Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean he has to like it. Hell, I would say that almost every person I hate or dislike has garnered that lofty status by saying something I didn't like. I would never try to stop them from saying it, but that doesn't mean I have to be their best friend, too.
Exactly. Emo-ize her while she's young, that way she'll never escape.
I can see it now. "Here's little Susie taking her first picture of herself in the bathroom. And here's Susie showing some cleavage just to get some friend invites. And here she is laying upside down on her bed, just wearing a bra. I'm so proud!"
No, they don't let you render JavaScript on the site. If you RTFA, he split the word "java script" into two lines, hid it in a CSS tag, and IE read it anyway. MySpace has stripped out tags for at least a year and a half.
Yeah, and I'd like to get a replacement disk at L4/L5, too. Most days it feels fine, but every so often, things go awry.
(I had a microdisectomy at L4/L5 my freshman year of college, so there isn't much left in the disk to keep it...juicy. And whatnot.)
Economic instability + famine have always been related to civil unrest. ie: if your life is miserable, and someone does something even slightly rude to you, you're more likely to lash out at them. Apply this to nation-states and magnify the damage done on lashing out and you'll see how it applies. It's a whole series of cause-and-effect things that combine to make global relations ripe for war.
Holding software companies / software producing organizations (like an OSS project) responsible for security flaws would probably effectively kill most OSS. I know I'd never release a damn thing, to anyone, ever. Usually all I do are small php scripts that do a certain task on a webpage, but I have half a dozen friends using any number of these scripts on their own pages. If this were to happen? I'd never release anything. And if my script were held responsible for damage done to my hosting provider, well, there goes me ever using it in the first place. And where do we draw the line? If I write some software - let's say a perl script - that I use on my home system as a cron job, and someone finds a way to exploit that script (even though they should not have had outside access), and uses it to cause damage to someone else's network, should I be held responsible?
Or should it hinge on useage, knowledge of the bug/flaw, etc, etc?
I could easily see this spiralling out of control until the smallest software package was thousands of dollars and people wouldn't dare write any code unless they were under the protective umbrella of a large corporation. Which would effectively kill off any hobbyist, small company, or open source project. Not good, in my opinion.
Then again, IF it were done right, it could work as you'd like it to work. But then we have to question whether Congress would be able to get it right. And then we all groan in despair and shrug and walk away from the entire subject. At least with regards to the real world. But, in a hypothetical world of an efficient, noble, and knowledgeable legislative body, sure, something could, and should, be done. I'm just not so sure it can really be done.
I don't think you can hold the designer responsible, as they may not have had control over what went out. Maybe they wanted testing, but management told them to shut the fuck up and get back to work.
If you want to hold the software company - or car company - responsible for these things, then fine. But holding the individual responsible? They can't tell their project lead "hey, I know we're over budget and 3 weeks late, but we have to take at least 2 more months for thorough testing and then bug fix, then test again, then bug fix, then test again, until we can find no more bugs". Is it a good idea? Sure (at least, from a technical standpoint - not necessarily a business one, but those things rarely seem to be one-and-the-same). But that doesn't mean they have the ability to make it happen.
Therefor, you hold the company responsible, so then the company realizes "hey, we're going to lose LOTS of money unless we spend a (relatively) little bit of money now".
I also think, though, that after a point, a company does all that it can to ensure that there are no bugs. As long as the process is thoroughly documented. If they willingly and knowingly ignore a security flaw and it results in damage, then they should be held responsible. Just like if Ford did. But if someone uses the product on a system other than was to be expected and in a manner it wasn't designed for or tested in, then should they be held responsible? I say no, no more than VW would be if I tried to drive my Jetta to Madagascar - or, at the least, tried driving it over a cliff.
So, it's a bit sticky of a situation. Holding the individual developers responsible, I think, is clearly wrong. Holding the company responsible (who would then make it a priority for testing and QA) would be a much better idea (even if it does jack prices up 200%). But, I think there are limits to when the company can be held responsible.
While the parent references Bush, this works both ways. Actually, it works all ways. Delay? To the pit with him. Clinton? An oubliette. (Not for the adultery - I don't think that's illegal in DC - but for the lying under oath ("I did not have sex with that woman" (okay, maybe there's room for debate, as he only got a blowjob, but if a court does find him guilty, THEN to the oubliette)). I'm sure there are some Independents out there guilty of some things. Democrats too.
Personally, I think if you're in government, and you break the law, you should get double to triple the punishment you normally would. Why? Because you're held to a higher fucking standard, that's why. Don't like it? Don't run for office.
