Maybe the Navy is arguing that they had 38 seats that could be active at one time. Maybe they installed the software on 550k machines...
Which is why this lawsuit should serve as a warning: make sure your contract is bullet proof and crystal clear, because this contract obviously somehow failed to be.
Yeah, but the point is that the truth was in fact infinitely malleable. You put such different things on the same footing that it appears you subscribe to the idea that the truth is infinitely malleable. It is not. There are absolute facts.
Obviously there are. But if you give government the power to determine what those absolute facts are, government will massively abuse it and decide what is true not based on objective criteria, but based on what serves the political elite and their cronies.
Your second error is in assuming that schools should necessarily only teach scientific truth. That may be what a technocrat believes, but it is a premise that neither conservatives nor progressives generally accept. I suggest you read Asimov's "Reason" for one explanation.
Pretty clear.
As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.
We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.
And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.
No, there were no facts, no truth. Everything was malleable. That is what you seen to be arguing for.
In 1984, "the truth" was malleable only for the state; as far as the citizens were concerned, what the state said was truth, under penalty of law. That's what you are arguing for: giving government officials the power to determine what is true and what is false. And they will invariably use that power as they did in 1984, namely to shape the truth in ways that serves their interests.
I said "counterfactual", not "counterfactual conditional".
You did. But as a scientific theory, creationism isn't "counterfactual", it is simply wrong. Creationism can also be "counterfactual". For example, it is "counterfactual" in a sentence like "if creationism were true, God might have encoded the Bible in human DNA".
Look, when I was a kid, conservatives wanted balanced budgets, small government, and slow change
Well, and elsewhere "conservatives" want big government and massive debt for building up the military. Yet elsewhere, conservatives want to bring back the Catholic monarchy, as quickly as possible. "Conservatism" isn't a well-defined concepts.
I have a lot more trouble with modern Republicans. I don't really know where they're coming form. It isn't conservativism.
Of course it isn't. US parties don't map neatly onto particular voting blocs or ideologies or European parliamentary parties. US "parties" are temporary alliances of a handful of ideologies each, their party programs are compromises between different groups, and there are massive shifts every now and then as groups move between the parties.
So, conservatives aren't what you think they are, and the Republican party isn't the conservative party.
There's plenty of bullshit - and truth - to go around. Dismissing others out of hand because of your elitism
I'm dismissing Ann Jones and Mark Manson because I grew up in Europe and know that they are full of it. And talking about "elitism", it's those people who are part of the elite of this country, and it is those people who demand policies that serve elites like them.
is supposedly what got Trump elected in the 1st place
And... so? Your point being what?
As for all those economic texts you presumably have read, what good has it done any country?
You mean what good have free markets and liberalism done countries? As opposed to the proto-fascist/socialist bullshit Ann Jones and Mark Manson are advocating? Are you serious? Have you looked at history?
Well, you certainly typify the post factual age. There are no facts. Welcome to 1984.
In 1984, the truth of facts was determined by the state. That's what you are arguing for and what I'm arguing against.
because you are putting creationism on the same level as science
What I am doing is standing up for the traditional liberal idea that parents have a right to determine what their kids learn, and that it isn't the job of government or voters to determine the truth of scientific statements.
counterfactual adjective 1. relating to or expressing what has not happened or is not the case.
That is technically true, but the term is more specific than that; meaning, you aren't using it correctly.
It is counter factual to teach things which are not only not facts but clearly utterly untrue.
In a free society, it should be up to parents to decide what their children are taught, and that includes the choice of teaching them things that others don't believe to be true. (And you need to look up "counterfactual".)
The fact that Trump and the GOP are ignorant nitwits doesn't mean that Ann Jones, Mark Manson, or, for that matter, you, aren't ignorant nitwits as well, as you indeed are.
Instead of me trying to make sense of your incoherent babbling, I suggest you simply look up what political ideologies exist in the US and how they map onto political parties:
That's bullshit, plain and simple. Those nutjobs wanting to teach creationism are objectivley less factual than those not wanting to because "science".
There is nothing inconsistent or "less factual" about simultaneously believing that creationism is unscientific and allowing it to be taught in schools. It isn't the job of voters to determine the truth of theories of creation.
So why just make up random shit then?
What are you talking about? I haven't "made up shit" on Hillary, and the bulk of what people accused her of in the election was valid.
