Well, you're clearly butthurt to be still so worked up about this.
There were no other people complaining about my post. It's terribly sad that you can not read what people write and invent your own words. That is not illiteracy, that is called delusional. Hint: One person corrected my use of "insight" instead of "incite", which I thanked them for correcting. You are lying about the other example as well, no need to continue down that path.
Further, correcting your broken logic and demonstrating your ignorance is not being butthurt. It's an attempt to make you a better person. If you believe you should get stickers and candy for getting wrong answers, you are at the wrong school. If you had a correct answer I would congratulate you, maybe.
a) Why is an ad hominem necessary for a post to be flamebait? You asserted this at one point, but its not in your original point or your links. Its quite possible to incite a response via flaming without specifically attacking someone. This seems to be original point you had, before your posts descended into incoherent blather.
You failed to take the examples and definitions that explain that exact point into account, then claim those clarifying points are 'incoherent blather'. I believe you just explained your own ignorance and irrationality very well!
b) Why do you feel it isn't rude to shout 'Wholly fuck!' at people? Is this just the way you were raised? (Also, its 'holy fuck', dumbass.)
If I had used all capital letters it would have been considered an internet shout. As it was written it is what we in the English language call an expletive exclamation. It is not written "at" anyone because there is absolutely no direction to the statement. If you take a statement and invent your own words (as you have repeatedly done here) to assign a direction then the exclamation becomes an attack "at" someone. By your irrational position, a person posting "Damn!" is also directing that at someone. Note that your position is "irrational". No, I won't provide further word definitions because you have a tendency to not comprehend them when definitions are provided. In fact I'm skeptical that you read anything that may harm your irrational opinion.
You are wrong on every single point you have made. I don't need to resort to ad homimen as you did calling me 'dumbass'. You have repeatedly provided your own material demonstrating your ignorance and irrationality.
Tails doesn't store any data locally,' writes Finley. 'This makes it virtually immune to malicious software, and prevents someone from performing effective forensics on the computer after the fact. That protects both the journalists, and often more importantly, their sources.'
Traffic sniffing does not require files on the target and this is the biggest source of data for agencies like the NSA. It may protect you from key loggers being installed (unless they were inserted ahead of time).
I'm pretty sure that part of Snowden's leaked information showed that exploits are occurring at the hardware level as well as software. Entry points like LOM modules were explicitly called out in the leaked presentations.
I'd agree that forensics becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible (memory analysis can still occur). I don't agree that the systems are immune to malicious software at least in a general sense. Immunity would require a lot of control for the hardware running the OS, and monitoring to make sure things have not been tampered with. Relying on a repository build of an OS imaged is still a target for potential a MITM attack feeding a user a kitted image.
It's all good in my opinion, I'm just being picky about the terminology chosen. Immunity implies absolute safety, and very little in the world is absolute.
So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.
It was not a lecture, and barely even a piece of a lesson. I have zero confidence that you have adequate eduction to understand the difference between lecture and 'basic information and instruction". It's not the only example you have provided showing you completely lack fundamental knowledge of the language you are using.
Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.
Actually the post was moderated "insightful" and there is no chorus of people claiming I'm anything other than beneficial with my post. You are not a chorus, you are one person who has repeatedly shown a vast amount of ignorance.
I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.
Pardon me if I don't give any weight to your opinion of me. Heaven forbid I should be offended by someone that focuses on 5 words out of 276 to make such an opinion, confuses ad hominem with exclamation, and equates "lecture" with "basic information".
Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.
Your satisfaction and content with your own ignorance should offend you much more than I ever could. Ignorance leads to an irrational opinion. Focusing on 5 out of 276 words exemplifies both your ignorance and irrational perspective. I'm not offended or swayed by your irrational responses which demonstrate your ignorance of written English language.
Wholly Fuck! You seem to be simply trolling. If you wish to debate the remaining 271 words of the post feel free to critique them fairly. I will warn you that you should understand other concepts of the English language, such as paragraphs and quotation marks, before doing so.
Thank you for the correction. I made a few grammatical errors and chose a wrong word. Those errors don't may my post, opinion, or the provided facts invalid.
