As 372 pages covering 3 parts and 11 chapters, Wright is a mesmerizing author that creates a non-fiction spellbinding page-turner. The 4 main characters of the book are Hubbard, Miscavige and actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta.
The first sentence doesn't parse (and who the hell cares about number of parts and chapters anyway?), the second (after the comma) is in dire need of justification, and the third is simply irrelevant.
I am sorry, where is the 3rd sentence in the content quoted? I am seeing only 2 sentences here. Also, the 2nd sentence is not after the comma.
I agree that the review is not that great, but it is not as bad as some people think. The reviewer is trying to give information to those who has zero knowledge of CoS. As a result, other informations that is not related to the book are augmented. I don't see it as bad but not as best either. Just a thought.
No company has the ability to force you to sign an NDA. And, if you felt forced when you signed it, then it's a contract signed under coercion, and unenforceable.
Regarding TFA, the student was somewhat being forced by threatening him about jail time. The student is young and knows nothing much about NDA and was too scared to research on what NDA could be used. So technically, the student could not be forced to sign it. But the other side has more experience and better convincing power, the student did not know the (legal) consequences between sign and not sign, so he fell into the trap.
Therefore, this article should be a good lesson for those who may fall into the similar trap that other companies are trying to do to cover their behind (but throw all the blame to you).
From what I understand, the legal gun ownership is taken from certain type of gun, not solely from owning a gun. Tell me why do you need an assault rifle to hunt? Maybe you have no skill in using a gun to shoot a deer and kill it in 1 shot?
all the talk about restricting legal gun rights vs the other shootings
Because one bad apple could rot the whole basket of apples. If you want the reason, you should think about who benefit from not restricting V. restricting. Also what would happen when no restriction V. restriction.
Have you thought of the consequences of only allowing that "free" speech which you find acceptable?
You are right in this reply. Great answer.
There is no "solution" to what the WBC does except to ignore them. It is how you deal with someone in the classroom who calls you names behind the teacher's back, and for much the same reason: sometimes trying to "solve" the problem creates much worse ones.
The problem is ignoring is not a "solution" nor a good reaction. In theory, it is an acceptable reaction. In practice, these people are not kids that would simply stop when they don't get a response. If they are going to stop, they would have done a long time ago. Also, they know better that they can do it and have all the time they want to do it. A slap in their face is what they deserved and only Anonymous dares to act in many others' place. I do not say that Anonymous action is right, but I appraise them that they are brave to take the blame and be the one who shows the WB that they should stop what they are doing. If you don't feel the same way as others, good for you.
You are seeing what WBC does as an "abuse" ; do you not realize that folks who disagree (or even take offense) with your views might view them as similar abuses?
What "abuse" means those who take advantages of the law in the way that it does not mean to be. You said yourself that it is the "right to protect those that people don't like" which is what not the purpose of laws. What you are trying to say in your reply does not disagree with my reply but rather sway the point to something else.
Anon is attempting to suppress free speech, and people are applauding and calling it "right" because they dont like this particular brand of speech.
Which means that really, its not free speech people want, its their personal right to say what they want.
Have you ever thought about what the consequence of so called "free speech" in this case? Would you rather let it happen or agree to suppress it before any thing happen? For example, if you know that a good friend of yours is going to rob a bank, would you do nothing and wait until it happen, or would you try to prevent it to happen? And how would you prevent it to happen?
The difference between the example I gave and this case is the prevention method. The action that Anonymous does may not be legal but it is what many people see that it is acceptable. What else these people can do to prevent highly likely bad consequence to happen? What you are doing here is to point your fingers at others, but yet you don't want to involve in finding a solution. If you are not looking for a solution, you should not make negative comments about what majority ethically think is right.
We have the westboro baptist to show how people still really dont get how "rights for everyone" means protecting people they dont like. And most people still dont get it.
You are pointing out the flaw of laws, and it is not the "main purpose" of the laws either. The purpose of laws is to protect everyone in general, and it could include false positive. In other words, the majority gets benefits even though there are a few seeing a loop hole and abuse it. That's why there is ethic -- the part that laws cannot determine or agree about right or wrong. In this case, what is right to you from the WB side? I know that what Anonymous does is not legal (and may not be the right way to do), but at least I see that they show those who abuse the law (WB people) that they will not always get away with what they are doing.
Good to know hate is OK, so long as its "us" hating "them".
