A friend and I did some driving on the Autobahn a couple summers ago. We were in the South part of Germany, near Stuttgart, and outside the city, there pretty much weren't any speed limits, except in one or two spots, or where there was construction. Contrary to what you've heard, it's not always congested in those spots, either. Like in the states, it all depends on where you are and what time of day it is. We had this stupid little rental Volkswagen, and managed to push it up to 160 km/h (about 100 mph) the whole time we were on the highway, and traffic was flying past us in the left lane.
While my buddy was passing someone, we saw headlights way the hell back in the distance. What seemed like a couple of seconds later, after he had moved back over into the right lane, a ferrari blew the fuck by us like we weren't even moving, and we were still going 160. Fun times.
Your understanding of the issues surrounding this situation seem to be extremely poor, and the observations made in the post you are defending are equally ignorant and childish.
The situation for the US, or any Western government which might want to get involved militarily in Myanmar today is simple - involve your military today in Myanmar, and you will almost certainly find yourself facing the very threatening military might of China, their strongest ally.
It would require you reading maybe half of one of the dozens of articles written about the Myanmar mess in the last week or so to understand this. I'm actually kind of disgusted with the laziness displayed in this forum, but I guess it's nothing new. Go back to digg or whatever, seriously.
This really isn't anything like those other "wars" though in that there will probably be nothing actively done in this case. It's a popular thing right now in the corporate world right now as well as the government - worst case scenario disaster planning. What you do is you call a meeting, and you pull in members from your various technical teams, and then you ask a roomful of developers and IT staff what their plan is in case - oh, I don't know, there's a global pandemic next week, or a terrorist blows up half of the company's infrastructure, or HACKTIVISTS attack the network.
I work for a University IT department. We've done the first two I mentioned already. Thank god we have a separate network security department so I won't (probably) have to hear about the fucking hactivists any time in the near future.
If you were the most brilliantly qualified candidate ever to apply for a position at a big company, I doubt they would use random anonymous message board comments in their decision of whether or not to hire you; after all, they've learned enough about you through your resume and your interview - they don't need any further information.
Unfortunately, in the real world, most people applying for jobs, especially for nice jobs at big companies, have to compete with many other people with very similar qualifications. A manager might see some of these defamatory comments (some of which, according to the article, were work related) and decide not to bother with you because they have five other candidates without that baggage. That seems to be what happened in this case.
I'm not saying I agree with this as a hiring practice, by the way. I think it's bullshit, and you wouldn't catch me doing it if I were in a position to hire someone. It's unquestionable that it does happen out there, though.
I'm sorry, man, I'm sure you're a nice guy or whatever, but you seriously just took the parent poster's completely awesome house setup idea and turned it into the the most egregious nerd factory even remotely possible - I never would have envisioned, in a million years, that this level of geekery were in any way conceivable.
Seriously, "Always have a case of chilled Bawls" ?? In what horribly warped future is this possibly a maxim?
I don't think it's a good assumption that website citations are generally to be trusted for academic purposes. Wikipedia has requirements that citations from more trusted sources are included in articles - the lawyers in this case really should have known enough to go to those original sources and cite from there instead. You would think they would teach this sort of stuff in law school.
If the articles in question DIDN'T contain citations from other sources, then how could any of the information be trusted at all, given that it was written by one or many basically anonymous users?
Personally, I find Wikipedia to be really useful, but the problem with it from an academic standpoint is that any conclusions arrived at in its articles without citation tend to arise out of the consensus of the user community, and there is really no reason to trust information simply because the majority agrees it is the truth, especially in matters like this one.
The community being gagged refers to the fact that their messages were dropped from the associated mailing list. You probably didn't read the article, huh?
It would be as if you were driving in your car, using a laptop to hack into the department of defense, and then the UK extradited you to the US for committing a crime against the federal government.
The US wants to lock him up because he COMMITTED CRIMES. This should be fairly obvious, I would think, given even a cursory glance at the history of crime and punishment, or even maybe looking up the word "crime" in the dictionary, but evidently that's well beyond the expendable effort of most slashdotters.
You would have to actually sign a contract with the manufacturer in order for this to affect your eBay sales. So, it would only affect you if you were buying 10,000 of the same item from someone and selling ALL of them on eBay.
