You are an ass. This guy's friend wasn't giving job interviews, he's a public defender who is trying to do his job by vigorously defending his clients - and that includes referring them for psychiatric evaluation when he sees something out of the ordinary. And he didn't say "multiple pstchiatrists saw nothing wrong with a person", he said "counselors". Given that his clients are already in the legal system, I'd be willing to bet those counselors were overworked, underpaid social workers who just wanted the person gone.
Your level of hypersensitivity and ability to ignore what someone is actually saying/writing would seem to indicate that you are part of the mental health profession. Let me clue you in - the general populace doesn't really respect the mental health population because of the perception that you folks have no clue of what you profess to be experts in. Your misinformed post only adds to that.
So the guy goes out to a bar and tells work stories to his friends about the crazy client who he had today, and your advice is for him to "stick to whatever he's actually qualified to do?". Funny, are you an HR rep? Maybe you should take your own advise?
Funny, when that argument is used for IE and Windows - "Firefox and Opera are available on Windows as well yet most people use IE" - it is attributed to ignorance on the part of Windows users. If one applies the same logic, would not then the majority of Apple users be ignorant just like Windows users?
Of course, that's impossible - just look at the Mac guy in the TV ads. He's NOTHING like the PC guy.
"We are human beings, not lions or baboons. We're able to exchange knowledge to better ourselves and thereby avoid conflict through negotiation and compromise."
HAAAhahahaha! What a hoot! I always like to start the day with a good laugh, and this one's a belly shaker. Can I have some of the air your breathing on your planet? 'Cause it sure isn't Earth.
For those of us who need to live in THIS reality, here's an idea: War is a result of *being* human, not a relic from our bestial past. Animals don't go to war. They fight, individually and as a family or pack, but that's it. War, with tactics, strategy, and politics, is uniquely human construct. War will ALWAYS be with us, at least as long as we remain "human". Perhaps Homo Sapiens will evolve into Homo Pacificus (pardon my Latin, it's been over 20 years), but we won't act, or probably even look, like we do now.
There is a quote that goes something like "'Peace' is a fictional condition, posited from the fact that there have been periods of relative inactivity between wars." An individual or tribe may not be fighting, and a nation or state may not be in battle, but *humans* will always have war.
(BTW, $5. for whoever can tell me where that quote is from. Really - Paypal or cash in an envelope. I've been searching for the source and exact text for years.)
Hear, Hear! Does everything need to be revolutionary, or else it's judged a failure? Maybe it aims to be, Oh, I don't know, just a really good smartphone? Kind of like the iPod is just a really good MP3 player?
Of course, it doesn't help that so many products were touted as "revolutionary" and were nothing of the sort. "Ginger", anyone?
Although I agree in principle, one of your examples is dead wrong. No Child Left Behind is NOT an unfunded mandate. The Feds supplied a shitload of money to states, under the condition that they meet certain standards, which teh states themselves got to set. The states took the money, and are now bitching that they have to comply with the conditions.
There may be plenty of problems with NCLB - complaints I've heard include that it encourages "teaching to the test" (solution - get a better school administration) and that there isn't "enough" federal money to meet the mandate (no duh - it was never intended to be 100% funding).
My opinion is that the local school districts, having failed students for over 40 years, have decided to go into survival mode and are throwing out whatever arguments they can to keep from having to change their bloated bureaucracies and airy-fairy "learning strategies". There are good arguments to be had, but the "unfunded mandate" one is a red herring - the funding was there BEFORE the mandate came into effect.
And thinking the locals and states are pristine islands of goodness faced with a sea of federal bureaucracy and corruption is flat out naive - the feds have nothing on the states, and especially school districts, when it comes to flat out, cash in hand corruption (although they are catching up - I'm looking at you, Jefferson)
"And if they can't even BRING BACK THEIR STUFF, then they've failed completely."
Which is exactly the kind of narrowminded thinking that brought us the Shuttle in the 1st place.
The whole concept of shuttle "reusability" came from the idea that *OBVIOUSLY* reusing the orbiter would be cheaper. But it wound up costing more to basically rebuild the shuttle and SRB's every time. Real economy there.
Sometimes, it actually makes more sense from an engineering economics standpoint to throw something away. If it is cheaper to build something for 1 time use, and throw it away after that use, that's OK.
