You should note that I take what Moore says with a grain of salt.
So you're saying we're in agreement, that a history of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and bald-faced lies undermine the trustworthiness of a news source, whether it's Mr. Moore, or Fox News.
Good, I'm glad we're on the same page. If you look back up, the specific comment I responded to was "I'm sure that single incorrect statement completely invalidates the rest of his work."
And when "the rest of his work" claims to be documentaries, his claims that are shown to be inaccuracies or lies certainly call the rest of his assertions into question. If someone gives you bad information, you don't keep trusting everything they say as if it's obviously true. I have very little trust for a "documentary" as an information source if it's going to require me to spend months researching and verifying all the claims made in it.
Exactly. You would think, reading the commentary here, that nobody on this site ever had to work for a boss who didn't understand the implications of the policy he was demanding that people implement; that nobody on this site ever had to abide by corporate policies that are completely, mind-bendingly stupid, but which are fireable offenses if they're violated; that nobody on this site has ever worked in a modern IT department with a million and one "Acceptable Use" rules, only 5 of which actually make sense or do anything to improve security.
This is not a conspiracy. This is somebody following the rules as written in a large bureaucracy, and doing his damnedest to make sure that "classified documents" don't get onto "unclassified systems and networks."
Sometimes it really is that simple: it may not make sense, it may not be a logical-to-you policy, but it IS the policy, and the people implementing it have much stricter penalties for violating the rules than civilians who access Facebook from their office against company policy. Read Facebook, you may get a slap on the wrist. Do it enough, you might get fired. Leak classified information, and you're looking at a court martial and possible (probable) jail time.
I am pointing out that his assertion that "everything people say he's lying about has been proven to be completely true," is incorrect. People have obviously found numerous inaccuracies in his film, and to maintain that "nobody" has found them is either deliberate misstatement or willful obtuseness.
Let me frame it in a different manner for you, since it's obvious that your personal admiration for Mr. Moore is interfering with your ability to process criticism of his methods:
Do you believe Fox News will tell you the truth? If not, why not? And if not, what's your immediate reaction to this opening phrase: "I heard on Fox that nobody likes Congress' plan to..."
Are you really going to argue that lying, twisting the facts, and outright fabrication while claiming you are factually reporting a story doesn't diminish the trustworthiness of a person or news organization?
I'm sorry you're so angry. I'll pray for you, that you'll find Jesus' love. I'll also write in to Sean Hannity and ask him to do the same. He's a good man, that Sean Hannity, doing the Lord's work.
Where exactly did I defend Fox and say that they were totally factual, whereas Michael Moore wasn't?
If you want to make some easy points at Fox News' expense, fine, but please don't paint my criticism of Mr. Moore as somehow also being a tacit defense or endorsement of the "news" perpetrated by Fox.
Misleading and misrepresenting facts to support an agenda is a problem, and it undermines any sense of trust in anything the person who is lying says, or has said: when that trust is broken, it calls into question *everything* that person tells you.
That's as true for Fox News as it is for Mr. Moore.
Considering 4 of his movies are included in this list of the "highest grossing documentaries, 1982-Present" I suspect he'd be just fine with the fact that people call them documentaries.
The Bush family and the bin Ladens are friends; did little George have play dates with Osama? I don't know but the family ties are significant.
the "families" have business ties, certainly; is that enough to support his claims that Pres. Bush is somehow protecting Osama Bin Laden from capture by sending too few troops, and diluting the mission so that we forget about him? That's a pretty humongous stretch.
As far as the difference between the Titan II and the Titan IV - if you don't know the difference, isn't it important to find out before you swallow everything he says about the purpose, use, and manufacture of them?
What you've basically said is, "I don't care if he's actually right, I agree with his agenda, so I'm glad he's successful in getting his message out, even if he has to lie and distort the truth in order to do so."
