Not everyone feels as you do. I don't want the federal government to have MORE. I want to limit that power. State's power is a way of doing that. It's also a way to have policy be localized as much as possible. In my view, it helps to create that whole thing about "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
I would argue that much of the consequences that are "feared" never happen at all, or at least not as portrayed on TV/the web. While his examples may be specious, he presents a different way of looking at the subject, which shouldn't be dismissed because of F.U.D. (at least in my view).
"Security is always a trade-off. I know people who rarely lock their front door, who drive in the rain (and, while using a cellphone) and who talk to strangers..."
Plenty of people worried; "Oh someone might download kiddie porn and I would get blamed", "Oh, someone steals my information", "Oh, someone might download riaa music..."
If you walk around in fear of things that never happen to you, then by all means, lock your stuff down - even better, stay off the net entirely! Then maybe you'll feel safe. Oh wait, you don't want to feel safe, you want to be afraid and worry.
"This happens everywhere/all the time" - is a dangerous mindset when watching TV (or surfing/.)!
Oh please. This isn't about the reprehensibility of Yahoo's actions. This is about Congress being hypocritical. Neither party gives a hoot about the journalist getting jailed.
The irony here is that Yahoo's simply following the leadership that our elected leaders demonstrate. If our leaders have a problem with what's going on, they might want to look at how they are leading this nation, rather than hold disingenuous hearings.
So - the kettle/pot comments are appropriate considering the subject matter. And before you go much further condemning Yahoo - Check your belongings. How much of it says "Made in China"?
Exactly! Seems like the idea here is Dan wasn't a journalist. No s#!*. Never has been as far as I know.
Then again, what do we mean by journalism and how does that ideal mesh with practical application in the real world? The ideal of "journalism" seems to be held by people who aren't journalists. Forbes will report news in a certain way. A way that guarantees they continue to get paid a lot of money from advertisers. A reporter's job is to do what his editor tells him to do. Dan does that job very well. If you expect any large media outlet to expose the "truth", you will be disappointed. Exposing truth is risky, doesn't pay well - advertisers with lots of cash (big business) don't support news outlets that might expose a business in a poor light. It's not the goal of Forbes to expose the "truth", they are concerned with making sure they can operate in such a way that the money continues to flow. Business, not journalism.
In the case of SCO - sites like/. & Groklaw could do what Forbes couldn't - Be openly critical of SCO and the make believe case they brought.
As far as the acticle, it's actually pretty good. At least he took the time to write it. Of course, Forbes wouldn't let it be posted until now... but that's on Forbes, not necessarily Dan.
"Reporters are supposed to get stories, sort out the various facts, and if someone's feeding them bullshit, point that out. "
Why do any of us believe that? That is an expression of the ideal of "journalism", mostly held by people who aren't journalists. Forbes will report news in a certain way. A way that guarantees they continue to get paid a lot of money from advertisers. A reporter's job is to do what his editor tells him to do. Dan does that job very well. If you expect any large media outlet to expose the "truth", you will be disappointed. Exposing truth is risky, doesn't pay well - advertisers with lots of cash (big business) don't support news outlets that might expose a business in a poor light. It's not the goal of Forbes to expose the "truth", they are concerned with making sure they can operate in such a way that the money continues to flow. Business, not journalism.
In the case of SCO - sites like/. & Groklaw could do what Forbes couldn't - Be openly critical of SCO and the make believe case they brought.
As far as the acticle, it's actually pretty good. At least he took the time to write it. Of course, Forbes wouldn't let it be posted until now... but that's on Forbes, not necessarily Dan.
Know what? It should hurt. Scaring the students was a stupid idea, and for stupidity to change it has to HURT. I don't know if the "Kids should get rich", but the school and the teachers should definitely pay a price, and a high one. To discourage the behavior.
Besides just stupid. Why anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me. We are truly making ourselves insane.
"Principal Catherine Stephens declined to say whether the staff members involved would face disciplinary action, but said the situation 'involved poor judgment.'"
The article was from the point of view of managers who say they want to hire more women to diversify their teams. However they are finding it difficult to find women willing to "just suck it up" as you so aptly put it. Too bad for them. I guess something will have to change: either they can shit-can the diversity, or they will have to give up the whole "Do more with less/let's grind 'em into the ground" mentality of business IT.
My first thought when I read the headline was "Once again, we see that women are much smarter than men."
Slashdot Mirror
Well said!
It has given a lot of people jobs. Think of it as public works. "Not what it's intended for" you say? How do you know?
Not everyone feels as you do. I don't want the federal government to have MORE. I want to limit that power. State's power is a way of doing that. It's also a way to have policy be localized as much as possible. In my view, it helps to create that whole thing about "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
I don't think so. I'm sure AT&T would be happy to activate it for you. Just wait in line.
I would argue that much of the consequences that are "feared" never happen at all, or at least not as portrayed on TV/the web.
While his examples may be specious, he presents a different way of looking at the subject, which shouldn't be dismissed because of F.U.D. (at least in my view).
It was meant as a joke...
"Trust me." - by Anonymous Coward
/., or discount them? Which is it? CAn I get a ruling?
