And forget HR. They're there to fulfill two functions: do the paperwork associated with employing people, and keep the employees firmly under the thumb of management.
I'm being told I can't speak a certain way. I'm being pre-emptively controlled in terms of my speech and behavior because someone might find it offensive.
Oh god, you're expected to have manners and behave respectfully to other people. How will the Free World survive under the tyranny of such expectations??
Your entire post is based on the premise that if someone is offended by something, then there is something wrong with that something. It is that premise that is whats wrong.
Surely you're joking?
Read again, this time carefully, what you just wrote. That is a carte blanche to be offensive to everyone. Hey, it's their fault, they shouldn't be offended.
You sound like a complete moron. According to your own rules, it's perfectly OK to say that, so do me a favour, and don't whine about it, OK?
And yet when one woman speaks up and criticizes the habit of making sexist jokes and remarks, suddenly all the men on this site start piling on and telling her that it isn't so bad, and why can't she take a joke, etc.
Here's the counterquestion: you're all big boys, can't you handle a little criticism?
And if the recurring nature of the feminist criticism grates, then think of what the recurring nature of sexist humour feels like to a woman.
Precisely my point. If you hang out on the Internet enough to read more than one thread on relationships populated by Americans, it is fairly obvious that there is something deeply dysfunctional in general American culture when it comes to relationships.
Nope, still not working. All your numbers prove is that marriage in the US has problems. There might be other causes for that; I'm leaning to think that it has something to do with a deeply dysfunctional society that foists unrealistic expectations on people (not in the sense of 'too high', but literally 'not in accordance with reality').
I read your comment as a comment on the relative levels of investment.
Yes, currently governments under-invest on an absolute scale, that much is true. It is getting worse under austerity drives mostly driven by right-wing propaganda, I'll stick to that.
And note that I said that the final research to turn it into product is a private sector endeavour right now; and I think it should remain so.
Also, that we have a public/private division in responsibilities for research does not imply that we should not extend patent protection to the final research stage, the private one. Therefore your fear of the development leaving for other shores seems a bit misplaced to me. This is not a necessary consequence of expanding publicly funded basic research.
Because trademark law is about products and marriage law is about people. And you don't get to choose who is considered 'people' in the eyes of the law. The law says, in any decent society, that everyone is equal under the law.
Why don't you stop digging yourself deeper and come out of the closet, admit that yes, you do want gays to stay in theirs?
And learn the definition of ad hominem, you moron.
Governments tend to under invest in long term projects like basic medical research.
In fact, it's the other way around. Most basic research is done at universities on government grants, and the refinement of that basic research into product is done by industry.
That the U.S. government under pressure of right-wing propaganda ("Stop wastin' muh tax-dollahs!") continues to slash funding is no counterproof, not as long as we don't see industry taking up the slack.
Trying to hide between semantic games, as if I care if there are more meanings to debase than the mainstream one, is just more proof that you actually are a closeted homophobe.
And your Champagne example proves you're a particularly moronic one to boot. Other sparkling wines can't call themselves Champagne for the same reason CentOS can't call itself Red Hat, even though it's the exact same codebase.
As a non-native speaker: no it bloody well hasn't. Spelling wasn't standardised until about a century ago, and even then using -x- for -ct- was perfectly normal (see e.g. Orwell's essays and columns, where he freely uses 'connexion').
However grammar has changed little since Early Modern English (i.e. Shakespeare & co). About the only significant features dropped are the familiar form (thee, thou, thine) and the split infinitive that was banned by over-Latinising Victorian scholars.
The Affero versions of the GPL family of licenses go even further: if you USE a modified version of the software, you must publish its source. That means if you modify an AGPL Web server and use it to serve your Web site, you have to put up the Web server's source code. An AGPL Web application would work the same way: modify an AGPL CMS and you need to publish its source code on your Web site.
Yes, and?
Free Software has never meant 'free of cost'. If you want to use and modify an AGPL web application, the republishing requirement is the price you have to pay. You still have the freedom to modify the software, a freedom you won't get if you use a proprietary application.
As usual, an anti-GPL ranter shows himself up to be just another freeloader who wants to use a piece of software without paying the cost.
I looked up the numbers and posted them elsewhere in this thread: of the top 10 states with highest union participation, 7 score average or higher in productivity increases.
So yeah, the anti-union stories are mostly propaganda.
Funny, those 'out of control' unions have no negative impact on productivity. Of the top 10 states with highest union participation, only 3 score below average in productivity growth (Alaska, Nevada, and Michigan).
