And then make sure all of those people are licensed and bonded, because if a fight breaks out, guess who's going to be civilly (and possibly criminally) liable? Hint: it won't be the judgment-proof "bouncers".
Something was messed up with the formatting, it didn't look like a quote (and I had my threshold set sufficiently high that I didn't see the original AC comment).
I suspect it was the stylesheet used by idle; when I view your post using the regular Slashdot stylesheet, it looks fine and it's obvious you're quoting something in that statement. In the future, I'll either avoid idle entirely, or just remove 'idle' from the URL (that seems to fix the problem). Guess I should also take more than four seconds to think of a smart ass comment and post it, too. Nah, that sounds too much like actual work.;)
Chad encourages you to refrain from learning vendor-specific technologies that can disappear with the vendor.
Then Chad is hopelessly naive about what it takes to get a job in IT. If you apply for a job that requires experience with Websphere, and your resume only has Tomcat, JBoss, SunOne, and Weblogic, you will not be called in for an interview. It doesn't matter that they're all N-tier frameworks designed to work with Java, you don't have the specific skill needed, so unless the hiring manager is clueful AND does all of the initial resume screening himself instead of letting HR do it, you won't ever get that job.
Face it, there are a lot of idiots in IT management who only know the names of the vendors, and don't even understand what the technologies do. You have to list those vendors on your resume if you ever want to get a job, being vague about working with N-tier architectures just won't cut it in today's environment.
No kidding. Any decent defense attorney should be able to nullify these guards' testimony.
"So Officer Smith, you testified that the images you saw depicted children. Exactly how old were they? Oh you're not sure. (Display a picture of a model who's 18 and is made up to look 12.) How old is this model? Take a guess. Sorry, no, she's 18, and here's her birth certificate to prove it. Since you can't accurately identify the age of this model, why should the jury assume you could identify the age(s) of other models?"
But if a site is not signed at all, then it must be safe, huh?
An unencrypted site is less dangerous than a self-signed one because the former isn't advertising that it's safe; the latter is. It's presenting the appearance of security, with the reality of none. You're much better off thinking you're insecure, and acting appropriately, than assuming you're secure, and not realizing you've just given your bank account information to a phisher.
People who are not liable for anything the corporation says on their behalf?
Yes, because never once has a corporation or an employee of a corporation been fined or imprisoned for fraud, or any other crime.
The limited liability a corporation provides only extends to an investor's property; it's a method to ensure that if the corporation goes bankrupt, it doesn't ruin the lives of the investors. That's it! That's all the liability protection that exists.
Business Law 101 should become a required course for CS majors, you see far too much lack of understanding of how this stuff works among geeks.
Flash (and Silverlight, et al) are a threat to the Internet generally.
BS. Flash is a great way to deliver rich content on a website. It's only a threat if you think the Internet should stay in the same configuration it was in in 1983, when a 1200 baud connection was considered fast and if you wanted porn you had to print it out and hold it two feet in front of you.
Considering the level of citizen journalism that sites like YouTube and LiveLeak have enabled, all thanks to Flash, I think you need to seriously rethink your stance against that platform.
Libel and slander are civil torts. Let Google sue if they think it'll benefit them. Or put together a class, and sue them yourself. Don't just sit there like a bump on a log, do something if you think you've been harmed.
First of all, Paul Sereno is awesome. Modern day Indiana Jones, if there ever was one.
Ooh, sounds exciting!
He commonly does that... goes out in the field, finds something, and leaves it, only to return with the proper team and equipment.
Wow, just like in Indiana Jones and the Patiently Waiting Tomb Hunters. That montage scene when five years went by as Professor Jones assembled his team was incredible!
Not to be partisan, but he's a Democrat. Which means I find it difficult to believe he would be able/willing to go up against teachers' unions and install performance based standards.
