it says very clearly that he has a good job as a software developer. he has no money because he just moved cities and is currently paying two rents each month [old and new].
he can convert the laptop at a loss [time and money] and likely considerable inconvenience.
now if he gains a large amount of proiductivity by having the laptop as opposed to having to send data back and forth from the office or whatever, then he is saving/gaining money and time by having the laptop.
again, your argument was pretty baseless and lacked any appreciation for complexity. you saw it your way and decided that your very limted criteria in making that decision are the only relevant ones.
first, a basic laptop suitable for coding work can be had for considerably less that $1000. that is not an extreme expense, especially if work related and tax deductible.
second, you have no idea of where, when and how he acquired the laptop.
in closing, you are making some large assumptions and then jumping to a questionable conclusion that includes an attack on the person's character.
calling these acts mistakes does absolutely nothing for the victims and is a tactic meant to difuse the responsibility of the acting party.
the bottom line is that the usa undertook these actions. the other side has their own views about whether to call them mistakes or war crimes or whatever.
ask all of the asians in n america that were detained, had all of their possessions confiscated and were placed in internment camps how they feel about that.
all sides have plenty to be ashamed of and playing the 'their fault' game doesn't allow for the opportunity to learn from those mistakes.
sadly, war and terrorism are often synonymous in this highly unlevel playing field called the world. to some it is simply a matter of perspective: one man's guerilla warfare is another man's terrorism.
your last statement is logically flawed. you start off with the conclusion that you are certain to discover what you are looking for through the method you are using. there is plenty of evidence that this type of thinking finds exactly what it is looking for even if that 'it' doesn't really exist.
and finally, racial profiling is hardly pure statistical analysis.
he is saying that up to the present there has been no policy of attacking staellites, but that once we attack the first one this will change. he is saying there are lots of things common in war today that were once without precedent too.
that is the only way in which he is invoking the history of war: to illustrate that things change, to point out that there will likely be no turning back once we launch down this road and that the people most likely to suffer are the civilians.
way to remove the context from that statement. here it is in full:
"MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants."
this is a forward looking statement [eg 'sets a precedent'].
your statement that it is inaccurate because it has not happened in the past is a gross mischaracterization of what is actually being said.
these latest treaties are just icing on the cake / contingency plans. the us has been extorting foreign markets pretty effectively using the imf and world bank up to this point...
pornography is not a drug. just because YOU display addictive behaviour does not mean that the thing is a drug. calling it one uneccesarily confuses the discussion.
"The auditors concluded that USPTO's workforce problems arise from the lack of an effective management strategy for communicating and collaborating with examiners, outdated assumptions about production quotas that managers use to reward examiners and a lack of mandatory continued technical training for patent examiners."
"After the first year of training, examiners are on a production quota system in which, depending on grade level and complexity of the technology examined, they are given a certain amount of time to do an average application."
Slashdot Mirror
it says very clearly that he has a good job as a software developer. he has no money because he just moved cities and is currently paying two rents each month [old and new].
sum.zero
he can convert the laptop at a loss [time and money] and likely considerable inconvenience.
now if he gains a large amount of proiductivity by having the laptop as opposed to having to send data back and forth from the office or whatever, then he is saving/gaining money and time by having the laptop.
again, your argument was pretty baseless and lacked any appreciation for complexity. you saw it your way and decided that your very limted criteria in making that decision are the only relevant ones.
sum.zero
first, a basic laptop suitable for coding work can be had for considerably less that $1000. that is not an extreme expense, especially if work related and tax deductible.
second, you have no idea of where, when and how he acquired the laptop.
in closing, you are making some large assumptions and then jumping to a questionable conclusion that includes an attack on the person's character.
sum.zero
expecting him to not have own computer is just stupid.
sum.zero
calling these acts mistakes does absolutely nothing for the victims and is a tactic meant to difuse the responsibility of the acting party.
the bottom line is that the usa undertook these actions. the other side has their own views about whether to call them mistakes or war crimes or whatever.
ask all of the asians in n america that were detained, had all of their possessions confiscated and were placed in internment camps how they feel about that.
all sides have plenty to be ashamed of and playing the 'their fault' game doesn't allow for the opportunity to learn from those mistakes.
sadly, war and terrorism are often synonymous in this highly unlevel playing field called the world. to some it is simply a matter of perspective: one man's guerilla warfare is another man's terrorism.
your last statement is logically flawed. you start off with the conclusion that you are certain to discover what you are looking for through the method you are using. there is plenty of evidence that this type of thinking finds exactly what it is looking for even if that 'it' doesn't really exist.
and finally, racial profiling is hardly pure statistical analysis.
sum.zero
reported iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of us military action:
min 23,456 max 26,559
from the iraqi body count database
sum.zero
mcveigh 1:168 killed
arab terrorist 1:158 killed
sum.zero
posts should not be modded 'informative' when they have no links to sources and consist largely of opinion.
sum.zero
timothy mcveigh: white mail from the usa
ted kacynzki: white male from the usa
sum.zero
'free' as in freedom, not beer.
his argument is a strawman.
sum.zero
he is saying that up to the present there has been no policy of attacking staellites, but that once we attack the first one this will change. he is saying there are lots of things common in war today that were once without precedent too.
that is the only way in which he is invoking the history of war: to illustrate that things change, to point out that there will likely be no turning back once we launch down this road and that the people most likely to suffer are the civilians.
sum.zero
way to remove the context from that statement. here it is in full:
"MK: Weaponizing space would be very unwise. No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare. Whatever we do sets a precedent that others will follow. We depend so heavily on satellites to protect lives and wage war with a minimum of collateral damage. Attacks on satellites would mean that wars become a whole lot more difficult for our forces in the field and a lot more harmful to noncombatants."
this is a forward looking statement [eg 'sets a precedent'].
your statement that it is inaccurate because it has not happened in the past is a gross mischaracterization of what is actually being said.
sum.zero
these latest treaties are just icing on the cake / contingency plans. the us has been extorting foreign markets pretty effectively using the imf and world bank up to this point...
sum.zero
tell it to the windows logic users (~25%) that apple end of lifed when they aquired the company.
sum.zero
that is a quixotic quest.
sexually-oriented imagery and grafiti has existed as long as man has been able to leave a mark on a wall.
sum.zero
pornography is not a drug. just because YOU display addictive behaviour does not mean that the thing is a drug. calling it one uneccesarily confuses the discussion.
sum.zero
for those tours. that million was to be converted to shares when they went public so that xerox nets a profit and so does apple.
sweet deal, no?
sum.zero
is not unix.
end of story.
sum.zero
"The auditors concluded that USPTO's workforce problems arise from the lack of an effective management strategy for communicating and collaborating with examiners, outdated assumptions about production quotas that managers use to reward examiners and a lack of mandatory continued technical training for patent examiners."
sum.zero
"After the first year of training, examiners are on a production quota system in which, depending on grade level and complexity of the technology examined, they are given a certain amount of time to do an average application."
sum.zero
this text is not here.
sum.zero
i was specifically commenting on the parent's assertion that ms are under no obligation to provide ongoing patches to their customers...
sum.zero
ms windows is full of bugs, holes [intel would call them errata and not fix them].
windows update is primarily intended to push the fixes for these bugs and holes to your defective product.
ms markets the windows update functionality as a selling point of ms windows [stay up to date with windows/automatic update].
sure they can stop doing this, but it will anger their customers and may lead to some class actions for deceptive marketing practices...
sum.zero
this text is not here.
sum.zero
so say the people's front of judea!
sum.zero