All material is copyrighted at the instant of creation. All of it. You write a love letter to your girlfriend and it's copyrighted. It's all copyrighted! Beyond that, you're requiring them to *present* copies. I'm assuming this is to the LoC.
You could make a case for this when a copyright is *registered*, but please don't make a blanket statement like that without first engaging brain.
Wealth creation is not the reason for the economy existing
Actually, there is no reason for the economy existing, it just does! It's a side effect of human interaction. No matter what your politics or beliefs, the economy will still be there as long as there's at least two human beings interacting with each other.
I really really do not understand you Democrats. I am a Libertarian. I am going to be voting for Badnarik next month. Not Bush. Not Kerry. But if I had to vote with party had the most hate filled rhetoric, it would have to be the Democrats.
You're going to "fight back now"? You're "not gonna take it"? Who are you, Twisted Sister? What the fuck have you been doing the last four years, just warming up? I have never seen so much absolute hatred for one man ever in my life than I have seen with the Democrats hating Bush. You guys have lost all rationality because the hatred leaves no room for it. You almost quiver in the intensity of your hatred.
I was at a party two years ago where a man went into a shouting rage because he caught a glimpse of Bush on the television. (Hey, if you can go off on irrelevant tangents, so can I!) His quote, as near as I can remember, was "oh my god he's wearing a fucking cowboy hat does he think he's a fucking cowboy oh my god!" He then went around grabbing people by the shoulders and pointing them towards the television so that they could see the cowboy hat too. At another gathering (still off topic) a man said "someone should put all of the Republican's out of their misery". Advocating murder! When I pointed out to him that not a half hour before he said he was ashamed of his mother being a Republican, he backed off. Apparently it's okay to kill Republicans as long as they're not your mom! Last year I went on a vacation. (yup, like you, I'm still off topic) I got to a friend's house, a Democrat. When I asked him about Dean, he went off on a tirade shouting about how Bush was evil. Let me repeat, I asked about Dean and he starts yelling about Bush.
You probably don't see this hatred because you're right in the middle of it. But it's there. Ask anyone but a Democrat and they will point it out to you. You need go no further than the Slashdot political section to see it. Please note that I am *NOT* saying Republicans are acting Emily Post, because they certainly are not. But you Democrats definitely tip the scales in the rudeness department.
Now here you come full of just as much hate. You start off trying to calmly explain why I could be mistaken for a Bush supporter (in summary, because I didn't excoriate another suspected Bush supporter), but after a few rational sentences you suddenly leap off the deep end and begin doing the Twisted Sister impersonation, and finish off talking about terrorists voting for Bush!
OK I'll say it again, there isn't any real contradiction between those two statements
Consider the task of awarding a plaque to the student with the best attendence. One student's attendance was not that bad. The other student missed quite a few days. Which one do you give your award to?
The literal wordings of Tsurumi's statements aren't the problem, it's what's he is implying by them. "Not that bad" quite literally means "good". It implies that Bush had good attendance. "Quite a few" is synonymous with "many". It implies that Bush missed many days and thus had bad attendance.
Maybe you could tell me what your motivation is.
The original poster (kajoob) quoted Tsurumi to make a point. You completely missed his point and focused your rebuttal upon irrelevancies. I merely tried to steer you back to the central point of kajoob's post because you were wandering miles off topic.
Let me be as plain and clear as I can possibly be: my understanding of the central point to kajoob's post is wholly irrelevant to my support or non-support of Bush!
A decade ago I signed up for AOL using my credit card. The next day I cancelled. That didn't stop them from charging me $19.95 a month for the next three months! After the third time visa was getting suspicious of *ME*!
Where the fsck do you get off calling me a Bush fanatic! All I did was point out to you the obvious point of the prior post. That's all I did, point it out. Then you go on some tirade about me having some agenda or something.
If you can't see the difference between "not that bad" and "missed quite a few", then you're the one with cognitive dissonance. It's not about being for or against Bush, it's about the freaking English language!
We had this initiative to get our division from nothing to CMM level 3 in one year, skipping levels 1 and 2 on the way. Seriously! That one year turned into two, and then three. We finally gave up and started using the Siemens OPAL(tm) process improvement inititive. We achieved OPAL level three after only a three month effort.