Strom Thurmond still holds the record for longest filibuster (24 hours 18 minutes). I'd always heard that he did this by reading the names from the DC phonebook (though some cursory searching indicates that Al D'Amato might've used that trick when he got the second longest record, just under 24 hours). I'd like to see someone step up to the mike on the Senate floor, and start reading the source code for gcc, or the Linux kernel, or maybe something truly monstrous like OpenOffice.org. That would be one for the record books!
an observer with enough information could calculate with certainty what your choice will be before you make it
Given that definition then, no, there is no such thing as free will. Because "enough information" would encompass all of the information regarding your personal history, likes and dislikes, state of mind at the time of the choice, mental and physical health, and every other possible value that could influence your decision making process.
Humans are deterministic, we make decisions based on available data and we aren't run by entropy. That means that, yes, you can sometimes predict what someone will do (if you couldn't, there would be no skill involved in poker). That doesn't mean we're not "free" from an external force pushing us along through life to some predestined location; ultimately, you get to choose (based on the circumstances of your life up to that moment in time) whether to take the red pill or the blue pill. That is the traditional concept of "free will". Trying to make it something it's not, just to prove or disprove it, is a strawman, and nothing less.
You can't block the entrance or physically touch people, but other than that, if it's for a political cause, there's not much they can do.
Essentially, the Supreme Court has long ruled that political speech is more important than commerce or private property, and deserves more protections, in multiple rulings over the last 219 years. For the specific law in California that I was depending on for protection, look up the PruneYard Doctrine.
I'm all for highlighting examples of police corruption and brutality, but that second article you linked to raises more questions about the prosecution than the cop involved. Seems like something especially shady was going on (especially with the possible FBI investigation into the prosecutor).
Slashdot Mirror
And then make sure all of those people are licensed and bonded, because if a fight breaks out, guess who's going to be civilly (and possibly criminally) liable? Hint: it won't be the judgment-proof "bouncers".
Something was messed up with the formatting, it didn't look like a quote (and I had my threshold set sufficiently high that I didn't see the original AC comment).
I suspect it was the stylesheet used by idle; when I view your post using the regular Slashdot stylesheet, it looks fine and it's obvious you're quoting something in that statement. In the future, I'll either avoid idle entirely, or just remove 'idle' from the URL (that seems to fix the problem). Guess I should also take more than four seconds to think of a smart ass comment and post it, too. Nah, that sounds too much like actual work. ;)
by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) on Wed Aug 20, '08 12:20 PM (#24677003) Homepage
Posted AC for obvious reasons.
This is why the preview button exists, kids.
What's a better answer to give an HR rep who doesn't know the technology?
"Yes, I know that quite well." Do you seriously think an HR drone is going to know enough to challenge that response?
Chad encourages you to refrain from learning vendor-specific technologies that can disappear with the vendor.
Then Chad is hopelessly naive about what it takes to get a job in IT. If you apply for a job that requires experience with Websphere, and your resume only has Tomcat, JBoss, SunOne, and Weblogic, you will not be called in for an interview. It doesn't matter that they're all N-tier frameworks designed to work with Java, you don't have the specific skill needed, so unless the hiring manager is clueful AND does all of the initial resume screening himself instead of letting HR do it, you won't ever get that job.
Face it, there are a lot of idiots in IT management who only know the names of the vendors, and don't even understand what the technologies do. You have to list those vendors on your resume if you ever want to get a job, being vague about working with N-tier architectures just won't cut it in today's environment.
Obama seems to me someone that is spiritual and has beliefs in a higher power but that isn't necessarily the Christian God.
To believe that requires that you ignore the countless times Obama has expressed a devout belief in Christ, the Bible, and so forth.
How long would it take you to debug that problem?
I don't know, how long does it take you to read "Indentation Error: line 3"?
No kidding. Any decent defense attorney should be able to nullify these guards' testimony.
"So Officer Smith, you testified that the images you saw depicted children. Exactly how old were they? Oh you're not sure. (Display a picture of a model who's 18 and is made up to look 12.) How old is this model? Take a guess. Sorry, no, she's 18, and here's her birth certificate to prove it. Since you can't accurately identify the age of this model, why should the jury assume you could identify the age(s) of other models?"
But if a site is not signed at all, then it must be safe, huh?
