What a bunch of BS. I started at the tender age of 18 by taking a calculus course and teaching myself enough BASIC to do an extra credit assignment. Then I discovered that you can just buy text books and learn languages without paying for the classes, and learned WATFIV in a couple of weeks. How many kids today have computers.. Java and other languages are free. Anyone with the slightest interest has far more access to programming tutorials and IDEs than I had when I was 18. Hell, I had to program on a text editor and punched cards for years. So don't give the that crap about no one having access to resources, kids today have far more access than I ever did. I don't have a degree, yet I manage to have a six figure income.
If someone can't pick up basic programming skills, they probably shouldn't be programming. I've seen 'college level' programmers, and would prefer to hire a hobbyist over many of them.
And what is this about programming having a strong mathematical foundation?? It's a list of things to do, about the only math needed is some understanding of Boolean algebra, which should only take an hour to learn. This crap about polymorphism and object oriented design being tough is even more BS. It's only tough to those that don't have the aptitude to learn it. (Hint.. Objects are containers. Polymorphism is just containers within containers. See.. pretty damn simple to teach the concepts initially. I've done it dozens of times successfully.)
Kinda like me and music. Sure, I can play the saxophone. Studied it for 8 years. Yet no one is willing to pay me to play it because I'm just not good enough at it, and probably never will be. Yet they were willing to pay me to program after not having any formal education in it. Because I'm damn good at it and have the aptitude for it.
Yet another professor who knows nothing about the real world, and just assumes everyone should be able to learn something, eventually. I know I'll never be a doctor or lawyer, I don't have the aptitude for it.
Maybe Mr. Kurmas should learn that some students just don't have the aptitude for programming, stop blaming the system, and get over it.
(Comment not directed at parent post... just adding to what parent post stated)
My wife and I went with DirectTV a few months back and decided we would have a media room and only one TV. We don't have a DVR and don't schedule our lives based on what shows are on. It's amazing how much more time we have together to do things.
Then we dropped all but basic. It is far cheaper to use NetFlicks to always have a couple of movies lying around, plus the instant play list, than to pay all of that money for reruns of movies and shows we have already watched. Our instant queue is over 100 items, and continues to grow as we mark things we are interested in watching... someday.
People need to remember that "it's only TV. My life will go on without it". Enjoy a show every now and then, but if tonight's final episode of favorite show is missed, life really won't change. Unless someone is the kind of person who likes to spend hours going over every detail of what was on the night before, ruining it for everyone who didn't watch it but intends to later.
So let's blame the right people... the viewers who scream out "I'm too stupid to entertain myself.. you do it for me". THAT is what empowers those media companies everyone rails against. Boycotting is the best answer. Asking a lobbyist to do it is just more government intrusion into my life. I don't care if someone wants more government involvement in their life, I prefer as little as possible. I am perfectly capable of deciding whether to watch TV or sit on the patio with my beautiful wife sitting with me, while I enjoy bourbon, a fine cigar, and fine conversation. And just enjoy another beautiful Arizona evening.
I feel sorry for folks that need TV so much they actually pay attention to what's on.
So.. what is your point?? Where is it written that every American has the right to get daily mail?? And at what price??? I throw away almost every piece of mail I get, the USPS isn't delivering mail, it's delivering paper to be recycled in the form of ads. Every magazine I get I could get at the post office or electronically. In fact, I get so little mail I only check it once a week. So deliver it once a week.
Those that live on the end of dirt roads don't stay there, once a week they could go into town and get their mail. It's their choice to live out there, they can deal with the consequences. Why should I pay for their choice????
Eliminate junk mail and only deliver once a week. That should just about do it. Then charge accordingly.
Oh.. the US government didn't create postal delivery. It was created long before the US became a country.....
I'm 51, and have been using maps so long I doubt if I'll ever lose the skill. And I can't determine if the folks I know that can't use them are just stupid or ignorant. Ignorant is easy to fix, a few minutes showing how to figure out north and explaining why the map doesn't auto-rotate or auto-scale. The rest is... well.. just like the GPS.
I used to be able to go somewhere once or twice and remember exactly how to get there. Now that I have started to use the GPS, I find it is more difficult to remember how to get someplace without it. I've also found that it is more difficult to select a route someplace familiar.
Some may attribute it to old age. But since I've started using my GPS in audio only mode to go someplace new, I can now more easily remember how to get there. And I only use my GPS to go someplace familiar if I'm in a hurry and need to find the shortest route.
