So, if my testifying would put me in danger... too bad for me? If my testifying about that incident would expose other people to more serious problems, then too bad for them and me?
Well, for alot of people, a proper patch installs itself... while a hotfix requires manually running it. Even if it is manual, with a hotfix you have to download a file, and run it. People constantly download files and don't know where they went, and get frustrated.
Also, if a patch comes along later that replaces the same file, but doesn't address this issue, you may have to reapply the hotfix. (Though I think I've only seen this with Service Packs, not patches)
>How quickly we forgot North America was built by immigration.
Just because they're illegal doesn't make them wrong to be there. You've conflating two separate issues... ones legal disposition with there place in the world.
>The planet doesn't belong to you -- stop pretending part of it does
Just try coming into my bedroom to say that. I will damn well pretend I own this part of the world.
Maybe they had no formal concept of "ownership" of the land, but they certainly had social rules as to who was allowed to be where when... Could you and your friends just walk into the Chief's teepee and start having a random conversation? Or might there be some resistance?
They couldn't understand our social rules... and I don't imagine anyone really tried too hard to explain it to them.
Maybe their rules were entirely based on the actions one person might take against another, or positions of leadership... our just happened to be a bit more abstract and rigid (note, I didn't say civilized... I'm not getting that argument here).
Sure does... And increasingly the language of political correctness, real or perceived, results in the exact opposite action as intended. I see judgement behind how you speak of people using the word illegal... how (true or not), you seem to have lumped an entire group of people together, and assumed motivations behind their actions based on next to no evidence. Using the word itself does not make it an epithet, it's what's behind the word that does.
But more to the point... focusing on the language is distracting from the real issue.
It seems to me something like two people trying to come together and discuss a way to stop a generations long feud that has resulted in dozens of deaths.
Person A: Good... we made it to the table to speak Person B: It's really more of a poker table than a real table Person A: Yeah, but it's still a table Person B: Not really... a table is something you sit at to eat or work, this is a play thing. Person A: No, a poker table is still a table... see it even has the word table in the name stupid Person B: How can I be stupid, you don't even know what a table is? Person A: Why do you get to define "table"? That's just like you, always taking control Person B: I take control because that's the only way I can survive with you always trying to dominate us.... and on and on
The real issue never gets discussed.
Trying to get the "user of the epithet" [UOTE for short] to change their language does several things.
1. It distracts from the real issue: you end up arguing between "your language is evidence that you don't recognize these people as people"... "I do recognize them as people, just people that don't belong here"... "but your language belies your true feelings"... "screw you, I know what my feelings are, and these guys are sucking away our government resources"... "see, you're now referring to them as you would animals"... You never get into understanding why they really have an issue with these people, and can't do anything to convince them they misunderstand. (or not, as the case may be)
2. It erodes trust: The UOTE hasn't reached any connection with you... they don't feel that you understand what they're saying at all, and if you don't understand what they're saying, they have no trust that you are actually addressing them or their concerns, or actually care about them in the slightest. More and more often, as soon as a hint of PC is felt, the brain shuts off. You may have the best of intentions, but at best you're wasting your time.
3. It may be seen as a power play: Why are you the one who gets to choose the word? Why does the UOTE's language intrinsically become incorrect? Who gave you the right to try to dictate to this person the terms with which to express themselves. It's a threat to personal sovereignty. If you are trying to change someone else, it's often easier to do if you can get into their heads, and bring them back around to your way of thinking.
> Not everyone who considers it alright to apply the epithet 'illegal' to individual human beings will be as thoughtful about it as you. Most won't.
So what? Making it socially unacceptable to use the word "illegal" won't suddenly cause these people to forget about the problems they are having providing for their families while striving for a better life. It won't address the internal insecurities behind the emotions behind the word in the way they are using it.
Did making the dreaded-N-word socially unacceptable actually cause any change in behavior? No. It was the other way around. As people realized that black people were actually people, the usage of the word ended up being isolated to folks who were also socially unacceptable. During the transition, the folks who said "I would never use that word" ended up showing
If they're using a word as an epithet, they've already devalued the individual in their eyes, and passing
>I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.
If they are from somewhere else, they are an alien. If they are enterring illegally, they are an illegal alien. And it's natural to shorten a long phrase like "illegal alien" to simply "illegal" when the context is clear.
