If you haven't quietly altered the PHB's NTFS permissions after the tenth time to prevent the eleventh... yes, it probably is your function to do so, since you're certainly little use for IT. The real trick to IT is to solve problems before they happen.
The older, far more wise and seasoned professionals usually don't call the end users idots, they just refer to the junior admin staff as idots.
In my (limited) experience, it's more common that the wise and seasoned refer to everyone as idiots — including themselves. Insert various "to err is human" jokes....
Some might think I have an attitude problem for it, but personally I see it as different values. Geeks (who are drawn to IT) value the truth and no sugar coatings involved
A proverb for both you and your users: "The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is correctable by effort and education."
One of the functions of IT should be to train users. If you don't work to train users, or are ineffective at it, that is generally a sign of stupidity (or willful ignorance — I see no difference there)... but it may be the of users regarding computers or of the IT person regarding training users. Remeber that a carrot-and-stick approach works better than just a stick. Training a user is never harder than training a cat, and seldom harder than training a puppy.
The fact of the matter is, at one time, the internet was a public, yet remote, forum where the tech-savvy could vent their woes to eachother, without fear of retribution, or having it get out to the public. Those days have changed, yet our level of discretion has not.
USENET'S Scary Devil Monastery is still pretty good for that; there are advantages to using "obsolete" tech.
We often get to see data first hand that lawyers need subpoenas to obtain.
Well, not if you're the user's lawyer. On the other hand, we do get to see data first hand that any other co-worker looking at it might result in an incident involving high-priced lawyers; that only happens to IT if we stumble on evidence of a felony. (If then, depending on policy and the IT person.) In most IT jobs, civility to users is desirable, but integrity is non-negotiable. Given the nature of the law of supply and demand, competence can be a substitute good for civility.
I've had the occasional user refer to themselves as "stupid", and I have (so far) always forcefully disagreed. "You are not stupid; you are merely ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed by education and effort; outright stupidity can't." One downside of this attitude is that I do feel obligated to make an effort to correct ignorance whenever possible, which takes time. In the long run, however, this has resulted in my having users who seem to make far fewer ignorant mistakes per capita than the users in other departments that my co-workers handle. This leaves me free to worry about less visible problems, such as backups, security (integrity-privacy-accessibility), and preventive maintenance.
Admittedly, it helps to have a boss who is unsympathetic with continued willful ignorance and willing to approve the occasional course of aversion therapy to address that.
Why don't they call it a MACphone instead of an iPhone
PowerPhone sounds better, and is more likely to appeal to the C-level market demographic they so desperately desire... the people who make business decisions. "My Apple PowerPhone just works; why aren't we using Apple computers?"
An MP3 player for the younger demographic, a phone for the older demographic; just chip, chip, chipping away at Microsoft's corporate foundations.
Their rules state that if any four (out of nine) justices vote in favor of granting the writ, the court will hear the case.
Wikipedia claims this is not actually stated in the rules, but merely custom. IIR, I was told once that the Chief Justice also has by custom the option to unilaterally grant certiorari regardless of how many of the others agree. It's rumored to happen only extremely rarely, but since anything beyond "certiorari declined" is rarely disclosed, it's not known for certain.
And, as wild ignorant speculation, I'd guess that Ginsburg and Stevens were likely to vote for cert, as was Breyer; Souter was probably the most narrowly missed vote for cert, with Kennedy having been a longshot chance. I would have been deeply shocked (although pleased) if Chief Justice Roberts had voted for it, and can't imagine Alito, Scalia, or Thomas ever voting for it on such a case.
Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no.
Two points: first, the safety gained by these changes, as others have noted, may not be so much a question of "temporary" versus "permanent" as "percieved" versus "substantial". Second and far more important, however, is that the most substantive underlying objection in Gilmore's case was not merely that he was required to show ID to travel, but that he was not allowed to see the regulation to see if it actually said this. Being able to examine the applicable law is indeed an essential liberty, especially when common law has held for centuries that Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Secret law, like secret courts, is inherently poisionous to the tree of liberty.