I agree that people should not hate "them" back. The problem is we are human. Certain action is a catalyst to damage others' emotion especially under certain state. WB knows very well about how and when to do it. Is it OK to hate "them"? Of course not. But is it easy to not hate "them" and simply let the emotion go away? Don't think so for most people. Instead of telling people not to be or do, better try to understand why they are that way.
Of course, cracking passwords over the Internet is non-productive regardless the speed of hash computing. But if you really read the whole sentence, you would get where the GP is going to.
If someone has hacked into the site to obtain the hashes, it's likely they can do other stuff anyway (make transactions, get your info, maybe even get the plaintext of your password)
In other words, why would a hacker who has already had an access to the server attempting to crack passwords over the Internet? Why not download (make transaction) the data and crack them locally?
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Because it involves a third party and makes thing even more complicated than it should be. It is a waste of time and could be money (process fees). The plaintiff is the one who wants to use it for the suit, why not simply give the real sources. Over complicate a process often times is not a good solution but cost more on both time and money.
Highlighting the need for repairs, a new study detected more than 3,300 natural gas leaks throughout the city.
Is gas a countable noun? What is the number indicating? What is the unit? Number of gas pipe location? Number of gas volume? Or maybe number of people who pass gas throughout the city? I am not sure... It has all other units for their numbers but the leaking unit. Are they trying to get media attention or what?
Just exactly how many professional adults have to hide their abilities and intelligence? I bet it's the same percentage cited in the article.
I don't agree because it depends on the level and skill of the job you are talking about. For jobs that don't require skill or very little, such as labor work, the bully may be in played more. There could be some colleagues/supervisors/bosses that don't like themselves to look bad from their supervisors/bosses, so they would bully others who look weaker. However, a solution is to fire or lay them off if the company wants to grow or even operate smoothly. Even though there may be legal issues, it is still much easier to handle compared to getting rid of a student who bullies others from a school.
For jobs that require skills, especially in engineering, I don't see it that much at all. The only organization I may see this happen would be government type of job. In private sector, if you are being bullied and you really are intelligence and have abilities, you would likely to move on -- get another job. If you have to suppress your intelligence and abilities to keep that job, it is likely that you do NOT have that high intelligence and/or abilities. Yes, there may be certain conditions you may need to stay, such as legal status, experience, resume filling, personal issues, etc, but the percentage shouldn't be that high.
The real question is, where is the line between intelligence, average, and dumb?
I don't think many people have a problem with the fucking, but rather with the subsequent 9-ish months of issues.
That doesn't give them an excuse to completely avoid or ignore natural pregnancy & birth processes. The invention should not be applied to general cases and should never will be. It may help those women who will always miscarriage due to health issue. It could also apply to those who want children but cannot have one because one of the spouse is infertile. Other that these extreme issues (maybe a few others?), I don't see the usefulness of having artificial human womb.
It is cheaper, but would it be guarantee that the criminal won't come back? Or there may be another criminal who would want the same deal?
I would rather pay $1,500 and ensure that Rackspace will do their job. At least, I know who I need to go after if it fails. On the other hand, paying criminal does not give me a contract or guarantee that it will not be back again.
The only way to prove this theory is to genetically clone a baby (to many babies) and give each of them to different parents (twins are not good enough). Have you seen anything like that? If so, that may be the data you are looking for. If not, this is simply a theory and tends to be accepted the most.
How about "advancing forwards with an intention" instead? No one knows about the intention unless you are him or the boy. Regardless the intention, why would he follow the boy when he was told not to? That's the point of the whole situation. Maybe it is from his stupidity, but he must face the consequence regardless.
If you have a setting that not allow search for your account, google won't show your account in the search. Also, facebook won't show your account in the list either unless you are a friend of the person who is doing the search.
@GP, even though multiple-account may help solving the issue, it is breaking the TOS of facebook. Right now they are not enforcing it, but it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. If one wants to be on the Internet, the one should accept and prepare for any consequence. Internet has no privacy.
This is what happens when you don't have free markets.
I am not an economist, so I am not sure what would free markets do in this case. I agree with Synerg1y's point -- the patent system is broken. So if the broken patent system exists, how would your "free markets" be?
Which quote? You mean the "religious superstitions"? Excuse me, your political mind makes your mind so narrow. To me, it is just a plain comment to "any religions" that threatening science community and is not specific to Islamic.
