BS. Forget those that recanted, the conviction in the first place was entirely based on eyewitness testimony. From 60, 120 feet away. When it was dark (nighttime).
Sentencing a man to death on that evidence is complete and utter bullshit, whether those witnesses recanted or maintained their stories for the rest of their lives.
Authorities assume that he drove to Princeton immediately after that, dropping the letters in a mailbox on a well-traveled street across from the university campus. Ivins would have had to have left quickly to return for an appointment in the early evening, about 4 or 5 p.m.
The fastest one can drive from Frederick, Maryland to Princeton, New Jersey is 3 hours, which would mean that Ivins would have had to have dropped the anthrax letters in the New Jersey mailbox on September 17 by 1 p.m. or - at the latest - 2 p.m. in order to be able to attend a 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. meeting back at Ft. Detrick. But had he dropped the letters in the mailbox before 5:00 p.m. on September 17, the letters would have borne a September 17 postmark, rather than the September 18 postmark they bore (letters picked up from that Princeton mailbox before 5 p.m. bear the postmark from that day; letters picked up after 5 p.m. bear the postmark of the next day).
If the Post's reporting about Ivins September 17 activities is accurate - that he "return[ed to Fort Detrick] for an appointment in the early evening, about 4 or 5 p.m." - then that would constitute an alibi, not, as the Post breathlessly described it, "a key clue into how he could have pulled off an elaborate crime," since any letter he mailed that way would have a September 17 - not a September 18 - postmark. Just compare the FBI's own definition of "window of opportunity" to its September 17 timeline for Ivins to see how glaring that contradiction is.
AFAIC ruthless capitalists do much more good for society than any charities or politicians. Ruthless capitalists actually push products that make them rich while making the society wealthy.
How does shipping jobs to India, pressuring workers to make huge concessions in benefits even as you rake in record profits, and providing the shittiest products you get away with at the highest price you can get a way with "make society wealthy"? I'm not saying that Jobs has done these things, but that these are the exact sort of things done by your "ruthless capitalists".
No, I want as ruthless competitors as possible, even the kind who would want to buy politicians (and honestly, what a great investment that is.)
From what I have recollected about the late Mr. Jobs, he was not a delicate flower himself. In fact, one of his main characteristics is that we has straightforward in telling what he thought. So, what is wrong with someone with similar traits but opposite opinions talking about said opinions?
But did Jobs make a career out of telling other developers what to do with their products? This seems like comparing Rahm Emanuel to Bill Bennet - they're both dicks, but only one of them gets up in other people's business with his moralizing.
Having said that, I do not agree with his products and services policies (including but not limited to prices, openess and choices); and to me this is the "bad" (consider that good and bad is a subjective appreciation) side of Steve Jobs as a CEO of Apple.
And Jobs probably would have been the first person to tell people to go right ahead and buy an "open garden" device if that's what they wanted.
I hear you ask? Well GNU/Linux (and Hurd, har har) is "free", aka viral.
And with GPL v3 strongly pressures anyone who develops with it to release their software under the same license. Some "freedom".
and make their own secret proprietary version without giving anything back to the community that built it.
Other than submitting bug fixes from everything to compilers to BSD subsystem to releasing some of their own projects (Quicktime streaming server, Zeroconf).
But don't let facts get in the way of that Hatorade.
He stated very clearly that nobody deserved to die, but also succinctly gave his own thoughts about advocating restrictions on the freedom of developers.
Fixed that up a bit. Why shouldn't developers be Free to release products however they want them to be released.
Stallman isn't advocating for "Freedom", he's evangelizing a religion.
States that Jobs created a proprietary ecosystem that ultimately deprived users of computing freedom as Stallman chooses to define it
Fixed that. To non-retentive-programmers, there is no difference in "freedom" between an iPad and a Stallman-blessed device. And what about the "freedom" to release whatever products you choose to design and produce?
He is most known for not listening what the public wants.
Then explain why Apple dominates the MP3 player and tablet markets then, instead of going out of business. Don't bother with the marketing canard, as if other tech companies are prevented from hiring Madison Avenue.
Sounds more like Jobs didn't give a shit about what you want. And he probably would have been the first one to tell you to go right ahead and buy what you do want, no skin off Apple's nose.
But then when someone suggests that Apple should be regulated as a monopoly for its abusive practices surrounding its walled-garden, the fans' tunes immediately change (and I'm not addressing you in particular), and they say nooo there's a thriving ecosystem full of competition.
