I'm not claiming that either side never is guilty of being hostile to an opposing point of view.
While your warrantless eavesdropping may be a valid point, it's as off-topic as the rest of your rant. You give examples of differing policy preferences, but nothing about being hostile to the opposing point of view.
You can't really say that the "Democrats" were in charge during the budget surplus, since the Republicans controlled Congress at the time (and, unlike the present, attempted to behave like fiscal conservatives, even if it was only to spite the President). Frankly, I think a split government works better than when one party controls the legislative and the executive.
Do you think that everything non-Republicans do is good?
Not content to be simply dismissive of other points of view, but hostile to them. I've seen that more from the right and particularly the extreme right.
That's interesting, because being from the right (and possibly the extreme right), I have the exact opposite impression. With respect to partisanship in particular, an interesting contrast that has always stood out in my mind are the nomination processes of Justice Ginsberg vs Alito (or Justice Thomas, or Bork). I think that in each case you could find a large sample of Senators very opposed to the nominees, but the only time they really got ugly was when the nomination came from a Republican.
Or possibly it's just chance. I mean, 8%? That's not much. Sounds like it could very easily be attributed to random chance. It sounds like someone just needed to publish something, and massaged the data in some unnatural ways.
On election night for the 2000 US presidential election, John Ellis at the Fox News decision desk, first cousin of Jeb Bush, decided Fox would be the first network to call the state of Florida for the Republicans, a call that was so biased by wishful thinking it later had to be subsequently withdrawn. How's that?
Well, it's still quite a ways away from death of tissue. Since dBs are logarithmic, 150dB vs 140dB is 10 times as loud, while the death of hearing tissue (180dB) is 1000 times as loud as 150dB.
I prefer to take the advice of the poster--since, after all, who would understand his post better than him--and I mod him down. It makes moderation a lot easier when you don't have to figure out what to do by yourself.
Says who? So far I've counted you and grand-parent, if you keep on like this you can start a petetion!
Well, the whole point of a corporation is to make a profit. The duty of a corporate officer is to run the corporation. Therefore, a corporate officer tries to make profits.
So basically, you don't see anything wrong with a company causing massive long-term damage as long as it's what the shareholders want? It's the rest of the world that has to live with the consequenses..
I'm having trouble finding that in my post. In fact, I think I said just the opposite. That corporate officers will generally try to avoid that sort of thing, becaus it's bad for profits. Of course, we all have different views on what long-term damage is or how bad it is. But companies generally don't do things that are contra societies desires. If they did, no one would buy from them, and they wouldn't make money. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, but it's important to remember that they are, in fact, exceptions.
No, that's what corporate officers are supposed to do. You may not like that, but that's the whole point of being a corporate officer. Some take shorter term views than others, though. If it's extremely polluting, a smart corporate officer would recognize that this is a very short term course of action, and probably not very profitable, except perhaps for the very short term. It could be that the shareholders really just want a short term profit, and if so, the company isn't likely to last too long.
Well, that certainly describes some blogs. But my wife, for instance, uses hers to keep in touch with friends from all over the country. It's a cheap, easy way to stay in contact and communicate with them all at the same time. All blogs aren't really for all the public.
I heartily agree. As for suitspeak, I'd say that it's a part of customer relations. It brings the customers' technical people closer to your own, and gives you almost an informal customer service venue. Plus, it gives your corporation a 'face' that the customer wouldn't otherwise get. It's hard to imagine another way of communicating some of the information in those blogs, like reasons behind what deveopers were thinking or dealing with when implementing something.
I don't understand why people are so hung up on the combination of anti-globalization and anti-American. Is it that hard to imagine that there could be such people? I thought/.ers were a bit more technically minded, and could overcome kneejerk reactions and understand that
(anti-Globalization + anti-American) => Enemy of USA
Does not imply that
anti-Globalization => anti-American
And WTF does "treat the rest of the world as another Hawaii" mean, anyway? Most of the anti-Globalization stuff I've seen is basically a combination of protectionism and socialism. Globalization is basically people just doing stuff across borders they previously didn't cross so much.
