Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
From another reader, the reason for entry in this situation was "exigent circumstances".
After having googled it and read some stuff, it's apparent that abuse of this is very bad, and would likely end up in suspension, all charges being dropped, etc, etc, etc.
If it can be shown that everything that was collected as evidence against the geek were dependent upon what they had found in the exigent circumstances looking for someone who may have made a 911 call, and it can be shown that they intentionally setup a situation to cause what we legally consider "exigent circumstances", then the very first search would have been invalidated, and then all such evidence that came about as a direct result of that initially illegal search would be thrown out.
Even if they had a search warrant for those later searches. Because the resonable cause for that search warrant hinged upon illegally obtained information.
If in another case the exigent circumstances were the result of an accident, then you're screwed. The police had every reason to search your house in the first place, find the evidence that they then sought a search warrant for. Or, if they can establish that there's a great risk that the evidence would disappear, or be destroyed, then they can use exigent circumstances to collect the evidence.
For instance, someone calls 911, the police arrive go looking for someone who might have called 911, and find a pile of heroin on the coffee table. The likelihood of that evidence disappearing is damn likely, so they could reasonable take it under exigent circumstances.
Most of the crimes that we're all guilty of just aren't worth the time of prosecution, not because of lack of ability to collect evidence. Honestly, when the cops were using my doorway as cover, my friend and I were playing video games that we did not legally own. The cops didn't do anything about it, because they weren't there for that, it wouldn't have met exigent circumstances anyways, and it just wasn't worth their time to deal with it.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Inaccurately phrased. He didn't use the door as cover, but the doorway, with was parallel to the direction of travel, thus the cover were not just a door (which I believe opened on the other side of where he was standing anyways) but the doorway, and walls.
Anyways, I likely should have said rather than cover, concealment. Doors make good concealment.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
That'd be the key point I think the police would raise if he were to attempt to sue the police for an illegal search.
The police would argue that they had sufficient reason to search the premises for a person who may be in distress; that by calling 911, that person has automatically consented to a search in order to find him; that the facility of the police to protect the public would be endangered by now being allowed to search a home that by all accounts had made an unresponsive 911 call; that any evidence for any crime other than that which was pertinant to the reason that a person called 911 and did not respond would not have been admissible anyways, so no warrant were necessary.
There's a million and one reasons that the police would have on their side for the argument, chief amoung them "public good" and unreasonable restriction on their duty to protect the public.
People don't call 911 just for the heck of it. More so, people don't call 911 and not say anything without extreme reasons. The police need to treat every unresponsive 911 call as if someone were GRAVELY and SERIOUSLY injured, ill or otherwise in serious jeopardy of death. Response to this immediately and without search warrants are absolutely vital to the protection of the public.
They didn't need a warrant because there was sufficient cause to believe that a crime was in direct commission, or that someone otherwise needed immediate medical attention.
I direct you to hypothetical situations: a) a person called 911, but is unable to talk, because they're being held hostage, and threatened with death. Police response should be immediate, and not require a warrant (there's a real crime going on in there, do they really need to wait for a warrant to make sure that this situation isn't occuring?) b) a person is accidentally poisoned, got to the phone, dialed 911, but is unable to speak, or other indicate what's wrong. again, police should respond immediately, and without a search warrant to make sure that everyone is all right at the premises.
You can argue that the person answering the door should have indicated otherwise, now make situation b, where a child got into something, couldn't scream or shout, but somehow managed to call the police. Police arrive, parents insist there was no 911 call, and send the cops off until they have a warrant.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
Anything that would have been found outside of someone calling 911, would be inadmissible in court. There isn't a judge in the nation that would let a cop get away with charging someone for narcotics or anything like that that were found during a search for the origin of a 911 call.
Actually, the AT&T article has the words "Ma Bell" in it, which makes it nice for a foreign to search to and read.
Re:"Ma Bell" should be called "Big Brother" instea
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
After I realized that the telephone company had somehow mis-connected my wife's telephone to the 911 emergency number while the telephones were out of order and repairmen were out working on the lines because of the recent thunderstorms
Can you say accident?
Last week the police came to my home and demanded immediate entry (they said they didn't need a warrant for "a case like this") to search for anyone in need of help that may have called.
This would be a good thing. Warrants aren't required when there is reasonable cause. Having a 911 call placed from your line without an answer is reasonable cause.
You had a bad experience, no reason to think that there's some grand conspiracy to have the police check your house.
