Think of it as smelling the world through rose scented glasses. It doesn't make sense to me either, because lighting a match works 100% better, but considering the strength of the pro-perfume arguments, you'd think they wanted to smell rosy sh!t.
Neither problem is new, nor has either problem gone away. It's just that the public mind can only contain one global issue at a time. I would try to prove it, but you've proved my point better than I could.
Yeah, I always though that spat was especially ironic, considering Miguel's fanatical devotion to reimplementing Microsoft technologies in Linux. Miguel is on the shakier ground, as he's a devotee of a group that has an incentive to marginalize him. On the other hand, Stallman doesn't look externally for guidance; he has more control over his fate.
Such issues could easily be solved by only submersing the compute nodes (which back to an external SAN for storage), encasing hard drives in airtight containers which have (heat) conductive contact with the drive body, or using newer SSDs to remove the need for an air cushion between your non-existent head and your non-existent platter.
The problem with "If your disruptive, I'll kick you out" is that the students who are performing the act typically don't consider themselves disruptive. If they did consider themselves disruptive, they probably wouldn't be doing the act. So professors eventually get forced into "I don't want to see it ever" which just drives all the students who are disruptive to cry "If we're not disruptive, why isn't it allowed". The only solution with a chance of working is a professor giving an impromptu ethics class on how one's actions could be damaging to one's peers, but most people (any age) really don't care if they harm their neighbor provided they get their instant gratification.
It's all administrative. The prof takes attendance because the dean wants attendance so he can go to his supervisors arguing that he needs more money for his department so he can expand his little piece of the kingdom. If the dean doesn't play the game, money flows elsewhere in the University and his department suffers by not playing such a silly game.
If Steve was showing respect, he wouldn't back it up with threats; you don't threaten a person you respect. In fact, you seldom offer advice to a person you respect, you ASK for advice from persons you respect.
The idea that a company is being threatened with a single lawsuit is enough to cause a small panic in the stock price. Repeat this multiple times, and you'll have a company with an undervalued stock price. While you are correct that such actions happen all the time, it's appropriate for a CEO not to mention them, as a CEO is interested in increasing the stock price.
Sorry Sir, you passport isn't sufficient proof you can work in your country, you need a worker id card! Bwahahaha!!! Something tells me that soon afterward we'll need biometric implants to authorize us to use the toilet.
Look, as a tax payer, I am appalled that we even consider pouring more money into yet another ID card. Odds are this is just a special interest group trying to ride the wave of foreigner xenophobia and fear of unemployment into getting panic prone Americans to vote away their dollars because the sales pitch promises to calm their fears. If you're prone to such a tactic, I have some Armageddon insurance to sell you.
Look, if you don't like a Social Security number, you shouldn't like this. It's just a fancy Social Security number. Either it will be duplicated or under monitored. Meanwhile anyone who doesn't have one will be forced to start a small business (usually off the books) and that will drive the illegals to take over our last accessible avenue of capitalism available to the common man.
If you can't work, you buy a few used cars at a reasonable price and put them out on the side of the road. Someone buys them and you've made your wage. Then you spend the rest of your time avoiding taxes by not reporting an income. By keeping workers outside of the labor pool, you are guaranteeing a black / gray market. It's like people can't remember what Prohibition did, and are ready to give it another try in a different market. Meanwhile law-abiding car sales centers take a hit because they can't undercut enough to offset someone who skips out on their taxes.
Car sales is just one example, expect to see it expand.
Because they know you'll hang around on the phone and fix it anyway. If they thought that you'd hangup the minute you knew they were lying, they'd tell the truth.
Yeah, the only mistake made was that they boarded him and then asked him to disembark. Probably it was quite embarrassing, and I'd be a bit miffed if I was asked to board and then asked to disembark because I was too fat. The front desk personnel should have noted that he was flying two seats, not one, and not have boarded him unless there were two seats available. Other than that, there's not too much of a story here.
If he had multiple degrees from MIT, Harvard, and Oxford, that doesn't mean multiple degrees from each institution. You don't think all three institutions would grant him a single MIT-Harvard-Oxford diploma, do you? He never claimed to have multiple degrees from each institution, you're twisting his words to fit your presumption he's a charlatan.
