Saddam was not responsible for the gassing of the kurds because it was the fault of the guy who actually dropped the bomb right?
And in saying this, attempted to attribute this to me. But this attribution is false, and does not represent my view. My view does not suggest that Saddam is not responsible, but suggests that by directing these sorts of endeavors is responsible PER SE. Some poor sap working in the Iraqi army in some no-man's-land corner of the country is *not*, however, responsible for all of Saddam's actions, NOR IS THE ENTIRE IRAQI MILITARY.
If that was not your position then you should not have said it.
If it wasn't your intention to appear prejudicial, you shouldn't have said something prejudicial. Your snide comments regarding the military are really no different than snide comments regarding Jews or blacks. If you don't like being judged that way, then don't make those comments. The choice is yours.
Saddam was not responsible for the gassing of the kurds because it was the fault of the guy who actually dropped the bomb right?
Wrong. You are engaging in the high-risk, low-payoff technique called "straw man," where you make up imaginary elements of your opponent's position, in order to tear them down in order to score argumentative points for yourself.
Unfortunately, the position that are attempting to credit to me isn't my position and never was.
If this person was not implementing the will of the military then he should be punished.
After about six rounds of messages, you finally got something right.
Problem is, in one of my many messages, you deleted what I described as the likely genesis of this whole affair. There was quite possibly other actual errors in the contract (such as portion of foreign nationals funded), which actually place the person as operating *within* the law for having cancelled the effort. You're never going to place a Vulcan Mind Meld on him to determine his actual motivations, but if the cancellation was legal, it's legal, and this whole discussion is over.
copout. THis excuses any behavior by the military or any other organization.
No. It doesn't. A group doesn't behave, so it doesn't need excuses. However, what it does say is where one should look for blame, and that's the badly behaving people in the group.
You are engaging in the reasoning process of "collective guilt". This is the same mental process terrorists use to kill civilians in any population. "The nation did it, this woman and child are part of the nation, let's kill them."
What you are saying is that any act can be committed by any member of the military and the military is not responsible.
The military is a big organization, sir. On a daily basis, its members are arrested for crimes of various and sundry. Once every year or two, even a first degree murder. Since I am fairly certain you don't believe that all two million men and women in the U.S. armed services should be put to death for that, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to rethink yourself. The suggestion that the whole organization is responsible for the bad actions of a single person is specious PER SE.
Pay attention. "The military" is not an entity. It cannot approve. It cannot affirm. It cannot think, or reason. It has no brain, no body, no mind.
The military is a group. Groups are composed of people. PEOPLE are variable creatures, some good, some bad, the vast majority in the in-between, just trying to get by.
The sooner that you understand that *all* groups are composed of people of varying levels of ethical stature, the sooner you will understand the truth. *All* organizations are subject to these things. In the U.S., our entire system of government is predicated on this understanding.
You are engaging in the low-payoff, poorly-reasoned tactic of asserting collective guilt. The problem with this tactic is that it is prejudicial; it is quite like jingoism or racism, or other forms of prejudgment. Worst of sins, it involves sloppy thinking.
... I guess we should not expect people like that to actually respect other people's freedoms and rights.
Allow me to help you out: every organization, in every part of the world, is composed of people. In and amongst these people, there are political players, who will pull strings. And yes, they will sometimes do so unethically. One wants to stay off their radar as well as one can. It's a long fall off the beanstalk, Jack.
Not politics, military.
This is a political issue. Which is to say, at the pinnacles of power in this world, there are people who have both the power and the will to use that power. These folks are human beings like any others, so the predictable thing sometimes happens: they do bad things. This happens in every organization around the world, government, military, corporate, or otherwise (such as the Salk Institute, where I worked for a time before I went into contract R cutthroat politics was very much alive and well there, I assure you).
But back to the Open/BSD issue. Imagine the following scenario:
Some self-righteous bereaucrat gets pissed at Mr. BSD's remarks. He takes a look at the contract, and determines that there is some minor but legitimate error in form in the contract itself. For example, suppose that it turns out that too large a portion of American research dollars, which are required by law to go to American research institutions in certain portion. He makes a stink, and since the actual *complaint* is a lawful one, away goes the project.