If done properly, we could have a two-bracket income tax system: 1% for almost everybody, but no loopholes, and 95% for the rich, with a standard full deduction for the first $235,000 of income
So please tell me why I would ever accept an income over $235,000? The answer is that I won't. By placing an income cap with taxation that extreme, you're creating a HUGE disincentive to earn wealth. You simply will not be scooping up all the excess cash, because there will not be any excess cash to scoop up! This is so basic it isn't "Economics 101", it's "Remedial Summer Session Economics for Jocks"!
If this is hard to understand, then lower the amounts down to your level. Suppose taxation was 1% for any income up to $50,000, and 95% for all incomes over $50,000. Now let's say you're earning $50,000 and your boss offers you a 5% raise. What do you do? If it were me I would tell my boss to take a hike! Before the raise my takehome is $49,500, and after the raise it's $49,625. Holy shit! That works out to something like six cents an hour wage increase! Like hell I'm going to busting my butt all year just for a six cent payraise!
being against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is hardly an extreme view.
Which brings me to a question no one has bothered to answer for me for the past year: how many nations permit gay marriage? Not "unions", but actual marriages?
I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others.
How are the Democrats going to implement this? Nookie Stamps? WhoreCorps? Hooker subsidies? Girlfriend quotas? More seriously, what do you think the government's should do to provide equality of love? Have social workers going around giving people hugs?
Huh? Are you SERIOUSLY saying you believe that 90% of Internet Explorer users do not know what a browser is? Come on! My mother, who is the world's dumbest computer user, knows what browser is.
Then please stop making assertions and start showing real data. Because the data we do have says that we have lower unemployment now than in 1996. You have to do more than just say the statistics are wrong.
Because today's job market is worse than it was in '96
Only in the context of knowing what happened afterwards. 6.7% unemployment is worse than 5.4% unemployment no matter how you try to argue differently. In hindsight, we now now that that 6.7% unemployment was going to get better. We now know that '96 was the beginning of an upward slope. But we do NOT know that about today's 5.4%. I was merely stating that the certainty of hindsight is better than the uncertainty of the unknown future.
I'm not saying that today's job market is worse than 1996. I'm saying it's worse than 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000!
Let me re-reply. I've just come back from my daily run, and have thought about this a little bit more.
The problem is that there are two kinds of people implementing Quality Assurance. One kind are engineers and the other are MBAs.
Engineers are focused on the product. They use QA to produce a quality product. They define "quality" to be validating the product requirements and verifying the product specifications. They want it to do what the customer wants and be free of defects. The process is always secondary to the product.
MBAs are focused on the process. They use QA to ensure a quality process. They define "quality" to be adherence to the process, e.g. validating the requirements document and verifying the specifications document. They want the process to do what the management wants and be free of issues that might be discovered by outside auditors. The process is the product.
The MBA way leads to bureaucracy. The larger the company the more likely it is that their QA groups are focused on process instead of product. My company is one of the largest in the world. Bureaucratic process is more important to them than the actual product. When we shipped our last product I got a teeshirt and a thank you by my immediate manager. When we announced our new process we had a company outing and barbecue plus a grand laudatory speech by our CEO.
Assuming QA peole are not technical shows your ignorance.
It's ignorance I've had to learn. It's been beaten into me. I used to be a Software Quality Engineer. Then my company got bought out, and they renamed the SQA department to "Software Test", and made a separate SQA group. Everything I knew was turned upside down.
To these people, quality is synonymous with adherence to the process. Thus, they truly believe they are productive members of a team when they strut around like a police on patrol. They insist on being members of technical reviews, but they are not qualified to offer technical criticism. They only thing they do at these reviews is to nitpick over inconsequential process details.
You obviously work for a company that has no clue.
That's for sure! I work for a division of Siemens AG. We're not just some small fry startup operating out of a garage. We're one of the ten largest companies in the world. Which I why I think this problem infects more than must my employer.
I've seen experienced QA Engineers join this company then quit in extreme disgust weeks later. Is it really different elsewhere? I can only dream...
The FIRST rule of process improvement is that it comes second to doing your business.