I had a situation where at college, a friend and I were sitting playing video games with our door open, when two cops came up, and one used the door for cover with his gun drawn and said something along the lines of don't worry, stay back... just plain "stay out of our way." Some other guy had talked to his girlfriend, she was scared he might kill himself, and that he might have a gun, and thus called the local cops where she was at, who called the local cops where we were at, who responded like they did.
I'd say the guy were pissed (he didn't have a gun, and wasn't going to kill himself; his girlfriend was just overreacting). Do I think there was some grand conspiracy for the cops to have come by my room with guns drawn? Hell know, coincidence and accident man. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Ma Bell? Yo no entiendo
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Yeah, just about any system that uses a lot of ObjC will likely turn this message off, because ObjC tends to favor use of #import over #include with #ifndef wrappers.
Apple uses tons of ObjC also, and that's why their gcc has the warning turned of also. This is likely the reason why the gcc devs decided not to deprecate it; because it's still in heavy heavy use with ObjC.
Because that's the percieved intentions that I received from yours and his statements.
I was frustrated at your assertion that I was the one in the pissing contest when I couldn't possibly have been a part of the pissing contest considering that it's stupid to walk into a pissing contest with the statement, "I can only piss 2 inches away."
Due to this frustration I'm placing dialog that represents the general denotation that I received from yours and his comments and building upon that I extended it into speech which is immature and childish, because it makes me feel better.
Not like I even care to continue this conversation at all, but since you insist on not taking the hint that I'm not even arguing upon any logical or rational basis, but rather resorting to tactics of mockery, that should indicate to someone who's sufficiently adept at recognizing implicit meanings that I don't even give a shit about you or your opinion anymore, I felt that it was necessary to layout explicitly that I don't give a flying fuck about you, and I'll attribute to you any god damn stupid childish speech that makes me feel better.
Stupid fucking assholes on slashdot get so god damn upset when you take them at an implicit meaning, that everyone here just kind of avoids implying anything out of anyone's speech, and then when you come across someone who actually uses implied speech to carry ideas and meanings, that you're so fucking lost you have to have an entire fucking rant posted in response to your stupid fucking piddly complaint.
READ INTO WHAT I FUCKING WROTE; if I didn't mean for it to imply some sort of meaning, I wouldn't have written it that way, fucktard.
The point of the story was not to say "look she was stupid for hand-crafting HTML", but rather that she handcrafted HTML, but refused to use anything but Office, because anything else would be "very hard."
WTF? She already understood the significant part of how to get LaTeX stuff working, but refused to do so, just because she was hung on Office.
I dunno... I grab random mod points here and there, I look back at the comments and I'm just like "wtf? who modded that up, and why would they do that?"
Other times, I make troll/flamebait articles in jest, and get modded troll/flamebait then someone else who responds back to me just as harshly gets positive mod points, and again I'm left wondering "wtf?"
I'm counting from "obtain ISO image" The first machine I installed it on was also unable to boot CDs, and I've actually never installed it from CD before (always from HTTP mirror with a floppy boot disk. I had problems with CD installs in the beginning)
Then, everytime I install OpenBSD, I need to pull out my "Howto: Install OpenBSD" guide as a crib sheet, because I don't install it often enough to remember all the caveats by heart.
I'll admit that *BSDs are reasonably easy to install, but if the only installs you've done are Windows, OSX, and RedHat/SUSE/Mandrake, etc, then being dumped into a console is upsetting.
Stop the pissing contest of "it took me only XY hours to install OpenBSD" it's not as simple as most install mechanisms, and you can't deny that. Sure you might have some huge ass cock that allows you to just plainly see through the BSD install processes, but not everyone does.
No, it doesn't take days to run pkg_add. If you've never installed OpenBSD before, it's going to take you some time to familiarize yourself with the OpenBSD install process.
It's not all nice and pretty and nice like Linux, Windows or OSX.
It requires some practice, I'd say.
I'm comfortable with it now, and I can get an OpenBSD box working in just a few hours, but the first time I went for OpenBSD, it did take me at least a day or more.
Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is innately regarded as right or wrong. However, the term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans subjectively determine whether given actions are right or wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
You are incorrect in saying that Morality is defined by God.
Also, to touch on the topic, according to the Bible Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which instilled upon us knowledge of what was right and wrong. They immediately noticed that they were naked, and they were ashamed. Why were they not ashamed before? Because at that time God hadn't told them that being naked was wrong, but once they ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were able to decide on the rightness and wrongness of things apart from the justification of God.
To presume that God is the sole and individual source of Morality to Christianity goes against the Bible.
