I'm not so certain that this is about wanting more control, as it is about losing the control that they have already. They are attempting to manage the fear of the group, people who travel by plane, with the magic of the laminated card. If the magic of the laminated card is lost, people will panic; they could be seated by anyone wanted for anything. After all, no criminal would ever show ID, right? People are willing to give their freedom for security.
Some LASD deputies and LAPD officers have long since enforced a "you must show ID" policy. I'm sure other jurisdictions are the same. Failure to do so results in a trip to booking, as you just happened to vaguely fit the description of someone they were looking for, and since you had no ID card, you could not prove you were not the person of interest. Standing up for your rights has always been a dangerous thing.
Yep, it really is all about appearance. I think of it as plastic surgery procedure for society. We all know that it can't be real, but it looks real enough if some physical laws are bent and makes us feel safe.
Most somewhat honest people have something to lose. They can not think of committing a crime in their own name, just too much to lose. They fail to understand real criminals have little to lose, and that some get an ego boost from the notoriety.
The larger problem is the apparent inconsistency of the law regarding when the unborn are considered alive.
Medical abortion is legal until around twenty-four weeks of gestation. Life does not exist until the fetus can survive outside the womb. But, if the fetus is lost due to an act of violence committed against the mother (vehicle accident, assault, whatever) prior to twenty-four weeks, the suspect will be additionally charged with the killing of the unborn. A few years have passed since I looked up when the state would not charge for the causing the death of the unborn, but it was about two months of gestation, about when you go legally from embryo to fetus. So, we have a sixteen week disparity on when "life" legally exists, and terminating it is a crime. An embryo, particularly one that has not yet attached to a human, is legally just property.
True, but in the interest of pandering to both those who want more services from government, and those who want to pay less not more for government services, we get both from the politicians. We get more services (white water rescue in the deserts where once every couple years there are flash floods, more crimes legislated and enforced, so on) but no increase in taxes. Instead, the people who use those services, whether they want them or not, are charged for them. Enough of everyone gets what they want to keep the same politicians employed.
If we want to get away from this kind of silliness, "We the People" have to grow up.
Quite true. There is no "top" to the circle that is the food chain. Bacteria and viruses take down plenty of people every day. Being careful of what you eat, drink, breathe, and basic hygiene like washing you hands, might be smart not paranoid.
This is all well off the topic of NASA's rovers, but this should be corrected.
While the person in the office of the President makes a good scapegoat, the President does not create the budget or single-handedly start a war. Please, note that making this distinction does not make any judgment of the budget, wars, or anything else. It only seeks to provide you with the correct target for your displeasure.
Both parties, and whoever is elected the next President, seek only to get more powerful from our greed. We have this problem with our budget deficit, and yet no one complains loudly about the silliness that is the "rebate" to stimulate the economy. All I hear is a collective "When's it gonna be deposited?".
We are collectively a stupid, lazy, greedy people, and elect those who evidence those qualities the best. And they do a good job furthering stupidity, laziness, and greed.
If you want someone to blame for the Iraq War, the budget deficit, the financial crisis of this decade that has yet to peak, look only in the mirror or your parents mirror or your neighbor's mirror. That is where the blame lies for our problems.
Back to the rovers. They are cool, but maybe it is time to get something newer built and deployed.
Global grain supplies have been behind demand six of the last eight years. And the demand for ethanol and bio-diesel (silliness, using people food to feed our vehicles) is only going to increase. Peak Grain, should it happen, will make Peak Oil look nice.
Did they fix the Yukon hotel sign? The first time the hotel is shown, it is YUKON. The second time, it is NOKUY, like the same set was used, just mirrored.
Quite true. "I want more life, fucker." is demanding. "Give us more life, or I take your life" was the general thrust of Roy's visit, from the original point of view.
"I want more life, father." makes it more of a prodigal son moment. Since prodigal son is used, maybe that is the intent of the change, to make Roy seem to be asking for atonement, and more life. Roy did ask for forgiveness, in a round about way, having done "questionable things". Either way, once Tyrell told him there was no option of furthering their lifespans and to "revel in your time", life was over for Tyrell. The son then had no use for the father/creator.
