The teacher struggled to find the right word when she told them that the other classes might find it 'disturbing'. My daughter immediately pipes up and corrects her, saying, "Actually, I think you mean 'distracting'."
It is very interesting that she did that, but not exactly justifiable. In a lot of cases, like this one, those words are pretty much interchangeable (a class - especially in kindergarten - requires attention to proceed smoothly, therefore distraction is disturbance). I find it curious that she phrased it as a correction instead of a question, like "do you mean 'distracting'?". I hope it's not the case, but I've seen my share of obnoxious kids with a certain excess of self-confidence and such behaviour is quite typical. Soon enough she might be commenting on/.
Not trying to further steretypes, but sometimes this is so true... A lady friend of mine was shopping for a car, and she'd ask the salesman exactly one question: "is the bumper painted in the same color as the car?". (It is pretty common here to have black bumper and knobs on cars of any color, BTW. Don't know if that's universally the case.)
I think you're the one confused there. If he was really saying "nuclear" and not looking for invisible weapons, then how come no one ever found anything, smartass?
Kudos for using "their for" instead of "therefore". Took me a while to figure out. I love how the internet is becoming sort of a linguistic puzzle nowadays, it saves me money in crosswords.
...as idiotic as as arguing about the trade offs of wearing a motorcycle helmet. (In that yes, there are circumstances where not having a helmet on would be advantageous... but the disadvantages thoroughly outweigh any advantages.)
Actually I find the helmet's disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Unless I happen to be riding at the time or passing by a construction site.
So very true. I've posted the same thing a few days ago. Plus, the members of the military are overseas specifically to coerce and kill. That adds yet another layer of hypocrisy to the "OMG! think of human lives" argument.
No, the difference is that a CLI is nearly impossible to use if you aren't familiar with it - the semantics and syntax are as, if not more, important than the concepts - whereas a GUI requires much less focussing on the "how", allowing much more focussing on the "what".
Yes. The only problem is the "where" gets a little jumbled up every now and then, but that's the result of a sloppy implementation, not a flaw inherent to GUIs.
Yes, you have put aside the facts that Microsoft is notorious for erecting large barriers to entry and that their software is actually one of the dumbest.
How is the military not a killbot factory, exactly? They are people trained to kill efficiently. And when they are deployed somewhere, it's much more often to kill people than, say, to pet stray dogs. I know they also have peaceful missions and all, but their purpose is very clear: to kill people who fuck with country X (or who country X wants to fuck for some reason).
The motivation behind a conflict takes a back burner once the conflict actually starts. At that point, the most important part is getting out of it alive.
Who has to get out alive? The military unit? The country? And what conflict? An encounter? The war?
I think that's valid for a military unit in a single encounter. That'd be pretty natural. But then again, there are "acceptable losses" or "acceptable risks" or whatever the cool kids are calling it nowadays. Basically it means that it's ok for some people to die for an objective. Also, the best way to survive a conflict is to not be anywhere near ir, so if the most important part was indeed to get out alive, a great shortcut would be never getting in in the first place. Also, if you purposely put yourself in a situation that will make you take a life so your is not taken, how is that any different than just taking the life from the get go?
So you can talk about the country surviving, "getting out alive" of the war. Makes sense, but then again, you'd need to have some countries locked in a highlanderesque scenario where, say, there was only enough of a crucial resource for one of them. What's crucial is open to discussion, but I think we can agree that this is actually a very unlikely scenario for a war. look at WWII, for example. Had the war never happened, no country would have "died". And no one stopped once Germany was again confined to its original territory, so there goes the "getting out alive is a priority" theory.
No, the original motivation, the goal is always present. And it should be, because if you're killing for something, you better keep in mind the reason, otherwise it might go away and the conflict loses its purpose. The prolonged occupation of Iraq, originally to get rid of the WMDs, comes to mind. Ok, now that I have spewed enough hippietalk for the whole month, let me continue.
"blowing the whistle" like this will only inflame the other side, and that will prolong the conflict. More people will die as a direct result of his actions.
