No, that's just the point, idiot. No matter how people voted, morons like Harris prevented their votes from being counted.
You should probably get your news from some source other than the alien broadcasts that you receive through your dental fillings.
No votes were "prevented" from being counted. The losing candidate wanted only a re-evaluation of the votes in the four counties where he knew he had the strongest representation, and the election review folks in each of those counties were applying continually varying, mind-reading-style standards to the process. His opponent said: this isn't a reasonable way to handle a recount. There need to be some standards that don't change in the middle of the count within the same counties. The state supreme court then handed out a ruling that essentially involved new election rule legislation during the election. The Supreme Court rightly said that wasn't fair to the other voters in the state, which Gore wanted to ignore because he knew that closer inspection of those other districts' votes wouldn't help him.
And of course, it made no difference, because in the wake of that every single ballot, state-wide, was re-evaluated by several third parties (representatives from newspapers, etc., including those who backed Gore), and by every standard, including the highly biased ones that Gore wanted use, he still lost.
So, how exactly did Katherine Harris prevent people's votes from getting counted?
Re:Please put on your RDFEG for testing purposes.
on
The Science of eBay
·
· Score: 1
If 95k a year is all spoken for, how do people manage who make less than 95k? Surely then someone on 45k would be going 50k into debt every single year just through the costs of living.
But that's my point. Someone who lives in a major metro area, proximate to the sort of high-end school that can actually pay a professor $95k, is going to have very high cost of living, and presumably doesn't live like a total hermit. Hence it's all spoken for. Someone who teaches at, say, the U of SD, is going to be living in a much, much less expensive environment, and can by on less income - though it's all spoken for too. Presuming you're doing things like saving for retirement. What I'm trying to counter, here, was that "it's more than you'd know what to do with" sentiment, which I found a little silly.
It was impossible to predict the disaster that was Katherine Harris in Florida.
Yes, she's just a terrible person, forcing people to vote the way they did, not for Kerry. Or are you confusing 2004 with 2000, when she also didn't force anybody to vote in any particular way? I see.
Are we talking about people who need to see what other people are saying they'll do so that they know what they should, themselves, do with their vote when the time comes?
*sheep sounds*
Re:Please put on your RDFEG for testing purposes.
on
The Science of eBay
·
· Score: 0
At least in the upper five figures, often in the six-figure range
Let's assume that upper five figures means $95,000 gross. After typical income taxes, health care premiums, retirement witholdings, etc., you're in for about $57k net, and that's assuming a LOW rate of saving for retirement. That leaves you with about $4750 to spend each month.
Now, when you're talking about university professors making $95k, you're talking about only some of them, and then only in larger metro areas. Given the cost of living in those areas, let's assume a few things: a mortgage payment of at least $1500 (or rent), a car payment and related monthly expenses of probably $500+. Utility bills, insurance, food (ever eat out?), child care, clothing, modest entertainment, the occasional frivality (a new camera? your National Geographic subscription? a gift for your spouse's birthday?). By the time the dust settles, you've got, at most, perhaps $1000 not yet spoken for every month. That assumes that (beyond your housing and car) you've got no debt to service. College loans that got you that academic position preparation? Some stray credit card bills? I just don't see the "more money than you know what to do with" factor playing in at all. Especially if you've got a couple of kids: they're going to need about $200k for college. It's ALL spoken for, dude.
And then: how about the much larger majority of professors, who make way, way less than that?
Has the MythTV community thought about developing a community-based real, physical product? E.g., a cheap system with a decent hard drive, decent tuner card, and comes with everything already installed?
I don't think the "MythTV community" wants to get a phone call from a drunken frat pledge 10 minutes before Super Bowl XXMXVIIC comes on, wondering which connector goes where. You can say RTFM on the phone to your community, but you can't say it to your customers.
Please put on your RDFEG for testing purposes.
on
The Science of eBay
·
· Score: 0, Troll
your needs are simple and you're going to make more money than you know what to do with either way, the person who delights in research is going to be content with a university position.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have used the phrases "university position" and "more money than you know what to do with" in the same sentence. We are forced to view your comment through special Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field Effect Glasses to check for credibility. These glasses will be available at Mac stores soon, packaged as the new iSmackMyHeadInDisbelief.
