I have also seen a very good reason why anyone who has an absolute disbelief in God is also not very smart. Its based on the premise that in Science, you cant disprove something with No evidence.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but let me see if I can tease out your point.
Are you saying that you have read *somewhere* that people who believe 'absolutely' that God does not exist are not very smart?
What would be the rational basis for believing that to be true? Do you really believe that people who do not believe in supernatural beings are stupid?
Its why I always laugh at people who call themselves die hard atheists. They are just as blinkered as the religious fundementalists.
In what way are we 'blinkered'? That statement is a rather dismissive comment about people who are hardly uniform in their reasons for their lack of faith.
Consider a job in the earth sciences
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
We have had women entering the field in droves. There is a strong interest in work that is performed out of doors by young, college-aged women. This mirrors an overall trend seen by outdoor sports retailers who have seen and increase in sales to women.
More of them are getting out of their parent's basements and are coming out into the cold light of day.
The poster I originally replied to implied that RSS had all but won the suit bought against them by RS. It is quite clear that they did no such thing. They caved, and now they operate a site that is at least severely curtailed in terms of their original purpose,...
Sorry to butt in here, but the original purpose of the site was, I believe, for the site operator to post a complaint and vent his spleen about Radio Shack. He continues to have his views protected by US courts.
..and at most virtually pro-RS. The RS lawyers got what they wanted. They won. Are you really debating that?
Am I debating what? That the layers won? No, but perhaps you could show me just what was given to the site operators other than the injunction language. What is missing are the side agreements and proof of liability exposure that Radio Shack felt they hand on him. Have you access to that documentation?
This is the crux of it. RSS are no longer "fighting the good fight".
So what you really want is a crusade. Well, that is not always protected by the First Amendment. What is protected is the right for you to post publicly-available information related to your "target" and offer your opinion on that information. You do not have a First Amendment right to use your website as a clearing house for speculation, poorly documented complaints that might not stand in a court of law, and (in some cases) indisputably libelous information. If you owned a company and saw information about your company that you knew to be blatenly false, are you trying to tell me that you would do nothing about it?
Now isn't that what you are really debating? If not, then why shouldn't Radio Shack have any say about the information posted on RSS?
I am not arguing whether Radio Shack is a crappy company or not, nor am I arguing that RSS continues to operate the way they did before the injunction. Just consider the fact that we are not privy to all the information that the courts had when this operator accepted the injuction in lieu of being shut down permanently.
Ask yourself this question: "Would I willingly give up my right to free speech without a fight?" If the answer is "no", then I think we can both agree that Radio Shack would have to have an atomic bomb over our heads before we would sign away our rights.
Maybe Radio Shack had an atomic bomb with RSS' name on it.
Here we are, a semi-professional group of journalists (despite what the courts have to say), posting news about technology in just about every conceivable fashion. Every topic we discuss on this forum forms the basis for the entire fabric of modern communications. That communication network drives not only general commerce, but also medicine, the legal system, politics, government, science, and education.
So with that premise (I belive) established, why is it that we let rags like ZDnet completely blow a story out of proportion, while simultaneously abusing the system they report on by misleading the general population that we are only interested in ripping off the entertainment industry? I don't get it.
What would be an amazing show of solidarity would be for everyone in the IT industry to just not show up for work on ONE day in ONE year. Completely shit on the entire system by just refusing to play by their stupid games.
Want to edit your movie MPAA? Not today! We are going to hold up your entire production for a day. What would that cost them on every single film they are working on? Cha-ching!
And the new cancerous Spears-spew you were hoping to mix this morning? Sorry, but the support staff called in with a collective chicken-pox outbreak. Awwwww......
Baring that bit of civil disobediance, we could always produce our own radio and television networks. Considering the decline that the major US networks are experiencing, an online radio show dedicated to ACCURATE technology reporting and substative commentary on the politics of technology policy could be a winner. I know that TechTV was supposed to fulfill that role and now its focus is largely games, but that doesn't mean the demand for such programming is in demand. The first kids shows on television were HORRIBLE, but eventually their production value increased and today we have slick, hip programming for kids.
How many slashdotters are there? We all come here to read and yell at each other. There certainly must be a market for the audio/visual version of this, this.....
For one thing there are "for" and "against" forums. There's a forum for employees to complain about customers!
I didn't see anything in the agreement that requires them to do this. Perhaps they are trying to be a bit more balanced?
