Partly basing someone's intelligence off of their 'ethical intelligence' isn't a good idea. Take Leonardo da Vinci for example. He was a homosexual. If I was inclined to believe that homosexuality was ethically wrong, I would then believe that Leonardo da Vinci wasn't smart.
I'll remember that ethics is a field of philosophy so long as you remember that what is considered ethical changes from person to person. It just so happens that Rove believes that the ends justify the means. Karl Rove is a political strategist. A very effective one at that too. His job is to see the consequences of his (and other's) actions and to plan around them. To me, he's a classic Machiavellian politician.
The current state of politics (in America atleast) is one where there are very few restrictions on what is acceptable. Do you rememeber Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad, the one with the girl and the mushroom cloud? Do you remember Cheney implying that if Kerry won, 'the terrorists' would attack the United States? Can these be perceived as 'unethical' to some? Yes. Were they smart moves? In my opinion. Did they work? They worked perfectly.
I believe that Rove is a very intelligent man, and I respect him for that trait. I'd rather have someone intelligent running the government than some clueless fool. However, I do not agree with most of his views. Once again, a man can be smart, and believe the opposite of what you believe.
I'm sure that was meant as a joke (atleast I hope it was), but that's taking it too far.
The Republicans have some very smart people in their party, just look at Rove. When you take away your bias towards him, he's a great political strategist. He'd have to be to get Bush elected.
Just because you don't agree with someone's views, doesn't make them unintelligent.
I've never understood the idea of releasing your programs as betas and then not giving *any* support if something goes wrong. It's basically saying "Here, this is a cool program. Report any bugs you have, but we won't fix any damage our code does."
Firstly, I, and others, have seen posts posted right after stories are 'aired' (for lack of a better word) that say that "Tripmaster Monnkey" should be an editor. Now, unless some other subscriber is posting these messages,from the mysterious future, on your behalf, without your permission, that does mean you want to be an editor.
Secondly, your last point would be true in an place where there was some higher power over the editors. There is none on Slashdot. The editors are the one who decide who gets to be another editor.
What I have found interesting is that over the years, the boundaries of what constitutes a party have changed. For example, when the first liberals came around, they wanted much bigger business, as well as freedoms for the people. The reason for this was to diminish the power of the monarchs. Then, the conservatives came and they were for the monarchs to return (or stay) in power. Thus, they were for big government.
I'm not quite sure when this changed, but from my studies I believe the catalyst was right after the second World War, or perhaps the Great Depression. Of course, the process of the switch had been going on for many decades, but these events seem to be the ones that cemented it.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the fact that you can't get good old games as easily (read: legally) like good shakespeare and good old movies.
Other than that, yeah, sure. There is no difference.
What ever happened to Kane in RA1? I don't remember.
And C&C: Generals had nothing to do with the C&C games, it was just throwing the name on to sell more copies.
What Apple (or any other company) can possibly do to avoid such situations???
Maybe they could patent everything about their own product first?
Just an idea.
I can't believe that I'm defending Karl Rove.
Partly basing someone's intelligence off of their 'ethical intelligence' isn't a good idea. Take Leonardo da Vinci for example. He was a homosexual. If I was inclined to believe that homosexuality was ethically wrong, I would then believe that Leonardo da Vinci wasn't smart.
I'll remember that ethics is a field of philosophy so long as you remember that what is considered ethical changes from person to person. It just so happens that Rove believes that the ends justify the means. Karl Rove is a political strategist. A very effective one at that too. His job is to see the consequences of his (and other's) actions and to plan around them. To me, he's a classic Machiavellian politician.
The current state of politics (in America atleast) is one where there are very few restrictions on what is acceptable. Do you rememeber Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad, the one with the girl and the mushroom cloud? Do you remember Cheney implying that if Kerry won, 'the terrorists' would attack the United States? Can these be perceived as 'unethical' to some? Yes. Were they smart moves? In my opinion. Did they work? They worked perfectly.
I believe that Rove is a very intelligent man, and I respect him for that trait. I'd rather have someone intelligent running the government than some clueless fool. However, I do not agree with most of his views. Once again, a man can be smart, and believe the opposite of what you believe.
Well yeah, when you are (a) God, you can do things like that.
I'm sure that was meant as a joke (atleast I hope it was), but that's taking it too far.
The Republicans have some very smart people in their party, just look at Rove. When you take away your bias towards him, he's a great political strategist. He'd have to be to get Bush elected.
Just because you don't agree with someone's views, doesn't make them unintelligent.
How can it sound like something that hasn't even been announced?
You may as well say that Duke Nukem Forever will be like the yet-to-be-announced Half-Life 3.
When the BBC runs it like this.
Especially with that pic of Bill.
Oh sure, you won't resent it at all since you'll never buy it.
But what about the masses?
They had to make theivery 'bad' somehow, make it special. That's why they did all that stuff.
Is it realistic? Not at all. But something was needed, and that's what they put in.
I guess it's not MySpace anymore, but OurSpace...
Of course, but it's also possible to have MS slip in some monkey porn in those updates too.
Possible, but not that probable.
So simply by adding 'beta' in front of a program's name, the creators are absolved of all bad things that happen to a device due to their products?
I know what the word 'beta' means in the context of software. I was stating that I don't like that practice.
Yeah, I was thinking that the whole time.
I've never understood the idea of releasing your programs as betas and then not giving *any* support if something goes wrong. It's basically saying "Here, this is a cool program. Report any bugs you have, but we won't fix any damage our code does."
A few problems with your statements too.
Firstly, I, and others, have seen posts posted right after stories are 'aired' (for lack of a better word) that say that "Tripmaster Monnkey" should be an editor. Now, unless some other subscriber is posting these messages,from the mysterious future, on your behalf, without your permission, that does mean you want to be an editor.
Secondly, your last point would be true in an place where there was some higher power over the editors. There is none on Slashdot. The editors are the one who decide who gets to be another editor.
You know, for someone who wants to be an editor, it probably isn't the best to berrate the editors.
Nope, it stimulates sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads to shoot the missiles down.
The world is 70% covered with water y'know.
They asked college guys if they liked drugs and alcohol after playing GTA?
They probably liked them before GTA!
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't it be advantageous to get rid of all your debt?
No one thought of that.
What? You're glad that you aren't helping the Fight Against the Islamic Terrorists?
You must be one of them!
There was a replacement fiasco?
And the 'd' key is right next to the 's' key.
What I have found interesting is that over the years, the boundaries of what constitutes a party have changed. For example, when the first liberals came around, they wanted much bigger business, as well as freedoms for the people. The reason for this was to diminish the power of the monarchs. Then, the conservatives came and they were for the monarchs to return (or stay) in power. Thus, they were for big government.
I'm not quite sure when this changed, but from my studies I believe the catalyst was right after the second World War, or perhaps the Great Depression. Of course, the process of the switch had been going on for many decades, but these events seem to be the ones that cemented it.