"Here's a tip, if you're Muslim, don't hang out with people who are shady. Just like if you're white, don't tattoo a swastika on your forehead and scream mein kempf all day."
Thanks for supporting his point. You're saying that we're all supposed to just "conform" out of fear that our innocuous differences will cause us to be singled out as a threat and punished by the authorities? What kind of a society is that?
I don't know how you define "shady", but as long as they're not participating in criminal activity, I'll hang out with whoever the hell I want to. I'll also get whatever tattoos I desire, and exercise my right to Free Speech (in a normal tone of voice) as I see fit. You shouldn't have to "follow the herd" just to avoid harassment.
P.S. Why would anyone go around screaming "My Struggle"?
You do realize that the point here is in taking SCRAP silicon wafers and putting them to productive use? They're not claiming that semiconductor quality silicon is "THE ANSWER" for low cost/low energy manufacture of photovoltaic cells. They've just developed a process that allows them to use material that would otherwise go to a landfill for production of solar energy.
Thank goodness! Now we'll have yet another source of officially sanitized bullshit with "experts" and "academics" telling us what to think.
I'm sure that there are exceptions, but the Wikipedia articles that pertain to topics in hard science, mathematics, etc. don't usually contain "disputed" content or missing references. If someone has misrepresented Newton's laws or Euclidean geometry in an article, it's not going to survive long.
You typically see persisting dispute or "citation needed" on articles pertaining to history, religion, politics, etc. When it comes to topics that are inherently subjective, why is the bias of a "recognized expert" superior to the bias of a collection of people participating in the writing of the article? I'd much rather read content with full knowledge that some of the "facts" are disputed, or require references than to read something presented as the unbiased "truth" just because some "expert" or "academic" gave it a seal of approval.
Let the experts and academics spew their regurgitated crap through the major publishing houses and mainstream media outlets. Leave the Wikipedia's of the world to a plurality of interested amateurs.
"It's a shortened version of "mathematics", which is a plural."
Hmmmmmm? If that's true, then would something like geometry rightly be called a "mathematic"? I think "mathematics" is a singular "field of study" like "Physics". Maths just sounds too strange to me. I'll stick with "Math" and hope that people know what I mean.
Q: "Remind me; which Article explicitely guarantees your privacy?"
(Is that you Mr. Gonzalez?)
A: There isn't one.
Now, tell me which Article explicitly grants the Federal government power to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens?
The whole POINT of The Constitution is that The People have inalienable rights that do not need to be explicitly elaborated. The Constitution places limits on the power of government, not limits on the freedom of the citizens.
I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
No, it seems like it's business as usual for the rubber stamp Congress. Just another obvious sign that we're really under single party rule.
The Republicans and Democrats create a good illusion of opposition by criticizing each other verbally, and staging a few bitter debates about BS issues like flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion. When it comes to important issues like civil liberties, imperialistic military crusades, out of control government spending, immigration and globalization however, they happily work together in the noble spirit of bipartisanship to screw over the average U.S. citizen.
The only wasted vote is one cast for Republicans or Democrats. It's a vote against civil liberties, a vote to endorse the wars, and a vote to continue all of the other disastrous policies that our government is pursuing.
The OP claimed that they knew people(more than 1?) who had been fired for using "vulgar language" in a meeting. I think that's indicative of nitpicking authoritarian business culture which I would want no part of.
In your scenario, there's a clear difference between one of your co-workers criticizing your code person to person and some guy from another group trashing it in front of a group during a meeting, regardless of word choice.
"What are swear words but various words that people are taught to take offense to?"
+5 Insightful
Curse words, heresy, blasphemy, political correctness, etc. All arbitrary societal bullshit. Seems like certain people just aren't happy unless they have something to be offended about and they keep dreaming up new things to fulfill their needs.
" I know people who got fired for use of vulgar language in meetings... how can getting fired be healthy for you?"
If your management is anal enough to fire a good employee because they happened to utter a few fucking expletives, I'd say leave now. Can't be a fun place to work knowing that you're a few WORDS away from losing your job at any moment.
Let me know what company fired someone for "vulgar language" so I can be damned sure that I never take a job with them.
The parent did state that there was not another OS that a user could "easily" switch to. Your criticism of Linux appropriately highlights the difficulties in that, and I wouldn't describe the option of throwing away your computer and buying a MAC as evidence of choice in the OS market.
