Sorry, I'm not following. Because it's repeated often automatically means it's not true?
Yes, you aren't following. You're missing my point since this is obviously a very emotional issue for you.
If every time you got into a group discussion about the weather, and someone said "The sky is blue when it's sunny!"... And then everyone else stopped and said, "Hmm, yes, that is a very good observation." Well, that would be the same thing.
The only point "the blue E is the internet" meme serves is to give some dorks a smug feeling of superiority. The phrase doesn't even give evidence or add anything new - it's just a platitude that we're all supposed to eat up every time this stupid topic comes up.
Why yes, there are some really ignorant people out there... and? What about them? Oh, that's it? You're just informing us that there are ignorant people out there... without any evidence or further elaboration. What a sharp observation. This is the kind of analysis I come to Slashdot for!
Despite whatever kind of utopian highly-evolved intellectual society you think you live in, the vast majority of the "wired" public still have no freakin' clue how any of it works, even the bits on their own computer. They just click whatever they know they need to click in order to do their work (or games). And there's nothing wrong with that. That's exactly how it should be. The software is supposed to handle all the mundane details automatically.
That's great! Then someone should say *that* (with anecdotal evidence) instead of chanting the same boring phrases every time. In fact, I don't even mind the same boring phrases being said every time if they aren't modded +5 INSIGHTFUL!
So all you've done is told your grandpa, "That little blue 'e' icon isn't the Internet. This curly fox icon is the Internet."
Congratulations, you just proved the OP's point even better than he did.
I honestly don't know what he thinks the internet is, nor does it matter. I said "may" as in "hypothetically could". I was pointing out that if my grandpa can grasp the concept of the icon changing, others should be able to, too.
I'm so tired of this mantra. Elitists have been chanting this line for at least 5 years now. It's not insightful. It's not informative. It's just the same old shit that adds nothing to the discussion.
Are we going to keep modding it up when there's still 1 user left who thinks "the blue E is the internet"?
Hell, even my grandpa uses Firefox. He may think it's the internet, but god damnit, he knows it's the better internet.
I run a HUGE electronics design software suite... and it actually loads and runs faster in VMWare than running in native Windows XP!
This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone have an explanation for why this happens?
I've noticed it, too, during XP's boot. Booting on my actual machine takes ~12 seconds, but in VMWare takes ~4 seconds. I always thought it was because Windows doesn't have to wait for various physical hardware components (since they're virtualized)... but that doesn't account for your software suite.
It's not called a license anymore. Licenses are a thing of the past! It's called a "contractual object". And they're not written by lawyers, but "documentary artisans".
It's unfortunately not easy to develop on Mono right now, but IMHO only due to the debugger.
I disagree. MonoDevelop is the bane of my existence. It's not even that it's missing features - it's that the damn thing crashes randomly and the basic features (like code completion) are broken. It's been this way for me for years... so long that I almost wanted to start contributing to the project. But then I just installed Visual Studio 2008 on a Windows VM and it solved everything.
I swear, I haven't really hobby coded too much since I started using Linux years ago. Part of it is because I have everything I need and don't need to change much. The other part of it is that I haven't used a single goddamn IDE in Linux that doesn't make me want to shoot myself in the face. Fanatics can gab on about how a real developer doesn't need a a decent IDE, and that's true - but what's also true is that once you've had access to elegant debugging, code completion, and compilation, you don't ever want to go back.
Hmm, I don't feel like a hypocrite. Nor do I feel ashamed - why would I be?
But you have fun with that self-flagellation. Maybe you can save the world for us, or at the very least make some suckers feel guilty and inferior to your righteousness.
It's not really the movie theater and I realize that. It's just that theaters are enclosed environments which demand that you pay attention, and the immature, inconsiderate, ADD, "I'm the only person who exists" chronological adults who are really just overgrown children aren't terribly compatible with that atmosphere. I think these are the same folks who would only care about the immediate convenience of having more gold in WoW and would not care about the principle of never buying anything from a spammer for any reason.
We should reinstate the draft and send these people to some foreign country to get blown up. Or at the very least, basic training.
While I agree with most of what you say, I think you have a hidden bias against alcohol.:)
yours is NOT typical and people should know that. most users don't get 'baked' and drive right away. I've never known anyone like that - not ever.
Maybe where you live. I've been in the car with two people who SMOKE WHILE THEY DRIVE! Funny thing is, the worst that ever happened was going 40 mph on a 65 highway.
choice: would you rather be in the passenger seat of someone who had 2 joints or 2 beers? 1 joint or 1 beer? I'd take the NO BEERS choice, please, alex. seriously. and the difference is: when you are drunk, you often can't know if you are too impaired to drive. with pots you know. you really do - and it never fully blocks your thinking (that's just BS).