Umm, who are you to judge who is "real christian" or not (where's that part in the bible about judging others).
Possibly a Wiccan who is majoring in religious studies?
I left my nitroglycerine-fueled flamethrower....
on
The Birth of vi
·
· Score: 1
http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.htm l
Another excerpt:
It takes two seconds to decide upon which special-function key to press. Deciding among abstract symbols is a high-level cognitive function. Not only is this decision not boring, the user actually experiences amnesia! Real amnesia! The time-slice spent making the decision simply ceases to exist.
The key error of this study: assuming such comparison remains constant; there's a learning curve. As others noted, this was an article written in 1989, back when the mouse was a relative novelty, and computers were a novelty to almost everyone. The decision of which keys to press takes less and less time the more you use a particular function, much reminiscent of computer cache memory. The neural network of the human brain eventually learns that "paste" means press "<control-v>", and requires no more thought than pressing "p-r-e-s-s-i-n-g" does to type the word "pressing"... and less time. On the other hand, going up to the top menu to select "Edit -> Paste" also requires time... to shift cognitive attention, move the mouse into position, move it again, and shift cognitive attention back to the original focus. The minimum time for an experienced mouse user is always higher than that for an experienced keyboard user on such constantly-used tasks, especially for subjects with bad hand-eye coordination and/or ADD tendencies. That is, "geeks".
Not all strokes are for all folks. Most windows users will find it easier to select "Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt" than to type "<Windows-R>cmd<ENTER>", simply because of that time delay of remembering how it's done... if they've ever even heard of that trick. Because of heightened security awareness, most of the PC users I support now know that you can "lock" a WinXP system by <Windows-L>, and prefer it to the GUI approaches.
I'm pretty happy with things the way they are. Mostly, I use the Editor Of The Beast, since I learned ed back in elementary school over a 300 baud modem, and the transit to vi is relatively simple from there. (Nifty trivia: vi still supports much of the "s/foo/bar/g" syntax of ed.) Since I am less often having to edit C-code, and more often having to use a VT-102 emulated terminal session over dialup to VPN into a DSL connected machine focused on running bittorrent (I've seen 150 baud effective within the past year), vi makes more sense. For others who do more C++ than weird network maintenance, emacs is probably more sensible. For those doing word processing, Word (or Openoffice) is better choice than either.
The company that had a 1000 foot run, so instead of buying ARCNet wire.. they put in BNC.. then ran ARCNet over it (averaged about 300kbit/sec). Then complained it was too slow (well no kidding!!)
Back when I was taking networking classes, one of the instructors swore that at one job he and his fellow techs (as a silly "I wonder..." stunt) switched the ARCNet wire for a bunch of short (~3m) runs with paperclip chains. Worked just fine. He felt that this kind of resilience was the only reason for anyone to ever have considered using ARCNet for anything.
All but one with equal or fewer Vetos was President before the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision was handed down.
That exception was assassinated four months in, in part due to the corrupt political patronage system of the time.
One was elected largely on the strength of his father's name.
One fell ill during his inaugural, never recovered, and died within a month.
Another's term was during the height of Henry Clay's time in the Senate, and lasted only sixteen months before dying in office.
His successor, again overshadowed by Clay, was never elected as president in his own right, and later ran as a No-Nothing.
Still another was distinctly pro-slavery, and enforced a "treaty" nominally made with an Indian tribe, but in fact made with a minority of a gathering of non-leaders from the tribe.
None was elected more than one term.
In my view, the only one of these worth more than a "warm bucket of 'spit'" was Taylor, a former general who when threatened with Southern secession, cheerfully threatened to assume personal command of the Army and hang any captured rebels.
b) just says that if the copy was made illegally at the point of origin, it is considered illegal when imported into the United States. (i.e. chinese bootlegs)
You seem to have missed the phrase the phrase if this title had been applicable in the first sentence of 17 USC 602(b). If making the copy in a US jurisdiction would have violated Title 17, then the copy is illegal to import whether or not it was legal to make the reproduction under applicable local law (EG, allofmp3.com using the loophole in Russian law).