Obama is quite clearly supporting religion
And another comment of yours that is blinded by your political view. You are looking at the circumstance and interpret it the way your politic is -- with your half-glass-empty attitude. One question to you in general, does this country (U.S.) have laws that said being an Islamic illegal? Or the laws said everybody in this country must not be an Islam? I don't say that what happened to the world from those lunatics from the religion is appropriate. What I want people to see is that the whole group of people should not be painted by only a portion that is bad -- stereotyping.
but I've never seen a project (large or small) where the cost of software was large enough to be the deciding factor in whether or not to go forward.
I am seeing it all the time in the company I am working for. The company is small and needs to consider every cost possible in developing any program. If any tool/software used in development & production does not cost anything, it would be the first choice. I have to evaluate (attempt to implement something like a prototype) to see if the "freebies" is working at an acceptable level, then we go with it. Not a bad idea sometimes, but often times more work on developers/programmers. I am not complaining though because I like to code.
Unlike DNS-and-BIND who gave only a partial quote for a purpose (similar to many political ads), you did a great job on giving the whole truth. Should mod yours up and mod the GP down (as flamebait).
I was going to completely agree but then you didn't mention one more thing -- weather control. Even though, the heat may not be produced that much, it still causes the (quite closed) environment around it to heat up a bit. Therefore, your a/c would turn on more often. Yes, it may not be that significant, but it could have more effect during summer. It is difficult to measure this effect though...
Generally speaking, it is correct. However, if you go into detail, it is not exactly. There are some that are efficient but not significant enough to be named. The inefficient part overwhelms the whole perception and becomes a reputation. So, I would say "everything" is a strong bias.
However, when private sector deals with the government, there are always some sort of taking advantage (both the private & government sides). Yes, the cost to hire government employees (includes all benefits and such) would be higher than a private company, one should look at other reasons of doing so. The argument of money only is too narrow and just to support what you said (certain level of the truth). However, when you want to really dig into analysis, there are good reasons and it does make sense for why it is the way it is.
Slashdot Mirror
As 372 pages covering 3 parts and 11 chapters, Wright is a mesmerizing author that creates a non-fiction spellbinding page-turner. The 4 main characters of the book are Hubbard, Miscavige and actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta.
The first sentence doesn't parse (and who the hell cares about number of parts and chapters anyway?), the second (after the comma) is in dire need of justification, and the third is simply irrelevant.
I am sorry, where is the 3rd sentence in the content quoted? I am seeing only 2 sentences here. Also, the 2nd sentence is not after the comma.
I agree that the review is not that great, but it is not as bad as some people think. The reviewer is trying to give information to those who has zero knowledge of CoS. As a result, other informations that is not related to the book are augmented. I don't see it as bad but not as best either. Just a thought.
No company has the ability to force you to sign an NDA. And, if you felt forced when you signed it, then it's a contract signed under coercion, and unenforceable.
Regarding TFA, the student was somewhat being forced by threatening him about jail time. The student is young and knows nothing much about NDA and was too scared to research on what NDA could be used. So technically, the student could not be forced to sign it. But the other side has more experience and better convincing power, the student did not know the (legal) consequences between sign and not sign, so he fell into the trap.
Therefore, this article should be a good lesson for those who may fall into the similar trap that other companies are trying to do to cover their behind (but throw all the blame to you).
remove freely legal gun ownership
From what I understand, the legal gun ownership is taken from certain type of gun, not solely from owning a gun. Tell me why do you need an assault rifle to hunt? Maybe you have no skill in using a gun to shoot a deer and kill it in 1 shot?
all the talk about restricting legal gun rights vs the other shootings
Because one bad apple could rot the whole basket of apples. If you want the reason, you should think about who benefit from not restricting V. restricting. Also what would happen when no restriction V. restriction.
Have you thought of the consequences of only allowing that "free" speech which you find acceptable?
You are right in this reply. Great answer.
There is no "solution" to what the WBC does except to ignore them. It is how you deal with someone in the classroom who calls you names behind the teacher's back, and for much the same reason: sometimes trying to "solve" the problem creates much worse ones.
The problem is ignoring is not a "solution" nor a good reaction. In theory, it is an acceptable reaction. In practice, these people are not kids that would simply stop when they don't get a response. If they are going to stop, they would have done a long time ago. Also, they know better that they can do it and have all the time they want to do it. A slap in their face is what they deserved and only Anonymous dares to act in many others' place. I do not say that Anonymous action is right, but I appraise them that they are brave to take the blame and be the one who shows the WB that they should stop what they are doing. If you don't feel the same way as others, good for you.