Let's be clear: I'm not defending FOX by criticizing Moore. I dislike the lies-masquerading-as-truth tactic when it's used by anybody. Moore just happens to be the person under discussion, if you'd prefer to substitute "Glenn Beck" or "Rush Limbaugh" anywhere you read Moore's name, I'd have no objection to that.
Yes, the Lion King comparison was an exaggeration-for-effect. But the principle stands: If you are going to claim to be a documentary film-maker, you can't just make up your own set of facts that suit the conclusion you're trying to draw, and then call that a documentary. You *can* show certain sets of facts and paint a picture that supports your conclusions, but Moore even goes beyond that at times.
The difference that I'm getting at is this: if the Discovery Channel chose to create a documentary about the "social" structure and cub-rearing behaviors of groups of lions, and deliberately avoided showing or focusing on the violent nature of lions hunting, that would still be a documentary. Would it provide a slanted view of lions, taken by itself? Absolutely - it might give people the impression that lions are just big kitties with pleasant dispositions who eat sunshine and fairy farts.
Likewise, you could produce a documentary about lions showing the violence of a pride of lions hunting down and killing a gazelle. Taken by itself, that might also give people a slanted view of lions as killing machines, with no social interaction, no focus or interest in life beyond the hunt and killing things in as bloody a way as possible.
Both of those would, however, still be documentaries - both present a LIMITED but FACTUAL aspect of a particular topic. The Lion King, however, is straight-up fiction. If somebody presented the Lion King to me as a documentary, that person would not be trustworthy to me, because they have shown at least once that they have no concept of what factual information consists of, which calls into doubt all of their past and future assertions of fact.
No, you never offered to rebut, you asked for examples.
You stated: 1) People always say he's lying. 2) His work has been fact-checked left, right, up, down, and sideways, and NO ONE can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there.
I rebutted your assertion by providing you with a ~900,000 result google search which contains NUMEROUS articles where people are showing that he's lied, misrepresented the facts, been flat-out wrong, or simply presented a situation with a hugely biased spin.
If you can't be arsed with going out and doing a bit of due diligence before categorically asserting his innocence and claiming that everybody who says his movies contain lies is just a FOX-bot spewing lies that Glenn Beck told them to believe, don't expect me to do the work for you.
Once again, I'll invite you to click the link I provided, and begin reading.
If you can't be fucked with doing that, then it's clear that your numerous posts here are simply knee-jerk defenses of one of your heroes, rather than reasoned & factual responses to criticism.
There are plenty of "actual factual, verifiable" examples of him being wrong, lying, and/or misrepresenting the facts out there. If you're unable to find a single example of this, then you're simply not trying.
When he purports to be creating "documentaries," yes, it kind of does.
You see, documentaries are generally held to be factual representations of some aspect of life that the filmmaker wants to... document. Now, if Mr. Moore titled his movies with such names as "The Conspiracy that I, Michael Moore, am sure is behind the 9/11 attacks!" then you could say that they are documentaries: documenting his views and opinions.
But he represents these opinions and views and interpretations as objective, factual depictions of a situation, and they are demonstrably not in many cases. How much trust can you give to the work of a documentary filmmaker who is known to be distorting the truth, or even deliberately lying, in order to bolster his own viewpoint?
Would you trust the Discovery Channel to tell you the truth if they released a documentary purporting to show the reality of how lions and other animals interact in the wild, and that movie turned out to be Disney's The Lion King, complete with musical numbers?
The number of people clamoring for it is irrelevant to the point, which it appears you missed while trying to make your point - which is, I guess, that if a bunch of people band together and decide they want something, it's okay for them to take it by any means necessary?
When you have a limited amount of money, you cannot pay for everything everybody wants, even if 100% of the population thinks it would be absolutely awesome. You must prioritize, and you must consider whether adequate consideration is being given to the people who will be paying more into the system than they will ever get out of it. If you are asking somebody to make that sort of a sacrifice for the "good of society," then you should have a lot better reason than "We have more votes than you, we'll take whatever we want."
