I think if you knew more about Charlton Heston you would not be so quick to label him a racist. It is true that a lot of older people are racist, but it would be fallacious to conclude that Heston is also. Heston was part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He marched with Dr. King, and did so "long before Hollywood found it fashionable" as he likes to put it.
Michael Moore asked him to explain why the United States was a more violent society, and Charlton Heston replied that it may be because we are a nation of "mixed ethnicity". I think this is a damn insightful response for an old guy with Alzheimers. Think about it, a lot of our country's violent past involved race struggles and Heston knows this better than most. But Moore didn't include the entire interview so what we were seeing is taken out of context.
It is dishonest to take quotes out of context to the extent that Micheal Moore does. If he and George Cloony want to perpetrate that it is ethical to be a dickhead towards people because they are in the NRA then they can do so without my dollars.
So you are saying that Please. Just because not everybody fell for Moore's video tricks doesn't mean many or most didn't. And as for your assertion that the line concerning the mayor was unedited, that isn't true. Here, let me do your google searching for you since it's such an inconvenience to research things before you spout off about them. Here is a comparison of the speech that Heston gave and the one shown in Bowling.
As for Heston's "mixed ethnicity" line at the end, that is clearly another edit job. Moore claims the interview was shown in its entirety, yet the clock in the background shows a lot of it is missing. It shows Charlton Heston getting up and leaving the interview 23 minutes in. But the whole interview only takes up less than 6 minutes on film. That is nearly three quarters of the interview edited out? I'm figuring the "mixed ethnicity" line was, like just about everything else, taken out of context.
It would have been more apparent had they not put the NRA billboard between the two scenes. And I doubt most people noticed the different suit, lighting, etc. But even if you ignore that part, the part about the mayor telling him not to come there and that they were already there...that is blatantly deceptive editing and is dishonest.
It is sort of ironic to have a Moore supporter accuse the other side of discrediting the intelligence of the viewers.
Not only that, but for a lot of average computer users, a computer that freezes up and doesn't work right is the status quo. Thus they have no reason to be dissatisfied with it.
So, your prosecutors are allowed to prosecute people for things they know aren't illegal in order to "save face"? And they can do this without reproach?
Yeah I'm sure it is OUR system that makes a mockery of the justice system.
Let's hear the Slashdot crowd claim, once again, how software piracy is not really theft
Well, you asked for it, so here we go. Software piracy is not theft. It is copyright infringement, which may or may not be fraud. The purchaser of the software, having agreed to the conditions of the sale, breeches his/her contract when he/she copies that software and gives it away. As such, most cases of non-commercial software piracy should remain civil matters between the buyer and seller of the software. It is only when the pirate sells the illegitimate software as legitimate software, or otherwise commits piracy for profit should criminal charges come into play.
That is why software piracy is not theft, and should not be a crime. As for piracy being unethical, I can see real world cases where it perfectly ethical. If you buy a software product, and your disc breaks and the company will not supply a replacement, I would not find it immoral to supply you with a copy of mine. But when we start creating bullshit words like "intellectual property" so that we can make software piracy look more like theft or that only pirates would ever need to circumvent a protection device, is where we start to point the ethic finger back at the software industry and tell them to look in the mirror for a change.
Indeed. Does Google give public tours of its datacenters? I mean, if some joe taking a tour can count up how many Dell servers have their lights blinking, then the whole idea of "trade secret" goes out the window.
Indeed, what if routing packets over satellite becomes that much cheaper than underwater fiber that it replaces it entirely and the country controlling those satellites can shutdown a nation's access to the internet on a whim?
Uh, no it isn't. My compensation does not include the taxes my employer has to pay to keep me. That is their expense. That is like saying the electricity that runs this PC is part of my compensation. It's a misrepresentation saying that the total cost of an employee constitutes that employee's compensation.
Benefits on the other hand are not always optional, and don't always pay out if you don't take advantage of them. If your company considers tuition reimbursement to be a benefit that contributes to your overall compensation, then you need to make it clear that spending your own time to continue your training is part of your overall contribution to them.
First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws...except in the US you don't go to jail for denying the holocaust, but okay.
ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control
Under whose control they want to be is irrelevant. They are US government contractors. They don't own what they operate.
Yes it does. ESX (aka Virtual Infrastructure) the hypervisor (thing that the virtual machines run on) is the base OS rather than an application running on a host OS like with Vmware Server or Workstation/Player. As a result the overhead is extremely low. But I'm not sure that is really relevant. Virtualization is appropriate when your application is not using your iron's full potential. If you virtualize an application that is already maxing our processor/memory, you are not following the published best practices.
I can see where some professions you would want to require a certain level of education credential. Doctor for sure. Lawyer most likely. Civil engineer perhaps because the penalty for incompetence can be measured in human lives... but Network Administrator?:-)
It isn't that there is a hatred for college degrees, or even an attitude that they are completely useless. I think the attitude is that college degrees have unnecessarily become a "basic education" credential where the absence of carries with it a certain stigma. And I can certainly understand why people would be upset about that.
Certainly college degrees aren't useless, but in the same respect they aren't completely necessary. I have a fairly well paying job without a bachelor's degree. However that being said, I am a part-time student pursuing a bachelor's degree, so obviously I do not view it as useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I think if you knew more about Charlton Heston you would not be so quick to label him a racist. It is true that a lot of older people are racist, but it would be fallacious to conclude that Heston is also. Heston was part of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He marched with Dr. King, and did so "long before Hollywood found it fashionable" as he likes to put it.
Michael Moore asked him to explain why the United States was a more violent society, and Charlton Heston replied that it may be because we are a nation of "mixed ethnicity". I think this is a damn insightful response for an old guy with Alzheimers. Think about it, a lot of our country's violent past involved race struggles and Heston knows this better than most. But Moore didn't include the entire interview so what we were seeing is taken out of context.
