Fact #4: the only "justice" obstructed was the right of Republicans to investigate people rather than crimes.
Does this include the Paula Jones civil suit, which is what President Clinton was accused of obstructing? The lies were just part of a pattern of lawbreaking that was being exhibited as part of the prosecution, not part of the charge itself.
That about sums up this grand sounding charge of 'Obstruction of Justice'. Yeah it happened. Clinton lied in a court. It was utterly stupid, it was completely wrong, and it was utterly and completely blown out of all proportion.
You don't get charged with Obstruction of Justice for lying in court; you get charged with perjury. What Clinton did was try to keep the Paula Jones case from coming to court in the first place because he apparently didn't think he had a chance of winning. Alas, some of his methods were unlawful and that's what he was impeached for. The lying in court, Monica and the rest were all brought out to show he had a history of that type of thing.
The point is not that he banged another woman. But that he lied under oath.
Yes, that's what really happened. Alas, it's not part of the revisionist version of the Clinton Administration put out by the Democrats. If you listen to them, all you'll hear is that the whole thing was a plot by the Republicans to discredit a Great Man because he got a blow job. They conveniently ignore the Inconvenient Truth that it was about Obstruction of Justice because that doesn't fit into the way they want things to have been.
Go ahead, Clinton worshippers, mod me down. See if I care; I have karma to burn!
Yup! Now, if we can prove that this was done on the direct orders of MD's management, we've got them on a conspiracy rap. And, if there's a way to show that their masters at RIAA were involved, we can include them as well. I doubt we'll be that lucky, but this might well be the break that brings the whole house of cards crashing down.
I'm not sure, but I get the impression that MediaDefender's servers were configured to launch a DOS against any site that started blocking them or removed the tainted content without waiting for human intervention. If so, I'd guess that their "thinking" was that if they couldn't poison the site they'd take it down. I'd also guess that they had automated the process of searching for and poisoning sites on the assumption that all BT sites were pirates. Stupid, malicious and not exactly competent; just what you'd expect, judging from their history.
The argument is how much time is needed to realize the stated purpose of the visa. You first have to have immigrants (more like visitors, in this case) who are welcome here before there is a question of how long they may stay.
Immigrants are people who go to a new country to live permanently. People who are here on a visa are expecting (or, at least expected) to be here for a limited time, then go back to their home country. Not quite the same thing, although some of the people here on visas would love to change their status from visitor to immigrant.
And, yet, at least 50-75% of those (probably much, much more) 99.9% are capable of learning how to do the work.
When? Most of us have jobs, schoolwork or other things that take up most of our time. Do you expect us to spend several months worth of our Copious Free Time learning all the programming skills needed for this one job, especially when most Slashdotters will never need those skills again? I don't know what world you live in, but it's certainly not mine!
I wonder if the NYT knows about this. I see a great big copyright infraction lawsuit coming up with MediaDefender on the wrong side. This could get very entertaining before it's finished.
MediaDefender seems to think it's just fine and dandy to DOS other sites because they don't approve of what that site's doing. Why don't we all go over there and take a real good look at what they have to say for themselves. Let's see how they like being Slashdotted.
Back in the mid-80s, a patient flipped out and attacked a doctor. After that, they brought in metal detectors that you had to pass through to get to the waiting room. These were kept in use for roughly 20 years, even though there were no more incidents. Not only that, they weren't at any of the entrances to the hospital itself; they were at the entrance to the waiting room for outpatients. That means that if you had a belt with a big buckle, you'd have to take it off to see your primary doctor, but if you wanted to go to the pharmacy or had an appointment in any other department you could walk in with a great big pocket knife, a leatherman or both if you felt like it. Every time I spoke to a manager or supervisor there, I complained about this, as did a number of other vets, and it was eventually stopped, although the machines are still there. Now, you have to show your ID to get into the building, as if that's going to do any good.
Well I am finishing an MBA program at a well regarded school and your anecdotes do not match what I see in 120+ classmates and it does not match what we are taught.
I never said it was what you were taught, I said it was what many MBAs actually do. I know why they do it because I once asked one I respected about why so many MBAs do things that increase the short-term bottom line at the expense of long-term disaster and he told me how greedy, ambitious MBAs were using the short-term results as a springboard to better jobs. He told me that they didn't care about what happened later because they weren't planning to be there long enough for it to matter to them.
I suspect that you're right, however, in that these people's activities do catch up with them eventually. Alas, they can leave a wake of disaster behind them before it does, and end up with enough money for an early retirement when it does.
