According to CNN, the FAA and Air Force informed the NYPD and the NY Mayors office that this was going to happen, but the staff at both didn't think it would be necessary to 1) inform the public, or 2) inform the Mayor himself(!).
No wonder NYC is a mess:)
(not sure why the initial version of this was posted anonymously)
Sounds somewhat like how DAoC was at its height. I still have fond memories of keep defense in Thid. A relatively small number of people were playing MMOs back in the day, but 24 vs 24 siege battles were great fun. Sadly, Warhammer never recaptured that issue (DAoC had issues with severe grind, though, so it wasn't all good).
I suppose, if you have a rosy-eyed view of how women (in general) behave. It's somewhat interesting to explore how people feel about how other women act. I assure you that its quite illuminating (even when you account for their potential bias in wanting to gain your favor/trust/etc by denigrating other women for their on benefit).
The offspring are both yours and theirs (though many times courts will side with women over men when it comes to custody, so there can be some debate as to whose they are "more"), so yes, the kids are "theirs" (as well as "yours").
Besides, he was speaking of "love" not reproduction. It's pretty easy to divine why women gravitate towards men with the most resources, after all. Its a biological tendency to find the mate who can most likely aid her in successfully raising offspring to adulthood. Natural selection at its finest.
The "don't deserve children" is pretty dramatic, don't you think? Very "daytime tv" of you.
I'm also not sure why accurately describing how women (in general) view relationships and offspring is evidence of emotional fuck-ed-ness. Apparently you've never seen the typical behavior of divorced humans in relation to eachother and their offspring.
Ah, but to be human is little more than a complex social abstraction laid upon the core reason that we exist: to reproduce.
As such, pretty much everything we do is, in some way or another, linked to our need to produce offspring.
I would posit that your reaction to the previous posts is simply a psychological defense mechanism. If everything that makes you "you", and everything that makes "being human" is simply fluff on top of a complex gene-passing sexual process, everything you hold to be true and important would be at risk of being negated.
The previous posters aren't sad individuals, they've simply boiled down the "frosting" of humanity and presented our existence in terms that can be explained via the same paradigms that we explain the rest of the animal world.
Eh. Problem with that book is like many books in its genre. It seems really insightful until you think about the exceptions. And then you realize that there are so many exceptions to its "wisdom" that its not really that wise at all.
Your corporate desktops typically don't use OWA, they use the full client. OWA is more for a quick remote solution to email that doesn't require additional corporate hardware. I guess you could use OWA as a primary, but it does lack somewhat in that capability.
But this is my entire point. Both of your reasonings don't actually provide the "guarantee of quality" that people claim you get with that sort of organization and certification. The zealous guarding of the term "engineer" doesn't contribute to that at all.
I didn't pass my electricians exam, when can I work on your wiring?
This happens a lot. When's the last time you checked an electrician to see if they had a license? How often do you think the average person checks? You realize many companies don't really check either, right?
I didn't pass my drivers test, when can I pick you up in my unlicensed taxi?
When's the last time you checked to see if your taxi drivers' license was real?
I didn't pass my plumbers exam, when can I work on your pipes?
See the above.
Licenses and certifications exist for a reason. To protect the public.
Only when they are coupled with enforcement. I assure you, that in reality licenses generate more revenue than they do safety (see: how many people are horrible drivers and yet continue to have licenses).
You can't call yourself what you are not. Software developers without a ABET degree are not Engineers.
Of course you can call yourself "what you are not". The reality is that except in certain cases, no one checks to see if you "are what you claim you are". I had a math prof, head of the dept, who after 20 years was "demoted" to head of undergraduate studies when it was found that he actually had never finished his PhD (he was a brilliant guy, so no one ever really had cause to look). Same thing happens daily on smaller scales.
Because its a false sense of "quality". Just because someone took the test and passed, doesn't mean they will follow those guidelines in their day-to-day career.
It's just a way of creating artificial scarcity while providing marketing opportunities for those that jump through the hoops by claiming that "engineer" means something special. It's really nothing more than a more rigidly guarded certification track.
Maybe you just need to move, or move to a different industry. Most of the folks I know who are good at their jobs in the coding field are gainfully employed.
Yes, I think the point of our society (in the sense that we're talking about)is encouraging and promoting freedom. Without that very important characteristic, we're essentially interchangeable with any other company with a somewhat free-market.
The Dixie Chicks incident was not simply a "fans didn't like it" thing, since the Dixie Chicks are still around and doing fine, obviously. The problem with the incident is that it revealed the frightening number of people who still believe that criticism of our government in public is disloyal. This gave the party in power popular cover to paint anyone against their policies as "against America". Nationalistic, jingoist, dittoheaded nonsense.
