We aren't talking about books and materials that libraries choose not to add to their collections.
We are talking about books that libraries already had in their collections (or intended to add), but were forced to remove (or prevented from obtaining) by others. Usually a combination of complaining patrons, and local government responding to those complaints to override library decisions.
How it typically happens in the US: One or more patrons complain about a given title to the library, and ask that it be removed from the collection. The library listens to the complaint, but refuses to remove the title. Those patrons then take one of two paths.
a) Take the issue to any available higher authorities... such as local government. Which in many cases controls the library budget, or is actually in control of the library. An attempt to force the library via orders from above. It is sometimes successful.
b) Organized protest, in direct opposition to the library. Some libraries have caved (changed their decision) under that kind of pressure, others have not.
Many books on that list have been subjected to that kind of treatment in the past, or still are to this day. FWIW, I work in a library and have been witness to those very processes, as well as hearing accounts from them elsewhere. Thankfully, none I've seen myself have gone very far. Yet.
>>Cats don't go around setting other animals on fire because they think its cool. ------- Its easy to empathize with a cat, as it is innocent.
Heh, apparently you have never spent much time living with cats. (Give cats opposable thumbs, a bic, and the brains to use them... I guarantee you'd get roasted critters... rodents, birds, dogs, people, other cats... whatever.)
There aren't many things cats will not do in order to amuse themselves, including some selfish and cruel behavior. (Even clear-cut torture for play/practice.) They commonly attack and release an animal repeatedly (inflicting continually more damage and pain) before finally tiring of the game and finishing them off. At which point they may eat it. Or just as likely, go find something else to torture and kill for fun. Hell, one of mine will even chase and attack the dogs (a chow and a pitbull!), just to remind them of their place in the family pecking order. (His version at least, which of course lists himself as a 400lb lion!) And yes, both dogs will cower, duck, and bail whenever this cat stares down or even springs at them. It's quite a sight, I tell you.)
Cats can be simultaneously sweet toward those they like, and mean as hell to anyone or thing they don't.
Yeah. Everything is black & white. Everyone disagreeing with you is a whiny-ass "liberal". People fall into neat categories and are either with you on everything or against you on everything.
*slaps knee* Damn dude, that's a good one! HAR HAR HAR!
What a limited scope of thought you appear to hold, for one accusing others of lacking in the thinking department no less. Somewhere between fascinating and horrifying.
Your entire statement falls on its face by dwelling in naive radio-talk-show style catchphrasing, and the oversimplifications that come with it.
>One of Clinton's staff members, a liberal, is embarassed by liberals like these on slashdot.
And that should matters to who, how?
>There is a war on to fight terrorism
There is a war on to put into action the pipe dreams of the PNAC and other neocon thinktanks, an attempt to impose their own worldview and vision of "democracy" upon foreign nations in particular areas of the world for both idealogical and strategic purposes.
They are also intent on increasing the powers of the executive above the other branches of our government, and imposing limitations on individual liberty resembling policies one would expect to find in a police state rather than our own. All in direct opposition to the US constitution, and in violation of the very priciples they feign to cherish and protect. All in the pursuit of creating and keeping stronger centralized government power, to better reach their aims.
Actions taken in pursuit of these goals have been conducted under the auspices of "fighting terrorism", which recieves little more than lip service, as far as effective strategies for identifying and containing real threats are concerned.
They are crucifying the very core of conservative ideals, in the name of empire building for their own idealogical and personal gains. They attempt to appeal to conservatives by gutting/ruining government entities they themselves find no use for (typically those with potential for common good, even given their faults) while they are busy building the ugly Orwellian machine behind the curtain. The very "big government" traditional conservatives despise the most.
Furthermore, this "war" is being conducted at the top levels with such incompetence as to be a complete embarrassment, and falling far short of the leadership our troops and other persons (the ones on the ground actually doing the finding, fighting, and dying) deserve. (I can't believe there was even talk about voluntarily opening another front. The idiocy of that kind of move is astounding.)
>hence people on all sides dying. Liberals would like to runa away from it and pay off the terrorists
Running away from what? From hunting Bin Laden to go have ourselves a grudge match with a fucking global has-been like Saddam?
>incorrectly thinking they will be left alone. Don't believe me, look into the real history of Rome and Greece. It didn't work then and it will not work now.
You appear to be referring to Danegeld style policies. You're right... they don't work. And you're stupid to think that is what anyone has in mind, or bears any resemblance to any policies anyone is suggesting.
>While I support the war on terror
Great... as currently conducted , you must support our brothers/sisters being shortchanged in force levels, equipment, and workable strategy, to be shot at and often killed for some bullshit diversion instead of what they should be doing.
>The world's enemy is being fought by those who have fought for and believe in freedom. The rest of the world is too afraid to fight these people.
And you're the fucking bastard who would throw away the very rights and freedoms that they believe in and fight for, the ones that make our country what it is supposed to be, because you're a scared little pussy... worried to death that "the bad guys are gonna get me and mine".
How about honoring their sacrifice with a little balls of
>>So you think any adult should be able to see any other adults reading history? >Why not? What's the big deal?
For starters, it is against the law in most states. (Of course that doesn't explain any real "why".)
The real reasons involve concepts found in the bill of rights (free speech, freedom in one's effects from unlawful search/seizure, etc).
Basically, reader privacy has a been standard expectation of libraries for pretty much the entire existence of the institution. Here is a nice snippet:
"Libraries are based on sharing information also, but in a different way: they are a place (virtual or physical) to find reading and to read. Reading is so necessarily private and so related to the process of thought as it has evolved over the centuries that its history is congruent with the history of the concept of the private, individual thinking mind in Western culture. In accordance with our conceptualization of the privacy of the act of reading, libraries have traditionally treated the privacy of readers as sacred. Privacy is a central, core value of libraries." -- Rory Litwin (LibraryJuice)
You can find all the reading material you could ever want on the subject at http://www.ala.org/
> My reading list includes Rainey, Feldhahn, Lewis, Eggerichs, Piper, Thomas, Luther, Calvin, Smith, Lewis, McGraw, Cussler, Clancy, Grisham, business books, and geek titles.
Wonderful. You have no problems sharing, and that is fine. That doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. And it doesn't mean a third party should be able to make that decision for you, whether you like it or not.
> Who cares? What difference does it make? Now that you know this about me, how does it benefit you or harm me?
There have been (and still are, actually) places where the theological bent of your reading materials could be considered enough positive ID of your religious thinking for someone to consider you an enemy that should be harmed in some fashion or even killed. Not so much here and now... but a person's reading materials can be incriminating in all kinds of ways, as it reveals to others a ton about your thinking processes in a short period of time. (Often mistaken or misleading, but people sometimes use their interpretation of that kind of information as if it were gospel truth.)
The very fact that law enforcement finds that kind of information valuable enough to seek it out confirms its value to third parties, for myriad purposes.
It is the closest a stranger can get to your mind without ever interacting with you.
> Look, there's no such thing as privacy anymore.
In many cases, that is true. However it does exist in libraries, because they tend to take it just as seriously now as they always have. Is the lack of privacy in many elements of life a reason to elimate it everywhere? Personal information in a library is of a kind that can be easily found nowhere else short of invading your home.
> Why should the library insist on a draconian policy?
You misuse the word. You were inconvenienced for a few moments, yet your goal was still accomplished. The library left the decision about disclosure of checkout information in your wife's account up to your wife... exacly the person that should be making that decision.
You know, if she asked the library to put a note in her record authorizing you to see her checkouts, they might very well be OK with that.
> It's a waste of time. Besides, my tax dollars paid for the books, the people, and the processes for checkout. Why shouldn't those records be public?
No they didn't. They paid a contribution toward all of the above, which was shared by all other taxpayers in your library's service area (more or less). You have no right to singlehandly insist on particular policies (such as disclosure of private records) any more than anyone else does to insist on something you might disagree with. It's not YOURS, it is yours a
>Whatever "protection" provided by limiting access to that information is limited to such a small number of people and circumstances that it infringes greatly against the masses to "protect" the edge condition.
Do you have numbers to back that up, or are you just guessing? So you think any adult should be able to see any other adults reading history? Or just some? Is it to be based on relationship? Who do you want determining who has what kind of relationship with who?
You are your wife's spouse, not her legal guardian. She is both responsible for stuff she has signed for, and entitled to her own privacy if she so chooses.
>If you're looking to the government to help preserve your relationship, you're looking in the wrong place.
Exactly. While I agree with your notion of the importance of transparency in a relationship, it is none of the government's (library's) business how transparent your relationships may or may not be, or even if they exist at all. (A legal guardian of a person can see records because they are legally responsible for those materials. And that is it. Everyone else is treated strictly as an individual.)