The other comment's point about "copying" is a little better, except that once you have a legal copy within the US, making further reproductions for personal use (IE, turning the ethernet bits into a copy on hard drive, and then into CD, iPod, and Wax Cylinder recording copies) might be defended under "fair use". (Whether it is fair use might need to go before a jury, as a question-of-fact.)
You can't import intangible things like bits when you download from their server.
I'm not sure I agree with you, if there is a commercial exchange (IE: money or tangible goods) taking place. I'm also fairly certain that the current Federal executive administration disagrees, since IIR in one of the warrantless wiretap cases it was argued that a border search of bits (including voice transmissions between a citizen and non-citizen) were inherently reasonable. Alas, I can't find the particular document at the moment, and it may have only been in the commentary on legal scholar blogs.
The music is not illegal in the US, where as Hash is
While the music itself isn't per se illegal, improper importation looks to be a distinct offense, defined in 17 USC 602. I'm not sure whether part (a) or (b) governs, since the language gets a little obscure without more (complex ( (mathematical) expression-styled) ) use of parentheses.
IAmNotALawyer. But two ideas from my (mis)understanding of the law seem relevant from where I sit.
First, there is in US property law (via common law) the idea of adverse possession. Essentially, if you occupy a property long enough without the rightful owner doing anything, you can't be booted. I'm not sure what the exact case law is; I have a vague recollection of seven and ten years being associated, but I'm guessing.
The other idea is that a trademark, if not actively and vigorously defended, may be voided, and lose its protected status.
The current Wargames.com owner has been there since '98 -- over seven years. The original Wargames movie came out in 1983, according to IMDB. In my jaundiced eye, this leaves MGM on very questionable ground for both of these aspect. With a good lawyer, he might have a decent shot at getting a settlement where he keeps the domain, and in exchange agrees to carry their computer game if they make one, maybe points some lost traffic their way, maybe a non-compete agreement in the movie business... but he doesn't challenge the underlying validity of their trademark. A damn good lawyer might even be able to get MGM to cover all legal expenses, but I wouldn't bet on that.
And, yeah, based on what IMDB says, MGM seems to have a plot vastly less realistic than the hardly credible original, and are starting out by pissing off the zealous geek contingent and their solid block of prospective moviegoers. I'd wonder if Harlan Ellison's proverbial "intellectual capacity of an artichoke" was involved, but he seems to be listed as being with Paramount (currently working on a project perhaps well-suited to the reputed scope of his intellect). This is one movie where I'd not only be unwilling to go to, but now might consider encouraging refund requests by taking advantage of my knowledge that the main breakers for individual projectors at three of the local theaters are located outside the buildings.
This movie sounds like it may not be merely a gobbler, but radioactive putrid gobbler fecal matter. Get the hazmat suit.
The Israelis and Palestinians hate one another -- what role does science play in that?
Psychological experiments, including measurements of brain activity using NMRI gear, indicate that humans are more rationalizing than rational. I believe there's also been research which indicates deep-seated beliefs seldom undergo significant change after the age of thirty. This would suggest that any policy based on the assumption that local stability (without genocide) is likely in a scale less than decades is completely dumbass.
I'd suggest some applied research on whether the "generation gap" is an international phenomenon. If you can make the gap between those who want a war of extinction and those who favor living together in peace a demographic one, it might allow the time scale to achieve peace there to be measured in decades, not centuries.
The factors involved seem to be being present when a photo opportunity happens, recognizing a photo opportunity, having a half-decent camera, and having the skill to produce a well composed photograph (instead of a blurry mess with half a thumb).
Being present is somewhat a matter of luck. However, photojournalists (like other journalists) spend more time than most people in many areas where "newsworthy" (IE: "I can turn that into a story!") events are more frequent. This improves their chances.