If true, certain someone might have been best keeping their head down, wouldn't you say?
The U.S. government can be neither petty nor vengeful. It cannot think. It cannot speak. It has no voice, no body, no brain, no mind.
The U.S. government is, however, composed of people. Some of those people are petty and vengeful, others have self-righteous attitudes about what is right and wrong, some have strict feelings about what is an appropriate thing to say about a paying customer. Military guys funding people with military budgets really don't like it when paid parties say anti-military things. Some of these people are very high ranking, and have no trouble pushing their nose around. If a three star general calls a DARPA office director, you can be absolutely certain that the call will be taken. If the DARPA director gets an earful, at that point, it will depend on how much spine this person has as to what happens next. "Fuck off," is an option, but unlikely. Political careers can wane based on a simple "fuck off," and they can wax based on a few verbal blowjobs in exactly the right places.
Having worked almost exclusively on DARPA contracts over the last decade, I'll give you a tip. If a General thinks you've thrown mud on *him*, you risk being perceived as having thrown mud on DARPA. DARPA is the Department of Defense, ya dig? Mr. so-and-so's comments were very ill advised if he wanted to keep his funding. His article was just a variation of financial suicide.
That's not quite correct. Take the security biz. I mean, you know, [CLASSIFIED] type stuff. There's a real requirement for making certain certain types of data don't escape security management. The overlap between fulfilling security requirements and "digital rights" is actually pretty large.
'Course, the problems are no less intractible. Don't bother me with minor details.:):)
I don't think you're listening. If by collaboration with your friends you understand the impact of what it is you are proposing to do, the enactment thereof would be illegal. It's the obvious willful malice that's the distinguisher here. Clever disavowments to the contrary may or may not get you off, but if any evidence whatsoever were presented that you knew, or simply ought to know, that the impact of your actions was denial of service, you'd be going up against a felony charge. This wouldn't be the spammer trying to convince the jury, it would be the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. Criminal cases are brought by the GOVERNMENT. The spammer only has to make a COMPLAINT.
Ya with me?
Anyway, I'm done here. A little bit of listening now might save you having to hire an attorney later, though. It's a long fall off the the beanstalk, Jack.
Yes. AFAICR, a felony, and a federal crime. You may as well say "trace them back to origination, hack them, and set up a multipass wipe on their HD." While they'd deserve this, it wouldn't be very wise.
Good point. The way Google handles this, they take the cache entries out if you ask. They could get really ass-monkeyed if they ended up causing someone some financial harm (cacheing secured pages; don't know how they'd manage that), but as is, they just are playing as if they won't be sued because of lack of probable damages.
Copyright law exempts "systems of relays" from copyright violation, otherwise radio franchises wouldn't be able to play over the radio waves across jump points. Some part of the web community is probably hoping things like Google will get defined that way. To my knowledge they haven't yet been, and I'd be surprised if they were. One cannot easily give up one's copy right...
I suppose Slashdot could just honor the no-spider meta tags, and let the chips fall where they may.
> Don't bother with any kind of testing, other than...
A basic run of the monitor will tell you whether or not it's sharp, and works okay with your card. Most do these days, quality is up fantatistically from 10 years ago. However, that's not as true with the 21-23"'s. The flourescents won't obscure the feature which is objectively known to be the most noticeable to the human eye: MTF sharpness. Of all the known objective measurements of the monitor, it is the one with the most subjective impact on impression of quality. In particular, it defines whether or not text will appear to be sharp when black is against white.
Other things matter, and you'll really only be able to tell once you get it into the proper lighting arrangemnent, most particularly if you are a graphics professional.
However, if the sharpness ain't right, you're just going to have to lug it right back. With a 21" monitor, that's a lot of luggging, and more than a little bit of an inconvenience.
As for color linearity and the like, these are features you likely only care about if you are in the graphics biz.
Buy from a small local shop. Call around. Tell them that you're particular about monitors, particularly fuzzy ones, and you'll buy from them if they'll let you connect the very unit you want to buy to your computer and video card right in the store. All of the small shops will say "no problem."
