They are not stupid, nor dillusional. He knows what he is saying is complete bullshit, but you know what? It was still a 'smart' thing to say. Just because the slashdot community can see it for the crap it is, doesn't mean other people will. They are painting a rose-colored picture for themselves and trying to make the competition look like the bad one. It's always happened in any industry, and will continue to happen for as long as capitalism exists.
Look at any other marketing, and there is bullshit just seeping from it. Our demographic usually sees through it, ESPECIALLY in the technology sector. So, get over yourself. He wasn't saying that to you, or to us. He was saying it to our parents and our friends who don't know the history and the actual truth. The people who can't find an on switch. The person who wants one of 'those neat pocket phone thingies' and doesn't know a Zune from an iPhone. And when he goes to a store, maybe he remembers something 'some really smart man' was saying about which is better. The Windows one is better right? It works with my PC? Ok, I want that one!
It's how it's always been, how it always will be. You can't educate the entire market to see through the bullshit. Most people don't know the first thing about computers, don't want to know, and shouldn't have to know. Stop taking the crap Ballmer says as technical discussion, and when he talks, imagine he's like a commercial. It makes it much easier to handle, ya know?
If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.
Wow.. You've been listening to wayyyyyy too much Hannity.
Let's look at the very first thing you said: If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA...
So many things wrong with just that first part. First of all you are assuming that's the 'liberal agenda.' Which, it isn't. That's complete hyperbole. Last time I checked, I haven't heard of any liberal memos being passed around indicating a goal of spreading Islam, or any other religion for that matter. If anything, you could say that some liberals would prefer religion was a lesser topic. Somehow Hannity & Friends take that to mean they want Islamic Terrorists running the government. Learn to think rationally for yourself.
Second of all, the 'take over' bit implies that the USA can be taken over by a religion. This could only be true if you tie your religion (Christianity, I assume) directly to your government. If you define the USA as a Christian entity, then I suppose more Islamic government officials could be defined as 'taking over.' You are mixing religion and government, which is actually expressly seperated by our founders.
As for the rest of your drivel, you are defining a religion, Islam, by the worst of the acts performed by people claiming to follow Islam. That would be a lot like me say... defining Christianity as GodHatesFags.com.
Finally, your signature, 'I prefer to buy Made In USA.' Why not be a real man and refuse to buy anything at all from outside the US and see how far that gets you? Even if you did, what exactly do you think would happen if the US stopped trading or interacting with other nations completely? I'll tell you what would happen... no one would bother loaning us any more money, or trading us oil, etc, etc.
The fact is as technology increases we are becoming more and more a global people. We're no where near that yet, look at most of Africa... But still, that's the way it's always trended, and will continue to trend. And it's healthy to be introspective and realize that across the entire earth, the USA, especially the neo conservatives, are very much in the global minority.
What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?
Not a damn thing. Which is one of the primary reasons why this whole thing is such a stupid pointless waste of time and money.
Saying it won't do anything is missing the point, and selling out your own beliefs. It's the inverse of 'If you have nothing to hide, being searched shouldn't bother you.
You are correct. The people who want to get through it will always be able to. But that does not in ANY way make it a pointless waste. I will explain...
There will be new laws. Now if you access any blocked content, you broke a law about circumventing government filters. Just because you can still do something even if it's illegal, doesn't mean it's ok for it to be illegal.
Secondly, it may be easy for YOU to get around the filters, but your average person doesn't have a clue. And since selling services to get around it will be illegal, they won't be able to buy it either. They'll have to find it underground, which implies they even know that an underground exists in the first place, or how to get there for that matter. They are effectively controlled. And that's a bad thing.
Saying it's pointless is really shortsighted. You fail to understand the full ramifications of an action like this. The fact you can easily get around it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue itself. At best, it's stupid thinking. At worst, it's pure selfishness. (As long as YOU can still access the internet, you don't care)
Given that pretty much anybody can get a license (including some idiots that should never be a passenger in a car, much less the driver), I'm not entirely certain that this is the best analogy.
Licensing isn't about stopping someone before they do something bad. It would be nice if it did, but there's no test that will reliably predict future behavior in every situation. It's about being able to control an activity. Licenses can be revoked when you screw up, thus hopefully creating a sense of responsibility because you don't want to have your license taken away. The very act of licensing something makes it something that can be monitored and taken away. That was the point I was trying to make. Well, I mean... that was my Devil's Advocate point, that if we licenses computer that would be a bad thing.
Computer to 'Some simple concept' analogies are stupid as hell. Get over your elitism. Most people don't understand the first thing about computers, and they don't have to. Just like most people use a TV, VCR, whatever, without any clue how it works, they just use it to play movies. Blinking 12:00.
Your analogy fails because leaving a gun out is gross negligence. It's a dangerous thing, and that's fairly obvious. A computer isn't. I suppose an argument could be made that computers are dangerous. It would be quite a stretch though. In that case there should be mandatory licensing to operate one, you know... like a car. But there isn't. So, either make the argument that computers are dangerous and should be controlled (and make sure you understand the actual ramifications of that argument), or stfu and realize that no, most people don't understand Computer Security or why it's important, and they never will.
And then, as an expert in the field, learn that you aren't smarter than mom and dad using their computer, you just have a specialized skill set. Most nerd kids like prolly half the slashdot crowd are or were.. started out with computers coming naturally to them. It's easy to assume then that it shoudl come naturally to everyone. And when you see it doesn't, your first reaction is that something is broken in them. After that nerd grows up a bit in the world, that person learns that no... they aren't idiots. We just have an aptitude for something that others don't. And that doesn't make them dumb. They probably have skills we don't. Say... socializing for example. So my guess is your (and all those who always come to slashdot posting the same song and dance) maturity level hasn't quite evolved yet.
And to not be elitist myself... I can admit I was once the same way. I grew out of it, as will you.
It's very easy to suddenly whip out the discrimination card, but it's perfectly valid in this case to prefer older applicants who have more experience in the job. Obviously, if there is a preference for older applicants even if they don't have more experience, something is up, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. (The original poster wasn't entirely clear about this, I'll accept).
No, it's not acceptable to prefer older canidates. It's acceptable to prefer more EXPERIENCED canidates. Assuming age is proportional to experience or skill is exactly why it's called age discrimination. If you want a tangible argument about whether you should be able to ask or decide on age or not... then bring up something that actually has to do with age. Such as retirement or chances of dying before the project ends.
I'm not even a fan of hiring based on experience or not. A person can have a resume chock full of experience, but still be a moron. Are you smart? Can you adapt? Can you learn? Can you get the job done? That seems to me to be the only thing you need to know.
My disclaimer is that I'm 28 years old. I started working as a professional programmer around 18. Before that I grew up working on and playing with computers, it's my passion, and I'm good at it. Better than quite a few people with amazingly good looking resumes, because I love it.
nohup rm -fr /&
