I'm not sure the name is their problem. After all, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party has won elections in Britain.
No, their major limitation is that they're primarily a single-issue party, and their stance on that issue has been taken by some of their opponents. So while they haven't experienced much by way of electoral success, as far as putting their ideas into mainstream politics in Sweden they've done a fantastic job.
Many of them do. Many of those that do are still demonized by Fox News - for instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said in describing his community center in Lower Manhattan that “We want to push back against the extremists", has worked with local Jewish leaders, and has been consistently advocating for peace between Islamic nations and the West throughout his career. It didn't help his cause.
Citizens with lots of wealth own corporations. The corporation's interest is their interest.
Other citizens who are affected by what the corporation does are not necessarily represented by the corporation. Employees, vendors, customers, and people that just happen to live near a corporation's major facilities have no representation whatsoever within a corporation unless they own significant amounts of stock.
More generalized moral of the story: There is no such thing as a temporary solution.
Either whatever you did solved the problem kinda well enough (which quickly turns it into a permanent solution), or it doesn't (in which case it's no solution at all). That means that when you do something to mitigate a problem temporarily, make it clear to any management types that the problem isn't really solved.
One idea for preventing the deployment of a proof-of-concept is to make the UI for the proof-of-concept as ugly and difficult to use as possible.
Well, I think that all extremists should be killed to ensure that the debate remains moderate! Oh, wait...
It's also worth mentioning that if you immediately dismiss all extremists, you limit the debate to those ideas which the powers that be have deemed "mainstream" and acceptable. Extremists are the ones that change what is considered mainstream.
Amazingly enough, the article describing Stallman's well-reasoned arguments for the need for free software, free sharing of information, and non-proprietary formats is helpfully on a page written in ASP.
How come you're such a fussy young man? Complaining 'bout the jokes if people come to play? You better settle down, or be modded as a troll, so quit it, just quit it.
Is there a reason you don't wanna behave? Expecting stupid parodies or tech news you crave? Just remember samzenpus is editor today, so quit it, just quit it.
Quit it! Quit it! Don't you make me submit it! Have an Insightful, have a +5, if you don't like it then post some dumb flame, and quit it (quit it, quit it)
In case you hadn't noticed, there are ballot initiatives to do just that in California. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) started a commission to rethink the War on Drugs. So yeah, some of those kids are in fact trying to make pot legal.
They're words. As many bright people (including Frank Zappa and George Carlin) have pointed out, getting worked up over the words is silly. Getting worked up over the meanings, hatreds, etc behind the words is appropriate, but the words themselves are harmless.
A big myth related to children in general is that they're innocent creatures ignorant of all things biological. They aren't, and they never really have been.
Thhe purpose of "Private Browsing" isn't to protect your privacy from websites while you surf, it's to protect your privacy from your SO when she comes home and sees your web history.
They don't know you yet, so you can present yourself as fitting into the role you want rather than the role you had. You'll still get shoehorned, but you'll get shoehorned differently.
I didn't say that I had an easy solution to this problem, just that trickle-down economics has not been in any way remotely demonstrated to work as advertised.
The observation is easy: If you want to change your professional role significantly, expect to change companies.
And it's not simply "management sucks", it's that management doesn't understand you, so they're doing their best to muddle through, and they seize on information like this because it's all they have, and once they think they understand you they're probably going to keep that understanding of you. They don't have a lot of time to spend understanding each employee, so once they think they've figured you out they aren't going to try to repeat the effort.
That's why you should read this. Not because it provides useful information to people on the tech team, but because people in the business of managing IT departments really take this stuff seriously. They will try to shoehorn the people they have into the stereotypes, archetypes, and roles they know about, and once they've assigned you to a part, you're going to be doing that part until you leave or the show ends. And if you don't fit one of the parts, they're going to consider you useless.
This sort of thing is especially true for managers who didn't work their way up through the ranks, so they're now faced with a bunch of geeks who are exacting, relentlessly uncovering BS, demand facts and figures, and speak in a jargon they can't understand. It can also be a big issue for the CTO, because even if the CTO is someone who does understand the geeks, the CEO doesn't and often demands that the CTO make the geeks follow a plan they can understand.
We've tried trickle-down economics for the better part of 30 years, and the result has been a steady drop in real wages for the poorest Americans, a stagnation of real salaries for middle-class Americans, and a massive increase in income for upper-class Americans. Given that, please explain the evidence for the trickle-down effect, where the upper-class Americans hire middle-class and poor Americans at good rates.
Forget spears and bows. Real men hunt with clubs or their bare hands!
