That's one way to look at it. Another is that employers are buyers of labor, and if you're a hoe it's because you haven't figured out how to sell yourself.
Outsourcing the management overhead and making a good profit on my labor suits me fine. If my customers start getting uppity and thinking they're pimps, they'll be buying labor elsewhere.
I like how you like to claim ownership of the creative output of other people. People pay to go to college if you hadn't noticed, and the govt. only subsidizes a portion, so you might not have to love it as much.
In real life terms, what is a DDOS? Let's try a car analogy. Lets say it's like someone stealing a bunch of cars and driving them to your business and have them blare their horns. I think in this case I would feel justified opening all the hoods and unhooking the batteries, maybe even taking the keys to the car so that they could be returned to the rightful owner or at least not stolen again and made to honk incessantly. Which, back in digital (fake?) life, would be "hacking back" in my mind, and completely justified.
It's too bad Romans chapter 14 doesn't get to be a superseding rule the like you claim Acts is, it would fix pretty much all the problems with the church.
Even if the majority agrees with the broad goals of Erdogan, his censorship and lying about the scale and nature of the protests seem to be clear indicators that there is not broad support for his methods.
I think you may be oversimplifying democracy. By the standard of "form of governance that grants majority control", North Korea appears to be a democracy. I hear they only get to vote on one candidate per seat, but they do get to check a box (or choose not to, and perhaps face death). It seems to me that democracy must mean more than the ability --or the appearance of the ability-- to affect who is in power by voting. The voter must be in a position to make a reasonably informed assessment on the actions of their leaders come election time, otherwise it's just a charade.
Certainly democracy isn't and needn't be freedom rainbows and liberty lollipops. However, I would argue that if the citizens vote for widespread censorship, they effectively lose the knowledge of what sort of government they have, and it can't rightly be called a democracy. Given this issue, it is difficult to say whether the affiliated actions are sanctioned by the authority vested in the people or not in this case.
I'm ashamed to say there is a shocking similarity. Regardless, arguing semantics and interpretations of governmental philosophies to defend a religion that has tyranny virtually baked in does little to correct either the elephant or the mosquito.
At worst you could reasonably claim he's building a theocracy. But theocracy isn't incompatible with democracy in any way
It doesn't matter the form of government if the controls for power are circumvented and the government can impose its will with impunity. Violent repression of dissent, absolute gagging of the media and halting of communications, blatant disregard for equality and minority rights all bear witness that this isn't the will of the governed.
I'm not defending the partisan nature of it, but the fact of the matter is _no_ political organizations should be getting tax exempt status. I guess I'm just not impressed by this "scandal", it seems exactly congruous with gerrymandered districts and not appointing the head of a department that doesn't line up with a partisan ideology.
Aren't these tax-exempt organizations are supposed to be non political in nature? If so how could conservatives be targeted disproportionally? This whole fiasco's coverage is glossing over the underlying issue, the rules put forth from congress were ridiculous and begging to be used inappropriately.
$0.61*12*X=500M, since they do the surcharge every time the bill comes due, normally monthly I imagine. 68 million subscribers is a lot but fathomable.
This conversation has so many non sequiturs it might as well be a pick your own political adventure novel. I'm pretty sure what h4rr4r is getting at is that we don't let people die in the streets when they don't save correctly and don't have insurance, and so the rest of us end up paying for it one way or the other. Or maybe that's not what he meant, and I'm picking my own adventure as well. Regardless, the ideas you project "jealous, hate the rich, loser, poor with money" on those who you believe do not share your ideology makes me think you are a bit insecure about your self-centered world view, and feel the need to aggressively defend against any who would challenge it.
Unless you are suggesting that public opinion does not matter and is not a form of support, your response is a complete non-sequitur. Fact is, public opinion does matter, and if the Islamic community wants to be taken seriously as a religion of peace, they oughtn't have such a sizable chunk of their constituents supporting violence against innocent civilians.
