She's saying that a specific race and gender is superior (or rather she hopes it is) in interpreting law and rendering judgment.
No, that's not what she's saying. If you'd bothered to go read the speech - which, based on this post, I assume you haven't - you'll see what she's actually saying is that life experiences go into the interpretation of law and that a judge who's had experiences similar to those who come before him/her may be better able to render a wise decision in the case.
As I said, the context matters. If you read that single sentence which has gotten so much publicity in context, it doesn't mean at all what Sotomayor's critics have said it does.
This is not to say there are not legitimate reasons to be concerned about her candidacy, just that her being a racist isn't one of them.
The facts are complicated and require thinking, and might result in a conclusion that 1) not what the GP expects to find or, 2) doesn't fit exactly inside of the predetermined possibilities.
This is Slashdot - people are confident in their computer skills and knowledge of sci-fi, which naturally translates into flawless wisdom in relation to all things. Socrates woulda loved this place.
That's kind of a naive view of how it works. They're hired guns, and everyone knows it.
And, to be honest, the advantages that the former DOJ lawyers would bring - in terms of knowledge about the department, and possible relationships with people still working there - are sufficiently valuable that any hurt feelings from their stint in the government are easily overlooked.
Oh, yeah, sure - wildly pulling shit out of your ass about the Soviets is a totally valid way of handling this, both in terms of rational discourse and as a means of political argument to get people to see the wisdom of your ideas. I can guaran-goddamn-tee you that it'll totally fly with normal rational people in America!
Please, you and every single person on the right - keep talking about soviet Russia and fascism and all that shit whenever the Democrats do anything at all - it's gonna win you votes like you wouldn't believe. I'm cowering in fear right now - please don't continue with that line of "reasoning."
It's fine; if you insist on reading it the way you want, rather than what she intends, you're within your rights to. Similarly, rational people are free to ignore and/or mock you.
The ruling she made on the firefighters claim that they were denied promotions because they were white looked blatantly racist to me
Oh, really? Did you actually read the ruling? I'm just curious, because I have and I thought it was pretty well founded, in terms of justifications cited, etc. IANAL, though. I guess we'll find out sooner than later - the SC granted cert on the case and there were oral arguments in April.
I know I'd be quoted as saying "this clown porn is amazing" when what I actually said was "the reviewer says that this clown porn is amazingly disgusting."
Except that clown porn completely and totally rules in all respects.
of course asserted that a latina is inherently superior to a white male.
Please, I'd love to see where she asserted this - provide the quote along with it's context, just so we can see if you're distorting stuff for political reasons.
Context matters, and if you pay attention to everything she said, it's not really racist at all.
Sadly, complex thoughts and context don't seem to fare well in the minds of many people these days - maybe it's because they don't make for quick, easy to digest sound bites.
I already view them as monopolistic bastards with their iTunes website & iTunes application & iTunes DRM & iPod/iPhone lock-in scheme.
I guess you're entitled to view them as monopolists, but that doesn't mean that view accords with real world legal definitions. There are other sources for digital content online, and there are other players - Apple has a big chunk of the market, but by no means do they have total control - facts you note at the end of your post. Also, let's not forget that a big chunk of the pricing of content is driven by the deals the content providers are willing to cut with Apple - remember the recent change to a tiered pricing scheme from the $.99 for all music.
How is Apple a monopoly, if we understand the term monopoly to mean something other than "a company you don't like/does things that displease you?"
I was picturing it working like, "I'm looking to fly to Missouri in September. When should I buy tickets so I'm likely to get the best prices, all things considered." Does Priceline do that? ( I honestly don't know, I don't it).
And features like cashback, where we actually give you money back on great products, and Price Predictor, which actually tells you when to buy an airline ticket in order to help get you the best price -- help you make smarter decisions, and put money back in your pocket.
The price predictor thing sound kinda cool (though pretty easy to clone).
But giving money back on "great products?" Is that like discounts on MS software, or some other silly gimmick? Smells faintly like desperation, that does. I guess we'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
If their competition is rushing to follow what Apple's doing by making iPhone-like devices, then it's more than just an impression that they're ahead.
The modal verb "could," indicates possibility; thus the GP is (trivially) correct.
Or are you denying that it's possible that a meteor strike could take down a commercial airliner?