I know, those two things are, like, totally the same, right? People don't seem to be buying it though - maybe you could spice it up with a car analogy or something.
Let's see, guy with a medical degree who studies cancer for a living, or paranoid, ranting conspiracy theorist (that's you in case you were wondering).
I'm going to be up all night trying to decide which one is more credible here.
It IS new because, hypothetically, this process would not involve the court system. You should try thinking critically and reading articles before opening your big stupid mouth. You might even come up with an original statement that way, rather than the "DURRR! NOT NOOS!" that gets posted here about 500 times a day.
I sort of tend to agree with you; in fact, in most other situations I would completely agree about "viral marketing", but in this case Sony's attempt to talk IM-speak with the kids is the 2006 equivalent of your fat white old teacher trying to rap at you in 1992 because that's what all these crazy kids are doing these days. Except if Sony was your teacher, they'd have a big fucking clock around their neck like Flava Flav and gold rings on every finger, all trying to flash gang signs with their arms crossed over their chest and every other word out of their mouth would be "phat".
And jesus, Sony, you look dumb as hell with your hat on sideways. It's EMBARRASSING.
Are you sure you heard this from a real source? Are you sure that maybe you didn't get drunk and pass out while your television was playing DRAGONBALL Z RERUNS?
You won't see me down there either, probably because I, like you, have gotten too old to get quite that excited about a video game console launch; however, there are hundreds of thousands of days in a lifetime, and I don't really see any particular harm in wasting one or two or a thousand of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget emulators, we should be working towards full utilisation of hardware and not pine for nostalgic.
Who's "we"? Are you a developer?
A friend and I did some driving on the Autobahn a couple summers ago. We were in the South part of Germany, near Stuttgart, and outside the city, there pretty much weren't any speed limits, except in one or two spots, or where there was construction. Contrary to what you've heard, it's not always congested in those spots, either. Like in the states, it all depends on where you are and what time of day it is. We had this stupid little rental Volkswagen, and managed to push it up to 160 km/h (about 100 mph) the whole time we were on the highway, and traffic was flying past us in the left lane.
While my buddy was passing someone, we saw headlights way the hell back in the distance. What seemed like a couple of seconds later, after he had moved back over into the right lane, a ferrari blew the fuck by us like we weren't even moving, and we were still going 160. Fun times.
Your understanding of the issues surrounding this situation seem to be extremely poor, and the observations made in the post you are defending are equally ignorant and childish.
The situation for the US, or any Western government which might want to get involved militarily in Myanmar today is simple - involve your military today in Myanmar, and you will almost certainly find yourself facing the very threatening military might of China, their strongest ally.
It would require you reading maybe half of one of the dozens of articles written about the Myanmar mess in the last week or so to understand this. I'm actually kind of disgusted with the laziness displayed in this forum, but I guess it's nothing new. Go back to digg or whatever, seriously.
And your posturing really isn't helping your argument. You should probably just go ahead and shut up.
I do agree with the point you were making for the most part, but this jumpy, obsessive demand for citation is just ridiculously out of place here.
This really isn't anything like those other "wars" though in that there will probably be nothing actively done in this case. It's a popular thing right now in the corporate world right now as well as the government - worst case scenario disaster planning. What you do is you call a meeting, and you pull in members from your various technical teams, and then you ask a roomful of developers and IT staff what their plan is in case - oh, I don't know, there's a global pandemic next week, or a terrorist blows up half of the company's infrastructure, or HACKTIVISTS attack the network.
I work for a University IT department. We've done the first two I mentioned already. Thank god we have a separate network security department so I won't (probably) have to hear about the fucking hactivists any time in the near future.
If you were the most brilliantly qualified candidate ever to apply for a position at a big company, I doubt they would use random anonymous message board comments in their decision of whether or not to hire you; after all, they've learned enough about you through your resume and your interview - they don't need any further information.
Unfortunately, in the real world, most people applying for jobs, especially for nice jobs at big companies, have to compete with many other people with very similar qualifications. A manager might see some of these defamatory comments (some of which, according to the article, were work related) and decide not to bother with you because they have five other candidates without that baggage. That seems to be what happened in this case.
I'm not saying I agree with this as a hiring practice, by the way. I think it's bullshit, and you wouldn't catch me doing it if I were in a position to hire someone. It's unquestionable that it does happen out there, though.