Sea water is, well, for the lack of a better word: CORROSIVE. Well, it certainly ain't super friendly to a great many things... I mean, like, dude: BARNACLES.
On the one hand, I was thinking of a global society of all humanity.
Which rather begs the question of which self-important dictator will decide he speaks for quite literally everyone, and tell them all they can't do it, now doesn't it?
And (some dictator) will get together somewhere, and...do the research.
An interesting way of looking at it! Alternately, enlightened socieities that believe that the restriction of certain forms of individual liberty is tyrannical may simply excel against other, less enlightened socieities.
For example, if it's just a "minor offense" to spray paint grafitti on a bridge, why can you get 10 years in prison for defacing a website? Seems a bit disproportionate.
For example, was there really a subsequent loss of life, or did it save lives, even japenese ones, by encouraging them to surrender sooner than they would have otherwise??
In many dictionaries, the order of the senses is historical (in time-order), and has nothing to do at all with preference. Some dictionaries try to identify which words are *most* common, but many don't even make an attempt to do so, and the numbers (1., 2.,...) have nothing to do with preference at all..
Uhhh... no. Turbos and blowers (superchargers to all you washed masses) put more air into the cylinder. While this may increase fuel economy and power slightly (due to a more complete burn), to get the most out of a forced induction system, you need to put more fuel in. ------ Actually, I knew this; however, I was under the impression that the additional PSI per se inreased efficiency notably. Not so?
Slashdot Mirror
You said:
Saddam was not responsible for the gassing of the kurds because it was the fault of the guy who actually dropped the bomb right?
And in saying this, attempted to attribute this to me. But this attribution is false, and does not represent my view. My view does not suggest that Saddam is not responsible, but suggests that by directing these sorts of endeavors is responsible PER SE. Some poor sap working in the Iraqi army in some no-man's-land corner of the country is *not*, however, responsible for all of Saddam's actions, NOR IS THE ENTIRE IRAQI MILITARY.
If that was not your position then you should not have said it.
If it wasn't your intention to appear prejudicial, you shouldn't have said something prejudicial. Your snide comments regarding the military are really no different than snide comments regarding Jews or blacks. If you don't like being judged that way, then don't make those comments. The choice is yours.
C//
Saddam was not responsible for the gassing of the kurds because it was the fault of the guy who actually dropped the bomb right?
Wrong. You are engaging in the high-risk, low-payoff technique called "straw man," where you make up imaginary elements of your opponent's position, in order to tear them down in order to score argumentative points for yourself.
Unfortunately, the position that are attempting to credit to me isn't my position and never was.
If this person was not implementing the will of the military then he should be punished.
After about six rounds of messages, you finally got something right.
Problem is, in one of my many messages, you deleted what I described as the likely genesis of this whole affair. There was quite possibly other actual errors in the contract (such as portion of foreign nationals funded), which actually place the person as operating *within* the law for having cancelled the effort. You're never going to place a Vulcan Mind Meld on him to determine his actual motivations, but if the cancellation was legal, it's legal, and this whole discussion is over.
C//
You're not paying attention to current events. The *first* CPU's AMD is releasing from the hammer line are SMP ready.
C//
copout. THis excuses any behavior by the military or any other organization.
No. It doesn't. A group doesn't behave, so it doesn't need excuses. However, what it does say is where one should look for blame, and that's the badly behaving people in the group.
You are engaging in the reasoning process of "collective guilt". This is the same mental process terrorists use to kill civilians in any population. "The nation did it, this woman and child are part of the nation, let's kill them."
What you are saying is that any act can be committed by any member of the military and the military is not responsible.
The military is a big organization, sir. On a daily basis, its members are arrested for crimes of various and sundry. Once every year or two, even a first degree murder. Since I am fairly certain you don't believe that all two million men and women in the U.S. armed services should be put to death for that, perhaps you'll take this opportunity to rethink yourself. The suggestion that the whole organization is responsible for the bad actions of a single person is specious PER SE.
