You just posted exactly the kind of bullshit that you projected on me with your post, like a loyal Republican. You people never quit, do you? Unless it's quitting a lifetime obligation to rake in some private sector money, with your sick spouse as your excuse. Okay, I'll explain why I disagree with you posted, starting with this post:
You have no idea what my politics are, yet you say I am a Republican. You have no reason to believe I am or am not a Republican, though I infer that you are not, and therefore you conclude that I am what you are not, because I wrote a post critical of what you wrote.
Both in this post and your previous post in this thread, you refer to (implicitly in the previous post) a lifetime obligation for the Supreme Court Justices. There is no such obligation. The appointment to the Court is generally for as long as the appointee chooses. Most justices retire before they die. I recommend that you read the Tenure section of the Wikipedia article about the Supreme Court; it provides a decent summary and references.
In the previous post, you imply that the Supreme Court was responsible for the passage of legislation in Congress. This is meaningless; regardless of how ill-advised President Bush's No Child Left Behind policy is, it became law because people in Congress introduced, voted for, and ultimately passed the "No Child Left Behind Act". The suggestion Justice O'Connor's vote assuring George Bush's presidential campaign victory somehow was responsible for the Congress passing bad legislation is possibly understandable, but misguided and both practically and technically incorrect.
The implication that Justice O'Connor did not provide care to her ailing husband, or that this was not the reason she chose to retire, is unkind and, as far as I can tell, completely unfounded.
The trivialization of O'Connor's involvement in a game aimed at providing a view of how the courts work is ungenerous and almost certainly inaccurate. However, even if she spent the rest of her life playing video games, why would anyone complain? She provided a long life of service as a judge, and is generally perceived to have been an exemplary judge. I would not begrudge her the right to spend her remaining years doing whatever she finds satisfying.
There are people who have occupied (or do occupy) seats on the Supreme Court who have been incompetent, borderline sociopathic, or politically questionable. I don't believe Sandra Day O'Connor was one of those, and I find it sad to see her described in the way you did.
Finally, you used the word restrained to describe your tone. However, your tone was, in my estimation, unrestrained, emotional, and inflamatory... your second post more so than the first.
Note that this doesn't mean that Greenpeace doesn't use misleading information, which while not useless is detrimental.
If I'm understanding correctly, you're berating him and accusing him of trolling because repeated, willful dishonesty isn't "useless" as it gets media attention for Greenpeace?
Bingo! Now you understand why governments and corporations use propaganda.
Bullshit. I had young children (growing up now). Proper discipline and parenting is what is called for. Sure, locking up things like tools just makes sense and is part of proper parenting. What is most lacking today however is proper discipline. By the age of 2 they should know to NEVER touch Dad's stuff. Hmmm... That comment is phrased as a disagreement, but it sounds as if you generally agree with the parent.
I will second your view, in any case; it's one thing for your kids to grab your nose, pat your back, pull on your shirt, but I agree that it is absolutely essential that people forbid their their kids from touching "Dad's stuff".
On the other hand, if by "stuff", you are referring to the various possessions you have stored around your house, you are completely deluded if you think your kids with "NEVER" touch it, regardless of what kind of "discipline" you impose. If it's interesting to them (for example, because it is forbidden), they will get to it, eventually. On the other hand, if it's boring, well then, you have nothing to worry about.
Hmmm.... Why, when someone says "legal professional", do people automatically assume "lawyer"? There are an awful lot of legal professionals who are paralegals, not lawyers.
Good literature? I've never seen it. I don't know why people bother reading a bunch of made up crap, it's a lot more interesting (and fun) to read about real things that actually happen. Well, put. This is why there are vocational and technical schools, so those who are not interested don't have to be distracted by trivia.
Some people enjoy exploring intangible ideas. Others simply prefer exploring tangible things.
A liberal arts education is not suited to everyone.
In the end, if I went on to point all of the things you have to do to comply with ADA and all similar recommendations, all you can really have is flat document-style black and white pages with rediculous font sizes made in raw XHTML/CSS and thats that. This statement is false, and it melodramatically misrepresents the web accessibility guidelines that the are recommended.
Creating accessible websites is not hard, and doesn't mean your website has to suck. On the other hand, if your web site sucks for blind users, it probably sucks for everyone else too.
Trespass is trespass, whether the gate is open or not. That sounds clever, but simplistic and inapplicable.