We kinda fought a war, you might have heard of it, so that we could do that without being accused of being disloyal or traitorous. Maybe you need to go back and become reacquainted with the reasons why we are free to criticize the government.
The "good side"? Is that the side that is opposed to the war? The people planting road side bombs in Iraq were against the war. Were they on the "good side" too?
That'd be "the side that correctly surmised that the war was a distraction from the actual War on Terror", as pretty much everyone now agrees it was.
Listen, she has the right to say whatever she wishes, wherever she wishes. That's what free speech is all about. However, it shows a true lack class to air your dirty laundry over seas. You don't go to another country and bad mouth your home country. It's in bad taste.
No, it's not in bad taste, it's a demonstration of exactly how American society works.
Also, that same freedom of speech is what allows people like to me to call her out on it, and you to call me out on calling her out and so on.
The difference being that you want her to not say her mind based on outdated, nationalistic (sorry, "patriotic") ideals. That runs counter to the entire point of American democracy and freedom.
Also, I never said she bad mouthed the troops. She bad mouthed their mission. When she says the war is wrong, she is also saying that those carrying out the war are wrong. Like it or not, you can not oppose the mission without opposing the troops who are risking their lives to carry out that mission.
If you are unable to mentally separate the mission from the folks who do their duty and do the mission, that is unfortunate. Most of us are able to do just that, though. Soldiers swear to carry out legal orders, and the order to invade Iraq was (from the viewpoint of US law and the chain of command) legal. Therefore, they were obligated to carry it out. That doesn't mean I am obliged to mindlessly grant validity to reasons our leaders at the time gave for issuing those orders. That's silly.
She could have criticized the war without actually criticizing the missions. She should have said something like, "We wish we could have found a peaceful resolution and we hope that this war is over as soon as possible so that the good people on both sides of this mess can get back to enjoying their lives."
Yes, except that's not what she meant, and there's no requirement that you pull punches when actually being embarrassed at US actions.
And to end this, I think that Maines got a bum wrap. I do feel what she said was wrong, but when she said, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect... We are currently in Europe & witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children & American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American." it should have been the end of it.
I don't think she should have apologized. It's entirely possible for someone to respect the office and think the person in the office is a dumbass. I, too, was embarrassed that the leader of the free world could barely speak sentences longer than 5 words and was pretzel impaired. Doesn't mean I think American democracy (or the US in general) was bad, just that, unfortunately, people elected the wrong person for the wrong reasons.
You really need to spend some time thinking about why you cling to blind nationalism in order to defend against the criticism, and flat-out face-palming, of the United States that is protected and guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. It is not particularly smart.
Tell that to the guys over there getting shot at. Do you think it's any less of a war to them? How many of those guys planting road side bombs received comfort from Natalie Maines' words?
She wasn't on a USO tour, and she wasn't talking about troops. You must be one of those people who think its impossible to criticize the policies that our government decides to enact which result in armed conflicts without denigrating the military volunteers who are doing their sworn duty.
The reason they are fighting (in theory at least) is to that Maines CAN say what she wants to say about the President. How can you not understand that?
Tell that to Orwell. I posted his quote, not mine. Then again, what would the author of 1984 and Animal Farm know about totalitarianism.
The comment was not about Orwell, it's about the flaw in the logic that would conclude that speaking ill of the government is disloyal in a time of war (which we're not in), so it must also, in your mind, apply to times of armed conflict. Which never end. And, therefore, we can never speak ill of the government.
Twice! He was one Hell of a governor. He truly united both Democrats and Republicans in this state. He compromised and received compromise from the Democrats. Unfortunately, that doesn't work on a federal level. Take vouchers for example. You know, that program that gives money to poor kids so they can have the same opportunity as the rich kids? Opposed by Democrats because it had Bush's name on it.
The irony there, which you apparently miss, is that the plan redistributes wealth. A GOP mantra against that sort of thing has been somewhat of a constant, irritating drone since mid-summer 2008.
Bush probably would have had more success on the Federal level if he hadn't quickly moved towards a "you're either with me or against me" philosophy of governance. But, at that point he was more or less the pawn of the RNC and its real movers and shakers, so I don't know how much real control he had over that.
You must be too young to remember Carter, Nixon, Ford or Johnson, and too ignorant to know about of the other truly failed Presidents in America's history (like the other Johnson).
Do you always think in absolutes? "One of the worst" is not the same as "the worst". Ranking "the worst" would depend on a lot of variable balancing, but I don't know anyone with more than half a brain who doesn't think that Bush is definitely mingling at the bottom of the list. Hard to even find people who will freely offer that they voted for him these days.