C//
The military does not approve of...
Pay attention. "The military" is not an entity. It cannot approve. It cannot affirm. It cannot think, or reason. It has no brain, no body, no mind.
The military is a group. Groups are composed of people. PEOPLE are variable creatures, some good, some bad, the vast majority in the in-between, just trying to get by.
The sooner that you understand that *all* groups are composed of people of varying levels of ethical stature, the sooner you will understand the truth. *All* organizations are subject to these things. In the U.S., our entire system of government is predicated on this understanding.
You are engaging in the low-payoff, poorly-reasoned tactic of asserting collective guilt. The problem with this tactic is that it is prejudicial; it is quite like jingoism or racism, or other forms of prejudgment. Worst of sins, it involves sloppy thinking.
C//
... I guess we should not expect people like that to actually respect other people's freedoms and rights.
Allow me to help you out: every organization, in every part of the world, is composed of people. In and amongst these people, there are political players, who will pull strings. And yes, they will sometimes do so unethically. One wants to stay off their radar as well as one can. It's a long fall off the beanstalk, Jack.
Not politics, military.
This is a political issue. Which is to say, at the pinnacles of power in this world, there are people who have both the power and the will to use that power. These folks are human beings like any others, so the predictable thing sometimes happens: they do bad things. This happens in every organization around the world, government, military, corporate, or otherwise (such as the Salk Institute, where I worked for a time before I went into contract R cutthroat politics was very much alive and well there, I assure you).
But back to the Open/BSD issue. Imagine the following scenario:
Some self-righteous bereaucrat gets pissed at Mr. BSD's remarks. He takes a look at the contract, and determines that there is some minor but legitimate error in form in the contract itself. For example, suppose that it turns out that too large a portion of American research dollars, which are required by law to go to American research institutions in certain portion. He makes a stink, and since the actual *complaint* is a lawful one, away goes the project.
If true, certain someone might have been best keeping their head down, wouldn't you say?
C//
The U.S. government can be neither petty nor vengeful. It cannot think. It cannot speak. It has no voice, no body, no brain, no mind.
The U.S. government is, however, composed of people. Some of those people are petty and vengeful, others have self-righteous attitudes about what is right and wrong, some have strict feelings about what is an appropriate thing to say about a paying customer. Military guys funding people with military budgets really don't like it when paid parties say anti-military things. Some of these people are very high ranking, and have no trouble pushing their nose around. If a three star general calls a DARPA office director, you can be absolutely certain that the call will be taken. If the DARPA director gets an earful, at that point, it will depend on how much spine this person has as to what happens next. "Fuck off," is an option, but unlikely. Political careers can wane based on a simple "fuck off," and they can wax based on a few verbal blowjobs in exactly the right places.
Welcome to the world of politics.
C//
Having worked almost exclusively on DARPA contracts over the last decade, I'll give you a tip. If a General thinks you've thrown mud on *him*, you risk being perceived as having thrown mud on DARPA. DARPA is the Department of Defense, ya dig? Mr. so-and-so's comments were very ill advised if he wanted to keep his funding. His article was just a variation of financial suicide.
C//
There is NO point in this type of restriction.
:) :)
That's not quite correct. Take the security biz. I mean, you know, [CLASSIFIED] type stuff. There's a real requirement for making certain certain types of data don't escape security management. The overlap between fulfilling security requirements and "digital rights" is actually pretty large.
'Course, the problems are no less intractible. Don't bother me with minor details.
C//
I don't think you're listening. If by collaboration with your friends you understand the impact of what it is you are proposing to do, the enactment thereof would be illegal. It's the obvious willful malice that's the distinguisher here. Clever disavowments to the contrary may or may not get you off, but if any evidence whatsoever were presented that you knew, or simply ought to know, that the impact of your actions was denial of service, you'd be going up against a felony charge. This wouldn't be the spammer trying to convince the jury, it would be the DISTRICT ATTORNEY. Criminal cases are brought by the GOVERNMENT. The spammer only has to make a COMPLAINT.
Ya with me?