It is not the library's job to ensure your relationship is transparent, nor to assume whether it is or isn't. That is your job/business.
> If your relationship is on such unstable ground that you need to block information from your spouse, you need to get help with that or get away from a dangerous spouse.
Absolutely. And you might be shocked at how many people actually go to a library to research/find out how to do exactly that.
But it doesn't matter... it is not the library's job to determine who is and who isn't doing that. Or to wonder why anyone needs whatever they are looking for, and for what purpose. Or to even notice what a person has checked out. (Beyond the record keeping neccessary to ensure item X is returned, or that patron Y is billed for replacement if it isn't.)
> The library policy is pointless.
The library policy ensures everyone is treated fairly and with respect to people's privacy, all while keeping the library's noses out of people's personal business and relationships.
Plug in a USB/Ethernet adapter, and put it on your network.
Tivo has a software package (windows only, I think... bummer) that will let you watch stuff on the Tivo on your computer. (Or burn to DVD, etc.) Not that useful to me... I don't use windows, and would rather watch TV on an actual TV anyway.
But if you have another Tivo (say, in another room), they can share their playlists over the network. (Watch stuff from one on the other. I Got a refurbished Tivo for about $40 just for that purpose.)
The other cool thing about network connectivity on the Tivo is you can run Galleon (http://galleon.tv/). It's an open source server (for linux or windows) that talks to your Tivo and lets you do a bunch of cool stuff. A list of the most useful stuff for me:
-Control Tivo ToGo feature (copy shows) directly from the TiVo interface (instead of from the software on a computer) --browse MP3 files on the server using file system folders. --organize MP3 files (from directories on the server) by reading tags and categorizing by them --mp3 Jukebox that allows you to create and play a dynamic playlist (very cool) --play iTunes playlists --play.m3u and.pls playlists --browse image files on the server using file system folders. --view local movie theater listings.
And some other internet type stuff (that I don't really use myself): --display current weather, 5 day forecast, local radar image, national radar image, weather alerts --listen to shoutcase streams --subscribe to and listen to podcasts --view RSS feeds. --read your email --view images on the internet --subscribe and view videocasts and videoblogs --view local traffic conditions --chat on the Jabber messenging service (don't ask me how, but it says you can)
The only improvements (for me) I can think of would be:
1. Linux support for two things you can do in Windows -->
a. Playing.tivo files. (Shows. You can download them in linux, but not play them back.)
b. Burning.tivo files to DVD. 2. Ogg support. My MP3 player handles them fine, so I'd just as soon use them. But it's not really a big deal.
Maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but pretty cool anyway.
You're right about the armament mismatch... but I'm not so sure it is impossible to overcome. Look at the trouble we've had in other countries in those situations.
A few other factors to take into account:
Internal problems in the armed forces... 1. Reluctance/hesitation or even refusal to fire upon lesser or un-armed american civilians (by low-level troops)
2. Mass disobedience of orders (while following orders is deep rooted, the concept of "unlawful orders" is planted right alongside it)
3. Any given region in the US will be considered "home" by a number of troops... home state and neighboring states. Loyalty to homeland can be a hard thing to overcome. (Fighting people in their own backyard "protecting home" can be extremely difficult already. Now try to do it when 10% or more of your own force is a risk for defection and/or sabotage.)
4. Again... defection and/or internal sabotage.
5. If 3/4 of military forces and 95% of commander's attention is off in some other country... how convenient.
6. If an uprising managed to drag on for a while, interesting questions arise: Who's gonna pay the troops? With what money that the govt doesn't already owe some other country? What countries aren't going to want debts paid up before the economy goes totally tits up? What will motivate unpaid soldiers to stick around? Where would replacements for wounded/killed/deserted/otherwise gone soldiers come from? Not like you can institute a draft on the very people you are fighting.
Increasing capabilities of resistance: 1. Guerilla Warfare against people that look like you, talk like you, dress like you, and share the same cultural background. In their own backyard. That is a nightmare scenario for any professional millitary. How do they tell the opponents apart from themselves? Of course those opponents are going to exploit that weakness to the fullest.
2. Armories are scattered all over the country. They aren't exactly heavily guarded in a fashion that an armed mob couldn't handle. Not exactly helicopters and tanks, but still very useful.
3. Bases storing equipment aren't exactly always heavily guarded, either. Sabotage and theft is not out of the question.
4. The civilian population is full of former military, from all ranks and backgrounds. I don't doubt some of them would end up involved somehow... running/planning/training, etc. It'd be a matter of loyalty to home, or loyalty to the service. Doubtless plenty would end up on each side of that fence.
5. I'm sure there are allies to be found in the world that would jump on the opportunity to lend some aid/equipment/supplies or even another front to be fought. (Small, irritating ones... Wouldn't want to send their fingers heading for the Big Red Buttons. Maybe invade Guam or something ridiculous like that with a completely anonymous force. Then abandon it quickly. For no reason other than distraction.)
(Hey, I bet China would jump all over that shit. If we knock out our own military from the inside, guess who might get to rule the world next?;) )
Lastly... waging war and supporting an army takes massive resources. There are invaluable logistical targets everywhere.
Want to halt all of those wonderful advanced weapons in their tracks? Kill their fuel supply/resupply. It's not like it is all produced and stored in some other country and they have it shipped here on a regular basis.
Where do the repair parts for the cool equipment come from? How many sources are there for some of the exotic materials required for manufacture?
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be ugly, or that an armed rebellion against our military would succeed. (Or even get past the "handful of people in a bar planning it stage".) There are way too many points of failure, and is borderline suicide to try.
BUT... I wouldn't write it off as absolutely impossible. At the very least it might not be quite the cakewalk people often
>it stands for Americas freedoms, American liberties and the protection of others
Yeah.
>sometimes others need to be protected from themselves.
WTF and Where-TF did that come from, and how exactly is that compatible with the freedom you are speaking of? That's bullshit, Marine. Protecting someone from themselves is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
I'm not saying it is never called for or neccessary... it just doesn't belong right in the middle of a spiel on freedom and liberty.
> Reading and understanding the Consistution and how it really applies today and to globalizaion or America's stewardship to world peace are two diffent things. There are parts that no doubt apply
What the hell?! Am I actually reading that correctly?!
>but without having to state the obvious (in your case I may) the Constition and war dont jive, they arent even in the same fuckin ball park.
Maybe not, but without that Constitution and what it means/guarantees, war has no point. Don't go downplaying it one bit, war or no war.
And FYI, we are not actually in a state of war. And you know that. (I think that is messed up, as there is no practical difference for those out there fighting, but it is legally different, and the support is different. The political pussyfooting to avoid an actual declared state of war is almost ridiculous.)
>The oath is more then you can imagine my friend Try realizing how many people died after taking that oath. I was a lucky one.
It's not. I have, and I know. So was I. And my brother. And many uncles and 3 grandfathers (though under different uniforms).
> Very few put on a Marines uniform and those who do understand that death is only a matter of time in some cases and that we will/may be called upon to do Americas justice. That is the diciple, that is what we train to do and that is what we love so much about it.
That's right. You're doing your job, and that's dandy. Following the orders our govt gives you, as you must and as you promised to. And of course, if you happen to agree with those orders and the mission you've been sent on... that is your right.
But I'll be god-damned if I'm gonna listen to you lay down a bunch of gung-ho bullshit that paints everyone who happens to disagree with the administration and their foreign policy fuckups with the same "liberal commie tree-hugger hippie weenie" brush.
Shit, I'm a former Marine as you might have guessed by now. Hell, I prolly even had the same MOS as you, from the sound of it. I ain't no commie. I ain't no hippie... sheesh... never done weed in my life (but don't really give a shit if others do), probably have shorter hair than even you (slick with a bic) and grew up a fucking logger in Oregon for crying out loud. Oh yeah... there's no shortage of guns or meat in my house. Yes I consider myself mostly conservative. (Though I don't know how the hell some people using the term nowadays can say it with a straight face. I suppose 'cause they call it "socially conservative" or some nanny-state crap like that.)
And you know what? I happen to think George and company are practically traitors to our country, and should be kicked out of office like the fat-ass lying boss hogs that they are.
They are selling out the Constitution and our bill of rights for the almighty dollar... Our freedoms, the ones I signed up to fight for, are being plucked away at and sold in the name of power and the highest bidder.
(What the fuck is the point is fighting for freedom, if you come home to find they're all gone anyway! Especially thanks to a smarmy silver-spoon business failure of a hereditary politician that lied and pussed his way out of Vietnam himself back when he was called to duty? How can that not piss you off?)