Why would you expect it to work correctly in the first place if you hadn't paid for it, in which case they DO give you free updates?
Are you seriously complaining because your illegal software doesn't function correctly?
I'm sorry, man, I'm sure you're a nice guy or whatever, but you seriously just took the parent poster's completely awesome house setup idea and turned it into the the most egregious nerd factory even remotely possible - I never would have envisioned, in a million years, that this level of geekery were in any way conceivable.
Seriously, "Always have a case of chilled Bawls" ?? In what horribly warped future is this possibly a maxim?
The kid's phone probably has wireless internet access. Plus, I guess the article is posted online!
In conclusion... INTERNET.
I don't think it's a good assumption that website citations are generally to be trusted for academic purposes. Wikipedia has requirements that citations from more trusted sources are included in articles - the lawyers in this case really should have known enough to go to those original sources and cite from there instead. You would think they would teach this sort of stuff in law school.
If the articles in question DIDN'T contain citations from other sources, then how could any of the information be trusted at all, given that it was written by one or many basically anonymous users?
Personally, I find Wikipedia to be really useful, but the problem with it from an academic standpoint is that any conclusions arrived at in its articles without citation tend to arise out of the consensus of the user community, and there is really no reason to trust information simply because the majority agrees it is the truth, especially in matters like this one.
The community being gagged refers to the fact that their messages were dropped from the associated mailing list. You probably didn't read the article, huh?
It would be as if you were driving in your car, using a laptop to hack into the department of defense, and then the UK extradited you to the US for committing a crime against the federal government.
The US wants to lock him up because he COMMITTED CRIMES. This should be fairly obvious, I would think, given even a cursory glance at the history of crime and punishment, or even maybe looking up the word "crime" in the dictionary, but evidently that's well beyond the expendable effort of most slashdotters.
You would have to actually sign a contract with the manufacturer in order for this to affect your eBay sales. So, it would only affect you if you were buying 10,000 of the same item from someone and selling ALL of them on eBay.
I know, those two things are, like, totally the same, right? People don't seem to be buying it though - maybe you could spice it up with a car analogy or something.
Let's see, guy with a medical degree who studies cancer for a living, or paranoid, ranting conspiracy theorist (that's you in case you were wondering).
I'm going to be up all night trying to decide which one is more credible here.
It IS new because, hypothetically, this process would not involve the court system. You should try thinking critically and reading articles before opening your big stupid mouth. You might even come up with an original statement that way, rather than the "DURRR! NOT NOOS!" that gets posted here about 500 times a day.
I sort of tend to agree with you; in fact, in most other situations I would completely agree about "viral marketing", but in this case Sony's attempt to talk IM-speak with the kids is the 2006 equivalent of your fat white old teacher trying to rap at you in 1992 because that's what all these crazy kids are doing these days. Except if Sony was your teacher, they'd have a big fucking clock around their neck like Flava Flav and gold rings on every finger, all trying to flash gang signs with their arms crossed over their chest and every other word out of their mouth would be "phat".
And jesus, Sony, you look dumb as hell with your hat on sideways. It's EMBARRASSING.
I know quite a few brilliant mathematicians and physicists who don't give a shit about operating systems
Yeah, I know really. I know a lot of astronauts and presidents myself, and ninjas. I haven't been able to get them to care either.
I'm not defending the nullity guy or anything, but wouldn't his new number mean that the "a + b = b" step is really just "nullity = nullity"?
This, of course, leads to the question: What is the fucking point of nullity?
probably resides in another dimension
Are you sure you heard this from a real source? Are you sure that maybe you didn't get drunk and pass out while your television was playing DRAGONBALL Z RERUNS?
Wow, you're like a little joke ruining robot. I think I might "forget" to plug in your recharge cable tonight.
But why would anyone pay for anything, when they can just wait until someone ELSE pays for it and then copy it for free?
Seriously, are YOU going to pay top dollar to have something created, when it would cost you exactly nothing to sponge off someone else?
Aren't there more important things "computer programmers" could be working on?
You won't see me down there either, probably because I, like you, have gotten too old to get quite that excited about a video game console launch; however, there are hundreds of thousands of days in a lifetime, and I don't really see any particular harm in wasting one or two or a thousand of them.
Wasting time is awesome.