Anyway, I'm done here. A little bit of listening now might save you having to hire an attorney later, though. It's a long fall off the the beanstalk, Jack.
C//
The collaboration itself, with the intent to DDOS, makes it one.
C//
Is this illegal?
Yes. AFAICR, a felony, and a federal crime. You may as well say "trace them back to origination, hack them, and set up a multipass wipe on their HD." While they'd deserve this, it wouldn't be very wise.
C//
Good point. The way Google handles this, they take the cache entries out if you ask. They could get really ass-monkeyed if they ended up causing someone some financial harm (cacheing secured pages; don't know how they'd manage that), but as is, they just are playing as if they won't be sued because of lack of probable damages.
Copyright law exempts "systems of relays" from copyright violation, otherwise radio franchises wouldn't be able to play over the radio waves across jump points. Some part of the web community is probably hoping things like Google will get defined that way. To my knowledge they haven't yet been, and I'd be surprised if they were. One cannot easily give up one's copy right...
I suppose Slashdot could just honor the no-spider meta tags, and let the chips fall where they may.
C//
That would be illegal. :(
C//
Hopefully never. Spoken languages are veritably brimming with ambiguities. Programming languages are the heart of precision.
C//
> Don't bother with any kind of testing, other than...
A basic run of the monitor will tell you whether or not it's sharp, and works okay with your card. Most do these days, quality is up fantatistically from 10 years ago. However, that's not as true with the 21-23"'s. The flourescents won't obscure the feature which is objectively known to be the most noticeable to the human eye: MTF sharpness. Of all the known objective measurements of the monitor, it is the one with the most subjective impact on impression of quality. In particular, it defines whether or not text will appear to be sharp when black is against white.
Other things matter, and you'll really only be able to tell once you get it into the proper lighting arrangemnent, most particularly if you are a graphics professional.
However, if the sharpness ain't right, you're just going to have to lug it right back. With a 21" monitor, that's a lot of luggging, and more than a little bit of an inconvenience.
As for color linearity and the like, these are features you likely only care about if you are in the graphics biz.
C//
Buy from a small local shop. Call around. Tell them that you're particular about monitors, particularly fuzzy ones, and you'll buy from them if they'll let you connect the very unit you want to buy to your computer and video card right in the store. All of the small shops will say "no problem."
Signed
--Also Very Picky About Monitors
Here's a possible flaw:
Sea water is, well, for the lack of a better word:
CORROSIVE. Well, it certainly ain't super friendly to a great many things... I mean, like, dude: BARNACLES.
C//
On the one hand, I was thinking of a global society of all humanity.
Which rather begs the question of which self-important dictator will decide he speaks for quite literally everyone, and tell them all they can't do it, now doesn't it?
And (some dictator) will get together somewhere, and...do the research.
An interesting way of looking at it! Alternately, enlightened socieities that believe that the restriction of certain forms of individual liberty is tyrannical may simply excel against other, less enlightened socieities.
C//
My wife's coworker got a $20,000 diamond engagement ring recently. Nothing would make me smile more than learning it was worth $20. :)
C//
For example, if it's just a "minor offense" to spray paint grafitti on a bridge, why can you get 10 years in prison for defacing a website? Seems a bit disproportionate.
C//
"Should we, as a society, curtail research on particular branches of science?"
If we do, and do it very much, the societies that do not will eventually squash us like bugs.
C//
For example, was there really a subsequent loss of life, or did it save lives, even japenese ones, by encouraging them to surrender sooner than they would have otherwise??
C//
Just FYI:
...) have nothing to do with preference at all..
In many dictionaries, the order of the senses is historical (in time-order), and has nothing to do at all with preference. Some dictionaries try to identify which words are *most* common, but many don't even make an attempt to do so, and the numbers (1., 2.,
C//
Uhhh... no. Turbos and blowers (superchargers to all you washed masses) put more air into the cylinder. While this may increase fuel economy and power slightly (due to a more complete burn), to get the most out of a forced induction system, you need to put more fuel in.
------
Actually, I knew this; however, I was under the impression that the additional PSI per se inreased efficiency notably. Not so?
C//