Re:Hmmm.... that's a nice quote... but....
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
> if this were true - that a terrorist holds a baby
> in front of themselves as a 'shield' -- then just
> WHO is the person who would continue to shoot
> their bombs there anyways?
It's more like a person starts shooting at us picks up a baby when we respond, and they continue shooting at us. Well, at that point, you have to do something. You take your best shot and try not to hit the baby, but you make sure you get the mofo.
Re:Don't forget the Tet Offensive
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 1
Your link is a bunch of made-up bs!
A country we were fighting wouldn't ever take advantage of a cease fire we did in order to recognize their holiday.
I suppose you are right...if a culture that currently has a space ship in orbit around Mars and cures half the diseases that are cured each year is on the same plane as a bunch of murderous thugs who oppress their own people, especially women, killing them for the most idiotic and contrived reasons in the name of a bizarre interpretation of the concept of a god (who, really now, should be doing his own dirty work.)
No, there are no moral differences between us. All relevant viewpoints are equally valid interpretations of equally valid world views.
> Sure it'll allow you to rally a bunch of young
> college students to chant and hand out leaflets.
I was a college student back when it was Nicaragua this, Nicaragua that.
College students are like a little kid crossing the street for the first time when mommy doesn't want them to. They make their little pre-designed political statements based on a worldview that others out there are basically nice people, and just sit down with them for tea and they'll get along, and afterward they hear the applause. This emboldens them, and they confuse the emotional security of such approval with having a cold, rational analysis of the situation. It is nothing of the sort.
It's similar to Hollywood stars, except that they get emotional support from sycophants and, more importantly, confuse their phenomenal financial success as being evidence of their great mental prowess.
> however, *not* to understand why we are hated in
> the first place and to understand the people who
> are attacking us is the equivalent of burying our
> heads in the sand. We have angered a lot of people.
No, we haven't angered many people at all.
As throughout history, there are a few powerful people who stir up hatred in the hoi polloi in order to try to accomplish their political goals by force.
The observation was made. It is like black people "trying to understand" their enslavers. One needn't do that; one can simply use force to free onself. Indeed, one has no moral obligation whatsoever to do it gently.
Gulf war? Sorry, understood that.
Vietnam war? Sorry, understood that.
Korean war? Sorry, understood that.
World War II? Ahhhh, here's a good one where we tried to understand what "made the German people mad." Gave up a chunk of Czek and it did nothing.
Guess what? Guess what? It wasn't about understanding "what made the German people mad." It was about Hitler riling up his own people for the purpose of mounting (or threatening) an invasion so he could grab land as a part of solidifying his political power and appearing as a hero.
OMFG, our whole liberal worldview comes crashing down! Nooooo! Not that.
> There is only one response that Sharon should be
> making at this time 'How can we help'. Instead
> Sharon ordered an invasion
And the terrorists murdering Israel's own citizens, especially leaders, intending to provoke Israel to get other Mid East states against the US should be dealt with how?
Where is the condemnation in these other countries? The breast beating about the horrible deaths of civilians? Answer? Nowhere. Civilians are the targets, not unfortunate bystanders.
That politicians of one country use religion to distract and enrage their people against another country is hardly something new. It has been Standard Operating Procedure for millenia.
One country has a bunch of people running around on animals in the desert, the other has machinery in orbit around Mars. The US dare not let itself engage in a Holy War since the end of WWII.
> "OSX.1 users can now install the GNU-Darwin base
> distribution automatically with one command. As
> Root: "curl http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/one_stop | csh"."
Congratulations, GNU, on entrance into the 1980's.
Now if someone can just figure out how to make a batch file and make that double-clickable on the desktop.
> Up until just a few years ago, distributing
> copyrighted materials without expecting any
> compensation was not a crime (or at least, not a
> punishable crime).
Up until a few years ago, duplication and mass distribution of copyrighted materials cost actual $$$. It was rather costly to Xerox a book a hundre thousand times and mail it to people, or to tape an LP and mail it to a hundred thousand people. Moreover, those copies were always slightly flawed.
Guy incorrectly programs Aibo: it bursts into flames.
Guy correctly programs Aibo: it kills a child, as the programmer intended.
At the court case, "Deep Pockets" Sony gets sued. "Did your corporation know this web site was present? Yes? You allowed it to continue to exist and did nothing to prevent it? Yes? You knew the site might actually attract more customers to buy Aibo. Yes?"
Remember also that a lot of sites, especially the big corporate ones, like to program things down to the pixel, instead of relying on browsers to render the theoretical page layout tags. That raises the difficulty quite a lot on rendering.
I do remember multiple times re-installing my Win OS, and using IE to go to Netscape immediately to download the new Netscape. This never worked. I always had to use my computer expertise to use a command prompt to FTP to ftp.netscape.com and get it.
Now, the question is: did Netscape bust their site so IE couldn't get in, or did MS bust IE so it couldn't dl Netscape from Netscape's site.
I haven't tried this lately, but it used to be a standard problem I had to overcome on different machines a year or two ago -- at least 4 times.