And I've actually gotten that close to a wild deer. Thank goodness it was a doe and didn't have any fawns to protect, but you can get that close by walking quietly through taller undergrowth.
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).
Then explain why people who watch The Daily Show have been shown (via objective tests and surveys and the like) to know more about what's going on in the world than people who watch CNN. Jon would be the first to point out that there's something wrong with this picture, but that doesn't mean that he's doing a disservice to his audience.
His rally is seriousness dressed up as comedy, just like his TV show.
Most great comedy has a serious point wrapped inside of it. For instance, George Carlin did a spiel on rape, where he made quite offensive jokes ("Hey, she [a 90-year-old] was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe.") as a way of pointing out that rapists are horrible scum and that "Hey, she was asking for it" is no excuse.
Now Colbert, he's making fun of Stewart just as much as he's making fun of GB.
And now we get to the real truth: You're not concerned about whether Jon is being serious or comic, or even providing useful news. You're just upset because he's targeting somebody you agree with, and by extension, you.
It's about stealing resources from a foreign country using resources stolen from the US. For instance, the Vietnam War was largely about gaining cheap access to rubber for Goodyear and Bridgestone, but Lockheed and Dow Chemical were happy to profit big-time on it as well. Or consider that most of the conflicts in Central America have been in support of the specific interests of what is now Chiquita Banana or National City Bank, but again the defense contractors were happy to join in the profits.
Industry generally favors war, particularly when their taxes don't go up, because it is extremely profitable for them.
In addition to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been more recent efforts, most notably by Paul Wolfowitz (as Deputy Secretary of Defense), to make nuclear weapons something the US will consider using regularly.
On the upside, the latest nuclear treaty between the US and Russia should help. As far as what us normal people can do about the threat of nukes, here's the instruction guide.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe stop selling their PC division to a Chinese-based company.
I'm not sure the name is their problem. After all, the Official Monster Raving Loony Party has won elections in Britain.
No, their major limitation is that they're primarily a single-issue party, and their stance on that issue has been taken by some of their opponents. So while they haven't experienced much by way of electoral success, as far as putting their ideas into mainstream politics in Sweden they've done a fantastic job.
No, the prototype solves the functional requirements, but the nonfunctional ones are toast - maintainability, scalability, things like that.
Agreed, but the non-functional ones don't matter in the minds of management, so they fall by the wayside so you can work on the Next Big Thing.
Many of them do. Many of those that do are still demonized by Fox News - for instance, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said in describing his community center in Lower Manhattan that “We want to push back against the extremists", has worked with local Jewish leaders, and has been consistently advocating for peace between Islamic nations and the West throughout his career. It didn't help his cause.
Citizens with lots of wealth own corporations. The corporation's interest is their interest.
Other citizens who are affected by what the corporation does are not necessarily represented by the corporation. Employees, vendors, customers, and people that just happen to live near a corporation's major facilities have no representation whatsoever within a corporation unless they own significant amounts of stock.
More generalized moral of the story: There is no such thing as a temporary solution.
Either whatever you did solved the problem kinda well enough (which quickly turns it into a permanent solution), or it doesn't (in which case it's no solution at all). That means that when you do something to mitigate a problem temporarily, make it clear to any management types that the problem isn't really solved.
One idea for preventing the deployment of a proof-of-concept is to make the UI for the proof-of-concept as ugly and difficult to use as possible.
Well, I think that all extremists should be killed to ensure that the debate remains moderate! Oh, wait ...
It's also worth mentioning that if you immediately dismiss all extremists, you limit the debate to those ideas which the powers that be have deemed "mainstream" and acceptable. Extremists are the ones that change what is considered mainstream.
Amazingly enough, the article describing Stallman's well-reasoned arguments for the need for free software, free sharing of information, and non-proprietary formats is helpfully on a page written in ASP.
How come you're such a fussy young man?
Complaining 'bout the jokes if people come to play?
You better settle down, or be modded as a troll, so
quit it, just quit it.
Is there a reason you don't wanna behave?
Expecting stupid parodies or tech news you crave?
Just remember samzenpus is editor today, so
quit it, just quit it.
Quit it! Quit it! Don't you make me submit it!
Have an Insightful, have a +5,
if you don't like it then post some dumb flame, and
quit it (quit it, quit it)
In case you hadn't noticed, there are ballot initiatives to do just that in California. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) started a commission to rethink the War on Drugs. So yeah, some of those kids are in fact trying to make pot legal.
Oh Belgium, not this again.
They're words. As many bright people (including Frank Zappa and George Carlin) have pointed out, getting worked up over the words is silly. Getting worked up over the meanings, hatreds, etc behind the words is appropriate, but the words themselves are harmless.