The person themself is not illegal, but their status in that location is.
I don't see a problem with calling them illegals.
Now, treating them as less than human is a whole other ball o' wax.
I haven't been on the receiving end of a takedown notice, but I've been involved in other suits with clearly provable and serious perjury, and could even prove substantial damages.
The problem is that it's far too expensive and risky. In one case, I could have shown damages of around $20,000, but because of the other party's legal "skills", it was estimated to cost me around $50,000 to litigate. (And that was trying to do it cheaply)
Add to that the the other party didn't actually have the ability to pay my legal fees if I won, and there ya go. I could potentially win a $20,000 judgement if I spent at least $50,000 up front and no hope for recovery.
Effectively they got away with it because they were "poor" enough.
I think the existing Tax Code is so complicated and hard to read that it takes seriously dedicated people to sort through it all. Then you have to have another sort of dedicated folks to convert that into software that an end user can run.
Why not change the documentation standard? Take the Tax Code at its name? It's code damnit.
Rather than document the Tax Code in legal terms, why not document it in some sort of programming language.
It would be just as (un)ambiguous, but will be direrctly functional, so you remove an entire layer of translation.
The tax programmers can develop/maintain/publish the official logic code, and anyone can build a UI they like for it. Whenever the program runs, it should check the code repository for any updates and apply them, etc...
It might not even be quite that bad... but it can still come out badly if you're not careful with your approach.
There's always the "Oh! that's what you meant, you know where your job description says you need to be able to communicate clearly and professionally to non-technical folks? Yeah... you sure messed that one up, didn't you?"
The time zones "(GMT-8)Pacific; Tijuana" and "(GMT-8)Tijuana" are now different. (or will be in a week)
I wasted about 6 hours of testing, frustrated that the patches weren't working on a Windows test environment before noticing that I had teh wrong timezone. (And I'm only a short drive from Tijuana...)
MS's suggestion is to put the meeting time and timezone in the Subject, so everyone knows when it was intended to happen.
The organizer of the meeting should, after the servers are patched and after their machine is patched, verify the calendar entries are in the right place, and fix them if not
the consumer is served, the artist is served. the only person left out in the new internet distribution model is the old guard distribution model. i could say "adapt or die" but that doesn't even apply here. there is only one valid economic choice for the riaa's backers: die
Cool. I want to buy some Jazz music. Let me just type that into Google. Oh goodie, only 97,100,000 pages to browse through. Yes, fans can put their own pages together, but that's amounting to the same thing, and corporations will usually have a bit more credibility to the masses. I mean, it's their job to aggregate music, right? It can't be crap.
Seriously, they can serve a purpose in the new world order, but they need to resize and adapt.
Good point. Fortunately for me, I've only sold one car on eBay. It's not listed in KBB, but it was well under what Hemmings said it should be. I should be safe in either case for it.
But for smaller items, it gets a little weirder.
Even weirder having had my friend actually do the eBay stuff... so the account is in his name, and he just gives me whatever the sale price is minus eBay fees. Hope it wouldn't get too interesting for him.
I'd be curious how it'd go with the income tax bit. I've never sold anything on eBay for more than I paid for it. I've always taken a loss, but I have no real way to prove it.
Closest I could some to would be to try to find an archived catalog of the item, since I know I bought it new.
Will they really? I don't know the algorithm, so I may be talking out my ass, but is there any reason the entire key HAS to be in memory all at one time? Is there any reason it can't encrypted, split and moved around, only to be streamed to where it needs to go? Can't they reimplement the algorithm slightly to allow this?
Granted, that doesn't make it undiscoverable, but it does make it considerably harder.
I remember code in the past that was compressed and would decompress itself in pieces in different parts of RAM, and twiddle jump tables to pull everything together. They were defeated, but took longer to get done. (With DEP enabled on alot of machines this may not be implementable anymore... I dunno really.)
That gets tricky when you're dealing with thousands of developers collaborating across sites, and those collaborations change with what seem to be monthly reorgs.
If the business could just figure out what it wants, we might have a chance =-) But you can't get rid of all your IT staff, and continually change the needs of the environment as well...