Don't forget that when they schedule a launch, there are a lot of people on the clock that are working longer hours than they might otherwise be. When there's a delay, they've all been on the clock for a long time, and then get to do it again (for example) the next day. Likewise with various contractors, support companies, etc. Keeping all of that spun up and ready is expensive, per day.
Does this mean if I receive spam from him, I'm legally allowed to shoot him?
You just have to say the magic words. It's very important to use your best Edward G. Robinson tone, of course: "He was trespassing, see. Yeah. And I was fearing for my safety, see. And the safety of my loved ones, see. Yeah, see."
It's important to be assertive about such statements. You can't sound hesitant, or imply any misgivings. That's why these are the two most useless words in the English language: "But, officer..."
Oh, and don't shoot them in the back. And if you do, stand them back up, and shoot them again in the front. Those CSI guys can figure it out, but once they've heard your Edward G. Robinson, they'll let it go.
Note: this is not good advice. Do not follow it, or taunt Happy Fun Ball, either.
I know that I.F. term has been invented long time ago by neocons
Invented? Militant Islamists have been Islamo-this or Islamic-that for hundreds of years - and they've given that name to themselves. The term "fascism" has been around since 1922, when Mussolini and his people launched the label. Since then, it's been an appropriate term for any number of organizations and ideologies. What's new is that people are finally calling the militant jihaddists what they really are. It's an ugly name for an ugly way of thinking - it fits perfectly.
Irrelevent to whether or not the chairman at HP used taps on phones to trace a leak of company information, you bet. Just as irrelevent as, say, a democrat congressman keeping $90k of his bribe in his freezer. Or as Bill Clinton giving incredible last-minute pardons to people whose families agree to pump millions into his operations just as he's leaving office. What sort of filter are you using, here? Oh, and BTW, the notion of referring to the militant jihaddi Islamic extremists as fascists has been around a long time. Witness the president of Iran, this month, purging that country's universities of people who don't tow his line, and forcing a change in the use of certain technological terms to focus on religious/nationalistic themes - it's all the usual, classic, perfectly fascist stuff. Would you prefer that NPR just invented a new word to mean the same things so you'd feel more comfortable hearing it talked about?
I cannot imagine the brain size of the moderators that moderated you up. Your 1-bit memory card cannot comprehend that behind your popularist Democrats, filthy Republicans and your "misunderestimated" President there are just people like myself who are sick and tied of your president, your parties, your stinking puppet congress and people you, that is certified utter idiots.
What makes you think I belong to any particular political party? What makes you think you know who I voted for? I'm probably more sick of politics than you are, and that's exactly why I made my comment. The idiot I was responding to drew a falacious connection - totally out of any context that makes any sense - between some boardroom nonsense at a big tech company (practices and habits that have gone on in a lot of big companies, some big charities, large girl scout troops, and a lot of big families, churches, bowling leages, cave clans, and wolf packs) and a political figure. It was a low-brow bit of karma-whoring to an audience that reflexively cheers on most any sentiment that leans that direction, baseless or not. You don't like politics? Then agree with me that the person who decided to whip up a political snark just because there was a telecommunications angle on the story was injecting it where it was pointless to put it. And when I call him on it, I get flamed by people like you for being political. That's fabulous!
I'm not sure myself, but if there were a bid then I'm sure a company or two would have appeared.
But that's the whole point. You can't name one, either.
In some industries, the people who shop for certain services already know the viable providers. A company that can roll in on short notice and do some of the things that certain companies can do (especially in the defense services area, or certain pieces of the aerospace industry, or nuclear subs, etc) requires billions in assets like people, equipment, liquid cash to fund their activites while they wait months (or years) to get paid, all sorts of pre-existing clearences and background checks, and so on. You can't just shop around for a short-term bid for that sort of stuff, and expect delivery in weeks or months. And the you DO go through those hoops, knowing that you can't actually sign a contract until all possible challenges have been arbitrated and so on... you're literally talking years. In the meantime, you've got military people in the field depending on all of this working along side of what they're doing in a hot zone.
The procurement process itself can costs millions more - money that does nothing but feed lawyers and contract specialists who don't actually do anything towards the efforts you're trying to actually pursue. I'm all for competitive shopping when it's rational, but sometimes the simple reality is that the timing and lack of experienced vendors just make it pointless to delay the procurement for months or years to no end (and without actually having what it is you're in need of).
