Putin can call the US hippocrites all he wants, but at least when the US invades someplace we don't plant evidence to justify it.
Yes, the US simply pretends the evidence exists, even when there's proof to the contrary (there are still some Americans who think there actually were chemical weapons in Iraq).
Yeah... some Americans, some Kurds from Northern Iraq, and some Iranians from the al-Faw peninsula seem to think chemical weapons were in Iraq also. I wonder how they came up with such obvious nonsense.
As Baghdad Bob once said, "It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."
A 'new' user interface or API should NEVER render a power user or experienced computer guru into becoming a N00B again, simply because someone ELSE wants to line their pockets.
While I understand your point and agree with the sentiment I would like to point out that a "power user" or "experienced computer guru" would definitely have no problems with a changed UI. This is silly.
I again refer you to Hitler's kill list, how many right wingers and social conservatives did he line up against a wall?
The figure of 6 million comes to mind.
A few, but the vast majority of his victims were the 'liberals'/socialists' (which in Fox News parlance is synonymous with 'left wing' which in turn seems to be only two steps up from being a child molester) and people he deemed to be racially inferior.
Actually the vast majority were Jews. But don't let facts get in the way!;)
What the poster is asking is *why* he has the right to remain silent and why the right to remain silent benefits society.
As far as I can see, this constitutional right is, pure and simple, a defense against the general propensity of power to use force to extract confessions. Excluding any non-voluntary self-incrimination is the simplest, most foolproof way to exclude torture as an option for obtaining confessions.
The Fifth Amendment, as invoked, is an individual right. It is not a societal issue in this context.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component.
The theory exists without the political component. The practice exists... when you're on Gilligan's Island and can't survive in any other form (yeah, full-scale socialism is the only viable way for a group to survive when there's all of 6 of you and resources are extremely low... once you're bigger than a classroom full of school children, not so much). Trying to quantify that the practice can't exist without the political component is short-sighted in two ways: First off the practice doesn't exist in any meaningful way; and second, in the extreme situations where such practices do exist (a few people stranded on a remote island), the natural leader is essentially elected--when he becomes bad for the group, he is swiftly removed. It seems that, perhaps, socialism *only* exists with strong democratic rights... though it only exists in effectively meaningless situations.
When you're trapped on an island with 5 other people or you emerge from your classroom let me know. Until then enjoy your fantasy world.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
You mean like the Police, the US. Department of Agricultural; the Federal Food and Drug Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Communications Commission; the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration; Congress; etc?
Yes just like those. Those institutions are not beyond reproach such as those that exist in a socialist state.
I'm going to show up at your house and steal your truck (no, your little shotgun won't help; I'll watch from 2 miles away with binoculars and steal it when you're preoccupied elsewhere out with your buddy tailgating in HIS truck, I'm not dumb), and when the police show up I'll tell them I'm being oppressed and they can't tromp on my rights because they're part of a socialist empire of regulations funded by money stolen by the government.
I wonder if that will still work for you when Bubba bends you over the bunk in the cell block after the po po locks you up? I suppose you'd be fine giving up 2/3's of your colon since Bubba needs some love too! All for the greater good huh?
Notice this is all economics, not really so much individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc. This is a matter of infrastructure and of business, not of established individual rights.
Pardon me as I quote the relevant part of your argument. You're not exactly pithy.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component. So the " individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc" is a central part of socialism. The socialist state oppresses individual rights by using authoritarianism to manipulate and control elections, due process, and prohibit democracy. Usually by force.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
Considering that we go back to your comment that "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation". No amount of oppression by state controlled anything, even if in moderation, can remotely be considered "a good thing".
You respond to my discussion about socialism vs authoritarianism by pretending I wrote "Socialist" instead of "Authoritarian".
Actually I responded to this specific point in your comment with a joke before you took off on a tangent, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" posted on 12:56 PM March 12th, 2013.
I also could have swore you were the one who just wrote, "Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists.". There was no pretending. You wrote it.
Since we're simplifying maybe if you acknowledged that one who practices "socialism" is a "socialist" and one who practices "capitalism" is a "capitalist" we would be able to get somewhere, but then again I doubt you even want to see the forest through those trees.