Then again, how would the change fit in?
Batty: I had in mind something a little more radical.
Tyrell: What... what seems to be the problem?
Batty: Death.
Tyrell: Death, ah, well that's a little out of my jurisdiction. You...
The tone of the article definitely did not encourage me to check much of the site, or be receptive to the message. Articles that have exclamation points and quoted phrases are generally more propaganda, biased opinion, or fanboy noise than a logical summary and explanation. Then he got some facts wrong.
For at least one consumer, the Zune won over a similarly priced iPod six months back entirely due to the iPod's lack of an FM receiver. While true that one could be purchased, but it is an addon which makes the Zune $20-30 less expensive. As at least two of the comments on RoughlyDrafted indicated, wireless sync works on the Zune if done manually, without connecting the USB cable.
It is just another fan site with the depth of argument that fans have shown for years. There is no difference if it is Ford versus Chevy or Microsoft versus Apple (substitute as you see fit).
You are correct, and I am in error. By the time we remove enough mass from the Moon to affect its orbit with the Earth, we will have already caused changes on Earth, something about tides. I did not quite think that one through.
Do you think that once Space becomes an area for business that science will keep its proper place?
True, but should she be punished for it after thirty-five years of living an otherwise healthy life?
Think of it this way. If she had served say ten years, and then been a "normal" person for the last twenty-five no one would care. So maybe society was cheated out of ten years of punishing her, with no other differences. If she had served ten years, and then become a career criminal, she would be proof that harder sentencing was needed. But escaping led her to having a normal life.
So which is it that we want, punishment or better lives?
No, it was not my best post. I mentioned a concern about exploiting the Moon without supporting facts or thoughts.
Please, just bear with me a minute. One hundred year ago, how many people were concerned that air pollution from industry and transportation would impact the global climate? While the jury is still out on how much of the climate change measured is due to human activity, we do impact the global climate. How many were concerned about the environmental effects of strip mining? Would not mining the moon for an energy source be strip mining with the mass removed never to return to either orbital body? If the mass of either orbital body is changed, does that not affect the orbit, or in the case of the Moon, the timing of release from orbit?
We humans have a history of not thinking about what we know that we do not understand and how what we do will impact the future. Or more simply expressed, we have a habit of just not thinking about the potential consequences of our actions.
The Earth has managed to let us survive despite our excesses. Once we start playing with things that impact the Earth externally we might not be that lucky.
The Moon has a great deal of impact on life on Earth, from tides as the low end to our inclination wobble at the other. If we loose the counter-balance of the Moon, we will be in for some seriously erratic weather patterns.
No offense taken. I appreciate an intelligent exchange of thoughts, even heartfelt ones. They make me rethink my opinions and hopefully improve them.
I do like the health payment idea. It is the business layer in "Health Care" that makes the real money, and that drives up overall costs while restricting choice to increase their profitability. If we could provide quality care with the freedom to choose the provider and treatment, and keep the business layer to a minimum, I would help pay for it without complaint.
At the core of my thoughts about amendments is that I want government restricted, no plans of the moment for 485 lawmakers and 1 executive to launch upon 350 million citizens. That is just too much power in too few hands to not be misused, even if it is innocently misused. Your point about overly restricting decision making, which is what we elect and pay them for, is well taken. Maybe it should be that the boundaries of government is covered by the Constitution, explicitly, with the details to be legislated within those boundaries, with changes only permitted by an amendment?
The minority veto idea on federal programs is most interesting.
Libertarian? More like a Republican long before the neo-conservatives became hip.
No, the government is not there to protect the rich, though that is what they would like, and have often bought. An unofficial plutocracy relies on power being with a few, not spread out.
I think in this discussion we are mixing local, state, and federal levels of government together. Each has their function, and should balance the power of the others. The local and state governments are too often overlooked, and then become increasingly less potent.
Sometimes the federal government is correct to step in, like with Eisenhower, the National Guard, and Little Rock. Sometimes the federal government is encroaching as well as inconsistent. How is it that prostitution is legal if a state allows it, but some drugs are not? At eighteen years old you are an adult legally. You can kill in the military, be executed for a crime, but you can not get drunk, at least in a state that wants some of their tax dollars back to pave the roads.
