Maybe have a look at this: FDA Food Defect Levels Handbook.
For instance, strawberries are allowed to be up to 45% moldy. Wheat flour is A-OK as long as it averages less than 75 insect fragments per 50 grams. Cocoa beans can contain 10mg of mammal feces per pound.
The point is, perfection is not possible. The existence of some sexist comments among billions of internet postings doesn't justify condemning the entire community. I'll fully support you in condemning individuals for their own behaviors.
However, I think most of us have realized that arguing with internet trolls is futile. So if some jackass statement in a forum isn't followed up with righteous indignation, don't assume everyone else agrees with them.
10% of FOSS developers are black, do you think that would make nigger references OK as long as we kept them under 1%? If 5% of FOSS developers are gay, do you think that allows up to 0.5% faggot references?
No, that wouldn't be ok either. But it also does not make the entire FOSS community racist or homophobic. The author of the article, along with many of his supporters here, seem quite willing to label all men in IT as sexists based on the comments of a few classless idiots. Which is, you know, kind of sexist.
The government has done its best for decades to convince the people that militias are full of homicidal maniacs
They're helped a great deal in this by the fact that (like many special interest groups) many of the most vocal advocates for gun rights *are* nuts
However, the general right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is EXPLICITLY mentioned in the 2nd. The "militia" part is not a condition of that.
While I believe people *should* have the right to defend themselves, including with firearms, I think it's disingenuous to focus only on the second part and act like the issue is settled (others of course focus only on the first part). Though the fact that it refers to the "right of the People" makes it pretty clear that whatever interpretation we settle on should be a 'fundamental' right.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't in there because they wanted to practice their penmanship. So we have to determine why it's there. You could say that they were explaining why they included this right--which is certainly possible-- but that would make it the only one I can think of that they felt the need to justify. The only other possibility I can see is that it was intended to place some sort of restriction on the second part. But any limitation would be to be a direct contradiction of "shall not be infringed". Basically, it's a lesson about the importance of good writing skills.
The quickest way to show someone why gun control is counter-productive is to have them do a little reading about knife control in Britain. The news articles read like an SNL sketch. It's clear that once they 'solve' the knife problem they'll have to tackle the menace of pointy sticks, followed by rocks, bare fists, etc...
Currently the newest story is "Visualizing False Positives In Broad Screening", regarding how to convey the rarity of events to people not familiar with statistics. While companies shouldn't be fighting to hard to keep these sorts of thing secret, I think we're probably forcing them to as a society since the public is largely unable to put these kinds of rare events in perspective. The 24-hour news channels will jump all over this sort of thing and blow it out of proportion to fill airtime, and the public ends up with the mindset that they're playing Russian roulette every time they use an ipod.
Ultimately, companies are probably going to keep suppressing this sort of info until everyone learns to look at this sort of information like adults.
Some people use humor as a coping mechanism. I suspect the percentage is higher than average on slashdot. Perhaps that's because it's a relatively young crowd that doesn't have much experience with death. That's how it goes though; things that hit close to home seem like serious business, and the sort of things that "happen to someone else" don't.
It's also just not possible to get personally invested in every bad thing that happens in the world. With our 24-hour news cycle and world-wide coverage, we'd spend every waking moment grieving. I think humor is used to push back against the tendency to only report on the bad news.
YOu and GP both have valid points. Perhaps we could merge the two and allow judges to rule where responsibility for an offense falls. They should be able to look at the evidence and determine whether the person was blatantly violating rules (and should personally be responsible) or whether they were attempting to follow the entity's rules (and the company/city/whatever retains the blame).
OK, i'll grant you it _could_ be someone other than her ex. My point was that it is *not* yahoo. And the court is the appropriate place to assign guilt, with Yahoo's help.
this doesn't cover international issues and legal system is so complicated and corrupted that unless you have much money and determination it will not work
Certainly if they're in a different country that makes things a lot more complicated, but I think in the majority of cases like this it's going to be someone in the same country (and frequently even the same town).
If they are in another country though, I'd still contend that Yahoo it's not the guilty party. Get the service provider working with you, not against you.
On a more cynical note, her ex probably has a lot fewer lawyers than Yahoo does. Having Yahoo providing evidence as a third party would probably work to her advantage far more than attacking them head on.
While Yahoo would have the power to resolve her problem, it's her ex-boyfriend that's creating it. Sue him for libel/slander or whatever and take care of it that way. The courts can figure this out better than Yahoo, and have far more power to dole out the proper punishment.
If you were going to tax something, a general tax on internet service seems vastly simpler to manage and monitor than going after individual online entities. So they'll choose the latter if anything comes of this at all.