In the case of unsecured wireless access, an unsophisticated user has no way of knowing that there is a "gate" at all. The "gate" you allude to is, from a user's perspective, frequently placed inside the comfort of your hypothetical trespasser's physical home, behind his locked door. The usecured wifi radio signal could be reasonably construed as an invitation, or even an intrusion by the person receiving a signal which may be degrading the performance of his own wifi radio signal.
That's 44 thousand year's older then the earth you dumbass. While I wipe the coffee off my monitor, I will observe that remarkably, this was modded down as a Troll, instead of being modded up as Insightful.
Much as I appreciate and generally agree with the sentiment, this is literally untrue, otherwise the constitution could never be ammended. Here's a legal description of treason....
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) :
TREASON, crim. law. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of
allegiance. 4 Bl. Com. 75.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s. 3, defines treason
against the United States to consist only in levying war (q.v.) against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This
offence is punished with death. Act of April 30th, 1790, 1 Story's Laws U.
S. 83. By the same article of the constitution, no person shall be convicted
of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act,
or on confession in open court. Vide, generally, 3 Story on the Const. ch.
39, p. 667; Serg. on the Const. ch. 30; United States v. Fries, Pamph.; 1
Tucker's Blackst. Comm. Appen. 275, 276; 3 Wils. Law Lect. 96 to 99; Foster,
Disc. I; Burr's Trial; 4 Cranch, R. 126, 469 to 508; 2 Dall. R. 246; 355; 1
Dall. Rep. 35; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 234; 1 John. Rep. 553 11 Johns. R. 549;
Com. Dig. Justices, K; 1 East, P. C. 37 to 158; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 60 to
102; Arch. Cr. Pl. 378 to 387.
I think I spotted a typo in that post. Perhaps this is what you meant:
"So, US taxpayers, please let us know when you're ready to put your money where your mouth is, and we'll subsequently give you the best damn computer security on Planet Earth. Until then, you're just another employer trying to get more than he's paid for out of his staff.
Where on do you think these universities get the money that would "help with the bandwidth costs"? Generally, it comes from taxes, tuition, and endownments. As a taxpayer, I am appalled by this suggestion, unless Wikipedia becomes a government-run operation. As an alumnus, I would be dead set against such a misuse of university resources. I am not in favor of using any of these to "help" wikipedia with its costs; the money going into universities should pay for education of its students.
If Wikipedia can pay its own way, it absolutely should.
I'm getting really sick and tired of parents trying to use the legal system to protect their kids.
Heaven forbid the legal system should be used to enforce the laws when the victims are kids.
The idea is that the legal system protects kids from things they don't understand.
No, the idea is that the legal system protects people from other people who do illegal things, like attacking them physically, stealing their possessions, and threatening to do either of those things. If these things happen to an adult, it is a crime. If these things happen to a child, it is also a crime.
I'm pretty sure that the average child understands that some anonymous person on the internet cannot harm them and that they are probably just some other stupid kid. I wish parents would start actually raising their kids. My parents did a great job, and it was their first time.
Anonymous people on the internet are not just electronic fabrications, they are physical people. They are as capable of committing crimes as non-anonymous people. The presumption that because people post threats or perform their harassment electronically and anonymously does not make the crimes less real.
Would you assert that because identity theft is performed anonymously and via the internet, it isn't a real problem? I would not.
Would you assert that children are not entitled to the full protection of the law? I most certainly would not.
No-one is advocating the introduction of less efficient interfaces, or change for change's sake.
Hmmm.... I infer that you don't follow many "technology companies". I have heard many influential people in this field suggest that the they drive change first and foremost in order to help customers decide to buy new stuff (from them, preferably).
If these folks believe they can make more money by introducing less efficient interfaces, not only will they they assure you that these new interfaces will make you healthier, you happier, and richer, they will do so with unbounded enthusiasm.
Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. (Okay, I know someone is going to do that, just on principle, now. Thanks in advance.)
I don't know about Georgia, but here in Texas, the law allows you to protect your property from trespassers fairly vigorously. It seems to me very unlikely that a trespasser who attempted to press charges because someone shot him with an automated water gun would get much traction with the complaint, even in the fine state of Georgia.
The age of the universe is now known to unprecedented accuracy: 13.73 billion years old, +/- 120 million.
This is precision, not accuracy. The result will be judged accurate when there are lots of duplicate experiments getting the same result.