Social programs are needed. If I had to choose between my family starving or stealing, I am probably going to be stealing. Rather that incarcerating someone who is really looking to take care of their basic needs, I agree that social programs are necessary, but should not the states look after their own? If a state can not look after its own, then let us add the aid to the Constitution.
A national health care program, which all suggested plans have run by an HMO, is not good. That would be like having a food program where the food is only available from one national chain, and you only receive what they feel is appropriate/profitable. Too many people have died or been killed due to their continued care not being profitable already. If national health care will work, the ability to make any money from it has to be removed.
If there are things that we need done at the federal level, let us make it legal. No interpretations that may change fifty years on when the USSC has high turnover, but really add or remove it from the Constitution.
Neither war that we are currently involved is was declared. Whether it was the right or wrong decision, there should have been a declaration of war, not just a congressional vote for funding, without a corresponding increase in taxes or decrease in other areas to cover the cost. Our involvement in Korea and Viet Nam, both wars fought with draftees no less, were not declared wars. Our last declared war went quite differently from the last four.
With regards to true fascism, America will never make it. While our government outsources all kinds of things that really should be under our direct control and not a business contract, we are way too divided ethnically, culturally, and religiously, including the dismissal of religious beliefs, to become true fascists. Now a plutocracy, that is something to which we can descend. Our infotainment channels already preselect a few candidates for us, oddly those with the most money.
For my descision, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008 gives an idea of what interests are backing which candidate. This coupled with the candidates' histories and current statements results in a choice. Big business dollars are certainly flowing to some pockets. Look, the three candidates pushing national health care plans are the three highest recipients of funds from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products". There is plutocracy in action. My question is when did we vote an amendment specifying the right the health care into the Constitution? Either we vote it into the Constitution, or we do not really want it nationally.
The idea is to spread power around, between at least three branches in each state, then amongst all of the states, then amongst the three branches at the federal level. This takes advantaged of the People's diversity to prevent power from be concentrated in a few wealthy hands.
My ideal national government is the one that governs the least, with only truly national decisions made at the national level.
You make some very good points, especially with regard to fascism in our current society. Unfortunately, I do not see much that can be done to prevent it from growing. Infotainment keeps some political candidates out of the spotlight while promoting others on both sides of America's political aisle. This pre-selection leads to low poll ratings for some. At least Leno had Ron Paul on the Tonight Show, though for a much lesser amount of time than Tom Cruise.
With regards to guns, once the common populace had a chance as they had some parity in weaponry. Nowadays, peaceful protest with lots of cameras and satellite feeds is the best hope to get the point across and not end up dead, as a convict. Hunting rifles just are not a match for the current weapons employed by law enforcement let alone the military.
Sad, but very true, is your post. I by no means believe it to be a conspiracy, but the Consumers are expected to know less about everything while using more than ever before. The Consumers provide economic means for the wealthy, like serfs did for their lords.
But, to get back on topic, I once had a chemistry set in the 1970's. While it was some fun, most of the interesting experiments involved mail order chemicals which were too expensive for my family. But, there was still fun to be had, separating firecrackers to make large ones and electrolysis to make very small amounts of hydrogen. Nothing steals the show at a elementary science fair like a nice boom from a jar of water. Four years later, the same experiment was considered too dangerous, in the same school district.
Somewhere along the way we became incredibly adverse to taking risks. And if you do not risk anything, you do not gain anything. You remain a serf.
Property crime is a function of not being able to fulfill wants or needs through legal activity. As a Need example, have you ever been really hungry, like three days without ANY food hungry? If there was a loaf of bread within reach that was not yours, would you take it? How about at five days, maybe ten, twenty (getting weak now huh, physically and morally)? If you want to reduce crime, you make the physical and emotional needs of the person attainable. Lower unemployment/underemployment rates are always present with lower crime rates. For those who pick nits, note that underemployment is included.
The effect of long term lead exposure might be a contributing factor, but not the cause of crime. Just as alcohol is a contributing factor in many stupid decisions (and a few smart ones!), but not their cause.