Recognizing a photo opportunity is a learned skill. Unsubtle ones like the collapse of the World Trade Center can be recognized by any moron with a pulse and an IQ higher than room temperature. However, such moments may be hard to pick out of the crowd of moments around us, as the current Wikipedia example image for Eisenstaedt suggests. The kiss is one amoung millions, probably even millions that day; but capturing it has elevated it. Would you have stopped and taken the shot, or merely smiled kindly at the happy couple and wandered on past? (I don't think "Get a room!" was a current expression at the time; anyone know?)
The ubiquity of cameras has reduced the importance of merely having a camera on the scene. However, all cameras are not created equal. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get the same quality shots with a keychain toy as with a fully kitted Hasselblad. Professionals put serious money into having the best gear, since they can get a return on the investment (and often a tax write-off). The barrier isn't absolute, since the availability of quality and affordable digital camera gear has gone up over the last couple years; there's a lot of "prosumer" grade cameras about. However, the ubiquitous cell phone camera is a lot closer to my first example for quality.
The last element is skill. With the cost of "developing" digital shots so low, it's a lot cheaper to develop the skill of photo composition than it used to be. However, since developing such skill also takes effort, most people still use a RFC 2795-styled approach, taking shots and picking the best afterwards. While a professional does this too, the expert knowlege they possess means they have a higher starting point, and an easier time finding that one utterly outstanding shot.
As Heinlein observed in Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, "There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe." I wouldn't be too shocked if an "amateur" ended up with a Pulitzer within the next 20 years, but I don't expect the professional photojournalists to die out any time soon.
We really didn't want 17 sets of electric wires on the pole out back, did we? Nope.
Want it or not, we had it for a while. Example pic; I've seen a lot others from the era (three of the profs I do IT support for are historians focused on that era of technology), but this is the only one that turned up on the Web in a fast search. Alas, this one shows a relatively low level of wire clutter; most of those I've seen were worse.
This is a legal argument; you should use the legal definition. According to Cornell's wonderful handy reference, 10 USC 311 says (excerpting a bit):
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and [...] under 45 years of age [...] and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard[...]. The unorganized militia [...] consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Clear? Good; now please give me back my BFG-9000, officer.
Slashdot Mirror
If you haven't quietly altered the PHB's NTFS permissions after the tenth time to prevent the eleventh... yes, it probably is your function to do so, since you're certainly little use for IT. The real trick to IT is to solve problems before they happen.
The older, far more wise and seasoned professionals usually don't call the end users idots, they just refer to the junior admin staff as idots.
In my (limited) experience, it's more common that the wise and seasoned refer to everyone as idiots — including themselves. Insert various "to err is human" jokes....
Some might think I have an attitude problem for it, but personally I see it as different values. Geeks (who are drawn to IT) value the truth and no sugar coatings involved
A proverb for both you and your users: "The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that ignorance is correctable by effort and education."
One of the functions of IT should be to train users. If you don't work to train users, or are ineffective at it, that is generally a sign of stupidity (or willful ignorance — I see no difference there)... but it may be the of users regarding computers or of the IT person regarding training users. Remeber that a carrot-and-stick approach works better than just a stick. Training a user is never harder than training a cat, and seldom harder than training a puppy.
The fact of the matter is, at one time, the internet was a public, yet remote, forum where the tech-savvy could vent their woes to eachother, without fear of retribution, or having it get out to the public. Those days have changed, yet our level of discretion has not.
USENET'S Scary Devil Monastery is still pretty good for that; there are advantages to using "obsolete" tech.
We often get to see data first hand that lawyers need subpoenas to obtain.
Well, not if you're the user's lawyer. On the other hand, we do get to see data first hand that any other co-worker looking at it might result in an incident involving high-priced lawyers; that only happens to IT if we stumble on evidence of a felony. (If then, depending on policy and the IT person.) In most IT jobs, civility to users is desirable, but integrity is non-negotiable. Given the nature of the law of supply and demand, competence can be a substitute good for civility.
