I hear a lot about wikileaks releasing huge piles of information basically stolen from the United States, but I have yet to hear of anything being published by them on the same scale from countries like say, Russia (who kill reporters, shut down news stations critical of the midget Putin, kill anyone with any sort of following that speaks ill of said midget Putin), China (don't need to say anything about these fuckers), Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc. This says to me that wikileaks, and in particular Asange is basically just an anti American organization that throws in just enough on the others just as a way to say "hey, we go after everyone." Yeah, right. Personally, I agree that America is essentially reaping what has sown, but to say that wikileaks has any real interest in exposing the bullshit other countries pull is a load of horseshit. i.e. It is just an anti American organization. OK by me, but call a spade a spade. OK?
Traceability requires making people responsible at the BEGINNING; so that you have something to trace. How can you trace something unless you make it traceable from the beginning?? When people are made responsible in writing, they are more apt to do the job properly since they know they have their name beside a particular action item. It seems to me that by your logic you (and I do believe many others besides you) get this strange view of traceability. That is, you have a warped reasoning that by not making people responsible for action items from the beginning, that this unaccountability will somehow make it more likely that those action items will be completed properly and in a timely manner. This is false.
Ergo traceability is not for butt covering... or rather it is to make sure people don't have to cover their butts in the first place. And yes, it is also useful for when you do something the next time around as well. But it is not just for this.
Traceability can also mean being able to hold someone's feet to the fire for doing a shitty job... or not doing it at all. e.g. "How did we leave this out?" "Let's see, programmer/analyst/dba/business analyst number one was supposed to do this." When people know they will be accountable for what they do or don't do, the task is more likely to be done, and done with better effort. Granted we need to assume people will try to do a good and conscientious job (why is generalizing about good things about people's behaviour OK, while generalizing things perceived as bad, is bad? I digress...) but we all know this isn't always true.
Researchers say every time a man orgasm it reduces the chances of getting prostate cancer. Let's try to eradicate this dreaded disease. I can't do this alone. Hmmmm... let me rephrase that.
In the 20th and 21rst centuries we look back at the historic environmental events in the U.K. sometimes known as the London Fog. In the 22nd century, people will look back and talk about Beijing Fogs.
I listened to enterprise dbs intro lecture (web presentation) on the new hot standby feature, and IMHO it is not ready for prime time. It doesn't feature automatic cut over for high availability, and frankly point in time recovery seems to be kludgy. And I LIKE Postgres. It is getting closer to enterprise ready, but until it can do HA it is hard to say yes. Yeah I know there are third party apps that you can plug in to provide close to this (if not completely) but unless it is a built in feature of the RDBMS, it is still kludgy in my books. But if you don't need HA, it is a great RDBMS without a doubt.
I prefer gold lung disease. It's classier. OTOH people would and sometimes still do ingest (and sometimes inject) gold as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
Come on. The article is about the monetization of the Java VM. If your critical reading sucks that much I'll make it easy, he means replace the Java VM. That means Scala is not a solution. Please use your fucking brain in future.
I wonder if they will be trying this out on people with Macular Degeneration; since this is a major cause of vision loss in aging people. And there is a huge demographic who are about to enter the age group that this mostly affects (i.e. the boomers are getting old). It would help in their (and possibly all of our) care if they could all see properly.
The juxtaposition reminds me of a Robert A. Heinlein quote from Time Enough For Love:
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?
People where medic alert bracelets for medical reasons. I have yet to hear of any legitimate security reason to do so. I suspect that given her surgery scars (these are not two inch pins but ones that fit down the centre of her bones where the marrow runs (not the whole length but enough to give support). So the scars are visible (including the joint replacements). I am pretty sure doctors and nurses can figure out things like that when they see them.
And the boarder agents at the land boarder crossings as well. They can be over the top too often... both on the American and the Canadian side (mind you on the Canadian side it is mostly directed towards Canadians as they really are just rebranded tax collector automatons).
I worked with woman who has a bone disease making her bones very brittle. She has had to have something like 3 or 4 four pins in her arms and legs, shoulder joint replacements and hip replacements (she was only around 40 at the time). She and another coworker had to fly into some airport in Montana or Idaho (Helena or Boise) and the airport was small enough that at the time they didn't have a stationary metal detector and were checked with wands. The wands were more sensitive than the stationary detector and it kept going off as he scanned over the parts of her body with the replacement parts. She kept saying "yes there is pin there" or "that is a metal shoulder joint replacement." Eventually the idiot got frustrated and asked her if she could take them out. Apparently the guy traveling with her almost had a hernia trying not to laugh. At the time she didn't appreciate the humour but when they got back it made a pretty funny story. Bottom line is that many of these security guys are not rocket scientists for a good reason.
