You know, the whole time that meme was in force, I interpreted "petrified" as "physically turned to stone" - which made it harmless.
But with the Harvey W. stuff that has been finally dragged to light, it seems that "petrified" was more likely to actually be"frozen in place with fear"... which is just icky and creepy. Who'd wish that on anybody?
Not me for sure.
Anyway, Red Hat - I still have my RH 5 floppies. I transitioned to Ubuntu a few years ago, but I still have a soft spot for RH. You never forget your first.
I tell you though, there's a big difference between the P1-233 that I started with, and the Ryzen 1700X I'm on now, boy howdy.....
Whoops, the microwave dinged. Grits are hot! Now where are my pants....
Right. So let me chime in on this, because my profession has been leading the charge in this area for a little while now.
I'm military.
We started out with "Women have no place in combat." which for the longest time was seen as self-evident truth. Then it was decided to trial women in Combat Arms trades, and we discovered that actually, no, there is no reason why women cannot function (and even excel!) in combat arms trades. *Individual* women may not be suited for it, but that is equally true of men as well. There is nothing systemic about your genitalia that disqualifies you from being able to perform in combat.
This is now, in our Army at least, considered a "solved problem". We tried it, we tested it, and none of the apocalyptic scenarios widely predicted came to pass. The is *no issue here*. (And incidentally, we went through the same thing with homosexuality - with the same result. No issue.)
So that was Phase 1.
Phase 2 was about how soldiers treat each other, specifically with regards to sexual misconduct. Some stuff happened, a study was commissioned, and we discovered we had two issues to address: the first was soldiers acting in inappropriate manners toward each other; the second was "bystander effect" witnesses not coming forward to report offenses when observed. Interestingly, the *prevalence* of this behavior was at or slightly lower than that seen in society at large, but the leadership take on the issue was that soldiers are held to a higher behavioral standard (as befits citizens entrusted with the power to kill) and so *any* occurrence was too much. Training was designed and delivered (and I have to say that it was very even-handed. It didn't pick on any specific gender or orientation and it reinforced that *everyone* was to be held to the same standard).
We're still in this phase, but since the problem was identified and the training delivered, I've seen with my own eyes (more often, heard with my own ears) significant progress being made. Now that the training has been rolled out and everyone has gotten it, whatever sense there might have been that this was just "SJW running wild" has dissipated, and I think it's fair to say that the entire Army has bought in to the idea that this is just common sense stuff that duly needed to be underscored. I imagine that in 5 years or so it will be as fully integrated to Army culture as the gender equality of combat arms trades is now.
Phase 3 is on the horizon (the Government has started talking about it) and that is about percentages - basically "we don't have enough women in the Army and we want to see the numbers come up.".
This one is tricky. Phase 1 was basically "Don't exclude anyone just because of their gender/orientation - given them the same chance to succeed/fail as any other gender/orientation". Phase 2 was "Don't mistreat your comrades, and if you witness mistreatment, report it". Those are, in retrospect, no-brainers.
Phase 3 requires an honest assessment of the recruiting, training, and force-employment process to see if there are any factors involved with those processes that are unjustly interfering with those processes based on gender/orientation, and if there are, eliminating them. It does *not* mean lowering standards or imposing quotas *at all* - just examining our recruiting/production/retention processes to see if there are any biases that should be eliminated, which I think is worthy work.
I'm not sure that we can meet the percentages that the Government wants, because ultimately, women have to *want* to become part of this career, and I'm not entirely sure that "desire to join the Army and fight" is gender-neutral. But to *presuppose* that is to miss the point entirely, so it behooves us to carry out the analysis.
I see this as key terrain for the Army, not a waste of time - because the military of any democracy must reflect the composition and values of the nation that supports it. Citizens must be able to look at their Army and see a reflection of themselves - and ideal
There is a balance that needs to happen here - on one hand, an understanding that law enforcement will need to legitimately poke their noses into people's business from time to time. It is certainly to society's benefit that law enforcement be allowed to act with a degree of preemption rather than purely reactionary.
