It might be that Sinofsky was actually causing friction by trying to get different divisions to work together - and that this was viewed internally by some people as a 'power grab' - i.e., something that would loosen the reins of their own power.
Big companies can get very silo'd off, and the different silos can then become little empires. So then when someone comes along whose work and position touches a few different silos and tries to get some actual inter-silo planning and less duplication of effort, territoriality, etc. then pushback can happen.
So, to review your response, it's:
1) completely skipping over the Arizona point
2) completely skipping over that Romney refused to retract his endorsement of Murdouck, after Murdouck stated "pregnancy from rape is something God intended'
3) bringing up Democratic party ads that have nothing to do with the current question of Democrats being 'the party of hate',
4a) bringing up Democratic party past history of Jim Crow as if that is relevant to this recent election, which it's not,
4b) accusing Democrats of being racist because Democratic-voting *minorities* tend not to trust minority conservatives for being *conservatives*,
4c) and also accusing Democrats of being racist for trying to defeat Republicans ,
5) pretending that the Republican party has only pursued this nonsense of Obama being foreign-born because it was something once said by one of his publishers - as if that was enough reason to ignore every single shred of evidence ot the contrary, including the birth certificate he released while he was compaigning in 2008. Even though, as you state yourself, it wouldn't matter if Obama was born on the moon since his mother is a US citizen.
I mean, come on man.
Lolwut???
The Democrats as the party of hate and racism. Ok....
Yeah, the Democrats sure showed their true colors when they demanded cops have the right to inspect the papers of anyone who looks Spanish. Oh, and let's not forget how they kept saying Romney must have been born in another country against all evidence to the contrary. And their hate sure was in fine form when several of their candidates stated rape babies come from God so women just have to live with it, and the Democratic Party candidate refused to even retract their endorsements.
What's that, that was all the GOP and Romney? Why, that's crazy talk.
Generally agreed, I just would like to add that IMHO the Tea Party is an attempt to rebrand the Republican Party after the ruinous damage done to it's rep by George W. Bush. It is much more often rented astroturf for super-wealthy conservatives than it is any real grassroots org. So, I'll personally be shocked and stunned if something calling itself the Tea Party splits off from the Republican Party and becomes any sort of force to contend with - unless, as this separate party it remains a front for super-wealthy conservatives.
As long as she doesn't go anywhere near public office ever in her entire life, or any company that I or a friend are working for, or any institution that will have a significant impact on my life, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Agreed. People can show even more denial with this than with the Peak Oil problem we're going to be facing. Not the Pentagon; they're busy making plans and releasing public papers that point out the upcoming world shortages in water AND oil. But they're a bunch of pointy-headed eco-socialists apparently.
Chomsky appears to be talking solely about the origin of the WORD 'email' as it applies to enterprise-level communication systems, and pointing out that this guy used the word 'email' before BBN did.
This would be similar to correctly pointing out who came up with the word "television" - as opposed to who actually invented the first thing that was like television.
I see your point and agree re: a dry and clinical tone. I'm just not sure if it's biased to say "the earth is round" as opposed to "group A claims the earth is round, while group B maintains it's flat."
If the preponderance of evidence shows that group A is right and group B is wrong, is it bias to say that the evidence supports Group A?
Which has me skeptical as to whether the above investigation had a proper definition of "bias" - that is, if they just counted fact-supported theories vs. non-factual beliefs as equals that should both be presented.
Of course, I can just RTFA and make my own judgement on their methods. That's just actual work, and I'm already avoiding enough work by commenting here...
Is that "bias"? Or is that having accurately written articles?
Since there is no universal rule that I'm aware of that two sides of an argument must be equally right, there's no rule that either of two parties have to be equally right either.
Evolutionary science vs. creationism, climate science vs. climate change denial, and modified Keynesian theory (which actually works) vs. the laughably disproved "trickle-down" economics based on the Laffer curve (which does not) all shape up as Democratic Party vs. Republican party ideology. This is generally due to the liberal/conservative distribution among both parties.
One party really is more incorrect than the other, on all of the above issues. And more besides.