They are sullying our country's (and Corps) reputation with this "pre-emptive war" business,
In terms of "public library" your view of what they "should be" is a good one in my opinion, but also a bit narrow.
I have some points to add to it:
The whole of the world's knowledge and wisdom is not contained soley in the realm of non-fiction. Fiction can be quite intellectually stimulating. Some can be considered art.
A library is not only a repository of knowledge, but of culture. Art, myths, legends, stories, fables, and so on (all fiction and presented in various formats from books to DVD to games) represent cultural elements that can be found in a library.
Remember, yesterday's pop might prove to be tomorrow's Shakespeare. Just as Shakespeare did.
A library is a resource for the whole community, not just the "brightest". Better for a person to learn some history via a "pop history" book than to not learn any at all. (The real deal might be beyond their comprehension/reading ability, or just scare them off.) Those finding the "pop history" book sufficiently interesting might very well feel encouraged to pick up some of the "better books" (shelved right there along side it) to learn some more. For example... a library doesn't expect an 8 year old to be reading heavy-duty non-fiction tomes, and provides material appropriate for them in the same subjects. Providing reference material for adults in varying degrees between what you call "pop" and what you might consider "good stuff" can be seen as an extension of the same philosophy.
Libraries are for, and have to cater to, the people paying the bills. That is the general public... not just part of the public. A library with the best collection in the world (by any person's judgement) with no people in there using it is a waste. Think of it this way... the high demand popular stuff is what subsidizes "the good stuff". It also brings people in the building and can act as a gateway to using "the good stuff". Stores have sales. Restaurant and bars have happy hour. Dealers give free samples. Libraries have popular books, movies, and music.
Another poster addressed collection development as it pertains to your donation story quite well, so I'll leave that alone.
BTW, many also have resources intended specifically for local business use as well. (Want to quickly find out what other businesses are in your immediate area? Or a new area you are thinking about moving/expanding to? Want to know who/where all of your competitors are? Want to mail an advertisement to all residences within a certain radius of your location? Ask your reference librarian about their electronic resources.)
>one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology)
Your entire post rests on this claim. But is it true? Explore and answer that question first (with examples, evidence, etc). Then you can move on to the followups you added to it.
As is, I could make a similar claim that "I heard a panel member say yellow cars rust faster and get worse gas mileage than other colored cars... so why do car companies paint some cars yellow, and why do people buy them?"
I'm not going to worry about availability and sales of yellow cars until their rust-prone gas-guzzling nature is given better credentials than "some unidentified guy on an unnamed panel said so".:)
>OK, so there is an easter egg that makes the "skip to the end" skip forward. It might even be labeled in such a way that it is not completely confusing.
It is quite easy to do. It's pretty common knowledge among Tivo users. I don't think it is beyond Grandma or anyone else... and I'd definitely tell anyone how to do it (and have them write it down so they can do it again for any machine reboots... say after the system updates that happen a few times a year.)
The fast-forward works just fine for most folks I think. But I agree the 30 second skip is much nicer.
I actually prefer the ability to set the time-skip function myself. For watching football games I often set it to 25 seconds. I skip the 24 second play clock between snaps... between that and commercial skipping I can watch a 3 hour game in an hour. It's great.
> How about the 20 second jump back? Skipping ahead 30 seconds is great and all, but it often results in going slightly past the end of the commercials.
No problem there... just to the left of that button is the "jump back 8 seconds" button. No tweaking necessary, it just does it. One click is usually just right for correcting commercial skipping "overshoot", in my experience. (Also perfect for the aforementioned ultra-fast football watching.) If you need to go back further, click it again. click-click = 16 seconds, click-click-click = 20. Pretty close to what you are asking for, I think. (I actually think 8 at a time is much better... 20 sounds like an odd choice to me.)
>Part of Tivo's appeal is that they are easy to use and ready out of the box. This just does not cut it.
Perhaps, but I think "easy blah blah out of the box except punch in a code for this one feature" is a bit slicker for less technically apt than some of the other proposed solutions.
For the record, I'm not neccessarily arguing that there are no issues with with Tivo or anything... I agree with some of the ones you bring up. I'm just interested in sharing information and clearing up any misconceptions.:)
All current Tivo models allow you to transfer shows to a windows PC for burning (Mac and linux is a more complicated story, and may be changing for the better soon), and a few have built-in burners to do it on the spot. (Exception... Direct TV Tivos are being phased out by Direct TV in favor of their own PVR devices, and they aren't interested in enabling any of these newer features for existing machines.)
I'm pretty sure editing content (transferred to PC) before burning is not a problem. I don't think it is an option on the "built-in burner" models (without transferring to PC first) as it is just impractical to try to do that kind of task within a TV/remote interface.
I have a standard non-hacked 80hr Series 2 Tivo, with that one easter-egg enabled. I'm running Galleon (an open source HMO replacement) as a background service on my main Ubuntu machine. Stuff I can do:
1. All of the normal DVR stuff... pick shows to record. 2. All of the nicer Tivo stuff... no-hassle season passes, wishlist recording, and self-recording stuff it thinks I might like. 3. View photo collections from my PC (that linux box with Galleon on it) 4. Play mp3s and playlists from my PC... basically use it as a jukebox 5. Check email, movie listings, weather, RSS feeds, and all kinds of other internet stuff via my PC. 6. Transfer shows to my PC without even going to the PC. (Start PC transfers right from the Tivo and watch something else while it does it in the background. Can also have transfers take place automatically based on keyword matching)
Not bad, really. Now for the problems:
1. That broadcast flag thing. I've never ever seen it, but I've heard about it... so it does concern me. I doubt that any consumer device will be able to avoid this issue, really. There are workarounds for any "can't burn this" restrictions, though.;)
That sounds an awful lot like Automatic Gain Control or Automatic Level Control to me. Except that rather than setting the 'median' level yourself, with ALC/AGC it uses a sort of time-average, compressing louder sounds and boosting soft ones.
Not quite... I know what you are talking about, and agree it sucks. I was trying to think of how to do it in a way that doesn't suck, and I think came close. Part of the idea is good, so I'll happily discard the rest. I think the answer is not to autogain at all... but to "automatically set the gain based on a fixed time sample", and then LEAVE it there as a starting point for manual adjustments.
(Maybe have a setting somewhere for how much headroom to leave when setting the gain via that method.)
If you're recording to a 24-bit format that has well over 100dB of dynamic range, there's no reason why you can't just turn your levels down a little so you have some headroom.
Yeah... I'm just thinking on saving some time setting that level initially. There are a lot of times when I don't have time (or hands free) to mess with it, so it be nice to be able to just poke a button in the middle of a soundcheck (or tell a non-techie buddy to do it) and have it set itself close enough to be an OK recording (that can be compressed/tweaked/otherwise doctored later if need be).
I'm not saying that some sort of 'soft clipping' wouldn't be useful to deal with loud transient sounds, but building in compression or automatic gain control
Blech... no, don't put any compression in! Maybe a limiter right before clipping like you say, but no need to screw with the sound. Let's call my idea "automatic gain setting" instead of automatic gain control. Does that make sense?
to a device is just asking for the designers to leave those manual controls off, and really stick you with something that's not as useful as it should be.
Agreed... that would suck, and make the device completely unusable.:)
Maybe this is a no-brainer that is already planned, but just in case:
If you want to record anything live, you HAVE to have input level meters, and fully functional (real-time adjustible while watching the meters) "trim" control. Nothing worse than recording a live performance to discover your trim/gain/whatever was way too low. Except discovering it was way too high!
The device would be essentially useless without this feature.
It'd be neat if rather than separate "mic" and "line" inputs, the same input would work for both. (Like a channel strip in a basic mixer... trim hot signals, boost weak ones, or just leave it centered for line-level.)
If input levels are adjustible within software, maybe have a few presets (set to basic "mic" and basic "line in" levels) and a couple slots for users to save their own level adjustments with a name. "Rehearsal Space", "SuperDuper Room Mic", "Joe's Mixer", "ScumRock Theater Board", "Taping Rig".
Absolutely kick-ass would be a sort of "auto" input level monitoring and adjustment. Tricky... maybe it could be helped along with an "about this loud" button. Something you push to tell it "this is about how loud the signal is gonna be for the most part", and it ajusts the trim to put the level meters in a good spot for it... with plenty of signal, but enough headroom that a mild volume increase (or louder "impact") isn't going to send it into the red. And have it "spring to" that setting.