Re:Geeks still get beat up..
on
The Rise of Geekdom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I know this could strike a debate... but Hermione is not too far from "Heroine". Yes she did come across as being a bit conceited and annoying at times, but she was still one of the protagonists in the story and quite often saved the day.
Harry isn't a geek, I agree. But Hermione is definitely a geek-girl! Frankly, I've always been a tad astonished that the Sorting Hat didn't put her into Revenclaw, but I guess her courage must have won out over her geekishness. Either that, or Harry got lucky that the author was on his side.
Most of the MBAs I've run across are interested in one thing: getting rich as soon as possible. Their main strategy is to make a change at their company that increases the short-term bottom line, then use that to get some new company to hire them away at more money before the long-term effects of what they did become apparent. Lather, rinse, repeat as needed.
Years ago, some MBA took the "never empty coffee pot" off the table at IHOP, having the waitresses come around with a pot at intervals like at most other coffee shops. Short-term profits went up, of course, because less coffee was wasted. However, people resented the change and soon started staying away in droves. It took the company three or four years to recover after putting the pots back on the table. Of course, the MBA responsible was long gone by the time business dropped.
Sorry to rant, but the implication that Fedora is 'geeky' and Ubuntu is not rubbed me the wrong way.
Rant away! That's part of what Slashdot is for!
The reason I call Fedora "geeky" is that it is, as you say, a rolling beta for RHEL. It's not stable, it's not supposed to be and it never will be. Although its marketing people don't like to admit it, Fedora is bleeding edge. That means it's going to take more work from the users to be productive than it would in a distro that's not changing as fast. I see it as a distro for geeks who like playing with their systems and want to have the newest versions of everything, whether they're really ready or not.
As far as getting mp3 support, and other things like that, I agree with you, but I understand their POV. They want to put out a distro that's free of patent, license or other legal encumbrances, and let the user add those difficult programs on their own. I'd rather they were less stiff about it, but they have strict principles and I'm not going to complain about their sticking to them.
Last, I say that Ubuntu isn't geeky because to me, at least, it's designed for people escaping from Windows. It's easy to install, it brings across your Windows Documents if you ask it, you don't need to remember a root password, and for the most part, It Just Works. Some things that are easy to do in other distros seem to be impossible, such as booting into a fully working system at init 3, but that's probably because the average Ubuntu user will never need to do that except in an emergency, so init 3 is set up for repair only. I know that a Windows user with no understanding of Linux can install and run Ubuntu because I've seen it done. I'd not ask that same person to try it with Fedora!
Back when Fedora Core 1 came out, it was explained that Fedora Core was going to be used to test new programs, new features, new versions before putting them into RHEL. Thus, Fedora was designed as a test-bed, something that most of its users have long forgotten. Gentoo, as I see it, is for people who want or need to squeeze the fastest performance out of their hardware by custom compiling everything to be optimized for their hardware. Unless you're doing high-speed real-time work (And what home user is?) the only hobbyist users who need that type of speed are gamers, trying to get the best performance out of their twitch games. At least, that's how I see it, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Then we found the site and again, she doesn't know what a freakin i386 is.
Fedora is a fairly geeky distro. I use it and like it. However, when my non-tech sister wanted to try Linux, I got her Ubuntu. I still have to help her a little, but for the most part she can handle it herself, which I wouldn't expect with Fedora. Different distros designed for different people. Fedora's a geeky test bed, Ubuntu's for Windows refugees. Gentoo, of course, is for gamers. Pick the one that's right for you, which is more than you can do with Windows.
How about giving the user more choices? You might want to let them run it in a sandbox, or run it without internet access, or chroot it.
And how many users, pray tell, do you think would understand what those options are, or which one to pick for any given program. If your answer is > 1 %, you have a much higher opinion of the average computer user's understanding of what they're doing than I do.
But the message is "get caught spamming and we'll make sure you'll have to file for bankrupcy",
This is a court judgment. You can't get rid of it that way. If you could, everybody who lost a case would declare bankruptcy and get out of it, making it pointless to sue.
Guys, it's [still] pathetic in the Linux world and progress is very very slow.
I see: you had trouble installing a printer that came with wrong instructions and an install CD that didn't work the way it should so Linux itself is bad. Has it occurred to you that the OEM may have given you the wrong instructions, or possibly instructions that only work for some other distro? Nah, it couldn't be...
Yes. Of course. That's about all a whitelist is good for. Checking it first and then sending everything that passes it through the spam filters is a waste of time, and that's what the original post was suggesting. We may just have a misunderstanding of what the other's thinking of here.