The University of California has submitted a formal letter objecting to the bill, estimating that the measure could increase administrative costs by up to $594,000 annually — money which would come out of the cash-strapped state's General Fund. The university has also expressed concern that its researchers would suffer competitive losses in obtaining research grants."
Too bad for them people's rights can be so inconvenient and costly. Oh well.
Called Celebrite. I thought it was supposed to be able to read all data off of SIMS and such.
http://ebongeek.com/2011/04/20/the-cellebrite-ufed-allows-law-enforcement-to-download-all-your-smart-phone-data/
I would think that a search warrant covering the phone would be enough for the FBI to run such a program - am I missing something here? Or is this due to some possibly technology-ignorant FBI possible boomer crying that Google doesn't automatically hand them everything they want through the magical power of the interwebs?
Request to mod up above. Encapsulatingly insightful.
I'd also be interested knowing whether if the scofflaw wealthy were born into their money, or were born working class. I suspect from my own anecdotal experience that those who've come from poor or working class backgrounds have more of a respect for their effect on those around them, even if those people are now economically peasants in comparison.
At least that way your money isn't going directly to the feudal overlords of the technology serfs. Of course, it's still dependent on those serfs to build it the first time..
Maybe Apple will start charging a premium for gear built only in humane conditions. From what I've heard, the money they save per iPad amounts to $65. I'm sure I'd pay that extra just so I didn't feel like I was killing people for my toy.
Making lobbying illegal will actually go a long way towards solving our current problems. That, and real campaign finance reform, so candidates don't have to spend all their time sucking up to corporations and billionaires in order to return to office.
But which hole is still an important choice. Also, whether or not the rapist will at least offer you healthcare, or tell you to depend on the Free Market to fix the damage.
I forgot to mention, also being brown and/or young and lower-middle-class, and thus being less likely to have access to a lawyer and make a stink about it.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be that Sinofsky was actually causing friction by trying to get different divisions to work together - and that this was viewed internally by some people as a 'power grab' - i.e., something that would loosen the reins of their own power.
Big companies can get very silo'd off, and the different silos can then become little empires. So then when someone comes along whose work and position touches a few different silos and tries to get some actual inter-silo planning and less duplication of effort, territoriality, etc. then pushback can happen.
So, to review your response, it's:
1) completely skipping over the Arizona point
2) completely skipping over that Romney refused to retract his endorsement of Murdouck, after Murdouck stated "pregnancy from rape is something God intended'
3) bringing up Democratic party ads that have nothing to do with the current question of Democrats being 'the party of hate',
4a) bringing up Democratic party past history of Jim Crow as if that is relevant to this recent election, which it's not, 4b) accusing Democrats of being racist because Democratic-voting *minorities* tend not to trust minority conservatives for being *conservatives*, 4c) and also accusing Democrats of being racist for trying to defeat Republicans ,
5) pretending that the Republican party has only pursued this nonsense of Obama being foreign-born because it was something once said by one of his publishers - as if that was enough reason to ignore every single shred of evidence ot the contrary, including the birth certificate he released while he was compaigning in 2008. Even though, as you state yourself, it wouldn't matter if Obama was born on the moon since his mother is a US citizen.
I mean, come on man.
Lolwut???
The Democrats as the party of hate and racism. Ok....
Yeah, the Democrats sure showed their true colors when they demanded cops have the right to inspect the papers of anyone who looks Spanish. Oh, and let's not forget how they kept saying Romney must have been born in another country against all evidence to the contrary. And their hate sure was in fine form when several of their candidates stated rape babies come from God so women just have to live with it, and the Democratic Party candidate refused to even retract their endorsements.
What's that, that was all the GOP and Romney? Why, that's crazy talk.
The Obama campaign probably had that many people in Ohio just getting the coffee.
Above is why Paul Krugman is one of the few people near the pundit class who is actually worth listening to.
Generally agreed, I just would like to add that IMHO the Tea Party is an attempt to rebrand the Republican Party after the ruinous damage done to it's rep by George W. Bush. It is much more often rented astroturf for super-wealthy conservatives than it is any real grassroots org. So, I'll personally be shocked and stunned if something calling itself the Tea Party splits off from the Republican Party and becomes any sort of force to contend with - unless, as this separate party it remains a front for super-wealthy conservatives.