I wonder what you'll make of this - it certainly won't go over well with Trump & the people who elected him
You mean what do I make of a piece of political propaganda written by someone who writes books on how to pick up women for a living? A piece filled with illogic, platitudes, and elitism? A piece that reduces economic and social developments to cherry-picked statistics? There really is no point in even responding to this crap. I suggest you pick up some real books on economics, history, politics, and social science.
You're right: the current election is relevant to this. Hillary promised to continue and expand Obama's policies of implementing more European-style social welfare policies, and the supposed beneficiaries of her policies didn't buy it: blue collar workers were massively put off, and the young, and the elderly were unenthused. It somehow dawned on them that minimum wage, ACA, and higher energy costs are not in their interest. If the Republicans had put up a decent candidate instead of the inexperienced, illiberal jerk they did, Hillary's loss would have been massive.
Finally, as a European immigrant let me say one more thing: the statement that "The US is a young country. Culturally, we are teenagers — just a couple generations out of our golden years of innocence." is bullshit. The US is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world and its legal and political tradition go back to the Magna Carta. European democracies are, for the most part, immature and unproven, created hastily within the last 100 years.
Well I know what she claims but all I know about what you claim is that she is wrong - which was Trump's refutation strategy against Clinton.
You said "who disparage anything outside America but have never bothered to live anywhere else", and I simply pointed out that my disparagement of Europe was based on first hand experience. If you wanted more sources, all you did was ask for it. Your reference to Trump and Clinton is utterly gratuitous.
Also, she's making the claim for Norway, not all Europe so your claim of growing up in Europe contradicting what she wrote is like someone saying that life in poor areas of Louisiana sucks and having the Khardashians refute it by saying "we grew up in America and our life is great"
She is extolling the virtues of "social democracy" using Norway as an example. But the nice things about Norway (and there are plenty) are not the result of "social democracy", they are a result of the fact that Norway is an ethnically and culturally uniform country of 5 million people with vast amounts of land and a $25000/year/person windfall from oil revenue. So, you are exactly right: the Norwegian experience is not representative of social democracy, which is why you and she shouldn't cherry-pick it.
She also doesn't seem to understand Norway or its culture very much and her analysis is superficial and biased in the way privileged American expats tend to look at the world, in particular if they have a progressive bend. If you want to get a somewhat more realistic perspective on the Nordic model, there are plenty of books and papers; "The Almost Nearly Perfect People" by Booth might be an OK start.
I did not specify "center-left" only social democracies. How many Euro countries fall under that definition?
The term "social democracy" refers to a center-left political ideology that combines aspects of socialism with a nominal commitment to democracy.
The term "social" is used in other contexts to mean other things; for example, when used in the context of a "social welfare state" and a "social market economy", it ceases to refer to specifically to left-wing concepts.
If Ann Jones can be ignored then so can a lot of rich opinionated assholes who disparage anything outside America but have never bothered to live anywhere else. Why shouldn't I start by ignoring their drivel?
There are plenty of rich, opinionated assholes going around across all political orientations. The "rich opinionated asshole" we're talking about here is Ann Jones. As someone who grew up in Europe and emigrated to the US, I can only tell you that she is a political hack and that what she says is bullshit.
I don't know when that labeled began to be applied to the Euro countries or by whom but it's clear one side doesn't truly understand the advanced social democracies and the other doesn't care to
That "label" is something social democratic movements applied to themselves. That is, European socialists, facing failure of their movement, tried to figure out whether they could tone down their message to stay relevant, and they came up with "democratic socialism" and "social democracy".
Identifying the "Euro countries" with "social democracies" is an error. Only a third of Europe is currently governed by center-left governments. Conservative governments in Europe certainly agree with progressive governments on elitism and illiberalism, but they are otherwise usually as right-wing as US Republicans.
As for Ann Jones's article on Norway, she is simply a rich, stupid American political hack, writing patronizing and ignorant articles about European countries. You can safely ignore her and her drivel.
At least you admit the whole Trump campaign was post-factual.
Campaigning isn't about facts or rational discussion, it's about persuasion. Campaigns are never factual. Progressive and Democratic uses of concepts like "science" and "rational" are no more related to reality or facts than social conservative and Republican uses of "Christianity" and "nation". That doesn't mean one shouldn't speak out when Democrats and progressives actually get facts and reason wrong (which they constantly do), just like Christians should speak out against misuse of Christianity by conservatives.
The weird thing is not only do you still support it, you also have your own fan-fiction version of history where Hillary is to blame for thing before she was even active.