But to the point of his message: he's talking about the dichotomy of learning and certification. With learning, the setting, the means and effort are all that's required; but with certification, there's no guarantee that much effort was expended. Plenty of people play the University game and get out with the bare minimum amount of work a school requires. Schools don't demand enough work to even ensure competency within many of the fields who grant degrees. Employers and life don't want minimum competency, they want excellence.
Those that work hard and care about their education will come out with a lot of knowledge by the time they obtain their degree. Those that don't work hard, cram prior to an exam, party at every opportunity, join in homework circles where they can ride the coat tails of others, and participate in course shopping for the easiest routes to their degree will invariably come out with a four year semi-vacation and not too much knowledge by the time they get their degree. The degree doesn't say certify that someone has a lot of knowledge, it certifies that someone met the minimum attendance requirements. Only personal bias and desire to go to the better schools make us think it's somehow related to school prestige, in fact school prestige is more associated with the amount of money a school obtains to do research (and has nothing to do with the school's educational program).
So they didn't find anything, and based on their findings:
1. You effectively punished your room mate (forced relocation) on the grounds of an assumed conviction.
2. You feel guilt that you aided and abetted your room mate because you assume your room mate was going to be convicted.
Why do you feel that someone asking if a crime had been committed means the crime was committed?
It may feel uncomfortable to interact with someone who's been accused of something, but accusations and trial by public humiliation come pretty cheap these days. Accusations don't require verification that any act actually happened, but if you make them loudly enough, you'll scare enough people into providing the punishment without any sort of due process. Your former room mate may be found guilty in the course of time; but, if said room mate is exonerated you are guilty of punishing unjustly. Since your punishment came before it was possible to know that it was appropriate, you are definitely guilty of using your brain as a fear stimulus response machine instead of an instrument of reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it as smelling the world through rose scented glasses. It doesn't make sense to me either, because lighting a match works 100% better, but considering the strength of the pro-perfume arguments, you'd think they wanted to smell rosy sh!t.
Neither problem is new, nor has either problem gone away. It's just that the public mind can only contain one global issue at a time. I would try to prove it, but you've proved my point better than I could.
Yeah, I always though that spat was especially ironic, considering Miguel's fanatical devotion to reimplementing Microsoft technologies in Linux. Miguel is on the shakier ground, as he's a devotee of a group that has an incentive to marginalize him. On the other hand, Stallman doesn't look externally for guidance; he has more control over his fate.
Such issues could easily be solved by only submersing the compute nodes (which back to an external SAN for storage), encasing hard drives in airtight containers which have (heat) conductive contact with the drive body, or using newer SSDs to remove the need for an air cushion between your non-existent head and your non-existent platter.
Well, if you're starting a pool, throw in a cloud of servers and you'll be the pioneer.
Come to think of it, I'll refrain from betting on this one, when you so poised to control the outcome, odds are I'll lose.
The problem with "If your disruptive, I'll kick you out" is that the students who are performing the act typically don't consider themselves disruptive. If they did consider themselves disruptive, they probably wouldn't be doing the act. So professors eventually get forced into "I don't want to see it ever" which just drives all the students who are disruptive to cry "If we're not disruptive, why isn't it allowed". The only solution with a chance of working is a professor giving an impromptu ethics class on how one's actions could be damaging to one's peers, but most people (any age) really don't care if they harm their neighbor provided they get their instant gratification.
It's all administrative. The prof takes attendance because the dean wants attendance so he can go to his supervisors arguing that he needs more money for his department so he can expand his little piece of the kingdom. If the dean doesn't play the game, money flows elsewhere in the University and his department suffers by not playing such a silly game.
If Steve was showing respect, he wouldn't back it up with threats; you don't threaten a person you respect. In fact, you seldom offer advice to a person you respect, you ASK for advice from persons you respect.
The stack based virtual machine? Sorry, just too many bad patent stories of late... :)
The idea that a company is being threatened with a single lawsuit is enough to cause a small panic in the stock price. Repeat this multiple times, and you'll have a company with an undervalued stock price. While you are correct that such actions happen all the time, it's appropriate for a CEO not to mention them, as a CEO is interested in increasing the stock price.
Sorry Sir, you passport isn't sufficient proof you can work in your country, you need a worker id card! Bwahahaha!!! Something tells me that soon afterward we'll need biometric implants to authorize us to use the toilet.