However, I've also found that the GPS can be USELESS for finding places that I have not researched where they are. It has directed me on several occasions to the wrong address because what is on Google or in the Garmin isn't where the place really is, but possibly an office. So now I'm more likely to look things up online, and visually verify they really are there before I trust my GPS.
It's not an all or nothing proposal. The method that works well for me is to find a middle ground where the GPS is used when I need to, but I don't depend on it.
This is a cool way to start prototyping, but a great kiss requires lips *and* tongue *and* a head. All of these parts move together for a truly great kiss.
Of course, then there is the holding and caressing part.
I don't see how any machine could ever be able to replace my wife's kiss. I told her before got married several years ago that I have a rule, no 'quickie' kisses allowed. Either kiss, or don't kiss. Perfunctory pecks are not acceptable. Each one is different and unique, and deserves to be savored.
I almost agree with you. Julian Assange has become irrelevant due to his egocentric and self-serving ways, why would anyone actually do what he says anyway. He only says things that get him attention, nothing he does really has meaning.
He got his 15 minutes of fame and should just go away.
Better to consider.. what??? The story is pretty straight forward, more Android phones are being used than Apple phones. Which infers that more people are using them than are using Apple phones. Which infers that people prefer the Android phones (didn't say it was better, I said prefer) than Apple phones. I have all the apps I need on my Android, and no one has yet to show me an iPhone app that makes it worthwhile to switch. So the 'fact' the Apple app market sells more than the Android market doesn't mean anything to me. Except that iDrones have lots of excess cash to waste on apps that might even be free somewhere else.
Android means choice, Apple is still the control-freak run company it always has been. Apple products have always appealed to those who just have to have the newest tech no matter what. Which means Apple products probably appeal to people with cash which means those people are probably willing to drop lots of bucks in the Apple store.
It has always seemed like iDrones like having very little choice and doing what Apple says. I think doing any real thinking for themselves hurts too much.
There is a difference between the desire to have sex with someone of the same gender, and actually having sex with someone of the same gender. The desire may or may not be a conscious decision, the action is.
Everyone has ideas of what types of behaviors are acceptable and which are not for a variety of reason. It is also normal to disapprove of behaviors that carry higher than normal health risks.
Let's take something innocuous like nose picking. The majority of people probably do not find public nose picking acceptable. I would also guess that close to 100% prefer that boogers not be wiped onto the bottom of their dining room table. There are health issues associated with it, germs are present in the mucous in the nose, and picking can spread those germs.
Yet every day, many people do it. I remember a study somewhere that says the a fair number of people do it in their car. Those that pick their noses are embarrassed by it because of the social stigma, and do their best to hide it.
And many people that want to do it, just won't do it
So.. is nose picking natural?? Animals do it, so why not people. Should be start passing laws that forbid the open discrimination of nose pickers??
While I find gay sex disgusting (at least male gay sex), that doesn't mean I won't accept someone as a friend who participates in that behavior. But I might not accept someone who violates another of my unacceptable behaviors, such as lying.
It is everyone's right to decide who to associate with based on the behavioral rules each individual establishes, and which rules they may bend. It is also my right as a parent to encourage certain behaviors in my children, and discourage others.It is the right of society to decide which behaviors society will tolerate, ignore, or punish.
Those rights are often in conflict. Some people do not tolerate any smoking or drinking, yet society allows it within limits. I smoke cigars and drink, yet I encouraged my children to stay away from those behaviors until they are adults.
It's time for the homosexual community to accept that some people will always find their behavior unacceptable, and get on with their lives. Stop trying to force society to accept it, and change any law that favors married couples to favor any adults in a committed relationship, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or even non-sexual.
After all, if two heterosexual guys want to share an apartment, shouldn't they have the same rights as a gay couple? Not giving them the same rights would be... sexual discrimination.
The two things are COMPLETELY different and your argument is not pertinent. No one is being denied the ability to buy an Apple product.
The app did not exist before most of Apple devices were sold, so no one can claim they had an expectations of having it available to them.
Developers sign a CONTRACT before they are allowed to put their products on the store. The CONTRACT says basically they have no rights, and their product can be withdrawn at any time. Don't like the contract, don't offer your product up to the store. Developers can always write software and place it on the internet for download to any computer, so they are not being denied the right to give away or sell their product. Just not to Apple products. Don't like that?? Don't sign the contract.
This is a private BUSINESS contract, not a public restaurant. As I recall, a few PRIVATE golf courses do not allow women to be members, and that right has been held up in court. Private schools can force students to take specific religious courses, denying them access to any other religious instruction. There are numerous examples of private businesses discriminating based on religious and gender items. Why should sexual orientation be any different to a private business that is selling something or providing a service?
