The military itself does, while civilian DoD does not. That said, questions of sexual orientation are likely not about "we don't want gay scientists", but rather that "we want to know who employees might be relating to, so that we know who to check when we seem to have a leak".
Let's take the Gay thing as an example, since sexual orientation is probably one of the seemingly least-germane applications of a background check.
In cases of espionage, one of the most common agents for a case worker to run is the significant other of a sensitive party. If there appears to be a leak, counter-intelligence assets are going to check up on potential lovers of employees. Knowing sexual orientation helps to know who to look at. In many cases (I don't know about this one), employees are even required to report relationships to the chain of command.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I just wanted to add that I do still admire these folks for standing up to their employer. If they feel they are being taken advantage of, then they should go for it.
Oh, and to the person who modded me troll, Troll != "I don't agree".
Sigh.
Having worked in the military and civilian worlds on sensitive and not-so-sensitive projects involving technology, this is not really news. This is a consequence of working with the government, and frankly, it doesn't bother me all that much.
Heck, you wouldn't believe the background checks I went through for the FBI. In the end, while maybe not ideal for the potential employee, I find nothing significantly reprehensible about the process.
In the end, I prefer a system that burdens an individual with the consequences, and benefits, of his or her choices, rather than asking the larger society to subsidize it fully.
Speaking as a veteran of both the Army and the Marine Corps, military service is a fine way to pay for part of your education. Or, like some that I know, you can use the National Guard. They have extremely good tuition programs in many states - one person I know gets 100% tuition coverage through a state Guard grant, plus about $800/month in GI Bill funds to help with room and board.
In countries where there isn't a "tradition" of taking out loans, you (and everyone else, whether they want to or not) pay for your schooling by giving an even heftier percentage of your paycheck to the government.
Most people I know pay back their student loans within 8 to 10 years, not when they're "old and gray".
1) Time Machine uses the FSEvents daemon to keep overhead to an absolute minimum
2) Time Machine uses file and directory hardlinks to minimize space taken, but provide a complete, usable, identical directory structure to the original
3) How to you do previous versions on a deleted file?
4) Time Machine provides a minimalist, automatic, and "easy-to-use" backup solution that people want to use. Making people want to use backup software is a coup in itself.
Except rsnapshot uses rsync, which must rescan the filesystem. With Time Machine, the FSEvents daemon makes that unnecessary in the common case.
Also, Time Machine uses hard links to directories.
If you really "read and/or verified" the original post, you'd realize that that 2nd link was incorrect. The first link leads to the story discussed in the post, which does in fact contain the aforementioned quote.
Except your comparison is false. What you would compare in this case is reporting a death vs. reporting an ATM theft, neither of which is legally required.
1) This was not an "advertised" price. This is not about honoring "advertised" prices. This was a point-of-sale glitch.
2) If you were expecting to buy one get one free, and then found out that you could put two in your cart and get them both for $0.00, you are the one taking advantage of the glitch.
3) While Amazon may not have legal recourse, you and I both know that you are the asshole here.
He's making "the tough call"? Which tough call is that, the one to stand in the way of justice?
It's one thing for a journalist to protect his sources, but it's something else entirely to stand in the way of orderly legal proceedings due to some misguided sense of journalistic ethics.
First, this guy's "journalist" status is tenuous at best. Second, he's not protecting a source in the traditional sense, but is just being obstructionist and protecting the perpetrators of a serious violent crime.
We should certainly be vigilant against government encroachment upon the free press, but this wolf-crying bullshit only hurts the public perception of journalism.
Your logic only follows if the measure of a piece of art is entirely based on its popularity during a specified timeframe. There are plenty of examples, across mediums and throughout history, in which works have been ill-received initially, or by certain groups of people. This does not indicated that they are any "less good".
Additionally, the unique nature of Firefly probably guarantees that it will take time to be accepted by the general populace. As geeks, we tend to thing of the majority as fairly ill-opinionated and ill-informed (and that's putting our general consensus nicely). Given time and exposure, I guarantee that a lot of people will come to like Firefly and its derivative works. Just look at all the posts by people saying "My friends made me watch it. At first I thought it was kinda dumb/weird/not what I'm into, but after becoming addicted I can say this is a great show!".
So I think it's a little premature to say the show isn't superb. It just didn't generate superb Nielsens.
DISCLAIMER: I think Firefly is f'ing awesome.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been there, I'm going back in January, and I take offense to your blanket statement about the force that I take pride in being part of. Civilian casualties are a consequence of WAREFARE IN GENERAL, not of incompetence of the military. Our military produces the lowest civilian casualty rates of any in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The military itself does, while civilian DoD does not. That said, questions of sexual orientation are likely not about "we don't want gay scientists", but rather that "we want to know who employees might be relating to, so that we know who to check when we seem to have a leak".
Let's take the Gay thing as an example, since sexual orientation is probably one of the seemingly least-germane applications of a background check.
In cases of espionage, one of the most common agents for a case worker to run is the significant other of a sensitive party. If there appears to be a leak, counter-intelligence assets are going to check up on potential lovers of employees. Knowing sexual orientation helps to know who to look at. In many cases (I don't know about this one), employees are even required to report relationships to the chain of command.