No libelous remarks or "flaming" towards anyone, unless they can be verified with a link to a legitimate news source or court case.
Again, this is not only reasonable, but with the exception of "flaming" (squishy term at best), libel has always been an actionable offense.
So you can't post anything disparraging to RS unless you can back it up with a link to a news story or court case.
Considering the crap that people post in the name of the First Amendment, I don't consider that to be offensive.
If I were a company and I read on some website that my employees killed babies and cooked them in a stew pot, I would be enraged and would probably sue the site too. I haven't gone to archive.org and read the previous website, but there are plenty of sites with dodgy allegations that cannot be supported with any evidence, posted as though it were a fact.
our own experiences with RS are not for discussion if they can be construed to be libelous.
I guess that would have to be tested in court, wouldn't it? There is nothing in the injuction that prohibits me from posting my own experiences with Radio Shack on my own website, it there?
Do you really think RSS are operating the site in the same way they were before the suit?
No, but maybe that is because the site operator may have provided no guidance before and the site got out of control. Take a look at the other links in the Forbes article. None of these site carry an injuction against anything that has been posted and I would guess that is because the moderator takes action against unsubstantiated charges and obviously libelous materials.
They can't organise or even link to any further class action suits, but that's not illegal.
It is illegal in some jurisdictions to solicit for legal services unless you practice law. For those of you who were born after 1974, it was at one time considered unprofessional, but not illegal, to advertise legal services AT ALL. What the site operators may have gotten themselves into is a case where unmoderated views were being posted and these were used as a hammer to gain certain concessions from them through the threat of a lawsuit. Radio Shack could not legally stop RSS from engaging in a discussion about how shitty their company is, but after a few libelous postings were uncovered it left RSS exposed to suits that trimmed any right they had to organize class actions.
They could organized class actions, but that may expose them to litigation due to posts that may be actionable.
That could be hot gas. Look up the words "nueé ardente".
Andesitic lavas have more water in them than tholiitic. That is why volcanos on or near continental margins explode violently and lavas from island chains only shoot ~30 meters into the air.
The lavas are viscous. Unless you are in the rim of the volcano or are flying over the ridge with an infrared camera you won't see lava from St. Helens.
Then why do we give Microsoft so much shit for bundling IE with Windows?
I think Microsoft should be allowed to bundle all relevant technologies to their OS. Anyone who fails to search for alternatives when their machines get rooted should also punish Microsoft for their past lack of attention to security. Because of their market dominance, however, that punishment rarely comes.
The unfortunate thing about holding Microsoft to the same standard as everyone else is:
1) They are a monopoly and they use their market position to kill off competing technologies, even those that may have a greater positive impact on security than their own products,
2) They have a market cap that allows them to influence, sometimes adversely, the direction of technology development through legislative means, and
3) They have the largest installed base which means their former lack of interest in security impacts the performance and safety of the entire internet.
I don't want everyone in the world using the software I use. That would mean malicious shits would be writing more exploits for the stuff I use. I also object to a system where monopolists determine which technologies are created instead of a market-based system that decides which ones succeed. By using legislative pressure, monopolies force all consumers into one holding pen and literally steal cash and productivity from them.
No one born after the break up of Ma Bell would understand that last point.
I think your reply is mostly right with the exception of this part: Yes, Linux on the desktop isn't quite there. But it doesn't have to be right now either.
I think every effort should be put into making a Linux desktop the best in class as soon as possible. Longhorn will not be shipping any time soon, but a fully functional (from the perspective of a complete noob) desktop will make all of the PHBs look long and hard at Linux when the upgrade price for the latest Windows version eventually ships.
If the Longhorn deployment cost is too prohibitive, I would expect mass migration from the Windows platform in the Small Busines market. That would move Linux squarely into Microsoft's first market territorial gain (circa 1988) and would signal investors that Linux is serious competition outside of the enterprise.
I know there are several laudable goals for future Linux development (the embedded and server markets are crucial as well), but a well positioned desktop for small business would scuff the luster off of Microsoft and bring competition back to the personal computer market.
I care to disagree with the article and your viewpoint on the basis of evolution and bilogical diversity theories applied to computing.
Which has nothing to do with the various Linux distributions. All of them use GNU utilities and the Linux kernel.
There is no diversity at the lowest levels. The only diversity between distros remains in the installation routines, window managers, and system administration tools.
Nothing is wrong with different setups/designs because evolution leeds heterogenity into homogenity in some ideas while opening up new frontiers for testing.