Civil Rights was not agreed upon by the majority of society either, it was forced upon society by courts (and that was a good thing). If someone thinks they have a case against Apple, they are more than welcome to file suit. Society can pass laws trying to force Apple to permit any application to be sold.
But those laws will also have to be held up next to the US and State constitutions, and if they don't pass muster, they will be tossed aside. Just as the ladies that sued to be admitted to Augusta National failed to gain admittance.
I fully support Apple's right to ban the app. Since I don't approve of their ban (both now and in the past), I don't buy Apple products.
See how that works????
You have the freedom to decide what crap to buy, and the owners of Apple have the freedom to decide what crap they want to sell. Your selfish desire for more freedom is at the cost of taking it away from someone else.
Really... it's offensive? Funny, I have to put up with all the crap about losing weight and stop smoking and drinking and taking drugs. All of those comments and ads treat me as a second class citizen, as if something is wrong with me. How would you like to turn on the TV and see ads telling you what how awful you are because you smoke or are overweight.
Fortunately, I don't give a frig about what other people think, and live my life the way I want to. Sure, I try to loose weight. But I refuse to stop enjoying a cigar and glass of bourbon now and then, and the even rarer toke.
Maybe people need to stop being so freakin' sensitive. It's OK for others to think one's behavior is unacceptable. How one handles that opinion is a reflection upon their own traits. Those that tried to ban this app just can't face the fact that a lot of people think homosexual sex is disgusting (well.. just the guy kind anyway).
What's next, a ban on an app that says it's OK to stop picking your nose???
What a bunch of whining babies. If you don't like the app, don't install it.
It's more likely that the democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with their improved standard of living and freedoms, have more to do with it than WikiLeaks.
Now maybe they will through his loser ass in jail so we don't have to listen to his egotistical, whiney voice anymore. It's always about Assange, no matter if it's WikiLeaks or this legal issue. 'Look at me look at me look at me' is really all he ever says. He doesn't give a crap about exposing anyone, he is just an attention whore.
Buy a cheap used computer, throw in a 2TB hard drive, copy all your files to a shared directory, and spend the $5/month for Mozy or similar offsite backups. You don't have to use it for anything other than storing the data and can stash next to your cable modem. Costs more than Flicker and such, but the files are instantly available. You can even use it to setup slide shows if you have a TV, game system, or blu-ray player connected to your network.
Be sure to configure the backup software properly, they didn't use to do anything other than the 'C' drive unless you configured them.
The tea party wants less FEDERAL government interference. They believe state and local governments are more capable of determining such issues. There is no reason the federal government should need to decide for every state and city who gets to run cable down a street, and who gets to share with whom. Yes, it results in a patchwork of laws, exactly as the founders of this country expected it to. When the states do it, you get multiple different laws some of which work better than others. People can move if they don't like the laws in their state, or then can try and get the laws changed in their state because a neighboring state's laws seem to work better. By the time the Bill of Rights came out, there were 13 states with 13 different constitutions to study and choose from. The patchwork method works.
Actually take some time to learn instead of listening to the BS on MSNBC and NPR
You mean like the falsehood that he is a journalist???
He is the victim of his fame and not being able to turn his penis off.. nothing more. We've seen the same story told a many times, famous guy gets paraded in front of the press because he will screw anyone anytime. And someone he screwed either got pissed off or he actually did something wrong.
Yawn.. nothing to see here. Can we move onto some real news????
I agree with the majority of your post and applaud you for posting it. Colleges and guidance councilors would have one think that someone can't go anywhere without a degree, and that to be successful costs money. My experiences have taught me that is a bunch of BS, and the only people who really have to go to college to get ahead are mediocre students with more motivation skills. I'm not saying you can't learn things in college, but there are numerous examples of smart, motivated people that did just fine without it. I dropped out after one semester in college (too many dumb people went there, I got tired of teaching basic algebra to my roommates) and have a pretty darn good salary 30 years later. By taking night courses only in the things I needed to learn, I saved myself a lot of time, energy, and money.
My experience with those that state the loudest about college building a well rounded person are those whose college educations have largely been a waste of money. I don't know how many times I've run into someone in the computer field that has a degree in something else. Lady luck presenting opportunities seems to have more of an impact on one's life than does careful planning. Having the courage to take advantage of opportunities and not being risk adverse is probably more important than any formal college degree.
