I find it really ironic that a Kennedy, of all people, should be warning people about election fraud. Especially with what happened in Chicago when "John F" was "elected".
Well... who better?
BTW, it's not clear that the Democrats are organized enough these days to pull off what they did in Chicago in 1960 (And, as a Democrat who originally comes from Illinois, I am fully willing to admit there were probably irregularites there - probably not as much as folks believe, but...). Plus, the Kennedy election happened about 50 years ago. Should D's be bringing up Teapot Dome or the corruption in the Reconstruction period Republican administrations? If you want to argue the points Kennedy is making, do so. Attacks based on events that happened before the arguer was actually born don't tend to win any debate points.
What I want to know is why hasn't the allmighty war leader of the 2000's found or killed Bin Laden in five years? That's the big question.
And it's the most stupid question that anyone who wants to see this corrupt Congress overturned this November can be asking. What happens when Rove turns up his "dead Osama" "October Surprise"? Even as a lifelong unapologetic liberal Democrat, it pisses me off when supposed allies use this sound bite, playing into the hands of the Executive whenever they actually choose to deal with PE #1. Because the opposite is also a really good sound bite: "Look! We caught Osama!". Think of that happenning on October 22 or so before you go spouting that line again.
Seriously, why is it bad inteligence when clinton acts on bad inteligence, it is reasonable. But Bush gets bad inteligence he's a lier and "he lied and people died" all hell is breaking loose?
Because more and more evidence is coming out that the Bush administration was cherry-picking intelligence that supported the case for war and ignoring that which went against their desire to start it (e.g., the Downing Street memos, Cheney and Wolfowitz's second intelligence group, CIA career vets resigning and testifying that they were forced out because folks like Cheney and Rummy didn't like the news they were hearing, etc.)? As the Bush administration was clearly complicit in their own "bad intelligence" (a less charitable person might say "construction of evidence to get us into a war they already wanted"), I find no reason to let them off the hook. In fact, given their complicity, I do find the situation much worse than Bill Clinton's and fully understand why others do, too. And, BTW, it's "liar".
I think I must have gotten the wrong tickets at the box office; is it too late for me to pick a different show?
You can exchange them early next month. Whether or not another show will be much better than this one is open to debate. One thing is certain, though - it can't be any worse than the one you've got tickets to now. So my recomendation is to exchange when you get the chance.
"It is a double-edged sword, but what we're doing is really for the greater good of the Internet, we're setting up communication networks for black hats..."
If I were them, I'd stay away from the US. We can now use torture to get information about the other 30 exploits. Actually, if I were them, I'd also be looking over my shoulder frequently, as we can use kidnapping and special rendition, too. You know that "black hat" is just a code word for cyber-terrorist!
If they'd come up with a candidate who actually seemed to stand for something instead of just shouting "I'm not Bush, and we all hate Bush" we not be in this whole mess.
If your distaste about voting for someone who does not put forth firm ideas overrides your distaste about voting for someone who is very firm about his bad ideas, don't blame us when you get the bad ideas. Wishy-washy support for good ideas are better than firm support for bad ideas. Or are you just pissed off becaue the guy you obviously didn't vote for was right and you ended up hating Bush, just like all the rest of us? In any case, don't blame the Democrats for your own shortsightedness, your own bullheadedness about "firm ideas", and your own stupidity. That "firm" enough for you?
He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.
Except in the end, he did.
The "anti-torture" bill that was passed still does away with protections of habius corpus and Geneva at the discretion of the President. Plus it still retroactively gives immunity to the folks who might have tortured and (more importantly) the folks who ordered the torture be done. About the only thing it does is to make sure Congress knows about it, too. Real moral "high ground" there. Too bad it's going to get a lot more of our service members tortured after capture in retribution and give the terrorist networks even more recruiting fodder.
Y'all don't think that a rack-mount sequencer style PC (or console) case, together with rack-mount Hi-Fi (and other accessory) units would look the dog's nads?
But the wealthiest 2% can't stand innovation because it is a direct threat to their wealth.
Well, really, no. The real reason why businesses can't stand innovation is because it entails risk. Something new might not work. And that is a corporate sin, especially if you have a tried alternative that will produce a known reasonable outcome. And although I do believe that the income inequities in this country are far too large, in this case the wealthiest 2% is often the source of a lot of VC money that is risk invested.