But the thought that an increase in abortions results in a decrease in crime because fewer poor/single parent/unwanted kids are born, what kind of horse shit is that? Once we let ourselves think in even a small way that some are not worthy to procreate, we cheapen our species.
One study attempts to show that eliminating airborne/ingested lead has a good effect upon society, much like decreasing all pollution. One study attempts to show that abortion has resulted in a reduction in crime since 1991. Both show "their thing" as reducing crime while during the same period that there is an increase in the incarceration rate.
So is it as I think, better employment = lower crime, or the lower lead = lower crime theory, or the more abortions = lower crime theory, or the more people in prison for longer periods = lower crime theory that is correct? Please, note that I disconnect incarceration from the lower crime rate due to the inconsistencies of the law, particularly with non-violent drug crime.
Deterrence does have a limited effect in preventing criminal activity. But, as the last 10,000 or so years of recorded history shows us, it does not prevent all criminal activity. Someone will always truly find a way around being caught, and many others will think that they will not be caught. Their society will pay either way, for the cost of their crime or for the cost of their incarceration/punishment. These delightful fools thought that they would not be caught and scammed away. They are now costs to be paid by the state/taxpayers.
Until we as a species figure out how to prevent crime/greed, we will keep repeating the same actions.
While I agree that the article is short on details, I would not characterize its content as pathetic. It is just an overview of the boot process for Redhat. It would be improved by adding links for more in depth information on runlevels and init.
By it being posted on Slashdot, it may help some of the Windows users who think Linux is hard to at least try a dual boot. If nothing else, the fact that Windows can only boot in Safe Mode or Normal with limited customization, while Linux has different boot loaders, can be booted from several devices (Your OS and data directory on a USB stick can be a fun), run levels, and init scripts, all of which are configurable including graphics/fonts/amount of information displayed/shells, just might get a curious Windows geek to check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so certain that this is about wanting more control, as it is about losing the control that they have already. They are attempting to manage the fear of the group, people who travel by plane, with the magic of the laminated card. If the magic of the laminated card is lost, people will panic; they could be seated by anyone wanted for anything. After all, no criminal would ever show ID, right? People are willing to give their freedom for security.
Some LASD deputies and LAPD officers have long since enforced a "you must show ID" policy. I'm sure other jurisdictions are the same. Failure to do so results in a trip to booking, as you just happened to vaguely fit the description of someone they were looking for, and since you had no ID card, you could not prove you were not the person of interest. Standing up for your rights has always been a dangerous thing.
Yep, it really is all about appearance. I think of it as plastic surgery procedure for society. We all know that it can't be real, but it looks real enough if some physical laws are bent and makes us feel safe.
Most somewhat honest people have something to lose. They can not think of committing a crime in their own name, just too much to lose. They fail to understand real criminals have little to lose, and that some get an ego boost from the notoriety.
The larger problem is the apparent inconsistency of the law regarding when the unborn are considered alive.
Medical abortion is legal until around twenty-four weeks of gestation. Life does not exist until the fetus can survive outside the womb. But, if the fetus is lost due to an act of violence committed against the mother (vehicle accident, assault, whatever) prior to twenty-four weeks, the suspect will be additionally charged with the killing of the unborn. A few years have passed since I looked up when the state would not charge for the causing the death of the unborn, but it was about two months of gestation, about when you go legally from embryo to fetus. So, we have a sixteen week disparity on when "life" legally exists, and terminating it is a crime. An embryo, particularly one that has not yet attached to a human, is legally just property.
True, but in the interest of pandering to both those who want more services from government, and those who want to pay less not more for government services, we get both from the politicians. We get more services (white water rescue in the deserts where once every couple years there are flash floods, more crimes legislated and enforced, so on) but no increase in taxes. Instead, the people who use those services, whether they want them or not, are charged for them. Enough of everyone gets what they want to keep the same politicians employed.
If we want to get away from this kind of silliness, "We the People" have to grow up.
Quite true. There is no "top" to the circle that is the food chain. Bacteria and viruses take down plenty of people every day. Being careful of what you eat, drink, breathe, and basic hygiene like washing you hands, might be smart not paranoid.