It depends who's driving! If someone is familiar with being stoned and driving, then I'd go with them. If they're familiar with being drunk and driving, I'd go with them. There are people who don't know how stoned they are just as there are people who don't know how drunk they are. It's all about experience and tolerance. Hell, here in Wisconsin a "designated driver" is someone who has half as many beers as everyone else, or who drinks light beer instead of dark beer.:)
As much as I hate having our troops all over the world, I hate, even more, the thought of having them deployed here at home so they can be used for domestic roadside checks and other violations of liberty. Just put them in their bases or retire them.
When you've done it all and configured it all, eventually you get to the point where you just want things to work without wasting your time on configuration... that's why I've been using Mandriva Linux w/Gnome for the past 5 years. I can pretty much format, install, and go without having to change 100 settings (like Windows or some other Linux distros). I end up doing it every 6 to 18 months for whatever reason, so I prefer it to be easy instead of an entire day of downtime/configuring.
Let the kids with too much time fiddle with those things.
Oh god I sound like an old person and I'm only 25.
Second of all, having the medical system integrated (billing and all) helps keeps costs and errors low. It used to be (and sometimes still is) that a health care organization would have to buy different software for each function and then additionally have to pay for & maintain the interfacing between softwares.
Billing is pretty much the first thing any health organization will install. It may not be important to you, but they need to have positive cash flow. Keeping it disconnected from the main EMR database requires more maintenance and could mean loss of charges if the interface goes awry. Some states have government-provided billing systems that do not interface - I've seen it happen. Patients admitted with incorrect data, faulty messages, etc.
So, yeah, when money's at stake and you don't know whether to call vendor 1, vendor 2, or your maintenance staff when charges aren't getting properly dropped...
Contrary to popular opinion, elected officials are people, and are just as susceptible to being lied to and scared into doing things as the rest of us.
Except laws enacted by elected officials are viewed entirely different from laws enacted by democratic process. If 9 out of 10 people in a group say they want to go to McDonald's but 1 says he wants to go to Burger King, the 1 is out. However, if they pick that 1 to decide, then they all go to Burger King and the 9 talk dirty about 1's judgment and don't pick him next time.
I am not sure how you reconcile those two statements as they seem contradict each other. Either you are for allowing them to bring up objection in court or you are not. You can't pick and choose who is allowed and who is not.
Let me clarify. I'm all for challenging authority; however, their argument is weak and opens legal precedence for other similar grievances. If California judges side with them, there will be even more flack about "unelected liberal activist judges".
I never really understood the whole "where do you draw the line" FUD. It is about the stupidest argument ever. You draw the line where it makes sense. That's what the court is for. They draw the line and they keep re-drawing this line as things change. That is how we ended up with slaves freed, women being allowed to vote, and interracial couples being allowed to marry among many other things.
Also, I do not see a problem with any of the examples you cited as these things occur on regular basis (how do you think those minimum wage and fair labor laws come about in the first place?)
... if there were a consensus of where to draw the line, don't you think that proposition 8 would have passed or failed unanimously? There's a reason we have bureaucracy and processes in place. IF Google gets away with this argument, then that ruling will give strength to other similar arguments toward abolishing workers' rights, and because NOBODY "draws the line where it makes sense" in the same place, judges tend to side with legal precedence.
Why should they bully and coerce people when they can go to the court system, which is designed specifically for this sort of thing?
... why should they waste government time and money with a ridiculous court case when they could have just helped the cause democratically in the first place?
So? I am not sure what precedent you are talking about - they are not the first corporation to challenge the law that affects them and not going to be the last one. You also seem to be missing the point that they do NOT have the power to throw out any law, they, (along with anyone else), can just bring it up to court and let them decide.
An objective court shouldn't see the difference between throwing out one law and throwing out another law because a company claims they cannot recruit and retain employees. It really matters not that you like one law and don't like another one.
That's what we want, right? Blind justice. Objective judges who apply the law equally.
Oh forget it. We aren't going to agree on this one.
Shenanigans aside, I don't think it's fair to compare it to the DMCA or Patriot Act where elected officials made the decision.
The people voted for this proposition, which I assume was described in English (and perhaps a multitude of other languages, being California...) on the ballot.
Democracy is what it is. I'm not here to argue about its flaws.