>Maybe the problem is that todays standards of what is/is not child abuse may actually be true child abuse.
Absolutely.
I was involved in an abuse case. I raised my voice at a 13 year old. Not actually yelling, but loud and firm voice. It was appropriate to the issue. When she got to her mother's, mom convinced her there is never a reason to "scream and shout", and that counts as abuse.
The daughter avoided me afterwards for awhile until I confronted her, and she claimed I abused her.
There was absolutely no sense of proportion.
And yes, the police got involved. Fortunately, after they came over and interviewed us, they agreed nothing bad had happened and they'd seen this sort of thing many times before.
On the plus side, guess which kid doesn't try to use mom against me anymore =-)
>What the parent poster was saying is that the antagonistic punishments the parents tried pushed the kid into a corner from which he had to fight to get away
Well, what if the kid started it? If you're an abusive person and harming other people, _SOME_ action has to be taken.
What do you actually do?
They didn't have the change to get the kid going correctly before he was 5. What should they have done?
I've worked with call center folks, and we've learned to restrict those things as much as humanly possible. That's just an environment asking for trouble (usually)
We're looking at ways of removing local Admin access from Devs, but I'm not sure we'll be able to pull it off without legitimately getting in their way. And being that I'm a former developer, I do make sure their pains are felt in our discussions =-)
Just getting root even without the FS is bad enough though... gets you by lots of firewally fun, and alot of folks thinkg a firewall is good enough security. You also have access to the memory space and processes and such, so you can really direct probes and such.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if my testifying would put me in danger... too bad for me?
If my testifying about that incident would expose other people to more serious problems, then too bad for them and me?
Anyone have something like http://punitive-surgery.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/296/s cimakelatex.17739.TheSkyIsPurple.html#tth_sEc4.2 that will take some key phrases as a seed?
If it's good enough for the question, it should be good enough for the answer =-)
Well, for alot of people, a proper patch installs itself... while a hotfix requires manually running it.
Even if it is manual, with a hotfix you have to download a file, and run it. People constantly download files and don't know where they went, and get frustrated.
Also, if a patch comes along later that replaces the same file, but doesn't address this issue, you may have to reapply the hotfix. (Though I think I've only seen this with Service Packs, not patches)
>but these folks are as you say "fucken human beings" too
Yeah, especially the rapist.
I know, I know... I reserved an aisle seat awhile ago
>How quickly we forgot North America was built by immigration.
Just because they're illegal doesn't make them wrong to be there. You've conflating two separate issues... ones legal disposition with there place in the world.
>The planet doesn't belong to you -- stop pretending part of it does
Just try coming into my bedroom to say that. I will damn well pretend I own this part of the world.
Maybe they had no formal concept of "ownership" of the land, but they certainly had social rules as to who was allowed to be where when... Could you and your friends just walk into the Chief's teepee and start having a random conversation? Or might there be some resistance?
They couldn't understand our social rules... and I don't imagine anyone really tried too hard to explain it to them.
Maybe their rules were entirely based on the actions one person might take against another, or positions of leadership... our just happened to be a bit more abstract and rigid (note, I didn't say civilized... I'm not getting that argument here).
> Language tends to dictate action
... and on and on
Sure does... And increasingly the language of political correctness, real or perceived, results in the exact opposite action as intended.
I see judgement behind how you speak of people using the word illegal... how (true or not), you seem to have lumped an entire group of people together, and assumed motivations behind their actions based on next to no evidence. Using the word itself does not make it an epithet, it's what's behind the word that does.
But more to the point... focusing on the language is distracting from the real issue.
It seems to me something like two people trying to come together and discuss a way to stop a generations long feud that has resulted in dozens of deaths.
Person A: Good... we made it to the table to speak
Person B: It's really more of a poker table than a real table
Person A: Yeah, but it's still a table
Person B: Not really... a table is something you sit at to eat or work, this is a play thing.
Person A: No, a poker table is still a table... see it even has the word table in the name stupid
Person B: How can I be stupid, you don't even know what a table is?
Person A: Why do you get to define "table"? That's just like you, always taking control
Person B: I take control because that's the only way I can survive with you always trying to dominate us.
The real issue never gets discussed.
Trying to get the "user of the epithet" [UOTE for short] to change their language does several things.