You can not tell a difference between an expletive/exclamation and an ad homimem. Here is some basic language information and instruction. This relates directly to the language you are using, and claim to be offended by. I'd suggest that you attempt to educate yourself on the English language because this is not a University and I am not paid to teach you.
You claim falsely that my "Wholly fuck" and "Absolutely Wrong" are rude/rudeness/Flamebait by lumping them repeatedly into a single statement. Those are 2 separate statements, and nowhere is there a personal attack or "rudeness" in either statement. I provide examples and references, so the only way you can claim "flamebait" is to ignore the majority of the post and redefine words.
The statements "Wrong!" and "Absolutely Wrong" are statements of fact. Facts which were provided in the post and you claimed to read. If you are offended by someone being corrected you have severe psychological problems. Not that uncommon unfortunately. We have schools that reward children for being wrong because they rewarded a child for being adept and intelligent, but that is not healthy. (Yes, that is a fact based opinion and no further discussion should be had here.)
The statement "Wholly fuck" is called an expletive which is intended to emphasize that the person is (therefor you are) "Absolutely Wrong!" by a large degree.
I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait.
Thankfully people that can read and comprehend English have mod points instead of you today!
As stated previously, if you have to redefine words to make a claim then your claim is wrong! When you have to ignore more than 90% of a post to make your claim, that's even worse!
I agree with the sentiment, I was just confused about your reference. Many great people have said very similar quotes. Gandhi and MLK are in a very different class of people from Rodney King in my opinion.
And for posterity I'm not saying he should have been beaten by cops. That act was very wrong. The reason he was beaten was because of illegal criminal activity. It was very different from speaking out against human rights violations like MLK and Gandhi did.
I'll respond to your post the same way I responded above. Read the definitions provided instead of inventing your own definitions for words and terminology.
It takes a good amount of ignorance to confuse an expletive statement with ad hominem, and you are confused. No need to discuss the rest of your comments past that point.
First, if you read the definitions of the words I provided you would see that the definitions overlap. Perhaps you did, I don't know.
Second, using fallacy arguments is not automatically a Troll or Flamebait. If someone uses ad hominem the chances are pretty high that the post is a Troll or Flaimbait but still it's not automatic. If the post contained only ad homimen the probability is high. If a person was emotional in a response containing an opinion chances are lower.
If a post uses bad logic (straw man, circular reasoning, false dichotomy, etc..) there is a very low chance the post is a Troll or Flamebait (still possible but not probable). Those types of posts are absolutely a chance to demonstrate your logic skills to back your opinion rationally and reasonably.
If you have to redefine words to back your claim of "Troll" or "Flaimbait", your claim is wrong.
Flamebait is not about "saying things to get people pissed off"! Flamebait is about intentionally trolling to insight a response.
Reading a damn dictionary is not that hard, so stop making up your own definitions for words. Further: I realize that people inventing their own definitions tend to be slow so I'll attempt to clarify. An opinion presented may piss you off by nature, because you have a different opinion. I.E. "There is a God" vs. "There is no God". If a person provides their opinion with intentionally inflammatory material, like "You are all burning in hell for not believing." or "Darwin dumbass!" (as is often done) that is trolling and possibly flamebait. A person simply expressing their opinion is not a troll or flame bait. These differences happen often with emotionally topics, such as politics and morality.
See the definition for Flamebait here, and Troll here, and Flame here(2.).
When an opinion is well articulated and not written to be intentionally offensive, such as GP is, it's a different opinion not a Troll. If you don't like their opinion, present your counter points instead of whining and trying to censor by moderation. If you can't write well articulated retort to back your opinion, don't try do moderate people out of discussions. Improve your writing skills and opinion until you can retort.
Even if the opinion is not the "Popular" opinion the goal of moderation is to encourage dialogue, not censor opinions you don't like. If the post is on topic and generates responses (while not being a flame or troll) then the post should be moderated higher.
It would be great if people could request an update on a specific location. Possible way to monetize that would be that a person could pay to climb the queue.
They already can, they just have to work for a 3 letter government agency.
What you stated was a very sweeping generalization.
Of course, you could find a training course that does that for much cheaper and without the bullshit lib arts requirements.
As I said in my last statement, I did not believe you intentionally intended slam such a broad and important subject. My concern is that these generalizations do deter people from investigating subjects that are essential for education, and these sweeping generalizations are very common.