Not only that, but if you insist that man has an incorrect view of Morality, and that only things God would have told us were wrong before we had had the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were to be moral, and thus that only God's standard of Morality applied (apart from those in-built notions of right and wrong that we have) then you would be saying that it were moral to be naked, which just about everyone would not accept as being moral.
Morality is not dictated by God, is says so right there in the Bible. God has a will that he may direct us towards, but this eventual goal of "good" is something that a person even apart from God would self-determine to be a better outcome than were they to have not ended up at that goal. So while God directs us towards what we find to be good, we can recognize that good, even without God telling us that it's good.
So we went back into his "server room" (think ventillated broom closet) to look at the machine...Which turned out to be headless, which surprised me a bit, as it was supposed to be an NT box. As it turned out it WAS like an NT box in that it had an NT sticker on it, and NT rhymes with 7.3, as in Redhat 7.3 (uptime 518 days), running on a PIII coppermine with so much dust on the heatsink that I wasn't quite sure what it was at first.
Ha! That's hilarious! Someone had already changed it under his nose, and it had been working fine for all that time... that's awesome.
Considering the state of OpenBSD, I'm willing to bet that the guy has already had a lot of experience with OpenBSD. Otherwise, this would have been chucked immediately by some supervisor wondering why it's taking a few days to just install the software.
The guy already knows OpenBSD, and was instructed that beyond the IT staffs wages they could spend no further money. (Likely, because the previous guy he talks about tried to solve everything with just more money.)
I think the people in charge are basically tired of someone solving problems by throwing more money at it (rarely the best choice) and when this guy came in, they're like, solve our problems without using any more money.
The guy already knew OpenBSD, and elected for it, over buying more MS software.
This guy is definitely not cutting his teeth on OpenBSD with this.
Well, my point is not about my benefit or not. It's a general statement about the entire inaccuracy of grading anymore due to grade inflation. My B average, doesn't mean "Good" anymore, it means something like "average", which is what C used to mean. That's not right.
Actually, my 3.0 GPA is the effect of only a handful of classes being F's. The majority of my other classes were A's. Granted some of those were subject to extreme amounts of grade inflation, like Music 101 (not to say that all Music 101 classes are grade inflated, but for a person who can't recognize the musical scales, and generally lost throughout the majority of class, I'd say I wasn't a good candidate for an exceptional grade.)
But some other classes even if they were subject to grade inflation, it's unlikely that I would have scored any worse, in example my CS classes, where I routinely aced classes and tests with exceptional scores. Once, a teacher handed me an assignment back that has been given a grade less than A, and he told me, "You're going to want to talk to me about this." The teacher knew me, and knew I knew what I was talking about, and knew that the TA didn't know me, and that my assignment likely didn't look like what he was going to expect.
It's unlikely that my GPA would be different without grade inflation... but then I was a lazy bum in college, and didn't really deserve good grades in most classes...
Evil is a biblical term and a biblical concept. If you believe in God then God indeed has the final say on what is evil and what is not.
I don't have time to explain over slashdot why Evil is not defined by God. Go speak with any philosophy professor, or grad student. They'll explain to you logically, and soundly why Evil is not defined by God. (Short answer: God would never tell you to kill a Baby. What if he did? Well, he just wouldn't because it's evil. But God had told you to do it, so it would have to be good. No, because God wouldn't tell someone to do something evil.)
No I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Jesus.
This explains some things. You're playing devil's advocate, or trolling. Either way, you're misrepresenting Christianity.
"Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so."
I am afraid this doesn't wash with a christian.
Um... I'm Christian. And again, see above statement about why things are evil even if God were to tell you to do them.
Mankind has a sense of right and wrong (good and evil) apart from God, it's called Morality. And even though many Christians would initially put on the plate that things are Good because God said so, give me five minutes with them, and they'll either agree that God doesn't dictate right and wrong; he just afirms it. Or they're irrationally holding to their beliefs (which surprise, most Christians aren't.)
Now you hear slashdotter's whining about how a piece of paper shouldn't be more important than their experience in the real world or even vice versa. What they forget is that they are now up against people who have BOTH.
I *do* have both the piece of paper and real world experience. My problem is that people had been ignoring my real-life experience because I had a 3.0 GPA. The assumption being that the only things that students do at college is school work. Some of us work on F/OSS projects in the real-world and are building real experience before we even get out of college.
The problem is that once I got out of college, my GPA was "only" 3.0 (stupid grade inflation), and all of my real-world experience was in the F/OSS realm and thus not professional experience. So, either people were usually pretty impressed with my knowledge and skills and then looked at my GPA and said, "Ah damn, you have only a 3.0" or they just straight-up saw my GPA and said, "Not worth it".