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I do not think it is relevant. I do not think you want to debate the original statement on its merits. I think you are afraid.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you!
Look, just because it's fun to make Princess Bride jokes doesn't mean you're right.
Specifically, my very first comment on this identified my thoughts on the actual merits of the comment to which I replied. To wit: he's wrong. Read the damn thread. I dismissed his observation (about the chairperson at HP involving PIs to snoop on board members' phone calls as having been inspired by the president) as being a load of crap. There's no debate to be had on that subject, and that goes without saying. That also means that the only motivation for that person's comment was the hope for some cheap political haymaking. It's BS. The people who are afraid (since you use that word) are the ones that, rather than addressing my actual point, are doing their best to make this about semantics. I hope they're as embarassed as they should be.
Criticizing Bush is not the same as supporting the Democrats. Therefore it is not being partisan.
Those from his own camp that criticize him on immigration, or taxes, or spending, or defense, or monitoring international calls, etc., generally couch such criticism in a bit more context. It's in their own interest (as partisans) to do so. You can't, surely, think that people who (enough to actually have joined and remain a member of that party) call themselves republicans are going to toss around generalized smack-downs at their highest profile member without some caveats? Un-qualified, contextless jabs at a leading party official are the stuff of opponents. Bush's in-party critics don't handle it that way any more than democrats who don't love everything about Bill Clinton complain about what they don't like without a direct or implied tone of general support, lest they be mistaken for one of his more thorough detractors. That behavior, from partisans on both sides, is common enough and predictable enough to allow reasonable inferences such as mine. You know it, I know it, and the author of the comment knows it. What's interesting here, is the amount of trouble people are going to in hopes of getting readers to think that the comment was not from the lefter side of the spectrum. It's just silly, that's all.
Someone complaining about Nancy Pelosi's posture on some subject might (when being in her camp) say, "Well, she seems a little shrill on this particular topic, yes, but..." whereas her broader (usually, partisan) opponents would dispense with the "but" and just call her shrill. You'd know it when you saw it, just like with this thread.
The word "partisan" refers to support of a specific party. The original post made no mention of any political parties, even indirectly. It simply compared the actions of the President with the actions of Dunn.
Is it that you're a little foggy on which party the president belongs to? Or that you don't digest enough news, blog-trash, and slashdot groupthink to take in the general thrust of such simplistic, one-dimensional barbs? There isn't enough information in the comment to convey any nuance or perspective more complex than that which is seen. The reflexive, all-bad-things-relate-to-Bush flavor of spin correlates very strongly to the invective that issues forth from a particular idealogical camp. That camp's population correlates strongly to party. Hence the use of "partisan," and reasonably so.
The parent post is completely relevant and non-partisan. Leaders must lead with integrity and set the bar for the behaviour of those they govern. It's time to start holding *everyone* accountable for breaking privacy laws - those that lose customer information, CEO's, and elected officials.
OK, then perhaps the tone of the comment should have been aimed at more than one person? HP's BoD may be dealing with marketing and corporate espionage type issues, but they're not so much directly having to contend with people that seek to kill their customers. To suggest that this is all the same conversation is a little disengenuous, and to suggest that the GP was speaking in broad terms (and not looking for the first and most obvious way to take a wack at the administration) is likewise.
I didn't read anything partisan in the original post. He didn't even mention a political party. It looks like you've developed such an attachment to the guy in charge that you can't distinguish criticism of him from criticism of your home team.
OK, so I get it. You're actually not very intelligent. I'll help you out:
HP is a US-based company. So we can assume we're not talking about Britain or Germany, for example. He says "leader of our country." Not leaders (plural), not "past" leaders. Any reasonable person would infer that he's talking about the sitting president. That would be Bush. His party affiliation is not exactly a mystery (though mine is - what party do you think I belong to? Woops, you're wrong).
The comment was succinct ("An Example - 'The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations'"), but was in response to the clearly negative tone of the summary ("debacle," etc). The comment doesn't disagree with that editorial sentiment, so in chiming in with an "example" of how our "country's leader" is inspiring behavior among corporate executives, it's clear exactly what the comment is supposed to convey. Bad things at HP, bad president sets example. This has nothing to do with the degree to which I do or do not approve of the current administration's policies, or particular tactics and strategies related to a jillion different domestic, defense, economic, or other issues - it's a measure of my irritation with people that attempt to make sage-sounding political banter that they hope will appear to illuminate some sort of causality that is not there, certainly not in the context of the comment that was made.
