Japan was looking at both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, with the Eurofighter being obviously a better fit for them in pretty much every way.
I get what you're saying (since they asked for, and couldn't have the Raptor), but this is politics. The EU is not going to back Japan against China. The US, maybe. They're just cementing those ties.
Bingo. I would suspect that Canada is doing the same since it might be enforcing its rights in the Arctic.
The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.
Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.
If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.
Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.
Talk about world change......
Giving away for free =/= investing. Give a $11K vehicle voucher to every person in the country, and most of it will go down the drain. That is just how human nature and economics are. I understand your sentiment as the whole purchase seems rather wasteful for a country that typically minds its own business and is not looking for opportunities to drop bombs half around the globe.
But your free-for-all vehicle voucher give away analogy is as bad to the economy (and maybe worse) than the purchase above.
I wonder whether anyone will remember doing this sort of maintenance (filling the tap water part) without some sort of big warning or display somewhere.
I wonder if anyone will remember changing oil as a sort of maintenance without some sort of big warning or display somewhere. #thestupiditburns
Just my job, generally. They've no idea how to run a software business, think agile means throwing a constant stream of changing requirements and bugs at you until the minute before "go live"... then they get annoyed at YOU for not being able to put out an emergency patch release within 24 horus (took me two weeks to track down and destroy a nasty bug, but that was my bad, apparently, not management for letting a piece of shit out the door). then there's finding out that our Prototype area of the system is being released to the public in a fortnight. Via a press release that one of our team happened to notice. And then there's the fact that despite my recommendations the manager decided the best platform was Silverlight with a VB backend. Oh and instead of using the.Net EntityFramework or in fact ANY standard components we'd write our own from scratch. Then be stuck with it for 3 years.
In my book that is enough to trigger a "find-another-job" response. Every job has its warts, but some are just too damned awful to deal with. Life is short. If we can't find our dream job, at least we should find jobs that do not turn us into burned out empty shells of men. Seriously, life is too short for that kind of shit.
That's not right; only from the light's perspective maybe.. it's still "only" traveling at 186kmph a second, it's not truly instantaneous. And I've never heard of the theory that suggests that if a person leaves earth and travels near light speed he'll be younger when he returns. He might not have aged, but not younger... unless he actually exceeds light speed.
Probably it was some type of a typo where he meant the returning brother is way younger than the brother that stayed (as opposed to just being "way younger" as stated in the OP's poorly worded response.)
Also, and playing Devil's Advocate a bit more, when the OP wrote this:
The time for light to travel from Earth to Andromeda is, essentially, zero (0) seconds
I'm reading it as the time that light (or anything travel AT the speed of light) "experiences" traveling from Andromeda to the Earth (or pretty much from any point A to any point B) is zero because of time dilation. True, it will take 2.5 million years (when measured from the POV of an observer not traveling at relativistic speeds), and travel is not instantaneous, but the traveler itself will experience time at a complete stoppage when travelling at the speed of light (or falling down a singularity) regardless of having traveled one inch or the entire width of the observable universe.
Easy. Compare modern society with the steam-engine society at the start of the Industrial age. And compare that with Feudal societies. And compared that to hunter-gathering societies of the Paleolithic. Each newer society/economic system had a level of automation greater that its predecessors. Sedentary societies have handcrafting and agricultural processes that automated the manufacturing of goods (.ie. pottery wheel) and provision of food (animal-powered plow versus manual one.)
Steam-engine societies had means of mass production over their predecessors. And modern societies have much refined methods of manufacturing than those that relied on steam and coal.
Another example. Compare the US, even in this mild depression, or Japan or Germany, or whatever developed, industrialized against one of the many underdeveloped nations that lack substantial industrial activity. The difference between the former and the later is in the level of automation inherent in modern industrialization.
or that a person is ethical while not subscribing at the very least to the basic, most fundamental human rights.
I'm curious. What, exactly, are the "basic, most fundamental human rights"?
