"Simply firing her" clearly suggests having looked into the matter and forming a personal judgment, and thus still exposes self and career to potential damage.
Oh, and don't forget that not one girl was ever self-conscious, ashamed, or interested in something other than sex.
Your attempt at sociology fails. Hint: sexist generalizations contributed to your post's downfall.
Males have no monopoly on botching the interpretation of social cues.
Yeah, the tone is pretty dumb alright. But if you think it's an insult to (former?) citizens of totalitarian states, you're missing the big picture: what recourse does a consumer have when a corporation breaks the contract? Currently, none. The corporation is, in fact, in total control of the contract. Think about Yakov Smirnoff's "In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce."
The US is moving towards a fascist^W corporatist state, where corporations rule the roost, and among them, might makes right. Yes, a video game system being rented instead of purchased isn't the end of the world, but what's to stop phone manufacturers from dictating who you may or may not call, or (in the case of Amazon or Telus) what you may or may not read? Or power companies dictating what machinery you may or may not operate?*
Grow up. Just because video game systems aren't essential doesn't mean there isn't a huge problem.
--
* yeah, a bit of a stretch, but technology does advance. It's a stretch today, but maybe not next year.
A conspicuous absence jumped out at me. Look closely in the list for Debian 4.0, or Debian 5.0. Not there. But you do find Debian 3.0 and Debian 3.5.
I checked on my machine (lenny, aka Debian 5.0) and every browser (except w3m and lynx, which are...not commonplace) reports the OS as Linux, not Debian.
It's clear that "Linux" is most likely filled with Debian machines, though it's unlikely that any one version is more popular than Ubuntu 9.10.
"Administration officials have said that, in hindsight, the central failure in the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, involved inadequate sharing of information."
And here I thought it was because of deliberate non-sharing of information.
The actual number is approximately one in one million; it took me a bit to look it up (not knowing off the top of my head what professionals in the field call those measures). I suspect that the reason few people remember the exact numbers is that the take-home is more important: the odds of having a false match rise significantly and rapidly as the database size increases (cf. Birthday paradox). The imprecision of the numbers doesn't take away the validity of the OP's point.
There's the BIG problem: orthogonal riders in legislation. Every time I read about one of those, I have to remind myself that there's a secret back room deal involved in both pieces.
Bullshit on your bullshit. I do not want to make their job hard. I want to make it as hard as possible to investigate me, because if I haven't done what they're looking into, investigating me is the opposite of their job.
If the police are investigating me as a suspect, they're wasting my tax dollars and yours, because I didn't do it. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility to my fellow citizens. If I'm a witness, one poorly chosen word can let them think my fuzzy description of a flurry of activity is really a bumbled alibi, leading to more wasted resources. If I didn't do it and I didn't see anything to do with it, talking to me is something they should do on their lunch break.
Nobody's saying be hostile to the police. Just recognize that if you're an honest citizen, talking to them is usually wasteful, and if you're a suspect, talking to them without a lawyer present is sure to find you trouble. As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, in their eyes, suspects are Fair Game, and there's no real way to know if you're a suspect or not. They're totally willing and able to say, "You're not a suspect" to a suspect.
I wonder how their heads didn't explode writing it. Roughly, Google's searches are better because more people use it. We've got algorithms that don't depend on how many people are looking for data. But we need more people using Bing so we can give better search results.
Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random, contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously?
If you've got enough evidence to suspect a felony, you've got enough evidence to obtain a warrant.
Make no mistake about it, you have either evil or incompetent men and women at the helm to have this approved by the house committee.
Would you trust the SWAT team to not mix up the single-mode and multi-mode fibers? No? Let them worry about the hostages, they're probably better at it.
I feel the need to explicitly call this guy a shill, rather than imply it. IF he honestly believes what he wrote, he's merely an idiot.
Shawn Hernan has deliberately misconstrued what Raymond wrote. Raymond explicitly said that the phrase "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" was an informal phrasing of the lesson, in the very first sentence of the lesson. The actual phrasing was given as "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone." There's not even one sentence separating the two.
Trying to rip apart an informal phrasing, and ascribing hidden syllogisms to it, tells me this man is either an ideologue or an idiot. Given his position, he's a dangerous ideologue or idiot.
"The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written -- and uploaded -- at home."
shows a truly startling ignorance. If some British prat decides to start badmouthing me (or some other Canadian) in England, I'm trying to imagine what possible train of thought would lead them to think that if I was going to sue them, I'd sue them here, where the alleged offense didn't even occur?
Sovereignty, it's a beautiful thing. If I kill and saute small children here (mmm, peanut oil), I'm going to trial here. Elsewhere, the most anyone can expect to happen to me is extradition (a diplomatic cordiality) and a covert police beating or two (human nature being what it is) or just a plain ol' lynching (in a perfect world).
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. Who has more force available to throw in your direction?
The Geneva Conventions aren't there to be followed for the first half hour of combat.
"Simply firing her" clearly suggests having looked into the matter and forming a personal judgment, and thus still exposes self and career to potential damage.
I must have missed something. When were they hiding it?
This morning, when s/he wrote one.