The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations
I think you're confusing "leader of our country" with every P.I. and divorce lawyer that's been practicing in the US since the turn of the last century. A powerful, private person with some axe to grind or a nasty leak to stop doesn't, and hasn't, needed any inspiration from any sitting president to pay some private spook team to find out what's happening. Doesn't make it all tasty and pleasant, but it also doesn't make a it a good fit for your partisan rantette.
Actually, I think that product is owned by Halliburton.
No, you're thinking of the folks like to assign all evil to Halliburton, but when asked to name other contractors that can step right up and provide the same experience and services in the same time frame in the same parts of the world tend to draw something of a blank. A cognitive blank, as it were.
If they are allowed to film you without explicit permission, why aren't you allowed to film them for your own personal protection?
Because you're on their private property, and by being there, you agree to the terms and acknowledge the signs they post (you know, "Surveilence Technology In Use," etc).
It's so simple: if you don't like the atmosphere created by a retailer that's tired of losing their their shirts because they're... uh... losing their shirts, well... buy your shirts somewhere else. Or, open up your own retail operation and get a big fat education on this subject the hard way. It only takes a small percentage of thieving asshats to make it actually very unpleasant to run a shop, big or small.
Who cares if humans survive, honestly. why does the human race need to survive when it obviously cant maintain it's own planet properly.
I think you're right. If, after all these years, humans still can't grasp the difference between "its" and "it's," then we should probably all just die, and spare the universe from more embarassment.
Less salaries gives the appearance of more profit margins
Presuming you sell the same stuff the week after you hugely reduce your overhead as you did the week before, you've actually increased your profit margins, not just created the appearance. Even if your sales go down, they only have to go down less than the reduction in your overhead, and you've still actually improved your margins.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's just the point, idiot. No matter how people voted, morons like Harris prevented their votes from being counted.
You should probably get your news from some source other than the alien broadcasts that you receive through your dental fillings.
No votes were "prevented" from being counted. The losing candidate wanted only a re-evaluation of the votes in the four counties where he knew he had the strongest representation, and the election review folks in each of those counties were applying continually varying, mind-reading-style standards to the process. His opponent said: this isn't a reasonable way to handle a recount. There need to be some standards that don't change in the middle of the count within the same counties. The state supreme court then handed out a ruling that essentially involved new election rule legislation during the election. The Supreme Court rightly said that wasn't fair to the other voters in the state, which Gore wanted to ignore because he knew that closer inspection of those other districts' votes wouldn't help him.
And of course, it made no difference, because in the wake of that every single ballot, state-wide, was re-evaluated by several third parties (representatives from newspapers, etc., including those who backed Gore), and by every standard, including the highly biased ones that Gore wanted use, he still lost.
So, how exactly did Katherine Harris prevent people's votes from getting counted?
If 95k a year is all spoken for, how do people manage who make less than 95k? Surely then someone on 45k would be going 50k into debt every single year just through the costs of living.
But that's my point. Someone who lives in a major metro area, proximate to the sort of high-end school that can actually pay a professor $95k, is going to have very high cost of living, and presumably doesn't live like a total hermit. Hence it's all spoken for. Someone who teaches at, say, the U of SD, is going to be living in a much, much less expensive environment, and can by on less income - though it's all spoken for too. Presuming you're doing things like saving for retirement. What I'm trying to counter, here, was that "it's more than you'd know what to do with" sentiment, which I found a little silly.
It was impossible to predict the disaster that was Katherine Harris in Florida.
Yes, she's just a terrible person, forcing people to vote the way they did, not for Kerry. Or are you confusing 2004 with 2000, when she also didn't force anybody to vote in any particular way? I see.
Are we talking about people who need to see what other people are saying they'll do so that they know what they should, themselves, do with their vote when the time comes?