So we shouldn't even attempt to plan or defend? This makes no sense. If we don't think about any scenarios, then all the scenarios are the one that nobody has thought of yet. I think everyone knows that it's impossible to prepare for everything (in any aspect of life, not just this one), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Besides, what makes you think the CIA doesn't have some psychotic geniuses on the payroll?
Ahh, one of my favorites. My friends and I love to have Bad Movie Nights, although the first half of the movie isn't nearly as entertaining as the end.
For all you Americans out there imagine that China or another country openly proposed space based weapons. Imagine your reaction at that.
I'd be upset that we waited for them to do it.
"Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny" -General Lord, FTA. I cannot believe this stamement was even made. This is not the language a General should be using.
For a guy in charge of the USAF's space operations, why would a statement like this surprise you? Also, it's the stated policy of the US to not allow any other nation to become our peer militarily. You may disagree with that, but a general isn't allowed to. It's his job to be worried about the eventuality that China or another country decides to put a military footprint into space (or at least be able to attack our assets in space). Put those two things together, and voila.
The world's major militaries can all wipe out life on the face of the Earth already, so being able to do it a few minutes faster with space-borne weapons is hardly my idea of progress.
You completely miss the point, then. The point is to be able to precisely strike things quickly. We can already do this quickly with nukes, but there's nothing precise about current nuclear weapons. It's also the ability to protect our own (or allies) assets in space.
Where did you even get the idea that someone wanted to put nukes into space? I didn't even see that in the linked NYT article. Besides, what makes you think that other countries wouldn't want to try to put weapons into space in the first place? It's all very well to hope that [say] the Chinese don't start their own program because we didn't drive them to it, but wherever people are, there will be a need for some form of militarization, so you're ultimately never going to be able to prevent it.
Well, at least from the US perspective, bio-warfare is all about detecting, preventing and curing disease. You could even argue that since it's generally infectious diseases that are the focus of BW, that third worlders stand more to benefit than industrialized nations, whose bigger problems come from things like cancer and heart disease.
Grouped taskbar is one of the first things I disable. Having tabbed browsing helps prevent having 17 windows open at once (I usually have 7-10). But that's how I operate.
I agree completely. My non-science friends always laugh at me when I bring this sort of thing up, and always cut me down by saying: "Huh? It doesn't matter, you see TV and movies rely on this thing called suspension of disbelief and it seems you don't get it."
It annoys me when people get hung up on some small thing that doesn't seem to obey some law of physics or something when they're watching something about time travel, or hyperspace or something else just as fantastic. It's like, wait a minute, you buy all this other crap, but this little thing in the movie makes it all not believable!?
Slashdot Mirror
You just didn't take enough math to get to the good stuff, then. Writing a proof seems very similar to writing code, to me.
Sounds like a US law like that would be in violation of 5th Amendment Rights regarding self-incrimination
I'm not claiming that either side never is guilty of being hostile to an opposing point of view.
While your warrantless eavesdropping may be a valid point, it's as off-topic as the rest of your rant. You give examples of differing policy preferences, but nothing about being hostile to the opposing point of view.
You can't really say that the "Democrats" were in charge during the budget surplus, since the Republicans controlled Congress at the time (and, unlike the present, attempted to behave like fiscal conservatives, even if it was only to spite the President). Frankly, I think a split government works better than when one party controls the legislative and the executive.
Do you think that everything non-Republicans do is good?
Yes, but only in Iraq...
Or possibly it's just chance. I mean, 8%? That's not much. Sounds like it could very easily be attributed to random chance. It sounds like someone just needed to publish something, and massaged the data in some unnatural ways.
Yeah, but how many 32-bit servers are you affording on $18K right now?
Well, it's still quite a ways away from death of tissue. Since dBs are logarithmic, 150dB vs 140dB is 10 times as loud, while the death of hearing tissue (180dB) is 1000 times as loud as 150dB.