Reread my post, Braniac. The AK-*74* was chambered for a (roughly).22 cal. bullet in - wait for it - 1974. This was a rifle based on the AK-47 but with a cartridge ballistically equivalent to 5.56 mm NATO. So actually the Soviets copied the US almost a decade after the introduction of the AR-15
This was a concession to then current military doctrine that held that knockdown power was less important than ammunition loadout. In conscript armies, the idea of the rifle marksman had been superseded by the reality that some obscene amount of rifle fighting was done via "spray and pray", and that it was better to give the soldier more, but less powerful ammo, since it wasn't going to be aimed anyway.
That doctrine is now being rethought, as the power of the.22 caliber rounds is insufficient to consistently produce incapacitating injuries, and the volunteer military is better trained in marksmanship and firearms handling.
Match what? The lack of range, the heavy ammunition loadout, or the inaccuracy?
The AK has its attributes, as does the AR series. For that matter, many argue that the US should never have ditched the M1/M14.
But I forgot - the US military and government is wholly incompetent at whatever they do. Or they are enormously clever and sophisticated at conspiring toward world domination and personal enrichment. I can never remember which is which.
Whoops - upon rereading it sounds like I am directing the "stupid" comment at the poster, and that is certainly not the case.
I was referring to whatever genius decided to fight alcoholism by taking away bottle openers. Someone in the US tried to do something similar by proposing to ban $100 bills to fight cocaine use - if they couldn't get the Benjamin to roll up and use as a straw, they'd stop using coke.
As someone who has intimate knowledge of dealing with an alcoholic, removeing the "bottle cap opening feature" of the mags would do nothing to stop, or even hinder, an alcoholic. If a drunk wants a drink, something as trivial as that little piece of metal isn't going to stop them. Hell, I used to open my bottles with a simple brass house key.
The idea that someone in Finland exhibited such a low level of knowledge about reality only confirms what I have long suspected - stupidity is universal, and especially concentrated in politicians and bureaucrats. The US certainly doesn't have a lock on it, despite what is typically posted on slashdot.
Specifically, I think it was about the AK-74 being able to fire NATO 5.56, but not vice-versa. I just consulted our local gun nut (i.e. nuttier than I am), and he just shook his head.
I think it may be one of those Reader's Digest "The Reds are going to Kill us All" stories.
"The Cubans surely know what sort of ammunition an AK-47 rifle uses, and are unlikely to have a lot of NATO ammunition lying around. If it's a fake, it's just as strange as if it's a genuine find."
I dunno about that. NATO 5.56 is one of the most common cartriges in the world, and is rediculously easy to find - hell, my dad has a box at home and we don't have any firearms that chamber it. Getting hold of a box, or for that matter thousands of rounds, would be trivial for the Cuban government - just get some from Columbia.
More likely it is the difference between the many different "Cubans" that are out there. Cuban #1, the politico/military guy, tells Cuban #2, the webmaster guy, to put up a web site with info about the "evidence". Cuban #1 provides a picture of the rifle, but not the ammo. Cuban #2 contacts Cuban #3, another military guy, and says "I need a picture of the ammo a Capitalist Pig assasin would use", and is supplied a picture of 5.56mm NATO. Cuban #2 doesn't know jack (or would that be juan) about firearms, and up go the pictures.
No conspiracy needed; just ground level incompetence.
I would disagree that it doesn't come under contract law - a software license agreement IS a contract. Money would be exchanged, and something of value - the right to use a copy of the software with certain conditions - was granted. Prior to the advent of consumer software, this was not a problem - IBM's legal department would hash out an agreement with Company X's lawyers, and a piece of paper would be signed by persons having authority to commit their organizations. But this doesn't happen with consumer software. I think their status is ambiguous at best.
If consumer licenses ever really get tested in court, I think they won't be ruled invalid as a whole, but various portions will be voided under #1 and #2.
Since software licenses are basicaly covered under contract law, I believe that anything goes with the following exceptions:
1) Clauses that are "unconscionable" or that "shock the conscience". So an EULA that says "By using the software you agree to be whipped at any time by the executives of the Company" probably wouldn't fly.
2) Clauses that go against public policy. One can waive various legal rights and recourse in a contract, but a legislature can say that a right is unwaivable. So for instance, an EULA taht says that "By using the software you agree not to sue the Company for any reason whatsoever, and also waive the right to any mediation or arbitration" would go against public policy.
3) Illegal acts: one cannot contract to perform illegal acts. So a contract for sex in exchange for money is considered void; if a hooker gets "stiffed" by her john, she is _legally_ out of luck. So, if an eula said "By using the software you agree to allow the transfer of cash sums in excess of $10,000 through your personal bank account in order to diguise the money's origin" would be null and void.