This is all well off the topic of NASA's rovers, but this should be corrected.
While the person in the office of the President makes a good scapegoat, the President does not create the budget or single-handedly start a war. Please, note that making this distinction does not make any judgment of the budget, wars, or anything else. It only seeks to provide you with the correct target for your displeasure.
Both parties, and whoever is elected the next President, seek only to get more powerful from our greed. We have this problem with our budget deficit, and yet no one complains loudly about the silliness that is the "rebate" to stimulate the economy. All I hear is a collective "When's it gonna be deposited?".
We are collectively a stupid, lazy, greedy people, and elect those who evidence those qualities the best. And they do a good job furthering stupidity, laziness, and greed.
If you want someone to blame for the Iraq War, the budget deficit, the financial crisis of this decade that has yet to peak, look only in the mirror or your parents mirror or your neighbor's mirror. That is where the blame lies for our problems.
Back to the rovers. They are cool, but maybe it is time to get something newer built and deployed.
Very true, that out of date comments are next to useless.
I assume that fauna and flora (things that we eat if nothing else) need some of those TW.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2006/05-06/graintoc.htm
Global grain supplies have been behind demand six of the last eight years. And the demand for ethanol and bio-diesel (silliness, using people food to feed our vehicles) is only going to increase. Peak Grain, should it happen, will make Peak Oil look nice.
There are no easy solutions.
Did they fix the Yukon hotel sign? The first time the hotel is shown, it is YUKON. The second time, it is NOKUY, like the same set was used, just mirrored.
Quite true. "I want more life, fucker." is demanding. "Give us more life, or I take your life" was the general thrust of Roy's visit, from the original point of view.
"I want more life, father." makes it more of a prodigal son moment. Since prodigal son is used, maybe that is the intent of the change, to make Roy seem to be asking for atonement, and more life. Roy did ask for forgiveness, in a round about way, having done "questionable things". Either way, once Tyrell told him there was no option of furthering their lifespans and to "revel in your time", life was over for Tyrell. The son then had no use for the father/creator.
Then again, how would the change fit in?
Batty: I had in mind something a little more radical.
Tyrell: What... what seems to be the problem?
Batty: Death.
Tyrell: Death, ah, well that's a little out of my jurisdiction. You...
Batty: I WANT MORE LIFE, fucker!
The tone of the article definitely did not encourage me to check much of the site, or be receptive to the message. Articles that have exclamation points and quoted phrases are generally more propaganda, biased opinion, or fanboy noise than a logical summary and explanation. Then he got some facts wrong.
For at least one consumer, the Zune won over a similarly priced iPod six months back entirely due to the iPod's lack of an FM receiver. While true that one could be purchased, but it is an addon which makes the Zune $20-30 less expensive. As at least two of the comments on RoughlyDrafted indicated, wireless sync works on the Zune if done manually, without connecting the USB cable.It is just another fan site with the depth of argument that fans have shown for years. There is no difference if it is Ford versus Chevy or Microsoft versus Apple (substitute as you see fit).
You are correct, and I am in error. By the time we remove enough mass from the Moon to affect its orbit with the Earth, we will have already caused changes on Earth, something about tides. I did not quite think that one through.
Do you think that once Space becomes an area for business that science will keep its proper place?
That was quite possibly the smartest comment in this thread, and very true.
True, but should she be punished for it after thirty-five years of living an otherwise healthy life?
Think of it this way. If she had served say ten years, and then been a "normal" person for the last twenty-five no one would care. So maybe society was cheated out of ten years of punishing her, with no other differences. If she had served ten years, and then become a career criminal, she would be proof that harder sentencing was needed. But escaping led her to having a normal life.
So which is it that we want, punishment or better lives?
No, it was not my best post. I mentioned a concern about exploiting the Moon without supporting facts or thoughts.
Please, just bear with me a minute. One hundred year ago, how many people were concerned that air pollution from industry and transportation would impact the global climate? While the jury is still out on how much of the climate change measured is due to human activity, we do impact the global climate. How many were concerned about the environmental effects of strip mining? Would not mining the moon for an energy source be strip mining with the mass removed never to return to either orbital body? If the mass of either orbital body is changed, does that not affect the orbit, or in the case of the Moon, the timing of release from orbit?