A big myth related to children in general is that they're innocent creatures ignorant of all things biological. They aren't, and they never really have been.
Thhe purpose of "Private Browsing" isn't to protect your privacy from websites while you surf, it's to protect your privacy from your SO when she comes home and sees your web history.
They don't know you yet, so you can present yourself as fitting into the role you want rather than the role you had. You'll still get shoehorned, but you'll get shoehorned differently.
A strong argument in favor of my contention that wealth did not trickle down:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/Chartbook.xls
I didn't say that I had an easy solution to this problem, just that trickle-down economics has not been in any way remotely demonstrated to work as advertised.
The observation is easy: If you want to change your professional role significantly, expect to change companies.
And it's not simply "management sucks", it's that management doesn't understand you, so they're doing their best to muddle through, and they seize on information like this because it's all they have, and once they think they understand you they're probably going to keep that understanding of you. They don't have a lot of time to spend understanding each employee, so once they think they've figured you out they aren't going to try to repeat the effort.
That's why you should read this. Not because it provides useful information to people on the tech team, but because people in the business of managing IT departments really take this stuff seriously. They will try to shoehorn the people they have into the stereotypes, archetypes, and roles they know about, and once they've assigned you to a part, you're going to be doing that part until you leave or the show ends. And if you don't fit one of the parts, they're going to consider you useless.
This sort of thing is especially true for managers who didn't work their way up through the ranks, so they're now faced with a bunch of geeks who are exacting, relentlessly uncovering BS, demand facts and figures, and speak in a jargon they can't understand. It can also be a big issue for the CTO, because even if the CTO is someone who does understand the geeks, the CEO doesn't and often demands that the CTO make the geeks follow a plan they can understand.
We've tried trickle-down economics for the better part of 30 years, and the result has been a steady drop in real wages for the poorest Americans, a stagnation of real salaries for middle-class Americans, and a massive increase in income for upper-class Americans. Given that, please explain the evidence for the trickle-down effect, where the upper-class Americans hire middle-class and poor Americans at good rates.
Forget spears and bows. Real men hunt with clubs or their bare hands!
And I've actually gotten that close to a wild deer. Thank goodness it was a doe and didn't have any fawns to protect, but you can get that close by walking quietly through taller undergrowth.
Badgers? Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!
The problem with Stewart (not so much Colbert), is that too many people get their news from him, a comedian (or is he??).
Then explain why people who watch The Daily Show have been shown (via objective tests and surveys and the like) to know more about what's going on in the world than people who watch CNN. Jon would be the first to point out that there's something wrong with this picture, but that doesn't mean that he's doing a disservice to his audience.
His rally is seriousness dressed up as comedy, just like his TV show.
Most great comedy has a serious point wrapped inside of it. For instance, George Carlin did a spiel on rape, where he made quite offensive jokes ("Hey, she [a 90-year-old] was asking for it, she had on a tight bathrobe.") as a way of pointing out that rapists are horrible scum and that "Hey, she was asking for it" is no excuse.
Now Colbert, he's making fun of Stewart just as much as he's making fun of GB.
And now we get to the real truth: You're not concerned about whether Jon is being serious or comic, or even providing useful news. You're just upset because he's targeting somebody you agree with, and by extension, you.
Swedish translation:
Errrrrr!
Zee Perleeement hed a purtcoollees mede-a frum zee feenest irun! Zee sveene-a puoored bueeling ooeel oon my metes frum zee bettlements! Boot zee erchers... blest ye-a erchers! Zee eur ves a meelstrum ooff qooeells und deet!
Errrrrrr! Bork Bork Bork!
Err, wouldn't that be "Mr Hudson"? I don't know too many Ms's named Tom.
It's frequently both.
It's about stealing resources from a foreign country using resources stolen from the US. For instance, the Vietnam War was largely about gaining cheap access to rubber for Goodyear and Bridgestone, but Lockheed and Dow Chemical were happy to profit big-time on it as well. Or consider that most of the conflicts in Central America have been in support of the specific interests of what is now Chiquita Banana or National City Bank, but again the defense contractors were happy to join in the profits.
Industry generally favors war, particularly when their taxes don't go up, because it is extremely profitable for them.
In addition to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been more recent efforts, most notably by Paul Wolfowitz (as Deputy Secretary of Defense), to make nuclear weapons something the US will consider using regularly.
On the upside, the latest nuclear treaty between the US and Russia should help. As far as what us normal people can do about the threat of nukes, here's the instruction guide.
Much more relevant would be the SciGen papers that have actually gotten through peer review.