Okay, the Post included that point in other articles, just not that one. From This article:
The next day, as terrorist bombs killed more than 200 commuters on rail lines in Madrid, the White House approved the executive order without any signature from the Justice Department certifying its legality. Comey responded by drafting his letter of resignation, effective the next day, March 12. And from this one:
First, they tried to coerce a man in intensive care -- a man so sick he had transferred the reins of power to Mr. Comey -- to grant them legal approval. Having failed, they were willing to defy the conclusions of the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance without Justice's authorization.
Thanks for the link -- I saw Comey's testimony on PBS yesterday but hadn't seen a writeup. But even here, the Post seems to have left out one of the most important parts. From the article:
"I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man," Comey told the quiet chamber. His voice grew thick and he cleared his throat as he explained how he prepared to resign. "I couldn't stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis." Kinda makes it sound like Comey made those two statements one right after the other -- if you didn't know better, you might think he has saying that the "effort to take advantage of a very sick man" was the reason he resigned. But there was a pretty crucial (imho) bit in between: it was after he said that he'd learned that, despite the whole hospital-room drama, the illegal spying program had been re-authorized anyway -- without Justice Department approval -- then came the "I couldn't stay..." sentence.
Dude. Really. What the hell are you talking about? Are you reading what I write at all, or just flaming randomly?
I didn't ask why you think the economy is in trouble. I didn't challenge that claim; in fact, I agreed with it. I haven't challenged your knowledge or expertise on the matter in any way. I asked what made you think you know so much about me?, and specifically, what made you think that I was unaware of such issues, given that I hadn't said anything of the kind. Did I miss an article in the WSJ or Fortune that stated "Slashdot user 'David Gould' is an idiot who knows nothing about Capitalism."? Or was that in one of your brokers' presentations? Your shareholder reports?
Sigh. And now you seem to think I'm a "Bushie", which (again) couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
Next thing you know you will try to tell me the US economy is doing great right now - when even the WSJ admits it isn't. Absolutely not, far from it. I'm very concerned about our economy for so many reasons I wouldn't know where to start. But since it's so far off-topic, I guess there's no need to try.
But you've just done it again, so I have to ask: where do you get this shit from? Was there something in either of my posts that seemed to indicate that I would have that opinion? Or are you just assuming that I must believe that, simply because of how stupid that would make me? Similarly, re. your previous reply to my first post: on what basis did you think you could deduce anything about how much stock I do or don't own?
At one point I owned more than 1 percent of all the shares in (at last count) three separate public firms - not that it matters. Okay, now that is impressive -- yes, a stake that can be expressed as a percentage (without more than one decimal place) of the whole company would certainly meet my (subjective, informal) definition of a "major investor". Why didn't you say so in the first place?
oh, I doubt you have more than $10,000 invested in any individual firms. hahahahahaha! Okay -- how wrong you are on that isn't the point (though it is funny)...
so I think we can just ignore you, since you know little about actual investing. But then, I'm not claiming to be any sort of big-shot either. And that's exactly the point: "major investor", to me, would mean someone who holds enough that his voice actually matters at the shareholder meeting -- not in the sense of one vote in a Presidential election, but individually. $10,000 a lot to have in a single stock? You could have that many shares and still not count as one of the "big boys". (And note, I did allow for the possibility that you were talking about tens of thousands of total shares, which could make you a "major" investor in the sector if not in any individual stock -- in which case I'd have misunderstood your use of the word "many", as opposed to disagreeing with your use of "major".)
But, hey -- that's just my primitive 21st Century perspective -- I'm sure you guys do things differently in the 22nd.
In the 22nd Century (now) Uh... What? Better check your calendar again.
I am a major investor in utilities, power companies, oil firms and their suppliers - holding usually 100 to 500 shares in many such firms Again... Huh? A 3-digit number of shares makes a "major" investor? I suppose your/. UID is "low" too. Or, by "many such firms", do you mean "over 100" of them?
Not to mention that the stereotypical "Soccer Mom" who drives a top-heavy 3-ton Suburban Assault Vehicle and raves about how "I feel so much safer with all this extra metal around me" also lacks any understanding of high-school physics and hence expects it to corner just like her old Civic. End result: it's actually far less safe even for her, let alone the rest of us.
(Yes, yes, the "Soccer Mom" thing is a stereotype -- no need to pick on them specifically. But from the number of upside-down SAVs I see on freeway ramps, it applies to lots of drivers of those monstrosities. And yes, this is a subjective impression, not based on actual accident statistics. But wasn't the original question, why do [people like me] feel that way about them?)