A project creeps in scope 1% per month? How do you even begin to make this assertion? What is the unit of scope, and how do you measure its creep?
Scope can be reflected in requirements. If the number of requirements goes up 1% per month, you are getting a 1% scope creep. Note that this measure does not take into account differences in complexity between individual requirements - for a more accurate measure one might use function points, number of classes and/or methods needed to implement the functionality, etc. You need a fairly mature process to be able to measure these at all, let alone accurately, but they are available to those who work hard at the process game (now whether or not that actually gets you anywhere is open to debate, but...).
However, the quote of a 1% per month scope creep as a cut off point seems a bit low, especially if taken literally on a month-to-month basis. Across the life of a project, 1% per month may be high, but cutting a project off because its scope has risen 7% in three months of the late analysis or design phases seems a bit excessive, especially if by doing so you have 0% increase during implementation, test, or deployment.
However, at night Ionospheric skip turns the band in to an unlistenable morass of stations all broadcasting on top of one another.
Sheesh. Some people don't have a good loop antenna to null out unwanted signals and then they complain about nighttime AM propagation. Just get the right equipment.:-).
You better be certain that you actually want your IT department being brought to the attention of upper management. An upper management that thinks of you as plumbing doesn't want to think of you beyond plumbing - they have much bigger fish to fry. Forcing them to have to understand what you do lowers your value considerably. Especially if you really think your IT department walks on water. Telling that directly to upper management might make you the target of interesting actions like downsizing/outsourcing because (a) they don't understand what you do (nor do they really want to) and (b) they don't like your attitude. You should consider that your boss might actually be doing you a favor by keeping you out of the spotlight.
If you can't convince the federal government that there's a significant causal connection between vehicle emissions and global warming, you're not likely to be able to convince a judge.
Actually, with this administration and the judges on the 9'th Circuit, they probably have the better chance in front of the judges...
They don't need you crackers getting them embroiled in a bunch of white boy gang wars! Sheesh. Next thing you know you'll be making them choose between emacs and vi.
Doesn't anyone think that the American Architects Association might have some pull with respect to the license terms for something like autocad? Or for funding a competitor with better terms?
You are assuming that the AAA would find it in its best interest to have a low cost AutoCAD clone runnign around. First of all, lowering the cost of tools lowers the barriers to entry for new firms. Existing firms might not like that. Next, you're assuming that the tool is a significant cost for their members, worth the time and hassle of negotiating with, funding, and supporting a group of OSS programmers. Finally, you're assuming that all of this amounts to more than AutoCAD currently provides to the AAA in terms of conference sponsorships, ads in their journals, and corporate membership fees.
In the final analysis, one needs to understand that these proprietary companies provide some positive benefit to the entire software producer-consumer ecosystem and that these benefits to the system comprise a barrier to entry of OSS alternatives. Otherwise, one is working with an incomplete economic model that leads to a much rosier picture for OSS than really exists in the market.
And the name itself has a very interesting history.
In 1969, Terry Hewitt, at the MIT AI Lab, published a program called PLANNER, which used embedded high-level procedural knowledge to represent plans and used backtracking as a major source of control structuring. In the early seventies, McDermott and Sussman published CONNIVER, another program that used the concept of "continuations" to provide control flow. These systems comprised the proto-history of most logic programming languages, but were woefully innefficient. In the mid-seventies, Guy Steele (who was working with Sussman) constructed another system that embedded planning knowledge procedurally (including the retention of continuations), but could be implemented efficiently (thus the focus on proper tail-recursion, simplicity, etc.). Extending the various names given the previous system, he called this one "SCHEMER". The OS in use at the MIT lab at that time truncated filenames to 6 characters, so the user would type the command "SCHEME" (the "R" being elided by the file system) and the shortened name stuck.
1. Don't take a bath with a plugged in toaster. 2. Don't stand behind a car when it's backing down the driveway. 3. Don't use my electric razor on the cat (or dog, or gerbils, or...). 4. When the stove has that jumpy stuff coming out of the cooking part, don't stick your hand in it. 5. Do not put the cat in the freezer because it seems warm. THe cat likes it warm. 6. Even if the cat likes it warm, don't put it in the microwave. 7. Don't put your little brother in the dryer to give him a ride. 8. Even if they're called *safety* pins, you still can't stick them in electrical sockets. 9. Do not take pictures of mommy or daddy in the shower. 10. Television will kill you. Really.
