Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough to verify they weren't really that concerned about his credentials.
Maybe this is an indication that degrees are over-rated. Or to be charitable, that it isn't particularly important exactly what you learn.
Perhaps. Though it's not obvious that a CS degree would contribute much to your skills as a CEO.
How are we supposed to know they're legitimate? Hell, how are we supposed to know that they actually killed him? No real evidence has been shown, never mind a body. A case built on "evidence" like presented so far would be laughed out of even a kangaroo court!
Yep, people spotted him smoking a joint with Elvis at Cannes.
This terrorist talk here is scary and should be restricted to MiRC or Usernet, not here where everyone can see it.
Smart people wear diapers when they read Slashdot, so they can just wet themselves when they learn about a scary terror plot or find out that BSD is dying.
Just in case anyone takes you seriously: The argument for torture would be a lot stronger if it had a track record of actually *working*. Unlike in the movies, in real life the evidence is that the reliability of information gathered using torture is actually very low. While being tortured people will say whatever they think you want to hear, and a lie will likely work better than the truth, without requiring them to betray their colleagues.
I was always amused by the "ticking bomb" argument for torture. That's the situation that's *easiest* for the (presumed) culprit. Just say the wrong town, wrong address, wrong floor, wrong combination, whatever, and the ticking runs out while they're chasing wild geese.
Apparently sophisticated international terrorism rings aren't as big of a threat as we've been led to believe, since the FBI seems to be more busy giving themselves congratulatory press conferences every few months for capturing the newest group of illiterate morons who've been convinced to plant fake bombs.
IIRC there was a news story a couple of weeks back saying that most of the FBI's effort goes toward things like busting file sharing sites.
I have to agree this particular thing would be a waste. But there's wasting money and then there's wasting money. The military budget is about 5% of government spending. This pales in comparison to the debt that Obama has racked up in such a short time.
Republicans love to proclaim that they're deficit hawks, unlike the tax-and-spend Democrats. But if you look at what they *do* instead of what they say, it becomes obvious that they're tax-(less)-and-spend-(more) hawks.
They only object to spending money when it won't help someone who doesn't need it.
It may not be economical, but dammit lazers are cool! Congress won't give us a space program anymore, but they love weapons. Why not compromise with boeing 747s with huge freaken lazers?!
Why is OK to throw money down the hole on something that might save lives in a highly unlikely set of circumstances when there are much more pressing issues where that money could definitely be used to save lives, especially given that you seem to have a problem with government spending in general given your sig.
No one actually objects to government spending. They only object to spending it on poor people.
Eveyone always complains abut missile defense, and like all military-industrial-complex spending, it's full of bloat and corruption. But we still need missile defense - more and smaller powers are getting 50-year-old missile technology now.
More importantly, we need to throw more money at the defense industry, so we can claim we "support our troops" without actually having to support them.
News flash: Taxes are a cost of doing business. Costs of doing business are passed on to the consumer. Microsoft and Apple would not pay these taxes in any event. Their customers would pay them through higher prices.
Now that you mention it, that makes sense. Someone needs to pay for a company's use of the public infrastructure, access to the blessings of liberty, etc. If you tax the company and they elect to pass it on to their customers, that means the people who are using their products and services pay for it. But if you don't tax the company, the price is spread over everybody, including those who don't use the company's products and services.
Ergo, taxing companies is more fair to the public at large.
Make tax payable at the same rate everywhere. Simple.
Difficult to do with state taxes. States (and cities) deliberately lowball tax rates so companies will do exactly what Microsoft is doing. Nevada gets less money out of MS than Washington would, but if MS paid the taxes in Washington, Nevada wouldn't get anything out of it at all.
Just another example of society being organized to be cheapest for those who have the most money.
Slashdot Mirror
Was he able to do the job well? Does it REALLY matter? If he got away with it that long I say good for him, if his employers aren't smart enough or care enough to verify they weren't really that concerned about his credentials.
Maybe this is an indication that degrees are over-rated. Or to be charitable, that it isn't particularly important exactly what you learn.
Perhaps. Though it's not obvious that a CS degree would contribute much to your skills as a CEO.
Is this FreeRepublic.com now?
~S
Yes, but we're still arguing over whether it's Free Beer Republic or Free Speech Republic.
How are we supposed to know they're legitimate? Hell, how are we supposed to know that they actually killed him? No real evidence has been shown, never mind a body. A case built on "evidence" like presented so far would be laughed out of even a kangaroo court!
Yep, people spotted him smoking a joint with Elvis at Cannes.
The only thing that might be true is that he's dead, probably in the Tora Bora attack years ago.
Right. Because George & Dick wouldn't have trumpeted it to the heavens if the got him.
...with a journal named ORC.