Since we're simplifying let's consider that your stated position, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" is a lot like saying, "Taking 2/3 of your wealth and restricting basic freedoms is a moderation we can live with." I'm sorry... I prefer to keep the wealth I create and maintain the freedoms I have based on a government "By the People, For the People" instead of "From the People, In spite of the People".
You don't understand systems of government and systems of economics. At all.
Like I said before. It's your story tell it anyway you want.
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Try not paying your taxes and not going to court. The IRS sends OIG to your house. With guns.
Comparing one system where citizens have due process versus one, such as socialism, where one does not to evading taxes is pretty disingenuous! Try the same scenario in a socialist country like China or DPRK and not only will the state come in with guns drawn... but they may very well shoot you and imprison your family as well. I think most would rather have laws and rules, as well as penalties for violating them, drawn by someone they've elected to represent them than by socialist party power brokers who have no regard for individual freedoms and rights.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights.
Actually that system is called 'totalitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and is an administrative system whereas socialism is an economic system. You can have a totalitarian dictator in a free market capitalist state. As long as your glorious leader has no qualms with your business operations, you can do what you want; when he does, his all-mighty decree immediately bans that action, or simply jails those responsible for offending his sensibilities.
This is actually a common form of government. Socialist leaders ostensibly claim concern for the people they govern; while authoritarian leaders do not need to. Therefor, evil dictators generally do whatever the hell they want and leave everyone else to do "anything that doesn't offend me." Their religious beliefs, their egomania, or other personal issues are the law of the land; beyond that, the economic influence is nil.
One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.
LOL. Economic influence is nil? Like they never manipulate currency to gain unfair advantage in world markets. Like they never starve their population while the "Dear Leader" buys expensive jewelry, cars, and a Western education.
It's not really a confusion; it's domain-specific vocabulary.
Since you admit it is specific to a particular domain then shall "We" get specific?
If the government takes your money for $economic_pursuit_A, it's "Public Infrastructure".
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Unless socialism. For example, "Public communications infrastructure"--the Government control of telecommunications--and "public utilities"--the government control of electricity and water--are accepted terms; however in both cases, private enterprise also exists in other models: private businesses provide electricity, gas, and even water service in some municipalities. All a "Public" utility such as roads, phones, Internet, power, or water is is a socialized economic function--the government decides what the market needs, hires workers, etc.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights. Only privileges which can be rescinded without due process. If you, or anyone else, dislike the process... well... as they used to say in the former Soviet Union. Toughski Shitski.
Semantics. It's not very "capitalist" "Free Market" "lazze faire" whatever to have the Government control your utilities, rather than private enterprise. Those utilities "belong to the taxpayers," they are "The Peoples'", etc. Socialized, socialism.
"Semantics"... meaning. Yes, let's discuss meaning. Socialism is a political system, controlled by a few, where it's subjects have little, or no, opportunity for due process, representation, or individual rights. In other words it means no freedom. So you are right... it's not very capitalist. In Capitalism, which is not itself a political system, at least one has the opportunity to grow and profit from one's own efforts when paired with a political system that emphasizes individual freedoms over that off the state.
We need some of it. We don't need all of it.
Still no!
But you keep straying from the original topic of this/. article. It was "What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times"!
It doesn't matter because in both Socialist countries, and countries such as the U.S., he would have been brought up on charges. I would dare say at least in the U.S. he will have his day in court. In Socialist flagship countries such as China and the DPRK he wouldn't even have the right to shut the fuck up!
Now go back to reading your "Pol Pot for Dummies" book.
We have direct socialized infrastructure for roads, as well as socialized power--Nuclear power plants are propped up by government subsidies, always have been. They're a Government function pretending to be private enterprise, by way of the Government giving money to private enterprise on a smoke-and-mirrors type dance. Would you like to move to capitalism, where the private enterprise fixing the roads won't allow you to pass without paying a toll? They have to get the money to fix roads and turn a profit somehow.
You seem to confuse "public" with "socialized"... a lot actually
Also your town is useless and stupid, so no roads for you rednecks.
Socialism is the hammer and sickle. Capitalism is the nails. What we need are the hammer and nails.
I'm assuming this is so you can hammer your own nails, in the lid of your own coffin, as you are forced to give 2/3 or more of your wealth to the state. Well I guess you could rest in peace knowing that everyone else paid the same amount for their nails and hammer as you did!