I agree that it's a good policy to let anyone bring up any objection they want in court. In fact, I'm happy when courts strike down laws.
However, regardless of what actually happened, it's going to look like a corporation is trying to fight the will of the people brought about through a legitimate democratic process.
As some have pointed out, if Google won in this instance, where would we draw the line on such grievances? A corporation could sue about minimum wage or fair labor laws restricting their ability to "recruit and retain employees".
IMO the whole process would be better taken up with the legislature. Google can certainly afford lobbying and propaganda - where were their buses bringing people to the polling places?
In fact, maybe they don't really care about gays, but want to set a precedent so they can throw out any law which does not suit them.
Newegg sneaks ridiculous shipping charges on some items. Yes, most of the expensive stuff has free shipping.
But then try ordering a simple USB SD card reader - it's actually cheaper to pick up from an electronics store, especially if you need a few, because they add the shipping on a per-item basis. It's not logical, really, because the items are shipped in one box... but then they want $2-3 per item. I know adding a fraction of a pound to the package doesn't cost that much.
This is actually one place where Circuit City came to the rescue. They had a $7/each sale on SD readers. The cheapest ones on Newegg were ugly $6 models with $2 shipping. I wanted to get a few (with SD cards) for small Christmas gifts.
Well, in a country where churches get to make the laws, corporations should get to repeal them. Sounds like its only fair.
I'm no fan of this proposition 8, nor do I live in California, but it seems like the anti-gay-marriage crowd won fair and square. A church didn't dictate the law, the people did.
IMO it's not really Google's place to bring forth this lawsuit. It'll be interesting to watch, but I think it's bad policy to start rooting for the corporate overturn of democratic laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I'm not following. Because it's repeated often automatically means it's not true?
Yes, you aren't following. You're missing my point since this is obviously a very emotional issue for you.
If every time you got into a group discussion about the weather, and someone said "The sky is blue when it's sunny!"... And then everyone else stopped and said, "Hmm, yes, that is a very good observation." Well, that would be the same thing.
The only point "the blue E is the internet" meme serves is to give some dorks a smug feeling of superiority. The phrase doesn't even give evidence or add anything new - it's just a platitude that we're all supposed to eat up every time this stupid topic comes up.
Why yes, there are some really ignorant people out there... and? What about them? Oh, that's it? You're just informing us that there are ignorant people out there... without any evidence or further elaboration. What a sharp observation. This is the kind of analysis I come to Slashdot for!
Despite whatever kind of utopian highly-evolved intellectual society you think you live in, the vast majority of the "wired" public still have no freakin' clue how any of it works, even the bits on their own computer. They just click whatever they know they need to click in order to do their work (or games). And there's nothing wrong with that. That's exactly how it should be. The software is supposed to handle all the mundane details automatically.
That's great! Then someone should say *that* (with anecdotal evidence) instead of chanting the same boring phrases every time. In fact, I don't even mind the same boring phrases being said every time if they aren't modded +5 INSIGHTFUL!
So all you've done is told your grandpa, "That little blue 'e' icon isn't the Internet. This curly fox icon is the Internet."
Congratulations, you just proved the OP's point even better than he did.
I honestly don't know what he thinks the internet is, nor does it matter. I said "may" as in "hypothetically could". I was pointing out that if my grandpa can grasp the concept of the icon changing, others should be able to, too.
I'm so tired of this mantra. Elitists have been chanting this line for at least 5 years now. It's not insightful. It's not informative. It's just the same old shit that adds nothing to the discussion.
Are we going to keep modding it up when there's still 1 user left who thinks "the blue E is the internet"?
Hell, even my grandpa uses Firefox. He may think it's the internet, but god damnit, he knows it's the better internet.
I run a HUGE electronics design software suite... and it actually loads and runs faster in VMWare than running in native Windows XP!
This is a bit off-topic, but does anyone have an explanation for why this happens?
I've noticed it, too, during XP's boot. Booting on my actual machine takes ~12 seconds, but in VMWare takes ~4 seconds. I always thought it was because Windows doesn't have to wait for various physical hardware components (since they're virtualized)... but that doesn't account for your software suite.
How is it licenced?
It's not called a license anymore. Licenses are a thing of the past! It's called a "contractual object". And they're not written by lawyers, but "documentary artisans".
It's unfortunately not easy to develop on Mono right now, but IMHO only due to the debugger.