It's the reason I started putting a porfolio section on my resume; even though this extended my resume length to 2 pages. This way, at least I were able to show off that I had real-world experience. But generally no one cared because it wasn't professional experience, and my GPA was low...
You know, I don't really know of any other field where people don't care about amatuer and volunteer work. Likely, because the amatuer and volunteer work is generally F/OSS and thus generally ideologically opposed to corporations.
Same problem as the lawyers per company average. If a small number of employees perform significantly above average, then you can have 69% of employees performing below-average.
Of course, you always have 50% below and above the median performance level, because that's the definition of median.
and you should also watch out for those who started working post bubble, who are trying to get a food hold in the market.
Some of us *just* got into the market after the bubble. I started getting interested in computers before the bubble, I started programming before the bubble, and when I started college I was a German major, because deciding that I was just too good at computers to give that up.
I still had to finish college though, and when I did, it was post-Bubble. In fact, the two largest classes we had at my college were just barely post-Bubble, and yeah, many of them were there for the free food. But many of my friends, and I as a known, were here in computers before the Bubble.
My biggest problem so far hasn't been skill or knowledge, it's been lack of *professional* experience coupled with a 3.0 GPA (when did a B-average become a bad thing?) I have tons of pratical experience, and a solid skill and knowledge. I just never made money at it, so most companies didn't seem to give a crap about it.
So, basically, beware those that got into the market just for the free food, not just because they came post-Bubble... some of us were here all along, just not making money at it.
So give me examples, and proof. The scientific method doesn't work with just "No, you're wrong" it works when people say, "No, you're wrong and here's why:"
There is something called constructive criticism. Where when you correct someone, you tell them how to correct themselves. Now, I know the vast majority of people get pissed at you when you tell them how to correct themselves, but believe me that I get pissed when people *don't* tell me how to correct myself.
Telling me "You're wrong" is the most useless thing in the world. I'm almost certain that I'm wrong. Hell, I slosh out facts all over the place, I had a big ol' fight on Slashdot about Q4 and Doom3 using DirectX, but no one would actually step forward and show me that they're correct, they just kept pushing the same insults and yelling at me.
So, if I'm wrong, and "chikushou" is not the strongest curse word out there, give me examples of what is worse. Better yet, show me a Japanese curse word that matches more similarly our context for the word "shit". Meaning, that it means "shit", and carries the same connotation, since apparently "kuso" doesn't actually do this.
It's simple: assertion against factual error, followed by evidence and proof. It's how people learn.
"Believe it or not, most sane people don't share your fucked up beliefs -- disagreeing with you makes them pretty much normal, not some jackbooted religious icon of all you believe is evil."
Ad hominum attacks aren't necessary. You're right that disagreeing with him makes you normal, everyone disagrees with everyone about at least something. That doesn'tm mean you have to equate Christianity with facism.
Err it's not my belief, it's the word of god. God said love of money is the root of all evil not me. God said it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, not me.
God doesn't make things evil, our societies' opinions of them make them evil. The Japanese word for money is mostly likely given as "o-kane", but it's actually "kane" because the "o-" at the beginning is an prefix given to objects that are traditionally considered "unclean" or "evil". This "o-kane" was in use long before Christianity came to be an issue in anyway in Japanese culture.
And considering the words of Jesus, before you go off and quote something to prove something, "money is the root of all evil because Jesus said... camel through the eye of a needle." This rich man came to Jesus to ask what he had to do to enter the kingdom of Heaven, he was told that he had to sell everything, and give give the money away, and leave his wife and family and follow Jesus alone.
Have you givne up your worldly goods to follow Jesus? Have you taken up your cross to follow him? Which, by the way, this phrase wasn't meant just pick up a burden, or anything like that. The only people who carried crosses were those who were to die, and it was a sign of shame. Only in modern times has this changed since we stopped crucifying people. It was being said that one must be willing to die for their beliefs, but more so than that, but to give up everything and everyone, to go out, be active in their evangelism, and if people weren't arguing with you, you were in too safe of company. (I come to put son against father, etc etc etc).
Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so. They're wrong because we already know that they're wrong, and God is just affirming that which we already know.
Slashdot Mirror
From another reader, the reason for entry in this situation was "exigent circumstances".
After having googled it and read some stuff, it's apparent that abuse of this is very bad, and would likely end up in suspension, all charges being dropped, etc, etc, etc.