Remember Greenspan? You know, the guy who is credited with one of the largest economic expansions in US history? What President was he under again?
Oh you mean that guy who now freely admits he missed one of the most catastrophic feedback loops in the history of modern economics?
(actually, it was four presidents, but the largest economic expansion happened under the last one.... well until Democrats took over Congress again)
I think you need to look at that again, and see which presidents had GDPs and other economic indicators that ended higher than when they initially took office.
Finally, as to your rant against Texas. Have you ever been here?
Yes, I have immediate family members that live there. I didn't say it was a bad place, I said that people like you give it a bad image. You'd help more by typing and speaking less.
You do realize that Texas is doing better economically than most of the nation right now?
While Texas does indeed have number of industries that aren't doing poorly, that also isn't saying a whole lot in the current economic climate.
Obama's only redeeming quality is that he has a talent for reading speeches from a teleprompter. I seriously doubt that he even wrote any of them.
You do realize that all high level politicians, 1) read speeches off teleprompters if at all possible, due to its assistance in allowing the speaker to make eye contact with the audience, and, 2) very rarely write their own speeches, don't you?
I keep seeing this "Obama uses a teleprompter" meme over and over again, with the implication that it is somehow new and/or unique to Obama's public speaking. I assure you, it is not.
Bullshit. The Dixie Chicks have their views and we have ours. BTW, Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?
The Dixie Chicks have every right to speak their mind. I have every right to disagree with them and not give them any more money.
I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.
A huge point of American democracy is that we can criticize our government in public. It's not disloyal, it's the POINT of our society, you dumbass.
Slashdot Mirror
According to CNN, the FAA and Air Force informed the NYPD and the NY Mayors office that this was going to happen, but the staff at both didn't think it would be necessary to 1) inform the public, or 2) inform the Mayor himself(!).
No wonder NYC is a mess :)
(not sure why the initial version of this was posted anonymously)
Sounds somewhat like how DAoC was at its height. I still have fond memories of keep defense in Thid. A relatively small number of people were playing MMOs back in the day, but 24 vs 24 siege battles were great fun. Sadly, Warhammer never recaptured that issue (DAoC had issues with severe grind, though, so it wasn't all good).
I suppose, if you have a rosy-eyed view of how women (in general) behave. It's somewhat interesting to explore how people feel about how other women act. I assure you that its quite illuminating (even when you account for their potential bias in wanting to gain your favor/trust/etc by denigrating other women for their on benefit).
Smart man. I keep trying to apply this theory to practice. Am better than I used to be :D
The offspring are both yours and theirs (though many times courts will side with women over men when it comes to custody, so there can be some debate as to whose they are "more"), so yes, the kids are "theirs" (as well as "yours").
Besides, he was speaking of "love" not reproduction. It's pretty easy to divine why women gravitate towards men with the most resources, after all. Its a biological tendency to find the mate who can most likely aid her in successfully raising offspring to adulthood. Natural selection at its finest.
The "don't deserve children" is pretty dramatic, don't you think? Very "daytime tv" of you.
I'm also not sure why accurately describing how women (in general) view relationships and offspring is evidence of emotional fuck-ed-ness. Apparently you've never seen the typical behavior of divorced humans in relation to eachother and their offspring.
Ah, but to be human is little more than a complex social abstraction laid upon the core reason that we exist: to reproduce.
As such, pretty much everything we do is, in some way or another, linked to our need to produce offspring.
I would posit that your reaction to the previous posts is simply a psychological defense mechanism. If everything that makes you "you", and everything that makes "being human" is simply fluff on top of a complex gene-passing sexual process, everything you hold to be true and important would be at risk of being negated.
The previous posters aren't sad individuals, they've simply boiled down the "frosting" of humanity and presented our existence in terms that can be explained via the same paradigms that we explain the rest of the animal world.
Alas, I cannot mod this "funny" because I already posted under this article.
Eh. Problem with that book is like many books in its genre. It seems really insightful until you think about the exceptions. And then you realize that there are so many exceptions to its "wisdom" that its not really that wise at all.
Having grown up in MN, I can tell you the main reason that MN is happier is due to the gloriously high beer to life ratio.
Your corporate desktops typically don't use OWA, they use the full client. OWA is more for a quick remote solution to email that doesn't require additional corporate hardware. I guess you could use OWA as a primary, but it does lack somewhat in that capability.
That was my point. FF and what not always worked, just in a way that was a significantly degraded workspace experience.