So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
The World will continue to change, but the Catholic Church will not be leading those changes. Here is a car analogy: If the World was a car driving down the freeway of life, the Catholic Church would be a parking brake that was not fully disengaged, thus impeding progress slightly and emitting a bad smell.
To continue the car analogy and to point out the differences, while the Catholic Church may be wearing the parking brake out, the evangelical Christians are trying to throw the car in reverse. And all while they are in a fist fight with the Muslim fundamentalists (who are also looking for reverse) over who's hand will be on the shift lever. Meanwhile, the Quakers are pointing out that one should use the clutch when shifting gears and the Pastafarians are looking for a different car in which to ride.
Meanwhile the Agnostics remind us that no one really knows for sure, or can know for sure, where the damn car keys are!
What would you do instead? Let Rockerfeller continue to use his railroads to block oil competitors, buy out Microsoft and IBM, take control of Monsanto, gain a crippling hold over all shipping for the farming industry so he can permanently shut down any farm that doesn't follow his policies, and rule the world by dictate?
By "Rockefeller" I assume you mean the J.D. Rockefeller who died in 1937.
I don't mean to alarm you but if you think it's 1937 you probably ought to know that tomorrow Jack Benny and Fred Allen will start a feud that lasts 12 years. Later on in December Japan will occupy Nanking, even after Chiang Kai-shek destroyed the dikes along the Yellow River. Joe Medwick of the St. Louis Cardinals was baseball's MVP. You might also want to know that War Admiral won the Triple Crown in horse racing in case you wish to place a bet.
What would I do?
I would welcome you to 2013 where your loosely associated academic tidbits of perfunctory bullshit from 76 years ago have absolutely no context today. Get a sense of humor would you! My original reply on 12:26 PM March 13th, 2013 was a freakin' joke!
Shouldn't the shop that supposedly "re-imaged" it busted for fraud? One also might wonder why an FBI agent is using internal FBI resources to "scrub" a non FBI machine that isn't part of an investigation. Finally, these morons don't know about DBAN???
I've been a Slashdotter for 15 years and I had never heard of DBAN until reading your comment and Googling it.
Yea, but do you run a computer repair shop?
If not, it's fair to assume you've never heard of DBAN; however, if your income is based in an industry for whom re-imaging computers is standard practice, having not heard of DBAN is a nigh unforgivable offense (and a damn good reason to avoid your shop in the future).
This leaking of information has consequences that may never be known to all parties involved. Unfortunate to some and cause for glee to others. Either way one would be a fool not to think that someone, somewhere, will lose his or her life and/or liberty over it.
I agree that human rights violations are wrong but it is also wrong to agree to a TOS and then come back later and try to compare agreeing with a TOS to Human Rights violations.
$100 an hour for a LAMP developer? Developers are getting paid way too much these days. $100 an hour = 3500 a week for a 35 hour week. That's $182,000 a year. I don't know many developers who make that much money. I also don't know too many who only work 35 hours a week.
Don't worry about the $182,000 a year. It'll be like making $35,000 once 'carbon use' payments, universal healthcare, and the various other tax hikes go into effect. I also wouldn't worry about working 35 hours a week because developers (as well as everyone else) will be begging to work any amount of hours they can get.
I'm kind of fond of the 'release early, release often' school of thought. Waiting around until everything is perfect never seems to materialize and does little, if anything, to promote the strengths of free software development models.
This is another cultural difference. In the United States, most cars and light trucks have an automatic transmission, and minor gear changes are done with the right foot. The only gear changes that need a hand are park, reverse, neutral (or "automatic car wash gear"), and drive, and these are done with the brake pedal firmly pressed.
"Good question. Actually, the RIAA companies will NOT be able to use the transcript of Jennifer Pariser's testimony -- it is just out of court hearsay -- but WE, the defendant's lawyers, can use it, to show that Jennifer Pariser and SONY BMG are dishonest, do not take seriously the sanctity of an oath, will stop at nothing, and are ignorant of copyright law."
<comedy>Soooo...'splain to me why the *@$^ is this taking so long?</comedy>
Slashdot Mirror
Putin can call the US hippocrites all he wants, but at least when the US invades someplace we don't plant evidence to justify it.
Yes, the US simply pretends the evidence exists, even when there's proof to the contrary (there are still some Americans who think there actually were chemical weapons in Iraq).