You mean that the core classes for teaching critical thinking, the scientific method, and debate are all "bullshit" to you? Sad, but seems to be the socially acceptable thing to say today. I never understood how poorly educated I was until I spent 4 years studying Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic.
Don't blame Liberal Arts for the Universities and Colleges that try and pass off "Humanities" as a Liberal Art. Blame an ignorant public for being duped into believing task based education is better, and then not understanding why their task based education was obsolete in a decade.
You do know what PHD stands for don't you?
You probably did not intentionally slam "liberal arts", but those little statements keep people from investigating and learning.
Wrong, and more wrong. I'm an advocate for education but don't see any point in lying to get people to educate themselves. Learning about ldd and nm does not require a CS degree. A person can read any number of books to find out how to compile and build programs and what common errors are. System administrators don't need to debug a scientists code, scientists do. "Good" system administrators can give pointers if they know 'best practices', but that would be going above and beyond for junior and mid-level system admins.
A junior to mid level system administrator should be able to package the program, make sure the machine is running, and has resources the scientist's application needs. They should be able to back up the program, performance tune systems, and write some utilities to help manage the application if needed. Maybe write wrappers to launch the application, but that would be more advanced administration.
Trying to recompile a broken program written by a scientist five to ten years ago is surely possible, but it's not like the admin needs to be a scientist or programmer to fix shoddy work if it's just a foolish linking error. Problems more severe than that should go back to the scientists or programmers to figure out, not the admin.
In a dinky shop with few resources to manage and monitor, an admin should do what you claim. The average job is not a dinky shop and system admins simply have too much on their plates to debug a scientists code.
Are you trying to imply that everyone working in IT should be a programmer or business person? Maybe you were speaking in sarcasm and forgot a modifier to let people know?
I didn't say it was false. I said you didn't provide any evidence, and you still haven't (I wonder why?)
I stated to read the thread if you can't Google. If you still fail to find where these donations went to, and what the yes on prop8 group advertised then request a citation. Your laziness does not make me wrong, your laziness makes you lazy.
Further, you never explicitly stated that you can't find data. You stated that my post was a troll and are defending that position.
You are also confusing "thread" with "post" when looking for the evidence I pointed to. Again, your lack of knowledge is not my issue. Your ignorance is your issue. Start at the first post in the thread and follow it down, there are many links to the 'yes on prop 8' campaign.
As to claiming you never said the claims were false, you have repeatedly claimed and implied my accusation was false.
If your accusations appear untrue and inflammatory
Which is really pointless since my claim was not about whether or not the person did something wrong or not. My claim was that the affiliation with the was the issue.
You take issue with me not providing evidence yet the person I responded to provided no evidence. My response is somehow different to you because my opinion did not match theirs (therefor yours). That is called delusion (willful or otherwise), so I'm done with this discussion.
Bullshit, you are trying to redefine a word in order to make a claim that "trolling" is the same thing as having a different opinion. You also keep insisting that the claim is false yet there is ample evidence to support the claim. So you are being untruthful in several ways.
A well articulated non-offensive response lacking citations is no different than the person I responded to who provided no citation. That person must have been trolling by your definition, but you are defending their position in your fabricated claim.
No, it does not. Please read the definition of troll and trolling again. A different opinion is not "trolling" or being a "troll".
Not only myself, but numerous other people in this thread explained a different opinion respectfully and allegorically. All of them were down modded. It's called censorship, and it happens all the time here. It's been much worse since the beta exodus.
That does not make a post a troll! If a person fails to search for something, or can not find it by searching, they can request a citation. As it is, this thread is full of references to back my statement. It's not baseless because a person refuses to look for or read information.
In Internet slang, a troll (/trol/,/trl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]
Which is drastically different from providing easy to find references in a Google search because someone is too lazy to search themselves.
While this is partially true, there is an issue with information starvation in US media. CNN for example has turned into "Missing Airplane News" for nearly a month. Which of NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, or any of their affiliates have covered any of the Snowden leaks beyond a brief mention? Compare their coverage of what an intellectual would call news to their coverage of celebrities and sports, and of course people are ignorant. They are starved for real information and are bombarded with what I would consider garbage.