Sources: Wikipedia and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. True, the Cleveland numbers only go up to 2004, but I assume that union participation has not changed significantly in the intervening years. If anyone has more recent numbers showing otherwise, I'd like to see them.
I realise it must have been a great trauma to you to have RMS jump through your window wielding a katana and forcing you to install gNewsense GNU/Linux, but seeking counselling is a better solution than going on about it on Slashdot.
Wait, that did not happen? Oh, you were confusing 'criticizing' with something else; and implying that the FSF have no right to express their criticisms. Hmmm. Seems like a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think so yourself?
Awww. I point out the idiocy of your example, and all you can do is complain about a minor semantic issue. Want some cheese with that whine?
Your example is idiotic regardless whether or not cp copies the device node itself or the contents of it. Period. And your over the top histrionics when this is pointed out paint you as the moron.
Really? Is that the best anti-CLI example you can come up with? This is not even an edge case; in the days of dynamically generated/dev nodes, it is completely unnecessary to copy device nodes.
Of course, that just proves the point rather than refute it, because Wireshark uses pcap filter expressions to filter its input, so in the end it is just as complex to use as tcpdump is.
Some folks already posted the numbers, so look upthread. A BAC of over 0.04 leads to a measurable impairment, so most jurisdictions (at least here in Europe) set the bar at a sensible 0.05. That's one drink for an average adult. Anything above that, you're impaired.
And the fact that you believe that you are not impaired does mark you as a typical young male: bad at risk estimation to start with, and not aware that alcohol has a deleterious effect on said risk assessment.
If it weren't for the fact that you're going to be driving several tons of steel and be a menace to the rest of the road users, I'd say it is a happy coincidence that you are also statistically more likely to Dunning-Kruger yourself out of the gene pool.
Given that you cite reaction time as a governing factor for safety: get off the road and turn in your license, now.
Reaction time is but one component of intoxication by alcohol, impaired judgement, especially risk-estimation, is another. And guess what? That old guy is statistically a lot more likely to be better at the latter than your young stupid overconfident arse.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise that some of the most vocal Slashdot posters are libertards who loudly proclaim to have never seen a useful government project?
Mart
Most people, yes.
Most managers, no.
And forget HR. They're there to fulfill two functions: do the paperwork associated with employing people, and keep the employees firmly under the thumb of management.
Wikipedia only has the numbers per 1000 inhabitants, but in that statistic, yes, the US sticks out as a sore thumb among the Western nations.
Oh god, you're expected to have manners and behave respectfully to other people. How will the Free World survive under the tyranny of such expectations??
Mart
Surely you're joking?
Read again, this time carefully, what you just wrote. That is a carte blanche to be offensive to everyone. Hey, it's their fault, they shouldn't be offended.
You sound like a complete moron. According to your own rules, it's perfectly OK to say that, so do me a favour, and don't whine about it, OK?
Mart
And yet when one woman speaks up and criticizes the habit of making sexist jokes and remarks, suddenly all the men on this site start piling on and telling her that it isn't so bad, and why can't she take a joke, etc.
Here's the counterquestion: you're all big boys, can't you handle a little criticism?
And if the recurring nature of the feminist criticism grates, then think of what the recurring nature of sexist humour feels like to a woman.
Mart
Precisely my point. If you hang out on the Internet enough to read more than one thread on relationships populated by Americans, it is fairly obvious that there is something deeply dysfunctional in general American culture when it comes to relationships.
Mart
Nope, still not working. All your numbers prove is that marriage in the US has problems. There might be other causes for that; I'm leaning to think that it has something to do with a deeply dysfunctional society that foists unrealistic expectations on people (not in the sense of 'too high', but literally 'not in accordance with reality').
Mart
I read your comment as a comment on the relative levels of investment.
Yes, currently governments under-invest on an absolute scale, that much is true. It is getting worse under austerity drives mostly driven by right-wing propaganda, I'll stick to that.
And note that I said that the final research to turn it into product is a private sector endeavour right now; and I think it should remain so.
Also, that we have a public/private division in responsibilities for research does not imply that we should not extend patent protection to the final research stage, the private one. Therefore your fear of the development leaving for other shores seems a bit misplaced to me. This is not a necessary consequence of expanding publicly funded basic research.
Mart
Because trademark law is about products and marriage law is about people. And you don't get to choose who is considered 'people' in the eyes of the law. The law says, in any decent society, that everyone is equal under the law.
Why don't you stop digging yourself deeper and come out of the closet, admit that yes, you do want gays to stay in theirs?