Which might be true if not for the fact that businesses rely on a constistent platform design in order to create software. If you read the article more carefully, the author explains that the number of third-party vendors of serious productivity apps (beyond office suites) has not increased for Linux. Don't you consider that a problem?
Cagle has been peddling this theory for quite awhile. Do a quick search on cagle in any of the sci.physics groups and you will see his posts along with extremely patient people who try to point out the flaws in his logic (cough!).
We defeated the Nazis, the next evil: Libertarians
Who is this "We" you refer to?
And since when do people who work hard to support civil liberties get lumped in with people who work even harder to take then away?
I think you need to spend a bit more time at Cato's website and learn what Libertarianism really represents. (Hint: diminished state control of our lives)
Nor are those sufficient qualifications for good management.
Agreed. I just put that on the end to blunt any of the usually dismissive comments about women being either indecisive, weak, or both. Margaret Thatcher was neither weak nor indecisive.
I equivocate over the added features for cell phones. This is one that I can't see having too much impact here in the US. Face recognition for your phone? What for? To use my phone?
What if I lose or gain a few pounds? What if I grow or cut my beard? What if I get a new girlfriend and she changes my "look" with a new 'dew?
It is hard enough to get customer service for my phone as it is. I don't need to be locked out of my phone because I changed my diet.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently, manholes are being stolen at an alarming rate in China.
I guess the goatse.cx guy better hide! The manhole thieves might get him!
They will repost the removed articles *twice*.
That, boys and girls, is how dups are born.
I have also seen a very good reason why anyone who has an absolute disbelief in God is also not very smart. Its based on the premise that in Science, you cant disprove something with No evidence.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but let me see if I can tease out your point.
Are you saying that you have read *somewhere* that people who believe 'absolutely' that God does not exist are not very smart?
What would be the rational basis for believing that to be true? Do you really believe that people who do not believe in supernatural beings are stupid?
Its why I always laugh at people who call themselves die hard atheists. They are just as blinkered as the religious fundementalists.
In what way are we 'blinkered'? That statement is a rather dismissive comment about people who are hardly uniform in their reasons for their lack of faith.
There all idiots who can't even spell!
The art of the elegant troll.
We have had women entering the field in droves. There is a strong interest in work that is performed out of doors by young, college-aged women. This mirrors an overall trend seen by outdoor sports retailers who have seen and increase in sales to women.
More of them are getting out of their parent's basements and are coming out into the cold light of day.
The poster I originally replied to implied that RSS had all but won the suit bought against them by RS. It is quite clear that they did no such thing. They caved, and now they operate a site that is at least severely curtailed in terms of their original purpose,...
..and at most virtually pro-RS. The RS lawyers got what they wanted. They won. Are you really debating that?
Sorry to butt in here, but the original purpose of the site was, I believe, for the site operator to post a complaint and vent his spleen about Radio Shack. He continues to have his views protected by US courts.
Am I debating what? That the layers won? No, but perhaps you could show me just what was given to the site operators other than the injunction language. What is missing are the side agreements and proof of liability exposure that Radio Shack felt they hand on him. Have you access to that documentation?
This is the crux of it. RSS are no longer "fighting the good fight".
So what you really want is a crusade. Well, that is not always protected by the First Amendment. What is protected is the right for you to post publicly-available information related to your "target" and offer your opinion on that information. You do not have a First Amendment right to use your website as a clearing house for speculation, poorly documented complaints that might not stand in a court of law, and (in some cases) indisputably libelous information. If you owned a company and saw information about your company that you knew to be blatenly false, are you trying to tell me that you would do nothing about it?
Now isn't that what you are really debating? If not, then why shouldn't Radio Shack have any say about the information posted on RSS?
I am not arguing whether Radio Shack is a crappy company or not, nor am I arguing that RSS continues to operate the way they did before the injunction. Just consider the fact that we are not privy to all the information that the courts had when this operator accepted the injuction in lieu of being shut down permanently.
Ask yourself this question: "Would I willingly give up my right to free speech without a fight?" If the answer is "no", then I think we can both agree that Radio Shack would have to have an atomic bomb over our heads before we would sign away our rights.
Maybe Radio Shack had an atomic bomb with RSS' name on it.
Here we are, a semi-professional group of journalists (despite what the courts have to say), posting news about technology in just about every conceivable fashion. Every topic we discuss on this forum forms the basis for the entire fabric of modern communications. That communication network drives not only general commerce, but also medicine, the legal system, politics, government, science, and education.