Think. This is exactly my point. In their circumstance is was moral to eat their friends; while normally in their home society (in their country... hence compatriots) it would be considered extremely evil (i.e. not moral) to eat human flesh. You sound like one of the humanists that I talked about in another reply about the Graham Greene book "The Comedians." You are humanist all the way (not necessarily bad), but so much so that you have crossed in to politically correct. You are trying to find things to be offended by. I personally don't want to be known as a humanist or a nationalist. I am patriotic towards my country (Canada), like the United States and others of our allies (like the U.K.) a great, great deal, and generally have no problem with anyone and think everyone should be treated fairly. I am a moderate. Please no labels.
They are all noble attempts, but they all fall apart when things get sticky (as in the impossible scenario of needing to feed your family but seeing stealing as the only means of doing so).
This is not because humans are incompetent when it comes to understanding what constitutes moral behavior, but because the foundational concept of morality is flawed. No system of absolutes (context-free rules) will be able to apply in all (context-laden) circumstances. The glove simply doesn't fit the hand.
It is interesting that you say I am trolling, but in these statements you in essence agree with me. BTW, while I believe in God/higher power, I am definitely not a fan of organized religions because I believe all they lead to is the church leaders eventually only wanting more power and use the church and their perceived honourable offices as tools to achieve them (whether they admit it or not). Organized religion is too easily corrupted. I say people should worship God in their own way. Granted, some people need validation. [sigh]
While I applaud and believe in informed humanistic activities, I believe too much is done by people who don't have a clue, and/or involve either directly or indirectly humanist philosophers who have never actually traveled anywhere or gone anywhere to try to put into practice what they preach (all talk and no action). Because of this I believe that oftentimes more damage is done by humanists than help. A great novel on this concept is called The Comedians by Graham Greene. Essentially many of the protagonists unable to leave Haiti during Papa Doc's early days try to do good for some of the poorer residents as they occasionally interact with them, but being ignorant of the local morals, and not caring to learn them, their thoughtless acts of help actually cost many of their beneficiaries a lot of pain or trouble. For example (from the book), while we would think that it might be moral to provide some money to poor people occasionally, doing so in front of some of Papa Doc's 'police' causes the poor to be beaten or killed when the 'police' steal the money from the poor once the benefactor leaves. Hardly moral doing something that will ultimately get someone hurt or killed. In this case, the poor couldn't afford to be given money. The cost was too high. Our western morals were too expensive for the area.
Please read a bit more history before making this claim. Here is a place to start:
In Britain, the number of capital offenses continually increased until the 1700's when two hundred and twenty-two crimes were punishable by death. These included stealing from a house in the amount of forty shillings, stealing from a shop the value of five shillings, robbing a rabbit warren, cutting down a tree, and counterfeiting tax stamps. However, juries tended not to convict when the penalty was great and the crime was not. Reforms began to take place. In 1823, five laws passed, exempting about a hundred crimes from the death [penalty]. Between 1832 and 1837, many capital offenses were swept away. In 1840, there was a failed attempt to abolish all capital punishment. Through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, more and more capital punishments were abolished, not only in Britain, but also all across Europe, until today only a few European countries retain the death penalty.
The New York colony instituted the so-called Duke's Laws of 1665. This directed the death penalty for denial of the true God, pre-meditated murder, killing someone who had no weapon of defense, killing by lying in wait or by poisoning, sodomy, buggery, kidnapping, perjury in a capital trial, traitorous denial of the king's rights or raising arms to resist his authority, conspiracy to invade towns or forts in the colony and striking one's mother or father (upon complaint of both). The two colonies that were more lenient concerning capital punishment were South Jersey and Pennsylvania. In South Jersey there was no death penalty for any crime and there were only two crimes, murder and treason, punishable by death.
However under the direction of the Crown, harsher penal codes were execution there until 1691 [sic]. In Pennsylvania, William Penn's Great Act (1682) made passed in the colonies [sic]. By 1776, most of the colonies had roughly comparable death statutes which covered arson, piracy, treason, murder, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, horse-stealing, slave rebellion, and often counterfeiting. Hanging was the usual sentence. Rhode Island was probably the only colony which decreased the number of capital crimes in the late 1700's.