What I mean by that is to follow the signal up & down a bit, but ignore very large changes from the "spring to" point. (Such as a quiet spot/break in a song, or space between songs/track. And in the other direction... I dunno... pyro going off, or something else unforseen that is much louder than the average level.
Maybe all of that is a pipe dream, but it'd be really cool for those that deal mostly with live music. Both at shows/concerts, and in rehearsal/composing type settings.
Oh, yeah... speaking of that... how about a remote for stopping/starting recording? Sometimes the primo spot for the device to get a recording is not where the operator needs to be. ("Delete last take" from a remote would also be bad-ass.)
Maybe superbright multicolor status LED... green for "on/ready", red for "recording", and some other color (or blinking) for "doing something else you just told me to do". (Check out the status lights on a Tivo for a good example.) Something you can see easily from across a room and tell what it is doing.
Also handy... a space/slot for running a small security cable. Like for a lanyard, but maybe a little bigger and more solid. Not "theft proof" neccessarily, but enough to stop or slow down the casual "pick up/put in pocket/walk away nonchalantly" type stickyfingered character.
Starbucks? I've heard this one a hundred times... where the hell did Starbucks come from?
Damn near ruined the joke. We're beer central, and your telling jokes about us drinking coffee? (If so it shoulda been something actually good, like Dutch Bros or something.)
Usually the Texan has a generic beer like bud or coors. The Californian has a bottle of wine. And the Oregonian is drinking some good stuff, like a bottle of Black Butte Porter, or another of the fantastic local brews.
They do SO do full auto. Yes, the ones a civillian can get at a gun show won't, but the millitary isue ones do.
No they don't.
Not for a long time, they haven't.
You mention 1971... the rifle you were using was an M16A1. It underwent a pretty heavy redesign in 1981, and the M16A2 was first adopted by the USMC in 1983. The other services followed soon after.
We weren't allowed to do full auto on the firing range in basic, but one guy "accidentally" flipped the little lever. He pulled the trigger and emptied the magazine into the roof. He was stomped on and had a bunch of 45s aimed at him when he was taken away. We never saw him again.
That's one reason for the change. Waste of ammo, poor accuracy. Flip that lever on an M16A2 and you will get a 3 round burst. That is 3 rounds for every squeeze of the trigger. Much easier to put a lot of rounds downrange, while making recoil easier to manage. (Rocking back down into the original point of aim between bursts.)
The problem I've been running into has been overexposure bordering on harassment. That and people exposing me to religion as part of their official capacities.
I would agree... harassment isn't right, and using one's official capacity in that fashion is dead wrong.
School teachers arguing and trying to prove God exists, etc.
Ridiculous, from a secular standpoint. Also wrong by their own religious views... perhaps they should review the scolding of "doubting Thomas". Names and accounts escape me at the moment, but I think there were a few old testament figures that met an ugly demise as a result of demanding "proof". Not that much different, in my book.
Often the best way to shut up a blowhard is to use their own data/viewpoint against them.;)
The worst so far is a military commander asking all of the new members to his unit, upon first meeting them, "HAVE YOU BEEN SAVED YET?". You'd better answer yes, because you're in for a very long lecture and a copy of a certain book if you answer no.
Absolutely unacceptible. Informing them of their right to see a chaplain of their choice (for services or counseling) if they so desire, whether they've done that same thing before or not... that would be plenty.
(I add that last bit mainly because military units can be sluggish/reluctant about changing one's claimed religious status. Mostly because of paperwork... all of your records would require updating, and they'd have to issue you new dogtags. A pain in the ass, which might earn one a bit of good-natured ribbing along the lines of "oh, so the pope is wrong now?", "so who is your savior gonna be next year?", "give my regards to buddha"... stuff like that.)
Recently there have been public schools where students read prayers or did whatever else for an hour or so a day.
If it were simply time set aside for silent personal "self study", where religious kids could read scripture or analytical texts if they liked, and other kids could dig into science, history, philosophy, mythology, dinosours, or whatever floats their boat... that wouldn't be so bad.
But sounds like that isn't what is going on at all.
Now that I think of that, an interesting thing would be for the subject of study during that time period to be assigned by the parents, including providing the reading material. (Via purchase, library, or whatever). The teacher would have a list of what the kids were supposed to be up to, and just make sure they are doing something like the list says, and not goofing off.
Maybe impractical, but the idea popped in there, so might as well share it.:P
The problem is that yes, a person can ignore a comment about why "God is Good", but a forced spoonfeeding -a daily repitition of the same material and lecture in the hopes that he'll start to believe it
That would certainly be obnoxious and annoying, even for one that DID believe it. At some point they need to just shut up with the preaching and start practicing.
I can't say I attend services on a regular basis for that reason. I like hanging out with people on occasion, but I'm more of a self-study type.
gets started up sometimes. Then it is hid behind in the name of "well, you're not free to exposure from it.". Maybe not, but common sense and limits should apply, even if our legalese has not perfected to the point where we know how to word every law 100% perfectly.
Agreed. I also find it odd that people of that stripe feel no qualms about disrespecting the wishes of others. Seems contradictory to me.
With a good charter or bilaws, it'd be easier for them to
But I think there might be a little confusion here.
When the poster says "you don't have freedom from religion" I think it really means "freedom from exposure to religion".
In which case I would agree. It appears that you might too, but I'm not sure. (The "following priest" scenario you paint seems beyond exposure to me, and would constitute legitimate harrassment... a crime. I don't think any claim of religious freedom should trump criminal law, so you should be OK there. Those scenarios should not be protected as religious activity. I would hope not, anyway.)
OK, so I happen to be a Christian. But I am wholeheartedly in support of the separation of church and state. I am also aware of how silly arguments of "but we were founded on Christianity (or whatever)" are. (Interestingly enough, if the average bible thumper actually read and comprehended more than select clips of the tome they pack around, they might realize that this very issue makes up one of the major themes of the New Testament.)
I agree with your right to do whatever the hell you want, as far as your religious or non-religious choices go. And most definitely disagree with the way many so-called Christian leaders attempt to mix politics in with religion and vice versa. *spitting in disgust*
I agree freedom of religion includes "no religion". It means the govt has nothing to do with personal religious choices (which by common sense includes "no religion for me at all").
But...
I've always interpreted "freedom from religion" to mean freedom from religion having any impact at all on a person whatsoever... which would be difficult. That would mean freedom even from observable evidence that that others might practice a form of religion.
For that to truly be possible would essentially require others to make the same choice as you (no religion) or to hide the choices they've made.
So I think that would be too much... a matter of where the other person's nose starts, so your own freedom ends there.
Does that make sense?
In other words, we might just be talking a matter of differing semantics here.
Are we?
(A reason I myself always include "exposure to" in that particular phrase, rather than leave it insufficiently implied.)
Hating the Patriot act does not mean you are immune to it.
Of course not. But it means you are probably aware of it, can anticipate it, and are aware of its limitations.
The problem is secret bulk fishing expeditions that have occured in the past and will occur again in the future.
Exactly. Thing is, no one wants their business interrupted by fishing expeditions. The easiest way to prevent them is to keep no fish laying around.:) Unneccessary customer information should be discarded. Many systems do this anyway, as libraries have demanded customer privacy as a feature of their systems since long before the patriot act came about.
This system makes it impossible for my name to appear in any such fishing expedition regardless of my local Library's information systems. With this system I don't have to rely on thier venom to protect my privacy, it is protected by default.
True, but one of my main points... it may be protected by default anyway, no venom required. Unless they actively choose to retain data, it might not even be there to begin with. (And if they actively choose to retain data... wow. You probably want to know about it anyway, and a library making that kind of choice is even more unlikely to implement an anonymous checkout like the one proposed.)
The only place we seem to differ is in regard to current checkouts.
Just because you don't have enough faith in people to come back and collect thier dough does not mean it will be treated like a bookstore.
This bit isn't a matter of "lacking faith". It is a simple matter of long term experience and observation of people doing exactly that... even in the face of obstacles to discourage the practice. This would remove all of them.
Early libraries were not free, you had to pay some sort of bond to ensure you brought the stuff back, somehow they survived.
True. However, these were not considered public libraries, and the borrowing certainly was not anonymous. There was incentive there to return materials beyond raw economics.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You're right of course, but that's not what I mean.
I'm saying if you "are truly concerned about privacy and how your library handles it", there are a number of different people you can talk to for information.
The director and the board can inform you about policies, and have the power to change them.
The sysadmin can tell you about how those policies are put into action, and/or what actually happens with your data within the system.
For example... what info is collected (or not) by the system, how long it is kept, what for, etc.