This terrorist talk here is scary and should be restricted to MiRC or Usernet, not here where everyone can see it.
Smart people wear diapers when they read Slashdot, so they can just wet themselves when they learn about a scary terror plot or find out that BSD is dying.
Just in case anyone takes you seriously: The argument for torture would be a lot stronger if it had a track record of actually *working*. Unlike in the movies, in real life the evidence is that the reliability of information gathered using torture is actually very low. While being tortured people will say whatever they think you want to hear, and a lie will likely work better than the truth, without requiring them to betray their colleagues.
I was always amused by the "ticking bomb" argument for torture. That's the situation that's *easiest* for the (presumed) culprit. Just say the wrong town, wrong address, wrong floor, wrong combination, whatever, and the ticking runs out while they're chasing wild geese.
Apparently sophisticated international terrorism rings aren't as big of a threat as we've been led to believe, since the FBI seems to be more busy giving themselves congratulatory press conferences every few months for capturing the newest group of illiterate morons who've been convinced to plant fake bombs.
IIRC there was a news story a couple of weeks back saying that most of the FBI's effort goes toward things like busting file sharing sites.
I see nothing wrong with this.
Most of the civilized world does.
Of course, right now all we have is the NYTimes' opinion of what happened. Maybe it hasn't actually been as bad as it sounds.
I thought "biogas" referred to bovine flatulence.
I guess I can post AC, I just can't BROWSE anonymous...
Oh, great... now we have a write-only internet.
Remember: All laws advantage one group while disadvantaging another.
Can we call that girlintraining's Law?
I was wondering why all my friends suddenly started trying to get me to buy a 747 with a big laser on it.
I wonder how much debt will be enough for our dark overlords in Washington?
Probably someone showed them a computer experiment that demonstrated that if you keep subtracting from a number it eventually goes positive again.
As long as the missiles we're defending against are inoperable, our defenses should be iron clad.
At present you can defend against North Korean missiles with rubber bands mounted on paper airplanes.
And I'm sure you can find a defense contractor willing to make one for slightly less than the 747+laser costs.
I have to agree this particular thing would be a waste. But there's wasting money and then there's wasting money. The military budget is about 5% of government spending. This pales in comparison to the debt that Obama has racked up in such a short time.
You may want to look at this and this and this.
Or you could just get all your "facts" from FOX.
Republicans love to proclaim that they're deficit hawks, unlike the tax-and-spend Democrats. But if you look at what they *do* instead of what they say, it becomes obvious that they're tax-(less)-and-spend-(more) hawks.
They only object to spending money when it won't help someone who doesn't need it.
It may not be economical, but dammit lazers are cool! Congress won't give us a space program anymore, but they love weapons. Why not compromise with boeing 747s with huge freaken lazers?!
Cheaper to mount them on sharks' heads.
Possibly more effective, too.
Why is OK to throw money down the hole on something that might save lives in a highly unlikely set of circumstances when there are much more pressing issues where that money could definitely be used to save lives, especially given that you seem to have a problem with government spending in general given your sig.
No one actually objects to government spending. They only object to spending it on poor people.
Defense contractors aren't poor people.
Eveyone always complains abut missile defense, and like all military-industrial-complex spending, it's full of bloat and corruption. But we still need missile defense - more and smaller powers are getting 50-year-old missile technology now.
More importantly, we need to throw more money at the defense industry, so we can claim we "support our troops" without actually having to support them.
...beowulf cluster of these!
Emulated on GPUs...
Obama ate a dog.
and the GOP nominated one, which pretty much tells you how this election will go.
Dog eat dog?
News flash: Taxes are a cost of doing business. Costs of doing business are passed on to the consumer. Microsoft and Apple would not pay these taxes in any event. Their customers would pay them through higher prices.
Now that you mention it, that makes sense. Someone needs to pay for a company's use of the public infrastructure, access to the blessings of liberty, etc. If you tax the company and they elect to pass it on to their customers, that means the people who are using their products and services pay for it. But if you don't tax the company, the price is spread over everybody, including those who don't use the company's products and services.
Ergo, taxing companies is more fair to the public at large.
The US has the highest corporate rates of the G7
Sure, highest supposed rates and 3rd lowest effective rate in the G7, thanks to loopholes you can sail a cruise ship though.
Plus some of the most profitable ones get subsidies.
If the courts are going to treat corporations as legal persons, so should the IRS, State, and local tax collectors.
And law enforcement.
Make tax payable at the same rate everywhere. Simple.
Difficult to do with state taxes. States (and cities) deliberately lowball tax rates so companies will do exactly what Microsoft is doing. Nevada gets less money out of MS than Washington would, but if MS paid the taxes in Washington, Nevada wouldn't get anything out of it at all.
Just another example of society being organized to be cheapest for those who have the most money.