I disagree. MonoDevelop is the bane of my existence. It's not even that it's missing features - it's that the damn thing crashes randomly and the basic features (like code completion) are broken. It's been this way for me for years... so long that I almost wanted to start contributing to the project. But then I just installed Visual Studio 2008 on a Windows VM and it solved everything.
I swear, I haven't really hobby coded too much since I started using Linux years ago. Part of it is because I have everything I need and don't need to change much. The other part of it is that I haven't used a single goddamn IDE in Linux that doesn't make me want to shoot myself in the face. Fanatics can gab on about how a real developer doesn't need a a decent IDE, and that's true - but what's also true is that once you've had access to elegant debugging, code completion, and compilation, you don't ever want to go back.
No, they'll just pay more and continue to be ignorant.
They already block 80 and probably a few others.
At least in my area.
Hypocrites, all of us. Shame on us.
Hmm, I don't feel like a hypocrite. Nor do I feel ashamed - why would I be?
But you have fun with that self-flagellation. Maybe you can save the world for us, or at the very least make some suckers feel guilty and inferior to your righteousness.
That must be really awkward if your new girlfriend's over and needs to print something.
It just begins the process I need to get rid of them out of the organization at all 20 locations in Wisconsin.
If you're ever in Madison, I'd like to buy you a beer and hear all about your crazy shenanigans.
It's not really the movie theater and I realize that. It's just that theaters are enclosed environments which demand that you pay attention, and the immature, inconsiderate, ADD, "I'm the only person who exists" chronological adults who are really just overgrown children aren't terribly compatible with that atmosphere. I think these are the same folks who would only care about the immediate convenience of having more gold in WoW and would not care about the principle of never buying anything from a spammer for any reason.
We should reinstate the draft and send these people to some foreign country to get blown up. Or at the very least, basic training.
I STILL don't think the LHC will kill us all but the fact we're debating it says something.
I don't know what you're trying to imply here.
People are still debating evolution.
Your story makes me sad. :( They get a moment of sympathy.
OK, now that that's over, let's kick them out.
While I agree with most of what you say, I think you have a hidden bias against alcohol. :)
yours is NOT typical and people should know that. most users don't get 'baked' and drive right away. I've never known anyone like that - not ever.
Maybe where you live. I've been in the car with two people who SMOKE WHILE THEY DRIVE! Funny thing is, the worst that ever happened was going 40 mph on a 65 highway.
choice: would you rather be in the passenger seat of someone who had 2 joints or 2 beers? 1 joint or 1 beer? I'd take the NO BEERS choice, please, alex. seriously. and the difference is: when you are drunk, you often can't know if you are too impaired to drive. with pots you know. you really do - and it never fully blocks your thinking (that's just BS).
It depends who's driving! If someone is familiar with being stoned and driving, then I'd go with them. If they're familiar with being drunk and driving, I'd go with them. There are people who don't know how stoned they are just as there are people who don't know how drunk they are. It's all about experience and tolerance. Hell, here in Wisconsin a "designated driver" is someone who has half as many beers as everyone else, or who drinks light beer instead of dark beer. :)
As much as I hate having our troops all over the world, I hate, even more, the thought of having them deployed here at home so they can be used for domestic roadside checks and other violations of liberty. Just put them in their bases or retire them.
When you've done it all and configured it all, eventually you get to the point where you just want things to work without wasting your time on configuration... that's why I've been using Mandriva Linux w/Gnome for the past 5 years. I can pretty much format, install, and go without having to change 100 settings (like Windows or some other Linux distros). I end up doing it every 6 to 18 months for whatever reason, so I prefer it to be easy instead of an entire day of downtime/configuring.
Let the kids with too much time fiddle with those things.
Oh god I sound like an old person and I'm only 25.
Someone should find your other posts and mod them down. You're just being ridiculous.
First of all, I applaud your defense of MUMPS.
Second of all, having the medical system integrated (billing and all) helps keeps costs and errors low. It used to be (and sometimes still is) that a health care organization would have to buy different software for each function and then additionally have to pay for & maintain the interfacing between softwares.
Billing is pretty much the first thing any health organization will install. It may not be important to you, but they need to have positive cash flow. Keeping it disconnected from the main EMR database requires more maintenance and could mean loss of charges if the interface goes awry. Some states have government-provided billing systems that do not interface - I've seen it happen. Patients admitted with incorrect data, faulty messages, etc.
So, yeah, when money's at stake and you don't know whether to call vendor 1, vendor 2, or your maintenance staff when charges aren't getting properly dropped...
Contrary to popular opinion, elected officials are people, and are just as susceptible to being lied to and scared into doing things as the rest of us.