*sheep sounds*
At least in the upper five figures, often in the six-figure range
Let's assume that upper five figures means $95,000 gross. After typical income taxes, health care premiums, retirement witholdings, etc., you're in for about $57k net, and that's assuming a LOW rate of saving for retirement. That leaves you with about $4750 to spend each month.
Now, when you're talking about university professors making $95k, you're talking about only some of them, and then only in larger metro areas. Given the cost of living in those areas, let's assume a few things: a mortgage payment of at least $1500 (or rent), a car payment and related monthly expenses of probably $500+. Utility bills, insurance, food (ever eat out?), child care, clothing, modest entertainment, the occasional frivality (a new camera? your National Geographic subscription? a gift for your spouse's birthday?). By the time the dust settles, you've got, at most, perhaps $1000 not yet spoken for every month. That assumes that (beyond your housing and car) you've got no debt to service. College loans that got you that academic position preparation? Some stray credit card bills? I just don't see the "more money than you know what to do with" factor playing in at all. Especially if you've got a couple of kids: they're going to need about $200k for college. It's ALL spoken for, dude.
And then: how about the much larger majority of professors, who make way, way less than that?
Has the MythTV community thought about developing a community-based real, physical product? E.g., a cheap system with a decent hard drive, decent tuner card, and comes with everything already installed?
I don't think the "MythTV community" wants to get a phone call from a drunken frat pledge 10 minutes before Super Bowl XXMXVIIC comes on, wondering which connector goes where. You can say RTFM on the phone to your community, but you can't say it to your customers.
your needs are simple and you're going to make more money than you know what to do with either way, the person who delights in research is going to be content with a university position.
I'm sorry, but you seem to have used the phrases "university position" and "more money than you know what to do with" in the same sentence. We are forced to view your comment through special Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field Effect Glasses to check for credibility. These glasses will be available at Mac stores soon, packaged as the new iSmackMyHeadInDisbelief.
Don't forget that when they schedule a launch, there are a lot of people on the clock that are working longer hours than they might otherwise be. When there's a delay, they've all been on the clock for a long time, and then get to do it again (for example) the next day. Likewise with various contractors, support companies, etc. Keeping all of that spun up and ready is expensive, per day.
Does this mean if I receive spam from him, I'm legally allowed to shoot him?
You just have to say the magic words. It's very important to use your best Edward G. Robinson tone, of course: "He was trespassing, see. Yeah. And I was fearing for my safety, see. And the safety of my loved ones, see. Yeah, see."
It's important to be assertive about such statements. You can't sound hesitant, or imply any misgivings. That's why these are the two most useless words in the English language: "But, officer..."
Oh, and don't shoot them in the back. And if you do, stand them back up, and shoot them again in the front. Those CSI guys can figure it out, but once they've heard your Edward G. Robinson, they'll let it go.
Note: this is not good advice. Do not follow it, or taunt Happy Fun Ball, either.
I know that I.F. term has been invented long time ago by neocons
Invented? Militant Islamists have been Islamo-this or Islamic-that for hundreds of years - and they've given that name to themselves. The term "fascism" has been around since 1922, when Mussolini and his people launched the label. Since then, it's been an appropriate term for any number of organizations and ideologies. What's new is that people are finally calling the militant jihaddists what they really are. It's an ugly name for an ugly way of thinking - it fits perfectly.
And you are telling me that Bush is irrelevant?
Irrelevent to whether or not the chairman at HP used taps on phones to trace a leak of company information, you bet. Just as irrelevent as, say, a democrat congressman keeping $90k of his bribe in his freezer. Or as Bill Clinton giving incredible last-minute pardons to people whose families agree to pump millions into his operations just as he's leaving office. What sort of filter are you using, here? Oh, and BTW, the notion of referring to the militant jihaddi Islamic extremists as fascists has been around a long time. Witness the president of Iran, this month, purging that country's universities of people who don't tow his line, and forcing a change in the use of certain technological terms to focus on religious/nationalistic themes - it's all the usual, classic, perfectly fascist stuff. Would you prefer that NPR just invented a new word to mean the same things so you'd feel more comfortable hearing it talked about?
I cannot imagine the brain size of the moderators that moderated you up. Your 1-bit memory card cannot comprehend that behind your popularist Democrats, filthy Republicans and your "misunderestimated" President there are just people like myself who are sick and tied of your president, your parties, your stinking puppet congress and people you, that is certified utter idiots.