When you have an OS that is specifically created for a specific hardware set you control, *everything* becomes simpler and easier.
As long as she doesn't go anywhere near public office ever in her entire life, or any company that I or a friend are working for, or any institution that will have a significant impact on my life, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Hopefully LIttle Snitch alerts about this, and can block it?
Agreed. People can show even more denial with this than with the Peak Oil problem we're going to be facing. Not the Pentagon; they're busy making plans and releasing public papers that point out the upcoming world shortages in water AND oil. But they're a bunch of pointy-headed eco-socialists apparently.
Chomsky appears to be talking solely about the origin of the WORD 'email' as it applies to enterprise-level communication systems, and pointing out that this guy used the word 'email' before BBN did.
This would be similar to correctly pointing out who came up with the word "television" - as opposed to who actually invented the first thing that was like television.
Peter Gabriel Genesis, or Phil Collins Genesis?
In response to your sig, you don't necessarily make the poor richer by making the rich richer either...just sayin'.
Sure, agreed. I expect that most wikipedia articles don't have that level of tone.
I see your point and agree re: a dry and clinical tone. I'm just not sure if it's biased to say "the earth is round" as opposed to "group A claims the earth is round, while group B maintains it's flat."
If the preponderance of evidence shows that group A is right and group B is wrong, is it bias to say that the evidence supports Group A?
Which has me skeptical as to whether the above investigation had a proper definition of "bias" - that is, if they just counted fact-supported theories vs. non-factual beliefs as equals that should both be presented.
Of course, I can just RTFA and make my own judgement on their methods. That's just actual work, and I'm already avoiding enough work by commenting here...
Is that "bias"? Or is that having accurately written articles?
Since there is no universal rule that I'm aware of that two sides of an argument must be equally right, there's no rule that either of two parties have to be equally right either.
Evolutionary science vs. creationism, climate science vs. climate change denial, and modified Keynesian theory (which actually works) vs. the laughably disproved "trickle-down" economics based on the Laffer curve (which does not) all shape up as Democratic Party vs. Republican party ideology. This is generally due to the liberal/conservative distribution among both parties.
One party really is more incorrect than the other, on all of the above issues. And more besides.
Too bad for them people's rights can be so inconvenient and costly. Oh well.
Called Celebrite. I thought it was supposed to be able to read all data off of SIMS and such. http://ebongeek.com/2011/04/20/the-cellebrite-ufed-allows-law-enforcement-to-download-all-your-smart-phone-data/ I would think that a search warrant covering the phone would be enough for the FBI to run such a program - am I missing something here? Or is this due to some possibly technology-ignorant FBI possible boomer crying that Google doesn't automatically hand them everything they want through the magical power of the interwebs?
Request to mod up above. Encapsulatingly insightful. I'd also be interested knowing whether if the scofflaw wealthy were born into their money, or were born working class. I suspect from my own anecdotal experience that those who've come from poor or working class backgrounds have more of a respect for their effect on those around them, even if those people are now economically peasants in comparison.
Whereas the Koch brothers have grown more ethical, because they want to remove all those awful unethical regulations on businesses.
At least that way your money isn't going directly to the feudal overlords of the technology serfs. Of course, it's still dependent on those serfs to build it the first time.. Maybe Apple will start charging a premium for gear built only in humane conditions. From what I've heard, the money they save per iPad amounts to $65. I'm sure I'd pay that extra just so I didn't feel like I was killing people for my toy.
Making lobbying illegal will actually go a long way towards solving our current problems. That, and real campaign finance reform, so candidates don't have to spend all their time sucking up to corporations and billionaires in order to return to office.
But which hole is still an important choice. Also, whether or not the rapist will at least offer you healthcare, or tell you to depend on the Free Market to fix the damage.
I forgot to mention, also being brown and/or young and lower-middle-class, and thus being less likely to have access to a lawyer and make a stink about it.
Oh, being some sort of Muslim or actually trying to change US policy in some way is usually a good start.