That's not to say that there are no other sources of "news", but more pointing out that if you want to be informed you really have to dig for information. The amount of research you have to do is incredible. This is what some people still believe that "News" agencies are doing. The last poll I saw had trust of "News" at about 17% so that base is dwindled drastically.
For those that wish to believe "it's all about money" consider that 17% for a moment. Any "News" agency that offered an alternative opinion instead of fluff and celebrity news would make a mint in viewership, yet all of these "News" agencies operate exactly the same way.
Except that it was not 'because of his political views', it was because he gave money to support a group spreading FUD about homosexuality making him affiliated with a group promoting hate speech. If your companies CEO gave money to Westboro Baptist Church or Fred Phelps, and your employees found out about the donation there are options.
1. The most common "Tend they cleft" or keep quiet about it. At which point there is no issue and you are a good little sheep just happy to have a job. The CEO will continue, but known in your head as an affiliate of a hate group.
2. Be vocal and get people other than yourself to ask "Why is the CEO supporting a hate group?"
If option 2 happens then it's not because of "political views", but because someone gave money to a very questionable organization and is now affiliated with that organization. It's akin to giving money to a drug dealer or slave trader for the hell of it. It's not illegal to give your money away, but who you give money to can tell a whole lot about a person. If you don't believe that, go ahead and give some money to any number of Islamic funds and be amazed at the terrorist groups you become affiliated with according to the Government(s).
If the CEO then does not break the affiliation to the recipient, they should step down 'if' the company is in jeopardy due to their affiliation. It is their choice to remain affiliated, or not.
Stop trying to claim that being affiliated with something or someone is a 'belief'. Those are not the same things.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you're clearly butthurt to be still so worked up about this.
There were no other people complaining about my post. It's terribly sad that you can not read what people write and invent your own words. That is not illiteracy, that is called delusional. Hint: One person corrected my use of "insight" instead of "incite", which I thanked them for correcting. You are lying about the other example as well, no need to continue down that path.
Further, correcting your broken logic and demonstrating your ignorance is not being butthurt. It's an attempt to make you a better person. If you believe you should get stickers and candy for getting wrong answers, you are at the wrong school. If you had a correct answer I would congratulate you, maybe.
a) Why is an ad hominem necessary for a post to be flamebait? You asserted this at one point, but its not in your original point or your links. Its quite possible to incite a response via flaming without specifically attacking someone. This seems to be original point you had, before your posts descended into incoherent blather.
You failed to take the examples and definitions that explain that exact point into account, then claim those clarifying points are 'incoherent blather'. I believe you just explained your own ignorance and irrationality very well!
b) Why do you feel it isn't rude to shout 'Wholly fuck!' at people? Is this just the way you were raised? (Also, its 'holy fuck', dumbass.)
If I had used all capital letters it would have been considered an internet shout. As it was written it is what we in the English language call an expletive exclamation. It is not written "at" anyone because there is absolutely no direction to the statement. If you take a statement and invent your own words (as you have repeatedly done here) to assign a direction then the exclamation becomes an attack "at" someone. By your irrational position, a person posting "Damn!" is also directing that at someone. Note that your position is "irrational". No, I won't provide further word definitions because you have a tendency to not comprehend them when definitions are provided. In fact I'm skeptical that you read anything that may harm your irrational opinion.
You are wrong on every single point you have made. I don't need to resort to ad homimen as you did calling me 'dumbass'. You have repeatedly provided your own material demonstrating your ignorance and irrationality.
Buh bye now!
Tails doesn't store any data locally,' writes Finley. 'This makes it virtually immune to malicious software, and prevents someone from performing effective forensics on the computer after the fact. That protects both the journalists, and often more importantly, their sources.'
Traffic sniffing does not require files on the target and this is the biggest source of data for agencies like the NSA. It may protect you from key loggers being installed (unless they were inserted ahead of time).
I'm pretty sure that part of Snowden's leaked information showed that exploits are occurring at the hardware level as well as software. Entry points like LOM modules were explicitly called out in the leaked presentations.
I'd agree that forensics becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible (memory analysis can still occur). I don't agree that the systems are immune to malicious software at least in a general sense. Immunity would require a lot of control for the hardware running the OS, and monitoring to make sure things have not been tampered with. Relying on a repository build of an OS imaged is still a target for potential a MITM attack feeding a user a kitted image.