As also noted, until one establishes contacts, it can be difficult to get in the door. On the 'good news' side though, contacts are everywhere. I got my first break when I wrote some mailing list software for an astronomy club I was in, which just happened to have a manager of a programmer department as a member. A year later, I was working for him, my first foray into a programming job after being a computer operator for a few years. I haven't had to use a recruiter or hit the want ads for over 20 years now, and I haven't held any position more than 5 years. My last job came from a guy I had worked with that told me about the opening.
I'm not trying to brag, just to show that you don't have to go through HR. Which is really the only stumbling block when it comes to not having a degree.
I'm confused.. Mr. Moore is listed as the directory, writer, and star for this movie. The tag line on the poster is 'Are we a nation of gun nuts, or just nuts' and shows Mr. Moore holding up a globe. The above poster points out a few things that are wrong with the movie, you don't address any of them, yet claim he didn't watch the whole thing which has nothing to do with whether or not the points he made are accurate.
These are simple points that the poster made, that Moore purposefully portrays the side he agrees with in a good light and demonizes the opposite point using less than ethical journalistic standards. I.e. use crazies to show guns are bad and non-crazies so show guns aren't needed and ambushes any possible supporters of the opposing viewpoint so no matter what they do, they too look bad, and shows irrelevant information to make the opposing supporters look bad. While these technically aren't lying, they are misrepresenting the truth.
Moore is a hack movie writer, he doesn't do documentaries. He writes movies that supports his views without any regard to fairly providing opposing viewpoints, which a true documentary would do. It's kind of like Animal Planet and Whale Wars, why show both sides when it makes for a boring show that no one will watch instead of an exciting show that at least the people that agree with him will watch.
The brain is a wondrous organ, and is capable of doing lots of thinking without a person even being aware of it. It is capable of picking up nuances in vocal patterns or body language that help to determine if someone is lying or not.
Just because something "doesn't seem right" does not mean someone isn't thinking. It could mean their brain is trying to tell them something they aren't consciously aware of.
For instance, someone who is just a little bit too sure of himself comes off as an egotistical asshole (i.e. Moore), as if they are using bullying tactics to 'scare' you into believing something they don't really have facts to back up. Now, it doesn't mean that someone who is sure of themselves is lying, but it makes one wonder more than someone who is a bit more humble. Someone who states a fact and presents themselves in a very insecure way can make one wonder whether or not they are providing the correct information. Again, doesn't make them wrong, but it does make one question whether or not they know what they are talking about. We gain these 'feelings' from people who have lied to us in the past and the behaviors they expressed when they did so.
Feelings are responses that can be caused by many things, including chemical responses in the body, past experiences, and inherited behaviors. To casually toss them aside as if they don't mean anything is rather short sighted.
So I guess purposefully misrepresenting the truth isn't the same as lying??
Lets check Dictionary.com...
lie [lahy]
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
Moore and Assange should get along swell. They are both egotistical idealists who think they and only they have the answers to the worlds problems, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is just a moron.
Moore is no more an unbiased source of information than Assange is. He also only puts forth information that furthers his ideals, ignoring anything that contradicts them.
Moore became irrelevant years ago when the public learned this, the only people that applaud Mr. Moore are the ones that agree with his points and use his biased movies (they are not documentaries, no matter how hard he tries) to respond to arguments. As soon as he publishes anything they disagree with, they will dump him like a load of manure.
So, I take it you have had a lot of dealings with police officers. And by 'dealings', I mean 'arrests'.
I, on the other hand, am over 50 and have never been arrested. Pulled over lots for traffic stops, given tickets, but never arrested. And never hassled, searched, slammed against a hood, had a police officer pull me over where his camera couldn't see me, or any of that other stuff you say.
But then again, I don't do drugs, steal, or a host of other things that could get me arrested. So, all in all, every cop I've ever met, both being pulled over and in social circumstances, has been pretty decent. Because they have no reason to think I'm a bad guy.
Maybe the only common denominator in your experiences is... you....
All these 'oh the cops are all bad' people will be the first one to call the cops because someone is breaking in or holding their wife in another room, begging for them to come and help them. Or to catch the bad guy that took your Star Wars collection. And can't understand why people break into their cars and steal their radios, the cops really need to do something about this.
Thanks to all the cops out there who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. I hope every traffic stop you make is a safe one, but if not, I hope you kill the bastard before he kills you.
Doesn't matter. They talked. As soon as you say anything to a cop beyond name/rank/serial number and "I want a lawyer", the police canfind a charge to hang on you based on what you tell them if you piss them off.
Slashdot Mirror
'We know what you need better than you do.'
