That's not a citation, that's wishful thinking. And even if it did play out exactly as you say, what you are describing is partisanship - criticism based on political party and while it is hypocrisy it isn't hypocrisy about terrorism, you are just as likely to see similar results for any political issue, like carbon credits, healthcare public mandate, etc.
However, on the other side there are the people who complain loudly about the governments actions but they are also the first ones who pop up to blame the government for not doing a enough.
Cite. Seriously, that canard is a big pet peeve of mine. I have yet to see an actual case of someone doing that other than "my friend's uncle."
then surely the fact that at least two of us came to those conclusions on different paths just strengthens my argument?
You came to whacked out conclusions in isolation - that's why you utterly lack the domain vocabulary, As for why you think we have taken "different paths" to the same conclusions, I am pretty sure that your ability to rationally perceive the world is significantly impaired because that ain't even close to what's going on here.
To be fair, the NSA was culpable for allowing 9/11 to happen. They had information that indicated that the perps were doing something. They also refused to share that info with the FBI and the CIA... It wasn't the first time either.
That culpability is premised on 100% effectiveness. That's an impossible standard for anyone, especially a bureaucracy. I blame the "culture of blame" as the root cause for the over-reaction. Societally we need to have realistic expectations. That isn't to say that government agency's shouldn't be accountable, but that the standards we set for that accountability have be to realistic, not impossible. Being 100% risk averse is to guarantee failure.
And who makes the law? Magic pixies that transcribe law books while everyone else sleeps?
The consensus of the population make the law, not the individual people involved with each event no matter how good-willed they may be. Again rule law of vs ruie of man. You accuse me of not understanding "buzzwords" that I use. I see now that is an argument from ignorance on your part, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the basic principles under discussion.
you tell me how North Korea applies to my opinions, then we continue this discussion.
Its telling that you predicate your participation in the discussion on the explication of a standard trope used in context. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your previous objection was just hyperbole. A dictatorship is about as close to pure rule of man as it gets - the laws on the books don't matter, the outcome of conflict is decided by whichever party involved has the most political strength, deferring up the chain of leadership, and is generally couched in self-serving language about doing the right thing for the country.
What you call "clever phraseology" is simply someone speaking at a level of understanding of the issues above what you have reached. Somewhat like what Clarke said about technology appearing as magic. Don't have so much confidence in your ignorance.
All of the big technical companies like HP, IBM, etc do what you are talking about, it's often referred to as "pre-sales technical engineering." It usually consists of engineers who have some development/support duties but are also made available to sales staff to bring in to their clients when the clients have a need but aren't necessarily sure as to what exactly are the technical solutions to that need.
For the most part those guys are salaried, just like all of the other engineers. I bet they get more bonuses though and I am also sure that different corps handle their compensation differently, there probably are some who get commission too. But, in the long-run paying them commission would probably undermine the customer's trust in their impartiality.
this is fucking pathetic of you slashdot, to pass this on. you are spreading ignorance
Totally. No one ever contradicts the premise of a story on slashdot. That just isn't the slashdot way. If the slashdot editors really cared about readers getting a more accurate understanding of a story, they would have some sort of way for other people to provide contrary evidence and opinions. Too bad slashdot is so totalitarian.
Men with no oversight are doing what they will in the name of national security because they've convinced themselves that they can't permit 9/11 to reoccur, and that it was their fault. They've driven themselves mad, falling into the mentality of "those who prefer security to freedom." It's not that they're innately cruel tyrants, or sadists, it's that they're paranoid and guilt-wracked
"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you." --Friedrich Nietzsche
If I'm pointing a camera in a public place, it's absolutely nobodies business why I might be doing that.
Then likewise it's nobody's business if I rip the camera out of your hands, stamp on it and tell you to stop trying to further your gains by feeding off of someone else's misery.
Holy, fucking, cow.
I suggest you move to North Korea where such things really are legally equivalent even if they will never be morally, because the US is clearly not the kind of country you want it to be.