Because they're morans drinking Hatorade, that's why. Unless they were consistent and spent the last 20+ years arguing that Nintendo should be regulated for the "walled garden" on their game consoles along with Sega. Then later with Microsoft's XBox and Sony's PlayStation line. And of course cell phone companies that lock up mobile phones so you can "rent" an email application from Verizon for $10 a month.
Companies having some control over their own products - it's been done before, you know.
When you have guys out of high school making more money than, let's say, pharmacists that put in 9 years of undergrad and pharmacy school
The word "average" is not in your sentence. Fuckwit.
Average wage for a pharmacist in Los Angeles is $110k. Average for a longshoreman in LA in 2002 was (only) $120k, so they went on strike to protest their low wages. Now they make $140k.
And the CEO of publisher Gannett just retired with a $37 million retirement package, after laying off 20,000 workers and seeing his stock price decline. And yet here you are, whining that a fraction of a percentage of the American blue collar workforce can make more than someone who went to college.
Could your sense of priorities be any more broken?
Ain't unions great?
Yes. They are. You like having weekends? You like not having to compete with 12 year olds in the labor force? You like paid vacations? Thank unions.
If you're in the Forbes 400, your attitude makes perfect sense, Shaka. If you're not, then you're just a crab sucking corporate Koch and spitting the disgusting results on your fellow workers.
Sure. You train a dog not to pee on the carpet, by giving them a treat when they pee outside. You reward them for having learned what they are supposed to do. You do not keep giving them the treat forever. Once they get it, you expect them to do what they are supposed to do, without having to keep giving them that reward.
So you start a new job, and finish your training and probationary period. Does the company stop paying you at that point?
You work, you have some disposable income. That some of that income goes to gas/rent/utilities does not change the fact that you have a direct reward for the work that you do. No such thing exists with schoolwork - unless you get some kind of incentive to perform.
You can try to make the situation more complicated through word salads and Gumby-style reaching, but it's really pretty simple.
a committed student, a good teacher, and supportive parents.
Don't forget the driver of all three: economics. You want good teachers, pay them a good salary and small class sizes. Parents can obviously be more supportive if they have four weeks of vacation a year while working a combined 40-70 hours a week, compared to no vacation and working a combined 120 hours per week between five different jobs. And students will have a greater incentive if they can see a direct correlation between studying hard and economic success, as opposed to seeing people with master's degrees working in gas stations because that's the best job they can get in a shitty economy.
Of course, some students will never give a shit no matter how many opportunities are given to them....see: George W. Bush. But you manage the exception, not manage to the exception.
I went to work today. On time even. That makes several days in a row. Where's my gold star? Do I get points for coming to work and doing my job? How many extra points do I get for staying after work to perform server maintenance after hours?
When you go to work, did you get paid? On time? Several days in a row?
Now, how much did you get paid to study and turn in homework when you were in school? Did you get overtime for the work you did on that A+ paper your senior year? Is your common sense totally broken?
It is just unfortunate that we have to resort to bribing students in order to get them to perform at the level they *should* perform at.
To borrow Clinton's line on the economy...it's about the motivation, stupid. Motivate an 11 year old to study with toys and games at the end of the year, or try to motivate him with stories of how he'll make more money when he graduates college at 22 if he studies hard now. You know, after he's doubled in age.
Because schools were unable to "measure performance" before "performance-based pay"? Just ditch the system entirely as 1) it's a poor way to teach and 2) like prohibition, it naturally breeds corruption.
I thought the bigger effect was that we bombed out most of Europe and Asia so they couldn't produce really anything.
That would explain why we had a brisk business in exports and lending after WWII. It doesn't explain how universal wartime employment put a final end to the Great Depression during WWII.
I fear that if we want to have go back to living like we did in the 50s and 60s we will need to go and bomb out the rest of the world again, but we may not like the outcome this time as there are some other countries that can compete with us on ability to bomb people.
We're doing that already, with three open wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) and at least two secret wars (Pakistan, Yemen) plus special forces, I mean "advisers", in many more. We spend more than a trillion dollars a year on the military, and have 800 military bases around the world.
Too bad most of the benefits end up in the hands of contractors, and not the middle class.
Because longshoremen deserve six digit salaries for all the time they put in in college, am I right?