Oh, and don't forget that not one girl was ever self-conscious, ashamed, or interested in something other than sex. Your attempt at sociology fails. Hint: sexist generalizations contributed to your post's downfall.
Males have no monopoly on botching the interpretation of social cues.
Yeah, the tone is pretty dumb alright. But if you think it's an insult to (former?) citizens of totalitarian states, you're missing the big picture: what recourse does a consumer have when a corporation breaks the contract? Currently, none. The corporation is, in fact, in total control of the contract. Think about Yakov Smirnoff's "In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce."
The US is moving towards a fascist^W corporatist state, where corporations rule the roost, and among them, might makes right. Yes, a video game system being rented instead of purchased isn't the end of the world, but what's to stop phone manufacturers from dictating who you may or may not call, or (in the case of Amazon or Telus) what you may or may not read? Or power companies dictating what machinery you may or may not operate?*
Grow up. Just because video game systems aren't essential doesn't mean there isn't a huge problem.
--
* yeah, a bit of a stretch, but technology does advance. It's a stretch today, but maybe not next year.
Your analysis is so very wrong.
A conspicuous absence jumped out at me. Look closely in the list for Debian 4.0, or Debian 5.0. Not there. But you do find Debian 3.0 and Debian 3.5.
I checked on my machine (lenny, aka Debian 5.0) and every browser (except w3m and lynx, which are...not commonplace) reports the OS as Linux, not Debian.
It's clear that "Linux" is most likely filled with Debian machines, though it's unlikely that any one version is more popular than Ubuntu 9.10.
"Administration officials have said that, in hindsight, the central failure in the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, involved inadequate sharing of information."
And here I thought it was because of deliberate non-sharing of information.
If only the Pele types were only ruining it for other officers.
Wikileaks being useful because existing governments are flawed is hardly a reason to oppose wikileaks.
I remember this from years back. Do the editors not have a sense of history?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/19/1233250
The actual number is approximately one in one million; it took me a bit to look it up (not knowing off the top of my head what professionals in the field call those measures). I suspect that the reason few people remember the exact numbers is that the take-home is more important: the odds of having a false match rise significantly and rapidly as the database size increases (cf. Birthday paradox). The imprecision of the numbers doesn't take away the validity of the OP's point.
There's the BIG problem: orthogonal riders in legislation. Every time I read about one of those, I have to remind myself that there's a secret back room deal involved in both pieces.
Bullshit on your bullshit. I do not want to make their job hard. I want to make it as hard as possible to investigate me, because if I haven't done what they're looking into, investigating me is the opposite of their job.
If the police are investigating me as a suspect, they're wasting my tax dollars and yours, because I didn't do it. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility to my fellow citizens. If I'm a witness, one poorly chosen word can let them think my fuzzy description of a flurry of activity is really a bumbled alibi, leading to more wasted resources. If I didn't do it and I didn't see anything to do with it, talking to me is something they should do on their lunch break.
Nobody's saying be hostile to the police. Just recognize that if you're an honest citizen, talking to them is usually wasteful, and if you're a suspect, talking to them without a lawyer present is sure to find you trouble. As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, in their eyes, suspects are Fair Game, and there's no real way to know if you're a suspect or not. They're totally willing and able to say, "You're not a suspect" to a suspect.
I wonder how their heads didn't explode writing it. Roughly, Google's searches are better because more people use it. We've got algorithms that don't depend on how many people are looking for data. But we need more people using Bing so we can give better search results.
Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random, contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously?
I'm sure they could do it in situ for added lols; safety would be a secondary objective.
Yes, you get might get care, but just try buying a house after those letters get not dealt with...
If you've got enough evidence to suspect a felony, you've got enough evidence to obtain a warrant.
Make no mistake about it, you have either evil or incompetent men and women at the helm to have this approved by the house committee.
Nah, Google would never take on such a debt laden company.
Would you trust the SWAT team to not mix up the single-mode and multi-mode fibers? No? Let them worry about the hostages, they're probably better at it.
I feel the need to explicitly call this guy a shill, rather than imply it. IF he honestly believes what he wrote, he's merely an idiot.
Shawn Hernan has deliberately misconstrued what Raymond wrote. Raymond explicitly said that the phrase "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" was an informal phrasing of the lesson, in the very first sentence of the lesson. The actual phrasing was given as "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone." There's not even one sentence separating the two.
Trying to rip apart an informal phrasing, and ascribing hidden syllogisms to it, tells me this man is either an ideologue or an idiot. Given his position, he's a dangerous ideologue or idiot.
The quote
shows a truly startling ignorance. If some British prat decides to start badmouthing me (or some other Canadian) in England, I'm trying to imagine what possible train of thought would lead them to think that if I was going to sue them, I'd sue them here, where the alleged offense didn't even occur?
Sovereignty, it's a beautiful thing. If I kill and saute small children here (mmm, peanut oil), I'm going to trial here. Elsewhere, the most anyone can expect to happen to me is extradition (a diplomatic cordiality) and a covert police beating or two (human nature being what it is) or just a plain ol' lynching (in a perfect world).
And what part, exactly, does accessing 4chan violate?
Everybody has their price, but yours was pretty low.