No, they're not. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are satirizing Glen Beck. Glen Beck is serious. That's the difference. The point of this type of satire is to draw attention to the absurdity of the thing/person/event being made fun of by imitating its form and taking the ridiculous characteristics ad absurdam.
he probably posted when it was still in the firehose. i've noticed when i post in the firehose, my post tends to disappear for a while after the story hits the main page.
That's the same bullshit argument as "its your fault you got robbed because you left your house unlocked while you walked to 7-11 to buy cigarettes and taquitos, but ran into a friend on the way back and got held up for 15 minutes."
Just because you don't lock the door doesn't mean its not the thief's fault you got robbed.
Spec4 is an E-4 (pay grade) Specialist. Corporals are also an E-4 pay grade, but are the lowest rung of non-commissioned officer in the Army.
He probably should have been flagged during background checks for his clearance, but apparently he wasn't. It doesn't sound like he had access to anything that he wasn't really supposed to be able to get at in order to do his job. He was just an unscrupulous jackass with no sense of responsibility who apparently hadn't had it beaten into him effectively enough.
The information wasn't leaked "by the military" (which makes it sounds like some sort of official, counter-intelligence op). It was leaked by one guy -- a SPEC4, not even a non-com, who had a history of being not that stable. He chose to leak it to people who had a reputation for, and a history of, publishing documents whether they really should or not.
WikiLeaks is culpable in that, had they not been in existence, chances are the information never would have been stolen in the first place. Most reputable news agencies wouldn't touch it, allied governments probably already had most of it, and i doubt that other than operational specifics, much of it would have been news to the Russians or the Chinese, for example.
Why bother stealing something you can't fence? Wikileaks provided the culprit with a willing recipient and the ability to pretend like he was doing something morally justified, as opposed to pulling a John Walker and selling it to foreign intelligence (in which case, I doubt anyone here would have any qualms over his being hung for treason, 'cause that's what the theft of classified documents basically boils down to).
How did you get any of that out of the segment that you quoted? He never said that they didn't or shouldn't be allowed to use computers. Its just that the more you know about a subject, the more your perspective on that subject changes. What some people might consider a technical skill is something that other people might just take for granted. A network engineer or game developer probably takes typing skills or web browsing for granted and doesn't consider those "technical" compared to their own field.
When I worked at a web hosting company, we once had a customer call in to complain that javascript and flash weren't running on our servers. Of course, they aren't supposed to....
That's an interesting point of view on the 2nd amendment. Personally, even though I am am my self a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I find that most people would be too lazy to even attempt an armed revolution, and the ones that talk the most about it are in the least position, physically, to be able to withstand the demands of guerrilla warfare. Its mostly the Vietnam vet generation, like my dad, who have had too much beer and too many years behind them to make a decent revolution. They're the same old people bitching at these tea party rallies.
I think that the inaction is inevitable, but not because people are "willing to risk being peaceful" but because hardly anyone is stupid enough is willing to risk NOT being peaceful if they have to do it by themselves, because the "masses" that agree with them are in no shape to actually help them.
Every little girl wants a pony, and my sister got a damned $20,000 thoroughbred. The way I viewed, my parents needed to even up the balance sheet. At least the stuff I was into was marginally educational. My sister isn't employed riding horses.
I would have fully paid the $999 for the BSD/OS license when I was in high school, but they rolled back a bunch of the stuff into FreeBSD, which I could buy for about $30 (this was in dialup days still, and i didn't have the time to actually download stuff that big). I did pay the $150 or whatever for XiG accelerated X server, because it ran better through Linux ABI that XFree86 did natively.
If you've been around the floss stuff for a while, it can rub off some, but frankly, the older I get the less I care about the politics of "free software" or whatever. I don't mind paying to get something that works and saves me time, rather than cobbling together a less-than-optimal solution for geek credit.
Or, from Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "I do have a test today, that wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car. "
Back in the day before "desktops" we had these things called window managers. And as a system admin, if a project is too big to be fixed with Perl, then it probably requires something in C. These are just my personal feelings on the matter though. I did buy a Mac 'cause I was sick of poor power management and lame wifi support on both FreeBSD and Linux, though. I have servers I don't run GUIs on, and I have VMWare for small experiments. I'm happy with the setup.