You're assuming there's only one possible outcome for the conflict: the victory of the party that's being harmed by the information. If it does have an impact, it might make one party win faster, thus avoiding more unnecessary deaths. There are a myriad of scenarios that could come from releasing classified information, including protests leading to or aiding a cessation of hostilities in a deadlocked, neverending war/occupation. Look at the Vietnam War. Again, I believe you'd really have to take a very careful look at the situation.
In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that people that are killing other people/ordering people to kill other people/directly funding people that kill other people can't really complain about some other people revealing true information that might or might not put their lives in slightly greater danger because it's morally wrong to risk human lives. Seems beyond hypocrisy. Having said all that, I do not believe WL has revealed anything that directly puts people at greater risk. As for undirectly doing so, that's what newspapers do everyday.
in theory, I support the idea of the information being free and the kind of work Wikileaks is trying to do. But having worked in military communications, I also understand the importance of opsec and comsec. Some kinds of information should most emphatically *not* be made public until after the war is done. While in this particular case it probably hasn't led to the extreme, the bottom line is that breaking opsec and comsec puts lives at risk, and no matter how noble the intentions, there is no excuse for that.
If I may digress for a bit, this is the army we're talking about. Even considering that the nformation WL revealed does indeed endanger some people, I assume it's safe to say that the lives that are "being put at risk" by information are, in fact, already at a fair amount of risk. Plus, while valuing preservation of life above freedom of information is perfectly understandable, again because of the nature of the armed forces, those lives that information supposedly jeopardizes are quite often trying themselves to end a number of other lives. That kind of renders the ever so popular "OMG! lives at risk/blood on WL's figurative hands" argument kind of moot from the point of view of human rights, because lives are at risk and some are going to be ended either way. Revealing information would just shift some of the casualties from one side of the warmongers to the other. Seems to me you'd really have to enter on motives, consequences, the why of both the fighting and the whistleblowing in order to to formulate an opinion.
<quote><p>So journalists should find information they do not care about and heartlessly report about it?</p></quote>
<p>Yes, they should. It's called "being objective", and is one of the tenets of good journalism. It's odd that you think otherwise; perhaps you are hiding some sort of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106677/">agenda?</a></p></quote>
That'd be great. No more agenda-setting networks like Fox News! Of course then we'd be flooded daily with articles about llamas and guides on how to classify pinewood by color tonality. The only ones to write about almost universally interesting topics, like government elections, economics, media censorship, new science findings etc. will be either autistic morons or the socially retarded, that don't really care about anything other than profit and ratings. So, Fox News.
Come on, mods. It isn't really trolling if he's talking about Sony, now, is it? So he was less than eloquent, but he's saying pretty much what all comments below will. You see, this cat Sony is a bad mother-
The difference between this and your scenario is simple: the prospective sexual partners are giving mutual consent. If they don't like that arrangement, they can always decide that casual sex with strangers is inherently risky, or they could do something crazy like have sex with someone they love, trust, and know very well. By contrast, if this system is implemented, every bank and probably lots of other corporations are going to require it in order to do business. It's rather difficult to live in a modern world without ever doing business with banks and other corporations, which is why this would be forced on us with or without consent.
That can't be the difference. it's also rather difficult to turn down sex with possibly diseased strangers.
I'm confused. Let me try to reorganize your post to see if I can understand.
true access to information - Our rights come from God, not a government. - Laws are made to allow people to exist peacefully together, but those laws need to be formed with some sort of morality. That morality comes from God. - There are groups of people in the world that actually do hate the U.S.A. and will stop at nothing to kill everyone in it, along with Israel. - As it is now, Eric Schmidt is almost on the Presidents cabinet.
not elitist or trying to protect their power: - If someone works hard they should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. Taxes should not punish the successful. - We in the U.S.A. have been granted by God; life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This does NOT mean health care, new cars, TV's, college education, Nintendo 3DS's/Sony NGP or pizza.
Yeah, and I can just picture it. "Cloud ferosciously attacked the Cactuar with his sword. Tifa did the same a few moments later, punching it very hard. The Cactuar retaliated by striking Cloud and then got struck by a barrage of Barret's machine gun fire. Then Cloud ferosciously attacked the Cactuar with his sword. Tifa did the same a few moments later, punching it very hard and it was defeated. After doing a short and unnecessary victory dance, the friends sighed and took four steps north, when a Cactuar appeared. Cloud ferosciously..."