I've had the occasional user refer to themselves as "stupid", and I have (so far) always forcefully disagreed. "You are not stupid; you are merely ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed by education and effort; outright stupidity can't." One downside of this attitude is that I do feel obligated to make an effort to correct ignorance whenever possible, which takes time. In the long run, however, this has resulted in my having users who seem to make far fewer ignorant mistakes per capita than the users in other departments that my co-workers handle. This leaves me free to worry about less visible problems, such as backups, security (integrity-privacy-accessibility), and preventive maintenance.
Admittedly, it helps to have a boss who is unsympathetic with continued willful ignorance and willing to approve the occasional course of aversion therapy to address that.
Why don't they call it a MACphone instead of an iPhone
PowerPhone sounds better, and is more likely to appeal to the C-level market demographic they so desperately desire... the people who make business decisions. "My Apple PowerPhone just works; why aren't we using Apple computers?"
An MP3 player for the younger demographic, a phone for the older demographic; just chip, chip, chipping away at Microsoft's corporate foundations.
Their rules state that if any four (out of nine) justices vote in favor of granting the writ, the court will hear the case.
Wikipedia claims this is not actually stated in the rules, but merely custom. IIR, I was told once that the Chief Justice also has by custom the option to unilaterally grant certiorari regardless of how many of the others agree. It's rumored to happen only extremely rarely, but since anything beyond "certiorari declined" is rarely disclosed, it's not known for certain.
And, as wild ignorant speculation, I'd guess that Ginsburg and Stevens were likely to vote for cert, as was Breyer; Souter was probably the most narrowly missed vote for cert, with Kennedy having been a longshot chance. I would have been deeply shocked (although pleased) if Chief Justice Roberts had voted for it, and can't imagine Alito, Scalia, or Thomas ever voting for it on such a case.
Is not having to show ID at an airport essential to my liberty? No, not remotely, in my own view. Is the safety gained from airport and airline security changes "temporary"? Again, no.
Two points: first, the safety gained by these changes, as others have noted, may not be so much a question of "temporary" versus "permanent" as "percieved" versus "substantial". Second and far more important, however, is that the most substantive underlying objection in Gilmore's case was not merely that he was required to show ID to travel, but that he was not allowed to see the regulation to see if it actually said this . Being able to examine the applicable law is indeed an essential liberty, especially when common law has held for centuries that Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Secret law, like secret courts, is inherently poisionous to the tree of liberty.
Umm, who are you to judge who is "real christian" or not (where's that part in the bible about judging others).
Possibly a Wiccan who is majoring in religious studies?
http://www.asktog.com/TOI/toi06KeyboardVMouse1.htm l
Another excerpt:
The key error of this study: assuming such comparison remains constant; there's a learning curve. As others noted, this was an article written in 1989, back when the mouse was a relative novelty, and computers were a novelty to almost everyone. The decision of which keys to press takes less and less time the more you use a particular function, much reminiscent of computer cache memory. The neural network of the human brain eventually learns that "paste" means press "<control-v>", and requires no more thought than pressing "p-r-e-s-s-i-n-g" does to type the word "pressing"... and less time. On the other hand, going up to the top menu to select "Edit -> Paste" also requires time... to shift cognitive attention, move the mouse into position, move it again, and shift cognitive attention back to the original focus. The minimum time for an experienced mouse user is always higher than that for an experienced keyboard user on such constantly-used tasks, especially for subjects with bad hand-eye coordination and/or ADD tendencies. That is, "geeks".
Not all strokes are for all folks. Most windows users will find it easier to select "Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> Command Prompt" than to type "<Windows-R>cmd<ENTER>", simply because of that time delay of remembering how it's done... if they've ever even heard of that trick. Because of heightened security awareness, most of the PC users I support now know that you can "lock" a WinXP system by <Windows-L>, and prefer it to the GUI approaches.