Or a reader. I wonder how this correlation relates to causation.
Out of curiosity, do you work in NLP?
No, that's not what she's saying. If you'd bothered to go read the speech - which, based on this post, I assume you haven't - you'll see what she's actually saying is that life experiences go into the interpretation of law and that a judge who's had experiences similar to those who come before him/her may be better able to render a wise decision in the case.
As I said, the context matters. If you read that single sentence which has gotten so much publicity in context, it doesn't mean at all what Sotomayor's critics have said it does.
This is not to say there are not legitimate reasons to be concerned about her candidacy, just that her being a racist isn't one of them.
Ok, fine, so you spent a few years in law school, graduated, passed the bar and practice law.
How exactly does that qualify you to talk on this matter? Did you go to journalism school? Do you work for wired?
Feh.
The facts are complicated and require thinking, and might result in a conclusion that 1) not what the GP expects to find or, 2) doesn't fit exactly inside of the predetermined possibilities.
This is Slashdot - people are confident in their computer skills and knowledge of sci-fi, which naturally translates into flawless wisdom in relation to all things. Socrates woulda loved this place.
That's kind of a naive view of how it works. They're hired guns, and everyone knows it.
And, to be honest, the advantages that the former DOJ lawyers would bring - in terms of knowledge about the department, and possible relationships with people still working there - are sufficiently valuable that any hurt feelings from their stint in the government are easily overlooked.
Sun is still an independent company; the sale hasn't been completed yet, AFAIK.
Yeah, vms. I miss my tube time at the ol'VT-100.
I still prefer good old fashioned talk to modern instant messaging.
The old days.
Oh, yeah, sure - wildly pulling shit out of your ass about the Soviets is a totally valid way of handling this, both in terms of rational discourse and as a means of political argument to get people to see the wisdom of your ideas. I can guaran-goddamn-tee you that it'll totally fly with normal rational people in America!
Please, you and every single person on the right - keep talking about soviet Russia and fascism and all that shit whenever the Democrats do anything at all - it's gonna win you votes like you wouldn't believe. I'm cowering in fear right now - please don't continue with that line of "reasoning."
Phew.
It's fine; if you insist on reading it the way you want, rather than what she intends, you're within your rights to. Similarly, rational people are free to ignore and/or mock you.
Oh, really? Did you actually read the ruling? I'm just curious, because I have and I thought it was pretty well founded, in terms of justifications cited, etc. IANAL, though. I guess we'll find out sooner than later - the SC granted cert on the case and there were oral arguments in April.
Except that clown porn completely and totally rules in all respects.
Please, I'd love to see where she asserted this - provide the quote along with it's context, just so we can see if you're distorting stuff for political reasons.
Context matters, and if you pay attention to everything she said, it's not really racist at all.
Sadly, complex thoughts and context don't seem to fare well in the minds of many people these days - maybe it's because they don't make for quick, easy to digest sound bites.
I guess you're entitled to view them as monopolists, but that doesn't mean that view accords with real world legal definitions. There are other sources for digital content online, and there are other players - Apple has a big chunk of the market, but by no means do they have total control - facts you note at the end of your post. Also, let's not forget that a big chunk of the pricing of content is driven by the deals the content providers are willing to cut with Apple - remember the recent change to a tiered pricing scheme from the $.99 for all music.
How is Apple a monopoly, if we understand the term monopoly to mean something other than "a company you don't like/does things that displease you?"
Uh, into what part of Karl Rove are they funneling that money? Sounds... unsanitary.
I was picturing it working like, "I'm looking to fly to Missouri in September. When should I buy tickets so I'm likely to get the best prices, all things considered." Does Priceline do that? ( I honestly don't know, I don't it).
According to the Why Bing page:
The price predictor thing sound kinda cool (though pretty easy to clone).
But giving money back on "great products?" Is that like discounts on MS software, or some other silly gimmick? Smells faintly like desperation, that does. I guess we'll see.
Maybe so; or maybe you just don't understand the religion or its practitioners.
You missed the slash-memo - it's cool to rag on Apple now and say nice stuff about Windows 7.
I understand it as the deliberate (possibly attempted) elimination of an entire class of persons. I think it's a bad thing.
Try dealing with his point honestly. You know he's more right than you are.