ARP generally isn't a routable protocol, thus unless deliberately configured, the routers aren't going to pass an ARP packet. You've got a better chance of abusing ICMP to do what you want.
I just so happened to run across a discussion of intensity versus celestrial trackers the other day and the upshot was that on cloudy days the intensity trackers work much better. No one in the discussion spelled out why that was the case, but it was the result of empirical testing. My personal theory is that lots of water in the air can diffract the sun's rays enough so that the celestial position just doesn't line up with the effective position as seen from the ground.
Forget about crotch shot pics and twitter, try buying a house sometime. Suddenly just about everything about you is in the public records for web sites to mine and resell.
Get yourself a New Mexico LLC, it's a couple of hundred bucks and all the ownership information is totally private as long as there is no actual cash flow through the LLC. Then put the house title in the name of the LLC. This works best if you buy with cash and never title it in your name to start with. However, if you have to use a mortgage you can usually transfer title to the LLC a few months afterwards (or wait a year or two to make the paper-trail look like you really sold the house to someone new). As long as you keep up your mortgage payments the bank won't care that your transferred the title.
One of the side-benefits of putting the title in an LLC is that you can sell the LLC and effectively sell the house without anywhere near as much overhead. Generally good for probate too.
Believe it or not, all people with kids first actually went through a period (of varying length) where they did not have kids. They therefore do have a baseline to measure against.
Yeah, because the ONLY thing in their lives that has changed are the kids. You've clearly thought that one through.
I don't think one can rate happiness using a questionnaire. Not if the subjects consistently tell you that you got something wrong.
Who says they tell you that you got it wrong? This is all relative. You may think you are happy, but you know nothing about the happiness of the people without kids.
I've read the studies, they say parents THINK they're happier when in fact they're not? Sounds like the incoherent ramblings of someone with some pretty hefty baggage from their own youth.
No, I don't think you have read the studies. The studies had people answer fairly standard questions about life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, mental well-being, etc. Then when the results were grouped by whether the person was a parent or not, the parental group averaged significantly less than the non-parents.
There are lots of theories as to why there is such a strong and repeatable divide in self-rated happiness levels, but it doesn't really matter - no "hefty baggage" is required to see that the actual results are heavily biased against being a parent. If there is any "baggage" here, it's from the guy trying to deny these straightforward, self-reported measurements by slagging them off as "incoherent ramblings."
Treating them like they're Al Qaeda or something is just looking for trouble.
Actually, Al Qaeda (translation "the base") is probably the closest well-known organization there is to Anonymous. "Al Qaeda" is a essentially a brand-name that anyone who wants can use for themselves. For example "Al Qaeda in Iraq" initially had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. They just took on the name, probably to intimidate the Americans. It was only after they were pretty succesfull that they linked up with Osama's branch.
That's not my premise at all, just an observation that people tend to view "non-profit foundation/association/organisation" as the same as a charity, therefore the people working for them must really really believe in The Cause (whatever it may be), yet in reality a non-profit organisation is just another organisation.
And a charity is just another organization too. Like I said no organization, not even "charities," have people who "really really believe in The Cause" such that they all work for free. You've set up a strawman in your own head.
...criticizing liars associated with a political party makes you *partisan*!
Having seen a lot of vitriol both for and against fox, I really can't tell which side you are arguing for. The pro-fox people seem to think Fox fairly criticises the democratic party and their backers while the anti-fox people think that Fox honestly deserves criticism for lying their ass off in support of the republican party and their backers. Either way, the equivalent of your statement has been made by both sides hundreds, if not thousands of times before.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a citation, that's wishful thinking. And even if it did play out exactly as you say, what you are describing is partisanship - criticism based on political party and while it is hypocrisy it isn't hypocrisy about terrorism, you are just as likely to see similar results for any political issue, like carbon credits, healthcare public mandate, etc.
However, on the other side there are the people who complain loudly about the governments actions but they are also the first ones who pop up to blame the government for not doing a enough.
Cite. Seriously, that canard is a big pet peeve of mine. I have yet to see an actual case of someone doing that other than "my friend's uncle."
then surely the fact that at least two of us came to those conclusions on different paths just strengthens my argument?