You are seeing what WBC does as an "abuse" ; do you not realize that folks who disagree (or even take offense) with your views might view them as similar abuses?
What "abuse" means those who take advantages of the law in the way that it does not mean to be. You said yourself that it is the "right to protect those that people don't like" which is what not the purpose of laws. What you are trying to say in your reply does not disagree with my reply but rather sway the point to something else.
Anon is attempting to suppress free speech, and people are applauding and calling it "right" because they dont like this particular brand of speech.
Which means that really, its not free speech people want, its their personal right to say what they want.
Have you ever thought about what the consequence of so called "free speech" in this case? Would you rather let it happen or agree to suppress it before any thing happen? For example, if you know that a good friend of yours is going to rob a bank, would you do nothing and wait until it happen, or would you try to prevent it to happen? And how would you prevent it to happen?
The difference between the example I gave and this case is the prevention method. The action that Anonymous does may not be legal but it is what many people see that it is acceptable. What else these people can do to prevent highly likely bad consequence to happen? What you are doing here is to point your fingers at others, but yet you don't want to involve in finding a solution. If you are not looking for a solution, you should not make negative comments about what majority ethically think is right.
We have the westboro baptist to show how people still really dont get how "rights for everyone" means protecting people they dont like. And most people still dont get it.
You are pointing out the flaw of laws, and it is not the "main purpose" of the laws either. The purpose of laws is to protect everyone in general, and it could include false positive. In other words, the majority gets benefits even though there are a few seeing a loop hole and abuse it. That's why there is ethic -- the part that laws cannot determine or agree about right or wrong. In this case, what is right to you from the WB side? I know that what Anonymous does is not legal (and may not be the right way to do), but at least I see that they show those who abuse the law (WB people) that they will not always get away with what they are doing.
Good to know hate is OK, so long as its "us" hating "them".
I agree that people should not hate "them" back. The problem is we are human. Certain action is a catalyst to damage others' emotion especially under certain state. WB knows very well about how and when to do it. Is it OK to hate "them"? Of course not. But is it easy to not hate "them" and simply let the emotion go away? Don't think so for most people. Instead of telling people not to be or do, better try to understand why they are that way.
>it's likely they can do other stuff anyway
Of course, cracking passwords over the Internet is non-productive regardless the speed of hash computing. But if you really read the whole sentence, you would get where the GP is going to.
If someone has hacked into the site to obtain the hashes, it's likely they can do other stuff anyway (make transactions, get your info, maybe even get the plaintext of your password)
In other words, why would a hacker who has already had an access to the server attempting to crack passwords over the Internet? Why not download (make transaction) the data and crack them locally?
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Because it involves a third party and makes thing even more complicated than it should be. It is a waste of time and could be money (process fees). The plaintiff is the one who wants to use it for the suit, why not simply give the real sources. Over complicate a process often times is not a good solution but cost more on both time and money.
Highlighting the need for repairs, a new study detected more than 3,300 natural gas leaks throughout the city.
Is gas a countable noun? What is the number indicating? What is the unit? Number of gas pipe location? Number of gas volume? Or maybe number of people who pass gas throughout the city? I am not sure... It has all other units for their numbers but the leaking unit. Are they trying to get media attention or what?
Just exactly how many professional adults have to hide their abilities and intelligence? I bet it's the same percentage cited in the article.
I don't agree because it depends on the level and skill of the job you are talking about. For jobs that don't require skill or very little, such as labor work, the bully may be in played more. There could be some colleagues/supervisors/bosses that don't like themselves to look bad from their supervisors/bosses, so they would bully others who look weaker. However, a solution is to fire or lay them off if the company wants to grow or even operate smoothly. Even though there may be legal issues, it is still much easier to handle compared to getting rid of a student who bullies others from a school.
For jobs that require skills, especially in engineering, I don't see it that much at all. The only organization I may see this happen would be government type of job. In private sector, if you are being bullied and you really are intelligence and have abilities, you would likely to move on -- get another job. If you have to suppress your intelligence and abilities to keep that job, it is likely that you do NOT have that high intelligence and/or abilities. Yes, there may be certain conditions you may need to stay, such as legal status, experience, resume filling, personal issues, etc, but the percentage shouldn't be that high.