'Who needs competition when we know best'
'All your apps, music, and video belong to us'
What a bunch of BS. I started at the tender age of 18 by taking a calculus course and teaching myself enough BASIC to do an extra credit assignment. Then I discovered that you can just buy text books and learn languages without paying for the classes, and learned WATFIV in a couple of weeks. How many kids today have computers .. Java and other languages are free. Anyone with the slightest interest has far more access to programming tutorials and IDEs than I had when I was 18. Hell, I had to program on a text editor and punched cards for years. So don't give the that crap about no one having access to resources, kids today have far more access than I ever did. I don't have a degree, yet I manage to have a six figure income.
.. Objects are containers. Polymorphism is just containers within containers. See .. pretty damn simple to teach the concepts initially. I've done it dozens of times successfully.)
If someone can't pick up basic programming skills, they probably shouldn't be programming. I've seen 'college level' programmers, and would prefer to hire a hobbyist over many of them.
And what is this about programming having a strong mathematical foundation?? It's a list of things to do, about the only math needed is some understanding of Boolean algebra, which should only take an hour to learn. This crap about polymorphism and object oriented design being tough is even more BS. It's only tough to those that don't have the aptitude to learn it. (Hint
Kinda like me and music. Sure, I can play the saxophone. Studied it for 8 years. Yet no one is willing to pay me to play it because I'm just not good enough at it, and probably never will be. Yet they were willing to pay me to program after not having any formal education in it. Because I'm damn good at it and have the aptitude for it.
Yet another professor who knows nothing about the real world, and just assumes everyone should be able to learn something, eventually. I know I'll never be a doctor or lawyer, I don't have the aptitude for it.
Maybe Mr. Kurmas should learn that some students just don't have the aptitude for programming, stop blaming the system, and get over it.
.. an organization that believes in transparency practice transparency themselves??
And here I just thought Assange was an egotistical, self indulgent child. Now I see he is a hypocrite too.
(Comment not directed at parent post ... just adding to what parent post stated)
... someday.
... the viewers who scream out "I'm too stupid to entertain myself .. you do it for me". THAT is what empowers those media companies everyone rails against. Boycotting is the best answer. Asking a lobbyist to do it is just more government intrusion into my life. I don't care if someone wants more government involvement in their life, I prefer as little as possible. I am perfectly capable of deciding whether to watch TV or sit on the patio with my beautiful wife sitting with me, while I enjoy bourbon, a fine cigar, and fine conversation. And just enjoy another beautiful Arizona evening.
My wife and I went with DirectTV a few months back and decided we would have a media room and only one TV. We don't have a DVR and don't schedule our lives based on what shows are on. It's amazing how much more time we have together to do things.
Then we dropped all but basic. It is far cheaper to use NetFlicks to always have a couple of movies lying around, plus the instant play list, than to pay all of that money for reruns of movies and shows we have already watched. Our instant queue is over 100 items, and continues to grow as we mark things we are interested in watching
People need to remember that "it's only TV. My life will go on without it". Enjoy a show every now and then, but if tonight's final episode of favorite show is missed, life really won't change. Unless someone is the kind of person who likes to spend hours going over every detail of what was on the night before, ruining it for everyone who didn't watch it but intends to later.
So let's blame the right people
I feel sorry for folks that need TV so much they actually pay attention to what's on.
So .. what is your point?? Where is it written that every American has the right to get daily mail?? And at what price??? I throw away almost every piece of mail I get, the USPS isn't delivering mail, it's delivering paper to be recycled in the form of ads. Every magazine I get I could get at the post office or electronically. In fact, I get so little mail I only check it once a week. So deliver it once a week.
.. the US government didn't create postal delivery. It was created long before the US became a country.....
Those that live on the end of dirt roads don't stay there, once a week they could go into town and get their mail. It's their choice to live out there, they can deal with the consequences. Why should I pay for their choice????
Eliminate junk mail and only deliver once a week. That should just about do it. Then charge accordingly.
Oh
I'm 51, and have been using maps so long I doubt if I'll ever lose the skill. And I can't determine if the folks I know that can't use them are just stupid or ignorant. Ignorant is easy to fix, a few minutes showing how to figure out north and explaining why the map doesn't auto-rotate or auto-scale. The rest is ... well .. just like the GPS.
I used to be able to go somewhere once or twice and remember exactly how to get there. Now that I have started to use the GPS, I find it is more difficult to remember how to get someplace without it. I've also found that it is more difficult to select a route someplace familiar.
Some may attribute it to old age. But since I've started using my GPS in audio only mode to go someplace new, I can now more easily remember how to get there. And I only use my GPS to go someplace familiar if I'm in a hurry and need to find the shortest route.