Some states were more severe. For example, by 1837, North Carolina required death for the crimes of murder, rape, statutory rape, slave-stealing, stealing bank notes, highway robbery, burglary, arson, castration, buggery, sodomy, bestiality, dueling where death occurs, hiding a slave with intent to free him, taking a free Negro out of state to sell him, bigamy, inciting slaves to rebel, circulating seditious literature among slaves, accessory to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, or mayhem and others. However, North Carolina did not have a state penitentiary and, many said, no suitable alternative to capital punishment.
The first reforms of the death penalty occurred between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia's laws, proposed a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate the legislature defeated the bill by one vote.
In our society, for centuries, thievery has been considered immoral. But we all recognize that when you are starving, in order to feed your family you will steal if necessary. In days past you would be hanged if caught. The interesting thing is that to the person stealing, it is/was moral to do what you can/could to feed your family; while to the well fed, it was moral to hang the thief. The soccer team stranded by plane crash in the Andes Mountains ate their dead compatriots. In poor regions of the world, life is sometimes very cheap when the difference between life and death is thin. In the end, if life is good and you can afford morals, you will have them. It all amounts to how much power you have over your own life. Money is just another way to measure power.
Slashdot Mirror
whatever
I hear a lot about wikileaks releasing huge piles of information basically stolen from the United States, but I have yet to hear of anything being published by them on the same scale from countries like say, Russia (who kill reporters, shut down news stations critical of the midget Putin, kill anyone with any sort of following that speaks ill of said midget Putin), China (don't need to say anything about these fuckers), Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc. This says to me that wikileaks, and in particular Asange is basically just an anti American organization that throws in just enough on the others just as a way to say "hey, we go after everyone." Yeah, right. Personally, I agree that America is essentially reaping what has sown, but to say that wikileaks has any real interest in exposing the bullshit other countries pull is a load of horseshit. i.e. It is just an anti American organization. OK by me, but call a spade a spade. OK?
Traceability requires making people responsible at the BEGINNING; so that you have something to trace. How can you trace something unless you make it traceable from the beginning?? When people are made responsible in writing, they are more apt to do the job properly since they know they have their name beside a particular action item. It seems to me that by your logic you (and I do believe many others besides you) get this strange view of traceability. That is, you have a warped reasoning that by not making people responsible for action items from the beginning, that this unaccountability will somehow make it more likely that those action items will be completed properly and in a timely manner. This is false.
Ergo traceability is not for butt covering... or rather it is to make sure people don't have to cover their butts in the first place. And yes, it is also useful for when you do something the next time around as well. But it is not just for this.
Traceability can also mean being able to hold someone's feet to the fire for doing a shitty job... or not doing it at all. e.g. "How did we leave this out?" "Let's see, programmer/analyst/dba/business analyst number one was supposed to do this." When people know they will be accountable for what they do or don't do, the task is more likely to be done, and done with better effort. Granted we need to assume people will try to do a good and conscientious job (why is generalizing about good things about people's behaviour OK, while generalizing things perceived as bad, is bad? I digress...) but we all know this isn't always true.
Researchers say every time a man orgasm it reduces the chances of getting prostate cancer. Let's try to eradicate this dreaded disease. I can't do this alone. Hmmmm... let me rephrase that.
Beat off.
In the 20th and 21rst centuries we look back at the historic environmental events in the U.K. sometimes known as the London Fog. In the 22nd century, people will look back and talk about Beijing Fogs.
I listened to enterprise dbs intro lecture (web presentation) on the new hot standby feature, and IMHO it is not ready for prime time. It doesn't feature automatic cut over for high availability, and frankly point in time recovery seems to be kludgy. And I LIKE Postgres. It is getting closer to enterprise ready, but until it can do HA it is hard to say yes. Yeah I know there are third party apps that you can plug in to provide close to this (if not completely) but unless it is a built in feature of the RDBMS, it is still kludgy in my books. But if you don't need HA, it is a great RDBMS without a doubt.
Sir, we've found your ear at the scene of the crime.
That's not my ear.
How can you prove it?
I had a pencil behind mine.
I prefer gold lung disease. It's classier. OTOH people would and sometimes still do ingest (and sometimes inject) gold as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
Your astroturfing for Scala all over the comments for this article is absolutely fucking annoying.
Come on. The article is about the monetization of the Java VM. If your critical reading sucks that much I'll make it easy, he means replace the Java VM. That means Scala is not a solution. Please use your fucking brain in future.
That's what this guy is afraid of if he uses his other hand.