Having a big group of people that supports you doesn't automatically entitle you to seize whatever you want from whomever you want. Address that point, and we'll have a basis for conversation. Insist that the only thing that matters is having a large base of support, and I'll be happy to let you continue writing your bumper stickers.
There are a lot of things that cost money and the government has opted to force people to pay for them.
Indeed, that's the case.
That does not, however, give the government a blank check to decide to spend on anything a group of people sees fit to ask the government to spend for.
My point is that each proposal should be evaluated on its own merits - there is only "so much" money to go around: maybe education is more important than health care, and we only have money to pay for one. Maybe roads are more important than both, but we can pay for roads and healthcare, but not have enough left over for education. Or education and healthcare, but not roads. Any budgeting practice is an exercise in setting priorities, we can't say "everything's equally important and critical, and nothing can take precedence."
As I said, there are good arguments both for and against the 'national' healthcare proposal - if you support it, try outlining your reasons that lead you to conclude that this proposal is a good thing, and don't just state your conclusions, and pre-emptively lambaste anybody who dares to reach a different conclusion than you did.
I have serious reservations about the whole "we won't change anything about your current healthcare, add 30+ million people to the insurance pool, and that will make your costs go down," assurance we were given. I also have serious reservations with the principle of demanding that "some" people pay for a health entitlement for "everybody". However, I will also agree that there may be net-good effects (healthier, more productive population, better quality of life, lower health costs for all) as a result of some or all of these plans that could justify making that demand.
First: That's a state law. The healthcare bill is a federal law. For auto insurance to fall afoul of the judiciary, it would have to be shown to violate the constitution of the *state* where the law mandates that purchase.
Second: In *some states* you are obligated to by auto insurance as a condition of registering a car and being allowed to operate it. If you don't want to buy auto insurance, there's a very simple way to opt out: move to a city, take public transit everywhere, and don't own a car.
Do you think for a second that auto insurance could be mandatory for everybody to purchase, whether or not they owned a car or were old enough / competent enough to be licensed to operate one?
Can we agree that healthcare costs money, and that the bill must be paid by somebody? If so, then can you not see that some people may have earnest reservations with demanding that "society" foot the bill for healthcare, rather than a ravening hatred of their fellow citizens?
There are many legitimate arguments against 'nationalized' healthcare, and there are many legitimate arguments FOR it. You are asking SOME citizens to foot the bill for services for ALL citizens, and that's never something that should be done without good cause or consideration for the impact of that demand on the people footing the bill. As such, I can only conclude that your comment is designed to prevent any possibility of conversation, negotiation, or compromise, and simply reflects an impotent anger at the people who don't agree with you.
In short, it's a bumper sticker slogan mouthed by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
There's a whole involved process involving sponsorship, committees, reconciliation, etc. But, In a nut:
A chamber of theLegislature (Senate & House of Representatives, two separate chambers) propose, review and vote on a bill. If the bill passes each house by a simple majority, the variations in versions voted on between the two chambers must be reconciled & a vote on the reconciled bill taken. If both chambers approve the reconciled bill, it is sent to the president (Executive branch) to sign into law. The president has several options: sign the bill, making it a law; veto the bill (sending it back to the legislature, and requiring either rework or a 2/3 majority of the legislature to override the veto); or refuse to do anything with it for up to 10 days; if congress is in session at the end of the 10 day period, the bill becomes law without the signature; if congress is not in session, the bill dies.
After the bill becomes law, however, the Judicial branch has a power known as judicial review, where they may strike a law down as unconstitutional: if it violates the constitution, the law (or sections of the law) may be declared null and void by the judiciary as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no laws made by federal or state legislatures may contradict it - the only way around this power is via constitutional amendment, or by appointing new judges who have a different interpretation of the law and the constitution.
There's a lot of process and checks and balances in the whole thing, but each branch, by design, has the power to "mess with the laws." The theory is that each branch having some power to balance out the other branches prevents a single branch from running amok and forcing an agenda on the people that is unconstitutional.
