I remember Nipplegate. Caught it live actually, and yes that was a blatant overreaction, especially when the incident was clearly unplanned.
In The Netherlands they broadcast the movie 'Deep throat' on public TV a year back
Okay, that seems a little weird to me. I know Europeans in general are less uptight about sex and nudity than we in the US are, but I hadn't thought it was quite that extreme a difference. I had thought that real pornography was still somewhat taboo there too, at least for public consumption.
Even in that though, the US does not prohibit the creation or viewing of pornography, though we do have rules about distribution and broadcasting. Maybe I'm just used to that or okay with it, but when I think about free speech I think of it in more of the textual sense, where censorship would be the restriction on what ideas you are permitted to express, and on that level the US does pretty well.
- The most different lobby groups trying to get laws eroding free speech (left, right, liberal, Christian, Muslim... whatever. All 'for' free speech but against 'X being said because *that* is harmful').
If there is no free speech, no one lobbies against it.
- By far the most lawsuits against people who express opinions (anonymous or not, satire or not), sometimes with a conviction.
If there is no free speech, there is no opportunity to say things to piss off other people
- Very strong censoring, some self-inflicted under pressure (like Comedy Central), some because of lobby groups (can't say 'fuck' on TV).
I've heard 'fuck' said on Comedy Central before, as well as other non-Premium cable channels. Define "very strong" censoring.
You've spoken of cultural examples. The first thing I'd say is citation needed. The next is, even if you're completely right on those points, let's speak towards the laws rather than cultural differences. And the last thing I'd say is that the Holocaust never happened.
Anyone can invoke the 5th amendment if they believe that answering the question will incriminate them. It doesn't matter if they are on trial or not. If you were accused of murder, and I saw you do it while I was across the street robbing a convenience store, I might choose to invoke the 5th rather than explain what I was doing while I saw you commit your act.
Dominica Juliano was 12 when she and her grandmother entered the Country Fair store in Erie in June 2004.
So the stupid girl is now 17 or 18, but apparently non the wiser. I really wonder why it took so long for their parents to get the idea that they might squeeze some money out of this stupid joke.
Pretending for a moment that the claims aren't completely absurd, it could have taken some time for the Tourette's to develop.
Basically if someone exercises their right to free speech and anonymously posts lies about you on the internet they are a TROLL. If someone exercises their right to free speach and anonymously posts an unfortunate truth about you on the internet you will just have to live with it. It's not something that anyone needs to sue over.
If I were to anonymously, repeatedly, and convincingly (perhaps I'm a REALLY GOOD TROLL) outright state that you are a rapist and the only reason you are not in jail is because of some technicality, what recourse do you have? If it is persistent enough that it makes it to the point where you have trouble getting job interviews and acquaintances are reluctant to invite you anywhere, haven't you been genuinely harmed (assuming that it isn't true)?
I agree with you that it's easy to overreact and suing for a handful of comments (I haven't read any of them) is overboard. But that doesn't mean legal action is never valid.
Right now, the community already does. The baseline is anything that doesn't harm their physical or emotional health, but clearly that's pretty vague. Absent perfect research on all topics, it comes down to a judgment call. And I accept that while I think this is okay (assuming it works) there are parents who won't. My post was largely in response to the idea that he didn't want his taxpayer dollars going directly to other people's schoolkids to motivate them. My response is "if it works, why would you care, especially if it's more cost effective?"
I once responded to a job posting that was looking for people who knew AWK. When I asked about it, the guy smiled and told me that while they have a couple of minor systems that are written in AWK, they want people who know their way around in UNIX. When he posts that he wants UNIX people, he gets resumes with people who can do ls, rm, and mv, and sometimes cat. When he posts that he wants AWK people, they almost universally know for more about UNIX than that.
I've read most of your comments in this thread and largely agree with you. However, there is no such thing as brilliant but unmaintainable code. Brilliant code is typically something you would never have thought of doing, but what it does and how to change it is immediately obvious when you look at it.
I worked with a guy who was very smart and could solve problems that most of the rest of the staff would have trouble with... and I advocating firing him because it was less of a time drain for me to help the other guys figure out a good way to solve the tough problems they ran into than it was to help them figure out what the hell genius boy had done. Most of his code required total rewrites in order to make useful changes. I suspect you meant that kind of coder. Solving difficult problems does not necessarily amount to brilliant code, and sometimes simple problems can have brilliant solutions.
