"although it should be noted that the one who didn't act survived and the one who did act died..."
3 planeloads of people are just as dead as the fourth, and the 30 odd students killed are just as dead as the professor. For them, being told to do nothing and wait for rescue killed them.
Actually, I went Godwin in my original post - the professor that died trying to protect his students was a Holocaust survivor. He knew damned well that waiting for someone to come to his rescue was a sucker bet, so he tried to resist.
The pathetic cosmic irony is that the grandfathers of the people in that room fought a war and helped rescue him, only to have their grandchildren abandon him in turn. Shakespeare would die of envy at the tragedy, were it only just a play.
1) most of the damage to the twin towers was caused by the fuel. One assumes that the fuel load would at least be partly disbursed by a missile strike.
2) On also assumes that the fighters wouldn't wait until they were over Manhattan to pull the trigger. In the cold calculus, 100 homes wiped out on Long Island or Northern NJ is a good trade for the towers and the people in them.
"and yet I bet your the first pussy under a desk or the pussy cowarding in the corner saying "please don't kill me, I have so much to live for." Pussy!
I may well be. But at least I'll have the decency to be ashamed of my actions (or lack thereof).
Again, I'm trying to look at this institutionally. I have no problem with what individual police did that day, nor possibly with the local PD itself. I was pointing out that the *institution* of policing has done the public a disservice by telling them "We'll protect you, so you don't need to protect yourself".
The motto "To Protect and Serve", while individuals police may follow it faithfully, is a lie from an institutional standpoint. The primary role of the police is to deal with criminals AFTER they have committed a crime; there role in prevention is only passive. Police departments cannot be held liable for failure to actively protect a citizen from harm or prevent a crime from being performed. Nevertheless the public has been told that they need not prepare for danger, because the police will protect them. It's an institutional fraud of the highest order.
[dontfeedthetrolls...dontfeedthetrolls...dontfeedthetrolls...aw, it's too easy]
Fuck you and fuck off moron - and in other news - your fucking party lost. Get your fringe lunatic hat on cunto the clown, your soundbite moment awaits you on Fox.
I hope your family dies of swine flu.
Aside from totally misreading my post (see comment above), I find delicious irony in your wish that I die of Swine Flu. As one of the "fucking inbred show their lack of reading comprehension", aren't I one of those people who bought masks and stockpiled food?
"However, re: armed man running around an institution shooting people. The first person to run towards the madman holding 2 guns has a very high probability of death (or serious permanent injury if they are "lucky"). Maybe persons 2, 3 and 4 will be ok and overpower the gunman. But someone has to be first."
Who said anything about charging the gunman? How about blocking the doors? Sneaking up behind him? waiting for a door to open and swinging whatever piece of furniture you have?
Furthermore, if someone has dependents it would be pretty irresponsible of them to sacrifice their life if they think there is a chance that armed police might be on their way. Perhaps some of the people at the immigrant centre had dependents to stay alive for? Maybe they thought it would end up being a hostage situation?
Odds of being killed while hiding waiting for rescue vs. odds of being killed while resisting. I'd have 6 million answers for you, except I can't get in touch with them.
You missed the point - it's about culture, not individuals. I was pointing out that, when a bunch of individuals were given saw what was actually happening, they took action. The others didn't because we have been telling plane passengers for 50 years "Don't resist - we will come and rescue you". I don't blame the occupants of the other 3 airplanes - I pity them, because I'm sure they would have reacted the same way as the others did had they not been so indoctrinated.
- 3 planeloads of people let 5 men armed with hand tools take over airplanes - because that's what they've been told to do. As soon as the 4th planeload of people find out how they've been lied to, they take action and save many more lives.
- Hundreds of students cower under desks waiting be rescued from 1 man with 2 handguns, and the only person to do ANYTHING is an octogenarian who gets killed for his efforts to protect the strong, healthy, 18-22 year old "adults" hiding in fear. The most played interview is of a young man who was simply waiting to die. He is called "heroic".
- A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.
Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble, where former soldiers are considered security risks because the government trained them to kill, and the people whose "job" it is to protect us simply shrug their shoulders and pick up the bodies.
You are still missing the point - Wikimedia has no published trademark policy, at least none that I could find under their published policies. The difference between the 2 is that Mozilla has gone to the effort of establishing a policy an procedure to get permission to use the trademark. Wikimedia's policy seems to consist mailing out C&D letters. Will Wikimedia grant licenses to those trademarks? Who knows?
They chose brevity over wordiness. The part they left out was "...or we'll have to take legal action against you based on the following reasons."
I'm not saying they are evil or good, only that you were trying to use the Mozilla policy to make a point that it doesn't support very well. The Mozilla foundation may comprise slavering cannibalistic monsters that use human thighbones as toothpicks; regardless, the policy you quote doesn't support your point.