In other words, technical details that others may/may not be familiar with, which might suffice to answer your questions. Info that might satisfy the average Slashdotter better than hearing a bigwig say "of course we protect your data" will.
Well, part of the problem is that the item is meant to be available to the public. The turnaround time neccessary to replace "kept" books is time that the item is unavailable for use, when it shouldn't be.
Another part of the problem is cost. The typical replacement fee + processing charge really doesn't pay for the entire cost. Adjustments could be made of course... but that cost might be higher than you'd think.
Another one... libraries get books at a steep discount. Even after fees, it might be less than retail. Good luck retaining a collection in that scenario.
Along with that, if libraries were selling books for a profit, vendors would end those discounts pretty quickly. Whoops! Boy would that screw up a few budgets (and bang for your tax buck).
In many places it is simply not legal for government entities to compete with private businesses. (Or to turn a profit, for that matter.) Even if that were all fixed and it were legal... what would happen to local support from businesses? (Such as bookstores, music stores, movie rental/sales joints, etc.) Chamber of Commerce vs. Library. Oh, joy!
Jeez... I could keep going.
I actually understand what you are getting at, and find it admirable. But from my vantage point, I don't see how it could work. (It's always the little things, that may not be obvious at first, or to those outside of the playing field.)
Slashdot Mirror
We aren't talking about books and materials that libraries choose not to add to their collections.
We are talking about books that libraries already had in their collections (or intended to add), but were forced to remove (or prevented from obtaining) by others. Usually a combination of complaining patrons, and local government responding to those complaints to override library decisions.
How it typically happens in the US: One or more patrons complain about a given title to the library, and ask that it be removed from the collection. The library listens to the complaint, but refuses to remove the title. Those patrons then take one of two paths.
a) Take the issue to any available higher authorities... such as local government. Which in many cases controls the library budget, or is actually in control of the library. An attempt to force the library via orders from above. It is sometimes successful.
b) Organized protest, in direct opposition to the library. Some libraries have caved (changed their decision) under that kind of pressure, others have not.
Many books on that list have been subjected to that kind of treatment in the past, or still are to this day.
FWIW, I work in a library and have been witness to those very processes, as well as hearing accounts from them elsewhere. Thankfully, none I've seen myself have gone very far. Yet.
Ya'll keep talking about the various times Sauron has had his ass handed to him, but no one is getting it right.
Went down with Numenor... yeah.
Knocked out by Gil-galad, Elendil, and Isildur... yeah.
Shoved aside by the White Council... sure.
But what about the first time?
Luthien and Huan gave him his first ass kicking/death.
How come nobody ever remembers that one?
>>Cats don't go around setting other animals on fire because they think its cool. ------- Its easy to empathize with a cat, as it is innocent.
Heh, apparently you have never spent much time living with cats. (Give cats opposable thumbs, a bic, and the brains to use them... I guarantee you'd get roasted critters... rodents, birds, dogs, people, other cats... whatever.)
There aren't many things cats will not do in order to amuse themselves, including some selfish and cruel behavior. (Even clear-cut torture for play/practice.) They commonly attack and release an animal repeatedly (inflicting continually more damage and pain) before finally tiring of the game and finishing them off. At which point they may eat it. Or just as likely, go find something else to torture and kill for fun. Hell, one of mine will even chase and attack the dogs (a chow and a pitbull!), just to remind them of their place in the family pecking order. (His version at least, which of course lists himself as a 400lb lion!) And yes, both dogs will cower, duck, and bail whenever this cat stares down or even springs at them. It's quite a sight, I tell you.)
Cats can be simultaneously sweet toward those they like, and mean as hell to anyone or thing they don't.
Yeah. Everything is black & white. Everyone disagreeing with you is a whiny-ass "liberal". People fall into neat categories and are either with you on everything or against you on everything.
*slaps knee* Damn dude, that's a good one! HAR HAR HAR!
What a limited scope of thought you appear to hold, for one accusing others of lacking in the thinking department no less. Somewhere between fascinating and horrifying.
Your entire statement falls on its face by dwelling in naive radio-talk-show style catchphrasing, and the oversimplifications that come with it.
>One of Clinton's staff members, a liberal, is embarassed by liberals like these on slashdot.
And that should matters to who, how?
>There is a war on to fight terrorism
There is a war on to put into action the pipe dreams of the PNAC and other neocon thinktanks, an attempt to impose their own worldview and vision of "democracy" upon foreign nations in particular areas of the world for both idealogical and strategic purposes.
They are also intent on increasing the powers of the executive above the other branches of our government, and imposing limitations on individual liberty resembling policies one would expect to find in a police state rather than our own. All in direct opposition to the US constitution, and in violation of the very priciples they feign to cherish and protect. All in the pursuit of creating and keeping stronger centralized government power, to better reach their aims.
Actions taken in pursuit of these goals have been conducted under the auspices of "fighting terrorism", which recieves little more than lip service, as far as effective strategies for identifying and containing real threats are concerned.
They are crucifying the very core of conservative ideals, in the name of empire building for their own idealogical and personal gains. They attempt to appeal to conservatives by gutting/ruining government entities they themselves find no use for (typically those with potential for common good, even given their faults) while they are busy building the ugly Orwellian machine behind the curtain. The very "big government" traditional conservatives despise the most.
Furthermore, this "war" is being conducted at the top levels with such incompetence as to be a complete embarrassment, and falling far short of the leadership our troops and other persons (the ones on the ground actually doing the finding, fighting, and dying) deserve. (I can't believe there was even talk about voluntarily opening another front. The idiocy of that kind of move is astounding.)
>hence people on all sides dying. Liberals would like to runa away from it and pay off the terrorists
Running away from what? From hunting Bin Laden to go have ourselves a grudge match with a fucking global has-been like Saddam?
>incorrectly thinking they will be left alone. Don't believe me, look into the real history of Rome and Greece. It didn't work then and it will not work now.
You appear to be referring to Danegeld style policies. You're right... they don't work. And you're stupid to think that is what anyone has in mind, or bears any resemblance to any policies anyone is suggesting.
>While I support the war on terror
Great... as currently conducted , you must support our brothers/sisters being shortchanged in force levels, equipment, and workable strategy, to be shot at and often killed for some bullshit diversion instead of what they should be doing.
>The world's enemy is being fought by those who have fought for and believe in freedom. The rest of the world is too afraid to fight these people.
And you're the fucking bastard who would throw away the very rights and freedoms that they believe in and fight for, the ones that make our country what it is supposed to be, because you're a scared little pussy... worried to death that "the bad guys are gonna get me and mine".
How about honoring their sacrifice with a little balls of
>>So you think any adult should be able to see any other adults reading history?
>Why not? What's the big deal?
For starters, it is against the law in most states. (Of course that doesn't explain any real "why".)
The real reasons involve concepts found in the bill of rights (free speech, freedom in one's effects from unlawful search/seizure, etc).
Basically, reader privacy has a been standard expectation of libraries for pretty much the entire existence of the institution. Here is a nice snippet:
"Libraries are based on sharing information also, but in a different way: they are a place (virtual or physical) to find reading and to read. Reading is so necessarily private and so related to the process of thought as it has evolved over the centuries that its history is congruent with the history of the concept of the private, individual thinking mind in Western culture. In accordance with our conceptualization of the privacy of the act of reading, libraries have traditionally treated the privacy of readers as sacred. Privacy is a central, core value of libraries." -- Rory Litwin (LibraryJuice)
You can find all the reading material you could ever want on the subject at http://www.ala.org/
> My reading list includes Rainey, Feldhahn, Lewis, Eggerichs, Piper, Thomas, Luther, Calvin, Smith, Lewis, McGraw, Cussler, Clancy, Grisham, business books, and geek titles.
Wonderful. You have no problems sharing, and that is fine. That doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. And it doesn't mean a third party should be able to make that decision for you, whether you like it or not.
> Who cares? What difference does it make? Now that you know this about me, how does it benefit you or harm me?
There have been (and still are, actually) places where the theological bent of your reading materials could be considered enough positive ID of your religious thinking for someone to consider you an enemy that should be harmed in some fashion or even killed. Not so much here and now... but a person's reading materials can be incriminating in all kinds of ways, as it reveals to others a ton about your thinking processes in a short period of time. (Often mistaken or misleading, but people sometimes use their interpretation of that kind of information as if it were gospel truth.)
The very fact that law enforcement finds that kind of information valuable enough to seek it out confirms its value to third parties, for myriad purposes.
It is the closest a stranger can get to your mind without ever interacting with you.
> Look, there's no such thing as privacy anymore.