I got there, and the front desk person handed me a 10 page document, and told me to sit down and fill it in.
These are often boilerplate forms that nobody cares about but feel as though they really must ask applicants for some odd reason. Often no one outside of HR realizes what's happening and by the time anyone new is comfortable enough to make critical suggestions they've completely forgotten what was a relatively minor part of their interview.
I'll fill in something with my name and address (once!) and some other general information and skip over everything else. If it seems like the interview might actually go somewhere then I'll provide much more info if they need it, but they typically don't. If they want you, any HR flak who complains "But he didn't fill out XYZ" will be told to call you up and get the relevant info.
Seriously, you want to work for a company that asks applicants to write at least some trivial code during the interview, because the alternative is very scary indeed.
I learned early on that an offer made quickly after a very easy interview means you should probably run screaming.
The two major problems with that were: 1. If everyone goes through the same process, then there's a good chance most of your co-workers are not very good. 2. If the interview process isn't painful for the employer to conduct, it won't bother them too much to repeat it for your replacement.
I took a job offered way too quickly once. I had my doubts but it was a 40% salary increase so I went with it. Turns out my skillset was actually a poor fit for the job, which would probably have become obvious with a marginally longer interview.
Two months later I was unemployed, and three months after that when my savings dried up and my father covered a month's rent for me I ended up going back to an old employer hat in hand to take a salary less than what I had been making at the place I just left.
Most of the good coders I know would walk right on out the door if the first thing you asked them to do was write something for free.
If it's something that is likely to have commercial value, then I'm with you on that. But if it's obviously some demo code with the express purpose of showing whether or not you have a clue what you're doing, then it's not a problem.
Or, if that was meant as funny, I guess I don't get it.
Insufficient sleep is sometimes the line between submit and cancel.
Couldn't help it though. 'Four square and seven years ago' just got stuck in my head once I saw the headline and posting something using that line was the only way to get rid of it.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible?
Well, that is the problem, isn't it?
And you don't have to look far to see that at least some anti-sex-ed types want people to suffer for having sex. Not all of them, but some do. Multiple prominent people fight HPV vaccination because they see it as enabling premarital sex without the "consequences" they find appropriate. Even though any rational person has to know that some percentage (in the case of HPV, a disturbingly large one) of kids are going to have sex and contract it anyway. To the people making this argument, that is an appropriate "consequence" of fucking before marriage. You hear similar things from some anti-abortion types who also tend to talk about "consequences". The people who think this way especially give themselves away when they oppose birth control, as in this case, which reduces the incidence of abortion. They are more concerned with controlling people's sexuality than they are about reducing incidence of disease or abortion.
A lot of times, they'll cluck about that not being the intent, but you simply have to look at their actions - are they supporting the reduction of preventable disease and death? There are some, probably, who are sufficiently clueless as to not understand the consequences of what they support, but if they're that clueless, they shouldn't be listened to, anyway. And what can be said about people who prefer disease and death to sexual freedom?
That's true and accurate, and yet it isn't.
Looking at it abstractly, you have some action X. Some people think that X is wrong and immoral (My problem with them stems from this point. If you think it's immoral, then fine, don't do it, but don't tell me not to.)
You have some other action Y. Action Y, by removing negative consequences of X, encourages X to happen more often. Therefore, the people who think X is immoral are also against Y.
There are undoubtedly some who also feel a good punishment is in order. But I do not believe that to be the majority.
BTW, the fun part about abstracting arguments is how you get to use them against people. Make X going to church and Y the right of free assembly and see if they still like the argument.
One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.
To one of my friends, or maybe my brother or sister, sure. To one of my kids? No, or at least nothing beyond some light teasing. And I'd never change someone's password.
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left
... but up until that point the left was absolutely thrilled to have Bush around.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember Nipplegate. Caught it live actually, and yes that was a blatant overreaction, especially when the incident was clearly unplanned.
In The Netherlands they broadcast the movie 'Deep throat' on public TV a year back
Okay, that seems a little weird to me. I know Europeans in general are less uptight about sex and nudity than we in the US are, but I hadn't thought it was quite that extreme a difference. I had thought that real pornography was still somewhat taboo there too, at least for public consumption.
Even in that though, the US does not prohibit the creation or viewing of pornography, though we do have rules about distribution and broadcasting. Maybe I'm just used to that or okay with it, but when I think about free speech I think of it in more of the textual sense, where censorship would be the restriction on what ideas you are permitted to express, and on that level the US does pretty well.
