Depends on what you mean by innovate. The ordinary sense of innovate is to create new technology. The marketing sense of innovate, however, means to add new technology to a product, regardless of whether you've actually invented it yourself or not. Microsoft uses innovate in the marketing sense. Like a lot of marketers, they seem to be quite comfortable with using a word in a narrow, technical sense, and reaping the PR benefits of having people take it in a more general sense. Technically, they're telling the truth, but they're getting the benefits of having people believe a lie.
Actually from what I read the apology actually went something like this "We are sorry...but it was completely justified and necessary in these times". Which is akin to "We are sorry you are a towel headed muslim and that we didn't catch you trying to blow up the plane this time..."
Actually, it's more akin to "We are sorry, but our lawyers insist that actually admitting that we've done something wrong might make us more liable to a lawsuit, so we're going to make up some reason why what we did really wasn't wrong." This is, of course, self-defeating. Some victims will sue whatever you say - they regard the incident as an opportunity to buy a ticket in the Great American Litigation Lottery. But victims who would otherwise be satisfied with a genuine apology are likely to regard the typical corporate "we're only going to admit the absolute minimum wrongdoing that we think we can get away with" 'apology' as arrogance, and proceed to sue in order to try and knock some of the arrogance out of the company. It's another example of the "PR first, actual effectiveness second" foolishness that is all too pervasive in modern society.
One might do better in not drinking coffee in the first place
Though I'm not a coffee-drinker, I can think of no quicker way to generate a government-overthrowing rebellion than to have that government try to impose a coffee prohibition.
hypocritically judge our fellow man, be hateful of everyone not like oneself, etc.
Based on what I've seen the last few years, anymore the democrats do this just as much as the republicans. The party that used to decry hate now proudly and loudly proclaims their hate for those who differ from them politically. Disdainful ridicule of those who don't agree with them is par for the course(examples of which you can see plenty of places on/.), and Bulverism reigns even more supreme in political discourse (the whole "If you don't vote for Obama, it must be because you're racist" bit is classic Bulverism). While proclaiming "tolerance", they are increasingly intolerant of those who don't accept their worldview, and the term "fundamentalist liberal" is likely to become more and more relevant and descriptive in the times to come. Take the blinders off.
This is why I want to see a 'None of the Above' entry on the ballot. If 'None of the Above' gets a sufficient number of votes, the election has to be re-run, with none of the current candidates eligible. This effectively gets voters out of having to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. And would probably do a number on negative campaigning, as if both candidates' negative campaigning is successful, they've just increased the vote for 'None of the Above'.
They've created a new Section that's giving a new meaning to the term 'SpamAssassin'. They aren't having to recruit operatives from death row, however, as there is a waiting list of mail admins wanting to join up. It's odd, though, how many of them are volunteering for the 'Torture Twins' position.
Reading between the lines, in issuing the subpoena, Shoemaker seems to be trying to determine whether Seidl is, in fact, being compensated by Bayer to act as an agent for their propaganda.
Even if she is being paid by Bayer, what relevance would that have to the case? The contents of her blog is not evidence in the case, it's merely commentary about the case. It's an abuse of process even if his suspicions about her were correct.
Galileo wasn't persecuted because he said the Earth orbited the Sun. They didn't mind that he taught this. What they minded was that at a point where the evidence to prove it wasn't yet in, he insisted on teaching as though his was his was the only valid theory.
This is the second time in the last couple of days that stories hinge on a blatant attempt at Bulverism. Rather than actually argue on the basis of the merits (or the lack thereof) of OOXML, Microsoft is postulating on the potential nefarious motives of their opponents, assuming those motives are true (and relevant), and trying to sweep the arguments of their opponents under the rug on that basis. It's an invalid tactic (even people with bad motives can be right - you find out if they're right by examining their logic and arguments, not by speculating on their motives), but it's alas, too often effective.
Sounds to me like yet another exercise in Bulverism. Rather than actually try to argue with your opponent on the merits, you fantasize some motive on the part of your opponent, and assert that that motive must be throwing your opponent's reasoning off. You saw the same thing with SCO insisting that Groklaw must be being paid by IBM. Actually, this reasoning is irrelevant. Even if the opposition actually is motivated by the fantasy motive, their reasoning could still be correct. You find out if their reasoning is correct by examining it logically, not by speculating about their psychology.
I read your journal entry, and I'll have to admit that at my first reading (focusing on "to intimidate or coerce....the civilian population....or any segment thereof"), I got the impression that it would outlaw modern political parties (including both the Democrats and the Republicans). Somehow, at the time, this didn't seem like such a bad idea.
I'm not worried, because I have a plan. When the fat people come and try to crush me, I'm heading to the nearest stairwell. I'll go up one, maybe two, or even three floors. 30 minutes later, when the fat people have made it to the top of the stairs and caught their breath again
Nice try. Unfortunately for you, some government agency has mandated the installation of elevators in that building. The fat people take the elevator and catch you when you're not looking.
So if a student writes an essay about there being no God, and the teacher is heavy into his/her religion and is disturbed by the essay, then according to the law, the teacher can have the student arrested for disorderly conduct?