Except laws enacted by elected officials are viewed entirely different from laws enacted by democratic process. If 9 out of 10 people in a group say they want to go to McDonald's but 1 says he wants to go to Burger King, the 1 is out. However, if they pick that 1 to decide, then they all go to Burger King and the 9 talk dirty about 1's judgment and don't pick him next time.
I am not sure how you reconcile those two statements as they seem contradict each other. Either you are for allowing them to bring up objection in court or you are not. You can't pick and choose who is allowed and who is not.
Let me clarify. I'm all for challenging authority; however, their argument is weak and opens legal precedence for other similar grievances. If California judges side with them, there will be even more flack about "unelected liberal activist judges".
I never really understood the whole "where do you draw the line" FUD. It is about the stupidest argument ever. You draw the line where it makes sense. That's what the court is for. They draw the line and they keep re-drawing this line as things change. That is how we ended up with slaves freed, women being allowed to vote, and interracial couples being allowed to marry among many other things.
Also, I do not see a problem with any of the examples you cited as these things occur on regular basis (how do you think those minimum wage and fair labor laws come about in the first place?)
... if there were a consensus of where to draw the line, don't you think that proposition 8 would have passed or failed unanimously? There's a reason we have bureaucracy and processes in place. IF Google gets away with this argument, then that ruling will give strength to other similar arguments toward abolishing workers' rights, and because NOBODY "draws the line where it makes sense" in the same place, judges tend to side with legal precedence.
Why should they bully and coerce people when they can go to the court system, which is designed specifically for this sort of thing?
... why should they waste government time and money with a ridiculous court case when they could have just helped the cause democratically in the first place?
So? I am not sure what precedent you are talking about - they are not the first corporation to challenge the law that affects them and not going to be the last one. You also seem to be missing the point that they do NOT have the power to throw out any law, they, (along with anyone else), can just bring it up to court and let them decide.
An objective court shouldn't see the difference between throwing out one law and throwing out another law because a company claims they cannot recruit and retain employees. It really matters not that you like one law and don't like another one.
That's what we want, right? Blind justice. Objective judges who apply the law equally.
Oh forget it. We aren't going to agree on this one.
Shenanigans aside, I don't think it's fair to compare it to the DMCA or Patriot Act where elected officials made the decision.
The people voted for this proposition, which I assume was described in English (and perhaps a multitude of other languages, being California...) on the ballot.
Democracy is what it is. I'm not here to argue about its flaws.
I agree that it's a good policy to let anyone bring up any objection they want in court. In fact, I'm happy when courts strike down laws.
However, regardless of what actually happened, it's going to look like a corporation is trying to fight the will of the people brought about through a legitimate democratic process.
As some have pointed out, if Google won in this instance, where would we draw the line on such grievances? A corporation could sue about minimum wage or fair labor laws restricting their ability to "recruit and retain employees".
IMO the whole process would be better taken up with the legislature. Google can certainly afford lobbying and propaganda - where were their buses bringing people to the polling places?
In fact, maybe they don't really care about gays, but want to set a precedent so they can throw out any law which does not suit them.
Two words: error correction!
Semi-kidding.
Newegg sneaks ridiculous shipping charges on some items. Yes, most of the expensive stuff has free shipping.
But then try ordering a simple USB SD card reader - it's actually cheaper to pick up from an electronics store, especially if you need a few, because they add the shipping on a per-item basis. It's not logical, really, because the items are shipped in one box... but then they want $2-3 per item. I know adding a fraction of a pound to the package doesn't cost that much.
This is actually one place where Circuit City came to the rescue. They had a $7/each sale on SD readers. The cheapest ones on Newegg were ugly $6 models with $2 shipping. I wanted to get a few (with SD cards) for small Christmas gifts.
OMG do people shop at Office Depot? I have never seen another customer in that place while I'm there... I always wonder how they make money.
Huh, I find that my CC has smarter and more helpful people than the local BB.
Now that I've typed that, we need a competitive electronics store that can be abbreviated DD. Dick's Digitals? Digital Dungeon?
Then we can say "Let's go to double D" and have a good laugh.
Well, in a country where churches get to make the laws, corporations should get to repeal them. Sounds like its only fair.
I'm no fan of this proposition 8, nor do I live in California, but it seems like the anti-gay-marriage crowd won fair and square. A church didn't dictate the law, the people did.
IMO it's not really Google's place to bring forth this lawsuit. It'll be interesting to watch, but I think it's bad policy to start rooting for the corporate overturn of democratic laws.