mcc said:
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
To which you replied:
I don't have any problem with a company making a product attempting to promote it. Viewed in a vacuum, as I said, these products, like many others, could have positive applications. That they would try to promote the product in such a fashion as it would be used as widely as possible comes as no surprise to me.
Which implies that you don't understand the difference between appropriate forms of promotion, and forcing the masses into using your product.
If Coca-Cola make it mandatory to drink Coke, and we would be imprisoned for refusing to drink Coke, then that would be a violation of our civil liberties, don't you think?
I don't know, but I do know that I have never paid for a security badge issued by a workplace (I did have to pay for a student ID however, which serves the same function).
If he has to pay for one, that does kind of suck. It sucks, however, to have to pay for anything compulsory with your job.
Could you imagine if theme park employees had to pay for their stupid costumes?
I think that true flamebait should have a broad appeal, like calling all readers of Slashdot morons, and then exploring that it doesn't matter who moderates, because it's all garbage anyway.
So, lets see, someone wrote a story about Google that they didn't like, and now, they don't want to provide fuel to the fire of the next story.
Well, stop the presses! Google has no right to decline to talk to any reporter. It's censorship, er, something. Yeah, censorship! That's what it is.
I used to be like that. I declined to talk to an ex-girlfriend who hired a hitman to kill me. Well, now I've seen the light, and I'm going to call her tonight and tell her exactly where I live.
Massport may be bluffing, in order to have an excuse to shoulder out their competition and have monopoly status.
That said, they may not be bluffing, in which case, any terrorist with a little knowledge regarding computer networks now has access codes to all of the airports secure areas! This is regardless of Continentals role, since their network, in all likelihood, has no interraction with these systems.
Well... under a million registered users I believe. I haven't seen anybody with a 7 digit UID yet.
That said, let me tell you... I can't wait for the day. Gurls dig low UID's, and, well, as you can see, they'll be all about me by about the time user number 1,000,000 comes around.
Slashdot pimpin' ain't easy, but it's necessary, so I'm chasing gurls like Tom chases Jerry!
I meant universities who do research funded by the government, not high schools.
The issue is fundamentally different.
Look at it like this. Classically speaking, this is the way that the government has purchased the far out in the future, hard science, research. Only a few government labs do this sort of thing. Academia is a very cheap route to find this, because most of the labor are graduate students who are willing to work for less because they need research in order to finish their degrees.
Taking academia out of the equation essentially means that you are no longer interested in hard science.
Why then, would you encourage the youth to go into this field?
I don't think that that's true. Unless you mean before the bubble burst. Slashdot didn't even really exist before the tech bubble to the best of my knowledge. Then again, I consider that bubble to have been rising when I was in high school.
Unfortunately, a PhD costs around half a million dollars at the end of the day. Without government support, we just won't have them.
Also, consider that outsourcing engineers is industry's fault. Killing off the company with outsourcing is a quick solution to turn a profit in the short term, while ignoring long-term implications. Simply put, if all of your value is generated by another company, then your company has no value.
This seems like an awkward time for them to do this, considering as how they just slashed funding for hard research (DARPA) and schools all over have been scrambling to find new sources of funding.
It hasn't been news for nerds since around September 11th, 2001.
Seriously, that isn't to be inflammatory. Around that time membership on ALL of these sites skyrocketed (at the time I was more into posting on K5). The quality of articles was abominable, and morons ABOUNDED. Considering how the submission system worked at K5 at the time, this was a reflection of the readers, not the admins.
Around here it seems to be much the same, but perhaps the submitters at least must be better spoken. One of the articles on K5 condemned the media for praising the firefighters and police officers in NY during Sept. 11, because the police are "the sworn enemy of the black man."
So, that said, there is nowhere left on the Internet that you can talk about technology. I could post "Intel makes nice processors," and get "YOU AMERICAN SON-OF-A-BITCH!!" in a reply.
This is not news for nerds, and most of the time, it isn't stuff that matters.
Ok, sure, not killing in the name of Justice. Either way, he wouldn't care a bit about the death penalty if he didn't feel that there were racial bias. In other words, it's not the death penalty that he rejects to, it's the fact that the distribution of those killed would be disproportionate by race.
This business has nothing to do with the heart of either post. His argument was that the judicial system is racist, my argument was that if that's the only reason that he objects to the death penalty, then, in all reality, he supports the death penalty, but doesn't want to see it in action because he feels that there is racial bias. IE, that it would be used unfairly.