Underrated? I'd say he's overrated in that he doesn't even really deserve the controversy. Theo De Raadt is more worth debating (and only just a little more), but the OpenBSD project, whether you use it or not, is responsible for OpenSSL and OpenSSH and damned near the entire world relies on those. I don't think I've consciously used a Mono-based piece of software ever, and don't particularly care for Gnome since its started to get lame, or KDE which has always been lame.
Plus, Oracle didn't show anything about Java that people didn't already know: Java's not really entirely free as in "its my sexy software, i'll do what i want", and Oracle isn't as friendly about things as Sun. a.net CLI thats perpetually playing catch-up with Microsoft's version isn't going to be a replacement for Java in any meaningful way that I can see, and its not like we'd be any worse off without either, anyway.
Terrorism thrives on the ability of a small incident to provoke a grossly asymmetric over-reaction, thus swaying general public opinion against the larger party. A few cases in point:
- Bloody Sunday of 1920, when the IRA killed 14 British intelligence officers in Dublin. In response, the British Auxilliary units (Black and Tans) shot up Croke Park during a GAA football match, killing 14 civilians, and then executed 3 prisoners of war. This solidified support on the Irish side for the Republicans, and also caused a great deal of distress in England. There were mass demonstrations in London against continued occupation of Ireland at the price of gunning down civilians.
- Hamas lobs unguided rockets in the general direction of Israel, and usually they land in vacant lots and no one is hurt. Eventually, the IDF rolls into Gaza with tanks and helicopter gunships and starts wrecking shop, then puts up a blockade to try and starve civilians into compliance. This then gets Israel a bad rap in the international press and court of public opinion. Do you really think Likud would be willing to go to peace talks, even with Fatteh, if not for the recent scandal with the murder of civilian aid workers on board the Turkish ships attempting to run the Gaza blockade?
I could go on. There are more examples, these are just fairly big examples of where the reaction provoked was grossly out of line with the original offense. Frankly, I think that the only way to really defeat the terrorist tactic is to not let them provoke the reaction they're looking for. Basically just ignore them. Eventually they'll do something that really needs to be dealt with, but you don't occupy a country in response to a building. This is why we have a CIA and special forces. Targeted assassinations are a proportionate response. The marines are there to fight countries, not terrorists.
If we had dropped a bunch of Green Berets into Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden rather than waiting for a month wagging a stick at the Taliban hoping for extradition, then this whole thing would have been over and no one would have said we did the wrong thing. As it stands, the US looks like a bunch of bullies going around stepping on ant hills because the new kid in town didn't know we were supposed to be the toughest kid in the school.
they have intellectual property to protect, too. don't forget -- we have to stop filesharing services because they provide movies, music and kiddy pr0n. the *aa says so, so they must be lumping it in as protected content.
Yeah, the post subject was the joke, and was mildly amusing. The post body could just as easily have been in any thread and still probably been off topic, if not trollish. Just sayin'.
Interesting fact, Fritz Haber won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing synthesized ammonium nitrate. He also weaponized chlorine gas and invented zyklon B (ironic, as he was Jewish himself). He's probably responsible for more death in the world than just about anyone, while simultaneously being responsible for a massive boon to agriculture (which, when mixed with diesel fuel, brought us the OKC bomb).
your cane sugar is cheaper than our hfcs because we have tariffs on the sugar and you don't. then the price of hfcs can be raised above what the market would otherwise pay for it, if sugar weren't being propped up. It's a friggin' cabal is what it is.
I was actually going for 'funny' with a South Park reference to the episode where Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Butters kidnap a bunch of veal cows and hold them hostage until the FDA changes the name of veal to 'tortured baby cows,' but apparently that was lost on people, which is sad because the episode featured Mr. Warf who they made the FBI get to drive them and the truck full of veal cows to the airport.
No, its sugar lobbyists as much, if not more, than corn lobbyists. The US has import tariffs on foreign cane sugar to prop up the price of the domestic stuff, which makes it too expensive to use in wide-scale production here. That's why foreign versions of Coke and Pepsi products are made with real sugar, where as we get the cheap corn shit.
I was a lobbyist myself for a non-profit social organization in a past career. I was at a luncheon fundraiser in DC for a congressman from a midwestern, corn-raising state and was seated across from a sugar lobbyist, and in between a guy from Raytheon and a guy from Microsoft. The sugar lobbyist was the biggest asshole of the three, too.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're not. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are satirizing Glen Beck. Glen Beck is serious. That's the difference. The point of this type of satire is to draw attention to the absurdity of the thing/person/event being made fun of by imitating its form and taking the ridiculous characteristics ad absurdam.
he probably posted when it was still in the firehose. i've noticed when i post in the firehose, my post tends to disappear for a while after the story hits the main page.
shouldn't it be "provider" and not "provided?" the difference is subtle, yet profound...