I swear our unofficial motto is "process is our product". I've been with Siemens AG for six years. In that time I've seen five new processes rolled out. We have another one scheduled to be rolled out next year.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT saying QA is valueless. I am NOT saying process is useless. I am only saying that in practice, from my experience working for the quintessential multinational corporation, process is more important than product.
My point was that the 5.4% of today is not nearly as accurate as the 6.7% back in '96.
What, did the laws of statistics change during that time? If you're claiming that the margins of errors are different, please produce those margins of error!
Every last one of them felt the job market today is terrible.
In the mid-90's we were on the rising slopes of a bubble. In comparison the job market today *IS* terrible. Likewise, a body temperature of 98.6 seems like a hyperthermia if you compare it to the fever you had eight years ago. In reality though, today's economy isn't bad. It's not going gangbusters and people aren't speculating their life savings on tulip bulbs, but it still ain't bad.
Everyone I know who was laid off sometime during the last four years is now working, with the exception of two people. One decided to retire early at the age of 63. The other is attending law school.
You're basing your facts on a "World Socialist Web Site" article containing no references?
Simply provide a list of which networks called Florida for Bush, and at what times.
That's something you should do. As the accuser, it's your responsibility to prove your claim. So you provide us with the times each network called for Florida.
I agree with you totally on principle, but on practice, replace "standards-compliant browser" with "browser conforming to a reasonable subset of the standards".
Why? Because no browser is 100% conformant to the standards. And even if you did find one that was, five minutes later there will be a new standard it won't be conformant with. Like it or not, web standards are a moving target. This doesn't mean the lowest common denominator of standards. That's why I said "reasonable".
Slashdot Mirror
Tyranny! And don't laugh, I'm serious about this.
All material is copyrighted at the instant of creation. All of it. You write a love letter to your girlfriend and it's copyrighted. It's all copyrighted! Beyond that, you're requiring them to *present* copies. I'm assuming this is to the LoC.
You could make a case for this when a copyright is *registered*, but please don't make a blanket statement like that without first engaging brain.
The comission on presidential debates is a private entity. This is your free market at work, aren't you happy with it?
Except that in this case the private entity is receiving private funds. The CPD is a government agency in all ways except name.
Wealth creation is not the reason for the economy existing
Actually, there is no reason for the economy existing, it just does! It's a side effect of human interaction. No matter what your politics or beliefs, the economy will still be there as long as there's at least two human beings interacting with each other.
I really really do not understand you Democrats. I am a Libertarian. I am going to be voting for Badnarik next month. Not Bush. Not Kerry. But if I had to vote with party had the most hate filled rhetoric, it would have to be the Democrats.
You're going to "fight back now"? You're "not gonna take it"? Who are you, Twisted Sister? What the fuck have you been doing the last four years, just warming up? I have never seen so much absolute hatred for one man ever in my life than I have seen with the Democrats hating Bush. You guys have lost all rationality because the hatred leaves no room for it. You almost quiver in the intensity of your hatred.
I was at a party two years ago where a man went into a shouting rage because he caught a glimpse of Bush on the television. (Hey, if you can go off on irrelevant tangents, so can I!) His quote, as near as I can remember, was "oh my god he's wearing a fucking cowboy hat does he think he's a fucking cowboy oh my god!" He then went around grabbing people by the shoulders and pointing them towards the television so that they could see the cowboy hat too. At another gathering (still off topic) a man said "someone should put all of the Republican's out of their misery". Advocating murder! When I pointed out to him that not a half hour before he said he was ashamed of his mother being a Republican, he backed off. Apparently it's okay to kill Republicans as long as they're not your mom! Last year I went on a vacation. (yup, like you, I'm still off topic) I got to a friend's house, a Democrat. When I asked him about Dean, he went off on a tirade shouting about how Bush was evil. Let me repeat, I asked about Dean and he starts yelling about Bush.
You probably don't see this hatred because you're right in the middle of it. But it's there. Ask anyone but a Democrat and they will point it out to you. You need go no further than the Slashdot political section to see it. Please note that I am *NOT* saying Republicans are acting Emily Post, because they certainly are not. But you Democrats definitely tip the scales in the rudeness department.