"Anyone can go into any computer store and buy a computer that doesn't have Windows."
That's just not true. Until recently, NONE of the major computer makers (Dell, IBM, HP) would sell you a PC with Linux installed, nor would they sell you one without a Windows OEM license.("Just re-format the hard drive." said the kindly Dell salesperson).
Windows remains dominant because Microsoft used its "early" position as a market leader to strong arm computer vendors into selling ONLY Windows PCs. It was: "put Windows on 100% of your computers" or "we won't sell you any copies of Windows". THAT is what gave them monopoly power in the PC market. It's only natural that most people became accustomed to the Windows OS, and that the majority of smaller software makers designed their products to run on Windows.
You have some valid points, and I know that there is a certain amount of irrationally rabid anti-MS sentiment. Just don't try to pretend that everyone started out on a level playing field, and Microsoft gained 95+% of the OS market simply because the "competition" couldn't deliver a viable alternative.
"Sorry, but I heard that argument last time Nader ran. There really *is* a difference".
How so? You stated plainly in your original post that the Democratic Congress has:
-continued support for the wars -supports the Patriot Act -has basically given expostfacto endorsement for warrantless wiretapping etc.
If the Democrats won't stop the wars, and are OK with eroding our civil liberties, what is the "damage" you think they are going to undo? They certainly won't attempt to get government spending under control, or do anything to stop illegal immigration.
" . . . biggest issue in this election is unquestionably Iraq War II"
I agree, and it's unfortunate that none of the leading candidates in either of the two major parties genuinely oppose the war.
"The next president will manage the disengagement in Iraq (yes, it's inevitable)"
Inevitable? I sure as hell hope you're right, but I see very little evidence to indicate that. What makes you think we'll disengage from Iraq anytime in the next 5 years? The will of the people? LOL. I think we'll be fortunate if the next President(or the current one) doesn't get us into a war with Iran!
"I've watched this congress gain a Democrat majority, yet continue reauthorizing the war, continue the patriot act, reauthorize wiretapping..."
Indeed. A vote for either of these two parties is a wasted vote. They'll argue bitterly over BS issues like flag burning and school prayer, but in the end they'll agree to pass laws which prolong the wars, destroy civil liberties, keep the borders open to illegal immigration and drive our country further into debt.
Now that you've realized there is no difference between the two major parties, it's time to start voting for someone else. Vote Green, vote Libertarian, Constitution, Progressive, Communist, or whatever. Anyone but Republicans or Democrats.
IIRC, something like this was attempted once before with disastrous results! The Bayblonians tried to build a giant tower to be closer to God and he made all the workers start talking different languages so the construction project couldn't proceed. God will probably make this device scramble their brains as punishment for their prideful indiscretions.
I don't see why the government should be empowered to restrict citizens on the basis of "need". Think about all of the things you have which fall outside the criteria of what might constitute "necessities". Should the jolly good government be able to arbitrarily deprive you of anything it deems that you don't "need"?
"Upward trend" I'd believe. "Vast majority" significantly increases my doubt regarding the truthfulness of the statements or the reliability of the data they are based on.
We should force the Federal Government OUT of our public school system entirely. Get rid of ALL Federal mandates, gut the Department of Education, and distribute previously allocated funds(and money saved by removal of worthless bureaucrats) equitably among the states.
Washington DC is a fantasy land where people far removed from the trenches of the public education system dream up idiotic(if well-intentioned) laws like NCLB and then force it on our schools without adequate funding. They are, in effect, controlling even more of our education dollars by forcing schools to waste resources to comply with their ridiculous mandates(under threat of removing ALL funding of course).
The teachers, parents, and interested people from the LOCAL community(e.g. school board members) should be the ones in control of the funding and policies of the public school system(perhaps with some limited participation from the states). The parents(most of them) and teachers have the strongest interest in the quality of education the kids are receiving, AND they are in the best position to implement meaningful and beneficial change because they are completely in touch with the day to day realities of their school system. They can certainly do better than a "one size fits all" Federal education law.
"Unfortunately there is that standard problem with any slashdotter boycott. We are not a big enough percentage of the whole population to cause sony any grief."