If it can be shown that everything that was collected as evidence against the geek were dependent upon what they had found in the exigent circumstances looking for someone who may have made a 911 call, and it can be shown that they intentionally setup a situation to cause what we legally consider "exigent circumstances", then the very first search would have been invalidated, and then all such evidence that came about as a direct result of that initially illegal search would be thrown out.
Even if they had a search warrant for those later searches. Because the resonable cause for that search warrant hinged upon illegally obtained information.
If in another case the exigent circumstances were the result of an accident, then you're screwed. The police had every reason to search your house in the first place, find the evidence that they then sought a search warrant for. Or, if they can establish that there's a great risk that the evidence would disappear, or be destroyed, then they can use exigent circumstances to collect the evidence.
For instance, someone calls 911, the police arrive go looking for someone who might have called 911, and find a pile of heroin on the coffee table. The likelihood of that evidence disappearing is damn likely, so they could reasonable take it under exigent circumstances.
Most of the crimes that we're all guilty of just aren't worth the time of prosecution, not because of lack of ability to collect evidence. Honestly, when the cops were using my doorway as cover, my friend and I were playing video games that we did not legally own. The cops didn't do anything about it, because they weren't there for that, it wouldn't have met exigent circumstances anyways, and it just wasn't worth their time to deal with it.
Inaccurately phrased. He didn't use the door as cover, but the doorway, with was parallel to the direction of travel, thus the cover were not just a door (which I believe opened on the other side of where he was standing anyways) but the doorway, and walls.
Anyways, I likely should have said rather than cover, concealment. Doors make good concealment.
That'd be the key point I think the police would raise if he were to attempt to sue the police for an illegal search.
The police would argue that they had sufficient reason to search the premises for a person who may be in distress; that by calling 911, that person has automatically consented to a search in order to find him; that the facility of the police to protect the public would be endangered by now being allowed to search a home that by all accounts had made an unresponsive 911 call; that any evidence for any crime other than that which was pertinant to the reason that a person called 911 and did not respond would not have been admissible anyways, so no warrant were necessary.
There's a million and one reasons that the police would have on their side for the argument, chief amoung them "public good" and unreasonable restriction on their duty to protect the public.
People don't call 911 just for the heck of it. More so, people don't call 911 and not say anything without extreme reasons. The police need to treat every unresponsive 911 call as if someone were GRAVELY and SERIOUSLY injured, ill or otherwise in serious jeopardy of death. Response to this immediately and without search warrants are absolutely vital to the protection of the public.
They didn't need a warrant because there was sufficient cause to believe that a crime was in direct commission, or that someone otherwise needed immediate medical attention.
I direct you to hypothetical situations: a) a person called 911, but is unable to talk, because they're being held hostage, and threatened with death. Police response should be immediate, and not require a warrant (there's a real crime going on in there, do they really need to wait for a warrant to make sure that this situation isn't occuring?) b) a person is accidentally poisoned, got to the phone, dialed 911, but is unable to speak, or other indicate what's wrong. again, police should respond immediately, and without a search warrant to make sure that everyone is all right at the premises.
You can argue that the person answering the door should have indicated otherwise, now make situation b, where a child got into something, couldn't scream or shout, but somehow managed to call the police. Police arrive, parents insist there was no 911 call, and send the cops off until they have a warrant.
Anything that would have been found outside of someone calling 911, would be inadmissible in court. There isn't a judge in the nation that would let a cop get away with charging someone for narcotics or anything like that that were found during a search for the origin of a 911 call.
Actually, the AT&T article has the words "Ma Bell" in it, which makes it nice for a foreign to search to and read.
After I realized that the telephone company had somehow mis-connected my wife's telephone to the 911 emergency number while the telephones were out of order and repairmen were out working on the lines because of the recent thunderstorms
Can you say accident?
Last week the police came to my home and demanded immediate entry (they said they didn't need a warrant for "a case like this") to search for anyone in need of help that may have called.
This would be a good thing. Warrants aren't required when there is reasonable cause. Having a 911 call placed from your line without an answer is reasonable cause.
You had a bad experience, no reason to think that there's some grand conspiracy to have the police check your house.
I had a situation where at college, a friend and I were sitting playing video games with our door open, when two cops came up, and one used the door for cover with his gun drawn and said something along the lines of don't worry, stay back... just plain "stay out of our way." Some other guy had talked to his girlfriend, she was scared he might kill himself, and that he might have a gun, and thus called the local cops where she was at, who called the local cops where we were at, who responded like they did.