Uh, I dunno. Don't rape. Don't steal. I'm sure any sensible (sensible =/= misanthropic fucktard savage) can come up with a few the general population of the civilized world can agree on.
And what is ethical about each of them?
Because they imbued the essence of right and wrong by stating things that cannot be done to an individual? After all, ethics deals with the study of right or wrong.
source
Also, do you think that Christianity had anything to do with your list of "basic, fundamental human rights"?
No, I did not. But hey, don't let that stop you in the way of building a nice strawman (#whatthefuckiswrongwithyou)
If so,
Well, I didn't so...
do you concede the possibility that people who grew up in Muslim/Hindu/Taoist societies might define "basic, most fundamental human rights" differently than you?
I don't have to concede shit because to me it is a given. Someone in another culture might think it ok to chop a little girl's genitalia, but that doesn't mean that child's right to not be mutilated is not universal as in it-fucking-exists-whether-you-accept-it-or-not. You don't debate if 2+2 = 4, or that raping is bad even if there is an entire culture out there that rape people daily while chanting 2+2=5.
You are just simply looking for a strawman to fight and proclaim victory.
If not, why do you believe that these "basic, fundamental human rights" are universal in nature, but NOT recognized the world over as "basic, fundamental human rights"?
They are universal because they apply to all individuals regardless of age, gender, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation or lack thereof, and so on and so on. Just because a culture says "these rights don't apply to so and so" does not make them so. If that were the case, then we are forced to conclude that women, universally, have a fundamental right to be treated equal just because some cultures do not accept that as a fact.
Do you believe that different people might think different things are ethical?
I don't have to believe it. I know it. It doesn't matter. When you distill their differences, you find commonalities shared by the majority of cultures (don't rape, don't steal and so on.) And by "shared", I mean "acknowledge" in some way or another. That there is institutional violations of those rights (even in cultures that some type of written or verbal tradition of acknowledging them) is inconsequential. That is just breaking some form of law or having a subjective, partial application of some form of law.
That is the thing about a right that is universal to all humans. It means shit to its nature as a right if entire cultures decide to ignore it.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
And because you know what PRND means, you are literate in how an automobile works.
That's what subject matter experts are for. One might know what PRND means without knowing how to design an actuator (or viceversa) without compromising one's ability to reason, to follow the scientific method, and most importantly, listen to subject matter experts on areas beyond one's schooling.
As I read it, some people let their religious beliefs trump the answers to questions about their scientific literacy. I don't think means they're less committed to the scientific method, just that they're more committed to something else (or want to appear that they're more committed).
I dunno. To me scientific literacy implies a certain commitment to scientific methods. The opposite of this would be like saying an person understand arithmetic while not being committed to accept 2+2 = 4 as a fact, or that a person is ethical while not subscribing at the very least to the basic, most fundamental human rights.
Literacy or competency on something implies some very strong commitments on that something.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
No idea, but the summary mentions PCI a number of times, so at least you know you can still use your old PCI cards with it. No idea if it supports AGP though.
PCI means PCI-Compliance, in the most regard, it is VERY strict but 95% of dealers refuse to follow it's laws and conduct.
Whooosh.
That was the sound of you failing joke compliance.
The article never explains what PCI is, so to the average reader it could be Peripheral Component Interconnect, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Pharmacy Council of India or maybe, just maybe Payment Card Industry.
The title "Hacking POS" should give a hint to the intended audience who would (or dare I say should) not confuse POS (Point-of-Sale) with you know what.
Hacking, in particular when discussed on a news-for-nerds site, should evoke the notion of a broad topic known as "computer security". That should lead the intended average reader (or one with google-fu skills) to know (or find) that POS stands for Point-of-Sale. 2+2=4 and the intended average reader (or one with sufficient technical acumen, like the ones that supposedly visit this site), to find out what PCI means in this context.
PCI in this context should be spelled when discussed to, I dunno, someone's grandma. It should not be so to people who are in tech. A quick google on hack POS PCI should provide enough clue...
Or maybe your post was a joke, and my internet sarcasm'o'meter is broken or something.