True enough. I think it would be better if every single/.er who thinks this is an outrage would take the time to send an e-mail, make a phone call, or send a letter/postcard to Sony explaining their anger and letting the company know(or think that) a boycott was in progress. Tell Sony you're going to trash their products in word-of-mouth advertising as well. If you're really pissed, threaten to write a bunch of bad reviews of their products on consumer electronics web sites. I'm not sure it would cause them any real "grief", but they'd definitely notice that more than they'd notice any revenue hit from a silent/. boycott.
I'm in the market for a new TV, and Sony just excluded themselves from my research and decision making process. I'll make sure they hear about it later today.
"Using old computers is not very green . ..I say skip the energy waste and toss them out now!"
That's a rather narrow perspective of "green". There are environmental issues besides energy use and CO2 emissions. Computers contain any number of nasty materials like lead, cadmium, mercury, barium, etc. Not to mention gobs of plastic which required energy and petroleum to produce.
I think it's hard to argue that extending the useful lifetime of a computer is somehow a bad thing.
You can't win with a government regulator. In my experience, the best bet is to just appease them until they leave you alone. Forget arguing on the basis of technical expertise, the spirit of the law and simple logic.
Stories like this really hit a sore spot with me. Having grown up working in a small family business, you get ENDLESS streams of these fools prying into every aspect of your operations, trying to shape the world into some bureaucratic model they dreamed up in their air conditioned offices. A power-tripping regulator is worse than a power tripping cop. In my experience, the most important thing is that you bend to their POWER and threats. If their mission was REALLY workplace safety, environmental protection, consumer protection, etc. they would exercise some common sense in applying the letter of the law. e.g. It's probably better to have some Atari 2600 cartridges sitting on a shelf for longer than 30 days than to have them tossed into a landfill.
'Chicagoans should go out of their way to act "suspicious"'
That will work until big brother makes it a crime to "act suspicious" under the premise that it's deliberate interference with law enforcement activities, and therefore a threat public safety.
Slashdot Mirror
"Here's a tip, if you're Muslim, don't hang out with people who are shady. Just like if you're white, don't tattoo a swastika on your forehead and scream mein kempf all day."
Thanks for supporting his point. You're saying that we're all supposed to just "conform" out of fear that our innocuous differences will cause us to be singled out as a threat and punished by the authorities? What kind of a society is that?
I don't know how you define "shady", but as long as they're not participating in criminal activity, I'll hang out with whoever the hell I want to. I'll also get whatever tattoos I desire, and exercise my right to Free Speech (in a normal tone of voice) as I see fit. You shouldn't have to "follow the herd" just to avoid harassment.
P.S. Why would anyone go around screaming "My Struggle"?
You do realize that the point here is in taking SCRAP silicon wafers and putting them to productive use? They're not claiming that semiconductor quality silicon is "THE ANSWER" for low cost/low energy manufacture of photovoltaic cells. They've just developed a process that allows them to use material that would otherwise go to a landfill for production of solar energy.
Thank goodness! Now we'll have yet another source of officially sanitized bullshit with "experts" and "academics" telling us what to think.
I'm sure that there are exceptions, but the Wikipedia articles that pertain to topics in hard science, mathematics, etc. don't usually contain "disputed" content or missing references. If someone has misrepresented Newton's laws or Euclidean geometry in an article, it's not going to survive long.
You typically see persisting dispute or "citation needed" on articles pertaining to history, religion, politics, etc. When it comes to topics that are inherently subjective, why is the bias of a "recognized expert" superior to the bias of a collection of people participating in the writing of the article? I'd much rather read content with full knowledge that some of the "facts" are disputed, or require references than to read something presented as the unbiased "truth" just because some "expert" or "academic" gave it a seal of approval.
Let the experts and academics spew their regurgitated crap through the major publishing houses and mainstream media outlets. Leave the Wikipedia's of the world to a plurality of interested amateurs.
(WAY off topic)
"It's a shortened version of "mathematics", which is a plural."
Hmmmmmm? If that's true, then would something like geometry rightly be called a "mathematic"? I think "mathematics" is a singular "field of study" like "Physics". Maths just sounds too strange to me. I'll stick with "Math" and hope that people know what I mean.
My first thought on the story is "Why is NASA doing this sort of study?". Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the NTSB and/or FAA?
Time to get rid of some government waste and redundancy.
The Republicans and Democrats out maneuvered The People.