A damn sight more than Carly Fiorina deserved a $20 million severance for driving HP into the ground, or the CEO of Wal-Mart making more in one month than the average Wal-Mart employee makes in his or her lifetime.
Now, WTF was your point again? I suppose you also really, really, really wish the voice actors of the Simpsons should STFU and take their pay cuts because they will still get paid six figures per episode, nevermind how many billions that Fox has made and will continue to make off their work.
When you have guys out of high school making more money than, let's say, pharmacists that put in 9 years of undergrad and pharmacy school, I consider that to be an inversion of how things should be.
That's because you're a sophist pretending the exception is the rule, and comparing a guy fresh out of college to someone who has accumulated how many years of experience and seniority?
Morans, eh? You can say that again.
Yes, I will. You're attitude makes perfect sense if you're in the top 1% of 1%. Otherwise, you're no more intelligent than a crab.
In her book "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" the political economist Amity Shlaes argues FDR's economic policies lengthened the Great Depression.
Randian drivel with no basis in reality. The two main problems with the New Deal was that it 1) wasn't big enough and 2) FDR listened to people like Shlaes and cut government spending in 1937, and that is what brought a second bump in the Great Depression.
Which was caused in the first place by speculators inflating a bubble economy and a lack of regulation - pointing a spotlight at trade laws is misdirection to ignore the actual problem.
Again BS!!!
You BS. When you have 25% unemployment, the only entity that is capable or willing to reverse that is the Federal Government. As was finally and utterly proven with the start of World War II, when universal war time employment put a complete and utter end to any vestiges of the Depression.
Deal. With. It.
If you're so dense you believe that then how do you explain Al Capone and all the other MAFIA figures who became rich, and dead, during Prohibition and the War on Drugs going on now?
I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you start babbling incoherently. WTF do black markets created by Prohibition have to do with Kenisian economics?
Slashdot Mirror
In the dark from 60, 100+ feet away, with NO other evidence tying him to the shooting. Funny how you left that part out.
BS. Forget those that recanted, the conviction in the first place was entirely based on eyewitness testimony. From 60, 120 feet away. When it was dark (nighttime).
Sentencing a man to death on that evidence is complete and utter bullshit, whether those witnesses recanted or maintained their stories for the rest of their lives.
Single inconsistency? Not so much:
Everything is obvious, once someone else has done it.
How does shipping jobs to India, pressuring workers to make huge concessions in benefits even as you rake in record profits, and providing the shittiest products you get away with at the highest price you can get a way with "make society wealthy"? I'm not saying that Jobs has done these things, but that these are the exact sort of things done by your "ruthless capitalists".
Or maybe you're just trolling.
But did Jobs make a career out of telling other developers what to do with their products? This seems like comparing Rahm Emanuel to Bill Bennet - they're both dicks, but only one of them gets up in other people's business with his moralizing.
And Jobs probably would have been the first person to tell people to go right ahead and buy an "open garden" device if that's what they wanted.
And with GPL v3 strongly pressures anyone who develops with it to release their software under the same license. Some "freedom".
Other than submitting bug fixes from everything to compilers to BSD subsystem to releasing some of their own projects (Quicktime streaming server, Zeroconf).
But don't let facts get in the way of that Hatorade.
Fixed that up a bit. Why shouldn't developers be Free to release products however they want them to be released.
Stallman isn't advocating for "Freedom", he's evangelizing a religion.
How many successful computing companies did Turing start, go.
Or, maybe just realize that entrepreneur != inventor, and vice versa.
Fixed that. To non-retentive-programmers, there is no difference in "freedom" between an iPad and a Stallman-blessed device. And what about the "freedom" to release whatever products you choose to design and produce?
Then explain why Apple dominates the MP3 player and tablet markets then, instead of going out of business. Don't bother with the marketing canard, as if other tech companies are prevented from hiring Madison Avenue.
Sounds more like Jobs didn't give a shit about what you want. And he probably would have been the first one to tell you to go right ahead and buy what you do want, no skin off Apple's nose.
Yes, nevermind those trademarks that must be defended according to law, or else you use them....
Because they're morans drinking Hatorade, that's why. Unless they were consistent and spent the last 20+ years arguing that Nintendo should be regulated for the "walled garden" on their game consoles along with Sega. Then later with Microsoft's XBox and Sony's PlayStation line. And of course cell phone companies that lock up mobile phones so you can "rent" an email application from Verizon for $10 a month.