I'd say the guy were pissed (he didn't have a gun, and wasn't going to kill himself; his girlfriend was just overreacting). Do I think there was some grand conspiracy for the cops to have come by my room with guns drawn? Hell know, coincidence and accident man. Nothing more, nothing less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T
I was gonna explain, but then I realized, Wikipedia no doubt has an article.
Yeah, just about any system that uses a lot of ObjC will likely turn this message off, because ObjC tends to favor use of #import over #include with #ifndef wrappers.
Apple uses tons of ObjC also, and that's why their gcc has the warning turned of also. This is likely the reason why the gcc devs decided not to deprecate it; because it's still in heavy heavy use with ObjC.
No, you didn't say it.
I'm giving representative dialog.
Because that's the percieved intentions that I received from yours and his statements.
I was frustrated at your assertion that I was the one in the pissing contest when I couldn't possibly have been a part of the pissing contest considering that it's stupid to walk into a pissing contest with the statement, "I can only piss 2 inches away."
Due to this frustration I'm placing dialog that represents the general denotation that I received from yours and his comments and building upon that I extended it into speech which is immature and childish, because it makes me feel better.
Not like I even care to continue this conversation at all, but since you insist on not taking the hint that I'm not even arguing upon any logical or rational basis, but rather resorting to tactics of mockery, that should indicate to someone who's sufficiently adept at recognizing implicit meanings that I don't even give a shit about you or your opinion anymore, I felt that it was necessary to layout explicitly that I don't give a flying fuck about you, and I'll attribute to you any god damn stupid childish speech that makes me feel better.
Stupid fucking assholes on slashdot get so god damn upset when you take them at an implicit meaning, that everyone here just kind of avoids implying anything out of anyone's speech, and then when you come across someone who actually uses implied speech to carry ideas and meanings, that you're so fucking lost you have to have an entire fucking rant posted in response to your stupid fucking piddly complaint.
READ INTO WHAT I FUCKING WROTE; if I didn't mean for it to imply some sort of meaning, I wouldn't have written it that way, fucktard.
The point of the story was not to say "look she was stupid for hand-crafting HTML", but rather that she handcrafted HTML, but refused to use anything but Office, because anything else would be "very hard."
WTF? She already understood the significant part of how to get LaTeX stuff working, but refused to do so, just because she was hung on Office.
I'm sorry... was this like supposed to produce an error or something? Or were you talking about how gcc complains that it's obsolete.
Actually in fact, Apple's gcc included with OSX makes no such error at all, as many of their source files use #import.
How does saying "I couldn't get OpenBSD to install the first time in less than a day" translate into me being a part of the pissing contest?
You and the other guy were the ones going "It only took me X number of hours, stupid n00b"
I dunno... I grab random mod points here and there, I look back at the comments and I'm just like "wtf? who modded that up, and why would they do that?"
Other times, I make troll/flamebait articles in jest, and get modded troll/flamebait then someone else who responds back to me just as harshly gets positive mod points, and again I'm left wondering "wtf?"
You're counting from "Insert the CD"
I'm counting from "obtain ISO image" The first machine I installed it on was also unable to boot CDs, and I've actually never installed it from CD before (always from HTTP mirror with a floppy boot disk. I had problems with CD installs in the beginning)
Then, everytime I install OpenBSD, I need to pull out my "Howto: Install OpenBSD" guide as a crib sheet, because I don't install it often enough to remember all the caveats by heart.
I'll admit that *BSDs are reasonably easy to install, but if the only installs you've done are Windows, OSX, and RedHat/SUSE/Mandrake, etc, then being dumped into a console is upsetting.
Stop the pissing contest of "it took me only XY hours to install OpenBSD" it's not as simple as most install mechanisms, and you can't deny that. Sure you might have some huge ass cock that allows you to just plainly see through the BSD install processes, but not everyone does.
No, it doesn't take days to run pkg_add. If you've never installed OpenBSD before, it's going to take you some time to familiarize yourself with the OpenBSD install process.
It's not all nice and pretty and nice like Linux, Windows or OSX.
It requires some practice, I'd say.
I'm comfortable with it now, and I can get an OpenBSD box working in just a few hours, but the first time I went for OpenBSD, it did take me at least a day or more.
Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is innately regarded as right or wrong. However, the term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans subjectively determine whether given actions are right or wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
You are incorrect in saying that Morality is defined by God.
Also, to touch on the topic, according to the Bible Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which instilled upon us knowledge of what was right and wrong. They immediately noticed that they were naked, and they were ashamed. Why were they not ashamed before? Because at that time God hadn't told them that being naked was wrong, but once they ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were able to decide on the rightness and wrongness of things apart from the justification of God.