I think what you object to is not the word "accuracy", but the word "known". What you appear to want is for the assertion to be validated by further testing.
What? Black and white aren't ethnicities, they're skin colors. If you'll take a very very careful look at Obama, I think you'll notice that he's black.
No. The color of this text (on my monitor, anyway) is black. The background color of this web page (again, on my monitor) is white. Barack Obama is neither of these colors. In fact, according to the colors I see defined in my X-Window system, he's not even brown, or light brown. The claim that "black" or "white" are possible skin colors, much less Barack Obama's, is absurd, and is an evasion of the fact that we use those terms to refer to ethnicities, NOT skin colors.
(excuse the wording)? What the hell? This is what is wrong with America. I swear to God I am so sick of this political correct cry baby crap. He is black, call him black. I am white, why the hell is it perfectly acceptable to call me white instead of "Irish-American" or some other hypenated nonsense, but its a big deal to call a black guy black. Why the hell would you need to be excused for calling him black?
Hogwash. He is white. You say Barak Obama is "black" because his father was "black". I say he is "white" because his mother was "white".
Someone who is truly cutting through the "political correct cry baby crap" would say he is "multiracial".
So you deny the doctrine of the Trinity then; that the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God are in fact the same being? If you do not deny this then you must admit that at lease some of the Bible is just quotations from God.
Accepting the doctrine of the Trinity has absolutely no bearing on whether one believes the Bible contains "quotations from God". Neither does rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity imply that one believes the Bible does not contain some of God's own words.
I'm sure this new test will not be cheap, so that if we start using this test widely, we may end up spending a lot of money without signficant clinical benefit to patients. As everyone knows, healthcare in the US is already horrifically expensive - tests such as these won't help..
My understanding is that something that helps identify viral infections quickly (and cheaply) would be beneficial in that it would allow doctors to properly diagnose whether an illness is viral or bacterial. This would help reduce the use of "shotgun antibiotics" which are given frequently when the caregiver is uncertain whether the problem in viral or bacterial.
Reducing the use of unnecessary antibiotics seems like the major benefit, if my understanding is correct, as it would help reduce our production of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (though I expect that much of that problem is due to patients not taking their full course of antibiotics... a separate problem).
And he's not really any different on this topic - he's just pointing out a gigantic, gaping hole into which many passionate amateur or small-time photographers seem to be continually stepping. Good for him.
True enough. I do hope he succeeds in helping some people avoid or understand copyright-related problems. Good luck to him.
Slashdot Mirror
You just posted exactly the kind of bullshit that you projected on me with your post, like a loyal Republican. You people never quit, do you? Unless it's quitting a lifetime obligation to rake in some private sector money, with your sick spouse as your excuse. Okay, I'll explain why I disagree with you posted, starting with this post:
You have no idea what my politics are, yet you say I am a Republican. You have no reason to believe I am or am not a Republican, though I infer that you are not, and therefore you conclude that I am what you are not, because I wrote a post critical of what you wrote.
Both in this post and your previous post in this thread, you refer to (implicitly in the previous post) a lifetime obligation for the Supreme Court Justices. There is no such obligation. The appointment to the Court is generally for as long as the appointee chooses. Most justices retire before they die. I recommend that you read the Tenure section of the Wikipedia article about the Supreme Court; it provides a decent summary and references.
In the previous post, you imply that the Supreme Court was responsible for the passage of legislation in Congress. This is meaningless; regardless of how ill-advised President Bush's No Child Left Behind policy is, it became law because people in Congress introduced, voted for, and ultimately passed the "No Child Left Behind Act". The suggestion Justice O'Connor's vote assuring George Bush's presidential campaign victory somehow was responsible for the Congress passing bad legislation is possibly understandable, but misguided and both practically and technically incorrect.
The implication that Justice O'Connor did not provide care to her ailing husband, or that this was not the reason she chose to retire, is unkind and, as far as I can tell, completely unfounded.
The trivialization of O'Connor's involvement in a game aimed at providing a view of how the courts work is ungenerous and almost certainly inaccurate. However, even if she spent the rest of her life playing video games, why would anyone complain? She provided a long life of service as a judge, and is generally perceived to have been an exemplary judge. I would not begrudge her the right to spend her remaining years doing whatever she finds satisfying.