No, more like "But your honor, she strolled drunk through Central Park at night completely naked and shouted "TAKE ME!" at every man she saw. It is in large part her fault that she got raped.
Ah, so the rapist is not liable for his crime at this point, then, and the woman who was raped should be put on trial instead? Is that what you're saying?
Remember, the poster I replied to specifically said exactly that: the perpetrator shouldn't be tried, and the people who were victims of the crime should be put on trial instead for failing to secure everything from every person with malicious intent.
but fundamentally there is no good valid technical argument for this approach
Actually there is. As we move towards a model where we'll be accessing our "stuff" from more than one device (laptop, desktop, htpc, phone, tablet, netbook, other), local storage just doesn't scale that well. I have a 300 GB drive full of MP3s and movies in my desktop system. If I want to have those same files on my laptop, I need another 300 GB drive in my laptop to store them. If I want to let my phone or tablet or home theater devices access those files, I'd need more local storage to house those copies... as more devices get connected, your storage needs grow as a factor the number of devices.
Now think about what happens when you have a desktop and a laptop and you use both to modify and edit the same document.
The process of *correctly* syncing all that data is a lot more difficult (and still requires a lot of bandwidth between all of your devices) than simply storing it "in the cloud" and streaming it from a central location to whichever device you want to access it on at the moment. This is the whole premise of "the cloud." Regardless of your personal feelings about storing your personal data there, there are a few compelling reasons for having centralized storage that can be accessed over a network instead of managing & syncing multiple local copies of the same data.
Yep, we'll make these jokes - and more than halfway mean them - and then we'll complain that other engineering disciplines and other professions don't respect us or take us seriously as professionals.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying we're in agreement, that a history of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and bald-faced lies undermine the trustworthiness of a news source, whether it's Mr. Moore, or Fox News.
Good, I'm glad we're on the same page. If you look back up, the specific comment I responded to was "I'm sure that single incorrect statement completely invalidates the rest of his work."
And when "the rest of his work" claims to be documentaries, his claims that are shown to be inaccuracies or lies certainly call the rest of his assertions into question. If someone gives you bad information, you don't keep trusting everything they say as if it's obviously true. I have very little trust for a "documentary" as an information source if it's going to require me to spend months researching and verifying all the claims made in it.
Exactly. You would think, reading the commentary here, that nobody on this site ever had to work for a boss who didn't understand the implications of the policy he was demanding that people implement; that nobody on this site ever had to abide by corporate policies that are completely, mind-bendingly stupid, but which are fireable offenses if they're violated; that nobody on this site has ever worked in a modern IT department with a million and one "Acceptable Use" rules, only 5 of which actually make sense or do anything to improve security.
This is not a conspiracy. This is somebody following the rules as written in a large bureaucracy, and doing his damnedest to make sure that "classified documents" don't get onto "unclassified systems and networks."
Sometimes it really is that simple: it may not make sense, it may not be a logical-to-you policy, but it IS the policy, and the people implementing it have much stricter penalties for violating the rules than civilians who access Facebook from their office against company policy. Read Facebook, you may get a slap on the wrist. Do it enough, you might get fired. Leak classified information, and you're looking at a court martial and possible (probable) jail time.
Completely lame response.
Guess we're even.
I am pointing out that his assertion that "everything people say he's lying about has been proven to be completely true," is incorrect. People have obviously found numerous inaccuracies in his film, and to maintain that "nobody" has found them is either deliberate misstatement or willful obtuseness.
Are you stupid or something?
Let me frame it in a different manner for you, since it's obvious that your personal admiration for Mr. Moore is interfering with your ability to process criticism of his methods:
Do you believe Fox News will tell you the truth? If not, why not? And if not, what's your immediate reaction to this opening phrase: "I heard on Fox that nobody likes Congress' plan to..."