Wouldn't it be more useful to look at the stats for Internet Explorer than those for Firefox? I'm sure many Europeans use Opera or Safari, besides just Firefox? I guess that sort of depends on what you're interested in tracking: the death of IE, or the growth of Firefox.
Good grief, when will people here STOP quoting wikipedia as an authority. That definition of Square is utterly worthless. More shocking is that anyone (on slashdot, yet) would find it necessary to cite any source for a definition of a square.
I would totally go for the green skin if it meant that, sans other food, I could survive longer at 'low speed' Check out this story: The Green Leopard Plague.
Very short synopsis: it explores the idea of a genetic modification enabling exactly that: humans with photosynthetic skin, and the social / political / economic effects of such a development. (In the story, the first version of the mod is delivered through a genetically modified virus, which works almost perfectly, producing green spots instead of uniformly green skin -- hence the title.)
It goes light on the actual science (wisely, IMO), but gives enough to sound at least vaguely plausible. The claim is that, even if it couldn't completely replace the need for food, it would be enough to "take the edge off" of brief periods of starvation, enough so as to make famine a far, far less devastating force. As one of the characters says: "The bad guys don't get to use starvation as a weapon anymore! Famine ends! One of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse dies, right here, right now".
I have never heard anybody pronounce "XUL" any way other that "zool". Literally never. Not once. I'm one of the only people I know who says "ess cue elle" instead of "sequel", but even I've given up on XUL. It's pronounced "XUL".
There's no rule that acronyms can't be pronounced as the words they spell out. It's interesting how some acronyms enter the language as phonetically-created words and some stay pronounced as initials -- it sort of seems to correspond with how phonetically-pronounceable the letter-sequence is, but there are enough exceptions (both ways) that even that hardly seems to be a real rule.
Ironic? I'm not sure. Sounds like justice to me. DRM does mean "inferior quality", just not inferior sound quality. That's not irony? Consumers who've been too non-technical to hate DRM for all the real reasons might suddenly start hating it for the one possible reason that's actually not valid? Due to that very same technical ignorance?
Ultimately, if consumers don't understand the difference, it's probably just as well that they have a vague notion that "DRM=inferior". Exactly my point -- I just wonder if this was Steve Jobs' intention, or just a happy (for us) side-effect. Seems a bit of a stretch, but if it was intentional, then I must say, he's earned a few points toward God-hood (even as the rest of us are still ranting about how evil he is for not having dropped DRM completely, from all the music and movies, as if he even could do that all at once, without making deals with each label/studio one at a time).
My point was that, sure, people like us understand that these two features (lack of DRM, and higher bit-rate) are completely independent of each other. But what about the "typical consumer"? The ones to whom we've been trying in vain to explain the issues of DRM for all these years. Imagine this conversation:
non-geek friend: Hey what's the deal with these "Premium" tracks on the iTunes Store? Slashdotter: Oh, you saw that? Yeah, it's great -- they've finally started selling music DRM-free! friend: "DRM"? Oh yeah, I know you've been ranting about that for years, but I still don't see what the big deal is. I mean, I've been able to copy my music to my iPod just fine. Slashdotter:... Slashdotter: The Premium version sounds better. friend: Oh, is that what "DRM-free" means!? Why didn't you say so!?
I don't know if it's intentional, but wouldn't it be ironic if this move ends up having the effect of creating the perception in consumers' minds that: "DRM equals inferior quality"?
-- [1] As it is written in The Book Of Slashdot: "Thou shalt never ask 'Will this use of sarcasm and/or irony prove too subtle for some readers?', for the answer to that question is always 'yes'." Hail, and Ramen.
They might be trying to distinguish these new DRM-free tracks as being "Premium" so that consumers don't get confused about what the difference is between DRMed and non-DRMed music.
So, the difference is that the non-DRMed version sounds better, right?
Btw, I still can't tell if the title for this story is supposed to warrant "In Soviet Russia" jokes, or "In South Korea, only old people..." jokes. In South Korea, only old people make "In Soviet Russia" jokes.
In the 29th century, it'll be worn on your wrist. In the 33rd century, it'll be an implant... WTF!? Eight centuries to reduce a 20-lb table-top unit to wristwatch-size? Another four centuries after that for implants? Dude: The 19th Century wants its rate of technological progress back.
Try this: In the 2010's, it'll be carried on a shoulder strap. In the '20s, it'll be worn on your wrist. In the '30s, it'll be an implant.