Now here you come full of just as much hate. You start off trying to calmly explain why I could be mistaken for a Bush supporter (in summary, because I didn't excoriate another suspected Bush supporter), but after a few rational sentences you suddenly leap off the deep end and begin doing the Twisted Sister impersonation, and finish off talking about terrorists voting for Bush!
OK I'll say it again, there isn't any real contradiction between those two statements
Consider the task of awarding a plaque to the student with the best attendence. One student's attendance was not that bad. The other student missed quite a few days. Which one do you give your award to?
The literal wordings of Tsurumi's statements aren't the problem, it's what's he is implying by them. "Not that bad" quite literally means "good". It implies that Bush had good attendance. "Quite a few" is synonymous with "many". It implies that Bush missed many days and thus had bad attendance.
Maybe you could tell me what your motivation is.
The original poster (kajoob) quoted Tsurumi to make a point. You completely missed his point and focused your rebuttal upon irrelevancies. I merely tried to steer you back to the central point of kajoob's post because you were wandering miles off topic.
Let me be as plain and clear as I can possibly be: my understanding of the central point to kajoob's post is wholly irrelevant to my support or non-support of Bush!
A decade ago I signed up for AOL using my credit card. The next day I cancelled. That didn't stop them from charging me $19.95 a month for the next three months! After the third time visa was getting suspicious of *ME*!
Where the fsck do you get off calling me a Bush fanatic! All I did was point out to you the obvious point of the prior post. That's all I did, point it out. Then you go on some tirade about me having some agenda or something.
If you can't see the difference between "not that bad" and "missed quite a few", then you're the one with cognitive dissonance. It's not about being for or against Bush, it's about the freaking English language!
Definitely sounds like one of our guys :-)
We had this initiative to get our division from nothing to CMM level 3 in one year, skipping levels 1 and 2 on the way. Seriously! That one year turned into two, and then three. We finally gave up and started using the Siemens OPAL(tm) process improvement inititive. We achieved OPAL level three after only a three month effort.
Absolutely! Where would your religious liberties be safer, under a Robertson or a Peroutka?
If done properly, we could have a two-bracket income tax system: 1% for almost everybody, but no loopholes, and 95% for the rich, with a standard full deduction for the first $235,000 of income
So please tell me why I would ever accept an income over $235,000? The answer is that I won't. By placing an income cap with taxation that extreme, you're creating a HUGE disincentive to earn wealth. You simply will not be scooping up all the excess cash, because there will not be any excess cash to scoop up! This is so basic it isn't "Economics 101", it's "Remedial Summer Session Economics for Jocks"!
If this is hard to understand, then lower the amounts down to your level. Suppose taxation was 1% for any income up to $50,000, and 95% for all incomes over $50,000. Now let's say you're earning $50,000 and your boss offers you a 5% raise. What do you do? If it were me I would tell my boss to take a hike! Before the raise my takehome is $49,500, and after the raise it's $49,625. Holy shit! That works out to something like six cents an hour wage increase! Like hell I'm going to busting my butt all year just for a six cent payraise!
being against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is hardly an extreme view.
Which brings me to a question no one has bothered to answer for me for the past year: how many nations permit gay marriage? Not "unions", but actual marriages?
I belive that all people have an equal right to the basics -- food, shelter, health, happyness, love, others.
How are the Democrats going to implement this? Nookie Stamps? WhoreCorps? Hooker subsidies? Girlfriend quotas? More seriously, what do you think the government's should do to provide equality of love? Have social workers going around giving people hugs?
This looks like a job for Obvious Man(tm).
Tsurumi: Well attendance was not that bad.
...and then...
Tsurumi: Well certainly he missed quite a few.
If it still hasn't sunken in, I have a sledgehammer here that can help drive the point home.
Huh? Are you SERIOUSLY saying you believe that 90% of Internet Explorer users do not know what a browser is? Come on! My mother, who is the world's dumbest computer user, knows what browser is.
I'm talking about what the reality is right now.
Then please stop making assertions and start showing real data. Because the data we do have says that we have lower unemployment now than in 1996. You have to do more than just say the statistics are wrong.
If my employer's QA group was in charge of improving highway safety, they would audit the DMV!
