The Slashdot editors very rarely change the headline supplied by the original submitter. Out of several submissions I've had published here, I can think of just one where the headline was changed by one or two words from what I originally said. (The change was an improvement, IMO.)
So the original submitter may have wanted it to come off as embarrassing (which it is) but the fact that the Slashdot editor passed it through without modification just means that they didn't see any reason to change what somebody else had said, not that they themselves were trying to create any particular impression in the minds of the readers.
I don't find anything in the text you quote, or the surrounding text in the original deleted portion of the document, which supports your assertion that "they" wanted the attacks to continue.
For what it's worth, a bit further down they say:
Oh well, this is one time it might be best that folks don't fully understand things.
The "railway crossing" warning sign at the right of the crossing - there may be one out of shot on the left as well. Either way, she should have known what this sign meant as it's a requirement for passing the driving test that you learn the signs.
The gate has a large red circle in the centre - again, this is a sign indicating a level crossing, and she was required to learn this as well when doing her driver training.
The sign at the left giving detailed instructions as to how to cross safely, including the fact that you should open and drive through the gates, plural, rather than driving through the first one, stoppping on the line, then closing the first before opening the second - it was as she got to this stage that the train hit her car. Note that this sign also makes reference to the signalman, which is a pretty clear giveaway that there's a railway line here.
There's a railway line between the gates. It's not buried under the road - it's level with the road, like every other level crossing (the hint's in the name) in the country. Again, this is spelled out in the Highway Code, which she should have read from cover to cover several times before taking the driving tests.
As part of the process of obtaining a UK driving license you are required to learn about things like how to operate a manual level crossing, even if it's not something you'll have to do very often. Whether or not she usually drives in the country, she failed to observe the standard signs, so she should at least be charged with driving without due care and attention. Frankly, anybody who manages to do something as stupid as this should be banned from driving until they learn what that spongy stuff between their ears is for. A bit of education in the conept of taking full reponsibility for her own mistakes wouldn't come amiss, either.
I think it's an automated system that BMW put in their cars: if it detects another car 3 inches in front doing less than 100mph it flashes the lights. After all, when you waste that much money on a fancy car, you don't expect to have to behave like a wanker for yourself.
It's only BMW drivers who think that 100mph is a reasonable speed in the outside lane of the motorway. The rest of us are well aware that the speed limit is 70mph, although the police will turn a blind eye to people travelling at up to 80 or (in good driving conditions) 85mph.
I'm not surprised that a BMW driver would do something as utterly stupid as this; it seems to me that the vast majority of abysmal driving on the motorways in the UK (which I have driven extensively for a number of years) is down to them. For example they always seem to be absolutely astonished when they have to slow down behind somebody who's only doing 10mph over the limit. Normally they only manage to get down to 80mph once they're about 3 inches from your rear bumper, where they stay, flashing their lights even though it's clear that you can't pull back into the centre lane yet - nor can you actually see their lights, as they're too close behind.
As far as I can tell, they think that having a car with all those fancy gizmos relieves them from the responsibility of driving safely or with any awareness of the surrounding conditions, which pretty much brings us back to the story that started this whole debate.
Unfortunately, that doesn't give me a full idea of what's going on, as if you don't know the area, you don't know what lane you have to be in at a given time.
If I'm travelling a strange route I'll usually go over the potentially tricky parts with Google Earth first. Assuming they have hi-res imagery of the area, you can get down low and easily see road markings and so forth to let you plan which lane to be in at junctions.
Mind, I got caught out when part of the route back from one place turned out to be completely different (due to a one-way system) and I ended up heading in the wrong direction on the wrong motorway:-)
As he points out in his response to the second comment on his blog post, internal testing can't possible cover every single third party shell extension on the planet. (Nor does he try to use that as an excuse for his screw-up.)
It's just a shame that everything TFA says is wrong. Opening the eyes of the target audience to completely incorrect information may generate some traffic to Forbes, but it can hardly be described as either effective or important.
The real problem with TFA becomes apparent at the start of the second page:
RSS feeds exist in Web 2.0 data format.
That sentence alone confirmed what I'd been beginning to suspect by the end of the first paragraph: TFA is a mishmash of ill-informed technobabble penned for the purpose of allowing underqualified CTOs to give the impression that they are fully buzzword-compliant.
IIRC the icon didn't do anything on the early versions of Safari - the double-click behaviour was introduced either with Tiger, or perhaps on one of the Panther versions. (I could never work out why it didn't do anything on the early versions - it seemed such an obvious thing.)
It doesn't display the confirmation dialog on my machine, although it's possible I disabled that myself.
To the asshole that follows me around modding all my posts down: Keep wasting your mod point shithead. I've got more Karma than you'll ever have mod-points.
...you have to find the file on your desktop and open it manually. Exactly the sort of repetitive task I thought my computer should be doing on my behalf.