Finally. Sheesh. No reason why this couldn't have been implemented years ago instead of relegating them to OWA Lite.
But this is my entire point. Both of your reasonings don't actually provide the "guarantee of quality" that people claim you get with that sort of organization and certification. The zealous guarding of the term "engineer" doesn't contribute to that at all.
I didn't pass my electricians exam, when can I work on your wiring?
This happens a lot. When's the last time you checked an electrician to see if they had a license? How often do you think the average person checks? You realize many companies don't really check either, right?
I didn't pass my drivers test, when can I pick you up in my unlicensed taxi?
When's the last time you checked to see if your taxi drivers' license was real?
I didn't pass my plumbers exam, when can I work on your pipes?
See the above.
Licenses and certifications exist for a reason. To protect the public.
Only when they are coupled with enforcement. I assure you, that in reality licenses generate more revenue than they do safety (see: how many people are horrible drivers and yet continue to have licenses).
You can't call yourself what you are not. Software developers without a ABET degree are not Engineers.
Of course you can call yourself "what you are not". The reality is that except in certain cases, no one checks to see if you "are what you claim you are". I had a math prof, head of the dept, who after 20 years was "demoted" to head of undergraduate studies when it was found that he actually had never finished his PhD (he was a brilliant guy, so no one ever really had cause to look). Same thing happens daily on smaller scales.
Because its a false sense of "quality". Just because someone took the test and passed, doesn't mean they will follow those guidelines in their day-to-day career.
It's just a way of creating artificial scarcity while providing marketing opportunities for those that jump through the hoops by claiming that "engineer" means something special. It's really nothing more than a more rigidly guarded certification track.
I mean that you need to move to an industry that needs more programmers.
There are plenty of over-40 programmers in my current job, btw. No, I won't give you a reference.
Maybe you just need to move, or move to a different industry. Most of the folks I know who are good at their jobs in the coding field are gainfully employed.
Oh god, not the "if you don't pass the PE test you can't call yourself an engineer" nonsense again.
Yes, I think the point of our society (in the sense that we're talking about)is encouraging and promoting freedom. Without that very important characteristic, we're essentially interchangeable with any other company with a somewhat free-market.
The Dixie Chicks incident was not simply a "fans didn't like it" thing, since the Dixie Chicks are still around and doing fine, obviously. The problem with the incident is that it revealed the frightening number of people who still believe that criticism of our government in public is disloyal. This gave the party in power popular cover to paint anyone against their policies as "against America". Nationalistic, jingoist, dittoheaded nonsense.
We kinda fought a war, you might have heard of it, so that we could do that without being accused of being disloyal or traitorous. Maybe you need to go back and become reacquainted with the reasons why we are free to criticize the government.
The "good side"? Is that the side that is opposed to the war? The people planting road side bombs in Iraq were against the war. Were they on the "good side" too?
That'd be "the side that correctly surmised that the war was a distraction from the actual War on Terror", as pretty much everyone now agrees it was.
Listen, she has the right to say whatever she wishes, wherever she wishes. That's what free speech is all about. However, it shows a true lack class to air your dirty laundry over seas. You don't go to another country and bad mouth your home country. It's in bad taste.
No, it's not in bad taste, it's a demonstration of exactly how American society works.
Also, that same freedom of speech is what allows people like to me to call her out on it, and you to call me out on calling her out and so on.
The difference being that you want her to not say her mind based on outdated, nationalistic (sorry, "patriotic") ideals. That runs counter to the entire point of American democracy and freedom.
Also, I never said she bad mouthed the troops. She bad mouthed their mission. When she says the war is wrong, she is also saying that those carrying out the war are wrong. Like it or not, you can not oppose the mission without opposing the troops who are risking their lives to carry out that mission.
If you are unable to mentally separate the mission from the folks who do their duty and do the mission, that is unfortunate. Most of us are able to do just that, though. Soldiers swear to carry out legal orders, and the order to invade Iraq was (from the viewpoint of US law and the chain of command) legal. Therefore, they were obligated to carry it out. That doesn't mean I am obliged to mindlessly grant validity to reasons our leaders at the time gave for issuing those orders. That's silly.
She could have criticized the war without actually criticizing the missions. She should have said something like, "We wish we could have found a peaceful resolution and we hope that this war is over as soon as possible so that the good people on both sides of this mess can get back to enjoying their lives."
Yes, except that's not what she meant, and there's no requirement that you pull punches when actually being embarrassed at US actions.
And to end this, I think that Maines got a bum wrap. I do feel what she said was wrong, but when she said, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect... We are currently in Europe & witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children & American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American." it should have been the end of it.