In many cases, that is true. However it does exist in libraries, because they tend to take it just as seriously now as they always have. Is the lack of privacy in many elements of life a reason to elimate it everywhere? Personal information in a library is of a kind that can be easily found nowhere else short of invading your home.
> Why should the library insist on a draconian policy?
You misuse the word. You were inconvenienced for a few moments, yet your goal was still accomplished. The library left the decision about disclosure of checkout information in your wife's account up to your wife... exacly the person that should be making that decision.
You know, if she asked the library to put a note in her record authorizing you to see her checkouts, they might very well be OK with that.
> It's a waste of time. Besides, my tax dollars paid for the books, the people, and the processes for checkout. Why shouldn't those records be public?
No they didn't. They paid a contribution toward all of the above, which was shared by all other taxpayers in your library's service area (more or less). You have no right to singlehandly insist on particular policies (such as disclosure of private records) any more than anyone else does to insist on something you might disagree with. It's not YOURS, it is yours a
>Whatever "protection" provided by limiting access to that information is limited to such a small number of people and circumstances that it infringes greatly against the masses to "protect" the edge condition.
Do you have numbers to back that up, or are you just guessing? So you think any adult should be able to see any other adults reading history? Or just some? Is it to be based on relationship? Who do you want determining who has what kind of relationship with who?
You are your wife's spouse, not her legal guardian. She is both responsible for stuff she has signed for, and entitled to her own privacy if she so chooses.
>If you're looking to the government to help preserve your relationship, you're looking in the wrong place.
Exactly. While I agree with your notion of the importance of transparency in a relationship, it is none of the government's (library's) business how transparent your relationships may or may not be, or even if they exist at all. (A legal guardian of a person can see records because they are legally responsible for those materials. And that is it. Everyone else is treated strictly as an individual.)
It is not the library's job to ensure your relationship is transparent, nor to assume whether it is or isn't. That is your job/business.
> If your relationship is on such unstable ground that you need to block information from your spouse, you need to get help with that or get away from a dangerous spouse.
Absolutely. And you might be shocked at how many people actually go to a library to research/find out how to do exactly that.
But it doesn't matter... it is not the library's job to determine who is and who isn't doing that. Or to wonder why anyone needs whatever they are looking for, and for what purpose. Or to even notice what a person has checked out. (Beyond the record keeping neccessary to ensure item X is returned, or that patron Y is billed for replacement if it isn't.)
> The library policy is pointless.
The library policy ensures everyone is treated fairly and with respect to people's privacy, all while keeping the library's noses out of people's personal business and relationships.
Plenty of good ales. (I see/drink way more ales than lagers around here.)
Then again, I'm very near the aforementioned Portland, OR. (That's Oregon, for the joker with the followup.)
Tivo can do stuff sortof like you describe.
.m3u and .pls playlists
.tivo files. (Shows. You can download them in linux, but not play them back.) .tivo files to DVD.
Plug in a USB/Ethernet adapter, and put it on your network.
Tivo has a software package (windows only, I think... bummer) that will let you watch stuff on the Tivo on your computer. (Or burn to DVD, etc.) Not that useful to me... I don't use windows, and would rather watch TV on an actual TV anyway.
But if you have another Tivo (say, in another room), they can share their playlists over the network. (Watch stuff from one on the other. I Got a refurbished Tivo for about $40 just for that purpose.)
The other cool thing about network connectivity on the Tivo is you can run Galleon (http://galleon.tv/). It's an open source server (for linux or windows) that talks to your Tivo and lets you do a bunch of cool stuff. A list of the most useful stuff for me:
-Control Tivo ToGo feature (copy shows) directly from the TiVo interface (instead of from the software on a computer)
--browse MP3 files on the server using file system folders.
--organize MP3 files (from directories on the server) by reading tags and categorizing by them
--mp3 Jukebox that allows you to create and play a dynamic playlist (very cool)
--play iTunes playlists
--play
--browse image files on the server using file system folders.
--view local movie theater listings.
And some other internet type stuff (that I don't really use myself):
--display current weather, 5 day forecast, local radar image, national radar image, weather alerts
--listen to shoutcase streams
--subscribe to and listen to podcasts
--view RSS feeds.
--read your email
--view images on the internet
--subscribe and view videocasts and videoblogs
--view local traffic conditions
--chat on the Jabber messenging service (don't ask me how, but it says you can)
The only improvements (for me) I can think of would be:
1. Linux support for two things you can do in Windows -->
a. Playing
b. Burning
2. Ogg support. My MP3 player handles them fine, so I'd just as soon use them. But it's not really a big deal.
Maybe not exactly what you're looking for, but pretty cool anyway.
You're right about the armament mismatch... but I'm not so sure it is impossible to overcome. Look at the trouble we've had in other countries in those situations.
;) )
A few other factors to take into account:
Internal problems in the armed forces...
1. Reluctance/hesitation or even refusal to fire upon lesser or un-armed american civilians (by low-level troops)
2. Mass disobedience of orders (while following orders is deep rooted, the concept of "unlawful orders" is planted right alongside it)
3. Any given region in the US will be considered "home" by a number of troops... home state and neighboring states. Loyalty to homeland can be a hard thing to overcome. (Fighting people in their own backyard "protecting home" can be extremely difficult already. Now try to do it when 10% or more of your own force is a risk for defection and/or sabotage.)
4. Again... defection and/or internal sabotage.
5. If 3/4 of military forces and 95% of commander's attention is off in some other country... how convenient.
6. If an uprising managed to drag on for a while, interesting questions arise:
Who's gonna pay the troops?
With what money that the govt doesn't already owe some other country?
What countries aren't going to want debts paid up before the economy goes totally tits up? What will motivate unpaid soldiers to stick around?
Where would replacements for wounded/killed/deserted/otherwise gone soldiers come from? Not like you can institute a draft on the very people you are fighting.
Increasing capabilities of resistance:
1. Guerilla Warfare against people that look like you, talk like you, dress like you, and share the same cultural background. In their own backyard. That is a nightmare scenario for any professional millitary. How do they tell the opponents apart from themselves? Of course those opponents are going to exploit that weakness to the fullest.
2. Armories are scattered all over the country. They aren't exactly heavily guarded in a fashion that an armed mob couldn't handle. Not exactly helicopters and tanks, but still very useful.
3. Bases storing equipment aren't exactly always heavily guarded, either. Sabotage and theft is not out of the question.
4. The civilian population is full of former military, from all ranks and backgrounds. I don't doubt some of them would end up involved somehow... running/planning/training, etc. It'd be a matter of loyalty to home, or loyalty to the service. Doubtless plenty would end up on each side of that fence.
5. I'm sure there are allies to be found in the world that would jump on the opportunity to lend some aid/equipment/supplies or even another front to be fought. (Small, irritating ones... Wouldn't want to send their fingers heading for the Big Red Buttons. Maybe invade Guam or something ridiculous like that with a completely anonymous force. Then abandon it quickly. For no reason other than distraction.)
(Hey, I bet China would jump all over that shit. If we knock out our own military from the inside, guess who might get to rule the world next?
Lastly... waging war and supporting an army takes massive resources. There are invaluable logistical targets everywhere.
Want to halt all of those wonderful advanced weapons in their tracks? Kill their fuel supply/resupply. It's not like it is all produced and stored in some other country and they have it shipped here on a regular basis.
Where do the repair parts for the cool equipment come from?
How many sources are there for some of the exotic materials required for manufacture?
Now, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be ugly, or that an armed rebellion against our military would succeed. (Or even get past the "handful of people in a bar planning it stage".) There are way too many points of failure, and is borderline suicide to try.
BUT... I wouldn't write it off as absolutely impossible. At the very least it might not be quite the cakewalk people often
Listen up, devil dog...
>We defend what the Constitution stands for
Damn skippy.
>it stands for Americas freedoms, American liberties and the protection of others
Yeah.
>sometimes others need to be protected from themselves.
WTF and Where-TF did that come from, and how exactly is that compatible with the freedom you are speaking of? That's bullshit, Marine. Protecting someone from themselves is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
I'm not saying it is never called for or neccessary... it just doesn't belong right in the middle of a spiel on freedom and liberty.
> Reading and understanding the Consistution and how it really applies today and to globalizaion or America's stewardship to world peace are two diffent things. There are parts that no doubt apply
What the hell?! Am I actually reading that correctly?!
>but without having to state the obvious (in your case I may) the Constition and war dont jive, they arent even in the same fuckin ball park.
Maybe not, but without that Constitution and what it means/guarantees, war has no point. Don't go downplaying it one bit, war or no war.
And FYI, we are not actually in a state of war. And you know that. (I think that is messed up, as there is no practical difference for those out there fighting, but it is legally different, and the support is different. The political pussyfooting to avoid an actual declared state of war is almost ridiculous.)