Or you could double-click on the file's icon in the Safari downloads window. If you really want to examine it in the Finder, then you can click on the magnifying glass icon to view it.
Exactly the sort of task your computer does on your behalf:-)
(Not sure why I'm bothering to reply to an AC who's in denial about his own sexuality, but there's nothing on the box and I'm not due down the pub yet, so...)
Simple, really: I don't litter. It's all part of being a responsible citizen. And frankly, if you tried walking through the centre of the city I live in at 2am on a Saturday morning, you'd be glad of the CCTV.
Sometimes "they" (whoever "they" are supposed to be) really are out to get you, but I think you're just paranoid if you object to a simple and effective way of making sure the police collar the wankers before they kick your teeth in, rather than after. (Before the wankers kick your teeth in I mean, not the police - the police find it hard to get away with that nowadays, what with being on camera all the time...)
(As it happens I have two friends who are employed watching the CCTV. Neither of them bears the slightest resemblance to a jackbooted totalitarian oppressor. In fact, the female one is really cute, even without jackboots.)
The people in Guantanamo weren't just picked up off of the streets as suspects in criminal investigations, they were captured while engaging in active combat operations and are considered prisoners of war.
His lawyer, Zachary Katznelson, gave further details on why Mr Rawi was originally arrested.
He said a "suspicious device" was found in his client's luggage but added that it turned out to be a battery charger.
Mr Katznelson added: "So it was misinformation that started this chain of events, though unfortunately that led to him first being taken by the CIA to Afghanistan to an underground prison of 24 hour darkness with rats everywhere, to then being taken to Guantanamo - and it took years to right this wrong."
Furthermore, Bush long refused to accept that the Guantanamo detainees should be considered prisoners of war, until the Supreme Court told him otherwise.
What makes you think they didn't? If you look the case up almost anywhere other than the crappy source linked in the summary, you'll find that they did indeed have an attorney. It still took twelve days to get the charges (of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction, no less) dropped, and then the state authorities tried to have him held for a psychiatric evaluation because he had refused to admit to the charges.
Personally, my bias is not to believe the kid at all. My bigger question is where the hell were the kids parents. I mean really! If my kid was locked-up for anything, I would want to see the evidence!! Obviously they didn't give a crap.
Webb's parents, Linda and Budd Webb, arrived at the school and listened to the recorded bomb threat. Linda Webb told administrators it wasn't her son.
"They kept saying that it was his voice. They didn't even know him," she said.
After a state trooper arrived, Charlton told the teen he was being arrested, and the trooper read Webb his Miranda rights.
[12 days later...]
"I got a call from our attorney that said he had paperwork signed by Judge Driscoll dropping the felony and misdemeanor charges against my son," [the father] said.
County juvenile detention officials wanted to keep Webb in custody, [the family's attorney] Andrews said. "They wanted him to have a mental health evaluation because he wouldn't admit to making the call."
That box business sounds like the kind of thing I'd do. I once had a girlfirend who, while I was sleeping, tied the alarm clock (big brass thing with bells on top) over my head, suspended from the light cord, too high to reach without standing on the bed. By the time I'd finished hurling myself around the room to all the usual places while still 90% asleep, and finally been forced to wake up enough to work out what she'd done, she was laughing so loud I couldn't have got back to sleep anyway:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The Slashdot editors very rarely change the headline supplied by the original submitter. Out of several submissions I've had published here, I can think of just one where the headline was changed by one or two words from what I originally said. (The change was an improvement, IMO.)
So the original submitter may have wanted it to come off as embarrassing (which it is) but the fact that the Slashdot editor passed it through without modification just means that they didn't see any reason to change what somebody else had said, not that they themselves were trying to create any particular impression in the minds of the readers.
I don't find anything in the text you quote, or the surrounding text in the original deleted portion of the document, which supports your assertion that "they" wanted the attacks to continue.
For what it's worth, a bit further down they say:
Perhaps they were thinking of you?
(meaning Oswald didn't do it alone, or Oswald did it alone but also used a second gun which has never been found)
There, fixed that for ya. :-)
In answer to your first question, it's because, as the story you link to says, she
Nice catch on the fake tan, though ;-)
If you look at the crossing,, you can see:
As part of the process of obtaining a UK driving license you are required to learn about things like how to operate a manual level crossing, even if it's not something you'll have to do very often. Whether or not she usually drives in the country, she failed to observe the standard signs, so she should at least be charged with driving without due care and attention. Frankly, anybody who manages to do something as stupid as this should be banned from driving until they learn what that spongy stuff between their ears is for. A bit of education in the conept of taking full reponsibility for her own mistakes wouldn't come amiss, either.
I think it's an automated system that BMW put in their cars: if it detects another car 3 inches in front doing less than 100mph it flashes the lights. After all, when you waste that much money on a fancy car, you don't expect to have to behave like a wanker for yourself.