So don't spoil it for me, but it seems like this story is true to real life.
Yes! Because we all know how virtuous most corporate CEOs are. BTW, do not confuse the story with real life on either side. Rand draws nothing but cartoon characters in her stories. And, if you have the misfortune to read her "philosophy", just make sure you understand how stupidly black and white in a world of grays it actually is. Just remember: "A is a".
Slashdot Mirror
Well... who better?
BTW, it's not clear that the Democrats are organized enough these days to pull off what they did in Chicago in 1960 (And, as a Democrat who originally comes from Illinois, I am fully willing to admit there were probably irregularites there - probably not as much as folks believe, but...). Plus, the Kennedy election happened about 50 years ago. Should D's be bringing up Teapot Dome or the corruption in the Reconstruction period Republican administrations? If you want to argue the points Kennedy is making, do so. Attacks based on events that happened before the arguer was actually born don't tend to win any debate points.
Sodium doesn't look a lot like other metals and might be able to get through current metal detectors.
Given the Republicans' predilictions for young boys, maybe we can get Barney to eat him!
And it's the most stupid question that anyone who wants to see this corrupt Congress overturned this November can be asking. What happens when Rove turns up his "dead Osama" "October Surprise"? Even as a lifelong unapologetic liberal Democrat, it pisses me off when supposed allies use this sound bite, playing into the hands of the Executive whenever they actually choose to deal with PE #1. Because the opposite is also a really good sound bite: "Look! We caught Osama!". Think of that happenning on October 22 or so before you go spouting that line again.
You mean other than putting airport security services on heightened alert so that no one actually got away with their plan?
You mean other than upping border security so that a guy having explosives was stopped at the border?
You mean other than telling the CIA at that point that Bin Laden was their number one priority?
Yeah. Nothing... Right. And you wonder why people call you guys (right-) wing-nuts.
Because more and more evidence is coming out that the Bush administration was cherry-picking intelligence that supported the case for war and ignoring that which went against their desire to start it (e.g., the Downing Street memos, Cheney and Wolfowitz's second intelligence group, CIA career vets resigning and testifying that they were forced out because folks like Cheney and Rummy didn't like the news they were hearing, etc.)? As the Bush administration was clearly complicit in their own "bad intelligence" (a less charitable person might say "construction of evidence to get us into a war they already wanted"), I find no reason to let them off the hook. In fact, given their complicity, I do find the situation much worse than Bill Clinton's and fully understand why others do, too. And, BTW, it's "liar".
You can exchange them early next month. Whether or not another show will be much better than this one is open to debate. One thing is certain, though - it can't be any worse than the one you've got tickets to now. So my recomendation is to exchange when you get the chance.
If I were them, I'd stay away from the US. We can now use torture to get information about the other 30 exploits. Actually, if I were them, I'd also be looking over my shoulder frequently, as we can use kidnapping and special rendition, too. You know that "black hat" is just a code word for cyber-terrorist!
If your distaste about voting for someone who does not put forth firm ideas overrides your distaste about voting for someone who is very firm about his bad ideas, don't blame us when you get the bad ideas. Wishy-washy support for good ideas are better than firm support for bad ideas. Or are you just pissed off becaue the guy you obviously didn't vote for was right and you ended up hating Bush, just like all the rest of us? In any case, don't blame the Democrats for your own shortsightedness, your own bullheadedness about "firm ideas", and your own stupidity. That "firm" enough for you?
Yeah, that's what I thought after seeing it, too.
Oh! You didn't intend *that* meaning of "special"...
Except in the end, he did.
The "anti-torture" bill that was passed still does away with protections of habius corpus and Geneva at the discretion of the President. Plus it still retroactively gives immunity to the folks who might have tortured and (more importantly) the folks who ordered the torture be done. About the only thing it does is to make sure Congress knows about it, too. Real moral "high ground" there. Too bad it's going to get a lot more of our service members tortured after capture in retribution and give the terrorist networks even more recruiting fodder.
I think that's the problem...
Well, really, no. The real reason why businesses can't stand innovation is because it entails risk. Something new might not work. And that is a corporate sin, especially if you have a tried alternative that will produce a known reasonable outcome. And although I do believe that the income inequities in this country are far too large, in this case the wealthiest 2% is often the source of a lot of VC money that is risk invested.