And learn the definition of ad hominem, you moron.
Mart
In fact, it's the other way around. Most basic research is done at universities on government grants, and the refinement of that basic research into product is done by industry.
That the U.S. government under pressure of right-wing propaganda ("Stop wastin' muh tax-dollahs!") continues to slash funding is no counterproof, not as long as we don't see industry taking up the slack.
Mart
Trying to hide between semantic games, as if I care if there are more meanings to debase than the mainstream one, is just more proof that you actually are a closeted homophobe.
And your Champagne example proves you're a particularly moronic one to boot. Other sparkling wines can't call themselves Champagne for the same reason CentOS can't call itself Red Hat, even though it's the exact same codebase.
As a non-native speaker: no it bloody well hasn't. Spelling wasn't standardised until about a century ago, and even then using -x- for -ct- was perfectly normal (see e.g. Orwell's essays and columns, where he freely uses 'connexion').
However grammar has changed little since Early Modern English (i.e. Shakespeare & co). About the only significant features dropped are the familiar form (thee, thou, thine) and the split infinitive that was banned by over-Latinising Victorian scholars.
Actually, Chicago is way down the list in murder and homicide numbers, and posting only a third of the number 1.
But then again, I don't expect facts to make any difference to your closed, bigoted little mind.
(Or have I fallen for Poe's Law?)
Evidently not, as you then proceed to deny them the right to call their relationship 'marriage'.
'Debase' eh? You know what, why don't you sod off with your pseudo-tolerance, you sodding bigoted twerp?
Yes, and?
Free Software has never meant 'free of cost'. If you want to use and modify an AGPL web application, the republishing requirement is the price you have to pay. You still have the freedom to modify the software, a freedom you won't get if you use a proprietary application.
As usual, an anti-GPL ranter shows himself up to be just another freeloader who wants to use a piece of software without paying the cost.
Mart
I looked up the numbers and posted them elsewhere in this thread: of the top 10 states with highest union participation, 7 score average or higher in productivity increases.
So yeah, the anti-union stories are mostly propaganda.
Funny, those 'out of control' unions have no negative impact on productivity. Of the top 10 states with highest union participation, only 3 score below average in productivity growth (Alaska, Nevada, and Michigan).
Sources: Wikipedia and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. True, the Cleveland numbers only go up to 2004, but I assume that union participation has not changed significantly in the intervening years. If anyone has more recent numbers showing otherwise, I'd like to see them.
Mart
I realise it must have been a great trauma to you to have RMS jump through your window wielding a katana and forcing you to install gNewsense GNU/Linux, but seeking counselling is a better solution than going on about it on Slashdot.
Wait, that did not happen? Oh, you were confusing 'criticizing' with something else; and implying that the FSF have no right to express their criticisms. Hmmm. Seems like a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think so yourself?
Really? You cannot do better than "I know what you are..."?
Here's a cookie kid. Now go play, it's a nice day outside, and leave the adults to their conversation.
Awww. I point out the idiocy of your example, and all you can do is complain about a minor semantic issue. Want some cheese with that whine?
Your example is idiotic regardless whether or not cp copies the device node itself or the contents of it. Period. And your over the top histrionics when this is pointed out paint you as the moron.
Mart
Really? Is that the best anti-CLI example you can come up with? This is not even an edge case; in the days of dynamically generated /dev nodes, it is completely unnecessary to copy device nodes.
Mart
Actually, Wireshark is a pretty fine GUI for that
Of course, that just proves the point rather than refute it, because Wireshark uses pcap filter expressions to filter its input, so in the end it is just as complex to use as tcpdump is.
Mart
Some folks already posted the numbers, so look upthread. A BAC of over 0.04 leads to a measurable impairment, so most jurisdictions (at least here in Europe) set the bar at a sensible 0.05. That's one drink for an average adult. Anything above that, you're impaired.
And the fact that you believe that you are not impaired does mark you as a typical young male: bad at risk estimation to start with, and not aware that alcohol has a deleterious effect on said risk assessment.
If it weren't for the fact that you're going to be driving several tons of steel and be a menace to the rest of the road users, I'd say it is a happy coincidence that you are also statistically more likely to Dunning-Kruger yourself out of the gene pool.
There is no hyperbole. You are that stupid.
Given that you cite reaction time as a governing factor for safety: get off the road and turn in your license, now.
Reaction time is but one component of intoxication by alcohol, impaired judgement, especially risk-estimation, is another. And guess what? That old guy is statistically a lot more likely to be better at the latter than your young stupid overconfident arse.