But at the same time, there must also be an understanding that law enforcement is composed of *people*, who are every bit as fallible and subject to moments of weakness, temptation, and corruption as any other people - and so accordingly must be required to act out in the open, subject to inspection. And when law enforcement *does* overstep their bounds, they must be held accountable.
We, as a society, have been lax on the latter. We've allowed some elements of law enforcement to run amok (motivated by mostly good intentions to be sure). Those transgressions are slowly being corrected, and constant vigilance is good practice.
By the same token though, assuming that *all* law enforcement activity is unjustified and harmful is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The pendulum cannot swing too far over in the other direction.
And most of the top comments in this thread are just mindless shoves at the pendulum. More balance and moderation is required.
"Hello, Authorities? I think this man is up to No Good. I'm seeing behavior that leads me to think a Plot is Afoot.".
"Thank you Sir. We'll check it out."
[an Investigation is Conducted]
"Well, it turns out that there's nothing going on that contravenes the law. No Nefarious Plot. We'll file this in our archives and move on to something else."
The fact that an investigation was conducted in response to a complaint is *to be expected*. That's what the "I" in "FBI" is all about. The good news here was that when the investigation turned up nothing illegal, it was shelved.
Now it is certainly true that during the McCarthy Era, there *were* investigations that went too far, and innocent people suffered consequences even when they were never charged and convicted. There was much for law enforcement and government to learn during this time period. I'm certainly no fan of witch hunts - especially ones where the definition of "witch" is not well defined.
But it is also true that there *were* foreign agents about, and they *were* seeking to do harm. Investigating leads that might end up in a legitimate conviction is a good thing. Dropping an investigation that proves unfounded is also a good thing.
But Oh Noes! Government! Security! These things must be bad, right?
Why "ride the coattails" rather than "stand on the shoulders of giants"?
Is it so terrible that someone might benefit from someone else's work? That multiple eyeballs see the same info, multiple brains ponder meaning, multiple voices tell its story?
Attempting to protect exclusivity with public information is not the right answer.
Good idea in theory, non sustainable in practice. There's just too much information generated daily; the cost of hosting would be overly high and I bet the UI for navigating it would be horrid.
The current process is nominally OK, less the fact that only one person benefits from the work of retrieving it. Once found, it should be free for all.
FOIA is about releasing information held by public agencies to the public. We all "own" it, we have a right to see it, and if we ask, we can.
That's the public "we". Putting in a FOIA request doesn't make that information "yours" and a business model that depends on you adding an additional layer of secrecy is fundamentally flawed. The public has no interest in helping to maintain your flawed business model.
Slashdot Mirror
So we're all clear - "petrified" as in "turned to stone" not "terrified", right?
I found myself wondering about that several years after the fact - one is a joke,the other is *really* creepy.
I always understood "turned to stone" myself.
Only if she is naked and petrified.
RIP RobLimo .FWIW, your work touched a lot of lives. And in a good way, not a JonKatz sort of way.
You know, the whole time that meme was in force, I interpreted "petrified" as "physically turned to stone" - which made it harmless.
But with the Harvey W. stuff that has been finally dragged to light, it seems that "petrified" was more likely to actually be"frozen in place with fear"... which is just icky and creepy. Who'd wish that on anybody?
Not me for sure.
Anyway, Red Hat - I still have my RH 5 floppies. I transitioned to Ubuntu a few years ago, but I still have a soft spot for RH. You never forget your first.
I tell you though, there's a big difference between the P1-233 that I started with, and the Ryzen 1700X I'm on now, boy howdy.....
Whoops, the microwave dinged. Grits are hot! Now where are my pants....
Wow. There STILL are goat.cx trolls on Slashdot.
I wonder if this is some poor orphaned bot, long abandoned by the script kiddy who wrote it, running on some forgotten p0wn3d webserver from 1999....