I do not mean to imply that they didn't deserve it, or that I would not have done the same.
I was just pointing out that we as Americans like to consider ourselves morally superior to our counterparts, but in reality we engage in a lot of the same practices.
You need to travel more. You will find that this is true of every nation and culture.
Sometimes it is cheaper to blow up a school than send in people to determine if there are terrorists there.
Sometimes it is cheaper to have the CIA poison someone who has a different opinion than it is to debate them.
Sometimes it is cheaper to have a motorcyclist throw explosives on the outside of a nuclear scientist's car than it is to try to get the country to stop its program.
Sometimes it is cheaper to execute a cleric rather than have trials to determine guilt.
We are not much different than the people that attack us based on our ideas, we just have a lot more money than they do. It is too easy to dehumanize others and not care about collateral damage when we fight our wars.
Welcome to human civilization, and the modus operandi that has been in place since we started gathering in permanent, sedentary villages.
I was just pointing out that we as Americans like to consider ourselves morally superior to our counterparts, but in reality we engage in a lot of the same practices.
I believe that's a general human trait, and not specifically American.
Because she is a visible public-speaking figure with the power to lobby for or against things. For better or worse what matters in this world is not what you know but your power to influence policy making.
This is not to say knowing and ability to influence are mutually exclusive, nor I'm saying whether Chelsea Clinton is qualified to say what is needed or not in STEM education.
I'm simply saying that if *you* (the generic you) do not care what a public speaker with the potential power of influence (directly or by political/family ties) says simply because some perceived or real lack of technical acumen, *you* are an idiot.
It is like saying "why should we care what a Creationist politician thinks?" and then wondering why state legislation bodies keep passing idiotic laws regarding STEM education in public schools.
Stupid, right?
Against, this is not say whether Chelsea Clinton is onto something or is completely unqualified to speak about the subject, but more about an indictment in./'s collective technotard arrogance and cluelessness on how the world operates. That your post actually gets modded as insightful is a pathetic example of that sad state of affairs among people who consider themselves techno-illuminated.
When you listen to what people say and then fire a rocket at their car based on that, it is censorship.
Just to play devils' advocate: if you heard people's last minute plans to mount a suicide attack at a market or checkpoint, and you only have a short time to lob a spitfire at them to prevent that, is that censorship?
I mean, I get the general gist of what you mean, but you need to be more articulate and precise, and provide a much better context to your argument.
why he needs to be tried on trial as an adult when he is not an adult?
Because the numbers and severity of his crimes warrant so. First time shoplifter? Juvie. Raping another kid while having several priors? Most likely goes to an adult court. I don't see what the problem with this is, specially if said kid is already a 16 year old teenager, not a 10 or 9 year old kid.
he got to vote and buy booze yet? no, then why treat him as an adult
Being tried as an adult or a juvenile is not just a function on one's legal ability to buy booze, you know.
- to scare others who by law and common reason aren't yet intelligent enough to be scared by such laws anyways??
Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!!
anyhow, HOW FUCKING EASY WAS IT TO ORDER A SWAT HIT ? ? they did any fact checking before bursting in? any investigations? did they even fucking change their routines to prevent people from ordering swat hits on random places at will??? like what the fuck, easier to order a bunch of guys to come over with loaded guns than to order pizza?
It doesn't work like that. If I would place a call to 911 from a boot saying "there is a bunch of armed pedos molesting a kidnapped kid at such and such address right now, and they seem they are going to kill the kid now", do you think the Police Department is going to say "By golly, Mrs. Bean, could you please be so kind to call an officer on patrol to see if they could inquiry about if it is true that a bunch of pedos are about to kill a kid"?
You could be certain that instead the department is going to send the SWAT team. Could you really blame them.
I'm on the opinion that police departments overuse SWAT teams (and many of them shouldn't have them anyway). But if you rub a pair of neurons together for a brief moment, it should not be difficult to see how one can abuse the 911 system to fabricate a false alarm that, by its very nature, must trigger an aggressive response.
