Here's a phrase that's worked quite well for me, and I don't mind spreading it around: I would like to speak to your manager.
Don't take out your anger on the little guy, aim it at the right person. And besides, who says that you have to be angry about it. I think people are getting much to adversarial.
Or in any of the areas of the human brain that are hypertrophic homologues of chimp brains. In english: any of the areas that look like they are outgrowths of similar regions in chimp brains.
/.'ers are usually quite homogenous in their opinions, but usually they like to argue over the finer points to hating Microsoft. But the response to this article so far has been a resounding monotonous whine.
Point well taken. He could have made the video without exposing the flaw. Though I wonder how seriously people might take him if he hadn't. Anyway, the coast gaurd is going to have to fix the problem now that he has outed it. This might have been his intention (notice I wrote might).
Personally I expect govt contractors do this kind of stuff five times before they even get to breakfast every day.
Now I don't have that expectation. I know that they do stuff like this all the time, but I think that "expect" is the wrong word, at least for the way I see it. I expect them to behave ethically and make the best product available for the taxpayers and the soldiers (are people in the coast gaurd considered soldiers?). What they do in reality has nothing to do with my expectations of them, much like my children.
No. Now that's been done. The only thing you can do now is buy some space on a billboard and plant a picture of your manager on it with the words "this person steals sauce!"
In the article it said that he was fired shortly after he posted the video, but he knew before hand that he was going to get canned. I wonder how much of his actions reflect wanting retribution or just having nothing to lose.
A. Taste is subjective.
B. Alton Brown says that the best tasting parts of the cow are the ones furthest from the hooves and the horns. I tend to agree.
C. It is also a well known fact that Eskimos have somewhere between 40 and 400 words for snow. In reality they have as many as we do.
We all know that Microsoft's software is insecure and shouldn't be used. I think the/. editors post these stories to let frustrated network administrators vent.
I don't have the non-violent answer to Hitler, but that does not mean that one does not exist. Just because you think there is a violent response to Hitler, does that mean you know the right way to attack? That's why pacifism is an ideal that I try to achieve. I put my energies towards a non-violent solution, rather than violence itself. The Germany that created WWII was the result of horribly punative policies following WWI. It seems that the solution to ending war maybe to work towards things like ending poverty, universal education, and equality. These are the things that I concentrate on. I work for peace, not against war.
You wrote: If the Jews had practiced non-violent resistanct it would have been that much easier to kill them.
What you seem to think pacifism is is exactly what the Jews did when the Nazis tried to kill them. That is not what pacifism is. Pacifism is peacefull non-compliance. The Jews really could have tried to stand up for themselves both violently and non-violently. I highly suggest you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_resistance.
You wrote:
My problem is that pacifists think non-pacifists believe everything can and should be solved with violence.
This is a gross generalization. Who are you to tell me what I think? That is not, in fact, what I think. You have just made a sweeping false generalization of a class of people that you think do the same thing to you. There are smug, arogant pacifists in this world, and it sounds like you have met a few in your time, and I'm sorry for that. But would you want the most arrogant people among whatever class of person you belong to representing what people think of you?
As a pacifist I've run into this misconception many times. Many people think that not being violent means standing idly by while people die. This is not the case. What pacifism means is that non-violent solutions for problems like the haulocaust should be sought. Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, this generally requires faith. Not necessarily faith in a supreme deity but in the nature of human beings. One of the things that Gandhi sought was to bring out the good in the British ruling class so they would see that what they were doing was wrong. To me that requires a great amount of faith, and a great amount of courage. This relies on a couple of things: 1. Most people if not all have good in them; 2. The amount of good people always outnumbers the bad in any population. Unfortunately they can be led to do bad things, but this does not taint who they are permanently and they are still capable of good.
I do not believe as a general principle that human beings are bad, just that most of them are dangerously ignorant.
History is never what it seems. How many Americans still believe that the Civil War was actually about states rights? The fact that the Soviets tried to create pacifists through propaganda is meaningless. There's a maxim in advertising(the greatest propaganda machine ever known): "you know you're wasting half of you investment, but the question is which half?". Just b/c the Soviets tried to influence people does not mean that they were successfull.
You wrote: A life without conflict is impossible and a naive dream of pacifists.
As a pacifist, I know that life without conflict is impossible. I choose to seek non-violent means to resolve conflict. Speak for yourself next time.
I don't think it wasn't so much that the 64-bit wasn't ready, but that Apple wanted to keep the initial price down so they could really compete with PC notebooks. I think this is the root of the quality issues they are having as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought he would die of cancer, or heart attack at age 90. Who knew that chasing wild animals to pin them down could be so dangerous?
Here's a phrase that's worked quite well for me, and I don't mind spreading it around:
I would like to speak to your manager.
Don't take out your anger on the little guy, aim it at the right person. And besides, who says that you have to be angry about it. I think people are getting much to adversarial.
Three words:
unbreakable diamond fillament.