Yeah, I did check that, but I'm not sure if they'll give the whole thing back or not. And if they want the phone, well, I don't have it anymore. So I may not get anything.
Regardless, I filled it out yesterday. I just have to buy stamps and put it in an envelope. I'll send it no matter what, but I'm unsure what, if anything, I'll see in return.
1: It was, indeed, a stupid comment. It was trite and condescending, cynical, and symplistic and jingoistic to the point of meaningless. We could elaborate and expound on the good and bad of a fundamentalist for many days and many thousands of words. Overall, my opinion is that they are very, very, very bad, but I also acknowledge, and admit, that there are, more than likely, many who aren't bad at all. I would say the overwhelming majority are insecure jerks who need majority concurrence (or at least a facade of concurrence) with their particular brand of morality to sleep well at night. There are exceptions. Unfortunately, unlike the election, I don't have any numbers to show any degree.
2: That wasn't my point at all. My point is that a large number of citizens in the United States rejected Bush. I can't find many people who voted for Kerry because they actually liked him, but maybe it's just this local area. Most people voted for Kerry because they did not want Bush to be the President any longer. If we thought a cow had a better chance of winning than Kerry, we probably would have voted for Daisy instead. The point was for the rest of the world to NOT forget that a sizeable amount of American citizens (who voted) - certainly not enough for them to just ignore - rejected Bush. So, obviously, be angry at the administration, but do not submit to the unfounded belief that every American is a jerk. Or, rather, we probably are jerks - in some way (then again, I think everyone, in every country, is a jerk, in some way, but that's more a result of being human than it is being part of any nation state) - but not for the way they mean it in this particular context.
The whole reason for me bringing up the 47% (which may be off by a percentage point or two in either direction) and apply it as if it were a cross section of the citizens of the US (which I don't believe is necessarily true, but then we get into questions of what type of person votes, and why, and are they educated or uneducated, and, regardless of education, what is their iq, and do their education or iq have an effect on things, or is it a combination of education, iq, and research on particular issues (ie: you can be really fucking smart, but if you've never watched the news and live in a shack by yourself, your vote is essentially utterly uninformed and completely useless), and we can go on for hours about whether ~47% (or ~51%) is worthwhile to use or not) was to show that a sizeable number of people in the United States are NOT idiot-assholes (in the Bush-Presidency context). Whether it comes out to 138 million citizens were against bush, or 100 million, or even 50 million (if the voting demographic is really that far off from the political stance of the rest of the US), it's still 50 million. Can England really say "hey, we have no more than 16 million pricks in our country?"
Of course, one of your points is "it doesn't matter how many people in the US voted against Bush, he's still President, and that's why other countries hate us". Agreed. But I'm saying, to those other countries, or, more precisely, the people of those countries, "hey, don't write us all off. We're not ALL jerks. You can hate our government all you want. You can have a very low opinion of Republicans and Fundamentalist Neo-Conservatives all you want. But there is a sizeable number of Americans who aren't like the (apparent) majority of our countrymen. Don't write us all off."
Aye, but the V710 was Verizon's first bluetooth capable phone. So, for Verizon customers, and for those where Verizon is the only major player (cingular tries, but just isn't that successful in our BFE neck of the woods), it was cutting edge.
Perhaps a bit misleading useage of the word, but taken from a certain point of view (ie: a verizon customer who has never had an option of bluetooth before), it's still correct.
I did have the V710, and I got my letter in the mail yesterday about it. However, I also canceled early - and paid the early termination fee. I don't know if I get anything back. All I know is that I'm never going back to Verizon. Or Cingular, for that matter. And those are my only two options, so, final result: no cell phone. I'm pretty sure I'll survive;]
You should keep in mind that about 47% or so are neither corrupt nor stupid. IF the voting American is an accurate cross section of the rest of the country, about 138 million aren't stupid. As an aside, there are, according to google, about 60 million people in Great Britain. About 9 million in sweden. Assuming that everyone in Great Britain and Sweden are smart, that still doesn't add up to the number of smart people in the U.S.
If you're using "voting for Bush" as your guage for intelligence, just keep in mind that there are still a hefty chunk in this country who didn't wake up fucking retarded last November. You may have a poor view of America still, but I still think it's worth remembering that a sizeable amount of people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Or...not for the reason mentioned.
(As an aside, I don't buy the idea that 50%+ of Americans are stupid or corrupt. No. I just think they're fucking pricks who can't stand the thought of their neighbor having sex with someone of the same sex, praying to a different God, or respecting the rights of others.)