This attitude is why the republican party is losing. If they're going to make a comeback, you all have to ease up on the dogma. If you keep kicking out anyone that shows any hint of independent thought your party will just continue to shrink, with every candidate trying to be more conservative than the last. It should be obvious that you don't grow the party by kicking people out.
Either you want politicians to represent their constituents, or you want them to vote lock-step with the party leadership. The two are mutually exclusive. People in Maine don't have the exact same priorities as those in Texas, Florida, California. Even when they share a common goal, reasonable people--including those in the same party-- may disagree on how to get there. Isn't that the reasoning behind states' rights, the 10th amendment, and that whole civil war thing?
Your objection presumes the user *knows* what he wants. They are frequently oblivious to simple realities like the one pointed out by GP. Not wanting to replacing something every few years often stems from the assumption that it will save them money. Your objection is typical of know-it-all users. (Look, I can generalize too)
Fine, HR people can be in charge of hiring-related things, and IT will have sole authority to choose software.
If you're not one of the idiots forcing IE on the world, then this doesn't apply to you.
If they had asked the user before installing, and not disabled the normal removal, I'd be inclined to agree with you and give them credit for supporting other browsers. But when they sabotage the removal mechanism, I have to suspect the installation is for their benefit more than the user's.
I believe that some of the converter boxes can be programmed to change to certain channels at certain times, which should allow them to be recorded on the vcr which would be set to record at that time on whichever channel the box outputs on.
Are you unclear as to the meaning of 'public'? You're either ok with being seen, or not. I don't see what difference it makes if a picture is taken of you when you're already out where anyone can see you. Now, if they're stalking you or being otherwise obnoxious, the camera shouldn't provide any excuse for that behavior (I'd say this should be true for celebrities too, but apparently it's ok to stalk them).
I swear people are getting as paranoid about being photographed as some cultures that think it steals your soul.
When readers see a shopped photo, how are they going to know whether the changes were significant or not? Even trivial changes have the potential to damage credibility.
In this case, I don't understand what led them to have to modify it anyway. The US Army couldn't find an *actual* flag to put behind a 4-star general? And it looks like all they had was a camera phone. If you care enough to 'shop it, why not just find a real camera and take a decent picture?
Slashdot Mirror
All of them. Representative government requires an accurate count of citizens, which requires a unique identifier to avoid double-counting.
The one where you got a democrat elected instead of a moderate republican? Or is my satire detector off?
Maybe have a look at this: FDA Food Defect Levels Handbook. For instance, strawberries are allowed to be up to 45% moldy. Wheat flour is A-OK as long as it averages less than 75 insect fragments per 50 grams. Cocoa beans can contain 10mg of mammal feces per pound. The point is, perfection is not possible. The existence of some sexist comments among billions of internet postings doesn't justify condemning the entire community. I'll fully support you in condemning individuals for their own behaviors. However, I think most of us have realized that arguing with internet trolls is futile. So if some jackass statement in a forum isn't followed up with righteous indignation, don't assume everyone else agrees with them.
No, that wouldn't be ok either. But it also does not make the entire FOSS community racist or homophobic. The author of the article, along with many of his supporters here, seem quite willing to label all men in IT as sexists based on the comments of a few classless idiots. Which is, you know, kind of sexist.
Submitter might want to recheck their calendar. They must have gotten some weird looks when they were trick-or-treating this weekend.
you mean you could tell from some of the pixels?
They're helped a great deal in this by the fact that (like many special interest groups) many of the most vocal advocates for gun rights *are* nuts
While I believe people *should* have the right to defend themselves, including with firearms, I think it's disingenuous to focus only on the second part and act like the issue is settled (others of course focus only on the first part). Though the fact that it refers to the "right of the People" makes it pretty clear that whatever interpretation we settle on should be a 'fundamental' right.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't in there because they wanted to practice their penmanship. So we have to determine why it's there. You could say that they were explaining why they included this right--which is certainly possible-- but that would make it the only one I can think of that they felt the need to justify. The only other possibility I can see is that it was intended to place some sort of restriction on the second part. But any limitation would be to be a direct contradiction of "shall not be infringed". Basically, it's a lesson about the importance of good writing skills.
The quickest way to show someone why gun control is counter-productive is to have them do a little reading about knife control in Britain. The news articles read like an SNL sketch. It's clear that once they 'solve' the knife problem they'll have to tackle the menace of pointy sticks, followed by rocks, bare fists, etc...
