There is no differentiation between animals and humans. humans are animals, albeit a specific kind. The morality we use to treat others of our specie vs other species is an evolved behavior. Morals are based on feelings and feelings are based on instincts.
He'll know when he hits it because it'll flicker with inverted colors like in contra. then when he destroys it it'll just spontaneously explode into a million flickering sprites.
I conditionally agree pending assessment of your definition of 'self-aware' and 'weakness.' Remember, there are groups like the 'conscious men' and the 'mens' movement' that claim they are for mens' interests but are really just feminist astroturfing. These 'reformed' men are what I'm talking about.
No.. Self effacing is the one that constantly has to prove how much of a feminist he is, basically by being a spineless twat himself. 'Self effacing' has become a PC term. Watch how it's used. Since when should women define what men should be? They (feminists anyway) sure as hell can't stand it when men define what a good woman is to them. I'd say this trend is a direct result of unchecked feminism in culture; yet another polarization between what women are trained to say they want, and what many of them really want.
There is nothing wrong with a man knowing what he wants from life and making good effort to get it. Same with women, but the feminist attempts at reshaping masculinity into some form of woman-with-a-penis-and-chip-on-shoulder is quite offensive and hypocritical considering the stated goal of the movement.
You have it inverted. Putting on a show looks insecure (assuming it's badly done, which most are) but having confidence surely is not. Girls love that....except the bitchy feminist types. They are the insecure ones who look for a man they can control and then wonder why they have no respect or lust for him later on. I've seen situations like that first hand and they're more like a mother-son relationship (+sex used as control/reward mechanism) than anything else. I'd love to know the politics of the author and/or the publication she (it's probably a she, but it could be a white knight) writes for. It is a UK site, and that country is known for being stalwartly feminist.
Following the article's advice by ensuring you apologize (for what? it doesn't say really so I'll guess) for being a male is the best way to ensure you repel any women who want to receive AND give respect. The insecure only want to receive because they think they're owed it. They're not. One must earn respect by giving it, conditionally on reciprocation.
Those who've taken a reasoning 101 class in college know that sanctimonious euphemisms like that do little to explain why things happen. They're just shitty cop-outs for people who don't want to think/want to feel powerful by siding with authority/want to BE authority.
My main point was that phb wants to get to C from A, and tech tells him he has to pass B first. phb says he wont' make any money that way and that it's tech's problem to make the impossible happen. This is due to phb's complete lack of understanding of how things work. in order for phb to have 'good business judgment' he needs to understand that B comes after A, not C. These types of people shield themselves with the social blood of their staff. In the end, it's the phb's job to realize the tech is right and decide a different strategy. It's the tech's job to implement, not strategize. Too many places expect both while only paying for the former.
the fact that 'open computers' are commodity hardware suggests that people do care. this fact also doesn't imply that the relatively new market of closed devices won't become the dominant force in the future. like you said, people don't care about openness, but they do care about the assumed basic functionality it guarantees. Because they don't understand the connection, most of us will lose these abilities and have to fight to get them back. This is different than the nerd obsession with it, but it is still valid.
This was the trend into the 90s with "full coverage" calling. Now we've moved backwards with something as simple as smartphone network access. it's been split up into different capabilities with fees attached that have little bearing on the actual load they cause on the network. they're billed based on perceived value to the customer...if you want to do something outside of those things, you get shut off real quick, or get multi thousand dollar bills in the mail.
No, they're just techno-illiterate and don't want to hear things they don't understand because it implies they aren't the all-knowing ego-maniacs their mba-educations taught them. They want to make money without having to think. Too bad. It doesn't work that way. If they don't want to know then why ask? Just shut up and let IT do its job. that's what it was hired to do. When the dept asks for more money as a result of their business decisions, a knee-jerk 'no' is not always the right answer. Knee-jerk anything is usually not the right answer.
if he was fired legitimately, I agree. if he was fired for bs, I don't. then it's the employer's fault beacuse it placed its desire to stick it to the employee over the safety of its customers.
people can and do get blacklisted for the wrong reasons all the time. in today's era of no-privacy, it's VERY easy. I'm no socialist, but it should be obvious that any entity in a position of power will abuse it eventually. whether it's corporate or government is irrelevant.
maybe employers should treat their employees reasonably and this would happen less often. the employer had all the cards here.. they could've played it any way they wanted, but no. they bated him and then stuck it to him when he bit.
what libertarianism doesn't do is allow the government to be a 'buyable' manipulator. sure business gets more leeway, but they're on their own.. they cannot bribe libertarian officials into passing laws that drive the market in their favor. state-sponsored anti-competitive behavior is NOT compatible with libertarian views. most of the wealth being in the top 10% is due to law, not capitalism.