But that's not valid evidence that patents benefit anything. Look, just because the US has great software companies and none of the countries of the EU do, it doesn't mean that it's because patents were in place. When Silicon Valley bloomed and nothing of the like happened in Europe, software patents were a long way away, so they don't really enter into it.
By the way, you have cited IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Google, Apple, Facebook. Mind you that, except for Google and Facebook, those are all companies that predate software patents. And Facebook isn't and never was a software company. Google develops a bunch of stuff, but their work in the field of software is havily derivative, since they repurpose Linux left and right. Now I ask you: where are the new big US software companies? Most of the big ones are pretty old, and you might wonder why.
The thing is patents don't really benefit innovation, they benefit the first few innovators in detriment of all the rest. And as sufficient time has passed since the introduction of the system, it becomes overcrowded. To the point that the cost to develop software has risen ridiculously because you have to pay buttloads of money to defend yourself against patent trolls. And unless you have patents of your own to countersue and settle, you're pretty much doomed financially, as the litigation drags for ages. Also worthy of note is how you can't feasibly investigate if your software actually breaks any patents. Even if you're Microsoft and you employ all your staff at that task, if in the unlikely scenario that there wasn't already a patent covering your product by the time you started looking, there'll be one - or several - by the time you finish.
Do you mean to suggest the U.S. and the E.U. are "comparable 'countries'"? Also, you do know that one example, even if it weren't flawed, isn't exactly "proof", right? Also, there's that trite bit about correlation and causation. Of course, the more IT is important to the country's economy, the more corporations will push for and politicians will try to apply patent regulation, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Like maybe two bottles of beer.
The teacher struggled to find the right word when she told them that the other classes might find it 'disturbing'. My daughter immediately pipes up and corrects her, saying, "Actually, I think you mean 'distracting'."
It is very interesting that she did that, but not exactly justifiable. In a lot of cases, like this one, those words are pretty much interchangeable (a class - especially in kindergarten - requires attention to proceed smoothly, therefore distraction is disturbance). I find it curious that she phrased it as a correction instead of a question, like "do you mean 'distracting'?". I hope it's not the case, but I've seen my share of obnoxious kids with a certain excess of self-confidence and such behaviour is quite typical. Soon enough she might be commenting on /.
You completely agree completely? Suck much cock much?
Fuck! If you want to troll, at least don't miss obvious opportunities.
Not trying to further steretypes, but sometimes this is so true... A lady friend of mine was shopping for a car, and she'd ask the salesman exactly one question: "is the bumper painted in the same color as the car?". (It is pretty common here to have black bumper and knobs on cars of any color, BTW. Don't know if that's universally the case.)
That's what I thought too, but look at Aero/Compiz.
I think you're the one confused there. If he was really saying "nuclear" and not looking for invisible weapons, then how come no one ever found anything, smartass?
Whoa, whoa. "Fuck off back to the kitchen"? A little extreme there, are we? For God's sake, he made a mistake, he's not a woman!
Kudos for using "their for" instead of "therefore". Took me a while to figure out. I love how the internet is becoming sort of a linguistic puzzle nowadays, it saves me money in crosswords.
...as idiotic as as arguing about the trade offs of wearing a motorcycle helmet. (In that yes, there are circumstances where not having a helmet on would be advantageous... but the disadvantages thoroughly outweigh any advantages.)
Actually I find the helmet's disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. Unless I happen to be riding at the time or passing by a construction site.
I think I'll let the due process play out.
Me too. But I'd guess some people won't.
So very true. I've posted the same thing a few days ago. Plus, the members of the military are overseas specifically to coerce and kill. That adds yet another layer of hypocrisy to the "OMG! think of human lives" argument.
It's about as dangerous as being jailed, it seems.
No, the difference is that a CLI is nearly impossible to use if you aren't familiar with it - the semantics and syntax are as, if not more, important than the concepts - whereas a GUI requires much less focussing on the "how", allowing much more focussing on the "what".