Despite the fact that I do _not_ support our drone attacks in Pakistan, it is not an equal comparison between drone strikes against suspected terrorists and killing civilians as the primary goal.
"Not a nice guy" is what you say about your sister's boyfriend who yells at her and treats her badly. Saddam was a sadistic tyranical purveyor of genocide.
I will admit those specific examples cannot be defended for anyone with a modicum of programming experience, and the universities should be ashamed at endorsing such. I've largely not had that level of ignorance in my hiring experience, and don't expect that it's all that widespread.
However, I find that good number of folks who _do_ understand programming basics and can recite all the database normal forms often don't turn out very good code. I blame the lack of programming apprenticeships, personally.
...all that it grants is that the holder knows how to use variables, loops and branching in programming and that he/she has a rudimentary idea about what a compiler, an OS and a file system is. Is that really worth the 4-5 years and $100K (and more) spent on a something a high school kid could learn in half a year?
Not to defend poor CS curriculum that has weak programming, but programming expertise is not what a college degree represents. A degree represents a broad based knowledge (more than rudimentary, but certainly not extensive ) of many different fields to have a well rounded individual fit for molding. One should expect some gaps in knowledge of specifics in the different technologies. It's not a certification of ability to do specific work, that's why we have apprenticeships, certifications, trade schools, and internships.
Such vitriol saddens me. Professors suck up a whopping average salary of 73k/year for a position that is quite competitive to obtain and requires a PHD at the minimum. And your carpenter wouldn't be fired if he were the brother-in-law of the owner, or good looking enough, except in the mind of those who really believe business and labor is a meritocracy.
Every business is in some way subsidized by the government be it roads, security, an educated workforce. The audacity to claim _that_ is earned while professors are "parasites" is a special kind of brash ignorance.
Yes, I definitely should have phrased my first reply differently and checked the actual history, apologies for phrasing that was misleading from my intent.
I believe the crux of the issue is that Hogan _should_ have mentioned the prior lawsuits when questioned in voir dire. I don't blame the judge, and have mixed feelings about Samsung's culpability if Hogan withheld information after being explicitly asked. Kudos for the Boston Legal reference, I really liked that show.
Hogan's patent, in my admittedly amateur reading, seems broad. It reads like a small computer with hardware and software and functions for downloading, retrieving, and managing video. The only thing that seems specific is the disk head reading portion, but I would love clarification on what would distinguish this patent from a general DVR device.
That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.
Jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose truthfully during voir dire that he had sued and been sued by his former employer, Seagate, despite the Court’s express question asking him whether he had ever been a party to any litigation.
In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning
So should no one who's an inventor on a patent be involved in a patent trial?
You're right that we shouldn't bar experts and those knowledgeable in the field, and that holding a patent isn't, by default, indicative of bias. Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology, and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.
I'm sad I've only just read this. My intention, dear sir, is not to come take your property. I concede could be inferred from my comment. I'm pretty happy with my own lot. My intention was to remind you that you can't possibly defend yourself from everyone that might want to take your property. This is why this society thing is a pretty good deal, and worth remembering why we have it around, and maybe even give up a thing or two to preserve it.
From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate. Regardless, he should have been outed by _someone_ as having a conflict of interest in the outcome as the holder of a dubious intellectual property patent.
You're talking strictly about income tax, which is an incomplete if not overtly wrong way to look at taxation. here is a link from the washington post that shows a more accutate percentage of taxes paid versus percentage of income. It isn't even close.
Every item in your hands was built and delivered to you by somebody with more money than you.
I must tell you how silly it sounds to hear you say that. I just turned over my keyboard, and it was made in China. Probably by lots of folks making far less than me and working far harder. It was hauled by truck drivers, boat operators who make less than me. Delivered to me by a delivery man, paid less than me. It's the working class that makes the world go round.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one way to look at it. Another is that employers are buyers of labor, and if you're a hoe it's because you haven't figured out how to sell yourself.