It is dishonest to take quotes out of context to the extent that Micheal Moore does. If he and George Cloony want to perpetrate that it is ethical to be a dickhead towards people because they are in the NRA then they can do so without my dollars.
As for Heston's "mixed ethnicity" line at the end, that is clearly another edit job. Moore claims the interview was shown in its entirety, yet the clock in the background shows a lot of it is missing. It shows Charlton Heston getting up and leaving the interview 23 minutes in. But the whole interview only takes up less than 6 minutes on film. That is nearly three quarters of the interview edited out? I'm figuring the "mixed ethnicity" line was, like just about everything else, taken out of context.
It would have been more apparent had they not put the NRA billboard between the two scenes. And I doubt most people noticed the different suit, lighting, etc. But even if you ignore that part, the part about the mayor telling him not to come there and that they were already there...that is blatantly deceptive editing and is dishonest.
It is sort of ironic to have a Moore supporter accuse the other side of discrediting the intelligence of the viewers.
The humor of your puns is still in the air.
I would work 11 hour days for 9 months to get 3 months off. Especially time off when the season is nice?
He is filming in a place where there is no expectation of privacy, and he is not licensing the video. No model release is needed.
Not only that, but for a lot of average computer users, a computer that freezes up and doesn't work right is the status quo. Thus they have no reason to be dissatisfied with it.
Thank you! I was hoping someone would explain that broadband had nothing to do with the speeds.
:/
I guess now all we can hope is that the FCC redefines baseband as being speeds of a gig or higher.
I liked this one:
:-)
"When Copernicus first wrote his paper on planetary motions, the predictions that he gave were really crummy, compared to the tomaic[...] predictions"
Somebody forgot the 'p'.
So, your prosecutors are allowed to prosecute people for things they know aren't illegal in order to "save face"? And they can do this without reproach?
Yeah I'm sure it is OUR system that makes a mockery of the justice system.
Do you want it to break?
What is a rhetorical question?
Let's hear the Slashdot crowd claim, once again, how software piracy is not really theft
Well, you asked for it, so here we go. Software piracy is not theft. It is copyright infringement, which may or may not be fraud. The purchaser of the software, having agreed to the conditions of the sale, breeches his/her contract when he/she copies that software and gives it away. As such, most cases of non-commercial software piracy should remain civil matters between the buyer and seller of the software. It is only when the pirate sells the illegitimate software as legitimate software, or otherwise commits piracy for profit should criminal charges come into play.
That is why software piracy is not theft, and should not be a crime. As for piracy being unethical, I can see real world cases where it perfectly ethical. If you buy a software product, and your disc breaks and the company will not supply a replacement, I would not find it immoral to supply you with a copy of mine. But when we start creating bullshit words like "intellectual property" so that we can make software piracy look more like theft or that only pirates would ever need to circumvent a protection device, is where we start to point the ethic finger back at the software industry and tell them to look in the mirror for a change.
Indeed. Does Google give public tours of its datacenters? I mean, if some joe taking a tour can count up how many Dell servers have their lights blinking, then the whole idea of "trade secret" goes out the window.
Indeed, what if routing packets over satellite becomes that much cheaper than underwater fiber that it replaces it entirely and the country controlling those satellites can shutdown a nation's access to the internet on a whim?
Uh, no it isn't. My compensation does not include the taxes my employer has to pay to keep me. That is their expense. That is like saying the electricity that runs this PC is part of my compensation. It's a misrepresentation saying that the total cost of an employee constitutes that employee's compensation.
Benefits on the other hand are not always optional, and don't always pay out if you don't take advantage of them. If your company considers tuition reimbursement to be a benefit that contributes to your overall compensation, then you need to make it clear that spending your own time to continue your training is part of your overall contribution to them.
The United States doesn't own the DNS root servers? That is news to me. Then who owns them?
First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws ...except in the US you don't go to jail for denying the holocaust, but okay.
ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control
Under whose control they want to be is irrelevant. They are US government contractors. They don't own what they operate.
Frankly, for one country to "control" ICANN, with what ICANN "controls" is foolish.
Not really when consider that what ICANN "controls" is essentially owned by that country.
Yes it does. ESX (aka Virtual Infrastructure) the hypervisor (thing that the virtual machines run on) is the base OS rather than an application running on a host OS like with Vmware Server or Workstation/Player. As a result the overhead is extremely low. But I'm not sure that is really relevant. Virtualization is appropriate when your application is not using your iron's full potential. If you virtualize an application that is already maxing our processor/memory, you are not following the published best practices.
I enjoy giving away copies of the OpenCD. It contains a lot of common open source programs that run under Microsoft Windows.
But it still creates a signal that can ONLY be sent from the local machine, rather than from a remote machine trying to log in.
VNC has a nifty little feature called "Send Ctrl-Alt-Del".
I can see where some professions you would want to require a certain level of education credential. Doctor for sure. Lawyer most likely. Civil engineer perhaps because the penalty for incompetence can be measured in human lives... but Network Administrator? :-)
It isn't that there is a hatred for college degrees, or even an attitude that they are completely useless. I think the attitude is that college degrees have unnecessarily become a "basic education" credential where the absence of carries with it a certain stigma. And I can certainly understand why people would be upset about that.
Certainly college degrees aren't useless, but in the same respect they aren't completely necessary. I have a fairly well paying job without a bachelor's degree. However that being said, I am a part-time student pursuing a bachelor's degree, so obviously I do not view it as useless.
It's not a common thing.
I was an hourly employee for Wal-Mart when I was in high school. Our breaks were paid.
I don't think it is as uncommon as you think.