Are you really going to argue that lying, twisting the facts, and outright fabrication while claiming you are factually reporting a story doesn't diminish the trustworthiness of a person or news organization?
Really?
You asked for someone to point out where Mr. Moore is lying.
I did.
Your inability or unwillingness to read is not my problem. I'm not going to sit here and read the web to you, page by page.
I'm sorry you're so angry. I'll pray for you, that you'll find Jesus' love. I'll also write in to Sean Hannity and ask him to do the same. He's a good man, that Sean Hannity, doing the Lord's work.
Where exactly did I defend Fox and say that they were totally factual, whereas Michael Moore wasn't?
If you want to make some easy points at Fox News' expense, fine, but please don't paint my criticism of Mr. Moore as somehow also being a tacit defense or endorsement of the "news" perpetrated by Fox.
No, maybe you should read what I wrote.
Misleading and misrepresenting facts to support an agenda is a problem, and it undermines any sense of trust in anything the person who is lying says, or has said: when that trust is broken, it calls into question *everything* that person tells you.
That's as true for Fox News as it is for Mr. Moore.
Considering 4 of his movies are included in this list of the "highest grossing documentaries, 1982-Present" I suspect he'd be just fine with the fact that people call them documentaries.
the "families" have business ties, certainly; is that enough to support his claims that Pres. Bush is somehow protecting Osama Bin Laden from capture by sending too few troops, and diluting the mission so that we forget about him? That's a pretty humongous stretch.
As far as the difference between the Titan II and the Titan IV - if you don't know the difference, isn't it important to find out before you swallow everything he says about the purpose, use, and manufacture of them?
What you've basically said is, "I don't care if he's actually right, I agree with his agenda, so I'm glad he's successful in getting his message out, even if he has to lie and distort the truth in order to do so."
Let's be clear: I'm not defending FOX by criticizing Moore. I dislike the lies-masquerading-as-truth tactic when it's used by anybody. Moore just happens to be the person under discussion, if you'd prefer to substitute "Glenn Beck" or "Rush Limbaugh" anywhere you read Moore's name, I'd have no objection to that.
Yes, the Lion King comparison was an exaggeration-for-effect. But the principle stands: If you are going to claim to be a documentary film-maker, you can't just make up your own set of facts that suit the conclusion you're trying to draw, and then call that a documentary. You *can* show certain sets of facts and paint a picture that supports your conclusions, but Moore even goes beyond that at times.
The difference that I'm getting at is this: if the Discovery Channel chose to create a documentary about the "social" structure and cub-rearing behaviors of groups of lions, and deliberately avoided showing or focusing on the violent nature of lions hunting, that would still be a documentary. Would it provide a slanted view of lions, taken by itself? Absolutely - it might give people the impression that lions are just big kitties with pleasant dispositions who eat sunshine and fairy farts.
Likewise, you could produce a documentary about lions showing the violence of a pride of lions hunting down and killing a gazelle. Taken by itself, that might also give people a slanted view of lions as killing machines, with no social interaction, no focus or interest in life beyond the hunt and killing things in as bloody a way as possible.
Both of those would, however, still be documentaries - both present a LIMITED but FACTUAL aspect of a particular topic. The Lion King, however, is straight-up fiction. If somebody presented the Lion King to me as a documentary, that person would not be trustworthy to me, because they have shown at least once that they have no concept of what factual information consists of, which calls into doubt all of their past and future assertions of fact.
No, you never offered to rebut, you asked for examples.
You stated:
1) People always say he's lying.
2) His work has been fact-checked left, right, up, down, and sideways, and NO ONE can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there.
I rebutted your assertion by providing you with a ~900,000 result google search which contains NUMEROUS articles where people are showing that he's lied, misrepresented the facts, been flat-out wrong, or simply presented a situation with a hugely biased spin.