Or in any of the areas of the human brain that are hypertrophic homologues of chimp brains. In english: any of the areas that look like they are outgrowths of similar regions in chimp brains.
/.'ers are usually quite homogenous in their opinions, but usually they like to argue over the finer points to hating Microsoft. But the response to this article so far has been a resounding monotonous whine.
Point well taken. He could have made the video without exposing the flaw. Though I wonder how seriously people might take him if he hadn't. Anyway, the coast gaurd is going to have to fix the problem now that he has outed it. This might have been his intention (notice I wrote might).
Personally I expect govt contractors do this kind of stuff five times before they even get to breakfast every day.
Now I don't have that expectation. I know that they do stuff like this all the time, but I think that "expect" is the wrong word, at least for the way I see it. I expect them to behave ethically and make the best product available for the taxpayers and the soldiers (are people in the coast gaurd considered soldiers?). What they do in reality has nothing to do with my expectations of them, much like my children.
now you've just told anybody who's interested (in a bad way) how to take advantage of the flaw. Thanks.
This might be enlightening for you:
Security through obscurity
All you have to do is get a job at the Hermitage appearently.
No. Now that's been done. The only thing you can do now is buy some space on a billboard and plant a picture of your manager on it with the words "this person steals sauce!"
He's already been fired, but according to Lockheed he knew that he was going to get fired before he made the video.
In the article it said that he was fired shortly after he posted the video, but he knew before hand that he was going to get canned. I wonder how much of his actions reflect wanting retribution or just having nothing to lose.
It took me long enough to find this but here's the actual youtube video.
I've been wating for someone to say something like this:
I for one welcome our new flashing neon pantyhose wearing overlords.
That's funny because my father was killed by implosive affricates.
Oh yeah?
I for one welcome our new overlords.
A. Taste is subjective.
B. Alton Brown says that the best tasting parts of the cow are the ones furthest from the hooves and the horns. I tend to agree.
C. It is also a well known fact that Eskimos have somewhere between 40 and 400 words for snow. In reality they have as many as we do.
You wrote: you're not a pacifist. But you're still an idiot.
You crossed the line.
You are a wase of my time. I tried being civil but you would rather name call. This conversation is over.
We all know that Microsoft's software is insecure and shouldn't be used. I think the /. editors post these stories to let frustrated network administrators vent.
I don't have the non-violent answer to Hitler, but that does not mean that one does not exist. Just because you think there is a violent response to Hitler, does that mean you know the right way to attack? That's why pacifism is an ideal that I try to achieve. I put my energies towards a non-violent solution, rather than violence itself. The Germany that created WWII was the result of horribly punative policies following WWI. It seems that the solution to ending war maybe to work towards things like ending poverty, universal education, and equality. These are the things that I concentrate on. I work for peace, not against war.
You wrote: If the Jews had practiced non-violent resistanct it would have been that much easier to kill them.
What you seem to think pacifism is is exactly what the Jews did when the Nazis tried to kill them. That is not what pacifism is. Pacifism is peacefull non-compliance. The Jews really could have tried to stand up for themselves both violently and non-violently. I highly suggest you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_resistance.
You wrote: My problem is that pacifists think non-pacifists believe everything can and should be solved with violence.
This is a gross generalization. Who are you to tell me what I think? That is not, in fact, what I think. You have just made a sweeping false generalization of a class of people that you think do the same thing to you. There are smug, arogant pacifists in this world, and it sounds like you have met a few in your time, and I'm sorry for that. But would you want the most arrogant people among whatever class of person you belong to representing what people think of you?
As a pacifist I've run into this misconception many times. Many people think that not being violent means standing idly by while people die. This is not the case. What pacifism means is that non-violent solutions for problems like the haulocaust should be sought. Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, this generally requires faith. Not necessarily faith in a supreme deity but in the nature of human beings. One of the things that Gandhi sought was to bring out the good in the British ruling class so they would see that what they were doing was wrong. To me that requires a great amount of faith, and a great amount of courage. This relies on a couple of things: 1. Most people if not all have good in them; 2. The amount of good people always outnumbers the bad in any population. Unfortunately they can be led to do bad things, but this does not taint who they are permanently and they are still capable of good.
I do not believe as a general principle that human beings are bad, just that most of them are dangerously ignorant.
History is never what it seems. How many Americans still believe that the Civil War was actually about states rights? The fact that the Soviets tried to create pacifists through propaganda is meaningless. There's a maxim in advertising(the greatest propaganda machine ever known): "you know you're wasting half of you investment, but the question is which half?". Just b/c the Soviets tried to influence people does not mean that they were successfull.
You wrote: A life without conflict is impossible and a naive dream of pacifists.
As a pacifist, I know that life without conflict is impossible. I choose to seek non-violent means to resolve conflict. Speak for yourself next time.
I don't think it wasn't so much that the 64-bit wasn't ready, but that Apple wanted to keep the initial price down so they could really compete with PC notebooks. I think this is the root of the quality issues they are having as well.