There are thousands dead in New Orleans alone (now that they're finally giving an honest estimate, they say there are floating corpses all over).
I hope someone remembers that New Orleans is famous for its cemeteries (which are above ground because the city is below sea levels, and normal rains wouldn't recede from the corpses).
It is entirely possible that many of these people were already dead. Casualties in the thousands would not surprise me (it was a horrible hurricane), but making such estimates by counting floating corpses (as opposed to, e.g., counting corpses stuck in buildings, or subtracting the number of evacuees from the known population) is a poor method.
Speaking of living in New Orleans, there are millions of people who do. A lot of posts here suggest abandoning NO. While that's a great long-term solution, what do you do now? Many of my friends live and go to school in NO. Even if they get back to their homes, and somehow they're undamaged, they may not have a school to go back to.
New Orleans will - must - be rebuilt, immediately, to as close a shadow of its former self as possible, so that life can continue. Condemning half the city by, say, 2015 is a great start. But condemning it now is to make life impossible for NO residents.
Oh, and don't forget that tourism is NO's - nay, Louisiana's - major industry. People have to get used to the new Mardi Gras location before traffic picks up there, if you abandon NO.
Everybody with a 360 and a broadband connection can play online for exactly $0 extra.
Wrong. Everyone with a 360 and broadband can go online with the patently useless Xbox Live Silver. About all that lets you do is have a gamertag and a friends list.
You cannot play online with Silver (the built-in one). You need Gold to play your regular games multiplayer, just as you have to pay for Xbox 1 Live.
Homophobia is no more an acceptable form of intolerance than racism or sexism.
This bears repeating. Homophobia is bigotry. It's condemning people for something that's almost always irrelevant to the subject at hand. No matter whether you believe that homosexuality is acceptable or not, homophobia is using your dislike of the activity or state to justify condemning the person.
Not to detract from your joke (it deserves the 5, Funny rating), but to clarify...
First, hurricanes don't cause that much flooding. Most of the building damage results from the 50-100 mph winds. You might see a couple of feet of water in the lower-lying areas of New Orleans (below sea level).
Second, LSU is in Baton Rouge, about an hour's drive from NO. BR is pretty much okay, except for the winds. I'm in Lafayette, another hour away, and you couldn't even tell there was a hurricane (except that the clouds are going kinda fast). Both BR and Lafayette are 40 feet above sea level.
That says that you have certifications without saying you hate them, which bothers some people. "Certifications (the horror! the horror!) available upon request." would probably work.
So would it be a good idea, then, to say, "Certs: MCSE, ROFL, OMFG, STFU, PITA, all of which I have because some people require them. I frankly don't think they're worth anything, but I did pass them."?
Saves you from the "you need certs" HR people, and the "cert-listers are incompetent" HR people, as far as I can tell.
Of course, that doesn't work, because a couple of holier-than-thou HR trolls consider certs as negative points.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't... I wonder if it's permissible to say "Certs: I have passed relevant certification tests, but I prefer to stand on my own qualifications instead, as listed elsewhere in this resume. Contact me if you would like to see my certificates."
Finally, as a person in a hiring position, I do not consider them at all, and am definitely prejudiced against someone who puts them on their resume.
That's not the definition of "not considering them at all". That hurts people who just keep them on the resume so that they can get past any stupid first-level hirers.
Are you saying that you would prefer a good candidate who didn't list certs to a stellar candidate who did (for the few hirers who can't figure out he's stellar)? Or just that given two equal candidate you'd prefer the one who didn't list certs?
That assumes that everyone you know in real life is already on your roster/buddy list. I know far more people in real life than I have on my buddy list, and often times one of them finds my user name and messages me. I want to receive those messages.
Great. This guy who said "power is only in the barrel of a gun" lived this sentence to the fullest. He was responsible for the death of about 60 Million of his own people. You propagate that for Amerika?
No. Read what I said carefully. I suggest that we use the barrel of non-lethal, non-injuring, temporarily stunning weapons to enforce power -- as opposed to real guns, rubber bullets, unchecked riots, and so forth.
And the only thing that saying "Amerika" proves is that you're an idiot who can't spell.
It's only been released for one weekend! I suppose that if you were releasing a webmail service in Beta, you'd have included attachments, HTML mail, DomainKeys, SSL, etc. on the first day?