Except when you hand in the voucher and get "$100 for a *&^$@#% patch cable?"
While I agree with the PP intent, make SURE your boss knows about the financial impact of decisions like that. It can be as simple as "No Problem. They aren't cheap, should I voucher it or cut a PO?"
But the policy you quote states exactly *why* Mozilla is requiring permission for all uses - customer confusion. Which is also the underlying basis for trademark law and actions. Mozilla's policy seems to simply state "Come to us BEFORE you do something potentially stupid, and if what you want to do is OK, we'll give you a piece of paper saying it's OK".
I'll add a fact I learned doing project management for construction projects, both as the contractor and the owner.
Project Management is people management. Period. All projects require different people to make commitments of resources and results. It is the job of the project manager to control this process. A necessary part of the PM's tool box is the ability to compel people to meet their commitments. If a project manager lacks the ability, by whatever means, to compel compliance (threats, bribery, logic, emotion), the project WILL fail to attain all of its objectives. Period.
I discovered this after I moved from contracting to owner's rep. As a contractor, I had a great deal of leverage to force people to make their committments - I had their money. Not going to finish on time? That's fine - I'll use the money I was going to pay you to bring someone else in. I continued to have this tool for use with contractors when I went to work for a building owner. But I quickly discovered that many of the commitments to manage were those belonging to other members of my own organization. And I rapidly found out that I couldn't compel them to do shit - I was not in their chain of command, could not activate a disciplinary process, and in many cases couldn't even bribe them - they didn't WANT the project to finish.
Great data and interesting if it proves out. But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.
Excellent point. Can I quote it back to every talking head who screams that the latest hurricane/flood/drought/dead polar bear is concrete evidence of the effects of Global Warming? And will it shut them up.
Slashdot Mirror
"although it should be noted that the one who didn't act survived and the one who did act died..."
3 planeloads of people are just as dead as the fourth, and the 30 odd students killed are just as dead as the professor. For them, being told to do nothing and wait for rescue killed them.
Find the word "coward" in my post. Not there, is it?
"As to the outbreak of swine flu, it will be controlled in no time by our modern sanitary responses"
Such as?
Actually, I went Godwin in my original post - the professor that died trying to protect his students was a Holocaust survivor. He knew damned well that waiting for someone to come to his rescue was a sucker bet, so he tried to resist.
The pathetic cosmic irony is that the grandfathers of the people in that room fought a war and helped rescue him, only to have their grandchildren abandon him in turn. Shakespeare would die of envy at the tragedy, were it only just a play.
"Has it occurred to you that people might refuse to fly not from cowardice, but from a refusal to submit to the new security procedures?"
There can't be more than 1 reason? How about shitty service, interminable delays, and the germ incubator that is an airplane cabin?
While I don't disagree, there are 2 differences:
1) most of the damage to the twin towers was caused by the fuel. One assumes that the fuel load would at least be partly disbursed by a missile strike.
2) On also assumes that the fighters wouldn't wait until they were over Manhattan to pull the trigger. In the cold calculus, 100 homes wiped out on Long Island or Northern NJ is a good trade for the towers and the people in them.
"and yet I bet your the first pussy under a desk or the pussy cowarding in the corner saying "please don't kill me, I have so much to live for."
Pussy!
I may well be. But at least I'll have the decency to be ashamed of my actions (or lack thereof).
Again, I'm trying to look at this institutionally. I have no problem with what individual police did that day, nor possibly with the local PD itself. I was pointing out that the *institution* of policing has done the public a disservice by telling them "We'll protect you, so you don't need to protect yourself".
The motto "To Protect and Serve", while individuals police may follow it faithfully, is a lie from an institutional standpoint. The primary role of the police is to deal with criminals AFTER they have committed a crime; there role in prevention is only passive. Police departments cannot be held liable for failure to actively protect a citizen from harm or prevent a crime from being performed. Nevertheless the public has been told that they need not prepare for danger, because the police will protect them. It's an institutional fraud of the highest order.
[dontfeedthetrolls...dontfeedthetrolls...dontfeedthetrolls...aw, it's too easy]
Aside from totally misreading my post (see comment above), I find delicious irony in your wish that I die of Swine Flu. As one of the "fucking inbred show their lack of reading comprehension", aren't I one of those people who bought masks and stockpiled food?
Who said anything about charging the gunman? How about blocking the doors? Sneaking up behind him? waiting for a door to open and swinging whatever piece of furniture you have?
Odds of being killed while hiding waiting for rescue vs. odds of being killed while resisting. I'd have 6 million answers for you, except I can't get in touch with them.