I have no idea what you are referring to. Maybe you missed it, but Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, a Senator, and a politically active First Lady, not to mention her deep involvement with "charities" and Wall St. There is a lot she can be blamed for.
No, he isn't "technically correct": he claims that Americans have the right to bear arms only because the Bill of Rights grants it. That is fundamentally wrong.
You are trying to sneer down with contempt, as is evident with your mistaken aspersions towards foreign constitutions,
I grew up in Europe; its constitutions are not foreign to me. And yes, I do sneer at them, but that has nothing to do with SuricoRaven's error.
Many things in the US Constitution were ill-thought out and expressed, as everyone should admit.
The US Constitution has created a country that has remained free and democratic for more than two centuries; and it is the way it is because it was politically realistic.
The Notorious RBG was right. There are better models.
The Notorious RBG is a political hack, but at least she'll have to deal with her folly as she drags her aching body out of bed and limps into her office every day hoping against hope that she'll make it until the next Democratic president.
Those are not conservative values; they are values held by a subset of Republicans. The Republican party is a coalition of Christian conservatives, economic liberals, some libertarians, and a select group of influential professions. But the Republican party is not a "conservative" party. The Democratic party is a coalition of progressives, socialists, social liberals, and a different, select group of influential professions.
Other than that, we like small government and support states' rights
Spare me your ill-informed and stupid sarcasm and partisanship and learn something about US politics before commenting. Both parties have cosntituencies that favor and that oppose gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization, school prayer, and many other divisive factors. Hillary Clinton herself strongly opposed gay marriage until just a couple of years ago, when it became politically expedient for her to switch sides.
Americans have those rights under the constitution because of the Bill of Rights. That's what the bill does: It added the first ten amendments. Before the bill of rights, those amendments did not exist, therefore Americans cannot possible have already had those rights under the constitution.
You are thinking like a European, where a Constitution defines specific limited rights to the people. That's not how the US Constitution works. The US Constitution is one of limited government powers. That is, Americans have all rights that have not been explicitly limited through granting a specific power to government.
That is, other constitutions add rights, while the US Constitution subtracts rights (by granting powers to government).
Sun Microsystems officially open-sourced Java on November 13, 2006... "The source code for Java was available to all from the first day it was released in 1995,"
Although Java was nominally made available under an open source license, Sun/Oracle retained intellectual property that allowed them to sue people for independent implementations. That's not truly open source. Java's so-called "open sourcing" was an intellectual property trap. Sun's proprietary control over Java and their hostility to third-party implementations also hurt the platform technically.
What we wanted out of that was for the community to help with security analysis, bug reporting, performance enhancement, understanding corner cases, and a whole lot more. It was very successful." Java's original license, Gosling says, [Gosling] sees the [2006] open-sourcing as beneficial.
Yes, what Sun wanted was for thousands of Java contributors to work for free for Sun, and then monetize the value of those contributions. That was certainly "beneficial" to Sun and to Gosling's personal fortune.
Everybody else would have been better off, however, if people had realized from day one that Java was going to remain a proprietary platform and had contributed their efforts to actually free and open platforms instead of advancing Sun's corporate agenda.
The only way Obama could have been considered a liberal is if he was being compared to hardline conservative
Obama isn't a "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word, he is a US-style "liberal", i.e., an authoritarian progressive technocrat.
Just because the GOP loudmouths were labeling him a socialist for months before he was elected didn't make it true.
The confusion between "socialists" and "social democrats" is something Democrats themselves engaged in when they incorrectly referred to the Nordic countries as "socialist". Don't blame the GOP for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why this lawsuit should serve as a warning: make sure your contract is bullet proof and crystal clear, because this contract obviously somehow failed to be.
Obviously there are. But if you give government the power to determine what those absolute facts are, government will massively abuse it and decide what is true not based on objective criteria, but based on what serves the political elite and their cronies.
Your second error is in assuming that schools should necessarily only teach scientific truth. That may be what a technocrat believes, but it is a premise that neither conservatives nor progressives generally accept. I suggest you read Asimov's "Reason" for one explanation.
As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.
And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.
In 1984, "the truth" was malleable only for the state; as far as the citizens were concerned, what the state said was truth, under penalty of law. That's what you are arguing for: giving government officials the power to determine what is true and what is false. And they will invariably use that power as they did in 1984, namely to shape the truth in ways that serves their interests.
You did. But as a scientific theory, creationism isn't "counterfactual", it is simply wrong. Creationism can also be "counterfactual". For example, it is "counterfactual" in a sentence like "if creationism were true, God might have encoded the Bible in human DNA".
