of a thing and of someone valuing that thing. Skill and talent are worth something because we find worth in them, and you object to them being worthless precisely because you find worth in them. This does nothing to devalue the things that you love. On the contrary, it liberates you to not worry what everyone or anyone else writes in a review - what matters is the worth you found in a book, a painting or a warm jacket. They are not providing data on the objective worth of what you love, so you do not have to feel threatened. A lesson the writer of this Amazon reviews story has not taken to heart, clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a huge defense budget for a reason, we could enforce that 200 limit if we really wanted.
Yeah, and issue letters of marquee. Now that we are talking about shooting other nationality boats unprovoked in international water anyway. Once you go rogue why not take some plunder too? Arrrrrrr
That's simply offensive to those of us who do have migraine headaches without blurring of vision. Had about one per week throughout my childhood, and had it diagnosed as migraine by a specialist, after which I responded to medication that mostly doesn't do anything unless you actually have migraine. I tried some pretty strong pain medication that didn't do much before that. You can't imagine the pain of a real migraine headache and playing it off based on your misconceptions is simply aggressive ignorance. I almost missed an important flight because I was incapable of standing up even after taking an overdose of various medications. So go fuck yourself.
In saying that people inflate their own importance, you are suggesting that importance is absolute, since the word "inflate" implies exaggeration of importance above the true, absolute level of ACTUAL importance. In reality importance is always measured in relation to some - WHO is it important TO. There is no such thing as global, absolute, actual, true importance. Of course people are very important TO themselves. If someone else gets sick, I don't suffer the consequences of that. If I get sick, I do suffer the consequences. It's not about inflating one's own importance, it's about perspective.
Seeing as this is modded troll, and your original post is modded insightful, it's pretty clear that lots of people on Slashdot believe seriously in what you were only joking about.
It was weird, in America they have this whole thing about individualism and being an individual. Turns out that means something completely different from what it sounds like. It comes with an evaluation of how much (WTF!) of an individual you are. The view seems to be that since everyone has opportunity to make a lot of money or excel in some other way, we should honor those who do so because they are the true individuals, giving the word individualism a whole new meaning. It follows that those who do not excel need to recognize that and pay deference to those who do excel. This is where leadership comes in. In America leadership means conforming to your place in society. So a follower displays leadership when recognizing that he is expected to follow and then doing everything possible to please the (actual) leader. So American individualism and leadership actually means top-down hero worship. I was completely confused by how they were using the word leadership until I figured out what it really means. This isn't how Americans like to explain these terms, but from my outside perspective it is what they are talking about when they use them, and that is why I figured you were serious. :)
I didn't realize you were joking. From my one-year stay in the US, the sort of thing you were describing fit what I saw.
This an answer to the question: what would you, as a senior person, want the junior people to do? This kind of prostration won't earn you any respect, it won't even make your life easy and conflict-free, since people will realize that you are their bitch and they can make you do whatever they want, and then different people will start asking you to do conflicting things and be annoyed when you can't do both. After all, all your submission has made it clear that you are far below them, so who are you to say no to them? If replenishing office supplies are part of the duties you get assigned, then yeah the best move is to do it with a smile. Pro-actively asking for or taking on such tasks sends entirely the wrong message on several levels.
From this argument we should expect people with regular access to sex to start viewing more porn than they did when they didn't get regular access to sex. Still doesn't make sense. It is a funny quote, though :)
Thanks. :)
Ouch, so the 255 may in fact be just a single person opposing this open letter!
Isn't it embarrassing for you to be proving his point so blatantly without yourself even being aware of it? He didn't write that AGW (whatever that stands for, I don't know) were wrong, he said that the consequences of their advice is very far-reaching, and since that is the case, it is prudent to make sure that it is right, and that is only possible if the science is open, and the science isn't open. I have no idea if that last claim is true. If you had wanted to say something sensible, that is probably what you would have written about. What you are doing instead is inventing a straw man and using it to shout him down in a most aggressive manner, so you are proving his point that in fact critics are shouted down. Then again, this is Slashdot, so perhaps we already knew that.
That doesn't make sense. Child molesters are already molesting children, or they wouldn't be child molesters, so having that avenue for their urges they would actually have less of a need to access this job over non-child molesting pedophiles.
Your arguments are red herrings laden with a smattering of pure bullshit.