I prefer to take the advice of the poster--since, after all, who would understand his post better than him--and I mod him down. It makes moderation a lot easier when you don't have to figure out what to do by yourself.
Ah, yes, because we all know that China is all about the rule of law. I'm not trying to defend MS, but this argument is pretty silly.
LOL. Actually, we only send out Christmas cards about once every three years or so, and the list of people keeps shrinking.
I'm having trouble finding that in my post. In fact, I think I said just the opposite. That corporate officers will generally try to avoid that sort of thing, becaus it's bad for profits. Of course, we all have different views on what long-term damage is or how bad it is. But companies generally don't do things that are contra societies desires. If they did, no one would buy from them, and they wouldn't make money. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, but it's important to remember that they are, in fact, exceptions.
No, that's what corporate officers are supposed to do. You may not like that, but that's the whole point of being a corporate officer. Some take shorter term views than others, though. If it's extremely polluting, a smart corporate officer would recognize that this is a very short term course of action, and probably not very profitable, except perhaps for the very short term. It could be that the shareholders really just want a short term profit, and if so, the company isn't likely to last too long.
Well, that certainly describes some blogs. But my wife, for instance, uses hers to keep in touch with friends from all over the country. It's a cheap, easy way to stay in contact and communicate with them all at the same time. All blogs aren't really for all the public.
I heartily agree. As for suitspeak, I'd say that it's a part of customer relations. It brings the customers' technical people closer to your own, and gives you almost an informal customer service venue. Plus, it gives your corporation a 'face' that the customer wouldn't otherwise get. It's hard to imagine another way of communicating some of the information in those blogs, like reasons behind what deveopers were thinking or dealing with when implementing something.
I don't understand why people are so hung up on the combination of anti-globalization and anti-American. Is it that hard to imagine that there could be such people? I thought /.ers were a bit more technically minded, and could overcome kneejerk reactions and understand that
(anti-Globalization + anti-American) => Enemy of USA
Does not imply that
anti-Globalization => anti-American
And WTF does "treat the rest of the world as another Hawaii" mean, anyway? Most of the anti-Globalization stuff I've seen is basically a combination of protectionism and socialism. Globalization is basically people just doing stuff across borders they previously didn't cross so much.
So we shouldn't even attempt to plan or defend? This makes no sense. If we don't think about any scenarios, then all the scenarios are the one that nobody has thought of yet. I think everyone knows that it's impossible to prepare for everything (in any aspect of life, not just this one), but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
Besides, what makes you think the CIA doesn't have some psychotic geniuses on the payroll?
Ahh, one of my favorites. My friends and I love to have Bad Movie Nights, although the first half of the movie isn't nearly as entertaining as the end.
For a guy in charge of the USAF's space operations, why would a statement like this surprise you? Also, it's the stated policy of the US to not allow any other nation to become our peer militarily. You may disagree with that, but a general isn't allowed to. It's his job to be worried about the eventuality that China or another country decides to put a military footprint into space (or at least be able to attack our assets in space). Put those two things together, and voila.
Where did you even get the idea that someone wanted to put nukes into space? I didn't even see that in the linked NYT article. Besides, what makes you think that other countries wouldn't want to try to put weapons into space in the first place? It's all very well to hope that [say] the Chinese don't start their own program because we didn't drive them to it, but wherever people are, there will be a need for some form of militarization, so you're ultimately never going to be able to prevent it.
Well, at least from the US perspective, bio-warfare is all about detecting, preventing and curing disease. You could even argue that since it's generally infectious diseases that are the focus of BW, that third worlders stand more to benefit than industrialized nations, whose bigger problems come from things like cancer and heart disease.
Grouped taskbar is one of the first things I disable. Having tabbed browsing helps prevent having 17 windows open at once (I usually have 7-10). But that's how I operate.
You get patches and updates. Without a legit copy, you can't use the Windows Updates service.