Q: "Remind me; which Article explicitely guarantees your privacy?"
(Is that you Mr. Gonzalez?)
A: There isn't one.
Now, tell me which Article explicitly grants the Federal government power to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens?
The whole POINT of The Constitution is that The People have inalienable rights that do not need to be explicitly elaborated. The Constitution places limits on the power of government, not limits on the freedom of the citizens.
I thought things were supposed to "change" now that the Democrats were in power?
No, it seems like it's business as usual for the rubber stamp Congress. Just another obvious sign that we're really under single party rule.
The Republicans and Democrats create a good illusion of opposition by criticizing each other verbally, and staging a few bitter debates about BS issues like flag burning, prayer in schools and abortion. When it comes to important issues like civil liberties, imperialistic military crusades, out of control government spending, immigration and globalization however, they happily work together in the noble spirit of bipartisanship to screw over the average U.S. citizen.
The only wasted vote is one cast for Republicans or Democrats. It's a vote against civil liberties, a vote to endorse the wars, and a vote to continue all of the other disastrous policies that our government is pursuing.
The OP claimed that they knew people(more than 1?) who had been fired for using "vulgar language" in a meeting. I think that's indicative of nitpicking authoritarian business culture which I would want no part of.
In your scenario, there's a clear difference between one of your co-workers criticizing your code person to person and some guy from another group trashing it in front of a group during a meeting, regardless of word choice.
"What are swear words but various words that people are taught to take offense to?"
+5 Insightful
Curse words, heresy, blasphemy, political correctness, etc. All arbitrary societal bullshit. Seems like certain people just aren't happy unless they have something to be offended about and they keep dreaming up new things to fulfill their needs.
Is that you Sandy?
" I know people who got fired for use of vulgar language in meetings ... how can getting fired be healthy for you?"
If your management is anal enough to fire a good employee because they happened to utter a few fucking expletives, I'd say leave now. Can't be a fun place to work knowing that you're a few WORDS away from losing your job at any moment.
Let me know what company fired someone for "vulgar language" so I can be damned sure that I never take a job with them.
The parent did state that there was not another OS that a user could "easily" switch to. Your criticism of Linux appropriately highlights the difficulties in that, and I wouldn't describe the option of throwing away your computer and buying a MAC as evidence of choice in the OS market.
"Anyone can go into any computer store and buy a computer that doesn't have Windows."
That's just not true. Until recently, NONE of the major computer makers (Dell, IBM, HP) would sell you a PC with Linux installed, nor would they sell you one without a Windows OEM license.("Just re-format the hard drive." said the kindly Dell salesperson).
Windows remains dominant because Microsoft used its "early" position as a market leader to strong arm computer vendors into selling ONLY Windows PCs. It was: "put Windows on 100% of your computers" or "we won't sell you any copies of Windows". THAT is what gave them monopoly power in the PC market. It's only natural that most people became accustomed to the Windows OS, and that the majority of smaller software makers designed their products to run on Windows.
You have some valid points, and I know that there is a certain amount of irrationally rabid anti-MS sentiment. Just don't try to pretend that everyone started out on a level playing field, and Microsoft gained 95+% of the OS market simply because the "competition" couldn't deliver a viable alternative.
"Sorry, but I heard that argument last time Nader ran. There really *is* a difference".
How so? You stated plainly in your original post that the Democratic Congress has:
-continued support for the wars
-supports the Patriot Act
-has basically given expostfacto endorsement for warrantless wiretapping
etc.
If the Democrats won't stop the wars, and are OK with eroding our civil liberties, what is the "damage" you think they are going to undo? They certainly won't attempt to get government spending under control, or do anything to stop illegal immigration.
" . . . biggest issue in this election is unquestionably Iraq War II"
I agree, and it's unfortunate that none of the leading candidates in either of the two major parties genuinely oppose the war.
"The next president will manage the disengagement in Iraq (yes, it's inevitable)"
Inevitable? I sure as hell hope you're right, but I see very little evidence to indicate that. What makes you think we'll disengage from Iraq anytime in the next 5 years? The will of the people? LOL. I think we'll be fortunate if the next President(or the current one) doesn't get us into a war with Iran!
"I've watched this congress gain a Democrat majority, yet continue reauthorizing the war, continue the patriot act, reauthorize wiretapping..."