The USA has:
- The most different lobby groups trying to get laws eroding free speech (left, right, liberal, Christian, Muslim... whatever. All 'for' free speech but against 'X being said because *that* is harmful').
If there is no free speech, no one lobbies against it.
- By far the most lawsuits against people who express opinions (anonymous or not, satire or not), sometimes with a conviction.
If there is no free speech, there is no opportunity to say things to piss off other people
- Very strong censoring, some self-inflicted under pressure (like Comedy Central), some because of lobby groups (can't say 'fuck' on TV).
I've heard 'fuck' said on Comedy Central before, as well as other non-Premium cable channels. Define "very strong" censoring.
You've spoken of cultural examples. The first thing I'd say is citation needed. The next is, even if you're completely right on those points, let's speak towards the laws rather than cultural differences. And the last thing I'd say is that the Holocaust never happened.
You switch to a different song?
But... turning yourself in if you're not guilty would be illegal.
I really don't think it's a cultural thing as such.
followed by:
I suspect it's really just a "win at any costs" culture endemic on the mainland ...
Anyone can invoke the 5th amendment if they believe that answering the question will incriminate them. It doesn't matter if they are on trial or not. If you were accused of murder, and I saw you do it while I was across the street robbing a convenience store, I might choose to invoke the 5th rather than explain what I was doing while I saw you commit your act.
it could have taken some time for the Tourette's to develop.
Fuck that!
though I've heard it can manifest quickly sometimes.
Summary states:
but:
So the stupid girl is now 17 or 18, but apparently non the wiser. I really wonder why it took so long for their parents to get the idea that they might squeeze some money out of this stupid joke.
Pretending for a moment that the claims aren't completely absurd, it could have taken some time for the Tourette's to develop.
Basically if someone exercises their right to free speech and anonymously posts lies about you on the internet they are a TROLL. If someone exercises their right to free speach and anonymously posts an unfortunate truth about you on the internet you will just have to live with it. It's not something that anyone needs to sue over.
If I were to anonymously, repeatedly, and convincingly (perhaps I'm a REALLY GOOD TROLL) outright state that you are a rapist and the only reason you are not in jail is because of some technicality, what recourse do you have? If it is persistent enough that it makes it to the point where you have trouble getting job interviews and acquaintances are reluctant to invite you anywhere, haven't you been genuinely harmed (assuming that it isn't true)?
I agree with you that it's easy to overreact and suing for a handful of comments (I haven't read any of them) is overboard. But that doesn't mean legal action is never valid.
Who decides what is inappropriate?
Right now, the community already does. The baseline is anything that doesn't harm their physical or emotional health, but clearly that's pretty vague. Absent perfect research on all topics, it comes down to a judgment call. And I accept that while I think this is okay (assuming it works) there are parents who won't. My post was largely in response to the idea that he didn't want his taxpayer dollars going directly to other people's schoolkids to motivate them. My response is "if it works, why would you care, especially if it's more cost effective?"
f their parents aren't expected to be capable of motivating their children, then why should society be expected to be capable of doing it?
i don't want to pay children to do what they are expected to do, when they aren't penalized in the same form for not doing it.
Move away from the emotional aspects of it and consider it this way:
Let's start with the premise that you want to see our schools do a better job educating our kids.
You have proposal A, with a cost of X and an effectiveness of Y .7Y
You have proposal B, with a cost of 2X and an effectiveness of
So long as it's not something inappropriate for children, is there any reason not to pick proposal A?
You can refuse to accept that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, but that DOES mean that you do not understand the SCIENCE behind it.
So... where IS the center of the universe?
I think I'm one of a large group of moderate conservatives who believe that religion and creationism can coexist.
And then there's everyone from the babelfish school of thought that insist creationism and religion cannot coexist.
Random thought your post made me think of:
I once responded to a job posting that was looking for people who knew AWK. When I asked about it, the guy smiled and told me that while they have a couple of minor systems that are written in AWK, they want people who know their way around in UNIX. When he posts that he wants UNIX people, he gets resumes with people who can do ls, rm, and mv, and sometimes cat. When he posts that he wants AWK people, they almost universally know for more about UNIX than that.
brilliant but unmaintainable code
I've read most of your comments in this thread and largely agree with you. However, there is no such thing as brilliant but unmaintainable code. Brilliant code is typically something you would never have thought of doing, but what it does and how to change it is immediately obvious when you look at it.