1. It distracts from the real issue: you end up arguing between "your language is evidence that you don't recognize these people as people"... "I do recognize them as people, just people that don't belong here"... "but your language belies your true feelings"... "screw you, I know what my feelings are, and these guys are sucking away our government resources"... "see, you're now referring to them as you would animals"...
You never get into understanding why they really have an issue with these people, and can't do anything to convince them they misunderstand. (or not, as the case may be)
2. It erodes trust: The UOTE hasn't reached any connection with you... they don't feel that you understand what they're saying at all, and if you don't understand what they're saying, they have no trust that you are actually addressing them or their concerns, or actually care about them in the slightest. More and more often, as soon as a hint of PC is felt, the brain shuts off. You may have the best of intentions, but at best you're wasting your time.
3. It may be seen as a power play: Why are you the one who gets to choose the word? Why does the UOTE's language intrinsically become incorrect? Who gave you the right to try to dictate to this person the terms with which to express themselves. It's a threat to personal sovereignty.
If you are trying to change someone else, it's often easier to do if you can get into their heads, and bring them back around to your way of thinking.
> Not everyone who considers it alright to apply the epithet 'illegal' to individual human beings will be as thoughtful about it as you. Most won't.
So what? Making it socially unacceptable to use the word "illegal" won't suddenly cause these people to forget about the problems they are having providing for their families while striving for a better life. It won't address the internal insecurities behind the emotions behind the word in the way they are using it.
Did making the dreaded-N-word socially unacceptable actually cause any change in behavior? No. It was the other way around. As people realized that black people were actually people, the usage of the word ended up being isolated to folks who were also socially unacceptable. During the transition, the folks who said "I would never use that word" ended up showing
If they're using a word as an epithet, they've already devalued the individual in their eyes, and passing
>I refuse to call these people 'illegals' because no human being is 'illegal', they are fucken human beings.
If they are from somewhere else, they are an alien.
If they are enterring illegally, they are an illegal alien.
And it's natural to shorten a long phrase like "illegal alien" to simply "illegal" when the context is clear.
The person themself is not illegal, but their status in that location is.
I don't see a problem with calling them illegals.
Now, treating them as less than human is a whole other ball o' wax.
I haven't been on the receiving end of a takedown notice, but I've been involved in other suits with clearly provable and serious perjury, and could even prove substantial damages.
The problem is that it's far too expensive and risky. In one case, I could have shown damages of around $20,000, but because of the other party's legal "skills", it was estimated to cost me around $50,000 to litigate. (And that was trying to do it cheaply)
Add to that the the other party didn't actually have the ability to pay my legal fees if I won, and there ya go. I could potentially win a $20,000 judgement if I spent at least $50,000 up front and no hope for recovery.
Effectively they got away with it because they were "poor" enough.
> I would throw in iTerm
While iTerm does some nifty stuff, it is just not responsive enough for me to agree having it on a top-anything list.
>This strikes me as a strange comment to make less than 24 hours after we (United States citizens) all changed our clocks due to a law.
;-)
Not all of us... some states/locales don't observe DST, and some freakish ones of us live in UTC for fun =-)
I get your point thoug
I think the existing Tax Code is so complicated and hard to read that it takes seriously dedicated people to sort through it all.
Then you have to have another sort of dedicated folks to convert that into software that an end user can run.
Why not change the documentation standard? Take the Tax Code at its name? It's code damnit.
Rather than document the Tax Code in legal terms, why not document it in some sort of programming language.
It would be just as (un)ambiguous, but will be direrctly functional, so you remove an entire layer of translation.
The tax programmers can develop/maintain/publish the official logic code, and anyone can build a UI they like for it. Whenever the program runs, it should check the code repository for any updates and apply them, etc...
It might not even be quite that bad... but it can still come out badly if you're not careful with your approach.
There's always the "Oh! that's what you meant, you know where your job description says you need to be able to communicate clearly and professionally to non-technical folks? Yeah... you sure messed that one up, didn't you?"
And hopefully avoid confusion like wehave now...
The time zones "(GMT-8)Pacific; Tijuana" and "(GMT-8)Tijuana" are now different. (or will be in a week)
I wasted about 6 hours of testing, frustrated that the patches weren't working on a Windows test environment before noticing that I had teh wrong timezone. (And I'm only a short drive from Tijuana...)