"Many (most?) countries do not have rules that being born there automatically makes you a citizen. Why do you think that should be the case?"
Actually, the US is the primary exception to that rule - being born on US soil automatically makes you a citizen.
This has its issues - illegal aliens can get legal status by the simple expedient of having a child. There are apocryphal tales of 9 month pregnant Mexicans hopping on a plane to LAX when labor starts and having the kid right in the airport - mostly scaremongering, but there's a constitutional amendment that guarantees that such a child would be a US citizen.
On the other hand, Americans are baffled by the status of immigrants in Europe. Having 2 and 3 generations of "guest labor" who are still not citizens seems unfair and elitist. there is a generation of Turks in Germany who don't speak Turkish and have never even been to Turkey, but they are still considered aliens by the government and the citizens.
Of course, with the unrest in France and other European nations involving these permanent aliens, the consequences of those policies seem to be coming home to roost.
Allow me to state that I am fully in favor of the Native American Nations taking advantage of their status and sucking money away from the surrounding governments. They've had a pretty shitty 500 years, and if they want to take money from dumb white folk at casinos, and let those same folk dodge cigarette taxes, more power to them.
That being said, WTF? They are asserting a "property right" that has been rejected via common, statutory, and international law time and time again. A nation can control physical objects that enter their airspace, but not energy. It's like RFA/Radio Marti - nations may not like broadcasting radio waves into their territory, but there isn't dick-all they can do about it except bitch and moan and try to jam it. But in this case, jamming would be a cure worse than the cause - their own members would lose the same access.
Slashdot Mirror
You are an ass. This guy's friend wasn't giving job interviews, he's a public defender who is trying to do his job by vigorously defending his clients - and that includes referring them for psychiatric evaluation when he sees something out of the ordinary. And he didn't say "multiple pstchiatrists saw nothing wrong with a person", he said "counselors". Given that his clients are already in the legal system, I'd be willing to bet those counselors were overworked, underpaid social workers who just wanted the person gone.
Your level of hypersensitivity and ability to ignore what someone is actually saying/writing would seem to indicate that you are part of the mental health profession. Let me clue you in - the general populace doesn't really respect the mental health population because of the perception that you folks have no clue of what you profess to be experts in. Your misinformed post only adds to that.
So the guy goes out to a bar and tells work stories to his friends about the crazy client who he had today, and your advice is for him to "stick to whatever he's actually qualified to do?". Funny, are you an HR rep? Maybe you should take your own advise?
I believe you are mistaken - given the effect of porn on the internet, the number of ridgid poles is unbounded.
Funny, when that argument is used for IE and Windows - "Firefox and Opera are available on Windows as well yet most people use IE" - it is attributed to ignorance on the part of Windows users. If one applies the same logic, would not then the majority of Apple users be ignorant just like Windows users?
Of course, that's impossible - just look at the Mac guy in the TV ads. He's NOTHING like the PC guy.
"We are human beings, not lions or baboons. We're able to exchange knowledge to better ourselves and thereby avoid conflict through negotiation and compromise."
HAAAhahahaha! What a hoot! I always like to start the day with a good laugh, and this one's a belly shaker. Can I have some of the air your breathing on your planet? 'Cause it sure isn't Earth.
For those of us who need to live in THIS reality, here's an idea: War is a result of *being* human, not a relic from our bestial past. Animals don't go to war. They fight, individually and as a family or pack, but that's it. War, with tactics, strategy, and politics, is uniquely human construct. War will ALWAYS be with us, at least as long as we remain "human". Perhaps Homo Sapiens will evolve into Homo Pacificus (pardon my Latin, it's been over 20 years), but we won't act, or probably even look, like we do now.
There is a quote that goes something like "'Peace' is a fictional condition, posited from the fact that there have been periods of relative inactivity between wars." An individual or tribe may not be fighting, and a nation or state may not be in battle, but *humans* will always have war.
(BTW, $5. for whoever can tell me where that quote is from. Really - Paypal or cash in an envelope. I've been searching for the source and exact text for years.)
Actually, another user has a comment about Iraq being the new Godwins. Knowing this, I wrote it anyway. Sometimes, ya just gotta.
Don't forget the 30 weight and ball bearings. It's all ball bearings these days.