Start time is noticeably faster on both, even without any torrents in Azureus kicking. Netbeans has a lot of IO stuff to do, which is usually what slows an application's load time, but still, they both take a ridiculously long period of time compared to, say, Kazaa and.NET (yes,.NET actually loads FASTER than Netbeans (or, it did as of Friday)).
Not all nerds want to hear about MS, Linux, New Case Mods, Ham Radio Operators, New Space Probes, Creating Life Out of Amino Acids, Monkeys Learning How To Fly, Reconstructing the 1918 Influenza, etc, etc. But a lot do, or would, if it were to happen. Guess what? Slashdot tries to cater to them all, at least to some extent. Is every single nerd going to be thrilled with every single story? No. Oh well. Are there going to be a slew of nerds out there getting pissed because they're hearing too much about any of the above, including Serenity? Yes. But guess what? Bitching about it won't change a fucking thing. I'm not sure what to tell you if you really don't like it other than a: do it yourself, b: go somewhere else; or c: create a firefox plugin to strip out stories that contain whatever-words-you-don't-want-to-hear-about.
I'm not saying you can't bitch, I'm just saying you're wasting your time, and unless you get some sort of thrill out of playing the down-modded martyr, in the end, it's not going to be worth it.
This is like saying "hey, have fun beating the shit out of your wife now, because in a few weeks, she's going to start beating the shit out of you". I posit the notion that beating the shit out of your wife - or "asserting your worldview" - is not something you should be enjoying. If you are, then you probably have psychological / social issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean he has to like it. Hell, I would say that almost every person I hate or dislike has garnered that lofty status by saying something I didn't like. I would never try to stop them from saying it, but that doesn't mean I have to be their best friend, too.
But...but...some of my porn is on those internets!!!11oneone
OMIGAWDZ!
Exactly. Emo-ize her while she's young, that way she'll never escape.
I can see it now. "Here's little Susie taking her first picture of herself in the bathroom. And here's Susie showing some cleavage just to get some friend invites. And here she is laying upside down on her bed, just wearing a bra. I'm so proud!"
That would set a horrible precedent.
Goddammit, this is what I get for not previewing.
"he split the word 'JavaScript' into two lines", and "MySpace has stripped out JavaScript and <script> tags for at least a year and a half"
No, they don't let you render JavaScript on the site. If you RTFA, he split the word "java script" into two lines, hid it in a CSS tag, and IE read it anyway. MySpace has stripped out tags for at least a year and a half.
Yeah, and I'd like to get a replacement disk at L4/L5, too. Most days it feels fine, but every so often, things go awry. (I had a microdisectomy at L4/L5 my freshman year of college, so there isn't much left in the disk to keep it...juicy. And whatnot.)
Economic instability + famine have always been related to civil unrest. ie: if your life is miserable, and someone does something even slightly rude to you, you're more likely to lash out at them. Apply this to nation-states and magnify the damage done on lashing out and you'll see how it applies. It's a whole series of cause-and-effect things that combine to make global relations ripe for war.
I think it's called "Florida". It's what we've been doing with our old people, at least.
Holding software companies / software producing organizations (like an OSS project) responsible for security flaws would probably effectively kill most OSS. I know I'd never release a damn thing, to anyone, ever. Usually all I do are small php scripts that do a certain task on a webpage, but I have half a dozen friends using any number of these scripts on their own pages. If this were to happen? I'd never release anything. And if my script were held responsible for damage done to my hosting provider, well, there goes me ever using it in the first place. And where do we draw the line? If I write some software - let's say a perl script - that I use on my home system as a cron job, and someone finds a way to exploit that script (even though they should not have had outside access), and uses it to cause damage to someone else's network, should I be held responsible?
Or should it hinge on useage, knowledge of the bug/flaw, etc, etc?
I could easily see this spiralling out of control until the smallest software package was thousands of dollars and people wouldn't dare write any code unless they were under the protective umbrella of a large corporation. Which would effectively kill off any hobbyist, small company, or open source project. Not good, in my opinion.
Then again, IF it were done right, it could work as you'd like it to work. But then we have to question whether Congress would be able to get it right. And then we all groan in despair and shrug and walk away from the entire subject. At least with regards to the real world. But, in a hypothetical world of an efficient, noble, and knowledgeable legislative body, sure, something could, and should, be done. I'm just not so sure it can really be done.