Currently the newest story is "Visualizing False Positives In Broad Screening", regarding how to convey the rarity of events to people not familiar with statistics. While companies shouldn't be fighting to hard to keep these sorts of thing secret, I think we're probably forcing them to as a society since the public is largely unable to put these kinds of rare events in perspective. The 24-hour news channels will jump all over this sort of thing and blow it out of proportion to fill airtime, and the public ends up with the mindset that they're playing Russian roulette every time they use an ipod.
Ultimately, companies are probably going to keep suppressing this sort of info until everyone learns to look at this sort of information like adults.
I've been thinking we need +1 lolwut and -1 lolwut for a while now
Some people use humor as a coping mechanism. I suspect the percentage is higher than average on slashdot. Perhaps that's because it's a relatively young crowd that doesn't have much experience with death. That's how it goes though; things that hit close to home seem like serious business, and the sort of things that "happen to someone else" don't. It's also just not possible to get personally invested in every bad thing that happens in the world. With our 24-hour news cycle and world-wide coverage, we'd spend every waking moment grieving. I think humor is used to push back against the tendency to only report on the bad news.
YOu and GP both have valid points. Perhaps we could merge the two and allow judges to rule where responsibility for an offense falls. They should be able to look at the evidence and determine whether the person was blatantly violating rules (and should personally be responsible) or whether they were attempting to follow the entity's rules (and the company/city/whatever retains the blame).
OK, i'll grant you it _could_ be someone other than her ex. My point was that it is *not* yahoo. And the court is the appropriate place to assign guilt, with Yahoo's help.
Certainly if they're in a different country that makes things a lot more complicated, but I think in the majority of cases like this it's going to be someone in the same country (and frequently even the same town). If they are in another country though, I'd still contend that Yahoo it's not the guilty party. Get the service provider working with you, not against you.
On a more cynical note, her ex probably has a lot fewer lawyers than Yahoo does. Having Yahoo providing evidence as a third party would probably work to her advantage far more than attacking them head on.
While Yahoo would have the power to resolve her problem, it's her ex-boyfriend that's creating it. Sue him for libel/slander or whatever and take care of it that way. The courts can figure this out better than Yahoo, and have far more power to dole out the proper punishment.
If you were going to tax something, a general tax on internet service seems vastly simpler to manage and monitor than going after individual online entities. So they'll choose the latter if anything comes of this at all.
This attitude is why the republican party is losing. If they're going to make a comeback, you all have to ease up on the dogma. If you keep kicking out anyone that shows any hint of independent thought your party will just continue to shrink, with every candidate trying to be more conservative than the last. It should be obvious that you don't grow the party by kicking people out.
Either you want politicians to represent their constituents, or you want them to vote lock-step with the party leadership. The two are mutually exclusive. People in Maine don't have the exact same priorities as those in Texas, Florida, California. Even when they share a common goal, reasonable people--including those in the same party-- may disagree on how to get there. Isn't that the reasoning behind states' rights, the 10th amendment, and that whole civil war thing?
Your objection presumes the user *knows* what he wants. They are frequently oblivious to simple realities like the one pointed out by GP. Not wanting to replacing something every few years often stems from the assumption that it will save them money. Your objection is typical of know-it-all users. (Look, I can generalize too)
Fine, HR people can be in charge of hiring-related things, and IT will have sole authority to choose software. If you're not one of the idiots forcing IE on the world, then this doesn't apply to you.
If it was that great, they wouldn't have to *force* it on people. It'd be completely optional.
If they had asked the user before installing, and not disabled the normal removal, I'd be inclined to agree with you and give them credit for supporting other browsers. But when they sabotage the removal mechanism, I have to suspect the installation is for their benefit more than the user's.
I believe that some of the converter boxes can be programmed to change to certain channels at certain times, which should allow them to be recorded on the vcr which would be set to record at that time on whichever channel the box outputs on.
Are you unclear as to the meaning of 'public'? You're either ok with being seen, or not. I don't see what difference it makes if a picture is taken of you when you're already out where anyone can see you. Now, if they're stalking you or being otherwise obnoxious, the camera shouldn't provide any excuse for that behavior (I'd say this should be true for celebrities too, but apparently it's ok to stalk them). I swear people are getting as paranoid about being photographed as some cultures that think it steals your soul.
When readers see a shopped photo, how are they going to know whether the changes were significant or not? Even trivial changes have the potential to damage credibility. In this case, I don't understand what led them to have to modify it anyway. The US Army couldn't find an *actual* flag to put behind a 4-star general? And it looks like all they had was a camera phone. If you care enough to 'shop it, why not just find a real camera and take a decent picture?