I'm pretty happy with things the way they are. Mostly, I use the Editor Of The Beast, since I learned ed back in elementary school over a 300 baud modem, and the transit to vi is relatively simple from there. (Nifty trivia: vi still supports much of the "s/foo/bar/g" syntax of ed.) Since I am less often having to edit C-code, and more often having to use a VT-102 emulated terminal session over dialup to VPN into a DSL connected machine focused on running bittorrent (I've seen 150 baud effective within the past year), vi makes more sense. For others who do more C++ than weird network maintenance, emacs is probably more sensible. For those doing word processing, Word (or Openoffice) is better choice than either.
Remember: There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, And—every—single—one—of—them—is—right!
The company that had a 1000 foot run, so instead of buying ARCNet wire .. they put in BNC .. then ran ARCNet over it (averaged about 300kbit/sec). Then complained it was too slow (well no kidding!!)
Back when I was taking networking classes, one of the instructors swore that at one job he and his fellow techs (as a silly "I wonder..." stunt) switched the ARCNet wire for a bunch of short (~3m) runs with paperclip chains. Worked just fine. He felt that this kind of resilience was the only reason for anyone to ever have considered using ARCNet for anything.
Enlightening SCSI quotes.
A few more glances indicates:
In my view, the only one of these worth more than a "warm bucket of 'spit'" was Taylor, a former general who when threatened with Southern secession, cheerfully threatened to assume personal command of the Army and hang any captured rebels.
So... is Bush known by the company he keeps?
Biogenic Weapons, anyone?
b) just says that if the copy was made illegally at the point of origin, it is considered illegal when imported into the United States. (i.e. chinese bootlegs)
You seem to have missed the phrase the phrase if this title had been applicable in the first sentence of 17 USC 602(b). If making the copy in a US jurisdiction would have violated Title 17, then the copy is illegal to import whether or not it was legal to make the reproduction under applicable local law (EG, allofmp3.com using the loophole in Russian law).
The other comment's point about "copying" is a little better, except that once you have a legal copy within the US, making further reproductions for personal use (IE, turning the ethernet bits into a copy on hard drive, and then into CD, iPod, and Wax Cylinder recording copies) might be defended under "fair use". (Whether it is fair use might need to go before a jury, as a question-of-fact.)
You can't import intangible things like bits when you download from their server.
I'm not sure I agree with you, if there is a commercial exchange (IE: money or tangible goods) taking place. I'm also fairly certain that the current Federal executive administration disagrees, since IIR in one of the warrantless wiretap cases it was argued that a border search of bits (including voice transmissions between a citizen and non-citizen) were inherently reasonable. Alas, I can't find the particular document at the moment, and it may have only been in the commentary on legal scholar blogs.
and will be taking the next boat to another continent
Tsk, tsk. Loose Lips Sink Ships. I hope you're on good terms with the Bermuda Triangle's secret masters....
The music is not illegal in the US, where as Hash is
While the music itself isn't per se illegal, improper importation looks to be a distinct offense, defined in 17 USC 602. I'm not sure whether part (a) or (b) governs, since the language gets a little obscure without more (complex ( (mathematical) expression-styled) ) use of parentheses.
IANAL. HAND. FOAD. YABA.
It seems something like this would fit in well with their "Google Books" virtual library.
IAmNotALawyer. But two ideas from my (mis)understanding of the law seem relevant from where I sit.
First, there is in US property law (via common law) the idea of adverse possession. Essentially, if you occupy a property long enough without the rightful owner doing anything, you can't be booted. I'm not sure what the exact case law is; I have a vague recollection of seven and ten years being associated, but I'm guessing.
The other idea is that a trademark, if not actively and vigorously defended, may be voided, and lose its protected status.
The current Wargames.com owner has been there since '98 -- over seven years. The original Wargames movie came out in 1983, according to IMDB. In my jaundiced eye, this leaves MGM on very questionable ground for both of these aspect. With a good lawyer, he might have a decent shot at getting a settlement where he keeps the domain, and in exchange agrees to carry their computer game if they make one, maybe points some lost traffic their way, maybe a non-compete agreement in the movie business... but he doesn't challenge the underlying validity of their trademark. A damn good lawyer might even be able to get MGM to cover all legal expenses, but I wouldn't bet on that.
