We're in need of a new government, not a new PR arm. Besides, the current administration has a pretty srong (and newly revitalized!) PR arm -- it's just not big/pervasive enough to deal with all the shenanigans. Passing off propaganda overseas as 'news reports'? Check. Passing off propaganda domestically as 'news reports'? Check. New press secretary? Check.
There is a pervasive PR/propaganda effort at the highest levels of the US government, it's just not a formalized entity. Which works better, anyway, since it helps avert suspicion.
5kmh is a slow walk. I think most slashdotters can maintain that speed in short bursts:)
However, in terms of energy (and inertia), 5 kmh could be huge when you're talking about millions/billions of liters of water, or if you're talking about little bitty creatures, like krill or fish larvae.
Well, I'm not sure I like the idea of gankers and gold farmers on my spreadsheets, though I'll have to admit that this would combine the two biggest grinds in my life:)
Seriously, though, I'd make use of the multi-beancounter capabilties almost daily at the office. Save quite a bit of time collaborating if I could show someone what to do in the spreadsheet without either making changes and having them review when I'm done, or having to have an onsite visit. It sucks having to open a VPN session everytime I need to help someone out with spreadsheet problems, especially when it's a new client/user and the VPN needs to be set up.
I think you're a little mistaken about the typical level of participation here in the US.
"(there's never a shortage of environmentalists opposing potentially harmful laws to the environment, for example)"
There's actually a constant shortage of environmentalists opposing harmful laws/regulations.
The problem is two-fold, as I see it:
(1) There are too many issues for anyone to focus on, and those of us who are politically active have to choose what to focus on. The perceived marginal benefit of being a digital rights activist is much lower than the perceived marginal benefit of being, say, an anti-war activist, or a free speech activist. On the plus side, as DRM etc becomes more intrusive and some of the biggest issues we're facing subside, the perceived marginal value will go up, and more people will be active in digital rights politics.
(2) Money. The US poltical system is governed by it, since the average voter has zero interest in 99% of the legislation that occurs. There's just too much going on for enough voters to care about any but hot-button issues, which means that the moneyed interests outweigh the public for almost every issue out there.
That's a load of horsecrap. Individually, one letter makes no difference. By the hundreds, different story.
Look at most of the grassroots organizations out there. Yes, they pay for lobbyists -- but do you think those lobbyists would be effective if Rep/Sen Douchebag hadn't been receiving letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls about the issue in question?
Grassroots orgranizations depend on the power of votes to overcome the power of cash. Without people contacting their Congresscritter, what do those lobbyists have to back up their argument? Nothing.
I'll agree with you that moneyed interests far outweigh the voters in general -- but I don't think that's unchangeable, at least for certain issues. So, while we need to work to get the money influence out of politics, we still need to do our best to make sure that our voices are heard.
And when you're talking to another engineer, that works fine. But when you're talking to someone who doesn't know squat about the nuts and bolts, you end up either
(1) Confusing the poor sap, or (2) Wasting your breath because it's going to get ignored anyay.
In reference to one of the parents in this thread, that info is a waste of time when you're talking to a CFO or finance director -- they want to know Why/Why Not and How Much (and possibly Other Options) -- and that's about it.
I guess my point is that all the clarity that those specific terms have is lost when you're speaking to someone without knowledge of the field -- so there's no benefit in using them in that case.
I think you're a little misled if you think it's our legal system:)
It's rapidly being bought and paid for, either with vote pandering or with coldhardcas^Wcampaign contributions.
Depending on the masses is fine, as long as they/we are educated about the issue(s). My problem is when asshats like JT abuse the scapegoating nature of people.
"You compain about IT playing "bullshit bingo", compared with judges and financial guys?"
As a finance guy, I understand what you're saying -- but nuanced definitions are extremely important for communication in any specialty field. The problem is that a lot of people (especially those who are just pretending) use nuanced words as buzzwords or to sound knowledgeable, without understanding the full meaning. This dilutes the value of the very specific definitions for everyone else, as well as makes other people think all finanace guys or all IT guys or all lawyers are just tossing big words around.
So, I think the GP is correct -- don't use field-specific nuanced terms when speaking with someone not in the field. You'll be able to communicate much more clearly, since you're not depending on nuance that the listener won't get anyway.