If you can't be arsed with going out and doing a bit of due diligence before categorically asserting his innocence and claiming that everybody who says his movies contain lies is just a FOX-bot spewing lies that Glenn Beck told them to believe, don't expect me to do the work for you.
Once again, I'll invite you to click the link I provided, and begin reading.
If you can't be fucked with doing that, then it's clear that your numerous posts here are simply knee-jerk defenses of one of your heroes, rather than reasoned & factual responses to criticism.
Click: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Michael+Moore+Lying
Begin reading.
There are plenty of "actual factual, verifiable" examples of him being wrong, lying, and/or misrepresenting the facts out there. If you're unable to find a single example of this, then you're simply not trying.
And in the US, you pay taxes and are given a court-appointed attorney to represent you if you can't afford to hire one of your own.
Or are you suggesting that in the UK, your taxes get you legal representation from lawyers on par with Alan Dershowitz and William Rehnquist?
When he purports to be creating "documentaries," yes, it kind of does.
You see, documentaries are generally held to be factual representations of some aspect of life that the filmmaker wants to... document. Now, if Mr. Moore titled his movies with such names as "The Conspiracy that I, Michael Moore, am sure is behind the 9/11 attacks!" then you could say that they are documentaries: documenting his views and opinions.
But he represents these opinions and views and interpretations as objective, factual depictions of a situation, and they are demonstrably not in many cases. How much trust can you give to the work of a documentary filmmaker who is known to be distorting the truth, or even deliberately lying, in order to bolster his own viewpoint?
Would you trust the Discovery Channel to tell you the truth if they released a documentary purporting to show the reality of how lions and other animals interact in the wild, and that movie turned out to be Disney's The Lion King, complete with musical numbers?
The number of people clamoring for it is irrelevant to the point, which it appears you missed while trying to make your point - which is, I guess, that if a bunch of people band together and decide they want something, it's okay for them to take it by any means necessary?
When you have a limited amount of money, you cannot pay for everything everybody wants, even if 100% of the population thinks it would be absolutely awesome. You must prioritize, and you must consider whether adequate consideration is being given to the people who will be paying more into the system than they will ever get out of it. If you are asking somebody to make that sort of a sacrifice for the "good of society," then you should have a lot better reason than "We have more votes than you, we'll take whatever we want."
Having a big group of people that supports you doesn't automatically entitle you to seize whatever you want from whomever you want. Address that point, and we'll have a basis for conversation. Insist that the only thing that matters is having a large base of support, and I'll be happy to let you continue writing your bumper stickers.
Indeed, that's the case.
That does not, however, give the government a blank check to decide to spend on anything a group of people sees fit to ask the government to spend for.
My point is that each proposal should be evaluated on its own merits - there is only "so much" money to go around: maybe education is more important than health care, and we only have money to pay for one. Maybe roads are more important than both, but we can pay for roads and healthcare, but not have enough left over for education. Or education and healthcare, but not roads. Any budgeting practice is an exercise in setting priorities, we can't say "everything's equally important and critical, and nothing can take precedence."
As I said, there are good arguments both for and against the 'national' healthcare proposal - if you support it, try outlining your reasons that lead you to conclude that this proposal is a good thing, and don't just state your conclusions, and pre-emptively lambaste anybody who dares to reach a different conclusion than you did.
I have serious reservations about the whole "we won't change anything about your current healthcare, add 30+ million people to the insurance pool, and that will make your costs go down," assurance we were given. I also have serious reservations with the principle of demanding that "some" people pay for a health entitlement for "everybody". However, I will also agree that there may be net-good effects (healthier, more productive population, better quality of life, lower health costs for all) as a result of some or all of these plans that could justify making that demand.
First: That's a state law. The healthcare bill is a federal law. For auto insurance to fall afoul of the judiciary, it would have to be shown to violate the constitution of the *state* where the law mandates that purchase.
Second: In *some states* you are obligated to by auto insurance as a condition of registering a car and being allowed to operate it. If you don't want to buy auto insurance, there's a very simple way to opt out: move to a city, take public transit everywhere, and don't own a car.
