Since this is a "public performance" does each performance count only as one showing, no matter how many watched?
And my hypothesis is the China did it as a favor to the US. But I can't prove it. And neither can you.
If I had mod points, I'd rate that funny, even though it cannot be proven false.
Also, most of us, including Obama, don't live in a forest or jungle.
That said, I mainly consider the statement defamatory to monkeys. People are the ones who are loose with words.
If you do it on purpose, yes.
I do not presume that all lies are reprehensible. But intentionally misleading someone is a lie. Some times, however, staying silent isn't a real option, and speaking honestly would be injurious (to someone, perhaps yourself).
OTOH, false and defamatory statements *are* always reprehensible, even if the entity you are commenting about is excessively vile. And true statements can never be defamatory, except to a lawyer or a judge.
That's not Occam's razor, that's "Cui Bono?". Occam's razor says to not multiply entities excessively. But the problem isn't multiplying entities here, it's that there are already too many visible entities to reach a single conclusion. We know that the US govt. exists, that Sony exists, that lots of hacker collectives exist, that...etc. We don't know which are significant. We *do* know that all of the above are quite willing to lie when it suits their interests.
Pick a collection of known facts and make a hypothesis that you can't invalidate. Occam's razor won't help you pare things down, because the known facts support too many plausible stories. And NONE of them are testable. So don't believe your own story, or anyone else's. Realize that the story you choose to accept in this instance says more about you than about what happened, and don't believe it. You can't always know what actually happened. There are too many liars and too many suspects.
Will they be prosecuted? Perhaps they got indemnity first.
The story I build around this has the Sony episode as a bit part in something centered around South Korea's nuclear piles. And Obama *was* talking to some diplomats from China right before this started, and China is N.Korea's Internet supplier.
I *know* that my version is just a story. But I also realize that that's all everyone's version is, except those with inside information. Most of the latter aren't talking, and the ones that are have a reputation for lying.
I get the feeling that the programmers who are finding it difficult to find work at the moment are those with mediocre skills
Well, enjoy that feeling. It's worth every penny you paid for it.
As for Musk, he's a big corporate player. Calling him a "programmer" these days is pretty silly. Using him to justify outsourcing basically the majority of programming jobs is also pretty silly.
Note that my employer isn't farming out jobs to foreigners because they're trying to cut costs, but because it is genuinely difficult to find the skills
Yes, it does become difficult if "too old, too unhealthy, no degree, overqualified, wrong state, bad credit" are used as stacked pre-filters. But to argue that unemployed programmers in the US are "mediocre" isn't just silly, it's ridiculous.
...when every programmer (and tech support person, and manufacturing person) in the US can get a job, that's the time for US operations to be looking for foreign help.
But since age, health, formal schooling, in-country location, and credit score are widely and consistently used to deny highly skilled US programmers jobs -- I am very confident in saying that Mr. Graham has not even come close to identifying the "programmer problem" from the POV of actual US programmers. All he's trying to do here is save a buck, while screwing US programmers in the process.
Do it his way, and the US economy will suffer even further at the middle class level as decent jobs go directly over our heads overseas, while, as per usual, corporations thrive.
This is exactly the kind of corporate perfidy that's been going on for some time. Graham should be ashamed. He represents our problem. Not any imaginary lack of US based skills.
Yes/No. When you can build stronger materials under computer control, then computers allow you to build smaller/lighter airplanes.
OTOH, it isn't the computer itself that facilitates the improvement, its the computer as a part of an improved process, that couldn't be improved (that way) without the computer.
So. Currently 3D printers are toys. Did you ever even see the Sinclair computer? (I forget its model.) It was a toy. But that didn't make it totally useless, and other computers were not only much more useful, they became both more useful and smaller and cheaper over time.
P.S.: There *do* exist 3D printers that aren't toys. They also aren't cheap, and the ones I've information on aren't small. But different models can print in Titanium, Aluminium, Concrete, etc. I don't know whether they all require hand finishing, I expect so. OTOH, this is early days yet.
Do you know how long the laser was called "The development looking for a use?" It was over a decade. Of course, the original lasers were big, expensive, and difficult to use. They required specially polished rubies, cryonic conditions, and they only worked on microwaves. They were also called masers, but that word has dropped out of existence, so now we have uv lasers, ir lasers, green lasers, and for all I know X-ray lasers.
I doubt that CNC machines will ever drop out of use. I expect that they'll continue to become easier to use. But they won't be used for small runs for much longer. Already Car companies use expensive 3D printers to print their design prototypes, and I'm sure there are many uses I haven't heard of.
If the main text of a religion isn't a reliable guidebook to that religion, how can we determine if anything is?
Obviously, we can't.
What made you think we could?
All major (and most minor) religions present huge diversity. Within Christianity, the bible is taken as everything from vague metaphor to the "inerrant word of God." The Koran for Islam, the same. Buddhist practice ranges from meditative to non, from vegetarian to non, from rigidly scientific to the most laughable crystal-gazing nonsense you've ever heard of. New agers.... that's a basket so broad I don't even have a clue as to what it really means, although I have to say, I've rarely come away from someone's description of their new age ideas thinking "wow, that made sense." OK, actually, never. But I figure it could happen.
In addition to actual sect differences, there are practitioner differences, and they range all the way from non-believers who are there for the social aspect, to rigid adherents to every jot and tittle in every book (and some, like the Catholics, have quite a few books.)
For my part, I figure, if I want to know what someone thinks, just ask them. Unless I have specific relevant evidence, I don't assume people fit into standardized boxes. I have found that to very rarely be true.
Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".
Yes? Well then...
Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!
Needless to say, by disagreeing, I mark myself as an un-person.
Needless, pointless, and untrue. Someone else may so choose to regard you; you, however, are not that at all, and anyone who takes the attitude that you are, as you put it, an "unperson", is solely responsible for that attitude. You're still you, just as worthy as ever.
Consider the source, soldier on. Defy invalid social norms.
Some things are just not done, and are socially unacceptable this is one of them.
Socially unacceptable is one thing. And the appropriate response from you when faced with something you identify as such is also social: adjust your respect, relationship(s) and commentary according to the social cues you are given.
Relying on coercion and/or violence exerted by your government so you can assure that the general social environment is only populated by speech you approve of is something else entirely. It reeks of abject failure on your part, and on the part of your legislators. Such government-based active repression is one of the very few things that is more despicable than intentionally offensive speech presented without even a suggestion of humor.
> But as an athiest, my very existence is 'offensive' to muslims.
I'm an atheist as well. And I am aware that some Muslims proactively take offense because of my lack of belief.
However, you should be aware that of the five pillars of Islam, none say or imply one word about "hating atheists." That's just crap out of the Koran, which is a mish-mosh of uncorrelated and unordered quotes. Only fanatics take the violent sections of the Koran seriously. Not that there aren't enough fanatics to go around, of course.
> Are you suggesting that I should commit suicide to appease the Muslims?
Not in the least. I wasn't suggesting anyone should commit suicide, or in any way alter who or what they are. These are not things that give offense. You have not chosen to be atheist in order to give offense, have you? I presume you're atheist because you find that to be a comfortable state of mind, one that correlates well with what you observe of the world around you. Nothing to do with giving offense at all. I'm not wrong, am I? If I am, please let me know... that's a whole 'nuther bag of wolverines.
Simply being (existing as) atheist is not giving offense. That is the same as the case where someone is simply "being atheist" or "being Christian" or "being Muslim" or "being a rock collector."
When such provokes an "offended" response, we are merely seeing examples of the common practice by muddy thinkers of taking offense for any, or no, sane reason...
> Go Fuck Yourself