I don't think you can hold the designer responsible, as they may not have had control over what went out. Maybe they wanted testing, but management told them to shut the fuck up and get back to work.
If you want to hold the software company - or car company - responsible for these things, then fine. But holding the individual responsible? They can't tell their project lead "hey, I know we're over budget and 3 weeks late, but we have to take at least 2 more months for thorough testing and then bug fix, then test again, then bug fix, then test again, until we can find no more bugs". Is it a good idea? Sure (at least, from a technical standpoint - not necessarily a business one, but those things rarely seem to be one-and-the-same). But that doesn't mean they have the ability to make it happen.
Therefor, you hold the company responsible, so then the company realizes "hey, we're going to lose LOTS of money unless we spend a (relatively) little bit of money now".
I also think, though, that after a point, a company does all that it can to ensure that there are no bugs. As long as the process is thoroughly documented. If they willingly and knowingly ignore a security flaw and it results in damage, then they should be held responsible. Just like if Ford did. But if someone uses the product on a system other than was to be expected and in a manner it wasn't designed for or tested in, then should they be held responsible? I say no, no more than VW would be if I tried to drive my Jetta to Madagascar - or, at the least, tried driving it over a cliff.
So, it's a bit sticky of a situation. Holding the individual developers responsible, I think, is clearly wrong. Holding the company responsible (who would then make it a priority for testing and QA) would be a much better idea (even if it does jack prices up 200%). But, I think there are limits to when the company can be held responsible.
While the parent references Bush, this works both ways. Actually, it works all ways. Delay? To the pit with him. Clinton? An oubliette. (Not for the adultery - I don't think that's illegal in DC - but for the lying under oath ("I did not have sex with that woman" (okay, maybe there's room for debate, as he only got a blowjob, but if a court does find him guilty, THEN to the oubliette)). I'm sure there are some Independents out there guilty of some things. Democrats too.
Personally, I think if you're in government, and you break the law, you should get double to triple the punishment you normally would. Why? Because you're held to a higher fucking standard, that's why. Don't like it? Don't run for office.
Not that any of this was really on topic...
We hold them liable for defects that cause people to get hurt.
If you're going to attempt to compare apples and oranges, let's at least use an orange colored apple, shall we?
It'd be like holding car manufacturers liable for not making a car absolutely impossible to break into.
Yeah, I did check that, but I'm not sure if they'll give the whole thing back or not. And if they want the phone, well, I don't have it anymore. So I may not get anything.
Regardless, I filled it out yesterday. I just have to buy stamps and put it in an envelope. I'll send it no matter what, but I'm unsure what, if anything, I'll see in return.
1: It was, indeed, a stupid comment. It was trite and condescending, cynical, and symplistic and jingoistic to the point of meaningless. We could elaborate and expound on the good and bad of a fundamentalist for many days and many thousands of words. Overall, my opinion is that they are very, very, very bad, but I also acknowledge, and admit, that there are, more than likely, many who aren't bad at all. I would say the overwhelming majority are insecure jerks who need majority concurrence (or at least a facade of concurrence) with their particular brand of morality to sleep well at night. There are exceptions. Unfortunately, unlike the election, I don't have any numbers to show any degree.
2: That wasn't my point at all. My point is that a large number of citizens in the United States rejected Bush. I can't find many people who voted for Kerry because they actually liked him, but maybe it's just this local area. Most people voted for Kerry because they did not want Bush to be the President any longer. If we thought a cow had a better chance of winning than Kerry, we probably would have voted for Daisy instead. The point was for the rest of the world to NOT forget that a sizeable amount of American citizens (who voted) - certainly not enough for them to just ignore - rejected Bush. So, obviously, be angry at the administration, but do not submit to the unfounded belief that every American is a jerk. Or, rather, we probably are jerks - in some way (then again, I think everyone, in every country, is a jerk, in some way, but that's more a result of being human than it is being part of any nation state) - but not for the way they mean it in this particular context.
The whole reason for me bringing up the 47% (which may be off by a percentage point or two in either direction) and apply it as if it were a cross section of the citizens of the US (which I don't believe is necessarily true, but then we get into questions of what type of person votes, and why, and are they educated or uneducated, and, regardless of education, what is their iq, and do their education or iq have an effect on things, or is it a combination of education, iq, and research on particular issues (ie: you can be really fucking smart, but if you've never watched the news and live in a shack by yourself, your vote is essentially utterly uninformed and completely useless), and we can go on for hours about whether ~47% (or ~51%) is worthwhile to use or not) was to show that a sizeable number of people in the United States are NOT idiot-assholes (in the Bush-Presidency context). Whether it comes out to 138 million citizens were against bush, or 100 million, or even 50 million (if the voting demographic is really that far off from the political stance of the rest of the US), it's still 50 million. Can England really say "hey, we have no more than 16 million pricks in our country?"