Umm...if this would have happened, it would have been 50 years ago, a century after the industrial revolution began.
No, politics will always be about blathering pap to the hoi polloi, and have nothing to do with any logic whatsoever.
Do you think any senators actually understand, say, environmental science (much less the even more esoteric and dubious extreme disasterous economic effectswhich don't exist.) or are they just posturing?
Do you think they continue to reject Internet sales and other taxes because they are concerned for Internet development (an intellectual recognition of the economics of a booming, but neonate, sector) or because they fear their asses being handed to them at the next election (note: hoi polloi working for you instead of the power hungry.)
Or for that matter, ever try using "disclaimer -- software not guaranteed for any fitness!" when staring down a $50,000,000 recall because of a shitty radio that goes vol-max suddenly, occasionally?
Not a real incident, yet, but over the next 10-20 years as car radios get bigger and bigger, well, etc. etc. etc.
So, too, for medical equipment (where a bug DID hyper-irradiate someone once) etc. etc. etc.
That still doesn't respond to the criticism, really.
It wasn't until I worked in the auto industry, where software can't be updated easily, and if there are bugs, it IS a liability issue with recalls. It brings software development to a whole new level that the normal programmer never gets exposed to.
That's why I laugh at comments like this -- I KNOW the bugs are the result of sloppy development rather than being concerned with getting a feature implemented. I know -- been there, done that.
>> Nowhere in it is any plausible grant of power to
>> regulate the substances used by Americans.
>
> Actually, one of the first acts of the new
> republic was to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in
> western Pennsylvania and thereby assert its right
> to that very thing.
Actually, the Whiskey Rebellion was about the government laying sin taxes for the purpose of taxes and not for the purpose of reducing sin.
Slashdot Mirror
> if this were true - that a terrorist holds a baby
> in front of themselves as a 'shield' -- then just
> WHO is the person who would continue to shoot
> their bombs there anyways?
It's more like a person starts shooting at us picks up a baby when we respond, and they continue shooting at us. Well, at that point, you have to do something. You take your best shot and try not to hit the baby, but you make sure you get the mofo.
Your link is a bunch of made-up bs!
A country we were fighting wouldn't ever take advantage of a cease fire we did in order to recognize their holiday.
Fraud! Fraud!
Will the terrorists stop running, hiding, and preparing traps during Ramadan?
Hmmm, let's think about this. In our "let's sit down with them for tea" model of the world, yes they will.
Therefore, we should design foreign policy around this.
Canada
I suppose you are right...if a culture that currently has a space ship in orbit around Mars and cures half the diseases that are cured each year is on the same plane as a bunch of murderous thugs who oppress their own people, especially women, killing them for the most idiotic and contrived reasons in the name of a bizarre interpretation of the concept of a god (who, really now, should be doing his own dirty work.)
No, there are no moral differences between us. All relevant viewpoints are equally valid interpretations of equally valid world views.
> Sure it'll allow you to rally a bunch of young
> college students to chant and hand out leaflets.
I was a college student back when it was Nicaragua this, Nicaragua that.
College students are like a little kid crossing the street for the first time when mommy doesn't want them to. They make their little pre-designed political statements based on a worldview that others out there are basically nice people, and just sit down with them for tea and they'll get along, and afterward they hear the applause. This emboldens them, and they confuse the emotional security of such approval with having a cold, rational analysis of the situation. It is nothing of the sort.
It's similar to Hollywood stars, except that they get emotional support from sycophants and, more importantly, confuse their phenomenal financial success as being evidence of their great mental prowess.
> however, *not* to understand why we are hated in
> the first place and to understand the people who
> are attacking us is the equivalent of burying our
> heads in the sand. We have angered a lot of people.
No, we haven't angered many people at all.
As throughout history, there are a few powerful people who stir up hatred in the hoi polloi in order to try to accomplish their political goals by force.
The observation was made. It is like black people "trying to understand" their enslavers. One needn't do that; one can simply use force to free onself. Indeed, one has no moral obligation whatsoever to do it gently.
Gulf war? Sorry, understood that.
Vietnam war? Sorry, understood that.
Korean war? Sorry, understood that.
World War II? Ahhhh, here's a good one where we tried to understand what "made the German people mad." Gave up a chunk of Czek and it did nothing.
Guess what? Guess what? It wasn't about understanding "what made the German people mad." It was about Hitler riling up his own people for the purpose of mounting (or threatening) an invasion so he could grab land as a part of solidifying his political power and appearing as a hero.
OMFG, our whole liberal worldview comes crashing down! Nooooo! Not that.
> There is only one response that Sharon should be
> making at this time 'How can we help'. Instead
> Sharon ordered an invasion
And the terrorists murdering Israel's own citizens, especially leaders, intending to provoke Israel to get other Mid East states against the US should be dealt with how?
Where is the condemnation in these other countries? The breast beating about the horrible deaths of civilians? Answer? Nowhere. Civilians are the targets, not unfortunate bystanders.
That politicians of one country use religion to distract and enrage their people against another country is hardly something new. It has been Standard Operating Procedure for millenia.