This seems pretty common. A couple times at an old job I held, I had a boss who would "soften the language" that I used in documents that I wrote.
Honestly, my language was pretty straightforward and professional.
Taking the time to read through his edits, softening the language generally meant taking what I said, and changing it to what he wanted it to say.
This could be as blatant as: "I recommend using product X, it's cheaper and the staff at that company are easily accessible." to "I recomnned using product Y, it's more expensive, but we don't have to worry about hearing from anybody at their company ever again after purchasing it."
because there is a clear racial and financial bias going on in the American legal system
I don't think that a true liberal would want the death penalty even if there were no such bias.
To break down your argument. It's ok to kill people in the name of justice, just as long as there is no racial or financial bias? So, really, you're for the death penalty, but you think that the system is corrupt.
However, for many outsiders, it's hard to understand how cliques reconcile seemingly contrarian views. For example, many US Republicans are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty (no doubt they have their reasons).
I'm not a Republican, but I can easily identify these views as not being contrarian.
One is a penalty for a crime (supposedly, a terrible one)
The other is, in from the point of view of its opponents, killing an innocent child (also, in order for this to be contrarian, one has to accept that you're killing someone in abortion, which is it's own debate).
The flip side of this, also, is supporting abortion and being against the death penalty, which are also not necessarily contrary to each other.
so how about instead of me reading the fucking article, you sit back and think a few fucking thoughts of logic. TAFFTOL. TAFFTOL.
You don't understand how this works at all. Apparently you never will, because instead of finding out what people are doing, you'll just "sit back and think a few fucking thoughts of logic."
This is not at all as simple as counting who gets the most thumbs up.
Slashdot Mirror
mcc said:
Well, the company that makes them is lobbying to move things in the direction of making them compulsory for all. They may not ever succeed at this. But does that make it okay that they're trying?
To which you replied:
I don't have any problem with a company making a product attempting to promote it. Viewed in a vacuum, as I said, these products, like many others, could have positive applications. That they would try to promote the product in such a fashion as it would be used as widely as possible comes as no surprise to me.
Which implies that you don't understand the difference between appropriate forms of promotion, and forcing the masses into using your product.
If Coca-Cola make it mandatory to drink Coke, and we would be imprisoned for refusing to drink Coke, then that would be a violation of our civil liberties, don't you think?
I don't know, but I do know that I have never paid for a security badge issued by a workplace (I did have to pay for a student ID however, which serves the same function).
If he has to pay for one, that does kind of suck. It sucks, however, to have to pay for anything compulsory with your job.
Could you imagine if theme park employees had to pay for their stupid costumes?
Well, then it's just one big happy candle, now isn't it?
I think that true flamebait should have a broad appeal, like calling all readers of Slashdot morons, and then exploring that it doesn't matter who moderates, because it's all garbage anyway.
Darn it, we're talking about WiFi here, and you're on heating and cooling.
Get a grip man! I think you've posted to the wrong article
(before you flame me, it's a joke)
So, lets see, someone wrote a story about Google that they didn't like, and now, they don't want to provide fuel to the fire of the next story.
Well, stop the presses! Google has no right to decline to talk to any reporter. It's censorship, er, something. Yeah, censorship! That's what it is.
I used to be like that. I declined to talk to an ex-girlfriend who hired a hitman to kill me. Well, now I've seen the light, and I'm going to call her tonight and tell her exactly where I live.
You might care about the fact that it is analagous to other behaviors that might more directly effect your life.
Being a jerk is being a jerk. When the dust settles, the decision in this case is precident setting for future cases where people are jerks.
Massport may be bluffing, in order to have an excuse to shoulder out their competition and have monopoly status.
That said, they may not be bluffing, in which case, any terrorist with a little knowledge regarding computer networks now has access codes to all of the airports secure areas! This is regardless of Continentals role, since their network, in all likelihood, has no interraction with these systems.
Either way, Massport looks like a bunch of jerks.
Well... under a million registered users I believe. I haven't seen anybody with a 7 digit UID yet.
That said, let me tell you... I can't wait for the day. Gurls dig low UID's, and, well, as you can see, they'll be all about me by about the time user number 1,000,000 comes around.
Slashdot pimpin' ain't easy, but it's necessary, so I'm chasing gurls like Tom chases Jerry!
This was a joke, right? Hence "science" rather than science.
Stop talking sense, people fear what they don't understand, and will send a lynchmob after you.