It's all good in my opinion, I'm just being picky about the terminology chosen. Immunity implies absolute safety, and very little in the world is absolute.
Well read!
So you give people these lectures for free? That's even more pathetic.
It was not a lecture, and barely even a piece of a lesson. I have zero confidence that you have adequate eduction to understand the difference between lecture and 'basic information and instruction". It's not the only example you have provided showing you completely lack fundamental knowledge of the language you are using.
Most reasonable people who read the above would conclude you are an obnoxious person who lacks insight.
Actually the post was moderated "insightful" and there is no chorus of people claiming I'm anything other than beneficial with my post. You are not a chorus, you are one person who has repeatedly shown a vast amount of ignorance.
I made it clear in my posts that you seem like a dumb asshole to me, so your again your passive insults are given zero weight. Don't worry, you can probably reuse them in another post.
Pardon me if I don't give any weight to your opinion of me. Heaven forbid I should be offended by someone that focuses on 5 words out of 276 to make such an opinion, confuses ad hominem with exclamation, and equates "lecture" with "basic information".
Honestly, its not even the language so much as the hyperbole and rampant emotionalism in your post which offends me. You don't have to end every sentence with a bang (!), you know. In fact, I've sworn at you several times, but only in a measured way. Also, it kinda irks me that you called someone out for being wrong when its you who is wrong, as I already explained.
Your satisfaction and content with your own ignorance should offend you much more than I ever could. Ignorance leads to an irrational opinion. Focusing on 5 out of 276 words exemplifies both your ignorance and irrational perspective. I'm not offended or swayed by your irrational responses which demonstrate your ignorance of written English language.
Wholly Fuck! You seem to be simply trolling. If you wish to debate the remaining 271 words of the post feel free to critique them fairly. I will warn you that you should understand other concepts of the English language, such as paragraphs and quotation marks, before doing so.
Thank you for the correction. I made a few grammatical errors and chose a wrong word. Those errors don't may my post, opinion, or the provided facts invalid.
You can not tell a difference between an expletive/exclamation and an ad homimem. Here is some basic language information and instruction. This relates directly to the language you are using, and claim to be offended by. I'd suggest that you attempt to educate yourself on the English language because this is not a University and I am not paid to teach you.
You claim falsely that my "Wholly fuck" and "Absolutely Wrong" are rude/rudeness/Flamebait by lumping them repeatedly into a single statement. Those are 2 separate statements, and nowhere is there a personal attack or "rudeness" in either statement. I provide examples and references, so the only way you can claim "flamebait" is to ignore the majority of the post and redefine words.
The statements "Wrong!" and "Absolutely Wrong" are statements of fact. Facts which were provided in the post and you claimed to read. If you are offended by someone being corrected you have severe psychological problems. Not that uncommon unfortunately. We have schools that reward children for being wrong because they rewarded a child for being adept and intelligent, but that is not healthy. (Yes, that is a fact based opinion and no further discussion should be had here.)
The statement "Wholly fuck" is called an expletive which is intended to emphasize that the person is (therefor you are) "Absolutely Wrong!" by a large degree.
I stand by my call. If I had mod points, and I seem to get them quite often, your post would have deservedly gotten a flamebait.
Thankfully people that can read and comprehend English have mod points instead of you today!
As stated previously, if you have to redefine words to make a claim then your claim is wrong! When you have to ignore more than 90% of a post to make your claim, that's even worse!
I agree with the sentiment, I was just confused about your reference. Many great people have said very similar quotes. Gandhi and MLK are in a very different class of people from Rodney King in my opinion.
And for posterity I'm not saying he should have been beaten by cops. That act was very wrong. The reason he was beaten was because of illegal criminal activity. It was very different from speaking out against human rights violations like MLK and Gandhi did.
I'll respond to your post the same way I responded above. Read the definitions provided instead of inventing your own definitions for words and terminology.
It takes a good amount of ignorance to confuse an expletive statement with ad hominem, and you are confused. No need to discuss the rest of your comments past that point.
First, if you read the definitions of the words I provided you would see that the definitions overlap. Perhaps you did, I don't know.