Trying to intimidate people with technical jargon garbage does a disservice to real IT work.
I agree with you. I have no clue what that has to do with my post, or how my post runs counter to that sentiment. Reading comprehension much? Searching for a strawman?
Knowing subnetting notation is not nearly as important as say, knowing how routing works.
I have a hard time seeing someone understanding routing in practical terms if he/she does not understant subnetting notation. It is not rocket science.
Knowing how to write a DNS zone file is not nearly as interesting as knowing what to do when the DNS server stops working.
I would agree with you here, and I would have a problem with an interviewer asking people to write a DNS zone file from scratch. But depending on the position and the candidate's seniority, a question regarding the general steps of writing a DNS zone file (the how and why), again, in very general terms, that would not be a completely unreasonable thing.
At least try to be smug about things that actually require skill, instead of talking shit about things it takes 20 minutes to learn on Wikipedia.
And the thing is, knowing to go to Wikipedia, that is also a skill, one that is seriously missing. And some shit takes 20 minutes to learn, and they are repeatable tasks for particular job positions. Candidates to those positions should not them without having to consult Wikipedia. If not, sorry, red flag.
I mean, it takes 20 minutes to know how the IP stack works, or what pre-conditions and post-conditions are. That doesn't mean one should accept people who do not know them. You ask these questions to filter those who do not.
Slashdot Mirror
So why is that AC's fault?
It wasn't, but it makes one hell of a cheap, faux come-back :/
I get what you're saying (since they asked for, and couldn't have the Raptor), but this is politics. The EU is not going to back Japan against China. The US, maybe. They're just cementing those ties.
Bingo. I would suspect that Canada is doing the same since it might be enforcing its rights in the Arctic.
The population of Canada is 35,105,000 people according to a google search.
Canada's planned purchase is the 6th-largest by a country and would further safeguard the $399 billion program.
If that "program" were instead just given to the people (it's their money after all), they'd *EACH* have $11,365 or basically a free car.
Imagine how much the country would change if every single person's tax dollars provided a voucher for $11,365 off of a vehicle purchase.
Talk about world change......
Giving away for free =/= investing. Give a $11K vehicle voucher to every person in the country, and most of it will go down the drain. That is just how human nature and economics are. I understand your sentiment as the whole purchase seems rather wasteful for a country that typically minds its own business and is not looking for opportunities to drop bombs half around the globe.
But your free-for-all vehicle voucher give away analogy is as bad to the economy (and maybe worse) than the purchase above.
I wonder whether anyone will remember doing this sort of maintenance (filling the tap water part) without some sort of big warning or display somewhere.
I wonder if anyone will remember changing oil as a sort of maintenance without some sort of big warning or display somewhere. #thestupiditburns
Just my job, generally. They've no idea how to run a software business, think agile means throwing a constant stream of changing requirements and bugs at you until the minute before "go live" ... then they get annoyed at YOU for not being able to put out an emergency patch release within 24 horus (took me two weeks to track down and destroy a nasty bug, but that was my bad, apparently, not management for letting a piece of shit out the door). then there's finding out that our Prototype area of the system is being released to the public in a fortnight. Via a press release that one of our team happened to notice. And then there's the fact that despite my recommendations the manager decided the best platform was Silverlight with a VB backend. Oh and instead of using the .Net EntityFramework or in fact ANY standard components we'd write our own from scratch. Then be stuck with it for 3 years.
In my book that is enough to trigger a "find-another-job" response. Every job has its warts, but some are just too damned awful to deal with. Life is short. If we can't find our dream job, at least we should find jobs that do not turn us into burned out empty shells of men. Seriously, life is too short for that kind of shit.
That's not right; only from the light's perspective maybe.. it's still "only" traveling at 186kmph a second, it's not truly instantaneous. And I've never heard of the theory that suggests that if a person leaves earth and travels near light speed he'll be younger when he returns. He might not have aged, but not younger... unless he actually exceeds light speed.