However, I've also found that the GPS can be USELESS for finding places that I have not researched where they are. It has directed me on several occasions to the wrong address because what is on Google or in the Garmin isn't where the place really is, but possibly an office. So now I'm more likely to look things up online, and visually verify they really are there before I trust my GPS.
It's not an all or nothing proposal. The method that works well for me is to find a middle ground where the GPS is used when I need to, but I don't depend on it.
This is a cool way to start prototyping, but a great kiss requires lips *and* tongue *and* a head. All of these parts move together for a truly great kiss.
Of course, then there is the holding and caressing part.
I don't see how any machine could ever be able to replace my wife's kiss. I told her before got married several years ago that I have a rule, no 'quickie' kisses allowed. Either kiss, or don't kiss. Perfunctory pecks are not acceptable. Each one is different and unique, and deserves to be savored.
I almost agree with you. Julian Assange has become irrelevant due to his egocentric and self-serving ways, why would anyone actually do what he says anyway. He only says things that get him attention, nothing he does really has meaning. He got his 15 minutes of fame and should just go away.
Better to consider .. what??? The story is pretty straight forward, more Android phones are being used than Apple phones. Which infers that more people are using them than are using Apple phones. Which infers that people prefer the Android phones (didn't say it was better, I said prefer) than Apple phones. I have all the apps I need on my Android, and no one has yet to show me an iPhone app that makes it worthwhile to switch. So the 'fact' the Apple app market sells more than the Android market doesn't mean anything to me. Except that iDrones have lots of excess cash to waste on apps that might even be free somewhere else.
Android means choice, Apple is still the control-freak run company it always has been. Apple products have always appealed to those who just have to have the newest tech no matter what. Which means Apple products probably appeal to people with cash which means those people are probably willing to drop lots of bucks in the Apple store.
It has always seemed like iDrones like having very little choice and doing what Apple says. I think doing any real thinking for themselves hurts too much.
There is a difference between the desire to have sex with someone of the same gender, and actually having sex with someone of the same gender. The desire may or may not be a conscious decision, the action is.
.. is nose picking natural?? Animals do it, so why not people. Should be start passing laws that forbid the open discrimination of nose pickers??
... sexual discrimination.
Everyone has ideas of what types of behaviors are acceptable and which are not for a variety of reason. It is also normal to disapprove of behaviors that carry higher than normal health risks.
Let's take something innocuous like nose picking. The majority of people probably do not find public nose picking acceptable. I would also guess that close to 100% prefer that boogers not be wiped onto the bottom of their dining room table. There are health issues associated with it, germs are present in the mucous in the nose, and picking can spread those germs.
Yet every day, many people do it. I remember a study somewhere that says the a fair number of people do it in their car. Those that pick their noses are embarrassed by it because of the social stigma, and do their best to hide it.
And many people that want to do it, just won't do it
So
While I find gay sex disgusting (at least male gay sex), that doesn't mean I won't accept someone as a friend who participates in that behavior. But I might not accept someone who violates another of my unacceptable behaviors, such as lying.
It is everyone's right to decide who to associate with based on the behavioral rules each individual establishes, and which rules they may bend. It is also my right as a parent to encourage certain behaviors in my children, and discourage others.It is the right of society to decide which behaviors society will tolerate, ignore, or punish.
Those rights are often in conflict. Some people do not tolerate any smoking or drinking, yet society allows it within limits. I smoke cigars and drink, yet I encouraged my children to stay away from those behaviors until they are adults.
It's time for the homosexual community to accept that some people will always find their behavior unacceptable, and get on with their lives. Stop trying to force society to accept it, and change any law that favors married couples to favor any adults in a committed relationship, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or even non-sexual.
After all, if two heterosexual guys want to share an apartment, shouldn't they have the same rights as a gay couple? Not giving them the same rights would be
The two things are COMPLETELY different and your argument is not pertinent. No one is being denied the ability to buy an Apple product.
The app did not exist before most of Apple devices were sold, so no one can claim they had an expectations of having it available to them.
Developers sign a CONTRACT before they are allowed to put their products on the store. The CONTRACT says basically they have no rights, and their product can be withdrawn at any time. Don't like the contract, don't offer your product up to the store. Developers can always write software and place it on the internet for download to any computer, so they are not being denied the right to give away or sell their product. Just not to Apple products. Don't like that?? Don't sign the contract.
This is a private BUSINESS contract, not a public restaurant. As I recall, a few PRIVATE golf courses do not allow women to be members, and that right has been held up in court. Private schools can force students to take specific religious courses, denying them access to any other religious instruction. There are numerous examples of private businesses discriminating based on religious and gender items. Why should sexual orientation be any different to a private business that is selling something or providing a service?