Hear, Hear! Does everything need to be revolutionary, or else it's judged a failure? Maybe it aims to be, Oh, I don't know, just a really good smartphone? Kind of like the iPod is just a really good MP3 player?
Of course, it doesn't help that so many products were touted as "revolutionary" and were nothing of the sort. "Ginger", anyone?
Although I agree in principle, one of your examples is dead wrong. No Child Left Behind is NOT an unfunded mandate. The Feds supplied a shitload of money to states, under the condition that they meet certain standards, which teh states themselves got to set. The states took the money, and are now bitching that they have to comply with the conditions.
There may be plenty of problems with NCLB - complaints I've heard include that it encourages "teaching to the test" (solution - get a better school administration) and that there isn't "enough" federal money to meet the mandate (no duh - it was never intended to be 100% funding).
My opinion is that the local school districts, having failed students for over 40 years, have decided to go into survival mode and are throwing out whatever arguments they can to keep from having to change their bloated bureaucracies and airy-fairy "learning strategies". There are good arguments to be had, but the "unfunded mandate" one is a red herring - the funding was there BEFORE the mandate came into effect.
And thinking the locals and states are pristine islands of goodness faced with a sea of federal bureaucracy and corruption is flat out naive - the feds have nothing on the states, and especially school districts, when it comes to flat out, cash in hand corruption (although they are catching up - I'm looking at you, Jefferson)
Hopefully to be in the cell next door to Paris "Sock Puppet" Hilton.
(Cue "US is evil/rape prison/Saddam was better in 3...2...1...)
Oh yeah - Fletch referring to "that pederast Hanrahan".
Guy must have gone through hell when that movie came out.
"And if they can't even BRING BACK THEIR STUFF, then they've failed completely."
Which is exactly the kind of narrowminded thinking that brought us the Shuttle in the 1st place.
The whole concept of shuttle "reusability" came from the idea that *OBVIOUSLY* reusing the orbiter would be cheaper. But it wound up costing more to basically rebuild the shuttle and SRB's every time. Real economy there.
Sometimes, it actually makes more sense from an engineering economics standpoint to throw something away. If it is cheaper to build something for 1 time use, and throw it away after that use, that's OK.
Cue "Fortran is Dead" comments in
30
20
10
Reread my post, Braniac. The AK-*74* was chambered for a (roughly) .22 cal. bullet in - wait for it - 1974. This was a rifle based on the AK-47 but with a cartridge ballistically equivalent to 5.56 mm NATO. So actually the Soviets copied the US almost a decade after the introduction of the AR-15
.22 caliber rounds is insufficient to consistently produce incapacitating injuries, and the volunteer military is better trained in marksmanship and firearms handling.
This was a concession to then current military doctrine that held that knockdown power was less important than ammunition loadout. In conscript armies, the idea of the rifle marksman had been superseded by the reality that some obscene amount of rifle fighting was done via "spray and pray", and that it was better to give the soldier more, but less powerful ammo, since it wasn't going to be aimed anyway.
That doctrine is now being rethought, as the power of the
Match what? The lack of range, the heavy ammunition loadout, or the inaccuracy?
The AK has its attributes, as does the AR series. For that matter, many argue that the US should never have ditched the M1/M14.
But I forgot - the US military and government is wholly incompetent at whatever they do. Or they are enormously clever and sophisticated at conspiring toward world domination and personal enrichment. I can never remember which is which.
Whoops - upon rereading it sounds like I am directing the "stupid" comment at the poster, and that is certainly not the case.
I was referring to whatever genius decided to fight alcoholism by taking away bottle openers. Someone in the US tried to do something similar by proposing to ban $100 bills to fight cocaine use - if they couldn't get the Benjamin to roll up and use as a straw, they'd stop using coke.
As someone who has intimate knowledge of dealing with an alcoholic, removeing the "bottle cap opening feature" of the mags would do nothing to stop, or even hinder, an alcoholic. If a drunk wants a drink, something as trivial as that little piece of metal isn't going to stop them. Hell, I used to open my bottles with a simple brass house key.
The idea that someone in Finland exhibited such a low level of knowledge about reality only confirms what I have long suspected - stupidity is universal, and especially concentrated in politicians and bureaucrats. The US certainly doesn't have a lock on it, despite what is typically posted on slashdot.
Specifically, I think it was about the AK-74 being able to fire NATO 5.56, but not vice-versa. I just consulted our local gun nut (i.e. nuttier than I am), and he just shook his head.