Outsourcing the management overhead and making a good profit on my labor suits me fine. If my customers start getting uppity and thinking they're pimps, they'll be buying labor elsewhere.
Pimps work for Johns, everyone works for someone. It's all a matter of negotiating a price for services.
I like how you like to claim ownership of the creative output of other people. People pay to go to college if you hadn't noticed, and the govt. only subsidizes a portion, so you might not have to love it as much.
In real life terms, what is a DDOS? Let's try a car analogy. Lets say it's like someone stealing a bunch of cars and driving them to your business and have them blare their horns. I think in this case I would feel justified opening all the hoods and unhooking the batteries, maybe even taking the keys to the car so that they could be returned to the rightful owner or at least not stolen again and made to honk incessantly. Which, back in digital (fake?) life, would be "hacking back" in my mind, and completely justified.
It's too bad Romans chapter 14 doesn't get to be a superseding rule the like you claim Acts is, it would fix pretty much all the problems with the church.
Even if the majority agrees with the broad goals of Erdogan, his censorship and lying about the scale and nature of the protests seem to be clear indicators that there is not broad support for his methods.
I think you may be oversimplifying democracy. By the standard of "form of governance that grants majority control", North Korea appears to be a democracy. I hear they only get to vote on one candidate per seat, but they do get to check a box (or choose not to, and perhaps face death). It seems to me that democracy must mean more than the ability --or the appearance of the ability-- to affect who is in power by voting. The voter must be in a position to make a reasonably informed assessment on the actions of their leaders come election time, otherwise it's just a charade.
Certainly democracy isn't and needn't be freedom rainbows and liberty lollipops. However, I would argue that if the citizens vote for widespread censorship, they effectively lose the knowledge of what sort of government they have, and it can't rightly be called a democracy. Given this issue, it is difficult to say whether the affiliated actions are sanctioned by the authority vested in the people or not in this case.
I'm ashamed to say there is a shocking similarity. Regardless, arguing semantics and interpretations of governmental philosophies to defend a religion that has tyranny virtually baked in does little to correct either the elephant or the mosquito.
At worst you could reasonably claim he's building a theocracy. But theocracy isn't incompatible with democracy in any way
It doesn't matter the form of government if the controls for power are circumvented and the government can impose its will with impunity. Violent repression of dissent, absolute gagging of the media and halting of communications, blatant disregard for equality and minority rights all bear witness that this isn't the will of the governed.
I'm not defending the partisan nature of it, but the fact of the matter is _no_ political organizations should be getting tax exempt status. I guess I'm just not impressed by this "scandal", it seems exactly congruous with gerrymandered districts and not appointing the head of a department that doesn't line up with a partisan ideology.
Aren't these tax-exempt organizations are supposed to be non political in nature? If so how could conservatives be targeted disproportionally? This whole fiasco's coverage is glossing over the underlying issue, the rules put forth from congress were ridiculous and begging to be used inappropriately.
$0.61*12*X=500M, since they do the surcharge every time the bill comes due, normally monthly I imagine. 68 million subscribers is a lot but fathomable.
This conversation has so many non sequiturs it might as well be a pick your own political adventure novel. I'm pretty sure what h4rr4r is getting at is that we don't let people die in the streets when they don't save correctly and don't have insurance, and so the rest of us end up paying for it one way or the other. Or maybe that's not what he meant, and I'm picking my own adventure as well. Regardless, the ideas you project "jealous, hate the rich, loser, poor with money" on those who you believe do not share your ideology makes me think you are a bit insecure about your self-centered world view, and feel the need to aggressively defend against any who would challenge it.
Unless you are suggesting that public opinion does not matter and is not a form of support, your response is a complete non-sequitur. Fact is, public opinion does matter, and if the Islamic community wants to be taken seriously as a religion of peace, they oughtn't have such a sizable chunk of their constituents supporting violence against innocent civilians.