You came to whacked out conclusions in isolation - that's why you utterly lack the domain vocabulary, As for why you think we have taken "different paths" to the same conclusions, I am pretty sure that your ability to rationally perceive the world is significantly impaired because that ain't even close to what's going on here.
To be fair, the NSA was culpable for allowing 9/11 to happen. They had information that indicated that the perps were doing something. They also refused to share that info with the FBI and the CIA... It wasn't the first time either.
That culpability is premised on 100% effectiveness. That's an impossible standard for anyone, especially a bureaucracy. I blame the "culture of blame" as the root cause for the over-reaction. Societally we need to have realistic expectations. That isn't to say that government agency's shouldn't be accountable, but that the standards we set for that accountability have be to realistic, not impossible. Being 100% risk averse is to guarantee failure.
And who makes the law? Magic pixies that transcribe law books while everyone else sleeps?
The consensus of the population make the law, not the individual people involved with each event no matter how good-willed they may be. Again rule law of vs ruie of man. You accuse me of not understanding "buzzwords" that I use. I see now that is an argument from ignorance on your part, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the basic principles under discussion.
you tell me how North Korea applies to my opinions, then we continue this discussion.
Its telling that you predicate your participation in the discussion on the explication of a standard trope used in context. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your previous objection was just hyperbole. A dictatorship is about as close to pure rule of man as it gets - the laws on the books don't matter, the outcome of conflict is decided by whichever party involved has the most political strength, deferring up the chain of leadership, and is generally couched in self-serving language about doing the right thing for the country.
What you call "clever phraseology" is simply someone speaking at a level of understanding of the issues above what you have reached. Somewhat like what Clarke said about technology appearing as magic. Don't have so much confidence in your ignorance.
All of the big technical companies like HP, IBM, etc do what you are talking about, it's often referred to as "pre-sales technical engineering." It usually consists of engineers who have some development/support duties but are also made available to sales staff to bring in to their clients when the clients have a need but aren't necessarily sure as to what exactly are the technical solutions to that need.
For the most part those guys are salaried, just like all of the other engineers. I bet they get more bonuses though and I am also sure that different corps handle their compensation differently, there probably are some who get commission too. But, in the long-run paying them commission would probably undermine the customer's trust in their impartiality.
I fail to see the point you are making
I suspect you are constitutionally incapable of seeing the point.
any society under any governmental type falls apart if most people in that society don't work towards maintaining that society.
And the means by which that is most effectively accomplished is via law.
this is fucking pathetic of you slashdot, to pass this on. you are spreading ignorance
Totally. No one ever contradicts the premise of a story on slashdot. That just isn't the slashdot way. If the slashdot editors really cared about readers getting a more accurate understanding of a story, they would have some sort of way for other people to provide contrary evidence and opinions. Too bad slashdot is so totalitarian.
You can write as many fucking laws as you want
You are making the standard rule of man over rule of law argument. Again, see North Korea for how that works out.
Men with no oversight are doing what they will in the name of national security because they've convinced themselves that they can't permit 9/11 to reoccur, and that it was their fault. They've driven themselves mad, falling into the mentality of "those who prefer security to freedom." It's not that they're innately cruel tyrants, or sadists, it's that they're paranoid and guilt-wracked
"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
If I'm pointing a camera in a public place, it's absolutely nobodies business why I might be doing that.
Then likewise it's nobody's business if I rip the camera out of your hands, stamp on it and tell you to stop trying to further your gains by feeding off of someone else's misery.
Holy, fucking, cow.
I suggest you move to North Korea where such things really are legally equivalent even if they will never be morally, because the US is clearly not the kind of country you want it to be.
It's not illegal to film them,
It is in at least the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
ARP generally isn't a routable protocol, thus unless deliberately configured, the routers aren't going to pass an ARP packet. You've got a better chance of abusing ICMP to do what you want.