MS's suggestion is to put the meeting time and timezone in the Subject, so everyone knows when it was intended to happen.
The organizer of the meeting should, after the servers are patched and after their machine is patched, verify the calendar entries are in the right place, and fix them if not
the consumer is served, the artist is served. the only person left out in the new internet distribution model is the old guard distribution model. i could say "adapt or die" but that doesn't even apply here. there is only one valid economic choice for the riaa's backers: die
Cool. I want to buy some Jazz music. Let me just type that into Google. Oh goodie, only 97,100,000 pages to browse through.
Yes, fans can put their own pages together, but that's amounting to the same thing, and corporations will usually have a bit more credibility to the masses. I mean, it's their job to aggregate music, right? It can't be crap.
Seriously, they can serve a purpose in the new world order, but they need to resize and adapt.
>resolved fuckedcompany.com to 127.0.0.1.
So, he admitted this was a fuckedcompany then? That's the first step to fixing the problem =-)
Good point. Fortunately for me, I've only sold one car on eBay. It's not listed in KBB, but it was well under what Hemmings said it should be.
I should be safe in either case for it.
But for smaller items, it gets a little weirder.
Even weirder having had my friend actually do the eBay stuff... so the account is in his name, and he just gives me whatever the sale price is minus eBay fees. Hope it wouldn't get too interesting for him.
I'd be curious how it'd go with the income tax bit. I've never sold anything on eBay for more than I paid for it.
I've always taken a loss, but I have no real way to prove it.
Closest I could some to would be to try to find an archived catalog of the item, since I know I bought it new.
Will they really? I don't know the algorithm, so I may be talking out my ass, but is there any reason the entire key HAS to be in memory all at one time?
Is there any reason it can't encrypted, split and moved around, only to be streamed to where it needs to go?
Can't they reimplement the algorithm slightly to allow this?
Granted, that doesn't make it undiscoverable, but it does make it considerably harder.
I remember code in the past that was compressed and would decompress itself in pieces in different parts of RAM, and twiddle jump tables to pull everything together. They were defeated, but took longer to get done. (With DEP enabled on alot of machines this may not be implementable anymore... I dunno really.)
OP could always SAY they are from a state, but how can we trust that.
They need to get their address certified by my notary friend before I believe them =-)
That gets tricky when you're dealing with thousands of developers collaborating across sites, and those collaborations change with what seem to be monthly reorgs.
If the business could just figure out what it wants, we might have a chance =-)
But you can't get rid of all your IT staff, and continually change the needs of the environment as well...
>Maybe the problem is that todays standards of what is/is not child abuse may actually be true child abuse.
Absolutely.
I was involved in an abuse case. I raised my voice at a 13 year old. Not actually yelling, but loud and firm voice. It was appropriate to the issue.
When she got to her mother's, mom convinced her there is never a reason to "scream and shout", and that counts as abuse.
The daughter avoided me afterwards for awhile until I confronted her, and she claimed I abused her.
There was absolutely no sense of proportion.
And yes, the police got involved. Fortunately, after they came over and interviewed us, they agreed nothing bad had happened and they'd seen this sort of thing many times before.
On the plus side, guess which kid doesn't try to use mom against me anymore =-)
>What the parent poster was saying is that the antagonistic punishments the parents tried pushed the kid into a corner from which he had to fight to get away
Well, what if the kid started it?
If you're an abusive person and harming other people, _SOME_ action has to be taken.
What do you actually do?
They didn't have the change to get the kid going correctly before he was 5. What should they have done?
Agreed there.
I've worked with call center folks, and we've learned to restrict those things as much as humanly possible. That's just an environment asking for trouble (usually)
We're looking at ways of removing local Admin access from Devs, but I'm not sure we'll be able to pull it off without legitimately getting in their way. And being that I'm a former developer, I do make sure their pains are felt in our discussions =-)
Just getting root even without the FS is bad enough though... gets you by lots of firewally fun, and alot of folks thinkg a firewall is good enough security. You also have access to the memory space and processes and such, so you can really direct probes and such.
Oh such fun to be had =-)