Indeed. A vote for either of these two parties is a wasted vote. They'll argue bitterly over BS issues like flag burning and school prayer, but in the end they'll agree to pass laws which prolong the wars, destroy civil liberties, keep the borders open to illegal immigration and drive our country further into debt.
Now that you've realized there is no difference between the two major parties, it's time to start voting for someone else. Vote Green, vote Libertarian, Constitution, Progressive, Communist, or whatever. Anyone but Republicans or Democrats.
IIRC, something like this was attempted once before with disastrous results! The Bayblonians tried to build a giant tower to be closer to God and he made all the workers start talking different languages so the construction project couldn't proceed. God will probably make this device scramble their brains as punishment for their prideful indiscretions.
"I don't see why anyone needs this book anyway."
I don't see why the government should be empowered to restrict citizens on the basis of "need". Think about all of the things you have which fall outside the criteria of what might constitute "necessities". Should the jolly good government be able to arbitrarily deprive you of anything it deems that you don't "need"?
" . . .upward trend in linux based phishing . . ."
"Upward trend" I'd believe. "Vast majority" significantly increases my doubt regarding the truthfulness of the statements or the reliability of the data they are based on.
We should force the Federal Government OUT of our public school system entirely. Get rid of ALL Federal mandates, gut the Department of Education, and distribute previously allocated funds(and money saved by removal of worthless bureaucrats) equitably among the states.
Washington DC is a fantasy land where people far removed from the trenches of the public education system dream up idiotic(if well-intentioned) laws like NCLB and then force it on our schools without adequate funding. They are, in effect, controlling even more of our education dollars by forcing schools to waste resources to comply with their ridiculous mandates(under threat of removing ALL funding of course).
The teachers, parents, and interested people from the LOCAL community(e.g. school board members) should be the ones in control of the funding and policies of the public school system(perhaps with some limited participation from the states). The parents(most of them) and teachers have the strongest interest in the quality of education the kids are receiving, AND they are in the best position to implement meaningful and beneficial change because they are completely in touch with the day to day realities of their school system. They can certainly do better than a "one size fits all" Federal education law.
"Unfortunately there is that standard problem with any slashdotter boycott. We are not a big enough percentage of the whole population to cause sony any grief."
/.er who thinks this is an outrage would take the time to send an e-mail, make a phone call, or send a letter/postcard to Sony explaining their anger and letting the company know(or think that) a boycott was in progress. Tell Sony you're going to trash their products in word-of-mouth advertising as well. If you're really pissed, threaten to write a bunch of bad reviews of their products on consumer electronics web sites. I'm not sure it would cause them any real "grief", but they'd definitely notice that more than they'd notice any revenue hit from a silent /. boycott.
True enough. I think it would be better if every single
I'm in the market for a new TV, and Sony just excluded themselves from my research and decision making process. I'll make sure they hear about it later today.
"Using old computers is not very green . . .I say skip the energy waste and toss them out now!"
That's a rather narrow perspective of "green". There are environmental issues besides energy use and CO2 emissions. Computers contain any number of nasty materials like lead, cadmium, mercury, barium, etc. Not to mention gobs of plastic which required energy and petroleum to produce.
I think it's hard to argue that extending the useful lifetime of a computer is somehow a bad thing.
You can't win with a government regulator. In my experience, the best bet is to just appease them until they leave you alone. Forget arguing on the basis of technical expertise, the spirit of the law and simple logic.
Stories like this really hit a sore spot with me. Having grown up working in a small family business, you get ENDLESS streams of these fools prying into every aspect of your operations, trying to shape the world into some bureaucratic model they dreamed up in their air conditioned offices. A power-tripping regulator is worse than a power tripping cop. In my experience, the most important thing is that you bend to their POWER and threats. If their mission was REALLY workplace safety, environmental protection, consumer protection, etc. they would exercise some common sense in applying the letter of the law. e.g. It's probably better to have some Atari 2600 cartridges sitting on a shelf for longer than 30 days than to have them tossed into a landfill.
'Chicagoans should go out of their way to act "suspicious"'
That will work until big brother makes it a crime to "act suspicious" under the premise that it's deliberate interference with law enforcement activities, and therefore a threat public safety.
"Does anyone know what these taxes are for?"
They cover the cost of the government agencies monitoring all Internet traffic.