I'd like to see a productive anarctic state that doesn't immediately devolve into bronze age barbarism. seriously, I would. such a state would imply that humanity has evolved considerably. unfortunately humans just aren't ready for that and I'm not sure they'll ever be. same thing applies with other ideologies: they all hang on that "if only everyone would do/be $X then we'd have that utopia" argument. it'll never happen.
even if the OS is secure, there can still be a flaw in an application once you allow it to process data brought in from outside. the closer it gets to turing complete, the more the risk.
If you want to talk purity, lets compare on like terms. A purely socialist society would be a mother-smothering, belt-wielding father dictatorship that decides your life from cradle to grave. very little would be worth living for in such a society. in a fascist right wing society, you'd be property of some corporate interest, and your lifestyle would be determined by the whims of whichever company employs/owns your parents.
isn't purity fun?
how about we get a government that respects our rights by not selling itself out to the highest bidders, yet one that doesn't obsess over ever smaller minutiae within our lives for the sake of building new platforms to justify fattening itself?
it's a myopic post that paints libertarians as extreme.. libertarians are not anarchists. I see nothing about them extreme compared to the 'lets dig ourselves in deeper' compromise offered as a solution from the two big parties.
your post makes no sense. first you say it does work, then you say it doesn't. what an 'idiot college sophomore' believes is irrelevant. belief itself is irrelevant, which is something our politicians need to learn. If the current system refuses to acknowledge problems before they go critical, it is NOT working. That's what we have today: reactionary politics, often misinformed on the facts by the well-heeled organizations/businesses funding them, ends up taking idiotic actions that shoot us all in the foot. You will see revolution if this trend continues. Whether it actually fixes anything depends on the details, but one must have revolution first before any real change can occur.
Participating in a system that has evolved it's way around your influence is pointless. you can vote all you want, but you won't change much. the damage is done by the processes used to decide who ends up on the ballot before you vote. the media also does its part to promote and/or repress candidates/ideologies based on owners' greed or desire to use their platforms to push their political views.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no differentiation between animals and humans. humans are animals, albeit a specific kind. The morality we use to treat others of our specie vs other species is an evolved behavior. Morals are based on feelings and feelings are based on instincts.
lol.. seriously? by the time it gets up here it'll be a cat 1 or just a storm. hardly worth getting upset.
Not saying it's real but someone like jobs could easily afford to pay his way in if he wanted their services.
He'll know when he hits it because it'll flicker with inverted colors like in contra. then when he destroys it it'll just spontaneously explode into a million flickering sprites.
I conditionally agree pending assessment of your definition of 'self-aware' and 'weakness.' Remember, there are groups like the 'conscious men' and the 'mens' movement' that claim they are for mens' interests but are really just feminist astroturfing. These 'reformed' men are what I'm talking about.
No.. Self effacing is the one that constantly has to prove how much of a feminist he is, basically by being a spineless twat himself. 'Self effacing' has become a PC term. Watch how it's used. Since when should women define what men should be? They (feminists anyway) sure as hell can't stand it when men define what a good woman is to them. I'd say this trend is a direct result of unchecked feminism in culture; yet another polarization between what women are trained to say they want, and what many of them really want.
There is nothing wrong with a man knowing what he wants from life and making good effort to get it. Same with women, but the feminist attempts at reshaping masculinity into some form of woman-with-a-penis-and-chip-on-shoulder is quite offensive and hypocritical considering the stated goal of the movement.
You have it inverted. Putting on a show looks insecure (assuming it's badly done, which most are) but having confidence surely is not. Girls love that....except the bitchy feminist types. They are the insecure ones who look for a man they can control and then wonder why they have no respect or lust for him later on. I've seen situations like that first hand and they're more like a mother-son relationship (+sex used as control/reward mechanism) than anything else. I'd love to know the politics of the author and/or the publication she (it's probably a she, but it could be a white knight) writes for. It is a UK site, and that country is known for being stalwartly feminist.
Following the article's advice by ensuring you apologize (for what? it doesn't say really so I'll guess) for being a male is the best way to ensure you repel any women who want to receive AND give respect. The insecure only want to receive because they think they're owed it. They're not. One must earn respect by giving it, conditionally on reciprocation.
Those who've taken a reasoning 101 class in college know that sanctimonious euphemisms like that do little to explain why things happen. They're just shitty cop-outs for people who don't want to think/want to feel powerful by siding with authority/want to BE authority.