To presume that God is the sole and individual source of Morality to Christianity goes against the Bible.
Not only that, but if you insist that man has an incorrect view of Morality, and that only things God would have told us were wrong before we had had the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil were to be moral, and thus that only God's standard of Morality applied (apart from those in-built notions of right and wrong that we have) then you would be saying that it were moral to be naked, which just about everyone would not accept as being moral.
Morality is not dictated by God, is says so right there in the Bible. God has a will that he may direct us towards, but this eventual goal of "good" is something that a person even apart from God would self-determine to be a better outcome than were they to have not ended up at that goal. So while God directs us towards what we find to be good, we can recognize that good, even without God telling us that it's good.
So we went back into his "server room" (think ventillated broom closet) to look at the machine...Which turned out to be headless, which surprised me a bit, as it was supposed to be an NT box. As it turned out it WAS like an NT box in that it had an NT sticker on it, and NT rhymes with 7.3, as in Redhat 7.3 (uptime 518 days), running on a PIII coppermine with so much dust on the heatsink that I wasn't quite sure what it was at first.
Ha! That's hilarious! Someone had already changed it under his nose, and it had been working fine for all that time... that's awesome.
Considering the state of OpenBSD, I'm willing to bet that the guy has already had a lot of experience with OpenBSD. Otherwise, this would have been chucked immediately by some supervisor wondering why it's taking a few days to just install the software.
The guy already knows OpenBSD, and was instructed that beyond the IT staffs wages they could spend no further money. (Likely, because the previous guy he talks about tried to solve everything with just more money.)
I think the people in charge are basically tired of someone solving problems by throwing more money at it (rarely the best choice) and when this guy came in, they're like, solve our problems without using any more money.
The guy already knew OpenBSD, and elected for it, over buying more MS software.
This guy is definitely not cutting his teeth on OpenBSD with this.
Well, my point is not about my benefit or not. It's a general statement about the entire inaccuracy of grading anymore due to grade inflation. My B average, doesn't mean "Good" anymore, it means something like "average", which is what C used to mean. That's not right.
Actually, my 3.0 GPA is the effect of only a handful of classes being F's. The majority of my other classes were A's. Granted some of those were subject to extreme amounts of grade inflation, like Music 101 (not to say that all Music 101 classes are grade inflated, but for a person who can't recognize the musical scales, and generally lost throughout the majority of class, I'd say I wasn't a good candidate for an exceptional grade.)
But some other classes even if they were subject to grade inflation, it's unlikely that I would have scored any worse, in example my CS classes, where I routinely aced classes and tests with exceptional scores. Once, a teacher handed me an assignment back that has been given a grade less than A, and he told me, "You're going to want to talk to me about this." The teacher knew me, and knew I knew what I was talking about, and knew that the TA didn't know me, and that my assignment likely didn't look like what he was going to expect.
It's unlikely that my GPA would be different without grade inflation... but then I was a lazy bum in college, and didn't really deserve good grades in most classes...
Evil is a biblical term and a biblical concept. If you believe in God then God indeed has the final say on what is evil and what is not.
I don't have time to explain over slashdot why Evil is not defined by God. Go speak with any philosophy professor, or grad student. They'll explain to you logically, and soundly why Evil is not defined by God. (Short answer: God would never tell you to kill a Baby. What if he did? Well, he just wouldn't because it's evil. But God had told you to do it, so it would have to be good. No, because God wouldn't tell someone to do something evil.)
No I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Jesus.
This explains some things. You're playing devil's advocate, or trolling. Either way, you're misrepresenting Christianity.
"Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so."
I am afraid this doesn't wash with a christian.
Um... I'm Christian. And again, see above statement about why things are evil even if God were to tell you to do them.
Mankind has a sense of right and wrong (good and evil) apart from God, it's called Morality. And even though many Christians would initially put on the plate that things are Good because God said so, give me five minutes with them, and they'll either agree that God doesn't dictate right and wrong; he just afirms it. Or they're irrationally holding to their beliefs (which surprise, most Christians aren't.)
Now you hear slashdotter's whining about how a piece of paper shouldn't be more important than their experience in the real world or even vice versa. What they forget is that they are now up against people who have BOTH.
I *do* have both the piece of paper and real world experience. My problem is that people had been ignoring my real-life experience because I had a 3.0 GPA. The assumption being that the only things that students do at college is school work. Some of us work on F/OSS projects in the real-world and are building real experience before we even get out of college.