It's funny, I've found that on Slashdot, people very often pretty accurately describe what they are doing, but they do so by attributing that exact behavior to the person they are having a discussion with, no matter how inaccurate that clearly is. This turns out to be more true the more profanity the description contains. It would be ironic if it were not so obvious that it kind of must be apparent to the people doing it, such as you. Why you people persist in this is a mystery to me, given how stupid it makes you look to everyone with half a brain. Perhaps in a moment you will tell me that I'm a moron with no idea what I'm saying, further proving my point.
But, like the parent said: if you want to be a drunk who revels in causing problems for the police while they're trying to do their job (problems that you have the constitutional right to cause, yes, but problems nonetheless), expect problems in return.
That's the most fucked up thing I've read all week. A police officer simply must have knowledge of whether people are required to show ID. This police officer was annoyed for something he had no right being annoyed about, and chose to misuse his authority to enforce that annoyance on his victim. That is the one single thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated from police - knowing misuse of authority. After being victimized by this police officer, it then took thousands of dollars to make the case go away, and the truth only came out because the victim was extraordinarily resourceful in uncovering evidence. Evidence that had been reviewed by other police officers who then lied about the case. That may be normal procedure, but you make it sound as though that is something that is acceptable, and that's the most fucked up thing I've read all week.
Parent is correcting a very important point. Mod up.
every day theres new details about the catholic church raping (literally) the entire society.
No.
What he said.
Exactly, and that's the problem - terrorism shouldn't shut anything down for three days, yet it does because American leadership made that choice. The terrorists had only the power to destroy property and kill many people. Everything else Americans did on their own.
Doing something extra for airplane security in the time immediately following a multi-plane incident makes sense. It should have been business as usual the day after.
It's very understandable that American leadership chose and continue to choose to overreact. If they overreact and there are no further incidents, no one will blame them for taking action in response to such terrible events. If they behave reasonably and there is another terrorist murder, people will blame them for not overreacting. The problem is that people don't want to face that crime happens whether we like it or not, and that applies as well to the most heinous of crimes imaginable.
Think of the response there would be if 4000 people died in the whole US over 10 years. Police would look into those murders, and there would be an effort to prevent them. Civil liberties would not be curtailed and industries would not be bankrupted. That is the appropriate level of response. Terrorism is just another crime and it needs to be treated as such. Especially because terrorism is perpetrated exactly in order to cause terror in people who were not victims of the crime, and having that be successful is in large part dependent on an inappropriate response from the authorities, media and populace. The 9/11 bombers CONTINUE to this day to be successful in having Americans terrorize themselves and influencing American politics, so many years after their deaths.
Most anything is a bigger problem than terrorism. The big problem is the public's response to terrorism, and not many things are a bigger problem than that.
Actually, if you look at it purely in monetary terms, spam is probably a bigger problem in the United States than terrorism
Spam bankrupted an entire industry?
Neither did terrorism. The main cost associated to terrorism in the US is the cost of the emotion-based, expensive and ineffectual responses the American people demand to see from their leadership. The direct financial cost of terrorism is infinitesimal compared to that. Terrorism is "just" another kind of murder, and treating it as such in a low-public-profile way is exactly what Americans could do to make terrorism unattractive as a method of attack. It is the response of the American people to terrorism that is driving terrorism. It is the response of the American people through their politicians that inflicted great costs on American Airlines - the terrorists didn't. The terrorists killed lots of people, and that is the entire extent of *their* crime. Everything else you can blame your neighbors for, if you live in the US. Not that many other countries would respond in a better way, mind you, which is exactly what makes terrorism effective.
What he said. +inf insightful over lots of computer science professors who don't know what asymptotic complexity means and does not mean, or at least don't care to admit it.
The land of the pink pony.
The person viewing it could have unencrypted the video with the keys, and then sent it unencrypted to wikileaks. Wikileaks do not need to know the key the video used to be encrypted by.
The only worth of anything is the worth that someone finds in it. Worth only exists in the combination of a thing and of someone valuing that thing. Skill and talent are worth something because we find worth in them, and you object to them being worthless precisely because you find worth in them. This does nothing to devalue the things that you love. On the contrary, it liberates you to not worry what everyone or anyone else writes in a review - what matters is the worth you found in a book, a painting or a warm jacket. They are not providing data on the objective worth of what you love, so you do not have to feel threatened. A lesson the writer of this Amazon reviews story has not taken to heart, clearly.
I now have moved to pipe tobacco that is all natural with no chemicals
Yep, those chemicals will kill ya'. In other news, I've moved to all-natural plutonium to put in my morning drink.