That's the same bullshit argument as "its your fault you got robbed because you left your house unlocked while you walked to 7-11 to buy cigarettes and taquitos, but ran into a friend on the way back and got held up for 15 minutes."
Just because you don't lock the door doesn't mean its not the thief's fault you got robbed.
Spec4 is an E-4 (pay grade) Specialist. Corporals are also an E-4 pay grade, but are the lowest rung of non-commissioned officer in the Army.
He probably should have been flagged during background checks for his clearance, but apparently he wasn't. It doesn't sound like he had access to anything that he wasn't really supposed to be able to get at in order to do his job. He was just an unscrupulous jackass with no sense of responsibility who apparently hadn't had it beaten into him effectively enough.
The information wasn't leaked "by the military" (which makes it sounds like some sort of official, counter-intelligence op). It was leaked by one guy -- a SPEC4, not even a non-com, who had a history of being not that stable. He chose to leak it to people who had a reputation for, and a history of, publishing documents whether they really should or not.
WikiLeaks is culpable in that, had they not been in existence, chances are the information never would have been stolen in the first place. Most reputable news agencies wouldn't touch it, allied governments probably already had most of it, and i doubt that other than operational specifics, much of it would have been news to the Russians or the Chinese, for example.
Why bother stealing something you can't fence? Wikileaks provided the culprit with a willing recipient and the ability to pretend like he was doing something morally justified, as opposed to pulling a John Walker and selling it to foreign intelligence (in which case, I doubt anyone here would have any qualms over his being hung for treason, 'cause that's what the theft of classified documents basically boils down to).
How did you get any of that out of the segment that you quoted? He never said that they didn't or shouldn't be allowed to use computers. Its just that the more you know about a subject, the more your perspective on that subject changes. What some people might consider a technical skill is something that other people might just take for granted. A network engineer or game developer probably takes typing skills or web browsing for granted and doesn't consider those "technical" compared to their own field.
welcome to the world of ubuntu?
When I worked at a web hosting company, we once had a customer call in to complain that javascript and flash weren't running on our servers. Of course, they aren't supposed to....
That's an interesting point of view on the 2nd amendment. Personally, even though I am am my self a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder, I find that most people would be too lazy to even attempt an armed revolution, and the ones that talk the most about it are in the least position, physically, to be able to withstand the demands of guerrilla warfare. Its mostly the Vietnam vet generation, like my dad, who have had too much beer and too many years behind them to make a decent revolution. They're the same old people bitching at these tea party rallies.
I think that the inaction is inevitable, but not because people are "willing to risk being peaceful" but because hardly anyone is stupid enough is willing to risk NOT being peaceful if they have to do it by themselves, because the "masses" that agree with them are in no shape to actually help them.
Every little girl wants a pony, and my sister got a damned $20,000 thoroughbred. The way I viewed, my parents needed to even up the balance sheet. At least the stuff I was into was marginally educational. My sister isn't employed riding horses.
I would have fully paid the $999 for the BSD/OS license when I was in high school, but they rolled back a bunch of the stuff into FreeBSD, which I could buy for about $30 (this was in dialup days still, and i didn't have the time to actually download stuff that big). I did pay the $150 or whatever for XiG accelerated X server, because it ran better through Linux ABI that XFree86 did natively.
If you've been around the floss stuff for a while, it can rub off some, but frankly, the older I get the less I care about the politics of "free software" or whatever. I don't mind paying to get something that works and saves me time, rather than cobbling together a less-than-optimal solution for geek credit.
Or, from Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "I do have a test today, that wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European. I don't plan on being European. So who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't own a car. "
Back in the day before "desktops" we had these things called window managers. And as a system admin, if a project is too big to be fixed with Perl, then it probably requires something in C. These are just my personal feelings on the matter though. I did buy a Mac 'cause I was sick of poor power management and lame wifi support on both FreeBSD and Linux, though. I have servers I don't run GUIs on, and I have VMWare for small experiments. I'm happy with the setup.