Second, using fallacy arguments is not automatically a Troll or Flamebait. If someone uses ad hominem the chances are pretty high that the post is a Troll or Flaimbait but still it's not automatic. If the post contained only ad homimen the probability is high. If a person was emotional in a response containing an opinion chances are lower.
If a post uses bad logic (straw man, circular reasoning, false dichotomy, etc..) there is a very low chance the post is a Troll or Flamebait (still possible but not probable). Those types of posts are absolutely a chance to demonstrate your logic skills to back your opinion rationally and reasonably.
If you have to redefine words to back your claim of "Troll" or "Flaimbait", your claim is wrong.
Rodney said "Can we all get along?", not "Can't we all just get along?". Google it
You are confusing Rodney with Martin Luther.
Wrong! Wholly fuck! Absolutely wrong!
Flamebait is not about "saying things to get people pissed off"! Flamebait is about intentionally trolling to insight a response.
Reading a damn dictionary is not that hard, so stop making up your own definitions for words. Further: I realize that people inventing their own definitions tend to be slow so I'll attempt to clarify. An opinion presented may piss you off by nature, because you have a different opinion. I.E. "There is a God" vs. "There is no God". If a person provides their opinion with intentionally inflammatory material, like "You are all burning in hell for not believing." or "Darwin dumbass!" (as is often done) that is trolling and possibly flamebait. A person simply expressing their opinion is not a troll or flame bait. These differences happen often with emotionally topics, such as politics and morality.
See the definition for Flamebait here, and Troll here, and Flame here(2.).
When an opinion is well articulated and not written to be intentionally offensive, such as GP is, it's a different opinion not a Troll. If you don't like their opinion, present your counter points instead of whining and trying to censor by moderation. If you can't write well articulated retort to back your opinion, don't try do moderate people out of discussions. Improve your writing skills and opinion until you can retort.
Even if the opinion is not the "Popular" opinion the goal of moderation is to encourage dialogue, not censor opinions you don't like. If the post is on topic and generates responses (while not being a flame or troll) then the post should be moderated higher.
It would be great if people could request an update on a specific location. Possible way to monetize that would be that a person could pay to climb the queue.
They already can, they just have to work for a 3 letter government agency.
What you stated was a very sweeping generalization.
Of course, you could find a training course that does that for much cheaper and without the bullshit lib arts requirements.
As I said in my last statement, I did not believe you intentionally intended slam such a broad and important subject. My concern is that these generalizations do deter people from investigating subjects that are essential for education, and these sweeping generalizations are very common.
You mean that the core classes for teaching critical thinking, the scientific method, and debate are all "bullshit" to you? Sad, but seems to be the socially acceptable thing to say today. I never understood how poorly educated I was until I spent 4 years studying Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic.
Don't blame Liberal Arts for the Universities and Colleges that try and pass off "Humanities" as a Liberal Art. Blame an ignorant public for being duped into believing task based education is better, and then not understanding why their task based education was obsolete in a decade.
You do know what PHD stands for don't you?
You probably did not intentionally slam "liberal arts", but those little statements keep people from investigating and learning.
Wrong, and more wrong. I'm an advocate for education but don't see any point in lying to get people to educate themselves. Learning about ldd and nm does not require a CS degree. A person can read any number of books to find out how to compile and build programs and what common errors are. System administrators don't need to debug a scientists code, scientists do. "Good" system administrators can give pointers if they know 'best practices', but that would be going above and beyond for junior and mid-level system admins.
A junior to mid level system administrator should be able to package the program, make sure the machine is running, and has resources the scientist's application needs. They should be able to back up the program, performance tune systems, and write some utilities to help manage the application if needed. Maybe write wrappers to launch the application, but that would be more advanced administration.
Trying to recompile a broken program written by a scientist five to ten years ago is surely possible, but it's not like the admin needs to be a scientist or programmer to fix shoddy work if it's just a foolish linking error. Problems more severe than that should go back to the scientists or programmers to figure out, not the admin.
In a dinky shop with few resources to manage and monitor, an admin should do what you claim. The average job is not a dinky shop and system admins simply have too much on their plates to debug a scientists code.