I meant universities who do research funded by the government, not high schools.
The issue is fundamentally different.
Look at it like this. Classically speaking, this is the way that the government has purchased the far out in the future, hard science, research. Only a few government labs do this sort of thing. Academia is a very cheap route to find this, because most of the labor are graduate students who are willing to work for less because they need research in order to finish their degrees.
Taking academia out of the equation essentially means that you are no longer interested in hard science.
Why then, would you encourage the youth to go into this field?
I don't think that that's true. Unless you mean before the bubble burst. Slashdot didn't even really exist before the tech bubble to the best of my knowledge. Then again, I consider that bubble to have been rising when I was in high school.
Certainly.
Unfortunately, a PhD costs around half a million dollars at the end of the day. Without government support, we just won't have them.
Also, consider that outsourcing engineers is industry's fault. Killing off the company with outsourcing is a quick solution to turn a profit in the short term, while ignoring long-term implications. Simply put, if all of your value is generated by another company, then your company has no value.
This seems like an awkward time for them to do this, considering as how they just slashed funding for hard research (DARPA) and schools all over have been scrambling to find new sources of funding.
No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered
Mac?
Oh no, someone's folks didn't buy them a new toy.
I guess that they'll have to read, or play outside, or learn that the world isn't handed to them on a silver platter.
You must be new here
It hasn't been news for nerds since around September 11th, 2001.
Seriously, that isn't to be inflammatory. Around that time membership on ALL of these sites skyrocketed (at the time I was more into posting on K5). The quality of articles was abominable, and morons ABOUNDED. Considering how the submission system worked at K5 at the time, this was a reflection of the readers, not the admins.
Around here it seems to be much the same, but perhaps the submitters at least must be better spoken. One of the articles on K5 condemned the media for praising the firefighters and police officers in NY during Sept. 11, because the police are "the sworn enemy of the black man."
So, that said, there is nowhere left on the Internet that you can talk about technology. I could post "Intel makes nice processors," and get "YOU AMERICAN SON-OF-A-BITCH!!" in a reply.
This is not news for nerds, and most of the time, it isn't stuff that matters.
GP - Grandparent.
Ok, sure, not killing in the name of Justice. Either way, he wouldn't care a bit about the death penalty if he didn't feel that there were racial bias. In other words, it's not the death penalty that he rejects to, it's the fact that the distribution of those killed would be disproportionate by race.
This business has nothing to do with the heart of either post. His argument was that the judicial system is racist, my argument was that if that's the only reason that he objects to the death penalty, then, in all reality, he supports the death penalty, but doesn't want to see it in action because he feels that there is racial bias. IE, that it would be used unfairly.
What does that have to do with the GP?
Were you browsing such that his threshold was too low for you to see, and mine high enough?
This seems pretty common. A couple times at an old job I held, I had a boss who would "soften the language" that I used in documents that I wrote.
Honestly, my language was pretty straightforward and professional.
Taking the time to read through his edits, softening the language generally meant taking what I said, and changing it to what he wanted it to say.
This could be as blatant as:
"I recommend using product X, it's cheaper and the staff at that company are easily accessible." to
"I recomnned using product Y, it's more expensive, but we don't have to worry about hearing from anybody at their company ever again after purchasing it."
because there is a clear racial and financial bias going on in the American legal system
I don't think that a true liberal would want the death penalty even if there were no such bias.
To break down your argument. It's ok to kill people in the name of justice, just as long as there is no racial or financial bias? So, really, you're for the death penalty, but you think that the system is corrupt.
However, for many outsiders, it's hard to understand how cliques reconcile seemingly contrarian views. For example, many US Republicans are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty (no doubt they have their reasons).
I'm not a Republican, but I can easily identify these views as not being contrarian.
One is a penalty for a crime (supposedly, a terrible one)
The other is, in from the point of view of its opponents, killing an innocent child (also, in order for this to be contrarian, one has to accept that you're killing someone in abortion, which is it's own debate).
The flip side of this, also, is supporting abortion and being against the death penalty, which are also not necessarily contrary to each other.
so how about instead of me reading the fucking article, you sit back and think a few fucking thoughts of logic. TAFFTOL. TAFFTOL.
You don't understand how this works at all. Apparently you never will, because instead of finding out what people are doing, you'll just "sit back and think a few fucking thoughts of logic."
This is not at all as simple as counting who gets the most thumbs up.
FP!!