We humans have a history of not thinking about what we know that we do not understand and how what we do will impact the future. Or more simply expressed, we have a habit of just not thinking about the potential consequences of our actions.
The Earth has managed to let us survive despite our excesses. Once we start playing with things that impact the Earth externally we might not be that lucky.
The Moon has a great deal of impact on life on Earth, from tides as the low end to our inclination wobble at the other. If we loose the counter-balance of the Moon, we will be in for some seriously erratic weather patterns.
It really is best not to mess too much with it.
No offense taken. I appreciate an intelligent exchange of thoughts, even heartfelt ones. They make me rethink my opinions and hopefully improve them.
I do like the health payment idea. It is the business layer in "Health Care" that makes the real money, and that drives up overall costs while restricting choice to increase their profitability. If we could provide quality care with the freedom to choose the provider and treatment, and keep the business layer to a minimum, I would help pay for it without complaint.
At the core of my thoughts about amendments is that I want government restricted, no plans of the moment for 485 lawmakers and 1 executive to launch upon 350 million citizens. That is just too much power in too few hands to not be misused, even if it is innocently misused. Your point about overly restricting decision making, which is what we elect and pay them for, is well taken. Maybe it should be that the boundaries of government is covered by the Constitution, explicitly, with the details to be legislated within those boundaries, with changes only permitted by an amendment?
The minority veto idea on federal programs is most interesting.
Libertarian? More like a Republican long before the neo-conservatives became hip.
No, the government is not there to protect the rich, though that is what they would like, and have often bought. An unofficial plutocracy relies on power being with a few, not spread out.
I think in this discussion we are mixing local, state, and federal levels of government together. Each has their function, and should balance the power of the others. The local and state governments are too often overlooked, and then become increasingly less potent.
Sometimes the federal government is correct to step in, like with Eisenhower, the National Guard, and Little Rock. Sometimes the federal government is encroaching as well as inconsistent. How is it that prostitution is legal if a state allows it, but some drugs are not? At eighteen years old you are an adult legally. You can kill in the military, be executed for a crime, but you can not get drunk, at least in a state that wants some of their tax dollars back to pave the roads.
Social programs are needed. If I had to choose between my family starving or stealing, I am probably going to be stealing. Rather that incarcerating someone who is really looking to take care of their basic needs, I agree that social programs are necessary, but should not the states look after their own? If a state can not look after its own, then let us add the aid to the Constitution.
A national health care program, which all suggested plans have run by an HMO, is not good. That would be like having a food program where the food is only available from one national chain, and you only receive what they feel is appropriate/profitable. Too many people have died or been killed due to their continued care not being profitable already. If national health care will work, the ability to make any money from it has to be removed.
If there are things that we need done at the federal level, let us make it legal. No interpretations that may change fifty years on when the USSC has high turnover, but really add or remove it from the Constitution.
Neither war that we are currently involved is was declared. Whether it was the right or wrong decision, there should have been a declaration of war, not just a congressional vote for funding, without a corresponding increase in taxes or decrease in other areas to cover the cost. Our involvement in Korea and Viet Nam, both wars fought with draftees no less, were not declared wars. Our last declared war went quite differently from the last four.
With regards to true fascism, America will never make it. While our government outsources all kinds of things that really should be under our direct control and not a business contract, we are way too divided ethnically, culturally, and religiously, including the dismissal of religious beliefs, to become true fascists. Now a plutocracy, that is something to which we can descend. Our infotainment channels already preselect a few candidates for us, oddly those with the most money.
For my descision, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008 gives an idea of what interests are backing which candidate. This coupled with the candidates' histories and current statements results in a choice. Big business dollars are certainly flowing to some pockets. Look, the three candidates pushing national health care plans are the three highest recipients of funds from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products". There is plutocracy in action. My question is when did we vote an amendment specifying the right the health care into the Constitution? Either we vote it into the Constitution, or we do not really want it nationally.