I think it may be one of those Reader's Digest "The Reds are going to Kill us All" stories.
"The Cubans surely know what sort of ammunition an AK-47 rifle uses, and are unlikely to have a lot of NATO ammunition lying around. If it's a fake, it's just as strange as if it's a genuine find."
I dunno about that. NATO 5.56 is one of the most common cartriges in the world, and is rediculously easy to find - hell, my dad has a box at home and we don't have any firearms that chamber it. Getting hold of a box, or for that matter thousands of rounds, would be trivial for the Cuban government - just get some from Columbia.
More likely it is the difference between the many different "Cubans" that are out there. Cuban #1, the politico/military guy, tells Cuban #2, the webmaster guy, to put up a web site with info about the "evidence". Cuban #1 provides a picture of the rifle, but not the ammo. Cuban #2 contacts Cuban #3, another military guy, and says "I need a picture of the ammo a Capitalist Pig assasin would use", and is supplied a picture of 5.56mm NATO. Cuban #2 doesn't know jack (or would that be juan) about firearms, and up go the pictures.
No conspiracy needed; just ground level incompetence.
I would disagree that it doesn't come under contract law - a software license agreement IS a contract. Money would be exchanged, and something of value - the right to use a copy of the software with certain conditions - was granted. Prior to the advent of consumer software, this was not a problem - IBM's legal department would hash out an agreement with Company X's lawyers, and a piece of paper would be signed by persons having authority to commit their organizations. But this doesn't happen with consumer software. I think their status is ambiguous at best.
If consumer licenses ever really get tested in court, I think they won't be ruled invalid as a whole, but various portions will be voided under #1 and #2.
Principle #1: The Left represents the Good and the Righteous.
Principle #2: The Right represents Evil and Totalitarianism.
Therefore, one needs to support the Left and oppose the Right *on principle*, whatever their specific actions.
Since software licenses are basicaly covered under contract law, I believe that anything goes with the following exceptions:
1) Clauses that are "unconscionable" or that "shock the conscience". So an EULA that says "By using the software you agree to be whipped at any time by the executives of the Company" probably wouldn't fly.
2) Clauses that go against public policy. One can waive various legal rights and recourse in a contract, but a legislature can say that a right is unwaivable. So for instance, an EULA taht says that "By using the software you agree not to sue the Company for any reason whatsoever, and also waive the right to any mediation or arbitration" would go against public policy.
3) Illegal acts: one cannot contract to perform illegal acts. So a contract for sex in exchange for money is considered void; if a hooker gets "stiffed" by her john, she is _legally_ out of luck. So, if an eula said "By using the software you agree to allow the transfer of cash sums in excess of $10,000 through your personal bank account in order to diguise the money's origin" would be null and void.
And remember, IANAL(BIMO).
"Many (most?) countries do not have rules that being born there automatically makes you a citizen. Why do you think that should be the case?"
Actually, the US is the primary exception to that rule - being born on US soil automatically makes you a citizen.
This has its issues - illegal aliens can get legal status by the simple expedient of having a child. There are apocryphal tales of 9 month pregnant Mexicans hopping on a plane to LAX when labor starts and having the kid right in the airport - mostly scaremongering, but there's a constitutional amendment that guarantees that such a child would be a US citizen.
On the other hand, Americans are baffled by the status of immigrants in Europe. Having 2 and 3 generations of "guest labor" who are still not citizens seems unfair and elitist. there is a generation of Turks in Germany who don't speak Turkish and have never even been to Turkey, but they are still considered aliens by the government and the citizens.
Of course, with the unrest in France and other European nations involving these permanent aliens, the consequences of those policies seem to be coming home to roost.
"But bloat and gee-whizz panders to the "hunt and peck" crowd."
But I am a hunt & pecker, you insensitive clod!
and block their phone numbers?
Allow me to state that I am fully in favor of the Native American Nations taking advantage of their status and sucking money away from the surrounding governments. They've had a pretty shitty 500 years, and if they want to take money from dumb white folk at casinos, and let those same folk dodge cigarette taxes, more power to them.
That being said, WTF? They are asserting a "property right" that has been rejected via common, statutory, and international law time and time again. A nation can control physical objects that enter their airspace, but not energy. It's like RFA/Radio Marti - nations may not like broadcasting radio waves into their territory, but there isn't dick-all they can do about it except bitch and moan and try to jam it. But in this case, jamming would be a cure worse than the cause - their own members would lose the same access.
I mean, are they serious?