Slashdot Mirror
RFID Checks Student Attendance in Arizona
The student newspaper at UW-Madison is running a piece about the use of RFID to check lecture attendance at Northern Arizona University. One poster to an email discussion list suggested that getting around this system would be simple if "all one has to do is walk into a classroom with 10 RFID-enabled cards in their pocket." "The new system will use sensors to detect students' university identification cards when they enter classrooms, according to NAU spokesperson Tom Bauer. The data will be recorded and available for professors to examine. ... [The spokesman] added the sensors, paid for by federal stimulus money, initially would only be installed in large freshmen and sophomore classes with more than 50 students. NAU Student Body President Kathleen Templin said most students seem to be against the new system. She added students have started Facebook groups and petitions against the sensor system. ... One of the most popular Facebook groups ... has more than 1,400 members." What are the odds that the use of tracking RFID will expand over time on that campus?
Great. Then I support Osama bin Laden, but not his mission.
Now, now--don't be a dick.
Hey now, no charges were filed against the former Vice president. No need to drag his name into this conversation.
I didn't say Arizona should be doing it. But seems a bit funny that people are now implementing and complaining about something that has been done for several years in a country far far away that most americans can't distinguish as an independent country and rarely can spot on a map.
Onda Technology Institute
I have admittedly thought that was weaselese in the past (though thanks for the cool word), and it creates a sort of philosophical/logical paradox: especially considering that they're all volunteers, how can you support them without supporting what their job entails?
"Support the troops" seems to be one of the big cases of political correctness in current US society.
Support-both or don't-support-both both resolve the paradox, and which one of those is an argument I don't want to get into, at least not now.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
What, exactly, is wrong with that? I support the people who decided to go into the army (after all, the economic circumstances that led that being a reasonable-seeming decision are in no way their fault), but I do not support the fact that they are in Iraq for no good reason.
Your link presents nothing but a straw liberal, and the comparison to Martin Luther King Jr. is just wrong and inapplicable. MLK Jr's marchers weren't foreign invaders from the most powerful military in the world, armed with some of the best military technology money can buy.
Further, the muddled point John Robinson seems to be making there is that you can't really separate the troops from the mission, which is totally wrong. Our troops are nothing more than a tool used by our foreign policy; you can always separate a tool from the way it is used. You can care for a sword and hope it comes back unbroken, but object to the way it's held against someone else's neck.
This friend of his in the article that was shocked need not have been. You can care personally for Martin while also believing that all races deserve equal rights but hold the opinion that his civil rights campain will ultimately cause more damage than it does good. The friend can suspect, but shouldn't assume the author is a racist which was the angle the author had hoped would cement his earlier point.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
The troops don't make their own decisions. Obama does - both for himself and, now, for the troops.
It's okay to wish the troops a safe job and return home while disliking the policy that sent them out in the first place.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
It's a perfectly logical statement. The soldiers don't have any say in their mission: if it's a good one or a stupid destructive one, they still go out there and serve their country to the best of their ability. It's not their fault that chickenhawks like Cheney and Wolfowitz put us into a war we didn't have to fight, can't afford and have no easy way of getting out of.
So yeah, I support the soldiers for their willingness to put themselves in harms way for the good of the nation, trusting that the people up the chain of command aren't going to spill their blood needlessly, but I don't support the inane warmongers who put us into this mess in the first place, wasting money and the lives of the people under them.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Agreed. The crap that "mi" and other conservatives spew is just another form of the Nazis' "Mit Uns" propaganda. "With us 100% or against us."
Yes. But the Democratic Party has come up with this wonderful backhanded way, that I'm now using to express disagreement with Obama, while avoiding (I Hope) charges of racism: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission".
(Funny, how the Illiberal moderators slam my responses down as "off-topic", while keeping their fellow Illiberal, who lead the sub-thread off-topic by picking on my sig, at 5...)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And by your logic, there is nothing wrong with my (current) signature: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission."
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.