I just so happened to run across a discussion of intensity versus celestrial trackers the other day and the upshot was that on cloudy days the intensity trackers work much better. No one in the discussion spelled out why that was the case, but it was the result of empirical testing. My personal theory is that lots of water in the air can diffract the sun's rays enough so that the celestial position just doesn't line up with the effective position as seen from the ground.
Forget about crotch shot pics and twitter, try buying a house sometime. Suddenly just about everything about you is in the public records for web sites to mine and resell.
Get yourself a New Mexico LLC, it's a couple of hundred bucks and all the ownership information is totally private as long as there is no actual cash flow through the LLC. Then put the house title in the name of the LLC. This works best if you buy with cash and never title it in your name to start with. However, if you have to use a mortgage you can usually transfer title to the LLC a few months afterwards (or wait a year or two to make the paper-trail look like you really sold the house to someone new). As long as you keep up your mortgage payments the bank won't care that your transferred the title.
One of the side-benefits of putting the title in an LLC is that you can sell the LLC and effectively sell the house without anywhere near as much overhead. Generally good for probate too.
If I think I'm happy, isn't that all that matters, to me?
The Jim Jones congregation was happy.
Believe it or not, all people with kids first actually went through a period (of varying length) where they did not have kids. They therefore do have a baseline to measure against.
Yeah, because the ONLY thing in their lives that has changed are the kids. You've clearly thought that one through.
I don't think one can rate happiness using a questionnaire. Not if the subjects consistently tell you that you got something wrong.
Who says they tell you that you got it wrong? This is all relative. You may think you are happy, but you know nothing about the happiness of the people without kids.
I've read the studies, they say parents THINK they're happier when in fact they're not? Sounds like the incoherent ramblings of someone with some pretty hefty baggage from their own youth.
No, I don't think you have read the studies. The studies had people answer fairly standard questions about life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, mental well-being, etc. Then when the results were grouped by whether the person was a parent or not, the parental group averaged significantly less than the non-parents.
There are lots of theories as to why there is such a strong and repeatable divide in self-rated happiness levels, but it doesn't really matter - no "hefty baggage" is required to see that the actual results are heavily biased against being a parent. If there is any "baggage" here, it's from the guy trying to deny these straightforward, self-reported measurements by slagging them off as "incoherent ramblings."
I work at McDonalds, I cum in your McFlurry. I don't give a fuck.
Seems to me that is pretty close to the literal definition of giving a fuck.
Treating them like they're Al Qaeda or something is just looking for trouble.
Actually, Al Qaeda (translation "the base") is probably the closest well-known organization there is to Anonymous. "Al Qaeda" is a essentially a brand-name that anyone who wants can use for themselves. For example "Al Qaeda in Iraq" initially had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. They just took on the name, probably to intimidate the Americans. It was only after they were pretty succesfull that they linked up with Osama's branch.
Seems his auto-correct changed a lot of "happen" to "happy". If any editor is watching this, could you guys fix that?
I think it is kind of cool. Maybe he even did it on purpose, it gives the answers a whimsical vibe.
That's not my premise at all, just an observation that people tend to view "non-profit foundation/association/organisation" as the same as a charity, therefore the people working for them must really really believe in The Cause (whatever it may be), yet in reality a non-profit organisation is just another organisation.
And a charity is just another organization too. Like I said no organization, not even "charities," have people who "really really believe in The Cause" such that they all work for free. You've set up a strawman in your own head.
...criticizing liars associated with a political party makes you *partisan*!
Having seen a lot of vitriol both for and against fox, I really can't tell which side you are arguing for. The pro-fox people seem to think Fox fairly criticises the democratic party and their backers while the anti-fox people think that Fox honestly deserves criticism for lying their ass off in support of the republican party and their backers. Either way, the equivalent of your statement has been made by both sides hundreds, if not thousands of times before.
We aren't going to change each other's opinions. For what it's worth: I am not a US citizen so I see more good in his actions than you do.
I don't think citizenship has anything to do with it.
I think the difference can be boiled down to which version of this quote a person prefers:
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"
-- Stephen Decatur, 1816
or
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
-- Carl Schurz, 1872