It could work the other way, too - a very religious student writes an essay bringing God into an issue, and the teacher is a militant atheist who is offended and has the student arrested. In today's climate, I could see either happening./p
Slashdot Mirror
Practically every time they deal with health on Star Trek.
Oh, wait, you're trying to talk about real doctors on /.?
Depends on what you mean by innovate. The ordinary sense of innovate is to create new technology. The marketing sense of innovate, however, means to add new technology to a product, regardless of whether you've actually invented it yourself or not. Microsoft uses innovate in the marketing sense. Like a lot of marketers, they seem to be quite comfortable with using a word in a narrow, technical sense, and reaping the PR benefits of having people take it in a more general sense. Technically, they're telling the truth, but they're getting the benefits of having people believe a lie.
Y'know, this just might work, seeing that there is such a plentiful supply of jerks on the planet.
Actually, it's more akin to "We are sorry, but our lawyers insist that actually admitting that we've done something wrong might make us more liable to a lawsuit, so we're going to make up some reason why what we did really wasn't wrong." This is, of course, self-defeating. Some victims will sue whatever you say - they regard the incident as an opportunity to buy a ticket in the Great American Litigation Lottery. But victims who would otherwise be satisfied with a genuine apology are likely to regard the typical corporate "we're only going to admit the absolute minimum wrongdoing that we think we can get away with" 'apology' as arrogance, and proceed to sue in order to try and knock some of the arrogance out of the company. It's another example of the "PR first, actual effectiveness second" foolishness that is all too pervasive in modern society.
Arg, that's 'admit', not 'admin'. I hate typos.
Or, as I often put it, our representatives are far more representative than we'd like to admin.
Though I'm not a coffee-drinker, I can think of no quicker way to generate a government-overthrowing rebellion than to have that government try to impose a coffee prohibition.
Ah, their version of Congress.
Please go answer that knock on your door. The Secret Service appear to want to have a little talk with you.
Based on what I've seen the last few years, anymore the democrats do this just as much as the republicans. The party that used to decry hate now proudly and loudly proclaims their hate for those who differ from them politically. Disdainful ridicule of those who don't agree with them is par for the course(examples of which you can see plenty of places on /.), and Bulverism reigns even more supreme in political discourse (the whole "If you don't vote for Obama, it must be because you're racist" bit is classic Bulverism). While proclaiming "tolerance", they are increasingly intolerant of those who don't accept their worldview, and the term "fundamentalist liberal" is likely to become more and more relevant and descriptive in the times to come. Take the blinders off.
This is why I want to see a 'None of the Above' entry on the ballot. If 'None of the Above' gets a sufficient number of votes, the election has to be re-run, with none of the current candidates eligible. This effectively gets voters out of having to make a choice between the lesser of two evils. And would probably do a number on negative campaigning, as if both candidates' negative campaigning is successful, they've just increased the vote for 'None of the Above'.
They've created a new Section that's giving a new meaning to the term 'SpamAssassin'. They aren't having to recruit operatives from death row, however, as there is a waiting list of mail admins wanting to join up. It's odd, though, how many of them are volunteering for the 'Torture Twins' position.
"Imminent Death of the Net predicted. Film at 11."
3) Extinguish --- OOXML rulez. in about 2010 or when the next version of Office Ships.
I've always wondered why the Great Redmond Riots happened in 2010.I think this is more a job for Nikita. Time to create a new section.
When did we start using Daily WTF in-jokes on /.?
Let's just say that things like Spice Girls recordings put the lie to the labeling of copyright as a form of 'intellectual property'.
Galileo wasn't persecuted because he said the Earth orbited the Sun. They didn't mind that he taught this. What they minded was that at a point where the evidence to prove it wasn't yet in, he insisted on teaching as though his was his was the only valid theory.
Does this mean that the T-1000 will be made of rubber, not liquid metal?
This is the second time in the last couple of days that stories hinge on a blatant attempt at Bulverism. Rather than actually argue on the basis of the merits (or the lack thereof) of OOXML, Microsoft is postulating on the potential nefarious motives of their opponents, assuming those motives are true (and relevant), and trying to sweep the arguments of their opponents under the rug on that basis. It's an invalid tactic (even people with bad motives can be right - you find out if they're right by examining their logic and arguments, not by speculating on their motives), but it's alas, too often effective.
Sounds to me like yet another exercise in Bulverism. Rather than actually try to argue with your opponent on the merits, you fantasize some motive on the part of your opponent, and assert that that motive must be throwing your opponent's reasoning off. You saw the same thing with SCO insisting that Groklaw must be being paid by IBM. Actually, this reasoning is irrelevant. Even if the opposition actually is motivated by the fantasy motive, their reasoning could still be correct. You find out if their reasoning is correct by examining it logically, not by speculating about their psychology.
I read your journal entry, and I'll have to admit that at my first reading (focusing on "to intimidate or coerce....the civilian population....or any segment thereof"), I got the impression that it would outlaw modern political parties (including both the Democrats and the Republicans). Somehow, at the time, this didn't seem like such a bad idea.
Nice try. Unfortunately for you, some government agency has mandated the installation of elevators in that building. The fat people take the elevator and catch you when you're not looking.
It could work the other way, too - a very religious student writes an essay bringing God into an issue, and the teacher is a militant atheist who is offended and has the student arrested. In today's climate, I could see either happening./p