There are people who have occupied (or do occupy) seats on the Supreme Court who have been incompetent, borderline sociopathic, or politically questionable. I don't believe Sandra Day O'Connor was one of those, and I find it sad to see her described in the way you did.
Finally, you used the word restrained to describe your tone. However, your tone was, in my estimation, unrestrained, emotional, and inflamatory... your second post more so than the first.
Such a post containing a petulant, childish, and largely inaccurate personal attack on Justice O'Connor is completely inappropriate for a....
Oh, nevermind... Slashdot... got it.
Jolly good show, carry on.
If I'm understanding correctly, you're berating him and accusing him of trolling because repeated, willful dishonesty isn't "useless" as it gets media attention for Greenpeace?
Bingo! Now you understand why governments and corporations use propaganda.I will second your view, in any case; it's one thing for your kids to grab your nose, pat your back, pull on your shirt, but I agree that it is absolutely essential that people forbid their their kids from touching "Dad's stuff".
On the other hand, if by "stuff", you are referring to the various possessions you have stored around your house, you are completely deluded if you think your kids with "NEVER" touch it, regardless of what kind of "discipline" you impose. If it's interesting to them (for example, because it is forbidden), they will get to it, eventually. On the other hand, if it's boring, well then, you have nothing to worry about.
Something is very wrong with you!
Hmmm.... Why, when someone says "legal professional", do people automatically assume "lawyer"? There are an awful lot of legal professionals who are paralegals, not lawyers.Some people enjoy exploring intangible ideas. Others simply prefer exploring tangible things.
A liberal arts education is not suited to everyone.
Creating accessible websites is not hard, and doesn't mean your website has to suck. On the other hand, if your web site sucks for blind users, it probably sucks for everyone else too.
In the case of unsecured wireless access, an unsophisticated user has no way of knowing that there is a "gate" at all. The "gate" you allude to is, from a user's perspective, frequently placed inside the comfort of your hypothetical trespasser's physical home, behind his locked door. The usecured wifi radio signal could be reasonably construed as an invitation, or even an intrusion by the person receiving a signal which may be degrading the performance of his own wifi radio signal.
To think any differently is treason.
Much as I appreciate and generally agree with the sentiment, this is literally untrue, otherwise the constitution could never be ammended. Here's a legal description of treason....
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) :
TREASON, crim. law. This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of
allegiance. 4 Bl. Com. 75.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s. 3, defines treason
against the United States to consist only in levying war (q.v.) against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This
offence is punished with death. Act of April 30th, 1790, 1 Story's Laws U.
S. 83. By the same article of the constitution, no person shall be convicted
of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act,
or on confession in open court. Vide, generally, 3 Story on the Const. ch.
39, p. 667; Serg. on the Const. ch. 30; United States v. Fries, Pamph.; 1
Tucker's Blackst. Comm. Appen. 275, 276; 3 Wils. Law Lect. 96 to 99; Foster,
Disc. I; Burr's Trial; 4 Cranch, R. 126, 469 to 508; 2 Dall. R. 246; 355; 1
Dall. Rep. 35; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 234; 1 John. Rep. 553 11 Johns. R. 549;
Com. Dig. Justices, K; 1 East, P. C. 37 to 158; 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 60 to
102; Arch. Cr. Pl. 378 to 387.
Toshiba uses a red laser diode that's rather different from the Sony blue diode.
Huh? HD-DVD uses a blue laser. Am I missing something, or are you?
I think I spotted a typo in that post. Perhaps this is what you meant:
"So, US taxpayers, please let us know when you're ready to put your money where your mouth is, and we'll subsequently give you the best damn computer security on Planet Earth. Until then, you're just another employer trying to get more than he's paid for out of his staff.
Where on do you think these universities get the money that would "help with the bandwidth costs"? Generally, it comes from taxes, tuition, and endownments. As a taxpayer, I am appalled by this suggestion, unless Wikipedia becomes a government-run operation. As an alumnus, I would be dead set against such a misuse of university resources. I am not in favor of using any of these to "help" wikipedia with its costs; the money going into universities should pay for education of its students.
If Wikipedia can pay its own way, it absolutely should.
Go ahead, "-1, unpopular opinion".
If you don't want to be bullied online, stay offline.
Likewise, if you don't want to be bullied at school, don't go to school.
I'm getting really sick and tired of parents trying to use the legal system to protect their kids.
Heaven forbid the legal system should be used to enforce the laws when the victims are kids.