Yeah ... some Americans, some Kurds from Northern Iraq, and some Iranians from the al-Faw peninsula seem to think chemical weapons were in Iraq also. I wonder how they came up with such obvious nonsense.
As Baghdad Bob once said, "It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."
Tell Bob I said hello!
A 'new' user interface or API should NEVER render a power user or experienced computer guru into becoming a N00B again, simply because someone ELSE wants to line their pockets.
While I understand your point and agree with the sentiment I would like to point out that a "power user" or "experienced computer guru" would definitely have no problems with a changed UI. This is silly.
I again refer you to Hitler's kill list, how many right wingers and social conservatives did he line up against a wall?
The figure of 6 million comes to mind.
A few, but the vast majority of his victims were the 'liberals'/socialists' (which in Fox News parlance is synonymous with 'left wing' which in turn seems to be only two steps up from being a child molester) and people he deemed to be racially inferior.
Actually the vast majority were Jews. But don't let facts get in the way! ;)
What the poster is asking is *why* he has the right to remain silent and why the right to remain silent benefits society. As far as I can see, this constitutional right is, pure and simple, a defense against the general propensity of power to use force to extract confessions. Excluding any non-voluntary self-incrimination is the simplest, most foolproof way to exclude torture as an option for obtaining confessions.
The Fifth Amendment, as invoked, is an individual right. It is not a societal issue in this context.
Kind of sums it up for you!
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component.
The theory exists without the political component. The practice exists ... when you're on Gilligan's Island and can't survive in any other form (yeah, full-scale socialism is the only viable way for a group to survive when there's all of 6 of you and resources are extremely low... once you're bigger than a classroom full of school children, not so much). Trying to quantify that the practice can't exist without the political component is short-sighted in two ways: First off the practice doesn't exist in any meaningful way; and second, in the extreme situations where such practices do exist (a few people stranded on a remote island), the natural leader is essentially elected--when he becomes bad for the group, he is swiftly removed. It seems that, perhaps, socialism *only* exists with strong democratic rights... though it only exists in effectively meaningless situations.
When you're trapped on an island with 5 other people or you emerge from your classroom let me know. Until then enjoy your fantasy world.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
You mean like the Police, the US. Department of Agricultural; the Federal Food and Drug Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Communications Commission; the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration; Congress; etc?
Yes just like those. Those institutions are not beyond reproach such as those that exist in a socialist state.
I'm going to show up at your house and steal your truck (no, your little shotgun won't help; I'll watch from 2 miles away with binoculars and steal it when you're preoccupied elsewhere out with your buddy tailgating in HIS truck, I'm not dumb), and when the police show up I'll tell them I'm being oppressed and they can't tromp on my rights because they're part of a socialist empire of regulations funded by money stolen by the government.
I wonder if that will still work for you when Bubba bends you over the bunk in the cell block after the po po locks you up? I suppose you'd be fine giving up 2/3's of your colon since Bubba needs some love too! All for the greater good huh?
Notice this is all economics, not really so much individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc. This is a matter of infrastructure and of business, not of established individual rights.
Pardon me as I quote the relevant part of your argument. You're not exactly pithy.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component. So the " individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc" is a central part of socialism. The socialist state oppresses individual rights by using authoritarianism to manipulate and control elections, due process, and prohibit democracy. Usually by force.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
Considering that we go back to your comment that "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation". No amount of oppression by state controlled anything, even if in moderation, can remotely be considered "a good thing".
You respond to my discussion about socialism vs authoritarianism by pretending I wrote "Socialist" instead of "Authoritarian".
Actually I responded to this specific point in your comment with a joke before you took off on a tangent, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" posted on 12:56 PM March 12th, 2013.
I also could have swore you were the one who just wrote, "Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists.". There was no pretending. You wrote it.
Since we're simplifying maybe if you acknowledged that one who practices "socialism" is a "socialist" and one who practices "capitalism" is a "capitalist" we would be able to get somewhere, but then again I doubt you even want to see the forest through those trees.
Since we're simplifying let's consider that your stated position, "Socialism is a good thing... in moderation" is a lot like saying, "Taking 2/3 of your wealth and restricting basic freedoms is a moderation we can live with." I'm sorry ... I prefer to keep the wealth I create and maintain the freedoms I have based on a government "By the People, For the People" instead of "From the People, In spite of the People".
You don't understand systems of government and systems of economics. At all.