One country has a bunch of people running around on animals in the desert, the other has machinery in orbit around Mars. The US dare not let itself engage in a Holy War since the end of WWII.
Are AMD or Intel promoting this?
And if they did (AMD, for example) then yet, if it burst into flames, they might very well be liable.
> "OSX.1 users can now install the GNU-Darwin base
> distribution automatically with one command. As
> Root: "curl http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/one_stop | csh"."
Congratulations, GNU, on entrance into the 1980's.
Now if someone can just figure out how to make a batch file and make that double-clickable on the desktop.
> Up until just a few years ago, distributing
> copyrighted materials without expecting any
> compensation was not a crime (or at least, not a
> punishable crime).
Up until a few years ago, duplication and mass distribution of copyrighted materials cost actual $$$. It was rather costly to Xerox a book a hundre thousand times and mail it to people, or to tape an LP and mail it to a hundred thousand people. Moreover, those copies were always slightly flawed.
Guy incorrectly programs Aibo: it bursts into flames.
Guy correctly programs Aibo: it kills a child, as the programmer intended.
At the court case, "Deep Pockets" Sony gets sued. "Did your corporation know this web site was present? Yes? You allowed it to continue to exist and did nothing to prevent it? Yes? You knew the site might actually attract more customers to buy Aibo. Yes?"
Nahhh, close 'em down. It's not worth it.
virtual layout tags! Not theoretical...
Virtual!
Remember also that a lot of sites, especially the big corporate ones, like to program things down to the pixel, instead of relying on browsers to render the theoretical page layout tags. That raises the difficulty quite a lot on rendering.
Well,
I do remember multiple times re-installing my Win OS, and using IE to go to Netscape immediately to download the new Netscape. This never worked. I always had to use my computer expertise to use a command prompt to FTP to ftp.netscape.com and get it.
Now, the question is: did Netscape bust their site so IE couldn't get in, or did MS bust IE so it couldn't dl Netscape from Netscape's site.
I haven't tried this lately, but it used to be a standard problem I had to overcome on different machines a year or two ago -- at least 4 times.
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Computer + medical system = computer.
It's clear a little explanation is in order for the sarcasm-impaired:
...
>> I dont agree with you on government being
>> inefficient per se.
>
> Main Entry: per se
>
> : except every way possible
>
turns into:
I dont agree with you on government being
inefficient except every way possible
Saying "government isn't inefficient, per se" is like saying "oranges aren't orange, per se".
Umm...if this would have happened, it would have been 50 years ago, a century after the industrial revolution began.
No, politics will always be about blathering pap to the hoi polloi, and have nothing to do with any logic whatsoever.
Do you think any senators actually understand, say, environmental science (much less the even more esoteric and dubious extreme disasterous economic effectswhich don't exist.) or are they just posturing?
Do you think they continue to reject Internet sales and other taxes because they are concerned for Internet development (an intellectual recognition of the economics of a booming, but neonate, sector) or because they fear their asses being handed to them at the next election (note: hoi polloi working for you instead of the power hungry.)
> Ever tried flying a 747 without software ?
Or for that matter, ever try using "disclaimer -- software not guaranteed for any fitness!" when staring down a $50,000,000 recall because of a shitty radio that goes vol-max suddenly, occasionally?
Not a real incident, yet, but over the next 10-20 years as car radios get bigger and bigger, well, etc. etc. etc.
So, too, for medical equipment (where a bug DID hyper-irradiate someone once) etc. etc. etc.
The companies WANT you to have the music; the Soviets didn't. The companies just want you to pay for it, as you should.
> I dont agree with you on government being
> inefficient per se.
That is the strangest definition of per se I've ever seen:
Main Entry: per se
Pronunciation: (")p&r-'sA also per-'sA or (")p&r-'sE
Function: adverb
Etymology: Latin
Date: 1572
: except every way possible
That still doesn't respond to the criticism, really.
It wasn't until I worked in the auto industry, where software can't be updated easily, and if there are bugs, it IS a liability issue with recalls. It brings software development to a whole new level that the normal programmer never gets exposed to.
That's why I laugh at comments like this -- I KNOW the bugs are the result of sloppy development rather than being concerned with getting a feature implemented. I know -- been there, done that.
A hundred years ago, Ford gives the incredible wage of $5/day (or was it $10) to reduce voluntary churning of employees, whose training was expensive.
Years later, socialists argue the government should mandate minimum wages and use Ford as an example.
Years later still, Ford starts giving out free computers and virtually free net access.
Prediction: soon, socialists will promote the government give away computers and net access for free, mandated to corporations.
Oh, wait. That happened in a Gore speech about 6 years ago. Nevermind.
>> Nowhere in it is any plausible grant of power to
>> regulate the substances used by Americans.
>
> Actually, one of the first acts of the new
> republic was to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in
> western Pennsylvania and thereby assert its right
> to that very thing.
Actually, the Whiskey Rebellion was about the government laying sin taxes for the purpose of taxes and not for the purpose of reducing sin.