>The oath is more then you can imagine my friend Try realizing how many people died after taking that oath. I was a lucky one.
It's not. I have, and I know. So was I.
And my brother. And many uncles and 3 grandfathers (though under different uniforms).
> Very few put on a Marines uniform and those who do understand that death is only a matter of time in some cases and that we will/may be called upon to do Americas justice. That is the diciple, that is what we train to do and that is what we love so much about it.
That's right. You're doing your job, and that's dandy. Following the orders our govt gives you, as you must and as you promised to. And of course, if you happen to agree with those orders and the mission you've been sent on... that is your right.
But I'll be god-damned if I'm gonna listen to you lay down a bunch of gung-ho bullshit that paints everyone who happens to disagree with the administration and their foreign policy fuckups with the same "liberal commie tree-hugger hippie weenie" brush.
Shit, I'm a former Marine as you might have guessed by now. Hell, I prolly even had the same MOS as you, from the sound of it. I ain't no commie. I ain't no hippie... sheesh... never done weed in my life (but don't really give a shit if others do), probably have shorter hair than even you (slick with a bic) and grew up a fucking logger in Oregon for crying out loud. Oh yeah... there's no shortage of guns or meat in my house. Yes I consider myself mostly conservative. (Though I don't know how the hell some people using the term nowadays can say it with a straight face. I suppose 'cause they call it "socially conservative" or some nanny-state crap like that.)
And you know what? I happen to think George and company are practically traitors to our country, and should be kicked out of office like the fat-ass lying boss hogs that they are.
They are selling out the Constitution and our bill of rights for the almighty dollar... Our freedoms, the ones I signed up to fight for, are being plucked away at and sold in the name of power and the highest bidder.
(What the fuck is the point is fighting for freedom, if you come home to find they're all gone anyway! Especially thanks to a smarmy silver-spoon business failure of a hereditary politician that lied and pussed his way out of Vietnam himself back when he was called to duty? How can that not piss you off?)
They are sullying our country's (and Corps) reputation with this "pre-emptive war" business,
I'm not sure if the other responder got it or not. I'm guessing "no", which makes the response all the more amusing.
:)
As for me... I'm quaking with mirth. Well done, Sir.
In terms of "public library" your view of what they "should be" is a good one in my opinion, but also a bit narrow.
I have some points to add to it:
The whole of the world's knowledge and wisdom is not contained soley in the realm of non-fiction. Fiction can be quite intellectually stimulating. Some can be considered art.
A library is not only a repository of knowledge, but of culture. Art, myths, legends, stories, fables, and so on (all fiction and presented in various formats from books to DVD to games) represent cultural elements that can be found in a library.
Remember, yesterday's pop might prove to be tomorrow's Shakespeare. Just as Shakespeare did.
A library is a resource for the whole community, not just the "brightest". Better for a person to learn some history via a "pop history" book than to not learn any at all. (The real deal might be beyond their comprehension/reading ability, or just scare them off.) Those finding the "pop history" book sufficiently interesting might very well feel encouraged to pick up some of the "better books" (shelved right there along side it) to learn some more. For example... a library doesn't expect an 8 year old to be reading heavy-duty non-fiction tomes, and provides material appropriate for them in the same subjects. Providing reference material for adults in varying degrees between what you call "pop" and what you might consider "good stuff" can be seen as an extension of the same philosophy.
Libraries are for, and have to cater to, the people paying the bills. That is the general public... not just part of the public. A library with the best collection in the world (by any person's judgement) with no people in there using it is a waste. Think of it this way... the high demand popular stuff is what subsidizes "the good stuff". It also brings people in the building and can act as a gateway to using "the good stuff". Stores have sales. Restaurant and bars have happy hour. Dealers give free samples. Libraries have popular books, movies, and music.
Another poster addressed collection development as it pertains to your donation story quite well, so I'll leave that alone.
BTW, many also have resources intended specifically for local business use as well. (Want to quickly find out what other businesses are in your immediate area? Or a new area you are thinking about moving/expanding to? Want to know who/where all of your competitors are? Want to mail an advertisement to all residences within a certain radius of your location? Ask your reference librarian about their electronic resources.)
>one of the panel members made an excellent point: the same criticism ID'ers make about evolution can be made of a ton of other scientific theories (in all sciences, not just biology)
:)
Your entire post rests on this claim. But is it true? Explore and answer that question first (with examples, evidence, etc). Then you can move on to the followups you added to it.
As is, I could make a similar claim that "I heard a panel member say yellow cars rust faster and get worse gas mileage than other colored cars... so why do car companies paint some cars yellow, and why do people buy them?"
I'm not going to worry about availability and sales of yellow cars until their rust-prone gas-guzzling nature is given better credentials than "some unidentified guy on an unnamed panel said so".
>OK, so there is an easter egg that makes the "skip to the end" skip forward. It might even be labeled in such a way that it is not completely confusing.
:)
;)
It is quite easy to do. It's pretty common knowledge among Tivo users. I don't think it is beyond Grandma or anyone else... and I'd definitely tell anyone how to do it (and have them write it down so they can do it again for any machine reboots... say after the system updates that happen a few times a year.)
The fast-forward works just fine for most folks I think. But I agree the 30 second skip is much nicer.
I actually prefer the ability to set the time-skip function myself. For watching football games I often set it to 25 seconds. I skip the 24 second play clock between snaps... between that and commercial skipping I can watch a 3 hour game in an hour. It's great.
> How about the 20 second jump back? Skipping ahead 30 seconds is great and all, but it often results in going slightly past the end of the commercials.
No problem there... just to the left of that button is the "jump back 8 seconds" button. No tweaking necessary, it just does it. One click is usually just right for correcting commercial skipping "overshoot", in my experience. (Also perfect for the aforementioned ultra-fast football watching.) If you need to go back further, click it again. click-click = 16 seconds, click-click-click = 20. Pretty close to what you are asking for, I think. (I actually think 8 at a time is much better... 20 sounds like an odd choice to me.)
>Part of Tivo's appeal is that they are easy to use and ready out of the box. This just does not cut it.
Perhaps, but I think "easy blah blah out of the box except punch in a code for this one feature" is a bit slicker for less technically apt than some of the other proposed solutions.
For the record, I'm not neccessarily arguing that there are no issues with with Tivo or anything... I agree with some of the ones you bring up. I'm just interested in sharing information and clearing up any misconceptions.
All current Tivo models allow you to transfer shows to a windows PC for burning (Mac and linux is a more complicated story, and may be changing for the better soon), and a few have built-in burners to do it on the spot. (Exception... Direct TV Tivos are being phased out by Direct TV in favor of their own PVR devices, and they aren't interested in enabling any of these newer features for existing machines.)
I'm pretty sure editing content (transferred to PC) before burning is not a problem. I don't think it is an option on the "built-in burner" models (without transferring to PC first) as it is just impractical to try to do that kind of task within a TV/remote interface.
I have a standard non-hacked 80hr Series 2 Tivo, with that one easter-egg enabled. I'm running Galleon (an open source HMO replacement) as a background service on my main Ubuntu machine. Stuff I can do:
1. All of the normal DVR stuff... pick shows to record.
2. All of the nicer Tivo stuff... no-hassle season passes, wishlist recording, and self-recording stuff it thinks I might like.
3. View photo collections from my PC (that linux box with Galleon on it)
4. Play mp3s and playlists from my PC... basically use it as a jukebox
5. Check email, movie listings, weather, RSS feeds, and all kinds of other internet stuff via my PC.
6. Transfer shows to my PC without even going to the PC. (Start PC transfers right from the Tivo and watch something else while it does it in the background. Can also have transfers take place automatically based on keyword matching)
Not bad, really. Now for the problems:
1. That broadcast flag thing. I've never ever seen it, but I've heard about it... so it does concern me. I doubt that any consumer device will be able to avoid this issue, really. There are workarounds for any "can't burn this" restrictions, though.
2. The format for transferred shows i
Not quite... I know what you are talking about, and agree it sucks. I was trying to think of how to do it in a way that doesn't suck, and I think came close. Part of the idea is good, so I'll happily discard the rest. I think the answer is not to autogain at all... but to "automatically set the gain based on a fixed time sample", and then LEAVE it there as a starting point for manual adjustments.
(Maybe have a setting somewhere for how much headroom to leave when setting the gain via that method.)
Yeah... I'm just thinking on saving some time setting that level initially. There are a lot of times when I don't have time (or hands free) to mess with it, so it be nice to be able to just poke a button in the middle of a soundcheck (or tell a non-techie buddy to do it) and have it set itself close enough to be an OK recording (that can be compressed/tweaked/otherwise doctored later if need be).