Are you trying to imply that everyone working in IT should be a programmer or business person? Maybe you were speaking in sarcasm and forgot a modifier to let people know?
I didn't say it was false. I said you didn't provide any evidence, and you still haven't (I wonder why?)
I stated to read the thread if you can't Google. If you still fail to find where these donations went to, and what the yes on prop8 group advertised then request a citation. Your laziness does not make me wrong, your laziness makes you lazy.
Further, you never explicitly stated that you can't find data. You stated that my post was a troll and are defending that position.
You are also confusing "thread" with "post" when looking for the evidence I pointed to. Again, your lack of knowledge is not my issue. Your ignorance is your issue. Start at the first post in the thread and follow it down, there are many links to the 'yes on prop 8' campaign.
As to claiming you never said the claims were false, you have repeatedly claimed and implied my accusation was false.
If your accusations appear untrue and inflammatory
Which is really pointless since my claim was not about whether or not the person did something wrong or not. My claim was that the affiliation with the was the issue.
You take issue with me not providing evidence yet the person I responded to provided no evidence. My response is somehow different to you because my opinion did not match theirs (therefor yours). That is called delusion (willful or otherwise), so I'm done with this discussion.
Bullshit, you are trying to redefine a word in order to make a claim that "trolling" is the same thing as having a different opinion. You also keep insisting that the claim is false yet there is ample evidence to support the claim. So you are being untruthful in several ways.
A well articulated non-offensive response lacking citations is no different than the person I responded to who provided no citation. That person must have been trolling by your definition, but you are defending their position in your fabricated claim.
No, it does not. Please read the definition of troll and trolling again. A different opinion is not "trolling" or being a "troll".
Not only myself, but numerous other people in this thread explained a different opinion respectfully and allegorically. All of them were down modded. It's called censorship, and it happens all the time here. It's been much worse since the beta exodus.
That does not make a post a troll! If a person fails to search for something, or can not find it by searching, they can request a citation. As it is, this thread is full of references to back my statement. It's not baseless because a person refuses to look for or read information.
I call BS!
In Internet slang, a troll (/trol/, /trl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]
Which is drastically different from providing easy to find references in a Google search because someone is too lazy to search themselves.
While this is partially true, there is an issue with information starvation in US media. CNN for example has turned into "Missing Airplane News" for nearly a month. Which of NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, or any of their affiliates have covered any of the Snowden leaks beyond a brief mention? Compare their coverage of what an intellectual would call news to their coverage of celebrities and sports, and of course people are ignorant. They are starved for real information and are bombarded with what I would consider garbage.
That's not to say that there are no other sources of "news", but more pointing out that if you want to be informed you really have to dig for information. The amount of research you have to do is incredible. This is what some people still believe that "News" agencies are doing. The last poll I saw had trust of "News" at about 17% so that base is dwindled drastically.
For those that wish to believe "it's all about money" consider that 17% for a moment. Any "News" agency that offered an alternative opinion instead of fluff and celebrity news would make a mint in viewership, yet all of these "News" agencies operate exactly the same way.
Hey, douche bag with mod points. This is not a troll.
Except that it was not 'because of his political views', it was because he gave money to support a group spreading FUD about homosexuality making him affiliated with a group promoting hate speech. If your companies CEO gave money to Westboro Baptist Church or Fred Phelps, and your employees found out about the donation there are options.
1. The most common "Tend they cleft" or keep quiet about it. At which point there is no issue and you are a good little sheep just happy to have a job. The CEO will continue, but known in your head as an affiliate of a hate group.
2. Be vocal and get people other than yourself to ask "Why is the CEO supporting a hate group?"
If option 2 happens then it's not because of "political views", but because someone gave money to a very questionable organization and is now affiliated with that organization. It's akin to giving money to a drug dealer or slave trader for the hell of it. It's not illegal to give your money away, but who you give money to can tell a whole lot about a person. If you don't believe that, go ahead and give some money to any number of Islamic funds and be amazed at the terrorist groups you become affiliated with according to the Government(s).
If the CEO then does not break the affiliation to the recipient, they should step down 'if' the company is in jeopardy due to their affiliation. It is their choice to remain affiliated, or not.
Stop trying to claim that being affiliated with something or someone is a 'belief'. Those are not the same things.