And, yeah, based on what IMDB says, MGM seems to have a plot vastly less realistic than the hardly credible original, and are starting out by pissing off the zealous geek contingent and their solid block of prospective moviegoers. I'd wonder if Harlan Ellison's proverbial "intellectual capacity of an artichoke" was involved, but he seems to be listed as being with Paramount (currently working on a project perhaps well-suited to the reputed scope of his intellect). This is one movie where I'd not only be unwilling to go to, but now might consider encouraging refund requests by taking advantage of my knowledge that the main breakers for individual projectors at three of the local theaters are located outside the buildings.
This movie sounds like it may not be merely a gobbler, but radioactive putrid gobbler fecal matter. Get the hazmat suit.
The Israelis and Palestinians hate one another -- what role does science play in that?
Psychological experiments, including measurements of brain activity using NMRI gear, indicate that humans are more rationalizing than rational. I believe there's also been research which indicates deep-seated beliefs seldom undergo significant change after the age of thirty. This would suggest that any policy based on the assumption that local stability (without genocide) is likely in a scale less than decades is completely dumbass.I'd suggest some applied research on whether the "generation gap" is an international phenomenon. If you can make the gap between those who want a war of extinction and those who favor living together in peace a demographic one, it might allow the time scale to achieve peace there to be measured in decades, not centuries.
The factors involved seem to be being present when a photo opportunity happens, recognizing a photo opportunity, having a half-decent camera, and having the skill to produce a well composed photograph (instead of a blurry mess with half a thumb).
Being present is somewhat a matter of luck. However, photojournalists (like other journalists) spend more time than most people in many areas where "newsworthy" (IE: "I can turn that into a story!") events are more frequent. This improves their chances.
Recognizing a photo opportunity is a learned skill. Unsubtle ones like the collapse of the World Trade Center can be recognized by any moron with a pulse and an IQ higher than room temperature. However, such moments may be hard to pick out of the crowd of moments around us, as the current Wikipedia example image for Eisenstaedt suggests. The kiss is one amoung millions, probably even millions that day; but capturing it has elevated it. Would you have stopped and taken the shot, or merely smiled kindly at the happy couple and wandered on past? (I don't think "Get a room!" was a current expression at the time; anyone know?)
The ubiquity of cameras has reduced the importance of merely having a camera on the scene. However, all cameras are not created equal. No matter how lucky you are, you won't get the same quality shots with a keychain toy as with a fully kitted Hasselblad. Professionals put serious money into having the best gear, since they can get a return on the investment (and often a tax write-off). The barrier isn't absolute, since the availability of quality and affordable digital camera gear has gone up over the last couple years; there's a lot of "prosumer" grade cameras about. However, the ubiquitous cell phone camera is a lot closer to my first example for quality.
The last element is skill. With the cost of "developing" digital shots so low, it's a lot cheaper to develop the skill of photo composition than it used to be. However, since developing such skill also takes effort, most people still use a RFC 2795-styled approach, taking shots and picking the best afterwards. While a professional does this too, the expert knowlege they possess means they have a higher starting point, and an easier time finding that one utterly outstanding shot.
As Heinlein observed in Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, "There is no such thing as luck; there is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe." I wouldn't be too shocked if an "amateur" ended up with a Pulitzer within the next 20 years, but I don't expect the professional photojournalists to die out any time soon.
We really didn't want 17 sets of electric wires on the pole out back, did we? Nope.
Want it or not, we had it for a while. Example pic; I've seen a lot others from the era (three of the profs I do IT support for are historians focused on that era of technology), but this is the only one that turned up on the Web in a fast search. Alas, this one shows a relatively low level of wire clutter; most of those I've seen were worse.
If what they claim is true, then by definition:
This is a legal argument; you should use the legal definition. According to Cornell's wonderful handy reference, 10 USC 311 says (excerpting a bit):
Clear? Good; now please give me back my BFG-9000, officer.