You missed the point - it's about culture, not individuals. I was pointing out that, when a bunch of individuals were given saw what was actually happening, they took action. The others didn't because we have been telling plane passengers for 50 years "Don't resist - we will come and rescue you". I don't blame the occupants of the other 3 airplanes - I pity them, because I'm sure they would have reacted the same way as the others did had they not been so indoctrinated.
Sigh. Look up how we treated Viet Nam vets, and I believe you'll find it's the reverse.
"While I appreciate your point, fact is, there wasn't a 747 involved in 9/11."
Nor fighters - if there were, there would not have BEEN 9/11 as we now know it.
"of fuckin' wussy people."
- 3 planeloads of people let 5 men armed with hand tools take over airplanes - because that's what they've been told to do. As soon as the 4th planeload of people find out how they've been lied to, they take action and save many more lives.
- Hundreds of students cower under desks waiting be rescued from 1 man with 2 handguns, and the only person to do ANYTHING is an octogenarian who gets killed for his efforts to protect the strong, healthy, 18-22 year old "adults" hiding in fear. The most played interview is of a young man who was simply waiting to die. He is called "heroic".
- A man starts shooting in an immigrant center, and police take 45 minutes to enter the building, while people hide like scared rabbits waiting to be rescued. The police state that their response time was irrelevant - the victims would have died anyway.
Oh yes, we have reached the point where helplessness is considered noble, where former soldiers are considered security risks because the government trained them to kill, and the people whose "job" it is to protect us simply shrug their shoulders and pick up the bodies.
Wussies doesn't really cover it.
You are still missing the point - Wikimedia has no published trademark policy, at least none that I could find under their published policies. The difference between the 2 is that Mozilla has gone to the effort of establishing a policy an procedure to get permission to use the trademark. Wikimedia's policy seems to consist mailing out C&D letters. Will Wikimedia grant licenses to those trademarks? Who knows?
That's the difference.
They chose brevity over wordiness. The part they left out was "...or we'll have to take legal action against you based on the following reasons."
I'm not saying they are evil or good, only that you were trying to use the Mozilla policy to make a point that it doesn't support very well. The Mozilla foundation may comprise slavering cannibalistic monsters that use human thighbones as toothpicks; regardless, the policy you quote doesn't support your point.
Except when you hand in the voucher and get "$100 for a *&^$@#% patch cable?"
While I agree with the PP intent, make SURE your boss knows about the financial impact of decisions like that. It can be as simple as "No Problem. They aren't cheap, should I voucher it or cut a PO?"
Or when the news media and/or ATLA decides something is profitable: silicone breast implants, NSAIDs, , duct tape and plastic sheeting, ...
I believe you are referring to the Shipstone Corporation.
"Geocities, you will forever be in my heart."
So will my first girlfriend. But she was still an obnoxious bitch that wouldn't perform.
But the policy you quote states exactly *why* Mozilla is requiring permission for all uses - customer confusion. Which is also the underlying basis for trademark law and actions. Mozilla's policy seems to simply state "Come to us BEFORE you do something potentially stupid, and if what you want to do is OK, we'll give you a piece of paper saying it's OK".
"An M-16 with a full clip."
Nah - they need to be too close. A pair of Ma Deuce mounted in the bow and stern could take care of the problem almost a mile away.
I'll add a fact I learned doing project management for construction projects, both as the contractor and the owner.
Project Management is people management. Period. All projects require different people to make commitments of resources and results. It is the job of the project manager to control this process. A necessary part of the PM's tool box is the ability to compel people to meet their commitments. If a project manager lacks the ability, by whatever means, to compel compliance (threats, bribery, logic, emotion), the project WILL fail to attain all of its objectives. Period.
I discovered this after I moved from contracting to owner's rep. As a contractor, I had a great deal of leverage to force people to make their committments - I had their money. Not going to finish on time? That's fine - I'll use the money I was going to pay you to bring someone else in. I continued to have this tool for use with contractors when I went to work for a building owner. But I quickly discovered that many of the commitments to manage were those belonging to other members of my own organization. And I rapidly found out that I couldn't compel them to do shit - I was not in their chain of command, could not activate a disciplinary process, and in many cases couldn't even bribe them - they didn't WANT the project to finish.
I'm reminded of an (obviously) old saying about Washington DC: "Northern efficiency with Southern hospitality."
Now it's "Southern efficiency with Northern hospitality". I wouldn't count Oracle/Sun as getting the best of both worlds.
Excellent point. Can I quote it back to every talking head who screams that the latest hurricane/flood/drought/dead polar bear is concrete evidence of the effects of Global Warming? And will it shut them up.
Yeah - didn't think so either.