Well, and elsewhere "conservatives" want big government and massive debt for building up the military. Yet elsewhere, conservatives want to bring back the Catholic monarchy, as quickly as possible. "Conservatism" isn't a well-defined concepts.
Of course it isn't. US parties don't map neatly onto particular voting blocs or ideologies or European parliamentary parties. US "parties" are temporary alliances of a handful of ideologies each, their party programs are compromises between different groups, and there are massive shifts every now and then as groups move between the parties.
So, conservatives aren't what you think they are, and the Republican party isn't the conservative party.
I'm dismissing Ann Jones and Mark Manson because I grew up in Europe and know that they are full of it. And talking about "elitism", it's those people who are part of the elite of this country, and it is those people who demand policies that serve elites like them.
And... so? Your point being what?
You mean what good have free markets and liberalism done countries? As opposed to the proto-fascist/socialist bullshit Ann Jones and Mark Manson are advocating? Are you serious? Have you looked at history?
Great! You recognize that public borrowing and excessive spending are a problem. Now have a good look at where the debt is actually coming from.
In 1984, the truth of facts was determined by the state. That's what you are arguing for and what I'm arguing against.
What I am doing is standing up for the traditional liberal idea that parents have a right to determine what their kids learn, and that it isn't the job of government or voters to determine the truth of scientific statements.
That is technically true, but the term is more specific than that; meaning, you aren't using it correctly.
True, nothing excludes me. But my status of nitwittiness is as irrelevant as Trumps to the truth of Ann Jones's or Mark Markson's or your bullshit.
And because you think Trump's staff lies and panders, it's OK for you to do the same thing? I don't think so.
In a free society, it should be up to parents to decide what their children are taught, and that includes the choice of teaching them things that others don't believe to be true. (And you need to look up "counterfactual".)
They certainly seem to around here.
The fact that Trump and the GOP are ignorant nitwits doesn't mean that Ann Jones, Mark Manson, or, for that matter, you, aren't ignorant nitwits as well, as you indeed are.
Instead of me trying to make sense of your incoherent babbling, I suggest you simply look up what political ideologies exist in the US and how they map onto political parties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is nothing inconsistent or "less factual" about simultaneously believing that creationism is unscientific and allowing it to be taught in schools. It isn't the job of voters to determine the truth of theories of creation.
What are you talking about? I haven't "made up shit" on Hillary, and the bulk of what people accused her of in the election was valid.
You mean what do I make of a piece of political propaganda written by someone who writes books on how to pick up women for a living? A piece filled with illogic, platitudes, and elitism? A piece that reduces economic and social developments to cherry-picked statistics? There really is no point in even responding to this crap. I suggest you pick up some real books on economics, history, politics, and social science.
You're right: the current election is relevant to this. Hillary promised to continue and expand Obama's policies of implementing more European-style social welfare policies, and the supposed beneficiaries of her policies didn't buy it: blue collar workers were massively put off, and the young, and the elderly were unenthused. It somehow dawned on them that minimum wage, ACA, and higher energy costs are not in their interest. If the Republicans had put up a decent candidate instead of the inexperienced, illiberal jerk they did, Hillary's loss would have been massive.
Social democracy has received a stinging rebuke across Europe as well, replaced by conservatives (often Christian conservatives). Note that in Europe, red means social democrat, and blue means conservative, the way it's supposed to be.
Finally, as a European immigrant let me say one more thing: the statement that "The US is a young country. Culturally, we are teenagers — just a couple generations out of our golden years of innocence." is bullshit. The US is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world and its legal and political tradition go back to the Magna Carta. European democracies are, for the most part, immature and unproven, created hastily within the last 100 years.
You said "who disparage anything outside America but have never bothered to live anywhere else", and I simply pointed out that my disparagement of Europe was based on first hand experience. If you wanted more sources, all you did was ask for it. Your reference to Trump and Clinton is utterly gratuitous.
She is extolling the virtues of "social democracy" using Norway as an example. But the nice things about Norway (and there are plenty) are not the result of "social democracy", they are a result of the fact that Norway is an ethnically and culturally uniform country of 5 million people with vast amounts of land and a $25000/year/person windfall from oil revenue. So, you are exactly right: the Norwegian experience is not representative of social democracy, which is why you and she shouldn't cherry-pick it.