Do you think for a second that auto insurance could be mandatory for everybody to purchase, whether or not they owned a car or were old enough / competent enough to be licensed to operate one?
Can we agree that healthcare costs money, and that the bill must be paid by somebody? If so, then can you not see that some people may have earnest reservations with demanding that "society" foot the bill for healthcare, rather than a ravening hatred of their fellow citizens?
There are many legitimate arguments against 'nationalized' healthcare, and there are many legitimate arguments FOR it. You are asking SOME citizens to foot the bill for services for ALL citizens, and that's never something that should be done without good cause or consideration for the impact of that demand on the people footing the bill. As such, I can only conclude that your comment is designed to prevent any possibility of conversation, negotiation, or compromise, and simply reflects an impotent anger at the people who don't agree with you.
In short, it's a bumper sticker slogan mouthed by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Shame on you.
There's a whole involved process involving sponsorship, committees, reconciliation, etc. But, In a nut:
A chamber of theLegislature (Senate & House of Representatives, two separate chambers) propose, review and vote on a bill. If the bill passes each house by a simple majority, the variations in versions voted on between the two chambers must be reconciled & a vote on the reconciled bill taken. If both chambers approve the reconciled bill, it is sent to the president (Executive branch) to sign into law. The president has several options: sign the bill, making it a law; veto the bill (sending it back to the legislature, and requiring either rework or a 2/3 majority of the legislature to override the veto); or refuse to do anything with it for up to 10 days; if congress is in session at the end of the 10 day period, the bill becomes law without the signature; if congress is not in session, the bill dies.
After the bill becomes law, however, the Judicial branch has a power known as judicial review, where they may strike a law down as unconstitutional: if it violates the constitution, the law (or sections of the law) may be declared null and void by the judiciary as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no laws made by federal or state legislatures may contradict it - the only way around this power is via constitutional amendment, or by appointing new judges who have a different interpretation of the law and the constitution.
There's a lot of process and checks and balances in the whole thing, but each branch, by design, has the power to "mess with the laws." The theory is that each branch having some power to balance out the other branches prevents a single branch from running amok and forcing an agenda on the people that is unconstitutional.
Ah, so the rapist is not liable for his crime at this point, then, and the woman who was raped should be put on trial instead? Is that what you're saying?
Remember, the poster I replied to specifically said exactly that: the perpetrator shouldn't be tried, and the people who were victims of the crime should be put on trial instead for failing to secure everything from every person with malicious intent.
Actually there is. As we move towards a model where we'll be accessing our "stuff" from more than one device (laptop, desktop, htpc, phone, tablet, netbook, other), local storage just doesn't scale that well. I have a 300 GB drive full of MP3s and movies in my desktop system. If I want to have those same files on my laptop, I need another 300 GB drive in my laptop to store them. If I want to let my phone or tablet or home theater devices access those files, I'd need more local storage to house those copies... as more devices get connected, your storage needs grow as a factor the number of devices.
Now think about what happens when you have a desktop and a laptop and you use both to modify and edit the same document.
The process of *correctly* syncing all that data is a lot more difficult (and still requires a lot of bandwidth between all of your devices) than simply storing it "in the cloud" and streaming it from a central location to whichever device you want to access it on at the moment. This is the whole premise of "the cloud." Regardless of your personal feelings about storing your personal data there, there are a few compelling reasons for having centralized storage that can be accessed over a network instead of managing & syncing multiple local copies of the same data.
It's the parenthetical that makes it special.
Nobody ever used it that way I bet.
Yes, I'm using my google-jitsu to GAIN mod points.
This is slashdot. When we say "check back in an hour for news," we mean, "check back in about 4 days." You should know this by now.
Yep, we'll make these jokes - and more than halfway mean them - and then we'll complain that other engineering disciplines and other professions don't respect us or take us seriously as professionals.
I wonder why?