... stuff.
So with that premise (I belive) established, why is it that we let rags like ZDnet completely blow a story out of proportion, while simultaneously abusing the system they report on by misleading the general population that we are only interested in ripping off the entertainment industry? I don't get it.
What would be an amazing show of solidarity would be for everyone in the IT industry to just not show up for work on ONE day in ONE year. Completely shit on the entire system by just refusing to play by their stupid games.
Want to edit your movie MPAA? Not today! We are going to hold up your entire production for a day. What would that cost them on every single film they are working on? Cha-ching!
And the new cancerous Spears-spew you were hoping to mix this morning? Sorry, but the support staff called in with a collective chicken-pox outbreak. Awwwww......
Baring that bit of civil disobediance, we could always produce our own radio and television networks. Considering the decline that the major US networks are experiencing, an online radio show dedicated to ACCURATE technology reporting and substative commentary on the politics of technology policy could be a winner. I know that TechTV was supposed to fulfill that role and now its focus is largely games, but that doesn't mean the demand for such programming is in demand. The first kids shows on television were HORRIBLE, but eventually their production value increased and today we have slick, hip programming for kids.
How many slashdotters are there? We all come here to read and yell at each other. There certainly must be a market for the audio/visual version of this, this.....
For one thing there are "for" and "against" forums. There's a forum for employees to complain about customers!
I didn't see anything in the agreement that requires them to do this. Perhaps they are trying to be a bit more balanced?
No libelous remarks or "flaming" towards anyone, unless they can be verified with a link to a legitimate news source or court case.
Again, this is not only reasonable, but with the exception of "flaming" (squishy term at best), libel has always been an actionable offense.
So you can't post anything disparraging to RS unless you can back it up with a link to a news story or court case.
Considering the crap that people post in the name of the First Amendment, I don't consider that to be offensive.
If I were a company and I read on some website that my employees killed babies and cooked them in a stew pot, I would be enraged and would probably sue the site too. I haven't gone to archive.org and read the previous website, but there are plenty of sites with dodgy allegations that cannot be supported with any evidence, posted as though it were a fact.
our own experiences with RS are not for discussion if they can be construed to be libelous.
I guess that would have to be tested in court, wouldn't it? There is nothing in the injuction that prohibits me from posting my own experiences with Radio Shack on my own website, it there?
Do you really think RSS are operating the site in the same way they were before the suit?
No, but maybe that is because the site operator may have provided no guidance before and the site got out of control. Take a look at the other links in the Forbes article. None of these site carry an injuction against anything that has been posted and I would guess that is because the moderator takes action against unsubstantiated charges and obviously libelous materials.
They can't organise or even link to any further class action suits, but that's not illegal.
It is illegal in some jurisdictions to solicit for legal services unless you practice law. For those of you who were born after 1974, it was at one time considered unprofessional, but not illegal, to advertise legal services AT ALL. What the site operators may have gotten themselves into is a case where unmoderated views were being posted and these were used as a hammer to gain certain concessions from them through the threat of a lawsuit. Radio Shack could not legally stop RSS from engaging in a discussion about how shitty their company is, but after a few libelous postings were uncovered it left RSS exposed to suits that trimmed any right they had to organize class actions.
They could organized class actions, but that may expose them to litigation due to posts that may be actionable.
Looks like they pretty much suceeded.
Um, I don't see it that way. I think they are still operating the site, with the URL RadioShackSucks.com.
The only thing they are prohibited from doing is what is already illegal anyhow.
About 6 feet underground ought to do it :-)
:p
Yeah, and we are all scheduled to move there someday.
That could be hot gas. Look up the words "nueé ardente".
Andesitic lavas have more water in them than tholiitic. That is why volcanos on or near continental margins explode violently and lavas from island chains only shoot ~30 meters into the air.
My son went looking for news coverage on CNN because we had heard that St. Helens was erupting.
Nada. This is a non-event for anyone not living in the region (and I do live near St. Helens).
A very effective first step would be not living close to an active volcano in the first place.
There is no place on the planet that is *completely* safe from natural disaster.
Volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, floods, wild fire, etc.
Where would you move that is completely safe?
These are andesitic volcanos, not tholiitic.
The lavas are viscous. Unless you are in the rim of the volcano or are flying over the ridge with an infrared camera you won't see lava from St. Helens.
Then why do we give Microsoft so much shit for bundling IE with Windows?