Civil Rights was not agreed upon by the majority of society either, it was forced upon society by courts (and that was a good thing). If someone thinks they have a case against Apple, they are more than welcome to file suit. Society can pass laws trying to force Apple to permit any application to be sold.
But those laws will also have to be held up next to the US and State constitutions, and if they don't pass muster, they will be tossed aside. Just as the ladies that sued to be admitted to Augusta National failed to gain admittance.
I fully support Apple's right to ban the app. Since I don't approve of their ban (both now and in the past), I don't buy Apple products.
See how that works????
You have the freedom to decide what crap to buy, and the owners of Apple have the freedom to decide what crap they want to sell. Your selfish desire for more freedom is at the cost of taking it away from someone else.
Really ... it's offensive? Funny, I have to put up with all the crap about losing weight and stop smoking and drinking and taking drugs. All of those comments and ads treat me as a second class citizen, as if something is wrong with me. How would you like to turn on the TV and see ads telling you what how awful you are because you smoke or are overweight.
.. just the guy kind anyway).
Fortunately, I don't give a frig about what other people think, and live my life the way I want to. Sure, I try to loose weight. But I refuse to stop enjoying a cigar and glass of bourbon now and then, and the even rarer toke.
Maybe people need to stop being so freakin' sensitive. It's OK for others to think one's behavior is unacceptable. How one handles that opinion is a reflection upon their own traits. Those that tried to ban this app just can't face the fact that a lot of people think homosexual sex is disgusting (well
What's next, a ban on an app that says it's OK to stop picking your nose???
What a bunch of whining babies. If you don't like the app, don't install it.
It's more likely that the democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with their improved standard of living and freedoms, have more to do with it than WikiLeaks.
Now maybe they will through his loser ass in jail so we don't have to listen to his egotistical, whiney voice anymore. It's always about Assange, no matter if it's WikiLeaks or this legal issue. 'Look at me look at me look at me' is really all he ever says. He doesn't give a crap about exposing anyone, he is just an attention whore.
Buy a cheap used computer, throw in a 2TB hard drive, copy all your files to a shared directory, and spend the $5/month for Mozy or similar offsite backups. You don't have to use it for anything other than storing the data and can stash next to your cable modem. Costs more than Flicker and such, but the files are instantly available. You can even use it to setup slide shows if you have a TV, game system, or blu-ray player connected to your network. Be sure to configure the backup software properly, they didn't use to do anything other than the 'C' drive unless you configured them.
The tea party wants less FEDERAL government interference. They believe state and local governments are more capable of determining such issues. There is no reason the federal government should need to decide for every state and city who gets to run cable down a street, and who gets to share with whom. Yes, it results in a patchwork of laws, exactly as the founders of this country expected it to. When the states do it, you get multiple different laws some of which work better than others. People can move if they don't like the laws in their state, or then can try and get the laws changed in their state because a neighboring state's laws seem to work better. By the time the Bill of Rights came out, there were 13 states with 13 different constitutions to study and choose from. The patchwork method works.
Actually take some time to learn instead of listening to the BS on MSNBC and NPR
You mean like the falsehood that he is a journalist???
.. nothing more. We've seen the same story told a many times, famous guy gets paraded in front of the press because he will screw anyone anytime. And someone he screwed either got pissed off or he actually did something wrong.
.. nothing to see here. Can we move onto some real news????
He is the victim of his fame and not being able to turn his penis off
Yawn
I agree with the majority of your post and applaud you for posting it. Colleges and guidance councilors would have one think that someone can't go anywhere without a degree, and that to be successful costs money. My experiences have taught me that is a bunch of BS, and the only people who really have to go to college to get ahead are mediocre students with more motivation skills. I'm not saying you can't learn things in college, but there are numerous examples of smart, motivated people that did just fine without it. I dropped out after one semester in college (too many dumb people went there, I got tired of teaching basic algebra to my roommates) and have a pretty darn good salary 30 years later. By taking night courses only in the things I needed to learn, I saved myself a lot of time, energy, and money.
My experience with those that state the loudest about college building a well rounded person are those whose college educations have largely been a waste of money. I don't know how many times I've run into someone in the computer field that has a degree in something else. Lady luck presenting opportunities seems to have more of an impact on one's life than does careful planning. Having the courage to take advantage of opportunities and not being risk adverse is probably more important than any formal college degree.