The problem is that once I got out of college, my GPA was "only" 3.0 (stupid grade inflation), and all of my real-world experience was in the F/OSS realm and thus not professional experience. So, either people were usually pretty impressed with my knowledge and skills and then looked at my GPA and said, "Ah damn, you have only a 3.0" or they just straight-up saw my GPA and said, "Not worth it".
It's the reason I started putting a porfolio section on my resume; even though this extended my resume length to 2 pages. This way, at least I were able to show off that I had real-world experience. But generally no one cared because it wasn't professional experience, and my GPA was low...
You know, I don't really know of any other field where people don't care about amatuer and volunteer work. Likely, because the amatuer and volunteer work is generally F/OSS and thus generally ideologically opposed to corporations.
Same problem as the lawyers per company average. If a small number of employees perform significantly above average, then you can have 69% of employees performing below-average.
Of course, you always have 50% below and above the median performance level, because that's the definition of median.
and you should also watch out for those who started working post bubble, who are trying to get a food hold in the market.
Some of us *just* got into the market after the bubble. I started getting interested in computers before the bubble, I started programming before the bubble, and when I started college I was a German major, because deciding that I was just too good at computers to give that up.
I still had to finish college though, and when I did, it was post-Bubble. In fact, the two largest classes we had at my college were just barely post-Bubble, and yeah, many of them were there for the free food. But many of my friends, and I as a known, were here in computers before the Bubble.
My biggest problem so far hasn't been skill or knowledge, it's been lack of *professional* experience coupled with a 3.0 GPA (when did a B-average become a bad thing?) I have tons of pratical experience, and a solid skill and knowledge. I just never made money at it, so most companies didn't seem to give a crap about it.
So, basically, beware those that got into the market just for the free food, not just because they came post-Bubble... some of us were here all along, just not making money at it.
So give me examples, and proof. The scientific method doesn't work with just "No, you're wrong" it works when people say, "No, you're wrong and here's why:"
There is something called constructive criticism. Where when you correct someone, you tell them how to correct themselves. Now, I know the vast majority of people get pissed at you when you tell them how to correct themselves, but believe me that I get pissed when people *don't* tell me how to correct myself.
Telling me "You're wrong" is the most useless thing in the world. I'm almost certain that I'm wrong. Hell, I slosh out facts all over the place, I had a big ol' fight on Slashdot about Q4 and Doom3 using DirectX, but no one would actually step forward and show me that they're correct, they just kept pushing the same insults and yelling at me.
So, if I'm wrong, and "chikushou" is not the strongest curse word out there, give me examples of what is worse. Better yet, show me a Japanese curse word that matches more similarly our context for the word "shit". Meaning, that it means "shit", and carries the same connotation, since apparently "kuso" doesn't actually do this.
It's simple: assertion against factual error, followed by evidence and proof. It's how people learn.
"Believe it or not, most sane people don't share your fucked up beliefs -- disagreeing with you makes them pretty much normal, not some jackbooted religious icon of all you believe is evil."
Ad hominum attacks aren't necessary. You're right that disagreeing with him makes you normal, everyone disagrees with everyone about at least something. That doesn'tm mean you have to equate Christianity with facism.
Err it's not my belief, it's the word of god. God said love of money is the root of all evil not me. God said it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, not me.
God doesn't make things evil, our societies' opinions of them make them evil. The Japanese word for money is mostly likely given as "o-kane", but it's actually "kane" because the "o-" at the beginning is an prefix given to objects that are traditionally considered "unclean" or "evil". This "o-kane" was in use long before Christianity came to be an issue in anyway in Japanese culture.
And considering the words of Jesus, before you go off and quote something to prove something, "money is the root of all evil because Jesus said... camel through the eye of a needle." This rich man came to Jesus to ask what he had to do to enter the kingdom of Heaven, he was told that he had to sell everything, and give give the money away, and leave his wife and family and follow Jesus alone.
Have you givne up your worldly goods to follow Jesus? Have you taken up your cross to follow him? Which, by the way, this phrase wasn't meant just pick up a burden, or anything like that. The only people who carried crosses were those who were to die, and it was a sign of shame. Only in modern times has this changed since we stopped crucifying people. It was being said that one must be willing to die for their beliefs, but more so than that, but to give up everything and everyone, to go out, be active in their evangelism, and if people weren't arguing with you, you were in too safe of company. (I come to put son against father, etc etc etc).
Now, again. Things aren't wrong just because God says so. They're wrong because we already know that they're wrong, and God is just affirming that which we already know.