Yes. The only problem is the "where" gets a little jumbled up every now and then, but that's the result of a sloppy implementation, not a flaw inherent to GUIs.
Yes, you have put aside the facts that Microsoft is notorious for erecting large barriers to entry and that their software is actually one of the dumbest.
The motivation behind a conflict takes a back burner once the conflict actually starts. At that point, the most important part is getting out of it alive.
Who has to get out alive? The military unit? The country? And what conflict? An encounter? The war? I think that's valid for a military unit in a single encounter. That'd be pretty natural. But then again, there are "acceptable losses" or "acceptable risks" or whatever the cool kids are calling it nowadays. Basically it means that it's ok for some people to die for an objective. Also, the best way to survive a conflict is to not be anywhere near ir, so if the most important part was indeed to get out alive, a great shortcut would be never getting in in the first place. Also, if you purposely put yourself in a situation that will make you take a life so your is not taken, how is that any different than just taking the life from the get go? So you can talk about the country surviving, "getting out alive" of the war. Makes sense, but then again, you'd need to have some countries locked in a highlanderesque scenario where, say, there was only enough of a crucial resource for one of them. What's crucial is open to discussion, but I think we can agree that this is actually a very unlikely scenario for a war. look at WWII, for example. Had the war never happened, no country would have "died". And no one stopped once Germany was again confined to its original territory, so there goes the "getting out alive is a priority" theory. No, the original motivation, the goal is always present. And it should be, because if you're killing for something, you better keep in mind the reason, otherwise it might go away and the conflict loses its purpose. The prolonged occupation of Iraq, originally to get rid of the WMDs, comes to mind. Ok, now that I have spewed enough hippietalk for the whole month, let me continue.
"blowing the whistle" like this will only inflame the other side, and that will prolong the conflict. More people will die as a direct result of his actions.
You're assuming there's only one possible outcome for the conflict: the victory of the party that's being harmed by the information. If it does have an impact, it might make one party win faster, thus avoiding more unnecessary deaths. There are a myriad of scenarios that could come from releasing classified information, including protests leading to or aiding a cessation of hostilities in a deadlocked, neverending war/occupation. Look at the Vietnam War. Again, I believe you'd really have to take a very careful look at the situation. In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that people that are killing other people/ordering people to kill other people/directly funding people that kill other people can't really complain about some other people revealing true information that might or might not put their lives in slightly greater danger because it's morally wrong to risk human lives. Seems beyond hypocrisy. Having said all that, I do not believe WL has revealed anything that directly puts people at greater risk. As for undirectly doing so, that's what newspapers do everyday.
in theory, I support the idea of the information being free and the kind of work Wikileaks is trying to do. But having worked in military communications, I also understand the importance of opsec and comsec. Some kinds of information should most emphatically *not* be made public until after the war is done. While in this particular case it probably hasn't led to the extreme, the bottom line is that breaking opsec and comsec puts lives at risk, and no matter how noble the intentions, there is no excuse for that.
If I may digress for a bit, this is the army we're talking about. Even considering that the nformation WL revealed does indeed endanger some people, I assume it's safe to say that the lives that are "being put at risk" by information are, in fact, already at a fair amount of risk. Plus, while valuing preservation of life above freedom of information is perfectly understandable, again because of the nature of the armed forces, those lives that information supposedly jeopardizes are quite often trying themselves to end a number of other lives. That kind of renders the ever so popular "OMG! lives at risk/blood on WL's figurative hands" argument kind of moot from the point of view of human rights, because lives are at risk and some are going to be ended either way. Revealing information would just shift some of the casualties from one side of the warmongers to the other. Seems to me you'd really have to enter on motives, consequences, the why of both the fighting and the whistleblowing in order to to formulate an opinion.
<quote><p>So journalists should find information they do not care about and heartlessly report about it?</p></quote>
<p>Yes, they should. It's called "being objective", and is one of the tenets of good journalism. It's odd that you think otherwise; perhaps you are hiding some sort of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106677/">agenda?</a></p></quote>
That'd be great. No more agenda-setting networks like Fox News! Of course then we'd be flooded daily with articles about llamas and guides on how to classify pinewood by color tonality. The only ones to write about almost universally interesting topics, like government elections, economics, media censorship, new science findings etc. will be either autistic morons or the socially retarded, that don't really care about anything other than profit and ratings. So, Fox News.