Despite the fact that I do _not_ support our drone attacks in Pakistan, it is not an equal comparison between drone strikes against suspected terrorists and killing civilians as the primary goal.
To be clear, your numbers so off, they are not even wrong.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
This report states that roughly 8.5% of Muslims explicitly endorse attacks on American civilians in the US, and another ~10% have mixed feelings.
"Not a nice guy" is what you say about your sister's boyfriend who yells at her and treats her badly. Saddam was a sadistic tyranical purveyor of genocide.
I will admit those specific examples cannot be defended for anyone with a modicum of programming experience, and the universities should be ashamed at endorsing such. I've largely not had that level of ignorance in my hiring experience, and don't expect that it's all that widespread.
However, I find that good number of folks who _do_ understand programming basics and can recite all the database normal forms often don't turn out very good code. I blame the lack of programming apprenticeships, personally.
...all that it grants is that the holder knows how to use variables, loops and branching in programming and that he/she has a rudimentary idea about what a compiler, an OS and a file system is. Is that really worth the 4-5 years and $100K (and more) spent on a something a high school kid could learn in half a year?
Not to defend poor CS curriculum that has weak programming, but programming expertise is not what a college degree represents. A degree represents a broad based knowledge (more than rudimentary, but certainly not extensive ) of many different fields to have a well rounded individual fit for molding. One should expect some gaps in knowledge of specifics in the different technologies. It's not a certification of ability to do specific work, that's why we have apprenticeships, certifications, trade schools, and internships.
Such vitriol saddens me. Professors suck up a whopping average salary of 73k/year for a position that is quite competitive to obtain and requires a PHD at the minimum. And your carpenter wouldn't be fired if he were the brother-in-law of the owner, or good looking enough, except in the mind of those who really believe business and labor is a meritocracy.
Every business is in some way subsidized by the government be it roads, security, an educated workforce. The audacity to claim _that_ is earned while professors are "parasites" is a special kind of brash ignorance.
Yes, I definitely should have phrased my first reply differently and checked the actual history, apologies for phrasing that was misleading from my intent.
I believe the crux of the issue is that Hogan _should_ have mentioned the prior lawsuits when questioned in voir dire. I don't blame the judge, and have mixed feelings about Samsung's culpability if Hogan withheld information after being explicitly asked. Kudos for the Boston Legal reference, I really liked that show.
Hogan's patent, in my admittedly amateur reading, seems broad. It reads like a small computer with hardware and software and functions for downloading, retrieving, and managing video. The only thing that seems specific is the disk head reading portion, but I would love clarification on what would distinguish this patent from a general DVR device.
They only asked him about Samsung
That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.
In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning
So should no one who's an inventor on a patent be involved in a patent trial?
You're right that we shouldn't bar experts and those knowledgeable in the field, and that holding a patent isn't, by default, indicative of bias. Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology, and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.
I'm sad I've only just read this. My intention, dear sir, is not to come take your property. I concede could be inferred from my comment. I'm pretty happy with my own lot. My intention was to remind you that you can't possibly defend yourself from everyone that might want to take your property. This is why this society thing is a pretty good deal, and worth remembering why we have it around, and maybe even give up a thing or two to preserve it.
From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate. Regardless, he should have been outed by _someone_ as having a conflict of interest in the outcome as the holder of a dubious intellectual property patent.
You're talking strictly about income tax, which is an incomplete if not overtly wrong way to look at taxation.
here is a link from the washington post that shows a more accutate percentage of taxes paid versus percentage of income. It isn't even close.
Every item in your hands was built and delivered to you by somebody with more money than you.
I must tell you how silly it sounds to hear you say that. I just turned over my keyboard, and it was made in China. Probably by lots of folks making far less than me and working far harder. It was hauled by truck drivers, boat operators who make less than me. Delivered to me by a delivery man, paid less than me. It's the working class that makes the world go round.