Of course, one of your points is "it doesn't matter how many people in the US voted against Bush, he's still President, and that's why other countries hate us". Agreed. But I'm saying, to those other countries, or, more precisely, the people of those countries, "hey, don't write us all off. We're not ALL jerks. You can hate our government all you want. You can have a very low opinion of Republicans and Fundamentalist Neo-Conservatives all you want. But there is a sizeable number of Americans who aren't like the (apparent) majority of our countrymen. Don't write us all off."
Aye, but the V710 was Verizon's first bluetooth capable phone. So, for Verizon customers, and for those where Verizon is the only major player (cingular tries, but just isn't that successful in our BFE neck of the woods), it was cutting edge.
;]
Perhaps a bit misleading useage of the word, but taken from a certain point of view (ie: a verizon customer who has never had an option of bluetooth before), it's still correct.
I did have the V710, and I got my letter in the mail yesterday about it. However, I also canceled early - and paid the early termination fee. I don't know if I get anything back. All I know is that I'm never going back to Verizon. Or Cingular, for that matter. And those are my only two options, so, final result: no cell phone. I'm pretty sure I'll survive
You should keep in mind that about 47% or so are neither corrupt nor stupid. IF the voting American is an accurate cross section of the rest of the country, about 138 million aren't stupid. As an aside, there are, according to google, about 60 million people in Great Britain. About 9 million in sweden. Assuming that everyone in Great Britain and Sweden are smart, that still doesn't add up to the number of smart people in the U.S.
If you're using "voting for Bush" as your guage for intelligence, just keep in mind that there are still a hefty chunk in this country who didn't wake up fucking retarded last November. You may have a poor view of America still, but I still think it's worth remembering that a sizeable amount of people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Or...not for the reason mentioned.
(As an aside, I don't buy the idea that 50%+ of Americans are stupid or corrupt. No. I just think they're fucking pricks who can't stand the thought of their neighbor having sex with someone of the same sex, praying to a different God, or respecting the rights of others.)
Also, this is bullshit with regards to SageTV. I'm doing it right now as I scan through other stuff to watch.
It's only a pain in the ass until you get used to it. Like typing.
Start time is noticeably faster on both, even without any torrents in Azureus kicking. Netbeans has a lot of IO stuff to do, which is usually what slows an application's load time, but still, they both take a ridiculously long period of time compared to, say, Kazaa and .NET (yes, .NET actually loads FASTER than Netbeans (or, it did as of Friday)).
Oh man! The double troll! The first was naught but a ruse, and the second? BAM! Right in the teabaggin' unit!
Not all nerds want to hear about MS, Linux, New Case Mods, Ham Radio Operators, New Space Probes, Creating Life Out of Amino Acids, Monkeys Learning How To Fly, Reconstructing the 1918 Influenza, etc, etc. But a lot do, or would, if it were to happen. Guess what? Slashdot tries to cater to them all, at least to some extent. Is every single nerd going to be thrilled with every single story? No. Oh well. Are there going to be a slew of nerds out there getting pissed because they're hearing too much about any of the above, including Serenity? Yes. But guess what? Bitching about it won't change a fucking thing. I'm not sure what to tell you if you really don't like it other than a: do it yourself, b: go somewhere else; or c: create a firefox plugin to strip out stories that contain whatever-words-you-don't-want-to-hear-about.
I'm not saying you can't bitch, I'm just saying you're wasting your time, and unless you get some sort of thrill out of playing the down-modded martyr, in the end, it's not going to be worth it.
But, hey, do what you want.
Why enjoy it?
This is like saying "hey, have fun beating the shit out of your wife now, because in a few weeks, she's going to start beating the shit out of you". I posit the notion that beating the shit out of your wife - or "asserting your worldview" - is not something you should be enjoying. If you are, then you probably have psychological / social issues.
Law #386 of the Intertron: If someone makes a statement alleging you are a minor, they, themselves, are actually minors.
See psychological studies on insecurity.
Yeah, because everywhere has access to multiple ISPs, fuck tard. I have 1 dialup and 1 cable. That's it. Period.
Stop with the "it works for me!" bullshit. You just sound like a fucking dick.