I've developed some spreadsheet mini-applications for various employers, and there are two basic rules I swear by about both distributed and centralized spreadsheet apps:
1. Black box. Users should see input and output, that's it. Especially wth Excel, a user with a little bit of knowledge is VERY dangerous. 2. Lock it down. Every cell that's not an input should be password-protected. This would have prevented the deletion problem your team experienced.
"Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters"
I'm sure he likes the animosity somewhat. But gamers are not who Jack is targeting for action -- he is targeting non-gamers to get them to pass laws we (in general) do not like.
If *everyone* would ignore him, he'd no longer be a pest. But the major problem is that there are plenty of people who either agree with his opinions, or too apathetic to disagree with him. So, if you want Jack gone, you've got to play his game and beat him at it -- make sure Joe Sixpack understands that games don't kill people, irresponsible parents and unstable kids and easy access to guns and a ton of other factors (and sometimes just accidents!) kill people.
I really wish we could all ignore Jack Thompson and his misplaced histrionics.
I wish he had half the dignity of Al Sharpton, who some would say was for a long time a 'racism' troll as much as JT is a 'videogame' troll. Both hop on sensationalist events to push their agenda, pandering to the people who think like them, while ignoring tangential issues, and in many cases, the truth.
I'm not trying to be flamebait here -- my point is that many of the people who listen to/respect Jack Thompson dislike Al Sharpton because of the 'attention-whoring' he has done in the past -- yet Jack is another facet of the same polyhedron.
"It better be called something else, and no I don't mean iBerry, BlackPod, or any other combination of the two names. Of course, they could revive the "Newton" moniker..."
Yes, but Berry Newtons flopped. All I ever see on the shelves now are regular Fig Newtons.
Duh. Special RFID-chip-tipped darts fired from a rifle. I'd bet the Minutemen are willing to help out.
Towers, sniper rifles, maybe even remotely-fired guns accessible from any web browser -- pay $20 for an hour of tagging immigrants, could probably cover the cost of the program.
If not enough people will pay for it, then you pay people to do it -- which'll help replace the jobs those durn Mexicans are taking from us 'Murricans.
"Not enough to matter. We're talking raw totals here, not per district stats so "thousands" doesn't mean much in the context of tens of millions. It is still close enough to be pathetic."
You're right, it is pathetic. But voter turnout would be much higher if people could text their vote -- though I'm not sure I'd want the tpyical AI voter determining our next president:)
"Don't believe me? How about his for a statistic: more people voted in the last American Idol episode of that television show than did in the last Presidential Election."
Not true. More votes were cast -- but many people voted multiple times in the American Idol final. Only in a couple districts[1] did a significant number of people vote more than once (or have their vote counted more than once) in the last presidential election. Plus, you're leaving out the people who voted but weren't tabulated in the presidential election -- I heard there were a couple[2] of those in OH and FL.
[1] A small town in New England (NH?) had more votes tabulated than they had registered voters.
"Let's put it this way: even the White House can't manage to backup all of their access records and emails reliably."
I'm quite sure that you are right (that they aren't capable of backing up reliably). However, I'm also fairly certain that certain 'missing backups' are not missing by accident. Evidence has a way of disappearing, or becoming classified, in pretty handy spots.
Well, the best way to stop the human factor is to eliminate the humans. The second best would be to eliminate human-produced greenhouse gases, and allow 'natural' greenhouse gas production to return to it's normal state. Oh, and maybe sequester a bunch of the carbon we've mined/welled.
The trick is to figure out how to do these things without destroying (or even temporarily devastating) human civilization.
Well, then, wearing the mask is itself evidence of a specific crime... the crime of wearing a mask. That still doesn't validate a search of personal property just because you're wearing a mask.
The basic car interior isn't covered by search and seizure law because it is in plain view from outside the vehicle, the same way that illegal activity witnessed through a house window from public or adjoining property is not illegally obtained even if no warrant was gotten.
Slashdot Mirror
We're in need of a new government, not a new PR arm. Besides, the current administration has a pretty srong (and newly revitalized!) PR arm -- it's just not big/pervasive enough to deal with all the shenanigans. Passing off propaganda overseas as 'news reports'? Check. Passing off propaganda domestically as 'news reports'? Check. New press secretary? Check.
There is a pervasive PR/propaganda effort at the highest levels of the US government, it's just not a formalized entity. Which works better, anyway, since it helps avert suspicion.