The idea is that the legal system protects kids from things they don't understand.
No, the idea is that the legal system protects people from other people who do illegal things, like attacking them physically, stealing their possessions, and threatening to do either of those things. If these things happen to an adult, it is a crime. If these things happen to a child, it is also a crime.
I'm pretty sure that the average child understands that some anonymous person on the internet cannot harm them and that they are probably just some other stupid kid. I wish parents would start actually raising their kids. My parents did a great job, and it was their first time.
Anonymous people on the internet are not just electronic fabrications, they are physical people. They are as capable of committing crimes as non-anonymous people. The presumption that because people post threats or perform their harassment electronically and anonymously does not make the crimes less real.
Would you assert that because identity theft is performed anonymously and via the internet, it isn't a real problem? I would not.
Would you assert that children are not entitled to the full protection of the law? I most certainly would not.
No-one is advocating the introduction of less efficient interfaces, or change for change's sake.
Hmmm.... I infer that you don't follow many "technology companies". I have heard many influential people in this field suggest that the they drive change first and foremost in order to help customers decide to buy new stuff (from them, preferably).
If these folks believe they can make more money by introducing less efficient interfaces, not only will they they assure you that these new interfaces will make you healthier, you happier, and richer, they will do so with unbounded enthusiasm.
Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. (Okay, I know someone is going to do that, just on principle, now. Thanks in advance.)
I don't know about Georgia, but here in Texas, the law allows you to protect your property from trespassers fairly vigorously. It seems to me very unlikely that a trespasser who attempted to press charges because someone shot him with an automated water gun would get much traction with the complaint, even in the fine state of Georgia.
Energon.
This is precision, not accuracy. The result will be judged accurate when there are lots of duplicate experiments getting the same result.
I think what you object to is not the word "accuracy", but the word "known". What you appear to want is for the assertion to be validated by further testing.
What? Black and white aren't ethnicities, they're skin colors. If you'll take a very very careful look at Obama, I think you'll notice that he's black.
No. The color of this text (on my monitor, anyway) is black. The background color of this web page (again, on my monitor) is white. Barack Obama is neither of these colors. In fact, according to the colors I see defined in my X-Window system, he's not even brown, or light brown. The claim that "black" or "white" are possible skin colors, much less Barack Obama's, is absurd, and is an evasion of the fact that we use those terms to refer to ethnicities, NOT skin colors.
(excuse the wording)? What the hell? This is what is wrong with America. I swear to God I am so sick of this political correct cry baby crap. He is black, call him black. I am white, why the hell is it perfectly acceptable to call me white instead of "Irish-American" or some other hypenated nonsense, but its a big deal to call a black guy black. Why the hell would you need to be excused for calling him black?
Hogwash. He is white. You say Barak Obama is "black" because his father was "black". I say he is "white" because his mother was "white".
Someone who is truly cutting through the "political correct cry baby crap" would say he is "multiracial".
When you walk, you don't think "left, right, left, right."
Perhaps not, but I understand that when monkeys walk, they think, "Developers, developers, developers."
So you deny the doctrine of the Trinity then; that the Holy Spirit, Jesus and God are in fact the same being? If you do not deny this then you must admit that at lease some of the Bible is just quotations from God.
Accepting the doctrine of the Trinity has absolutely no bearing on whether one believes the Bible contains "quotations from God". Neither does rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity imply that one believes the Bible does not contain some of God's own words.
I'm sure this new test will not be cheap, so that if we start using this test widely, we may end up spending a lot of money without signficant clinical benefit to patients. As everyone knows, healthcare in the US is already horrifically expensive - tests such as these won't help..
My understanding is that something that helps identify viral infections quickly (and cheaply) would be beneficial in that it would allow doctors to properly diagnose whether an illness is viral or bacterial. This would help reduce the use of "shotgun antibiotics" which are given frequently when the caregiver is uncertain whether the problem in viral or bacterial.
Reducing the use of unnecessary antibiotics seems like the major benefit, if my understanding is correct, as it would help reduce our production of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (though I expect that much of that problem is due to patients not taking their full course of antibiotics... a separate problem).
And he's not really any different on this topic - he's just pointing out a gigantic, gaping hole into which many passionate amateur or small-time photographers seem to be continually stepping. Good for him.
True enough. I do hope he succeeds in helping some people avoid or understand copyright-related problems. Good luck to him.