The real question is, where is the line between intelligence, average, and dumb?
I don't think many people have a problem with the fucking, but rather with the subsequent 9-ish months of issues.
That doesn't give them an excuse to completely avoid or ignore natural pregnancy & birth processes. The invention should not be applied to general cases and should never will be. It may help those women who will always miscarriage due to health issue. It could also apply to those who want children but cannot have one because one of the spouse is infertile. Other that these extreme issues (maybe a few others?), I don't see the usefulness of having artificial human womb.
Shoot, I thought it was Rear-jets...
By the way, $5M is enough to live extremely well in a 3rd world country. $10k a year is already an extremely well earn in my home country...
It is cheaper, but would it be guarantee that the criminal won't come back? Or there may be another criminal who would want the same deal?
I would rather pay $1,500 and ensure that Rackspace will do their job. At least, I know who I need to go after if it fails. On the other hand, paying criminal does not give me a contract or guarantee that it will not be back again.
The only way to prove this theory is to genetically clone a baby (to many babies) and give each of them to different parents (twins are not good enough). Have you seen anything like that? If so, that may be the data you are looking for. If not, this is simply a theory and tends to be accepted the most.
How about "advancing forwards with an intention" instead? No one knows about the intention unless you are him or the boy. Regardless the intention, why would he follow the boy when he was told not to? That's the point of the whole situation. Maybe it is from his stupidity, but he must face the consequence regardless.
If you have a setting that not allow search for your account, google won't show your account in the search. Also, facebook won't show your account in the list either unless you are a friend of the person who is doing the search.
@GP, even though multiple-account may help solving the issue, it is breaking the TOS of facebook. Right now they are not enforcing it, but it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. If one wants to be on the Internet, the one should accept and prepare for any consequence. Internet has no privacy.
This is what happens when you don't have free markets.
I am not an economist, so I am not sure what would free markets do in this case. I agree with Synerg1y's point -- the patent system is broken. So if the broken patent system exists, how would your "free markets" be?
This quote is anti-Islamic
Which quote? You mean the "religious superstitions"? Excuse me, your political mind makes your mind so narrow. To me, it is just a plain comment to "any religions" that threatening science community and is not specific to Islamic.
Obama is quite clearly supporting religion
And another comment of yours that is blinded by your political view. You are looking at the circumstance and interpret it the way your politic is -- with your half-glass-empty attitude. One question to you in general, does this country (U.S.) have laws that said being an Islamic illegal? Or the laws said everybody in this country must not be an Islam? I don't say that what happened to the world from those lunatics from the religion is appropriate. What I want people to see is that the whole group of people should not be painted by only a portion that is bad -- stereotyping.
but I've never seen a project (large or small) where the cost of software was large enough to be the deciding factor in whether or not to go forward.
I am seeing it all the time in the company I am working for. The company is small and needs to consider every cost possible in developing any program. If any tool/software used in development & production does not cost anything, it would be the first choice. I have to evaluate (attempt to implement something like a prototype) to see if the "freebies" is working at an acceptable level, then we go with it. Not a bad idea sometimes, but often times more work on developers/programmers. I am not complaining though because I like to code.
Unlike DNS-and-BIND who gave only a partial quote for a purpose (similar to many political ads), you did a great job on giving the whole truth. Should mod yours up and mod the GP down (as flamebait).
I was going to completely agree but then you didn't mention one more thing -- weather control. Even though, the heat may not be produced that much, it still causes the (quite closed) environment around it to heat up a bit. Therefore, your a/c would turn on more often. Yes, it may not be that significant, but it could have more effect during summer. It is difficult to measure this effect though...
I think that has already happened before... http://www.deadseriousnews.com/?p=573 Not a pleasant outcome though... :(
Government sucks at everything.
Generally speaking, it is correct. However, if you go into detail, it is not exactly. There are some that are efficient but not significant enough to be named. The inefficient part overwhelms the whole perception and becomes a reputation. So, I would say "everything" is a strong bias.
However, when private sector deals with the government, there are always some sort of taking advantage (both the private & government sides). Yes, the cost to hire government employees (includes all benefits and such) would be higher than a private company, one should look at other reasons of doing so. The argument of money only is too narrow and just to support what you said (certain level of the truth). However, when you want to really dig into analysis, there are good reasons and it does make sense for why it is the way it is.