My house is electrically heated. This way I get more work out of my heater.
I'm probably going to buy a Vega once Sapphire releases their aftermarket cooled, OC version.
Right. So let me chime in on this, because my profession has been leading the charge in this area for a little while now.
I'm military.
We started out with "Women have no place in combat." which for the longest time was seen as self-evident truth. Then it was decided to trial women in Combat Arms trades, and we discovered that actually, no, there is no reason why women cannot function (and even excel!) in combat arms trades. *Individual* women may not be suited for it, but that is equally true of men as well. There is nothing systemic about your genitalia that disqualifies you from being able to perform in combat.
This is now, in our Army at least, considered a "solved problem". We tried it, we tested it, and none of the apocalyptic scenarios widely predicted came to pass. The is *no issue here*. (And incidentally, we went through the same thing with homosexuality - with the same result. No issue.)
So that was Phase 1.
Phase 2 was about how soldiers treat each other, specifically with regards to sexual misconduct. Some stuff happened, a study was commissioned, and we discovered we had two issues to address: the first was soldiers acting in inappropriate manners toward each other; the second was "bystander effect" witnesses not coming forward to report offenses when observed. Interestingly, the *prevalence* of this behavior was at or slightly lower than that seen in society at large, but the leadership take on the issue was that soldiers are held to a higher behavioral standard (as befits citizens entrusted with the power to kill) and so *any* occurrence was too much. Training was designed and delivered (and I have to say that it was very even-handed. It didn't pick on any specific gender or orientation and it reinforced that *everyone* was to be held to the same standard).
We're still in this phase, but since the problem was identified and the training delivered, I've seen with my own eyes (more often, heard with my own ears) significant progress being made. Now that the training has been rolled out and everyone has gotten it, whatever sense there might have been that this was just "SJW running wild" has dissipated, and I think it's fair to say that the entire Army has bought in to the idea that this is just common sense stuff that duly needed to be underscored. I imagine that in 5 years or so it will be as fully integrated to Army culture as the gender equality of combat arms trades is now.
Phase 3 is on the horizon (the Government has started talking about it) and that is about percentages - basically "we don't have enough women in the Army and we want to see the numbers come up.".
This one is tricky. Phase 1 was basically "Don't exclude anyone just because of their gender/orientation - given them the same chance to succeed/fail as any other gender/orientation". Phase 2 was "Don't mistreat your comrades, and if you witness mistreatment, report it". Those are, in retrospect, no-brainers.
Phase 3 requires an honest assessment of the recruiting, training, and force-employment process to see if there are any factors involved with those processes that are unjustly interfering with those processes based on gender/orientation, and if there are, eliminating them. It does *not* mean lowering standards or imposing quotas *at all* - just examining our recruiting/production/retention processes to see if there are any biases that should be eliminated, which I think is worthy work.
I'm not sure that we can meet the percentages that the Government wants, because ultimately, women have to *want* to become part of this career, and I'm not entirely sure that "desire to join the Army and fight" is gender-neutral. But to *presuppose* that is to miss the point entirely, so it behooves us to carry out the analysis.
I see this as key terrain for the Army, not a waste of time - because the military of any democracy must reflect the composition and values of the nation that supports it. Citizens must be able to look at their Army and see a reflection of themselves - and ideal
Bloody Windows and no way to troubleshoot this.
No.
John Katz.
I sexually identify as an Apache Attack Helicopter - what's MY extension?
That's an excellent and relevant question.
There is a balance that needs to happen here - on one hand, an understanding that law enforcement will need to legitimately poke their noses into people's business from time to time. It is certainly to society's benefit that law enforcement be allowed to act with a degree of preemption rather than purely reactionary.
But at the same time, there must also be an understanding that law enforcement is composed of *people*, who are every bit as fallible and subject to moments of weakness, temptation, and corruption as any other people - and so accordingly must be required to act out in the open, subject to inspection. And when law enforcement *does* overstep their bounds, they must be held accountable.