Ummm, I forget, am I supposed to trust AC's on
"Security is always a trade-off. I know people who rarely lock their front door, who drive in the rain (and, while using a cellphone) and who talk to strangers..."
/.)!
Plenty of people worried; "Oh someone might download kiddie porn and I would get blamed", "Oh, someone steals my information", "Oh, someone might download riaa music..."
If you walk around in fear of things that never happen to you, then by all means, lock your stuff down - even better, stay off the net entirely! Then maybe you'll feel safe. Oh wait, you don't want to feel safe, you want to be afraid and worry.
"This happens everywhere/all the time" - is a dangerous mindset when watching TV (or surfing
If I had mod points...
Well said.
Oh please. This isn't about the reprehensibility of Yahoo's actions. This is about Congress being hypocritical. Neither party gives a hoot about the journalist getting jailed.
The irony here is that Yahoo's simply following the leadership that our elected leaders demonstrate. If our leaders have a problem with what's going on, they might want to look at how they are leading this nation, rather than hold disingenuous hearings.
So - the kettle/pot comments are appropriate considering the subject matter. And before you go much further condemning Yahoo - Check your belongings. How much of it says "Made in China"?
I think you're on to something. That was my first thought when I read the article "Set up. She's been bought and paid for"
No laws were broken. SO since he didn't do the crime, should he still have to do the time?
Jesus, grow a pair, why don't ya?
Exactly!
/. & Groklaw could do what Forbes couldn't - Be openly critical of SCO and the make believe case they brought.
Seems like the idea here is Dan wasn't a journalist. No s#!*. Never has been as far as I know.
Then again, what do we mean by journalism and how does that ideal mesh with practical application in the real world? The ideal of "journalism" seems to be held by people who aren't journalists. Forbes will report news in a certain way. A way that guarantees they continue to get paid a lot of money from advertisers. A reporter's job is to do what his editor tells him to do. Dan does that job very well. If you expect any large media outlet to expose the "truth", you will be disappointed. Exposing truth is risky, doesn't pay well - advertisers with lots of cash (big business) don't support news outlets that might expose a business in a poor light. It's not the goal of Forbes to expose the "truth", they are concerned with making sure they can operate in such a way that the money continues to flow. Business, not journalism.
In the case of SCO - sites like
As far as the acticle, it's actually pretty good. At least he took the time to write it. Of course, Forbes wouldn't let it be posted until now... but that's on Forbes, not necessarily Dan.
"Reporters are supposed to get stories, sort out the various facts, and if someone's feeding them bullshit, point that out. "
/. & Groklaw could do what Forbes couldn't - Be openly critical of SCO and the make believe case they brought.
Why do any of us believe that? That is an expression of the ideal of "journalism", mostly held by people who aren't journalists. Forbes will report news in a certain way. A way that guarantees they continue to get paid a lot of money from advertisers. A reporter's job is to do what his editor tells him to do. Dan does that job very well. If you expect any large media outlet to expose the "truth", you will be disappointed. Exposing truth is risky, doesn't pay well - advertisers with lots of cash (big business) don't support news outlets that might expose a business in a poor light. It's not the goal of Forbes to expose the "truth", they are concerned with making sure they can operate in such a way that the money continues to flow. Business, not journalism.
In the case of SCO - sites like
As far as the acticle, it's actually pretty good. At least he took the time to write it. Of course, Forbes wouldn't let it be posted until now... but that's on Forbes, not necessarily Dan.
FWIW, this is a much better sample of his work: http://fakesteve.blogspot.com/
You make it seem like those things are exclusive. I disagree. I want both. Why shouldn't I? Life is a class. What am I going to learn today?
Being entertained is an attitude (i.e. how I relate myself to the lesson) on both the teacher and the student's part.
Know what? It should hurt. Scaring the students was a stupid idea, and for stupidity to change it has to HURT. I don't know if the "Kids should get rich", but the school and the teachers should definitely pay a price, and a high one. To discourage the behavior.
Besides just stupid. Why anyone would think this is a good idea is beyond me. We are truly making ourselves insane.
"Principal Catherine Stephens declined to say whether the staff members involved would face disciplinary action, but said the situation 'involved poor judgment.'"
You think so, Doctor?
Exactly.
Why? Because my (and the author's) secret desire is to own a Mac with an AMD chip so I can feel 'leet.
Please Steve Jobs, make my fantasy come true!
If AMD is such a good fit for Apple, why aren't they making Macs with AMD chips already?
Better companies than HP have tried to kill it and it ain't dead yet!
An excellent point.
The article was from the point of view of managers who say they want to hire more women to diversify their teams. However they are finding it difficult to find women willing to "just suck it up" as you so aptly put it. Too bad for them. I guess something will have to change: either they can shit-can the diversity, or they will have to give up the whole "Do more with less/let's grind 'em into the ground" mentality of business IT.
My first thought when I read the headline was "Once again, we see that women are much smarter than men."
I know you are, but what am I?
"If it kills this Month of Whatever fad, then hurray for everyone, it's over."
I think these guys are on to something. I hope they suceed
Bravo! I missed your post originally or I would've making one of my own.
Yellowstone Volcano Observatory FAQ