I worked with a guy who was very smart and could solve problems that most of the rest of the staff would have trouble with... and I advocating firing him because it was less of a time drain for me to help the other guys figure out a good way to solve the tough problems they ran into than it was to help them figure out what the hell genius boy had done. Most of his code required total rewrites in order to make useful changes. I suspect you meant that kind of coder. Solving difficult problems does not necessarily amount to brilliant code, and sometimes simple problems can have brilliant solutions.
I got there, and the front desk person handed me a 10 page document, and told me to sit down and fill it in.
These are often boilerplate forms that nobody cares about but feel as though they really must ask applicants for some odd reason. Often no one outside of HR realizes what's happening and by the time anyone new is comfortable enough to make critical suggestions they've completely forgotten what was a relatively minor part of their interview.
I'll fill in something with my name and address (once!) and some other general information and skip over everything else. If it seems like the interview might actually go somewhere then I'll provide much more info if they need it, but they typically don't. If they want you, any HR flak who complains "But he didn't fill out XYZ" will be told to call you up and get the relevant info.
Seriously, you want to work for a company that asks applicants to write at least some trivial code during the interview, because the alternative is very scary indeed.
I learned early on that an offer made quickly after a very easy interview means you should probably run screaming.
The two major problems with that were:
1. If everyone goes through the same process, then there's a good chance most of your co-workers are not very good.
2. If the interview process isn't painful for the employer to conduct, it won't bother them too much to repeat it for your replacement.
I took a job offered way too quickly once. I had my doubts but it was a 40% salary increase so I went with it. Turns out my skillset was actually a poor fit for the job, which would probably have become obvious with a marginally longer interview.
Two months later I was unemployed, and three months after that when my savings dried up and my father covered a month's rent for me I ended up going back to an old employer hat in hand to take a salary less than what I had been making at the place I just left.
Most of the good coders I know would walk right on out the door if the first thing you asked them to do was write something for free.
If it's something that is likely to have commercial value, then I'm with you on that. But if it's obviously some demo code with the express purpose of showing whether or not you have a clue what you're doing, then it's not a problem.
Or, if that was meant as funny, I guess I don't get it.
Insufficient sleep is sometimes the line between submit and cancel.
Couldn't help it though. 'Four square and seven years ago' just got stuck in my head once I saw the headline and posting something using that line was the only way to get rid of it.
That doesn't make any sense.
The speech goes "Four square and seven years ago." Not five.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible?
Well, that is the problem, isn't it?
And you don't have to look far to see that at least some anti-sex-ed types want people to suffer for having sex. Not all of them, but some do. Multiple prominent people fight HPV vaccination because they see it as enabling premarital sex without the "consequences" they find appropriate. Even though any rational person has to know that some percentage (in the case of HPV, a disturbingly large one) of kids are going to have sex and contract it anyway. To the people making this argument, that is an appropriate "consequence" of fucking before marriage. You hear similar things from some anti-abortion types who also tend to talk about "consequences". The people who think this way especially give themselves away when they oppose birth control, as in this case, which reduces the incidence of abortion. They are more concerned with controlling people's sexuality than they are about reducing incidence of disease or abortion.
A lot of times, they'll cluck about that not being the intent, but you simply have to look at their actions - are they supporting the reduction of preventable disease and death? There are some, probably, who are sufficiently clueless as to not understand the consequences of what they support, but if they're that clueless, they shouldn't be listened to, anyway. And what can be said about people who prefer disease and death to sexual freedom?
That's true and accurate, and yet it isn't.
Looking at it abstractly, you have some action X. Some people think that X is wrong and immoral (My problem with them stems from this point. If you think it's immoral, then fine, don't do it, but don't tell me not to.)
You have some other action Y. Action Y, by removing negative consequences of X, encourages X to happen more often. Therefore, the people who think X is immoral are also against Y.
There are undoubtedly some who also feel a good punishment is in order. But I do not believe that to be the majority.
BTW, the fun part about abstracting arguments is how you get to use them against people. Make X going to church and Y the right of free assembly and see if they still like the argument.
So pulsars as a group are not perfect timepieces, but there may still exist a specific pulsar that is superior?
And when they're not the same, how do you know which one is better?
One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.
To one of my friends, or maybe my brother or sister, sure. To one of my kids? No, or at least nothing beyond some light teasing. And I'd never change someone's password.
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left
... but up until that point the left was absolutely thrilled to have Bush around.