Google's trying to generate buzz, not build the best IM client there is. They'll get around to that part in a couple of months.
As far as gateways, they left it out for two reasons. The first is the same reason that they left out S2S - security. They're really possessive about "their" network (and with some justification). The second is that gateways violate most IM EULAs (the part about "use only this Software to access our Service"), and to make sure that they work with the official clients, the programmers would have to install the client (and accept the EULA). And to find the protocol, they'd have to tap someone else's connection, who'd be violating the "don't help others to do this stuff" clause.
They could implement TOC (the AIM Express protocol), I guess. It used to be GPL'd, and the GPL doesn't have a termination clause technically.
Yeah, I've used e-mail. I get three or four spams for every real message I get. You know it's bad when spam blocking features become a major selling point of clients.
Translate that into IM - especially XMPP, where spammers can code their own clients as easily as they do for SMTP.
Do you really want a "bulk IM" window in your client? The idea behind Google is that they hook up Gmail first, then connect to other servers with similar quality controls.
Gmail has a secure system for signups - you can only sign up if you have an invite, and you only get a limited number of invites on active accounts. Or you can sign up if you have a cell phone, but they only allow a dozen or so invites by phone. And then they implement DomainKeys and a few other security measures, so that you practically can't spam from Gmail. If you try and get caught, your account gets locked, and they can lock the accounts of everyone you've invited. They're translating this security architecture to Gtalk - and allowing public S2S is going to throw this out the window.
Well I was thinking about just not shotting them at all. You know not harming our fellow man and all.
Oh yes. Because, you know, angry rioting crowds are really friendly once you get to know them.
As Mao Zedong said, power is only in the barrel of a gun. You can argue political theory all you want, but when a fight breaks out in vivo, you've got to make sure that the side you agree with has the stronger weapon. And I'd prefer the power be in the barrel of a non-lethal gun - because it could also be wielded through the crowd's sticks and stones.
If you want to say that the mob is right, that's a different argument - and one that I would only accept partially, because most of the time violent protesters are mainly there for the fun of the protest, and only secondarily there to ask for a redress of grievances.
Nobody (well, nobody except some weirdos like China and so forth) is using weapons (non-lethal or not) against peaceful dissenters. And most of the recent major revolutions in which the good guys won were carried out peacefully.
Take, for example, the Kellogg-Briand pact, signed and ratified by (among others) the USA, which went into effect in 1929 and which outlaws war - and then ask how many wars the USA has not only waged but in fact started since then.
The most major of which was World War II, which by no means was started by the US, and set the precedent for throwing Kellogg-Briand out the window. The problem is that such a treaty, when upheld, leaves the nice guys no recourse against the mean guys. And the mean guys never signed it.
I think we're both saying the same thing and not realizing it.
You're right about the Monday/Tuesday thing. My phrasing is that it would be pointless to do so, because you can't restrict people from reGPLling it on days other than Monday - unless you only license under a modified GPL.
Hey. I understand that, and I was trying to make a joke by copying parts of your Spanish copyright notice. It didn't work, so just ignore it. I wasn't trying to make a point or anything.
Yes, I know they mean that differently, but once laws outlaw "hackers", I wouldn't want to be counted as one.
Why? Laws that use words with debatable definitions always define that word in that law's namespace. You can have a law that outlaws...mofos, for example, provided there's something that says "Section 5. A 'mofo', as used in this act, means someone who runs a red light while driving on the wrong side of the street and talking on a cell phone." People who actually fo their mo are completely immune fom arrest under this law, because mofo has a precise definition.
(Of course, mofo'ing is illegal under a separate incest law, but that law can, e.g., use the phrase "people who do dirty stuff with their mom" so long as "dirty stuff" is defined elsewhere in it.)
Slashdot Mirror
There are thousands dead in New Orleans alone (now that they're finally giving an honest estimate, they say there are floating corpses all over).
I hope someone remembers that New Orleans is famous for its cemeteries (which are above ground because the city is below sea levels, and normal rains wouldn't recede from the corpses).
It is entirely possible that many of these people were already dead. Casualties in the thousands would not surprise me (it was a horrible hurricane), but making such estimates by counting floating corpses (as opposed to, e.g., counting corpses stuck in buildings, or subtracting the number of evacuees from the known population) is a poor method.