Sorry for replying to myself, but I just wanted to add that I do still admire these folks for standing up to their employer. If they feel they are being taken advantage of, then they should go for it. Oh, and to the person who modded me troll, Troll != "I don't agree". Sigh.
Having worked in the military and civilian worlds on sensitive and not-so-sensitive projects involving technology, this is not really news. This is a consequence of working with the government, and frankly, it doesn't bother me all that much.
Heck, you wouldn't believe the background checks I went through for the FBI. In the end, while maybe not ideal for the potential employee, I find nothing significantly reprehensible about the process.
Many of you seem to be under the strange impression that QuickTime itself is a media player.
Well SOMEONE has to notify Bruce Willis.
In the end, I prefer a system that burdens an individual with the consequences, and benefits, of his or her choices, rather than asking the larger society to subsidize it fully.
"my computer which holds very confidential information should not be monitored."
Then don't install a program that requires monitoring, like WoW. Use a separate system, or a walled-off account. Security is your responsibility.
This software is not a malicious attempt to invade your privacy, and thus, it is up to your own security measures to limit issues.
You're making my point for me.
I am not suggesting that we have MORE disposable income here, but rather that we don't have LESS.
What I'm suggesting is that we aren't any more burdened by educational loans than those in welfare states are by taxes.
Speaking as a veteran of both the Army and the Marine Corps, military service is a fine way to pay for part of your education. Or, like some that I know, you can use the National Guard. They have extremely good tuition programs in many states - one person I know gets 100% tuition coverage through a state Guard grant, plus about $800/month in GI Bill funds to help with room and board.
In countries where there isn't a "tradition" of taking out loans, you (and everyone else, whether they want to or not) pay for your schooling by giving an even heftier percentage of your paycheck to the government.
Most people I know pay back their student loans within 8 to 10 years, not when they're "old and gray".
That's all well and good, but I wouldn't trust the Sierra Club for stats like that any more than I would trust BP.
You realize that you're parrotting many of the predications made around the launch of the iPod.
That has to be the hardest I've ever seen someone work to fit an anti-religion message into a post.
...but frankly, I think these are some pretty heavy conclusions to draw from the discussed studies.
1) Time Machine uses the FSEvents daemon to keep overhead to an absolute minimum 2) Time Machine uses file and directory hardlinks to minimize space taken, but provide a complete, usable, identical directory structure to the original 3) How to you do previous versions on a deleted file? 4) Time Machine provides a minimalist, automatic, and "easy-to-use" backup solution that people want to use. Making people want to use backup software is a coup in itself.
Except rsnapshot uses rsync, which must rescan the filesystem. With Time Machine, the FSEvents daemon makes that unnecessary in the common case. Also, Time Machine uses hard links to directories.
If you really "read and/or verified" the original post, you'd realize that that 2nd link was incorrect. The first link leads to the story discussed in the post, which does in fact contain the aforementioned quote.
But don't let me knock you off your high horse.
Actually, that's closer to a MacBook, albeit with a larger screen, unless you have a discrete graphics solution.
Except your comparison is false. What you would compare in this case is reporting a death vs. reporting an ATM theft, neither of which is legally required.
1) This was not an "advertised" price. This is not about honoring "advertised" prices. This was a point-of-sale glitch. 2) If you were expecting to buy one get one free, and then found out that you could put two in your cart and get them both for $0.00, you are the one taking advantage of the glitch. 3) While Amazon may not have legal recourse, you and I both know that you are the asshole here.
He's making "the tough call"? Which tough call is that, the one to stand in the way of justice? It's one thing for a journalist to protect his sources, but it's something else entirely to stand in the way of orderly legal proceedings due to some misguided sense of journalistic ethics. First, this guy's "journalist" status is tenuous at best. Second, he's not protecting a source in the traditional sense, but is just being obstructionist and protecting the perpetrators of a serious violent crime. We should certainly be vigilant against government encroachment upon the free press, but this wolf-crying bullshit only hurts the public perception of journalism.
Your logic only follows if the measure of a piece of art is entirely based on its popularity during a specified timeframe. There are plenty of examples, across mediums and throughout history, in which works have been ill-received initially, or by certain groups of people. This does not indicated that they are any "less good". Additionally, the unique nature of Firefly probably guarantees that it will take time to be accepted by the general populace. As geeks, we tend to thing of the majority as fairly ill-opinionated and ill-informed (and that's putting our general consensus nicely). Given time and exposure, I guarantee that a lot of people will come to like Firefly and its derivative works. Just look at all the posts by people saying "My friends made me watch it. At first I thought it was kinda dumb/weird/not what I'm into, but after becoming addicted I can say this is a great show!". So I think it's a little premature to say the show isn't superb. It just didn't generate superb Nielsens. DISCLAIMER: I think Firefly is f'ing awesome.
Your sig fucking rocks, great TNG episode...
You have no idea what you're talking about. I've been there, I'm going back in January, and I take offense to your blanket statement about the force that I take pride in being part of. Civilian casualties are a consequence of WAREFARE IN GENERAL, not of incompetence of the military. Our military produces the lowest civilian casualty rates of any in the world.
Heh heh, I'm an 11B, and my AFQT was a 99...not all of us are idiots! Of course, I also have a B.S. in CS and a B.S. in Physics...