What makes you think I belong to any particular political party? What makes you think you know who I voted for? I'm probably more sick of politics than you are, and that's exactly why I made my comment. The idiot I was responding to drew a falacious connection - totally out of any context that makes any sense - between some boardroom nonsense at a big tech company (practices and habits that have gone on in a lot of big companies, some big charities, large girl scout troops, and a lot of big families, churches, bowling leages, cave clans, and wolf packs) and a political figure. It was a low-brow bit of karma-whoring to an audience that reflexively cheers on most any sentiment that leans that direction, baseless or not. You don't like politics? Then agree with me that the person who decided to whip up a political snark just because there was a telecommunications angle on the story was injecting it where it was pointless to put it. And when I call him on it, I get flamed by people like you for being political. That's fabulous!
I'm not sure myself, but if there were a bid then I'm sure a company or two would have appeared.
But that's the whole point. You can't name one, either.
In some industries, the people who shop for certain services already know the viable providers. A company that can roll in on short notice and do some of the things that certain companies can do (especially in the defense services area, or certain pieces of the aerospace industry, or nuclear subs, etc) requires billions in assets like people, equipment, liquid cash to fund their activites while they wait months (or years) to get paid, all sorts of pre-existing clearences and background checks, and so on. You can't just shop around for a short-term bid for that sort of stuff, and expect delivery in weeks or months. And the you DO go through those hoops, knowing that you can't actually sign a contract until all possible challenges have been arbitrated and so on... you're literally talking years. In the meantime, you've got military people in the field depending on all of this working along side of what they're doing in a hot zone.
The procurement process itself can costs millions more - money that does nothing but feed lawyers and contract specialists who don't actually do anything towards the efforts you're trying to actually pursue. I'm all for competitive shopping when it's rational, but sometimes the simple reality is that the timing and lack of experienced vendors just make it pointless to delay the procurement for months or years to no end (and without actually having what it is you're in need of).
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I do not think it is relevant. I do not think you want to debate the original statement on its merits. I think you are afraid.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you!
Look, just because it's fun to make Princess Bride jokes doesn't mean you're right.
Specifically, my very first comment on this identified my thoughts on the actual merits of the comment to which I replied. To wit: he's wrong. Read the damn thread. I dismissed his observation (about the chairperson at HP involving PIs to snoop on board members' phone calls as having been inspired by the president) as being a load of crap. There's no debate to be had on that subject, and that goes without saying. That also means that the only motivation for that person's comment was the hope for some cheap political haymaking. It's BS. The people who are afraid (since you use that word) are the ones that, rather than addressing my actual point, are doing their best to make this about semantics. I hope they're as embarassed as they should be.
Criticizing Bush is not the same as supporting the Democrats. Therefore it is not being partisan.
Those from his own camp that criticize him on immigration, or taxes, or spending, or defense, or monitoring international calls, etc., generally couch such criticism in a bit more context. It's in their own interest (as partisans) to do so. You can't, surely, think that people who (enough to actually have joined and remain a member of that party) call themselves republicans are going to toss around generalized smack-downs at their highest profile member without some caveats? Un-qualified, contextless jabs at a leading party official are the stuff of opponents. Bush's in-party critics don't handle it that way any more than democrats who don't love everything about Bill Clinton complain about what they don't like without a direct or implied tone of general support, lest they be mistaken for one of his more thorough detractors. That behavior, from partisans on both sides, is common enough and predictable enough to allow reasonable inferences such as mine. You know it, I know it, and the author of the comment knows it. What's interesting here, is the amount of trouble people are going to in hopes of getting readers to think that the comment was not from the lefter side of the spectrum. It's just silly, that's all.
Someone complaining about Nancy Pelosi's posture on some subject might (when being in her camp) say, "Well, she seems a little shrill on this particular topic, yes, but..." whereas her broader (usually, partisan) opponents would dispense with the "but" and just call her shrill. You'd know it when you saw it, just like with this thread.
The word "partisan" refers to support of a specific party. The original post made no mention of any political parties, even indirectly. It simply compared the actions of the President with the actions of Dunn.
