and the North Korean people will have food, water, and clothing in greater quantity and quality than they have had since Kim Jong-il came into power within weeks of their surrender.
Do you, ignorant Americans, realize that North Korea has almost 1/10 of population of your own country? Neither you nor South Korea can "give" them anything -- it's a miracle that they survive in face of your stupid blockade. If they surrender, and their new masters will try to do any kind of "nation building", they would die because you would mess up whatever still supports them.
If I remember correctly, Soyuz and Progress originally didn't have manual docking system, and used automated one to dock with Salyut and Mir. Then, probably to provide more flexibility in emergency situations, manual system was introduced on Mir, and in initial tests it was less reliable than automated one. That was a long time ago, so I guess, manual system was fixed, but automated one remained in use.
Why was manual system involved on the first docking attempt is a mystery for me -- it would make little sense to use it when automated docking is available, and known to work after decades of successful use.
Calling someone a mouth breather doesn't humiliate them, it insults them. Since they are the taxpayers who fund your research, Dr. Science, you ought to be a little more polite.
No, people just have to get accustomed to the idea that if they don't know something they have to rely on those who do. If don't want to trust scientists, nothing prevents them from studying and becoming better scientists themselves, however there is no third option.
Unfortunately, in a democracy, yes, it is their business to make decisions.
Outside US, most people openly acknowledge limitations of their knowledge and experience, and avoid messing with things others can do better. In US, thanks to anti-intellectualism being a part of national ideology, everyone indeed feels that it's his business to form an opinion without learning what he is forming opinion about.
It is their right to make decisions for themselves, since nobody died and left you in charge.
They also have a right to burn houses they own, or to march across NYC in Nazi and KKK uniforms. For some reason few people are stupid enough to do that.
Science isn't supposed to be a religion, although nowadays it often is.
"Nowdays" (actually always) religion exists by pretending to be what science actually is. If people have such a great respect for fake science, it should be expected that they give real science more respect, not less.
Teaching someone how to learn is like fucking them into virginity.
The difference between smart (apparently lacking in this thread) and witty (as seen above) is pretty much the same as between an educated person and someone who cuts and pastes C++ source from tutorial.
In unusual fashion, we just gave up and suggest that the customer run Citrix, because the Citrix users were fine.
Die in a fire.
Two months later I get a note in the ticket saying something to the effect of "we have been informed that these PC's had bad capacitors. PC's have been replaced and the issue went away."
Why should they expend effort to talk to you, if you insult them by calling them mouth breathers?
This is actually a perfectly valid strategy. If people will be humiliated every time they question anything related to science, it will dawn on them that IT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS TO MAKE DECISIONS related to science, and it should be delegated to those who can operate on those concepts without getting laughed out of the room every time they open their mouth.
After all, you don't see stupid people arguing with preachers in churches, do you?
John Harding is an engineering manager at YouTube, focused on bringing the YouTube experience to the rest of the web, as well as other devices like mobile phones and televisions. Before joining Google, John was a lead in the Xbox Advanced Technology Group, helping developers make great games for the Xbox and Xbox 360.
O RLY? A blog entry by a former Microsoft technology promoter, containing massive misrepresentation of HTML5. With discussion threads peppered with Microsoft astroturfers making "witty" comments about open source, that is not even involved in the supposed problem in the first place.
Yes, this is an ad hominem attack -- because there is nothing else to attack here. Tere is no point and no argument other than "I don't like HTML5, and I will just spew random crap about web browsers not being good enough, pretending that I do not work for a company that makes a browser in the first place".
The fact that someone told someone else the outcome of a random event has no effect on probability of other independent random events -- even if they are similar.
It more often works the other way around -- religious person acts selfishly and destructive, expecting that his unwavering belief in god is more important than his actions toward lesser beings, other humans.
No, just to enable massive scams, make all evidence of fraud useless when this "identity" is used, and, of course, to promote the use of sabotaged "secure" hardware that locks out user-modified software.
But who gets to decide? Buddhism: good, Christianity: bad.
All religions are bad. The fact that development of cultures often happened under the umbrellas of religious traditions, does not change the fact that each religion has an unrealistic superstition at its core.
I can see some fundamental First Amendment problems here.
First Amendment does not protect you from being called an idiot -- not even if government calls you so.
Voting is government-originated action that determines the opinion of the public on a particular subject or candidate for public office. It is ordinary, as the voting is a mandatory (and usually the only) way to perform some functions of the political system. There are whole systems (sometimes quite complex and only viable if implemented at the scale of the whole society) to ensure that votes can be counted without revealing individual voters' choices.
Petition is an extraordinary action, it is originated by the members of the public to convince the government to change its actions and policies -- often by overriding the decisions made by elected officials or voting. Since petitions are usually signed by a tiny percentage of the population, there is more burden on petitioners to convince the government that their ideas are reasonable and shared by a somewhat noticeable number of people.
I find it deeply disturbing that the implied statement is, execution somehow does not deny him the mercy of god, yet by murdering his victims he somehow denied those victims the same kind of mercy. Does it mean, god sends souls of murdered people to hell, for being permanendly marred by the murderer's sin?
Slashdot Mirror
and the North Korean people will have food, water, and clothing in greater quantity and quality than they have had since Kim Jong-il came into power within weeks of their surrender.
Do you, ignorant Americans, realize that North Korea has almost 1/10 of population of your own country? Neither you nor South Korea can "give" them anything -- it's a miracle that they survive in face of your stupid blockade. If they surrender, and their new masters will try to do any kind of "nation building", they would die because you would mess up whatever still supports them.
Just my own exprience.
Microsoft astroturfers are certainly feisty today.