My main point was that phb wants to get to C from A, and tech tells him he has to pass B first. phb says he wont' make any money that way and that it's tech's problem to make the impossible happen. This is due to phb's complete lack of understanding of how things work. in order for phb to have 'good business judgment' he needs to understand that B comes after A, not C. These types of people shield themselves with the social blood of their staff. In the end, it's the phb's job to realize the tech is right and decide a different strategy. It's the tech's job to implement, not strategize. Too many places expect both while only paying for the former.
the fact that 'open computers' are commodity hardware suggests that people do care. this fact also doesn't imply that the relatively new market of closed devices won't become the dominant force in the future. like you said, people don't care about openness, but they do care about the assumed basic functionality it guarantees. Because they don't understand the connection, most of us will lose these abilities and have to fight to get them back. This is different than the nerd obsession with it, but it is still valid.
This was the trend into the 90s with "full coverage" calling. Now we've moved backwards with something as simple as smartphone network access. it's been split up into different capabilities with fees attached that have little bearing on the actual load they cause on the network. they're billed based on perceived value to the customer...if you want to do something outside of those things, you get shut off real quick, or get multi thousand dollar bills in the mail.
fire your wife and get a maid.
..and most programmers are 'cleverer' than said managers, which makes such treatment an insult and said job pure misery.
No, they're just techno-illiterate and don't want to hear things they don't understand because it implies they aren't the all-knowing ego-maniacs their mba-educations taught them. They want to make money without having to think. Too bad. It doesn't work that way. If they don't want to know then why ask? Just shut up and let IT do its job. that's what it was hired to do. When the dept asks for more money as a result of their business decisions, a knee-jerk 'no' is not always the right answer. Knee-jerk anything is usually not the right answer.
if he was fired legitimately, I agree. if he was fired for bs, I don't. then it's the employer's fault beacuse it placed its desire to stick it to the employee over the safety of its customers.
people can and do get blacklisted for the wrong reasons all the time. in today's era of no-privacy, it's VERY easy. I'm no socialist, but it should be obvious that any entity in a position of power will abuse it eventually. whether it's corporate or government is irrelevant.
maybe employers should treat their employees reasonably and this would happen less often. the employer had all the cards here.. they could've played it any way they wanted, but no. they bated him and then stuck it to him when he bit.
what libertarianism doesn't do is allow the government to be a 'buyable' manipulator. sure business gets more leeway, but they're on their own.. they cannot bribe libertarian officials into passing laws that drive the market in their favor. state-sponsored anti-competitive behavior is NOT compatible with libertarian views. most of the wealth being in the top 10% is due to law, not capitalism.
it is a street fighter reference.
I'd like to see a productive anarctic state that doesn't immediately devolve into bronze age barbarism. seriously, I would. such a state would imply that humanity has evolved considerably. unfortunately humans just aren't ready for that and I'm not sure they'll ever be. same thing applies with other ideologies: they all hang on that "if only everyone would do/be $X then we'd have that utopia" argument. it'll never happen.
they gotta insulate themselves from that inflation somehow, so they raise taxes to cover it every time they get a handout from the federal reserve.
even if the OS is secure, there can still be a flaw in an application once you allow it to process data brought in from outside. the closer it gets to turing complete, the more the risk.
If you want to talk purity, lets compare on like terms. A purely socialist society would be a mother-smothering, belt-wielding father dictatorship that decides your life from cradle to grave. very little would be worth living for in such a society. in a fascist right wing society, you'd be property of some corporate interest, and your lifestyle would be determined by the whims of whichever company employs/owns your parents.
isn't purity fun?
how about we get a government that respects our rights by not selling itself out to the highest bidders, yet one that doesn't obsess over ever smaller minutiae within our lives for the sake of building new platforms to justify fattening itself?
it's a myopic post that paints libertarians as extreme.. libertarians are not anarchists. I see nothing about them extreme compared to the 'lets dig ourselves in deeper' compromise offered as a solution from the two big parties.
I'm sure plenty would say the same thing about borrow'n'spend'n'tax liberals who think deficit spending is a path to prosperity.
your post makes no sense. first you say it does work, then you say it doesn't. what an 'idiot college sophomore' believes is irrelevant. belief itself is irrelevant, which is something our politicians need to learn. If the current system refuses to acknowledge problems before they go critical, it is NOT working. That's what we have today: reactionary politics, often misinformed on the facts by the well-heeled organizations/businesses funding them, ends up taking idiotic actions that shoot us all in the foot. You will see revolution if this trend continues. Whether it actually fixes anything depends on the details, but one must have revolution first before any real change can occur.
Participating in a system that has evolved it's way around your influence is pointless. you can vote all you want, but you won't change much. the damage is done by the processes used to decide who ends up on the ballot before you vote. the media also does its part to promote and/or repress candidates/ideologies based on owners' greed or desire to use their platforms to push their political views.