Hehe.
What's even funnier is the roadsign leading to the airport:
"NO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - THIS EXIT"
No kidding.
Speaking of living in New Orleans, there are millions of people who do. A lot of posts here suggest abandoning NO. While that's a great long-term solution, what do you do now? Many of my friends live and go to school in NO. Even if they get back to their homes, and somehow they're undamaged, they may not have a school to go back to.
New Orleans will - must - be rebuilt, immediately, to as close a shadow of its former self as possible, so that life can continue. Condemning half the city by, say, 2015 is a great start. But condemning it now is to make life impossible for NO residents.
Oh, and don't forget that tourism is NO's - nay, Louisiana's - major industry. People have to get used to the new Mardi Gras location before traffic picks up there, if you abandon NO.
New Orleans would have done just fine with a CAT 2 or CAT 3 Getting hit by a CAT 4+ is a very rare event for anyone location.
Dude. Hurricanes. Not network cable. No need to uppercase CAT.
Everybody with a 360 and a broadband connection can play online for exactly $0 extra.
Wrong. Everyone with a 360 and broadband can go online with the patently useless Xbox Live Silver. About all that lets you do is have a gamertag and a friends list.
You cannot play online with Silver (the built-in one). You need Gold to play your regular games multiplayer, just as you have to pay for Xbox 1 Live.
Dotslashers?
What is this "dotslash" that you speak of?
(Slashdot's Razor: Never make fun of someone else's error, or you will make an error in your post too.)
Homophobia is no more an acceptable form of intolerance than racism or sexism.
This bears repeating. Homophobia is bigotry. It's condemning people for something that's almost always irrelevant to the subject at hand. No matter whether you believe that homosexuality is acceptable or not, homophobia is using your dislike of the activity or state to justify condemning the person.
Well...why would one need to know X to be a MSCE?
You'd need to know XP. And I think that everyone knows how to P...
Yo momma's so stupid she failed the MCSE.
Not to detract from your joke (it deserves the 5, Funny rating), but to clarify...
First, hurricanes don't cause that much flooding. Most of the building damage results from the 50-100 mph winds. You might see a couple of feet of water in the lower-lying areas of New Orleans (below sea level).
Second, LSU is in Baton Rouge, about an hour's drive from NO. BR is pretty much okay, except for the winds. I'm in Lafayette, another hour away, and you couldn't even tell there was a hurricane (except that the clouds are going kinda fast). Both BR and Lafayette are 40 feet above sea level.
(Offtopic, I know, but no more than the parent.)
For much of the same reason, if you want to work in IT don't bother with a real CS or EE degree.
What if you need to get a low-level cert-requiring job to pay for school to get that CS degree?
That says that you have certifications without saying you hate them, which bothers some people. "Certifications (the horror! the horror!) available upon request." would probably work.
So would it be a good idea, then, to say, "Certs: MCSE, ROFL, OMFG, STFU, PITA, all of which I have because some people require them. I frankly don't think they're worth anything, but I did pass them."?
Saves you from the "you need certs" HR people, and the "cert-listers are incompetent" HR people, as far as I can tell.
Of course, that doesn't work, because a couple of holier-than-thou HR trolls consider certs as negative points.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't... I wonder if it's permissible to say "Certs: I have passed relevant certification tests, but I prefer to stand on my own qualifications instead, as listed elsewhere in this resume. Contact me if you would like to see my certificates."
Finally, as a person in a hiring position, I do not consider them at all, and am definitely prejudiced against someone who puts them on their resume.
That's not the definition of "not considering them at all". That hurts people who just keep them on the resume so that they can get past any stupid first-level hirers.
Are you saying that you would prefer a good candidate who didn't list certs to a stellar candidate who did (for the few hirers who can't figure out he's stellar)? Or just that given two equal candidate you'd prefer the one who didn't list certs?
You're trying to sound smart, aren't you?
Well, it didn't work. Learn the new system and get over it.
That assumes that everyone you know in real life is already on your roster/buddy list. I know far more people in real life than I have on my buddy list, and often times one of them finds my user name and messages me. I want to receive those messages.
Great. This guy who said "power is only in the barrel of a gun" lived this sentence to the fullest. He was responsible for the death of about 60 Million of his own people.