If I remember correctly, Soyuz and Progress originally didn't have manual docking system, and used automated one to dock with Salyut and Mir. Then, probably to provide more flexibility in emergency situations, manual system was introduced on Mir, and in initial tests it was less reliable than automated one. That was a long time ago, so I guess, manual system was fixed, but automated one remained in use.
Why was manual system involved on the first docking attempt is a mystery for me -- it would make little sense to use it when automated docking is available, and known to work after decades of successful use.
Calling someone a mouth breather doesn't humiliate them, it insults them. Since they are the taxpayers who fund your research, Dr. Science, you ought to be a little more polite.
No, people just have to get accustomed to the idea that if they don't know something they have to rely on those who do. If don't want to trust scientists, nothing prevents them from studying and becoming better scientists themselves, however there is no third option.
Unfortunately, in a democracy, yes, it is their business to make decisions.
Outside US, most people openly acknowledge limitations of their knowledge and experience, and avoid messing with things others can do better. In US, thanks to anti-intellectualism being a part of national ideology, everyone indeed feels that it's his business to form an opinion without learning what he is forming opinion about.
It is their right to make decisions for themselves, since nobody died and left you in charge.
They also have a right to burn houses they own, or to march across NYC in Nazi and KKK uniforms. For some reason few people are stupid enough to do that.
Science isn't supposed to be a religion, although nowadays it often is.
"Nowdays" (actually always) religion exists by pretending to be what science actually is. If people have such a great respect for fake science, it should be expected that they give real science more respect, not less.
Teaching someone how to learn is like fucking them into virginity.
The difference between smart (apparently lacking in this thread) and witty (as seen above) is pretty much the same as between an educated person and someone who cuts and pastes C++ source from tutorial.
In unusual fashion, we just gave up and suggest that the customer run Citrix, because the Citrix users were fine.
Die in a fire.
Two months later I get a note in the ticket saying something to the effect of "we have been informed that these PC's had bad capacitors. PC's have been replaced and the issue went away."
Your customers should die in a fire, too.
Oh, and, of course, Dell.
Why should they expend effort to talk to you, if you insult them by calling them mouth breathers?
This is actually a perfectly valid strategy. If people will be humiliated every time they question anything related to science, it will dawn on them that IT'S NOT THEIR BUSINESS TO MAKE DECISIONS related to science, and it should be delegated to those who can operate on those concepts without getting laughed out of the room every time they open their mouth.
After all, you don't see stupid people arguing with preachers in churches, do you?
lol wut
The only mentioning of John Harding that can be found on Google that is not a link to this blog entry or some repost of it, is:
http://code.google.com/events/poweredbyyoutube/speakers.html
John Harding
John Harding is an engineering manager at YouTube, focused on bringing the YouTube experience to the rest of the web, as well as other devices like mobile phones and televisions. Before joining Google, John was a lead in the Xbox Advanced Technology Group, helping developers make great games for the Xbox and Xbox 360.
O RLY? A blog entry by a former Microsoft technology promoter, containing massive misrepresentation of HTML5. With discussion threads peppered with Microsoft astroturfers making "witty" comments about open source, that is not even involved in the supposed problem in the first place.
Yes, this is an ad hominem attack -- because there is nothing else to attack here. Tere is no point and no argument other than "I don't like HTML5, and I will just spew random crap about web browsers not being good enough, pretending that I do not work for a company that makes a browser in the first place".
The fact that someone told someone else the outcome of a random event has no effect on probability of other independent random events -- even if they are similar.
Now, to think of some Bushes...
Actually I am a foreigner that happens to dislike your government, the exact person from whom your troops are "protecting" you.
I live in US, do some very productive work, and most likely did more to improve Americans' lives than all your military combined.
Should we also honor mob hitmen?
By "certified" you mean, you don't have university education, right?
No, it's just faint precursor of realization that McDonalds should not exist in the first place.
It more often works the other way around -- religious person acts selfishly and destructive, expecting that his unwavering belief in god is more important than his actions toward lesser beings, other humans.
No, just to enable massive scams, make all evidence of fraud useless when this "identity" is used, and, of course, to promote the use of sabotaged "secure" hardware that locks out user-modified software.
But who gets to decide? Buddhism: good, Christianity: bad.
All religions are bad. The fact that development of cultures often happened under the umbrellas of religious traditions, does not change the fact that each religion has an unrealistic superstition at its core.
I can see some fundamental First Amendment problems here.
First Amendment does not protect you from being called an idiot -- not even if government calls you so.
Voting is government-originated action that determines the opinion of the public on a particular subject or candidate for public office. It is ordinary, as the voting is a mandatory (and usually the only) way to perform some functions of the political system. There are whole systems (sometimes quite complex and only viable if implemented at the scale of the whole society) to ensure that votes can be counted without revealing individual voters' choices.
Petition is an extraordinary action, it is originated by the members of the public to convince the government to change its actions and policies -- often by overriding the decisions made by elected officials or voting. Since petitions are usually signed by a tiny percentage of the population, there is more burden on petitioners to convince the government that their ideas are reasonable and shared by a somewhat noticeable number of people.
So basically it's "whatever we don't like".
Recently some supposedly officially recognized US group listed China as a "failed state" -- with pretty much the same explanation.
Springtime! For Hitler! and Germany!
Trolls? In my Slashdot?
So basically your argument is "They are lying!".
Good job, loser.
I find it deeply disturbing that the implied statement is, execution somehow does not deny him the mercy of god, yet by murdering his victims he somehow denied those victims the same kind of mercy. Does it mean, god sends souls of murdered people to hell, for being permanendly marred by the murderer's sin?
So I can become Uwe Boll of photography?