Companies having some control over their own products - it's been done before, you know.
Oh?
The word "average" is not in your sentence. Fuckwit.
And the CEO of publisher Gannett just retired with a $37 million retirement package, after laying off 20,000 workers and seeing his stock price decline. And yet here you are, whining that a fraction of a percentage of the American blue collar workforce can make more than someone who went to college.
Could your sense of priorities be any more broken?
Yes. They are. You like having weekends? You like not having to compete with 12 year olds in the labor force? You like paid vacations? Thank unions.
If you're in the Forbes 400, your attitude makes perfect sense, Shaka. If you're not, then you're just a crab sucking corporate Koch and spitting the disgusting results on your fellow workers.
Two. Separate. Issues.
1. Measuring school performance
2. Performance-based pay
Empty right wing talking point.
What is the point of performance-based pay if not to put pressure on teaching?
So you start a new job, and finish your training and probationary period. Does the company stop paying you at that point?
Apple, orange.
You work, you have some disposable income. That some of that income goes to gas/rent/utilities does not change the fact that you have a direct reward for the work that you do. No such thing exists with schoolwork - unless you get some kind of incentive to perform.
You can try to make the situation more complicated through word salads and Gumby-style reaching, but it's really pretty simple.
Work Reward.
And you get paid for doing so. As compared to being a disabled kid going to school.
Don't forget the driver of all three: economics. You want good teachers, pay them a good salary and small class sizes. Parents can obviously be more supportive if they have four weeks of vacation a year while working a combined 40-70 hours a week, compared to no vacation and working a combined 120 hours per week between five different jobs. And students will have a greater incentive if they can see a direct correlation between studying hard and economic success, as opposed to seeing people with master's degrees working in gas stations because that's the best job they can get in a shitty economy.
Of course, some students will never give a shit no matter how many opportunities are given to them....see: George W. Bush. But you manage the exception, not manage to the exception.
When you go to work, did you get paid? On time? Several days in a row?
Now, how much did you get paid to study and turn in homework when you were in school? Did you get overtime for the work you did on that A+ paper your senior year? Is your common sense totally broken?
To borrow Clinton's line on the economy...it's about the motivation, stupid. Motivate an 11 year old to study with toys and games at the end of the year, or try to motivate him with stories of how he'll make more money when he graduates college at 22 if he studies hard now. You know, after he's doubled in age.
Hmm, what's likely to be more effective....
Because schools were unable to "measure performance" before "performance-based pay"? Just ditch the system entirely as 1) it's a poor way to teach and 2) like prohibition, it naturally breeds corruption.
That would explain why we had a brisk business in exports and lending after WWII. It doesn't explain how universal wartime employment put a final end to the Great Depression during WWII.
We're doing that already, with three open wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) and at least two secret wars (Pakistan, Yemen) plus special forces, I mean "advisers", in many more. We spend more than a trillion dollars a year on the military, and have 800 military bases around the world.
Too bad most of the benefits end up in the hands of contractors, and not the middle class.
A damn sight more than Carly Fiorina deserved a $20 million severance for driving HP into the ground, or the CEO of Wal-Mart making more in one month than the average Wal-Mart employee makes in his or her lifetime.
Now, WTF was your point again? I suppose you also really, really, really wish the voice actors of the Simpsons should STFU and take their pay cuts because they will still get paid six figures per episode, nevermind how many billions that Fox has made and will continue to make off their work.
That's because you're a sophist pretending the exception is the rule, and comparing a guy fresh out of college to someone who has accumulated how many years of experience and seniority?
Yes, I will. You're attitude makes perfect sense if you're in the top 1% of 1%. Otherwise, you're no more intelligent than a crab.
Randian drivel with no basis in reality. The two main problems with the New Deal was that it 1) wasn't big enough and 2) FDR listened to people like Shlaes and cut government spending in 1937, and that is what brought a second bump in the Great Depression.
Which was caused in the first place by speculators inflating a bubble economy and a lack of regulation - pointing a spotlight at trade laws is misdirection to ignore the actual problem.
You BS. When you have 25% unemployment, the only entity that is capable or willing to reverse that is the Federal Government. As was finally and utterly proven with the start of World War II, when universal war time employment put a complete and utter end to any vestiges of the Depression.
Deal. With. It.
I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you start babbling incoherently. WTF do black markets created by Prohibition have to do with Kenisian economics?