5kmh is a slow walk. I think most slashdotters can maintain that speed in short bursts :)
However, in terms of energy (and inertia), 5 kmh could be huge when you're talking about millions/billions of liters of water, or if you're talking about little bitty creatures, like krill or fish larvae.
Still no cause for 'EVERYBODY PANIC'.
Well, I'm not sure I like the idea of gankers and gold farmers on my spreadsheets, though I'll have to admit that this would combine the two biggest grinds in my life :)
Seriously, though, I'd make use of the multi-beancounter capabilties almost daily at the office. Save quite a bit of time collaborating if I could show someone what to do in the spreadsheet without either making changes and having them review when I'm done, or having to have an onsite visit. It sucks having to open a VPN session everytime I need to help someone out with spreadsheet problems, especially when it's a new client/user and the VPN needs to be set up.
I think you're a little mistaken about the typical level of participation here in the US.
"(there's never a shortage of environmentalists opposing potentially harmful laws to the environment, for example)"
There's actually a constant shortage of environmentalists opposing harmful laws/regulations.
The problem is two-fold, as I see it:
(1) There are too many issues for anyone to focus on, and those of us who are politically active have to choose what to focus on. The perceived marginal benefit of being a digital rights activist is much lower than the perceived marginal benefit of being, say, an anti-war activist, or a free speech activist. On the plus side, as DRM etc becomes more intrusive and some of the biggest issues we're facing subside, the perceived marginal value will go up, and more people will be active in digital rights politics.
(2) Money. The US poltical system is governed by it, since the average voter has zero interest in 99% of the legislation that occurs. There's just too much going on for enough voters to care about any but hot-button issues, which means that the moneyed interests outweigh the public for almost every issue out there.
That's a load of horsecrap. Individually, one letter makes no difference. By the hundreds, different story.
Look at most of the grassroots organizations out there. Yes, they pay for lobbyists -- but do you think those lobbyists would be effective if Rep/Sen Douchebag hadn't been receiving letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls about the issue in question?
Grassroots orgranizations depend on the power of votes to overcome the power of cash. Without people contacting their Congresscritter, what do those lobbyists have to back up their argument? Nothing.
I'll agree with you that moneyed interests far outweigh the voters in general -- but I don't think that's unchangeable, at least for certain issues. So, while we need to work to get the money influence out of politics, we still need to do our best to make sure that our voices are heard.
It does have an impact, and defeatism is useless.
"And how many taxpayers are they willing to alienate by enforcing this bill ?"
All of them. Except the ones that both vote and make an effort to find out what's going on.
Very small subset, which is why shit like this is voted in with impunity.
And when you're talking to another engineer, that works fine. But when you're talking to someone who doesn't know squat about the nuts and bolts, you end up either
(1) Confusing the poor sap, or
(2) Wasting your breath because it's going to get ignored anyay.
In reference to one of the parents in this thread, that info is a waste of time when you're talking to a CFO or finance director -- they want to know Why/Why Not and How Much (and possibly Other Options) -- and that's about it.
I guess my point is that all the clarity that those specific terms have is lost when you're speaking to someone without knowledge of the field -- so there's no benefit in using them in that case.
I think you're a little misled if you think it's our legal system :)
It's rapidly being bought and paid for, either with vote pandering or with coldhardcas^Wcampaign contributions.
Depending on the masses is fine, as long as they/we are educated about the issue(s). My problem is when asshats like JT abuse the scapegoating nature of people.
"You compain about IT playing "bullshit bingo", compared with judges and financial guys?"
As a finance guy, I understand what you're saying -- but nuanced definitions are extremely important for communication in any specialty field. The problem is that a lot of people (especially those who are just pretending) use nuanced words as buzzwords or to sound knowledgeable, without understanding the full meaning. This dilutes the value of the very specific definitions for everyone else, as well as makes other people think all finanace guys or all IT guys or all lawyers are just tossing big words around.
So, I think the GP is correct -- don't use field-specific nuanced terms when speaking with someone not in the field. You'll be able to communicate much more clearly, since you're not depending on nuance that the listener won't get anyway.
I've developed some spreadsheet mini-applications for various employers, and there are two basic rules I swear by about both distributed and centralized spreadsheet apps:
1. Black box. Users should see input and output, that's it. Especially wth Excel, a user with a little bit of knowledge is VERY dangerous.
2. Lock it down. Every cell that's not an input should be password-protected. This would have prevented the deletion problem your team experienced.
"Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters"
I'm sure he likes the animosity somewhat. But gamers are not who Jack is targeting for action -- he is targeting non-gamers to get them to pass laws we (in general) do not like.
If *everyone* would ignore him, he'd no longer be a pest. But the major problem is that there are plenty of people who either agree with his opinions, or too apathetic to disagree with him. So, if you want Jack gone, you've got to play his game and beat him at it -- make sure Joe Sixpack understands that games don't kill people, irresponsible parents and unstable kids and easy access to guns and a ton of other factors (and sometimes just accidents!) kill people.
I really wish we could all ignore Jack Thompson and his misplaced histrionics.
I wish he had half the dignity of Al Sharpton, who some would say was for a long time a 'racism' troll as much as JT is a 'videogame' troll. Both hop on sensationalist events to push their agenda, pandering to the people who think like them, while ignoring tangential issues, and in many cases, the truth.
I'm not trying to be flamebait here -- my point is that many of the people who listen to/respect Jack Thompson dislike Al Sharpton because of the 'attention-whoring' he has done in the past -- yet Jack is another facet of the same polyhedron.
"It better be called something else, and no I don't mean iBerry, BlackPod, or any other combination of the two names. Of course, they could revive the "Newton" moniker..."
Yes, but Berry Newtons flopped. All I ever see on the shelves now are regular Fig Newtons.
Duh. Special RFID-chip-tipped darts fired from a rifle. I'd bet the Minutemen are willing to help out.
Towers, sniper rifles, maybe even remotely-fired guns accessible from any web browser -- pay $20 for an hour of tagging immigrants, could probably cover the cost of the program.
If not enough people will pay for it, then you pay people to do it -- which'll help replace the jobs those durn Mexicans are taking from us 'Murricans.
"Not enough to matter. We're talking raw totals here, not per district stats so "thousands" doesn't mean much in the context of tens of millions. It is still close enough to be pathetic."
:)
You're right, it is pathetic. But voter turnout would be much higher if people could text their vote -- though I'm not sure I'd want the tpyical AI voter determining our next president
"Don't believe me? How about his for a statistic: more people voted in the last American Idol episode of that television show than did in the last Presidential Election."
Not true. More votes were cast -- but many people voted multiple times in the American Idol final. Only in a couple districts[1] did a significant number of people vote more than once (or have their vote counted more than once) in the last presidential election. Plus, you're leaving out the people who voted but weren't tabulated in the presidential election -- I heard there were a couple[2] of those in OH and FL.
[1] A small town in New England (NH?) had more votes tabulated than they had registered voters.
[2] where 'couple' = thousands.
Like this?
Sure, many states are passing laws banning remote hunting of animals, but I haven't seen humans included in the bans on remote hunting.
"Let's put it this way: even the White House can't manage to backup all of their access records and emails reliably."
I'm quite sure that you are right (that they aren't capable of backing up reliably). However, I'm also fairly certain that certain 'missing backups' are not missing by accident. Evidence has a way of disappearing, or becoming classified, in pretty handy spots.
Holy, Shit, the metric system doesn't apply to cash, moron.
Sorry, I was pulling a 'Colbert' -- satire of right-wing extremists usually inludes making up 'facts'.
"From page 2: Instead, Microsoft is focused on casting off its yolk as the industry's security whipping boy."
And any foodie can tell you that you whip whites, not yolks. So if you don't want to be a whipping boy, cast off the albumens, not the yolks.
Well, the best way to stop the human factor is to eliminate the humans. The second best would be to eliminate human-produced greenhouse gases, and allow 'natural' greenhouse gas production to return to it's normal state. Oh, and maybe sequester a bunch of the carbon we've mined/welled.
The trick is to figure out how to do these things without destroying (or even temporarily devastating) human civilization.
"Over $1M/month now and climbing. "
So? What's $1000 a month? How much was their last round of funding? Oh, you mean $1MM a month... ouch.
/Sorry, accounting pedant here.
Indexing. Search.
Decreased liability for files not hosted by Yahoo!.
Well, then, wearing the mask is itself evidence of a specific crime... the crime of wearing a mask. That still doesn't validate a search of personal property just because you're wearing a mask.
The basic car interior isn't covered by search and seizure law because it is in plain view from outside the vehicle, the same way that illegal activity witnessed through a house window from public or adjoining property is not illegally obtained even if no warrant was gotten.