I have my own domain, but don't host it myself. My email goes through my hosting company's smtp server, with my address @ my domain. I'm sure there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of other legitmate users like me doing the same thing. If you block all mail that's been relayed, none of us will be able to get email to you. There must be a better way...
Whitelisted domains do still get submitted to checks on well secured servers.
If so, then what's the use having them? A whitelist is supposed to be a list of trusted addresses or domains, isn't it? If you still have to run them through your spam filter, isn't it a waste of time having one?
Whitelisting is just a means of filtering out as many known bad domains as possible before using more expensive scanning and verification technology.
No, that's not what a whitelist is for. That's a blacklist you're describing. Don't confuse the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this include the Paula Jones civil suit, which is what President Clinton was accused of obstructing? The lies were just part of a pattern of lawbreaking that was being exhibited as part of the prosecution, not part of the charge itself.
You don't get charged with Obstruction of Justice for lying in court; you get charged with perjury. What Clinton did was try to keep the Paula Jones case from coming to court in the first place because he apparently didn't think he had a chance of winning. Alas, some of his methods were unlawful and that's what he was impeached for. The lying in court, Monica and the rest were all brought out to show he had a history of that type of thing.
Yes, that's what really happened. Alas, it's not part of the revisionist version of the Clinton Administration put out by the Democrats. If you listen to them, all you'll hear is that the whole thing was a plot by the Republicans to discredit a Great Man because he got a blow job. They conveniently ignore the Inconvenient Truth that it was about Obstruction of Justice because that doesn't fit into the way they want things to have been. Go ahead, Clinton worshippers, mod me down. See if I care; I have karma to burn!
Doesn't that contradict the current Slashdot meme that Clinton and his administration could do no wrong and Bush's can do no right?
Yup! Now, if we can prove that this was done on the direct orders of MD's management, we've got them on a conspiracy rap. And, if there's a way to show that their masters at RIAA were involved, we can include them as well. I doubt we'll be that lucky, but this might well be the break that brings the whole house of cards crashing down.
I'm not sure, but I get the impression that MediaDefender's servers were configured to launch a DOS against any site that started blocking them or removed the tainted content without waiting for human intervention. If so, I'd guess that their "thinking" was that if they couldn't poison the site they'd take it down. I'd also guess that they had automated the process of searching for and poisoning sites on the assumption that all BT sites were pirates. Stupid, malicious and not exactly competent; just what you'd expect, judging from their history.
Immigrants are people who go to a new country to live permanently. People who are here on a visa are expecting (or, at least expected) to be here for a limited time, then go back to their home country. Not quite the same thing, although some of the people here on visas would love to change their status from visitor to immigrant.
When? Most of us have jobs, schoolwork or other things that take up most of our time. Do you expect us to spend several months worth of our Copious Free Time learning all the programming skills needed for this one job, especially when most Slashdotters will never need those skills again? I don't know what world you live in, but it's certainly not mine!
I wonder if the NYT knows about this. I see a great big copyright infraction lawsuit coming up with MediaDefender on the wrong side. This could get very entertaining before it's finished.
MediaDefender seems to think it's just fine and dandy to DOS other sites because they don't approve of what that site's doing. Why don't we all go over there and take a real good look at what they have to say for themselves. Let's see how they like being Slashdotted.
Back in the mid-80s, a patient flipped out and attacked a doctor. After that, they brought in metal detectors that you had to pass through to get to the waiting room. These were kept in use for roughly 20 years, even though there were no more incidents. Not only that, they weren't at any of the entrances to the hospital itself; they were at the entrance to the waiting room for outpatients. That means that if you had a belt with a big buckle, you'd have to take it off to see your primary doctor, but if you wanted to go to the pharmacy or had an appointment in any other department you could walk in with a great big pocket knife, a leatherman or both if you felt like it. Every time I spoke to a manager or supervisor there, I complained about this, as did a number of other vets, and it was eventually stopped, although the machines are still there. Now, you have to show your ID to get into the building, as if that's going to do any good.
It's also possible that they're all on the developer's ToDo lists and that their Tuits haven't had their turn on the lathe yet.
I never said it was what you were taught, I said it was what many MBAs actually do. I know why they do it because I once asked one I respected about why so many MBAs do things that increase the short-term bottom line at the expense of long-term disaster and he told me how greedy, ambitious MBAs were using the short-term results as a springboard to better jobs. He told me that they didn't care about what happened later because they weren't planning to be there long enough for it to matter to them.