Probably it was some type of a typo where he meant the returning brother is way younger than the brother that stayed (as opposed to just being "way younger" as stated in the OP's poorly worded response.)
Also, and playing Devil's Advocate a bit more, when the OP wrote this:
The time for light to travel from Earth to Andromeda is, essentially, zero (0) seconds
I'm reading it as the time that light (or anything travel AT the speed of light) "experiences" traveling from Andromeda to the Earth (or pretty much from any point A to any point B) is zero because of time dilation. True, it will take 2.5 million years (when measured from the POV of an observer not traveling at relativistic speeds), and travel is not instantaneous, but the traveler itself will experience time at a complete stoppage when travelling at the speed of light (or falling down a singularity) regardless of having traveled one inch or the entire width of the observable universe.
Prove it.
Easy. Compare modern society with the steam-engine society at the start of the Industrial age. And compare that with Feudal societies. And compared that to hunter-gathering societies of the Paleolithic. Each newer society/economic system had a level of automation greater that its predecessors. Sedentary societies have handcrafting and agricultural processes that automated the manufacturing of goods (.ie. pottery wheel) and provision of food (animal-powered plow versus manual one.)
Steam-engine societies had means of mass production over their predecessors. And modern societies have much refined methods of manufacturing than those that relied on steam and coal.
Another example. Compare the US, even in this mild depression, or Japan or Germany, or whatever developed, industrialized against one of the many underdeveloped nations that lack substantial industrial activity. The difference between the former and the later is in the level of automation inherent in modern industrialization.
Do you need more examples?
I'm curious. What, exactly, are the "basic, most fundamental human rights"?
Uh, I dunno. Don't rape. Don't steal. I'm sure any sensible (sensible =/= misanthropic fucktard savage) can come up with a few the general population of the civilized world can agree on.
And what is ethical about each of them?
Because they imbued the essence of right and wrong by stating things that cannot be done to an individual? After all, ethics deals with the study of right or wrong. source
Also, do you think that Christianity had anything to do with your list of "basic, fundamental human rights"?
No, I did not. But hey, don't let that stop you in the way of building a nice strawman (#whatthefuckiswrongwithyou)
If so,
Well, I didn't so...
do you concede the possibility that people who grew up in Muslim/Hindu/Taoist societies might define "basic, most fundamental human rights" differently than you?
I don't have to concede shit because to me it is a given. Someone in another culture might think it ok to chop a little girl's genitalia, but that doesn't mean that child's right to not be mutilated is not universal as in it-fucking-exists-whether-you-accept-it-or-not. You don't debate if 2+2 = 4, or that raping is bad even if there is an entire culture out there that rape people daily while chanting 2+2=5.
You are just simply looking for a strawman to fight and proclaim victory.
If not, why do you believe that these "basic, fundamental human rights" are universal in nature, but NOT recognized the world over as "basic, fundamental human rights"?
They are universal because they apply to all individuals regardless of age, gender, sexual preference, religion or lack thereof, political affiliation or lack thereof, and so on and so on. Just because a culture says "these rights don't apply to so and so" does not make them so. If that were the case, then we are forced to conclude that women, universally, have a fundamental right to be treated equal just because some cultures do not accept that as a fact.
Do you believe that different people might think different things are ethical?
I don't have to believe it. I know it. It doesn't matter. When you distill their differences, you find commonalities shared by the majority of cultures (don't rape, don't steal and so on.) And by "shared", I mean "acknowledge" in some way or another. That there is institutional violations of those rights (even in cultures that some type of written or verbal tradition of acknowledging them) is inconsequential. That is just breaking some form of law or having a subjective, partial application of some form of law.
That is the thing about a right that is universal to all humans. It means shit to its nature as a right if entire cultures decide to ignore it.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
And because you know what PRND means, you are literate in how an automobile works.
That's what subject matter experts are for. One might know what PRND means without knowing how to design an actuator (or viceversa) without compromising one's ability to reason, to follow the scientific method, and most importantly, listen to subject matter experts on areas beyond one's schooling.