Is it that you're a little foggy on which party the president belongs to? Or that you don't digest enough news, blog-trash, and slashdot groupthink to take in the general thrust of such simplistic, one-dimensional barbs? There isn't enough information in the comment to convey any nuance or perspective more complex than that which is seen. The reflexive, all-bad-things-relate-to-Bush flavor of spin correlates very strongly to the invective that issues forth from a particular idealogical camp. That camp's population correlates strongly to party. Hence the use of "partisan," and reasonably so.
The parent post is completely relevant and non-partisan. Leaders must lead with integrity and set the bar for the behaviour of those they govern. It's time to start holding *everyone* accountable for breaking privacy laws - those that lose customer information, CEO's, and elected officials.
OK, then perhaps the tone of the comment should have been aimed at more than one person? HP's BoD may be dealing with marketing and corporate espionage type issues, but they're not so much directly having to contend with people that seek to kill their customers. To suggest that this is all the same conversation is a little disengenuous, and to suggest that the GP was speaking in broad terms (and not looking for the first and most obvious way to take a wack at the administration) is likewise.
I didn't read anything partisan in the original post. He didn't even mention a political party. It looks like you've developed such an attachment to the guy in charge that you can't distinguish criticism of him from criticism of your home team.
OK, so I get it. You're actually not very intelligent. I'll help you out:
HP is a US-based company. So we can assume we're not talking about Britain or Germany, for example. He says "leader of our country." Not leaders (plural), not "past" leaders. Any reasonable person would infer that he's talking about the sitting president. That would be Bush. His party affiliation is not exactly a mystery (though mine is - what party do you think I belong to? Woops, you're wrong).
The comment was succinct ("An Example - 'The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations'"), but was in response to the clearly negative tone of the summary ("debacle," etc). The comment doesn't disagree with that editorial sentiment, so in chiming in with an "example" of how our "country's leader" is inspiring behavior among corporate executives, it's clear exactly what the comment is supposed to convey. Bad things at HP, bad president sets example. This has nothing to do with the degree to which I do or do not approve of the current administration's policies, or particular tactics and strategies related to a jillion different domestic, defense, economic, or other issues - it's a measure of my irritation with people that attempt to make sage-sounding political banter that they hope will appear to illuminate some sort of causality that is not there, certainly not in the context of the comment that was made.
The leader of our country sets an example for the leaders of our corporations
I think you're confusing "leader of our country" with every P.I. and divorce lawyer that's been practicing in the US since the turn of the last century. A powerful, private person with some axe to grind or a nasty leak to stop doesn't, and hasn't, needed any inspiration from any sitting president to pay some private spook team to find out what's happening. Doesn't make it all tasty and pleasant, but it also doesn't make a it a good fit for your partisan rantette.
Actually, I think that product is owned by Halliburton.
No, you're thinking of the folks like to assign all evil to Halliburton, but when asked to name other contractors that can step right up and provide the same experience and services in the same time frame in the same parts of the world tend to draw something of a blank. A cognitive blank, as it were.
Symantec Dementia isn't nearly as good as McAfee Attention Deficit Disorder or Trend Micro's Cognitive Dissonance.
If they are allowed to film you without explicit permission, why aren't you allowed to film them for your own personal protection?
... uh ... losing their shirts, well... buy your shirts somewhere else. Or, open up your own retail operation and get a big fat education on this subject the hard way. It only takes a small percentage of thieving asshats to make it actually very unpleasant to run a shop, big or small.
Because you're on their private property, and by being there, you agree to the terms and acknowledge the signs they post (you know, "Surveilence Technology In Use," etc).
It's so simple: if you don't like the atmosphere created by a retailer that's tired of losing their their shirts because they're
uh. . .isn't it "embarrassment"? not to nit-pick on spelling ;-)
That's exactly what I'm saying! I'm going to go have a beer, and then throw myself in front of a solar powered car.
Who cares if humans survive, honestly. why does the human race need to survive when it obviously cant maintain it's own planet properly.
I think you're right. If, after all these years, humans still can't grasp the difference between "its" and "it's," then we should probably all just die, and spare the universe from more embarassment.
Less salaries gives the appearance of more profit margins
Presuming you sell the same stuff the week after you hugely reduce your overhead as you did the week before, you've actually increased your profit margins, not just created the appearance. Even if your sales go down, they only have to go down less than the reduction in your overhead, and you've still actually improved your margins.