It's only BMW drivers who think that 100mph is a reasonable speed in the outside lane of the motorway. The rest of us are well aware that the speed limit is 70mph, although the police will turn a blind eye to people travelling at up to 80 or (in good driving conditions) 85mph.
I'm not surprised that a BMW driver would do something as utterly stupid as this; it seems to me that the vast majority of abysmal driving on the motorways in the UK (which I have driven extensively for a number of years) is down to them. For example they always seem to be absolutely astonished when they have to slow down behind somebody who's only doing 10mph over the limit. Normally they only manage to get down to 80mph once they're about 3 inches from your rear bumper, where they stay, flashing their lights even though it's clear that you can't pull back into the centre lane yet - nor can you actually see their lights, as they're too close behind.
As far as I can tell, they think that having a car with all those fancy gizmos relieves them from the responsibility of driving safely or with any awareness of the surrounding conditions, which pretty much brings us back to the story that started this whole debate.
If I'm travelling a strange route I'll usually go over the potentially tricky parts with Google Earth first. Assuming they have hi-res imagery of the area, you can get down low and easily see road markings and so forth to let you plan which lane to be in at junctions.
Mind, I got caught out when part of the route back from one place turned out to be completely different (due to a one-way system) and I ended up heading in the wrong direction on the wrong motorway :-)
Unfortunately, there is another who remembers...
As he points out in his response to the second comment on his blog post, internal testing can't possible cover every single third party shell extension on the planet. (Nor does he try to use that as an excuse for his screw-up.)
It's just a shame that everything TFA says is wrong. Opening the eyes of the target audience to completely incorrect information may generate some traffic to Forbes, but it can hardly be described as either effective or important.
The real problem with TFA becomes apparent at the start of the second page:
That sentence alone confirmed what I'd been beginning to suspect by the end of the first paragraph: TFA is a mishmash of ill-informed technobabble penned for the purpose of allowing underqualified CTOs to give the impression that they are fully buzzword-compliant.
Not really ;-)
IIRC the icon didn't do anything on the early versions of Safari - the double-click behaviour was introduced either with Tiger, or perhaps on one of the Panther versions. (I could never work out why it didn't do anything on the early versions - it seemed such an obvious thing.)
It doesn't display the confirmation dialog on my machine, although it's possible I disabled that myself.
It's actually a swarm of mod-bots doing it.
Or you could double-click on the file's icon in the Safari downloads window. If you really want to examine it in the Finder, then you can click on the magnifying glass icon to view it.
Exactly the sort of task your computer does on your behalf :-)
Why bother when you can run IE under Wine?
That's right, he's a resident of the United Kingdom - you know, that country whose armed forces are dying so you can have cheap gasoline.
(Not sure why I'm bothering to reply to an AC who's in denial about his own sexuality, but there's nothing on the box and I'm not due down the pub yet, so...)
Simple, really: I don't litter. It's all part of being a responsible citizen. And frankly, if you tried walking through the centre of the city I live in at 2am on a Saturday morning, you'd be glad of the CCTV.
Sometimes "they" (whoever "they" are supposed to be) really are out to get you, but I think you're just paranoid if you object to a simple and effective way of making sure the police collar the wankers before they kick your teeth in, rather than after. (Before the wankers kick your teeth in I mean, not the police - the police find it hard to get away with that nowadays, what with being on camera all the time...)
(As it happens I have two friends who are employed watching the CCTV. Neither of them bears the slightest resemblance to a jackbooted totalitarian oppressor. In fact, the female one is really cute, even without jackboots.)
Wrong. For example, Bisher al-Rawi was arrested while on a business trip to the Gambia:
Furthermore, Bush long refused to accept that the Guantanamo detainees should be considered prisoners of war, until the Supreme Court told him otherwise.
What makes you think they didn't? If you look the case up almost anywhere other than the crappy source linked in the summary, you'll find that they did indeed have an attorney. It still took twelve days to get the charges (of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction, no less) dropped, and then the state authorities tried to have him held for a psychiatric evaluation because he had refused to admit to the charges.
Jeez, what a troll. If you actually care at all about this case then look it up somewhere that has a tad more credibility and journalistic competence than the kind of sub-blog news source given in the summary:
That box business sounds like the kind of thing I'd do. I once had a girlfirend who, while I was sleeping, tied the alarm clock (big brass thing with bells on top) over my head, suspended from the light cord, too high to reach without standing on the bed. By the time I'd finished hurling myself around the room to all the usual places while still 90% asleep, and finally been forced to wake up enough to work out what she'd done, she was laughing so loud I couldn't have got back to sleep anyway :-)
No, I'm sure that wouldn't happen.
That's a different work. As this one was done last week, it would have been difficult to take it down a year ago...