As I read it, some people let their religious beliefs trump the answers to questions about their scientific literacy. I don't think means they're less committed to the scientific method, just that they're more committed to something else (or want to appear that they're more committed).
I dunno. To me scientific literacy implies a certain commitment to scientific methods. The opposite of this would be like saying an person understand arithmetic while not being committed to accept 2+2 = 4 as a fact, or that a person is ethical while not subscribing at the very least to the basic, most fundamental human rights.
Literacy or competency on something implies some very strong commitments on that something.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
For starters, there is no more "belief" in evolution as there is a "belief" that 2+2 = 4. A more important statement would have been the following: Belief in Creationism Measure Science Illiteracy.
Someone would be very hard pressed to show me with actual data that this is not true in the general case.
No idea, but the summary mentions PCI a number of times, so at least you know you can still use your old PCI cards with it. No idea if it supports AGP though.
PCI means PCI-Compliance, in the most regard, it is VERY strict but 95% of dealers refuse to follow it's laws and conduct.
Whooosh. That was the sound of you failing joke compliance. The article never explains what PCI is, so to the average reader it could be Peripheral Component Interconnect, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Pharmacy Council of India or maybe, just maybe Payment Card Industry.
The title "Hacking POS" should give a hint to the intended audience who would (or dare I say should) not confuse POS (Point-of-Sale) with you know what.
Hacking, in particular when discussed on a news-for-nerds site, should evoke the notion of a broad topic known as "computer security". That should lead the intended average reader (or one with google-fu skills) to know (or find) that POS stands for Point-of-Sale. 2+2=4 and the intended average reader (or one with sufficient technical acumen, like the ones that supposedly visit this site), to find out what PCI means in this context.
PCI in this context should be spelled when discussed to, I dunno, someone's grandma. It should not be so to people who are in tech. A quick google on hack POS PCI should provide enough clue...
Or maybe your post was a joke, and my internet sarcasm'o'meter is broken or something.
I do not mean to imply that they didn't deserve it, or that I would not have done the same. I was just pointing out that we as Americans like to consider ourselves morally superior to our counterparts, but in reality we engage in a lot of the same practices.
You need to travel more. You will find that this is true of every nation and culture.
Sometimes it is cheaper to blow up a school than send in people to determine if there are terrorists there. Sometimes it is cheaper to have the CIA poison someone who has a different opinion than it is to debate them. Sometimes it is cheaper to have a motorcyclist throw explosives on the outside of a nuclear scientist's car than it is to try to get the country to stop its program. Sometimes it is cheaper to execute a cleric rather than have trials to determine guilt. We are not much different than the people that attack us based on our ideas, we just have a lot more money than they do. It is too easy to dehumanize others and not care about collateral damage when we fight our wars.
Welcome to human civilization, and the modus operandi that has been in place since we started gathering in permanent, sedentary villages.
I believe that's a general human trait, and not specifically American.
Bingo.
Why do we care what she thinks?
Because she is a visible public-speaking figure with the power to lobby for or against things. For better or worse what matters in this world is not what you know but your power to influence policy making. This is not to say knowing and ability to influence are mutually exclusive, nor I'm saying whether Chelsea Clinton is qualified to say what is needed or not in STEM education.
I'm simply saying that if *you* (the generic you) do not care what a public speaker with the potential power of influence (directly or by political/family ties) says simply because some perceived or real lack of technical acumen, *you* are an idiot.
It is like saying "why should we care what a Creationist politician thinks?" and then wondering why state legislation bodies keep passing idiotic laws regarding STEM education in public schools.
Stupid, right?
Against, this is not say whether Chelsea Clinton is onto something or is completely unqualified to speak about the subject, but more about an indictment in ./'s collective technotard arrogance and cluelessness on how the world operates. That your post actually gets modded as insightful is a pathetic example of that sad state of affairs among people who consider themselves techno-illuminated.
When you listen to what people say and then fire a rocket at their car based on that, it is censorship.