I wonder if they will be trying this out on people with Macular Degeneration; since this is a major cause of vision loss in aging people. And there is a huge demographic who are about to enter the age group that this mostly affects (i.e. the boomers are getting old). It would help in their (and possibly all of our) care if they could all see properly.
Hah hah ha ha ... I've stolen billions and billions of your debt now I can afford.... oh wait... um never mind.
Considering they are rebranded tax collectors, I would say yes. Even if they do work at the... ahem... border.
People where medic alert bracelets for medical reasons. I have yet to hear of any legitimate security reason to do so. I suspect that given her surgery scars (these are not two inch pins but ones that fit down the centre of her bones where the marrow runs (not the whole length but enough to give support). So the scars are visible (including the joint replacements). I am pretty sure doctors and nurses can figure out things like that when they see them.
And the boarder agents at the land boarder crossings as well. They can be over the top too often... both on the American and the Canadian side (mind you on the Canadian side it is mostly directed towards Canadians as they really are just rebranded tax collector automatons).
I worked with woman who has a bone disease making her bones very brittle. She has had to have something like 3 or 4 four pins in her arms and legs, shoulder joint replacements and hip replacements (she was only around 40 at the time). She and another coworker had to fly into some airport in Montana or Idaho (Helena or Boise) and the airport was small enough that at the time they didn't have a stationary metal detector and were checked with wands. The wands were more sensitive than the stationary detector and it kept going off as he scanned over the parts of her body with the replacement parts. She kept saying "yes there is pin there" or "that is a metal shoulder joint replacement." Eventually the idiot got frustrated and asked her if she could take them out. Apparently the guy traveling with her almost had a hernia trying not to laugh. At the time she didn't appreciate the humour but when they got back it made a pretty funny story. Bottom line is that many of these security guys are not rocket scientists for a good reason.
Think. This is exactly my point. In their circumstance is was moral to eat their friends; while normally in their home society (in their country... hence compatriots) it would be considered extremely evil (i.e. not moral) to eat human flesh. You sound like one of the humanists that I talked about in another reply about the Graham Greene book "The Comedians." You are humanist all the way (not necessarily bad), but so much so that you have crossed in to politically correct. You are trying to find things to be offended by. I personally don't want to be known as a humanist or a nationalist. I am patriotic towards my country (Canada), like the United States and others of our allies (like the U.K.) a great, great deal, and generally have no problem with anyone and think everyone should be treated fairly. I am a moderate. Please no labels.
It is interesting that you say I am trolling, but in these statements you in essence agree with me. BTW, while I believe in God/higher power, I am definitely not a fan of organized religions because I believe all they lead to is the church leaders eventually only wanting more power and use the church and their perceived honourable offices as tools to achieve them (whether they admit it or not). Organized religion is too easily corrupted. I say people should worship God in their own way. Granted, some people need validation. [sigh]
While I applaud and believe in informed humanistic activities, I believe too much is done by people who don't have a clue, and/or involve either directly or indirectly humanist philosophers who have never actually traveled anywhere or gone anywhere to try to put into practice what they preach (all talk and no action). Because of this I believe that oftentimes more damage is done by humanists than help. A great novel on this concept is called The Comedians by Graham Greene. Essentially many of the protagonists unable to leave Haiti during Papa Doc's early days try to do good for some of the poorer residents as they occasionally interact with them, but being ignorant of the local morals, and not caring to learn them, their thoughtless acts of help actually cost many of their beneficiaries a lot of pain or trouble. For example (from the book), while we would think that it might be moral to provide some money to poor people occasionally, doing so in front of some of Papa Doc's 'police' causes the poor to be beaten or killed when the 'police' steal the money from the poor once the benefactor leaves. Hardly moral doing something that will ultimately get someone hurt or killed. In this case, the poor couldn't afford to be given money. The cost was too high. Our western morals were too expensive for the area.
Pardon me... forgot to add the link to this: Frontline (PBS)
Please read a bit more history before making this claim. Here is a place to start:
Morals only apply to those who can afford them.
In our society, for centuries, thievery has been considered immoral. But we all recognize that when you are starving, in order to feed your family you will steal if necessary. In days past you would be hanged if caught. The interesting thing is that to the person stealing, it is/was moral to do what you can/could to feed your family; while to the well fed, it was moral to hang the thief. The soccer team stranded by plane crash in the Andes Mountains ate their dead compatriots. In poor regions of the world, life is sometimes very cheap when the difference between life and death is thin. In the end, if life is good and you can afford morals, you will have them. It all amounts to how much power you have over your own life. Money is just another way to measure power.