She also doesn't seem to understand Norway or its culture very much and her analysis is superficial and biased in the way privileged American expats tend to look at the world, in particular if they have a progressive bend. If you want to get a somewhat more realistic perspective on the Nordic model, there are plenty of books and papers; "The Almost Nearly Perfect People" by Booth might be an OK start.
You are a credit to your country.
Yes, I had looked up her CV as well: she's a prominent US intellectual and academic in the humanities.
The term "social democracy" refers to a center-left political ideology that combines aspects of socialism with a nominal commitment to democracy.
The term "social" is used in other contexts to mean other things; for example, when used in the context of a "social welfare state" and a "social market economy", it ceases to refer to specifically to left-wing concepts.
There are plenty of rich, opinionated assholes going around across all political orientations. The "rich opinionated asshole" we're talking about here is Ann Jones. As someone who grew up in Europe and emigrated to the US, I can only tell you that she is a political hack and that what she says is bullshit.
That "label" is something social democratic movements applied to themselves. That is, European socialists, facing failure of their movement, tried to figure out whether they could tone down their message to stay relevant, and they came up with "democratic socialism" and "social democracy".
Identifying the "Euro countries" with "social democracies" is an error. Only a third of Europe is currently governed by center-left governments. Conservative governments in Europe certainly agree with progressive governments on elitism and illiberalism, but they are otherwise usually as right-wing as US Republicans.
As for Ann Jones's article on Norway, she is simply a rich, stupid American political hack, writing patronizing and ignorant articles about European countries. You can safely ignore her and her drivel.
Campaigning isn't about facts or rational discussion, it's about persuasion. Campaigns are never factual. Progressive and Democratic uses of concepts like "science" and "rational" are no more related to reality or facts than social conservative and Republican uses of "Christianity" and "nation". That doesn't mean one shouldn't speak out when Democrats and progressives actually get facts and reason wrong (which they constantly do), just like Christians should speak out against misuse of Christianity by conservatives.
I have no idea what you are referring to. Maybe you missed it, but Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, a Senator, and a politically active First Lady, not to mention her deep involvement with "charities" and Wall St. There is a lot she can be blamed for.
No, he isn't "technically correct": he claims that Americans have the right to bear arms only because the Bill of Rights grants it. That is fundamentally wrong.
I grew up in Europe; its constitutions are not foreign to me. And yes, I do sneer at them, but that has nothing to do with SuricoRaven's error.
The US Constitution has created a country that has remained free and democratic for more than two centuries; and it is the way it is because it was politically realistic.
The Notorious RBG is a political hack, but at least she'll have to deal with her folly as she drags her aching body out of bed and limps into her office every day hoping against hope that she'll make it until the next Democratic president.
No, not really.
Those are not conservative values; they are values held by a subset of Republicans. The Republican party is a coalition of Christian conservatives, economic liberals, some libertarians, and a select group of influential professions. But the Republican party is not a "conservative" party. The Democratic party is a coalition of progressives, socialists, social liberals, and a different, select group of influential professions.
Spare me your ill-informed and stupid sarcasm and partisanship and learn something about US politics before commenting. Both parties have cosntituencies that favor and that oppose gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization, school prayer, and many other divisive factors. Hillary Clinton herself strongly opposed gay marriage until just a couple of years ago, when it became politically expedient for her to switch sides.
You are thinking like a European, where a Constitution defines specific limited rights to the people. That's not how the US Constitution works. The US Constitution is one of limited government powers. That is, Americans have all rights that have not been explicitly limited through granting a specific power to government.
That is, other constitutions add rights, while the US Constitution subtracts rights (by granting powers to government).
Although Java was nominally made available under an open source license, Sun/Oracle retained intellectual property that allowed them to sue people for independent implementations. That's not truly open source. Java's so-called "open sourcing" was an intellectual property trap. Sun's proprietary control over Java and their hostility to third-party implementations also hurt the platform technically.
Yes, what Sun wanted was for thousands of Java contributors to work for free for Sun, and then monetize the value of those contributions. That was certainly "beneficial" to Sun and to Gosling's personal fortune.
Everybody else would have been better off, however, if people had realized from day one that Java was going to remain a proprietary platform and had contributed their efforts to actually free and open platforms instead of advancing Sun's corporate agenda.
Obama isn't a "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word, he is a US-style "liberal", i.e., an authoritarian progressive technocrat.
The confusion between "socialists" and "social democrats" is something Democrats themselves engaged in when they incorrectly referred to the Nordic countries as "socialist". Don't blame the GOP for this.