We, as a society, have been lax on the latter. We've allowed some elements of law enforcement to run amok (motivated by mostly good intentions to be sure). Those transgressions are slowly being corrected, and constant vigilance is good practice.
By the same token though, assuming that *all* law enforcement activity is unjustified and harmful is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The pendulum cannot swing too far over in the other direction.
And most of the top comments in this thread are just mindless shoves at the pendulum. More balance and moderation is required.
And as a corollary:
"Hello, Authorities? I think this man is up to No Good. I'm seeing behavior that leads me to think a Plot is Afoot.".
"Thank you Sir. We'll check it out."
[an Investigation is Conducted]
"Well, it turns out that there's nothing going on that contravenes the law. No Nefarious Plot. We'll file this in our archives and move on to something else."
The fact that an investigation was conducted in response to a complaint is *to be expected*. That's what the "I" in "FBI" is all about. The good news here was that when the investigation turned up nothing illegal, it was shelved.
Now it is certainly true that during the McCarthy Era, there *were* investigations that went too far, and innocent people suffered consequences even when they were never charged and convicted. There was much for law enforcement and government to learn during this time period. I'm certainly no fan of witch hunts - especially ones where the definition of "witch" is not well defined.
But it is also true that there *were* foreign agents about, and they *were* seeking to do harm. Investigating leads that might end up in a legitimate conviction is a good thing. Dropping an investigation that proves unfounded is also a good thing.
But Oh Noes! Government! Security! These things must be bad, right?
Stop with the friggin' agism already.
Fresh install on brand new SSD, single-boot. (The mb and other hardware was older, but the drive was new)
It took several attempts before it took, and I was doing nothing but the defaults.
I recently built a Windows 7 box (out of an old Linux box - my how times have changed) and it was a hair pulling, teeth gnashing, ragefest.
It makes you really appreciate how much help Linux gives you in sorting out weird problems.
Does that make it right then? Is the moral standard for what's right now "whatever the public lets us get away with"?
If so, I understand your desire to minimize exposure of public information....
Why "ride the coattails" rather than "stand on the shoulders of giants"?
Is it so terrible that someone might benefit from someone else's work? That multiple eyeballs see the same info, multiple brains ponder meaning, multiple voices tell its story?
Attempting to protect exclusivity with public information is not the right answer.
Good idea in theory, non sustainable in practice. There's just too much information generated daily; the cost of hosting would be overly high and I bet the UI for navigating it would be horrid.
The current process is nominally OK, less the fact that only one person benefits from the work of retrieving it. Once found, it should be free for all.
And waste more taxpayer money forcing a public employee to go through all the work again?
Free for one, free for all. Putting in the initial request is performing a public service, not something proprietary.
If the process is a "maze", that suggests a process improvement to be made, not an excuse to privatize public information.
FOIA is about releasing information held by public agencies to the public. We all "own" it, we have a right to see it, and if we ask, we can.
That's the public "we". Putting in a FOIA request doesn't make that information "yours" and a business model that depends on you adding an additional layer of secrecy is fundamentally flawed. The public has no interest in helping to maintain your flawed business model.
8+ million users with accounts. 12 million unique ip's a month.
400k unique ip's a month for slashdot...
Well I for one am coming back here...
Is there any place where the supposed speedups and other improvements are demonstrated?
Win7 is a pretty good OS. 8/8.1 are horrid. I'd like to see the benefits clearly shown somewhere before upgrading.
No, it was fully preemptive right from the start. It was a major selling point.
It was the Mac that did cooperative.
Mind you, preemptive on a 68000 wasn't flawless. Saw a lot of GURU in the day.
-MB- is that you?
The 1541, on the other hand, would misalign if you looked at it funny.
Amen brother.
My 3 Amigas were NOT "PC"s. 2 of them were "PC compatible", thanks to Bridgeboards.