The idea is to spread power around, between at least three branches in each state, then amongst all of the states, then amongst the three branches at the federal level. This takes advantaged of the People's diversity to prevent power from be concentrated in a few wealthy hands.
My ideal national government is the one that governs the least, with only truly national decisions made at the national level.
You make some very good points, especially with regard to fascism in our current society. Unfortunately, I do not see much that can be done to prevent it from growing. Infotainment keeps some political candidates out of the spotlight while promoting others on both sides of America's political aisle. This pre-selection leads to low poll ratings for some. At least Leno had Ron Paul on the Tonight Show, though for a much lesser amount of time than Tom Cruise.
With regards to guns, once the common populace had a chance as they had some parity in weaponry. Nowadays, peaceful protest with lots of cameras and satellite feeds is the best hope to get the point across and not end up dead, as a convict. Hunting rifles just are not a match for the current weapons employed by law enforcement let alone the military.
Sad, but very true, is your post. I by no means believe it to be a conspiracy, but the Consumers are expected to know less about everything while using more than ever before. The Consumers provide economic means for the wealthy, like serfs did for their lords.
But, to get back on topic, I once had a chemistry set in the 1970's. While it was some fun, most of the interesting experiments involved mail order chemicals which were too expensive for my family. But, there was still fun to be had, separating firecrackers to make large ones and electrolysis to make very small amounts of hydrogen. Nothing steals the show at a elementary science fair like a nice boom from a jar of water. Four years later, the same experiment was considered too dangerous, in the same school district.
Somewhere along the way we became incredibly adverse to taking risks. And if you do not risk anything, you do not gain anything. You remain a serf.
Both are wrong.
Property crime is a function of not being able to fulfill wants or needs through legal activity. As a Need example, have you ever been really hungry, like three days without ANY food hungry? If there was a loaf of bread within reach that was not yours, would you take it? How about at five days, maybe ten, twenty (getting weak now huh, physically and morally)? If you want to reduce crime, you make the physical and emotional needs of the person attainable. Lower unemployment/underemployment rates are always present with lower crime rates. For those who pick nits, note that underemployment is included.
The effect of long term lead exposure might be a contributing factor, but not the cause of crime. Just as alcohol is a contributing factor in many stupid decisions (and a few smart ones!), but not their cause.
But the thought that an increase in abortions results in a decrease in crime because fewer poor/single parent/unwanted kids are born, what kind of horse shit is that? Once we let ourselves think in even a small way that some are not worthy to procreate, we cheapen our species.
One study attempts to show that eliminating airborne/ingested lead has a good effect upon society, much like decreasing all pollution. One study attempts to show that abortion has resulted in a reduction in crime since 1991. Both show "their thing" as reducing crime while during the same period that there is an increase in the incarceration rate.
So is it as I think, better employment = lower crime, or the lower lead = lower crime theory, or the more abortions = lower crime theory, or the more people in prison for longer periods = lower crime theory that is correct? Please, note that I disconnect incarceration from the lower crime rate due to the inconsistencies of the law, particularly with non-violent drug crime.
Deterrence does have a limited effect in preventing criminal activity. But, as the last 10,000 or so years of recorded history shows us, it does not prevent all criminal activity. Someone will always truly find a way around being caught, and many others will think that they will not be caught. Their society will pay either way, for the cost of their crime or for the cost of their incarceration/punishment. These delightful fools thought that they would not be caught and scammed away. They are now costs to be paid by the state/taxpayers.
Until we as a species figure out how to prevent crime/greed, we will keep repeating the same actions.
While I agree that the article is short on details, I would not characterize its content as pathetic. It is just an overview of the boot process for Redhat. It would be improved by adding links for more in depth information on runlevels and init.
By it being posted on Slashdot, it may help some of the Windows users who think Linux is hard to at least try a dual boot. If nothing else, the fact that Windows can only boot in Safe Mode or Normal with limited customization, while Linux has different boot loaders, can be booted from several devices (Your OS and data directory on a USB stick can be a fun), run levels, and init scripts, all of which are configurable including graphics/fonts/amount of information displayed/shells, just might get a curious Windows geek to check it out.