:-)
Cheers
Because today's job market is worse than it was in '96
Only in the context of knowing what happened afterwards. 6.7% unemployment is worse than 5.4% unemployment no matter how you try to argue differently. In hindsight, we now now that that 6.7% unemployment was going to get better. We now know that '96 was the beginning of an upward slope. But we do NOT know that about today's 5.4%. I was merely stating that the certainty of hindsight is better than the uncertainty of the unknown future.
I'm not saying that today's job market is worse than 1996. I'm saying it's worse than 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000!
Let me re-reply. I've just come back from my daily run, and have thought about this a little bit more.
The problem is that there are two kinds of people implementing Quality Assurance. One kind are engineers and the other are MBAs.
Engineers are focused on the product. They use QA to produce a quality product. They define "quality" to be validating the product requirements and verifying the product specifications. They want it to do what the customer wants and be free of defects. The process is always secondary to the product.
MBAs are focused on the process. They use QA to ensure a quality process. They define "quality" to be adherence to the process, e.g. validating the requirements document and verifying the specifications document. They want the process to do what the management wants and be free of issues that might be discovered by outside auditors. The process is the product.
The MBA way leads to bureaucracy. The larger the company the more likely it is that their QA groups are focused on process instead of product. My company is one of the largest in the world. Bureaucratic process is more important to them than the actual product. When we shipped our last product I got a teeshirt and a thank you by my immediate manager. When we announced our new process we had a company outing and barbecue plus a grand laudatory speech by our CEO.
Assuming QA peole are not technical shows your ignorance.
It's ignorance I've had to learn. It's been beaten into me. I used to be a Software Quality Engineer. Then my company got bought out, and they renamed the SQA department to "Software Test", and made a separate SQA group. Everything I knew was turned upside down.
To these people, quality is synonymous with adherence to the process. Thus, they truly believe they are productive members of a team when they strut around like a police on patrol. They insist on being members of technical reviews, but they are not qualified to offer technical criticism. They only thing they do at these reviews is to nitpick over inconsequential process details.
You obviously work for a company that has no clue.
That's for sure! I work for a division of Siemens AG. We're not just some small fry startup operating out of a garage. We're one of the ten largest companies in the world. Which I why I think this problem infects more than must my employer.
I've seen experienced QA Engineers join this company then quit in extreme disgust weeks later. Is it really different elsewhere? I can only dream...
The FIRST rule of process improvement is that it comes second to doing your business.
I swear our unofficial motto is "process is our product". I've been with Siemens AG for six years. In that time I've seen five new processes rolled out. We have another one scheduled to be rolled out next year.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT saying QA is valueless. I am NOT saying process is useless. I am only saying that in practice, from my experience working for the quintessential multinational corporation, process is more important than product.
At age 30, I've only grossed over $30,000 a year twice.
I'm 40. I didn't make over $40,000 until I was 35. People are making more money earlier, so I guess the economy really is improving!
My point was that the 5.4% of today is not nearly as accurate as the 6.7% back in '96.
What, did the laws of statistics change during that time? If you're claiming that the margins of errors are different, please produce those margins of error!
Every last one of them felt the job market today is terrible.
In the mid-90's we were on the rising slopes of a bubble. In comparison the job market today *IS* terrible. Likewise, a body temperature of 98.6 seems like a hyperthermia if you compare it to the fever you had eight years ago. In reality though, today's economy isn't bad. It's not going gangbusters and people aren't speculating their life savings on tulip bulbs, but it still ain't bad.
Everyone I know who was laid off sometime during the last four years is now working, with the exception of two people. One decided to retire early at the age of 63. The other is attending law school.
You're basing your facts on a "World Socialist Web Site" article containing no references?
Simply provide a list of which networks called Florida for Bush, and at what times.
That's something you should do. As the accuser, it's your responsibility to prove your claim. So you provide us with the times each network called for Florida.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I still find myself having to explain what a web browser is to 90% of the people I know that use the internet.
You need to get out more then. 90% of the people I know have no problems understanding the word "browser".
I agree with you totally on principle, but on practice, replace "standards-compliant browser" with "browser conforming to a reasonable subset of the standards".
Why? Because no browser is 100% conformant to the standards. And even if you did find one that was, five minutes later there will be a new standard it won't be conformant with. Like it or not, web standards are a moving target. This doesn't mean the lowest common denominator of standards. That's why I said "reasonable".