I don't think she should have apologized. It's entirely possible for someone to respect the office and think the person in the office is a dumbass. I, too, was embarrassed that the leader of the free world could barely speak sentences longer than 5 words and was pretzel impaired. Doesn't mean I think American democracy (or the US in general) was bad, just that, unfortunately, people elected the wrong person for the wrong reasons.
You really need to spend some time thinking about why you cling to blind nationalism in order to defend against the criticism, and flat-out face-palming, of the United States that is protected and guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. It is not particularly smart.
EB did this since the late 80's / early 90's. If it's only been noticed right now, then is it really a problem?
OMG
OMG!!!!111
Tell that to the guys over there getting shot at. Do you think it's any less of a war to them? How many of those guys planting road side bombs received comfort from Natalie Maines' words?
She wasn't on a USO tour, and she wasn't talking about troops. You must be one of those people who think its impossible to criticize the policies that our government decides to enact which result in armed conflicts without denigrating the military volunteers who are doing their sworn duty.
The reason they are fighting (in theory at least) is to that Maines CAN say what she wants to say about the President. How can you not understand that?
Tell that to Orwell. I posted his quote, not mine. Then again, what would the author of 1984 and Animal Farm know about totalitarianism.
The comment was not about Orwell, it's about the flaw in the logic that would conclude that speaking ill of the government is disloyal in a time of war (which we're not in), so it must also, in your mind, apply to times of armed conflict. Which never end. And, therefore, we can never speak ill of the government.
Twice! He was one Hell of a governor. He truly united both Democrats and Republicans in this state. He compromised and received compromise from the Democrats. Unfortunately, that doesn't work on a federal level. Take vouchers for example. You know, that program that gives money to poor kids so they can have the same opportunity as the rich kids? Opposed by Democrats because it had Bush's name on it.
The irony there, which you apparently miss, is that the plan redistributes wealth. A GOP mantra against that sort of thing has been somewhat of a constant, irritating drone since mid-summer 2008.
Bush probably would have had more success on the Federal level if he hadn't quickly moved towards a "you're either with me or against me" philosophy of governance. But, at that point he was more or less the pawn of the RNC and its real movers and shakers, so I don't know how much real control he had over that.
You must be too young to remember Carter, Nixon, Ford or Johnson, and too ignorant to know about of the other truly failed Presidents in America's history (like the other Johnson).
Do you always think in absolutes? "One of the worst" is not the same as "the worst". Ranking "the worst" would depend on a lot of variable balancing, but I don't know anyone with more than half a brain who doesn't think that Bush is definitely mingling at the bottom of the list. Hard to even find people who will freely offer that they voted for him these days.
Remember Greenspan? You know, the guy who is credited with one of the largest economic expansions in US history? What President was he under again?
Oh you mean that guy who now freely admits he missed one of the most catastrophic feedback loops in the history of modern economics?
(actually, it was four presidents, but the largest economic expansion happened under the last one.... well until Democrats took over Congress again)
I think you need to look at that again, and see which presidents had GDPs and other economic indicators that ended higher than when they initially took office.
Finally, as to your rant against Texas. Have you ever been here?
Yes, I have immediate family members that live there. I didn't say it was a bad place, I said that people like you give it a bad image. You'd help more by typing and speaking less.
You do realize that Texas is doing better economically than most of the nation right now?
While Texas does indeed have number of industries that aren't doing poorly, that also isn't saying a whole lot in the current economic climate.
If I want to hear whargarbl from a strict constructionist, I'll go to Free Republic, thanks.
Obama's only redeeming quality is that he has a talent for reading speeches from a teleprompter. I seriously doubt that he even wrote any of them.
You do realize that all high level politicians, 1) read speeches off teleprompters if at all possible, due to its assistance in allowing the speaker to make eye contact with the audience, and, 2) very rarely write their own speeches, don't you?
I keep seeing this "Obama uses a teleprompter" meme over and over again, with the implication that it is somehow new and/or unique to Obama's public speaking. I assure you, it is not.
Bullshit. The Dixie Chicks have their views and we have ours. BTW, Pelosi says it is un-American to enforce our immigration laws. How does that grab you?
The Dixie Chicks have every right to speak their mind. I have every right to disagree with them and not give them any more money.
I do take offense when Americans go off to France, for example, and criticize our President or our country. All they are doing is selfishly making themselves more important at the expense of the rest of us. Its a kick in the teeth to the brave soldiers risking their lives for our safety.
A huge point of American democracy is that we can criticize our government in public. It's not disloyal, it's the POINT of our society, you dumbass.