I think Microsoft should be allowed to bundle all relevant technologies to their OS. Anyone who fails to search for alternatives when their machines get rooted should also punish Microsoft for their past lack of attention to security. Because of their market dominance, however, that punishment rarely comes.
The unfortunate thing about holding Microsoft to the same standard as everyone else is:
1) They are a monopoly and they use their market position to kill off competing technologies, even those that may have a greater positive impact on security than their own products,
2) They have a market cap that allows them to influence, sometimes adversely, the direction of technology development through legislative means, and
3) They have the largest installed base which means their former lack of interest in security impacts the performance and safety of the entire internet.
I don't want everyone in the world using the software I use. That would mean malicious shits would be writing more exploits for the stuff I use. I also object to a system where monopolists determine which technologies are created instead of a market-based system that decides which ones succeed. By using legislative pressure, monopolies force all consumers into one holding pen and literally steal cash and productivity from them.
No one born after the break up of Ma Bell would understand that last point.
I think your reply is mostly right with the exception of this part: Yes, Linux on the desktop isn't quite there. But it doesn't have to be right now either.
I think every effort should be put into making a Linux desktop the best in class as soon as possible. Longhorn will not be shipping any time soon, but a fully functional (from the perspective of a complete noob) desktop will make all of the PHBs look long and hard at Linux when the upgrade price for the latest Windows version eventually ships.
If the Longhorn deployment cost is too prohibitive, I would expect mass migration from the Windows platform in the Small Busines market. That would move Linux squarely into Microsoft's first market territorial gain (circa 1988) and would signal investors that Linux is serious competition outside of the enterprise.
I know there are several laudable goals for future Linux development (the embedded and server markets are crucial as well), but a well positioned desktop for small business would scuff the luster off of Microsoft and bring competition back to the personal computer market.
I care to disagree with the article and your viewpoint on the basis of evolution and bilogical diversity theories applied to computing.
Which has nothing to do with the various Linux distributions. All of them use GNU utilities and the Linux kernel.
There is no diversity at the lowest levels. The only diversity between distros remains in the installation routines, window managers, and system administration tools.
Nothing is wrong with different setups/designs because evolution leeds heterogenity into homogenity in some ideas while opening up new frontiers for testing.
Which might be true if not for the fact that businesses rely on a constistent platform design in order to create software. If you read the article more carefully, the author explains that the number of third-party vendors of serious productivity apps (beyond office suites) has not increased for Linux. Don't you consider that a problem?
Poop is brown.
Not when infants have the flu.
It turns green and has a mucus-like coating.
And it stinks like 10,000 cat boxes.
Really - it has a fantastically obnoxious odor.
Phones that play music.
Phones that perform facial recognition.
Phones that take photos.
Phones that shoot small caliber rounds.
Phones that can be tracked by GPS.
Phones that can extend penis lengths.
Phones that can make water from wine.
Phones that introduce you to your new spouse.
Are there any phones that allow you to talk to someone separated by distances greater than you can shout?
Cagle has been peddling this theory for quite awhile. Do a quick search on cagle in any of the sci.physics groups and you will see his posts along with extremely patient people who try to point out the flaws in his logic (cough!).
We defeated the Nazis, the next evil: Libertarians
Who is this "We" you refer to?
And since when do people who work hard to support civil liberties get lumped in with people who work even harder to take then away?
I think you need to spend a bit more time at Cato's website and learn what Libertarianism really represents. (Hint: diminished state control of our lives)
This is nothing compared to the Unification of Electromagnetic and Gravitational theories. It has been done and the results can be found here.
Or so I've been told. The book explaining the theory is ~$26USD.
Nor are those sufficient qualifications for good management.
Agreed. I just put that on the end to blunt any of the usually dismissive comments about women being either indecisive, weak, or both. Margaret Thatcher was neither weak nor indecisive.
I remember her because I work at Agilent.
My *belated* condolences.
I just bought one of your power supplies. They are incredibly well built.
What is this girlfriend thing of which you speak?
I haven't had one in over 18 years. My wife keeps them away.
I equivocate over the added features for cell phones. This is one that I can't see having too much impact here in the US. Face recognition for your phone? What for? To use my phone?
What if I lose or gain a few pounds? What if I grow or cut my beard? What if I get a new girlfriend and she changes my "look" with a new 'dew?
It is hard enough to get customer service for my phone as it is. I don't need to be locked out of my phone because I changed my diet.