Look, as a tax payer, I am appalled that we even consider pouring more money into yet another ID card. Odds are this is just a special interest group trying to ride the wave of foreigner xenophobia and fear of unemployment into getting panic prone Americans to vote away their dollars because the sales pitch promises to calm their fears. If you're prone to such a tactic, I have some Armageddon insurance to sell you.
Look, if you don't like a Social Security number, you shouldn't like this. It's just a fancy Social Security number. Either it will be duplicated or under monitored. Meanwhile anyone who doesn't have one will be forced to start a small business (usually off the books) and that will drive the illegals to take over our last accessible avenue of capitalism available to the common man.
If you can't work, you buy a few used cars at a reasonable price and put them out on the side of the road. Someone buys them and you've made your wage. Then you spend the rest of your time avoiding taxes by not reporting an income. By keeping workers outside of the labor pool, you are guaranteeing a black / gray market. It's like people can't remember what Prohibition did, and are ready to give it another try in a different market. Meanwhile law-abiding car sales centers take a hit because they can't undercut enough to offset someone who skips out on their taxes.
Car sales is just one example, expect to see it expand.
Why? How often do you actually use someone else's computer?
Every time I go to work.
That's because they don't know Jack.
Because they know you'll hang around on the phone and fix it anyway. If they thought that you'd hangup the minute you knew they were lying, they'd tell the truth.
So you're basically saying that the school didn't even bother to buy the laptop with decent camera resolution. Go figure.
While it sounds tempting, most of those with successful businesses have many reasons they can't easily relocate, like their business.
Actually, they are fingerprinting him on a daily basis. Any other way to look at it is replacing reality with wishful thinking.
That's why projects like this one are so important, to keep the robots occupied in trivial pursuits.
So watching WWE at school is ok? No wonder your school district is f*ck'd.
Blame the Gnome guys. Fedora picks up the Gnome desktop from Gnome, and they're the ones that decide the "default" IM manager had to change.
Yeah, the only mistake made was that they boarded him and then asked him to disembark. Probably it was quite embarrassing, and I'd be a bit miffed if I was asked to board and then asked to disembark because I was too fat. The front desk personnel should have noted that he was flying two seats, not one, and not have boarded him unless there were two seats available. Other than that, there's not too much of a story here.
Some would call this "The Most Dangerous Game"
If he had multiple degrees from MIT, Harvard, and Oxford, that doesn't mean multiple degrees from each institution. You don't think all three institutions would grant him a single MIT-Harvard-Oxford diploma, do you? He never claimed to have multiple degrees from each institution, you're twisting his words to fit your presumption he's a charlatan.
But to the point of his message: he's talking about the dichotomy of learning and certification. With learning, the setting, the means and effort are all that's required; but with certification, there's no guarantee that much effort was expended. Plenty of people play the University game and get out with the bare minimum amount of work a school requires. Schools don't demand enough work to even ensure competency within many of the fields who grant degrees. Employers and life don't want minimum competency, they want excellence.
Those that work hard and care about their education will come out with a lot of knowledge by the time they obtain their degree. Those that don't work hard, cram prior to an exam, party at every opportunity, join in homework circles where they can ride the coat tails of others, and participate in course shopping for the easiest routes to their degree will invariably come out with a four year semi-vacation and not too much knowledge by the time they get their degree. The degree doesn't say certify that someone has a lot of knowledge, it certifies that someone met the minimum attendance requirements. Only personal bias and desire to go to the better schools make us think it's somehow related to school prestige, in fact school prestige is more associated with the amount of money a school obtains to do research (and has nothing to do with the school's educational program).
So they didn't find anything, and based on their findings:
1. You effectively punished your room mate (forced relocation) on the grounds of an assumed conviction.
2. You feel guilt that you aided and abetted your room mate because you assume your room mate was going to be convicted.
Why do you feel that someone asking if a crime had been committed means the crime was committed?
It may feel uncomfortable to interact with someone who's been accused of something, but accusations and trial by public humiliation come pretty cheap these days. Accusations don't require verification that any act actually happened, but if you make them loudly enough, you'll scare enough people into providing the punishment without any sort of due process. Your former room mate may be found guilty in the course of time; but, if said room mate is exonerated you are guilty of punishing unjustly. Since your punishment came before it was possible to know that it was appropriate, you are definitely guilty of using your brain as a fear stimulus response machine instead of an instrument of reasoning.