Like I said before. It's your story tell it anyway you want.
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Try not paying your taxes and not going to court. The IRS sends OIG to your house. With guns.
Comparing one system where citizens have due process versus one, such as socialism, where one does not to evading taxes is pretty disingenuous! Try the same scenario in a socialist country like China or DPRK and not only will the state come in with guns drawn ... but they may very well shoot you and imprison your family as well. I think most would rather have laws and rules, as well as penalties for violating them, drawn by someone they've elected to represent them than by socialist party power brokers who have no regard for individual freedoms and rights.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights.
Actually that system is called 'totalitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and is an administrative system whereas socialism is an economic system. You can have a totalitarian dictator in a free market capitalist state. As long as your glorious leader has no qualms with your business operations, you can do what you want; when he does, his all-mighty decree immediately bans that action, or simply jails those responsible for offending his sensibilities.
This is actually a common form of government. Socialist leaders ostensibly claim concern for the people they govern; while authoritarian leaders do not need to. Therefor, evil dictators generally do whatever the hell they want and leave everyone else to do "anything that doesn't offend me." Their religious beliefs, their egomania, or other personal issues are the law of the land; beyond that, the economic influence is nil.
One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.
LOL. Economic influence is nil? Like they never manipulate currency to gain unfair advantage in world markets. Like they never starve their population while the "Dear Leader" buys expensive jewelry, cars, and a Western education.
At least be honest!
It's not really a confusion; it's domain-specific vocabulary.
Since you admit it is specific to a particular domain then shall "We" get specific?
If the government takes your money for $economic_pursuit_A, it's "Public Infrastructure".
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Unless socialism. For example, "Public communications infrastructure"--the Government control of telecommunications--and "public utilities"--the government control of electricity and water--are accepted terms; however in both cases, private enterprise also exists in other models: private businesses provide electricity, gas, and even water service in some municipalities. All a "Public" utility such as roads, phones, Internet, power, or water is is a socialized economic function--the government decides what the market needs, hires workers, etc.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights. Only privileges which can be rescinded without due process. If you, or anyone else, dislike the process ... well ... as they used to say in the former Soviet Union. Toughski Shitski.
Semantics. It's not very "capitalist" "Free Market" "lazze faire" whatever to have the Government control your utilities, rather than private enterprise. Those utilities "belong to the taxpayers," they are "The Peoples'", etc. Socialized, socialism.
"Semantics" ... meaning. Yes, let's discuss meaning. Socialism is a political system, controlled by a few, where it's subjects have little, or no, opportunity for due process, representation, or individual rights. In other words it means no freedom. So you are right ... it's not very capitalist. In Capitalism, which is not itself a political system, at least one has the opportunity to grow and profit from one's own efforts when paired with a political system that emphasizes individual freedoms over that off the state.
We need some of it. We don't need all of it.
Still no!
But you keep straying from the original topic of this /. article. It was "What If Manning Had Leaked To the New York Times"!
It doesn't matter because in both Socialist countries, and countries such as the U.S., he would have been brought up on charges. I would dare say at least in the U.S. he will have his day in court. In Socialist flagship countries such as China and the DPRK he wouldn't even have the right to shut the fuck up!
Now go back to reading your "Pol Pot for Dummies" book.
We have direct socialized infrastructure for roads, as well as socialized power--Nuclear power plants are propped up by government subsidies, always have been. They're a Government function pretending to be private enterprise, by way of the Government giving money to private enterprise on a smoke-and-mirrors type dance. Would you like to move to capitalism, where the private enterprise fixing the roads won't allow you to pass without paying a toll? They have to get the money to fix roads and turn a profit somehow.
You seem to confuse "public" with "socialized" ... a lot actually
Also your town is useless and stupid, so no roads for you rednecks.
It's your story. Tell it like you want.
Socialism is the hammer and sickle. Capitalism is the nails. What we need are the hammer and nails.
I'm assuming this is so you can hammer your own nails, in the lid of your own coffin, as you are forced to give 2/3 or more of your wealth to the state. Well I guess you could rest in peace knowing that everyone else paid the same amount for their nails and hammer as you did!
So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
The World will continue to change, but the Catholic Church will not be leading those changes. Here is a car analogy: If the World was a car driving down the freeway of life, the Catholic Church would be a parking brake that was not fully disengaged, thus impeding progress slightly and emitting a bad smell.