I suspect that you're right, however, in that these people's activities do catch up with them eventually. Alas, they can leave a wake of disaster behind them before it does, and end up with enough money for an early retirement when it does.
Harry isn't a geek, I agree. But Hermione is definitely a geek-girl! Frankly, I've always been a tad astonished that the Sorting Hat didn't put her into Revenclaw, but I guess her courage must have won out over her geekishness. Either that, or Harry got lucky that the author was on his side.
Years ago, some MBA took the "never empty coffee pot" off the table at IHOP, having the waitresses come around with a pot at intervals like at most other coffee shops. Short-term profits went up, of course, because less coffee was wasted. However, people resented the change and soon started staying away in droves. It took the company three or four years to recover after putting the pots back on the table. Of course, the MBA responsible was long gone by the time business dropped.
Rant away! That's part of what Slashdot is for!
The reason I call Fedora "geeky" is that it is, as you say, a rolling beta for RHEL. It's not stable, it's not supposed to be and it never will be. Although its marketing people don't like to admit it, Fedora is bleeding edge. That means it's going to take more work from the users to be productive than it would in a distro that's not changing as fast. I see it as a distro for geeks who like playing with their systems and want to have the newest versions of everything, whether they're really ready or not.
As far as getting mp3 support, and other things like that, I agree with you, but I understand their POV. They want to put out a distro that's free of patent, license or other legal encumbrances, and let the user add those difficult programs on their own. I'd rather they were less stiff about it, but they have strict principles and I'm not going to complain about their sticking to them.
Last, I say that Ubuntu isn't geeky because to me, at least, it's designed for people escaping from Windows. It's easy to install, it brings across your Windows Documents if you ask it, you don't need to remember a root password, and for the most part, It Just Works. Some things that are easy to do in other distros seem to be impossible, such as booting into a fully working system at init 3, but that's probably because the average Ubuntu user will never need to do that except in an emergency, so init 3 is set up for repair only. I know that a Windows user with no understanding of Linux can install and run Ubuntu because I've seen it done. I'd not ask that same person to try it with Fedora!
Back when Fedora Core 1 came out, it was explained that Fedora Core was going to be used to test new programs, new features, new versions before putting them into RHEL. Thus, Fedora was designed as a test-bed, something that most of its users have long forgotten. Gentoo, as I see it, is for people who want or need to squeeze the fastest performance out of their hardware by custom compiling everything to be optimized for their hardware. Unless you're doing high-speed real-time work (And what home user is?) the only hobbyist users who need that type of speed are gamers, trying to get the best performance out of their twitch games. At least, that's how I see it, although I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Fedora is a fairly geeky distro. I use it and like it. However, when my non-tech sister wanted to try Linux, I got her Ubuntu. I still have to help her a little, but for the most part she can handle it herself, which I wouldn't expect with Fedora. Different distros designed for different people. Fedora's a geeky test bed, Ubuntu's for Windows refugees. Gentoo, of course, is for gamers. Pick the one that's right for you, which is more than you can do with Windows.
So what they're saying is that they need to throttle traffic because 36% of their current traffic is P2P?
And how many users, pray tell, do you think would understand what those options are, or which one to pick for any given program. If your answer is > 1 %, you have a much higher opinion of the average computer user's understanding of what they're doing than I do.
This is a court judgment. You can't get rid of it that way. If you could, everybody who lost a case would declare bankruptcy and get out of it, making it pointless to sue.
I see: you had trouble installing a printer that came with wrong instructions and an install CD that didn't work the way it should so Linux itself is bad. Has it occurred to you that the OEM may have given you the wrong instructions, or possibly instructions that only work for some other distro? Nah, it couldn't be...
Yes. Of course. That's about all a whitelist is good for. Checking it first and then sending everything that passes it through the spam filters is a waste of time, and that's what the original post was suggesting. We may just have a misunderstanding of what the other's thinking of here.
I have my own domain, but don't host it myself. My email goes through my hosting company's smtp server, with my address @ my domain. I'm sure there are thousands, if not tens of thousands of other legitmate users like me doing the same thing. If you block all mail that's been relayed, none of us will be able to get email to you. There must be a better way...
If so, then what's the use having them? A whitelist is supposed to be a list of trusted addresses or domains, isn't it? If you still have to run them through your spam filter, isn't it a waste of time having one?
Whitelisting is just a means of filtering out as many known bad domains as possible before using more expensive scanning and verification technology.
No, that's not what a whitelist is for. That's a blacklist you're describing. Don't confuse the two.