As also noted, until one establishes contacts, it can be difficult to get in the door. On the 'good news' side though, contacts are everywhere. I got my first break when I wrote some mailing list software for an astronomy club I was in, which just happened to have a manager of a programmer department as a member. A year later, I was working for him, my first foray into a programming job after being a computer operator for a few years. I haven't had to use a recruiter or hit the want ads for over 20 years now, and I haven't held any position more than 5 years. My last job came from a guy I had worked with that told me about the opening.
I'm not trying to brag, just to show that you don't have to go through HR. Which is really the only stumbling block when it comes to not having a degree.
I'm confused .. Mr. Moore is listed as the directory, writer, and star for this movie. The tag line on the poster is 'Are we a nation of gun nuts, or just nuts' and shows Mr. Moore holding up a globe. The above poster points out a few things that are wrong with the movie, you don't address any of them, yet claim he didn't watch the whole thing which has nothing to do with whether or not the points he made are accurate.
These are simple points that the poster made, that Moore purposefully portrays the side he agrees with in a good light and demonizes the opposite point using less than ethical journalistic standards. I.e. use crazies to show guns are bad and non-crazies so show guns aren't needed and ambushes any possible supporters of the opposing viewpoint so no matter what they do, they too look bad, and shows irrelevant information to make the opposing supporters look bad. While these technically aren't lying, they are misrepresenting the truth.
Moore is a hack movie writer, he doesn't do documentaries. He writes movies that supports his views without any regard to fairly providing opposing viewpoints, which a true documentary would do. It's kind of like Animal Planet and Whale Wars, why show both sides when it makes for a boring show that no one will watch instead of an exciting show that at least the people that agree with him will watch.
The brain is a wondrous organ, and is capable of doing lots of thinking without a person even being aware of it. It is capable of picking up nuances in vocal patterns or body language that help to determine if someone is lying or not.
Just because something "doesn't seem right" does not mean someone isn't thinking. It could mean their brain is trying to tell them something they aren't consciously aware of.
For instance, someone who is just a little bit too sure of himself comes off as an egotistical asshole (i.e. Moore), as if they are using bullying tactics to 'scare' you into believing something they don't really have facts to back up. Now, it doesn't mean that someone who is sure of themselves is lying, but it makes one wonder more than someone who is a bit more humble. Someone who states a fact and presents themselves in a very insecure way can make one wonder whether or not they are providing the correct information. Again, doesn't make them wrong, but it does make one question whether or not they know what they are talking about. We gain these 'feelings' from people who have lied to us in the past and the behaviors they expressed when they did so.
Feelings are responses that can be caused by many things, including chemical responses in the body, past experiences, and inherited behaviors. To casually toss them aside as if they don't mean anything is rather short sighted.
So I guess purposefully misrepresenting the truth isn't the same as lying??
...
Lets check Dictionary.com
lie [lahy]
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
I think #2 and #3 above fits this situation.
Moore and Assange should get along swell. They are both egotistical idealists who think they and only they have the answers to the worlds problems, and anyone who doesn't agree with them is just a moron.
Moore is no more an unbiased source of information than Assange is. He also only puts forth information that furthers his ideals, ignoring anything that contradicts them.
Moore became irrelevant years ago when the public learned this, the only people that applaud Mr. Moore are the ones that agree with his points and use his biased movies (they are not documentaries, no matter how hard he tries) to respond to arguments. As soon as he publishes anything they disagree with, they will dump him like a load of manure.
So, I take it you have had a lot of dealings with police officers. And by 'dealings', I mean 'arrests'.
... you....
I, on the other hand, am over 50 and have never been arrested. Pulled over lots for traffic stops, given tickets, but never arrested. And never hassled, searched, slammed against a hood, had a police officer pull me over where his camera couldn't see me, or any of that other stuff you say.
But then again, I don't do drugs, steal, or a host of other things that could get me arrested. So, all in all, every cop I've ever met, both being pulled over and in social circumstances, has been pretty decent. Because they have no reason to think I'm a bad guy.
Maybe the only common denominator in your experiences is
All these 'oh the cops are all bad' people will be the first one to call the cops because someone is breaking in or holding their wife in another room, begging for them to come and help them. Or to catch the bad guy that took your Star Wars collection. And can't understand why people break into their cars and steal their radios, the cops really need to do something about this.
Thanks to all the cops out there who put their lives on the line for our safety every day. I hope every traffic stop you make is a safe one, but if not, I hope you kill the bastard before he kills you.
Doesn't matter. They talked. As soon as you say anything to a cop beyond name/rank/serial number and "I want a lawyer", the police can find a charge to hang on you based on what you tell them if you piss them off.
There .. fixed that for you....