Underrated? I'd say he's overrated in that he doesn't even really deserve the controversy. Theo De Raadt is more worth debating (and only just a little more), but the OpenBSD project, whether you use it or not, is responsible for OpenSSL and OpenSSH and damned near the entire world relies on those. I don't think I've consciously used a Mono-based piece of software ever, and don't particularly care for Gnome since its started to get lame, or KDE which has always been lame.
Plus, Oracle didn't show anything about Java that people didn't already know: Java's not really entirely free as in "its my sexy software, i'll do what i want", and Oracle isn't as friendly about things as Sun. a .net CLI thats perpetually playing catch-up with Microsoft's version isn't going to be a replacement for Java in any meaningful way that I can see, and its not like we'd be any worse off without either, anyway.
Terrorism thrives on the ability of a small incident to provoke a grossly asymmetric over-reaction, thus swaying general public opinion against the larger party. A few cases in point:
- Bloody Sunday of 1920, when the IRA killed 14 British intelligence officers in Dublin. In response, the British Auxilliary units (Black and Tans) shot up Croke Park during a GAA football match, killing 14 civilians, and then executed 3 prisoners of war. This solidified support on the Irish side for the Republicans, and also caused a great deal of distress in England. There were mass demonstrations in London against continued occupation of Ireland at the price of gunning down civilians.
- Hamas lobs unguided rockets in the general direction of Israel, and usually they land in vacant lots and no one is hurt. Eventually, the IDF rolls into Gaza with tanks and helicopter gunships and starts wrecking shop, then puts up a blockade to try and starve civilians into compliance. This then gets Israel a bad rap in the international press and court of public opinion. Do you really think Likud would be willing to go to peace talks, even with Fatteh, if not for the recent scandal with the murder of civilian aid workers on board the Turkish ships attempting to run the Gaza blockade?
I could go on. There are more examples, these are just fairly big examples of where the reaction provoked was grossly out of line with the original offense. Frankly, I think that the only way to really defeat the terrorist tactic is to not let them provoke the reaction they're looking for. Basically just ignore them. Eventually they'll do something that really needs to be dealt with, but you don't occupy a country in response to a building. This is why we have a CIA and special forces. Targeted assassinations are a proportionate response. The marines are there to fight countries, not terrorists.
If we had dropped a bunch of Green Berets into Afghanistan to take out Bin Laden rather than waiting for a month wagging a stick at the Taliban hoping for extradition, then this whole thing would have been over and no one would have said we did the wrong thing. As it stands, the US looks like a bunch of bullies going around stepping on ant hills because the new kid in town didn't know we were supposed to be the toughest kid in the school.
they have intellectual property to protect, too. don't forget -- we have to stop filesharing services because they provide movies, music and kiddy pr0n. the *aa says so, so they must be lumping it in as protected content.
Yeah, the post subject was the joke, and was mildly amusing. The post body could just as easily have been in any thread and still probably been off topic, if not trollish. Just sayin'.
yeah, or maybe a post comprised entirely of "you cocksmoking teabaggers" is just sort of trollish?
Interesting fact, Fritz Haber won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing synthesized ammonium nitrate. He also weaponized chlorine gas and invented zyklon B (ironic, as he was Jewish himself). He's probably responsible for more death in the world than just about anyone, while simultaneously being responsible for a massive boon to agriculture (which, when mixed with diesel fuel, brought us the OKC bomb).
[citation needed]
your cane sugar is cheaper than our hfcs because we have tariffs on the sugar and you don't. then the price of hfcs can be raised above what the market would otherwise pay for it, if sugar weren't being propped up. It's a friggin' cabal is what it is.
I was actually going for 'funny' with a South Park reference to the episode where Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Butters kidnap a bunch of veal cows and hold them hostage until the FDA changes the name of veal to 'tortured baby cows,' but apparently that was lost on people, which is sad because the episode featured Mr. Warf who they made the FBI get to drive them and the truck full of veal cows to the airport.
"veal" sounds better than tortured baby cow...
No, its sugar lobbyists as much, if not more, than corn lobbyists. The US has import tariffs on foreign cane sugar to prop up the price of the domestic stuff, which makes it too expensive to use in wide-scale production here. That's why foreign versions of Coke and Pepsi products are made with real sugar, where as we get the cheap corn shit.
I was a lobbyist myself for a non-profit social organization in a past career. I was at a luncheon fundraiser in DC for a congressman from a midwestern, corn-raising state and was seated across from a sugar lobbyist, and in between a guy from Raytheon and a guy from Microsoft. The sugar lobbyist was the biggest asshole of the three, too.