Hey!
</sarcasm></sarcasm></joke>
Close your damn tags!
But I'm talking about Sony!
Come on, mods. It isn't really trolling if he's talking about Sony, now, is it? So he was less than eloquent, but he's saying pretty much what all comments below will. You see, this cat Sony is a bad mother-
The difference between this and your scenario is simple: the prospective sexual partners are giving mutual consent. If they don't like that arrangement, they can always decide that casual sex with strangers is inherently risky, or they could do something crazy like have sex with someone they love, trust, and know very well. By contrast, if this system is implemented, every bank and probably lots of other corporations are going to require it in order to do business. It's rather difficult to live in a modern world without ever doing business with banks and other corporations, which is why this would be forced on us with or without consent.
That can't be the difference. it's also rather difficult to turn down sex with possibly diseased strangers.
I'm confused. Let me try to reorganize your post to see if I can understand.
true access to information
- Our rights come from God, not a government.
- Laws are made to allow people to exist peacefully together, but those laws need to be formed with some sort of morality. That morality comes from God.
- There are groups of people in the world that actually do hate the U.S.A. and will stop at nothing to kill everyone in it, along with Israel.
- As it is now, Eric Schmidt is almost on the Presidents cabinet.
not elitist or trying to protect their power:
- If someone works hard they should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. Taxes should not punish the successful.
- We in the U.S.A. have been granted by God; life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This does NOT mean health care, new cars, TV's, college education, Nintendo 3DS's/Sony NGP or pizza.
Oh, ok. Got it now.
Yeah, and I can just picture it. "Cloud ferosciously attacked the Cactuar with his sword. Tifa did the same a few moments later, punching it very hard. The Cactuar retaliated by striking Cloud and then got struck by a barrage of Barret's machine gun fire. Then Cloud ferosciously attacked the Cactuar with his sword. Tifa did the same a few moments later, punching it very hard and it was defeated. After doing a short and unnecessary victory dance, the friends sighed and took four steps north, when a Cactuar appeared. Cloud ferosciously..."
But that's not valid evidence that patents benefit anything. Look, just because the US has great software companies and none of the countries of the EU do, it doesn't mean that it's because patents were in place. When Silicon Valley bloomed and nothing of the like happened in Europe, software patents were a long way away, so they don't really enter into it.
By the way, you have cited IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Oracle, Google, Apple, Facebook. Mind you that, except for Google and Facebook, those are all companies that predate software patents. And Facebook isn't and never was a software company. Google develops a bunch of stuff, but their work in the field of software is havily derivative, since they repurpose Linux left and right. Now I ask you: where are the new big US software companies? Most of the big ones are pretty old, and you might wonder why.
The thing is patents don't really benefit innovation, they benefit the first few innovators in detriment of all the rest. And as sufficient time has passed since the introduction of the system, it becomes overcrowded. To the point that the cost to develop software has risen ridiculously because you have to pay buttloads of money to defend yourself against patent trolls. And unless you have patents of your own to countersue and settle, you're pretty much doomed financially, as the litigation drags for ages. Also worthy of note is how you can't feasibly investigate if your software actually breaks any patents. Even if you're Microsoft and you employ all your staff at that task, if in the unlikely scenario that there wasn't already a patent covering your product by the time you started looking, there'll be one - or several - by the time you finish.
But you asked for evidence that they hinder innovation. I'm afraid that isn't any, really, for any of the sides of the debate, because in economics there rarely is, especially when dealing with relatively new phenomena. I find this to be proof enough that the patent system is completely dysfunctional, though: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5443036.PN.&OS=PN/5443036&RS=PN/5443036
Do you mean to suggest the U.S. and the E.U. are "comparable 'countries'"? Also, you do know that one example, even if it weren't flawed, isn't exactly "proof", right? Also, there's that trite bit about correlation and causation. Of course, the more IT is important to the country's economy, the more corporations will push for and politicians will try to apply patent regulation, not the other way around.