Just to play devils' advocate: if you heard people's last minute plans to mount a suicide attack at a market or checkpoint, and you only have a short time to lob a spitfire at them to prevent that, is that censorship?
I mean, I get the general gist of what you mean, but you need to be more articulate and precise, and provide a much better context to your argument.
It's explained in the article
Your point being?
To RTFA?
+1 for referring to the "On The Beach".
On the upside, the people put a government in place that curbs air and water pollution, and makes it difficult to fire someone because they're gay.
That's pretty much true anywhere, so...
why he needs to be tried on trial as an adult when he is not an adult?
Because the numbers and severity of his crimes warrant so. First time shoplifter? Juvie. Raping another kid while having several priors? Most likely goes to an adult court. I don't see what the problem with this is, specially if said kid is already a 16 year old teenager, not a 10 or 9 year old kid.
he got to vote and buy booze yet? no, then why treat him as an adult
Being tried as an adult or a juvenile is not just a function on one's legal ability to buy booze, you know.
- to scare others who by law and common reason aren't yet intelligent enough to be scared by such laws anyways??
Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!!
anyhow, HOW FUCKING EASY WAS IT TO ORDER A SWAT HIT ? ? they did any fact checking before bursting in? any investigations? did they even fucking change their routines to prevent people from ordering swat hits on random places at will??? like what the fuck, easier to order a bunch of guys to come over with loaded guns than to order pizza?
It doesn't work like that. If I would place a call to 911 from a boot saying "there is a bunch of armed pedos molesting a kidnapped kid at such and such address right now, and they seem they are going to kill the kid now", do you think the Police Department is going to say "By golly, Mrs. Bean, could you please be so kind to call an officer on patrol to see if they could inquiry about if it is true that a bunch of pedos are about to kill a kid"?
You could be certain that instead the department is going to send the SWAT team. Could you really blame them.
I'm on the opinion that police departments overuse SWAT teams (and many of them shouldn't have them anyway). But if you rub a pair of neurons together for a brief moment, it should not be difficult to see how one can abuse the 911 system to fabricate a false alarm that, by its very nature, must trigger an aggressive response.
He'll probably increase his prices to adjust for the increase in taxes. The price of oil and gas production go up, and his margins are all a wash.
Good lord man, take an Economics class.
So we all know that computer programming jobs are hot right now.
Only if you have an H1-B visa.
Bullshit. I believe there is a problem with too many H1-B visas being given, but your claim is bullshit.
Ah, you work in government contracting too?
Enterprise, government contracting. It's all the same (I know, I've seen it, it's ugly.)
Someone got burned, and now is projecting.
Sadly, some people in IT do :/
Trying to intimidate people with technical jargon garbage does a disservice to real IT work.
I agree with you. I have no clue what that has to do with my post, or how my post runs counter to that sentiment. Reading comprehension much? Searching for a strawman?
Knowing subnetting notation is not nearly as important as say, knowing how routing works.
I have a hard time seeing someone understanding routing in practical terms if he/she does not understant subnetting notation. It is not rocket science.
Knowing how to write a DNS zone file is not nearly as interesting as knowing what to do when the DNS server stops working.
I would agree with you here, and I would have a problem with an interviewer asking people to write a DNS zone file from scratch. But depending on the position and the candidate's seniority, a question regarding the general steps of writing a DNS zone file (the how and why), again, in very general terms, that would not be a completely unreasonable thing.
At least try to be smug about things that actually require skill, instead of talking shit about things it takes 20 minutes to learn on Wikipedia.
And the thing is, knowing to go to Wikipedia, that is also a skill, one that is seriously missing. And some shit takes 20 minutes to learn, and they are repeatable tasks for particular job positions. Candidates to those positions should not them without having to consult Wikipedia. If not, sorry, red flag.
I mean, it takes 20 minutes to know how the IP stack works, or what pre-conditions and post-conditions are. That doesn't mean one should accept people who do not know them. You ask these questions to filter those who do not.