Scope can be reflected in requirements. If the number of requirements goes up 1% per month, you are getting a 1% scope creep. Note that this measure does not take into account differences in complexity between individual requirements - for a more accurate measure one might use function points, number of classes and/or methods needed to implement the functionality, etc. You need a fairly mature process to be able to measure these at all, let alone accurately, but they are available to those who work hard at the process game (now whether or not that actually gets you anywhere is open to debate, but...).
However, the quote of a 1% per month scope creep as a cut off point seems a bit low, especially if taken literally on a month-to-month basis. Across the life of a project, 1% per month may be high, but cutting a project off because its scope has risen 7% in three months of the late analysis or design phases seems a bit excessive, especially if by doing so you have 0% increase during implementation, test, or deployment.
Sheesh. Some people don't have a good loop antenna to null out unwanted signals and then they complain about nighttime AM propagation. Just get the right equipment. :-).
You better be certain that you actually want your IT department being brought to the attention of upper management. An upper management that thinks of you as plumbing doesn't want to think of you beyond plumbing - they have much bigger fish to fry. Forcing them to have to understand what you do lowers your value considerably. Especially if you really think your IT department walks on water. Telling that directly to upper management might make you the target of interesting actions like downsizing/outsourcing because (a) they don't understand what you do (nor do they really want to) and (b) they don't like your attitude. You should consider that your boss might actually be doing you a favor by keeping you out of the spotlight.
Actually, with this administration and the judges on the 9'th Circuit, they probably have the better chance in front of the judges...
They don't need you crackers getting them embroiled in a bunch of white boy gang wars! Sheesh. Next thing you know you'll be making them choose between emacs and vi.
So tell me, are you originally from Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Afghanistan?
You are assuming that the AAA would find it in its best interest to have a low cost AutoCAD clone runnign around. First of all, lowering the cost of tools lowers the barriers to entry for new firms. Existing firms might not like that. Next, you're assuming that the tool is a significant cost for their members, worth the time and hassle of negotiating with, funding, and supporting a group of OSS programmers. Finally, you're assuming that all of this amounts to more than AutoCAD currently provides to the AAA in terms of conference sponsorships, ads in their journals, and corporate membership fees.
In the final analysis, one needs to understand that these proprietary companies provide some positive benefit to the entire software producer-consumer ecosystem and that these benefits to the system comprise a barrier to entry of OSS alternatives. Otherwise, one is working with an incomplete economic model that leads to a much rosier picture for OSS than really exists in the market.
And the name itself has a very interesting history.
In 1969, Terry Hewitt, at the MIT AI Lab, published a program called PLANNER, which used embedded high-level procedural knowledge to represent plans and used backtracking as a major source of control structuring. In the early seventies, McDermott and Sussman published CONNIVER, another program that used the concept of "continuations" to provide control flow. These systems comprised the proto-history of most logic programming languages, but were woefully innefficient. In the mid-seventies, Guy Steele (who was working with Sussman) constructed another system that embedded planning knowledge procedurally (including the retention of continuations), but could be implemented efficiently (thus the focus on proper tail-recursion, simplicity, etc.). Extending the various names given the previous system, he called this one "SCHEMER". The OS in use at the MIT lab at that time truncated filenames to 6 characters, so the user would type the command "SCHEME" (the "R" being elided by the file system) and the shortened name stuck.
1. Don't take a bath with a plugged in toaster. ...).
2. Don't stand behind a car when it's backing down the driveway.
3. Don't use my electric razor on the cat (or dog, or gerbils, or
4. When the stove has that jumpy stuff coming out of the cooking part, don't stick your hand in it.
5. Do not put the cat in the freezer because it seems warm. THe cat likes it warm.
6. Even if the cat likes it warm, don't put it in the microwave.
7. Don't put your little brother in the dryer to give him a ride.
8. Even if they're called *safety* pins, you still can't stick them in electrical sockets.
9. Do not take pictures of mommy or daddy in the shower.
10. Television will kill you. Really.
Yes! Because we all know how virtuous most corporate CEOs are. BTW, do not confuse the story with real life on either side. Rand draws nothing but cartoon characters in her stories. And, if you have the misfortune to read her "philosophy", just make sure you understand how stupidly black and white in a world of grays it actually is. Just remember: "A is a".
Oh! He was a corporate CEO!
I can probably find less expensive ways of looking like a dork...