An unencrypted site is less dangerous than a self-signed one because the former isn't advertising that it's safe; the latter is. It's presenting the appearance of security, with the reality of none. You're much better off thinking you're insecure, and acting appropriately, than assuming you're secure, and not realizing you've just given your bank account information to a phisher.
I think you're begging the question a bit there.
People who are not liable for anything the corporation says on their behalf?
Yes, because never once has a corporation or an employee of a corporation been fined or imprisoned for fraud, or any other crime.
The limited liability a corporation provides only extends to an investor's property; it's a method to ensure that if the corporation goes bankrupt, it doesn't ruin the lives of the investors. That's it! That's all the liability protection that exists.
Business Law 101 should become a required course for CS majors, you see far too much lack of understanding of how this stuff works among geeks.
That explains why Spaceship One exploded on launch.
What's the old saying? "Anyone can make a mistake, but it takes an act of Congress to really screw up."
Flash (and Silverlight, et al) are a threat to the Internet generally.
BS. Flash is a great way to deliver rich content on a website. It's only a threat if you think the Internet should stay in the same configuration it was in in 1983, when a 1200 baud connection was considered fast and if you wanted porn you had to print it out and hold it two feet in front of you.
Considering the level of citizen journalism that sites like YouTube and LiveLeak have enabled, all thanks to Flash, I think you need to seriously rethink your stance against that platform.
It's not the reading material, it's the speaker's endurance. Can you stay awake and lucid for 10 days straight? Somehow I doubt it.
Libel and slander are civil torts. Let Google sue if they think it'll benefit them. Or put together a class, and sue them yourself. Don't just sit there like a bump on a log, do something if you think you've been harmed.
I am just as shocked as you, but I have to wonder "Why do Corporations have the same free speech protections as real people?"
Um, who do you think owns a corporation and decides on what to say regarding it? The underpants gnomes?
First of all, Paul Sereno is awesome. Modern day Indiana Jones, if there ever was one.
Ooh, sounds exciting!
He commonly does that... goes out in the field, finds something, and leaves it, only to return with the proper team and equipment.
Wow, just like in Indiana Jones and the Patiently Waiting Tomb Hunters. That montage scene when five years went by as Professor Jones assembled his team was incredible!
You've seen pictures of Irish women, right? ;)
And please stop political advertising on /., it really sucks, no matter who it is.
I couldn't agree more, I hate that shit.
Not to be partisan, but he's a Democrat. Which means I find it difficult to believe he would be able/willing to go up against teachers' unions and install performance based standards.
Strom Thurmond still holds the record for longest filibuster (24 hours 18 minutes). I'd always heard that he did this by reading the names from the DC phonebook (though some cursory searching indicates that Al D'Amato might've used that trick when he got the second longest record, just under 24 hours). I'd like to see someone step up to the mike on the Senate floor, and start reading the source code for gcc, or the Linux kernel, or maybe something truly monstrous like OpenOffice.org. That would be one for the record books!
an observer with enough information could calculate with certainty what your choice will be before you make it
Given that definition then, no, there is no such thing as free will. Because "enough information" would encompass all of the information regarding your personal history, likes and dislikes, state of mind at the time of the choice, mental and physical health, and every other possible value that could influence your decision making process.
Humans are deterministic, we make decisions based on available data and we aren't run by entropy. That means that, yes, you can sometimes predict what someone will do (if you couldn't, there would be no skill involved in poker). That doesn't mean we're not "free" from an external force pushing us along through life to some predestined location; ultimately, you get to choose (based on the circumstances of your life up to that moment in time) whether to take the red pill or the blue pill. That is the traditional concept of "free will". Trying to make it something it's not, just to prove or disprove it, is a strawman, and nothing less.
You can't block the entrance or physically touch people, but other than that, if it's for a political cause, there's not much they can do.
Essentially, the Supreme Court has long ruled that political speech is more important than commerce or private property, and deserves more protections, in multiple rulings over the last 219 years. For the specific law in California that I was depending on for protection, look up the PruneYard Doctrine.
I'm all for highlighting examples of police corruption and brutality, but that second article you linked to raises more questions about the prosecution than the cop involved. Seems like something especially shady was going on (especially with the possible FBI investigation into the prosecutor).