I can't stand how the word "majority" has in recent years disappeared from our language and been replaced by the phrase "vast majority" (at least in any context that's even remotely political).
This may sound like mere linguistic pedantry, but it really isn't -- this usage both feeds, and is part of, the trend toward polarization and "extremification" (yes, afaik, I just made up that word) of political discourse. When you claim not just a majority but a vast majority, you're doing more than just adding emphasis: you're actively marginalizing the other side (by implying that they're not just a minority but a tiny, insignificant minority).
And it's self-escalating: it creates a sort of "linguistic arms race", where "everyone else does it", so people feel compelled to tack on the "vast", lest it sound like their side is only a mere "majority". But that just leads to linguistic inflation: when (almost) everyone says "vast", it loses its meaning, sending everyone scrambling to find ever-more-emphatic (and more insulting) modifiers, like "overwhelming".
It may seem to make your argument sound a bit stronger, but the constant minor insults don't help us get anywhere closer to building true consenus. After all, wouldn't the overwhelming majority prefer to see a political arena with more true communication and less poo-flinging?
As it is, I think it is fair for her to put up before and after pictures, say who did the surgery, say that she is unhappy, and really do all sorts of free speech things that don't amount to libel. If we're going to expect her, even while understandably emotionally distraught due to her situation, to show the level of maturity and rationality that would be required to make such a calm, reasoned presentation of facts without letting herself slip into emotional ranting, name-calling, and general poo-flinging...
(note: not having seen the/.ed article, I'm basing all this on what I've gathered from here)
...Then shouldn't we also to expect readers of her postings to have the maturity and rationality to be able to recognize that she was distraught while writing it, and to apply the appropriate filters when reading? I.e., "Okay, there's the 'before'... there's the 'after'... okay, she's not happy with her results... ooh, make that, she's pretty pissed... yeah, probably not being fair to the doctor here..."
Some days his blog is nothing other than Bush bashing under the guise of writing about security. It's true that some of Schneier's posts are very critical of the Bush Administration's security efforts. But, of all the statements that get attacked as "Bush-bashing", I'd say those posts are among the best cases for which to invoke the defense that:
"No, it's just that reality has an anti-Bush 'bias'."
Slashdot Mirror
My Kingdom for a Mod point! Ah, but then I'd have to choose between "funny" and "insightful", when it deserves both. Oh, well.
Yes, but don't you remember? They're also the ones whose MMX technology made it possible to have multimedia stuff on the Web!
Dude. Really. What the hell are you talking about? Are you reading what I write at all, or just flaming randomly?
I didn't ask why you think the economy is in trouble. I didn't challenge that claim; in fact, I agreed with it. I haven't challenged your knowledge or expertise on the matter in any way. I asked what made you think you know so much about me?, and specifically, what made you think that I was unaware of such issues, given that I hadn't said anything of the kind. Did I miss an article in the WSJ or Fortune that stated "Slashdot user 'David Gould' is an idiot who knows nothing about Capitalism."? Or was that in one of your brokers' presentations? Your shareholder reports?
Sigh. And now you seem to think I'm a "Bushie", which (again) couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
But you've just done it again, so I have to ask: where do you get this shit from? Was there something in either of my posts that seemed to indicate that I would have that opinion? Or are you just assuming that I must believe that, simply because of how stupid that would make me? Similarly, re. your previous reply to my first post: on what basis did you think you could deduce anything about how much stock I do or don't own? At one point I owned more than 1 percent of all the shares in (at last count) three separate public firms - not that it matters. Okay, now that is impressive -- yes, a stake that can be expressed as a percentage (without more than one decimal place) of the whole company would certainly meet my (subjective, informal) definition of a "major investor". Why didn't you say so in the first place?
But, hey -- that's just my primitive 21st Century perspective -- I'm sure you guys do things differently in the 22nd.
Not to mention that the stereotypical "Soccer Mom" who drives a top-heavy 3-ton Suburban Assault Vehicle and raves about how "I feel so much safer with all this extra metal around me" also lacks any understanding of high-school physics and hence expects it to corner just like her old Civic. End result: it's actually far less safe even for her, let alone the rest of us.
(Yes, yes, the "Soccer Mom" thing is a stereotype -- no need to pick on them specifically. But from the number of upside-down SAVs I see on freeway ramps, it applies to lots of drivers of those monstrosities. And yes, this is a subjective impression, not based on actual accident statistics. But wasn't the original question, why do [people like me] feel that way about them?)
*sigh* You're just not thinking like a dinosaur.