You propagate that for Amerika?
No. Read what I said carefully. I suggest that we use the barrel of non-lethal, non-injuring, temporarily stunning weapons to enforce power -- as opposed to real guns, rubber bullets, unchecked riots, and so forth.
And the only thing that saying "Amerika" proves is that you're an idiot who can't spell.
It's only been released for one weekend! I suppose that if you were releasing a webmail service in Beta, you'd have included attachments, HTML mail, DomainKeys, SSL, etc. on the first day?
Google's trying to generate buzz, not build the best IM client there is. They'll get around to that part in a couple of months.
As far as gateways, they left it out for two reasons. The first is the same reason that they left out S2S - security. They're really possessive about "their" network (and with some justification). The second is that gateways violate most IM EULAs (the part about "use only this Software to access our Service"), and to make sure that they work with the official clients, the programmers would have to install the client (and accept the EULA). And to find the protocol, they'd have to tap someone else's connection, who'd be violating the "don't help others to do this stuff" clause.
They could implement TOC (the AIM Express protocol), I guess. It used to be GPL'd, and the GPL doesn't have a termination clause technically.
Yeah, I've used e-mail. I get three or four spams for every real message I get. You know it's bad when spam blocking features become a major selling point of clients.
Translate that into IM - especially XMPP, where spammers can code their own clients as easily as they do for SMTP.
Do you really want a "bulk IM" window in your client? The idea behind Google is that they hook up Gmail first, then connect to other servers with similar quality controls.
Gmail has a secure system for signups - you can only sign up if you have an invite, and you only get a limited number of invites on active accounts. Or you can sign up if you have a cell phone, but they only allow a dozen or so invites by phone. And then they implement DomainKeys and a few other security measures, so that you practically can't spam from Gmail. If you try and get caught, your account gets locked, and they can lock the accounts of everyone you've invited. They're translating this security architecture to Gtalk - and allowing public S2S is going to throw this out the window.
Well I was thinking about just not shotting them at all.
You know not harming our fellow man and all.
Oh yes. Because, you know, angry rioting crowds are really friendly once you get to know them.
As Mao Zedong said, power is only in the barrel of a gun. You can argue political theory all you want, but when a fight breaks out in vivo, you've got to make sure that the side you agree with has the stronger weapon. And I'd prefer the power be in the barrel of a non-lethal gun - because it could also be wielded through the crowd's sticks and stones.
If you want to say that the mob is right, that's a different argument - and one that I would only accept partially, because most of the time violent protesters are mainly there for the fun of the protest, and only secondarily there to ask for a redress of grievances.
Nobody (well, nobody except some weirdos like China and so forth) is using weapons (non-lethal or not) against peaceful dissenters. And most of the recent major revolutions in which the good guys won were carried out peacefully.
Take, for example, the Kellogg-Briand pact, signed and ratified by (among others) the USA, which went into effect in 1929 and which outlaws war - and then ask how many wars the USA has not only waged but in fact started since then.
The most major of which was World War II, which by no means was started by the US, and set the precedent for throwing Kellogg-Briand out the window. The problem is that such a treaty, when upheld, leaves the nice guys no recourse against the mean guys. And the mean guys never signed it.
I think we're both saying the same thing and not realizing it.
You're right about the Monday/Tuesday thing. My phrasing is that it would be pointless to do so, because you can't restrict people from reGPLling it on days other than Monday - unless you only license under a modified GPL.
Hey. I understand that, and I was trying to make a joke by copying parts of your Spanish copyright notice. It didn't work, so just ignore it. I wasn't trying to make a point or anything.
Yes, I know they mean that differently, but once laws outlaw "hackers", I wouldn't want to be counted as one.
Why? Laws that use words with debatable definitions always define that word in that law's namespace. You can have a law that outlaws...mofos, for example, provided there's something that says "Section 5. A 'mofo', as used in this act, means someone who runs a red light while driving on the wrong side of the street and talking on a cell phone." People who actually fo their mo are completely immune fom arrest under this law, because mofo has a precise definition.
(Of course, mofo'ing is illegal under a separate incest law, but that law can, e.g., use the phrase "people who do dirty stuff with their mom" so long as "dirty stuff" is defined elsewhere in it.)