To continue the car analogy and to point out the differences, while the Catholic Church may be wearing the parking brake out, the evangelical Christians are trying to throw the car in reverse. And all while they are in a fist fight with the Muslim fundamentalists (who are also looking for reverse) over who's hand will be on the shift lever. Meanwhile, the Quakers are pointing out that one should use the clutch when shifting gears and the Pastafarians are looking for a different car in which to ride.
Meanwhile the Agnostics remind us that no one really knows for sure, or can know for sure, where the damn car keys are!
What would you do instead? Let Rockerfeller continue to use his railroads to block oil competitors, buy out Microsoft and IBM, take control of Monsanto, gain a crippling hold over all shipping for the farming industry so he can permanently shut down any farm that doesn't follow his policies, and rule the world by dictate?
By "Rockefeller" I assume you mean the J.D. Rockefeller who died in 1937.
I don't mean to alarm you but if you think it's 1937 you probably ought to know that tomorrow Jack Benny and Fred Allen will start a feud that lasts 12 years. Later on in December Japan will occupy Nanking, even after Chiang Kai-shek destroyed the dikes along the Yellow River. Joe Medwick of the St. Louis Cardinals was baseball's MVP. You might also want to know that War Admiral won the Triple Crown in horse racing in case you wish to place a bet.
What would I do?
I would welcome you to 2013 where your loosely associated academic tidbits of perfunctory bullshit from 76 years ago have absolutely no context today. Get a sense of humor would you! My original reply on 12:26 PM March 13th, 2013 was a freakin' joke!
Socialism is a good thing... in moderation.
Really? Then give me two-thirds of your money and shut the fsck up until we tell you it's ok to describe socialism as anything but "greatness".
Shouldn't the shop that supposedly "re-imaged" it busted for fraud? One also might wonder why an FBI agent is using internal FBI resources to "scrub" a non FBI machine that isn't part of an investigation. Finally, these morons don't know about DBAN???
I've been a Slashdotter for 15 years and I had never heard of DBAN until reading your comment and Googling it.
Yea, but do you run a computer repair shop? If not, it's fair to assume you've never heard of DBAN; however, if your income is based in an industry for whom re-imaging computers is standard practice, having not heard of DBAN is a nigh unforgivable offense (and a damn good reason to avoid your shop in the future).
From the front page of the DBAN website:
DBAN users should be aware of some product limitations, including: No guarantee that data is removed
and
Professional data erasure tools are recommended for company and organizational users.
Not as unforgivable now is it?
Sorry no. On behalf of all Mexicans, Texans can stay in the USA or become independent, but we don't want them back.
It would seem that even the Mexicans don't want Mexico back judging from the number of Mexicans illegally entering Texas!
This leaking of information has consequences that may never be known to all parties involved. Unfortunate to some and cause for glee to others. Either way one would be a fool not to think that someone, somewhere, will lose his or her life and/or liberty over it.
I agree that human rights violations are wrong but it is also wrong to agree to a TOS and then come back later and try to compare agreeing with a TOS to Human Rights violations.
$100 an hour for a LAMP developer? Developers are getting paid way too much these days. $100 an hour = 3500 a week for a 35 hour week. That's $182,000 a year. I don't know many developers who make that much money. I also don't know too many who only work 35 hours a week.
Don't worry about the $182,000 a year. It'll be like making $35,000 once 'carbon use' payments, universal healthcare, and the various other tax hikes go into effect. I also wouldn't worry about working 35 hours a week because developers (as well as everyone else) will be begging to work any amount of hours they can get.
Is it just me or do the shadows just look wrong in the picture posted in the blog article?
I'm kind of fond of the 'release early, release often' school of thought. Waiting around until everything is perfect never seems to materialize and does little, if anything, to promote the strengths of free software development models.
Darl is a copy of an asshole.
Nope! He is an original asshole.
"Good question. Actually, the RIAA companies will NOT be able to use the transcript of Jennifer Pariser's testimony -- it is just out of court hearsay -- but WE, the defendant's lawyers, can use it, to show that Jennifer Pariser and SONY BMG are dishonest, do not take seriously the sanctity of an oath, will stop at nothing, and are ignorant of copyright law."
<comedy>Soooo...'splain to me why the *@$^ is this taking so long?</comedy>
Cheers