Very short synopsis: it explores the idea of a genetic modification enabling exactly that: humans with photosynthetic skin, and the social / political / economic effects of such a development. (In the story, the first version of the mod is delivered through a genetically modified virus, which works almost perfectly, producing green spots instead of uniformly green skin -- hence the title.)
It goes light on the actual science (wisely, IMO), but gives enough to sound at least vaguely plausible. The claim is that, even if it couldn't completely replace the need for food, it would be enough to "take the edge off" of brief periods of starvation, enough so as to make famine a far, far less devastating force. As one of the characters says: "The bad guys don't get to use starvation as a weapon anymore! Famine ends! One of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse dies, right here, right now".
I have never heard anybody pronounce "XUL" any way other that "zool". Literally never. Not once. I'm one of the only people I know who says "ess cue elle" instead of "sequel", but even I've given up on XUL. It's pronounced "XUL".
There's no rule that acronyms can't be pronounced as the words they spell out. It's interesting how some acronyms enter the language as phonetically-created words and some stay pronounced as initials -- it sort of seems to correspond with how phonetically-pronounceable the letter-sequence is, but there are enough exceptions (both ways) that even that hardly seems to be a real rule.
Thank you, but actually, I got that part. [*1]
...
My point was that, sure, people like us understand that these two features (lack of DRM, and higher bit-rate) are completely independent of each other. But what about the "typical consumer"? The ones to whom we've been trying in vain to explain the issues of DRM for all these years. Imagine this conversation:
non-geek friend: Hey what's the deal with these "Premium" tracks on the iTunes Store?
Slashdotter: Oh, you saw that? Yeah, it's great -- they've finally started selling music DRM-free!
friend: "DRM"? Oh yeah, I know you've been ranting about that for years, but I still don't see what the big deal is. I mean, I've been able to copy my music to my iPod just fine.
Slashdotter:
Slashdotter: The Premium version sounds better.
friend: Oh, is that what "DRM-free" means!? Why didn't you say so!?
I don't know if it's intentional, but wouldn't it be ironic if this move ends up having the effect of creating the perception in consumers' minds that: "DRM equals inferior quality"?
--
[1] As it is written in The Book Of Slashdot: "Thou shalt never ask 'Will this use of sarcasm and/or irony prove too subtle for some readers?', for the answer to that question is always 'yes'." Hail, and Ramen.
They might be trying to distinguish these new DRM-free tracks as being "Premium" so that consumers don't get confused about what the difference is between DRMed and non-DRMed music.
So, the difference is that the non-DRMed version sounds better, right?Why didn't you say so before?
In the 33rd century, it'll be an implant... WTF!? Eight centuries to reduce a 20-lb table-top unit to wristwatch-size? Another four centuries after that for implants?
Dude: The 19th Century wants its rate of technological progress back.
Try this:
In the 2010's, it'll be carried on a shoulder strap.
In the '20s, it'll be worn on your wrist.
In the '30s, it'll be an implant.
I can't stand how the word "majority" has in recent years disappeared from our language and been replaced by the phrase " vast majority" (at least in any context that's even remotely political).
This may sound like mere linguistic pedantry, but it really isn't -- this usage both feeds, and is part of, the trend toward polarization and "extremification" (yes, afaik, I just made up that word) of political discourse. When you claim not just a majority but a vast majority, you're doing more than just adding emphasis: you're actively marginalizing the other side (by implying that they're not just a minority but a tiny, insignificant minority).
And it's self-escalating: it creates a sort of "linguistic arms race", where "everyone else does it", so people feel compelled to tack on the "vast", lest it sound like their side is only a mere "majority". But that just leads to linguistic inflation: when (almost) everyone says "vast", it loses its meaning, sending everyone scrambling to find ever-more-emphatic (and more insulting) modifiers, like "overwhelming".
It may seem to make your argument sound a bit stronger, but the constant minor insults don't help us get anywhere closer to building true consenus. After all, wouldn't the overwhelming majority prefer to see a political arena with more true communication and less poo-flinging?
(note: not having seen the
...Then shouldn't we also to expect readers of her postings to have the maturity and rationality to be able to recognize that she was distraught while writing it, and to apply the appropriate filters when reading? I.e., "Okay, there's the 'before'... there's the 'after'... okay, she's not happy with her results... ooh, make that, she's pretty pissed... yeah, probably not being fair to the doctor here..."
"No, it's just that reality has an anti-Bush 'bias'."
I probably shouldn't ask, but how do you pronounce "GIF"? (as in the image format)
*ducks*