Blech... no, don't put any compression in! Maybe a limiter right before clipping like you say, but no need to screw with the sound. Let's call my idea "automatic gain setting" instead of automatic gain control. Does that make sense?
Agreed... that would suck, and make the device completely unusable.
Cheers!
Maybe this is a no-brainer that is already planned, but just in case:
:P
If you want to record anything live, you HAVE to have input level meters, and fully functional (real-time adjustible while watching the meters) "trim" control. Nothing worse than recording a live performance to discover your trim/gain/whatever was way too low. Except discovering it was way too high!
The device would be essentially useless without this feature.
It'd be neat if rather than separate "mic" and "line" inputs, the same input would work for both. (Like a channel strip in a basic mixer... trim hot signals, boost weak ones, or just leave it centered for line-level.)
If input levels are adjustible within software, maybe have a few presets (set to basic "mic" and basic "line in" levels) and a couple slots for users to save their own level adjustments with a name. "Rehearsal Space", "SuperDuper Room Mic", "Joe's Mixer", "ScumRock Theater Board", "Taping Rig".
Absolutely kick-ass would be a sort of "auto" input level monitoring and adjustment. Tricky... maybe it could be helped along with an "about this loud" button. Something you push to tell it "this is about how loud the signal is gonna be for the most part", and it ajusts the trim to put the level meters in a good spot for it... with plenty of signal, but enough headroom that a mild volume increase (or louder "impact") isn't going to send it into the red. And have it "spring to" that setting.
What I mean by that is to follow the signal up & down a bit, but ignore very large changes from the "spring to" point. (Such as a quiet spot/break in a song, or space between songs/track. And in the other direction... I dunno... pyro going off, or something else unforseen that is much louder than the average level.
Maybe all of that is a pipe dream, but it'd be really cool for those that deal mostly with live music. Both at shows/concerts, and in rehearsal/composing type settings.
Oh, yeah... speaking of that... how about a remote for stopping/starting recording? Sometimes the primo spot for the device to get a recording is not where the operator needs to be. ("Delete last take" from a remote would also be bad-ass.)
Maybe superbright multicolor status LED... green for "on/ready", red for "recording", and some other color (or blinking) for "doing something else you just told me to do". (Check out the status lights on a Tivo for a good example.) Something you can see easily from across a room and tell what it is doing.
Also handy... a space/slot for running a small security cable. Like for a lanyard, but maybe a little bigger and more solid. Not "theft proof" neccessarily, but enough to stop or slow down the casual "pick up/put in pocket/walk away nonchalantly" type stickyfingered character.
Heh... they asked for ideas, right?
Starbucks? I've heard this one a hundred times... where the hell did Starbucks come from?
Damn near ruined the joke. We're beer central, and your telling jokes about us drinking coffee? (If so it shoulda been something actually good, like Dutch Bros or something.)
Usually the Texan has a generic beer like bud or coors. The Californian has a bottle of wine. And the Oregonian is drinking some good stuff, like a bottle of Black Butte Porter, or another of the fantastic local brews.
They do SO do full auto. Yes, the ones a civillian can get at a gun show won't, but the millitary isue ones do.
No they don't.
Not for a long time, they haven't.
You mention 1971... the rifle you were using was an M16A1. It underwent a pretty heavy redesign in 1981, and the M16A2 was first adopted by the USMC in 1983. The other services followed soon after.
We weren't allowed to do full auto on the firing range in basic, but one guy "accidentally" flipped the little lever. He pulled the trigger and emptied the magazine into the roof. He was stomped on and had a bunch of 45s aimed at him when he was taken away. We never saw him again.
That's one reason for the change. Waste of ammo, poor accuracy. Flip that lever on an M16A2 and you will get a 3 round burst. That is 3 rounds for every squeeze of the trigger. Much easier to put a lot of rounds downrange, while making recoil easier to manage. (Rocking back down into the original point of aim between bursts.)
I would agree... harassment isn't right, and using one's official capacity in that fashion is dead wrong.
Ridiculous, from a secular standpoint. Also wrong by their own religious views... perhaps they should review the scolding of "doubting Thomas". Names and accounts escape me at the moment, but I think there were a few old testament figures that met an ugly demise as a result of demanding "proof". Not that much different, in my book.
;)
Often the best way to shut up a blowhard is to use their own data/viewpoint against them.
Absolutely unacceptible. Informing them of their right to see a chaplain of their choice (for services or counseling) if they so desire, whether they've done that same thing before or not... that would be plenty.
(I add that last bit mainly because military units can be sluggish/reluctant about changing one's claimed religious status. Mostly because of paperwork... all of your records would require updating, and they'd have to issue you new dogtags. A pain in the ass, which might earn one a bit of good-natured ribbing along the lines of "oh, so the pope is wrong now?", "so who is your savior gonna be next year?", "give my regards to buddha"... stuff like that.)
If it were simply time set aside for silent personal "self study", where religious kids could read scripture or analytical texts if they liked, and other kids could dig into science, history, philosophy, mythology, dinosours, or whatever floats their boat... that wouldn't be so bad.
:P
But sounds like that isn't what is going on at all.
Now that I think of that, an interesting thing would be for the subject of study during that time period to be assigned by the parents, including providing the reading material. (Via purchase, library, or whatever). The teacher would have a list of what the kids were supposed to be up to, and just make sure they are doing something like the list says, and not goofing off.
Maybe impractical, but the idea popped in there, so might as well share it.
That would certainly be obnoxious and annoying, even for one that DID believe it. At some point they need to just shut up with the preaching and start practicing.
I can't say I attend services on a regular basis for that reason. I like hanging out with people on occasion, but I'm more of a self-study type.
Agreed. I also find it odd that people of that stripe feel no qualms about disrespecting the wishes of others. Seems contradictory to me.
What's so strange? A Marine with a low Slashdot ID? Or making an insightful comment? Both?
I've been out for a few years, but I've got a low ID and have been modded insightful before.
I've seen plenty of others do the same.
What's the big deal?
Great post.
But I think there might be a little confusion here.
When the poster says "you don't have freedom from religion" I think it really means "freedom from exposure to religion".
In which case I would agree. It appears that you might too, but I'm not sure. (The "following priest" scenario you paint seems beyond exposure to me, and would constitute legitimate harrassment... a crime. I don't think any claim of religious freedom should trump criminal law, so you should be OK there. Those scenarios should not be protected as religious activity. I would hope not, anyway.)
OK, so I happen to be a Christian. But I am wholeheartedly in support of the separation of church and state. I am also aware of how silly arguments of "but we were founded on Christianity (or whatever)" are. (Interestingly enough, if the average bible thumper actually read and comprehended more than select clips of the tome they pack around, they might realize that this very issue makes up one of the major themes of the New Testament.)
I agree with your right to do whatever the hell you want, as far as your religious or non-religious choices go. And most definitely disagree with the way many so-called Christian leaders attempt to mix politics in with religion and vice versa. *spitting in disgust*
I agree freedom of religion includes "no religion". It means the govt has nothing to do with personal religious choices (which by common sense includes "no religion for me at all").
But...
I've always interpreted "freedom from religion" to mean freedom from religion having any impact at all on a person whatsoever... which would be difficult. That would mean freedom even from observable evidence that that others might practice a form of religion.
For that to truly be possible would essentially require others to make the same choice as you (no religion) or to hide the choices they've made.
So I think that would be too much... a matter of where the other person's nose starts, so your own freedom ends there.
Does that make sense?
In other words, we might just be talking a matter of differing semantics here.
Are we?
(A reason I myself always include "exposure to" in that particular phrase, rather than leave it insufficiently implied.)
Yes, Yoda got that right. And it reminds me of another teaching, from another world, that actually tells you how to deal with it:
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
--Bene Gesserit Litany against Fear
Hating the Patriot act does not mean you are immune to it.
:) Unneccessary customer information should be discarded. Many systems do this anyway, as libraries have demanded customer privacy as a feature of their systems since long before the patriot act came about.
Of course not. But it means you are probably aware of it, can anticipate it, and are aware of its limitations.
The problem is secret bulk fishing expeditions that have occured in the past and will occur again in the future.
Exactly. Thing is, no one wants their business interrupted by fishing expeditions. The easiest way to prevent them is to keep no fish laying around.
This system makes it impossible for my name to appear in any such fishing expedition regardless of my local Library's information systems. With this system I don't have to rely on thier venom to protect my privacy, it is protected by default.
True, but one of my main points... it may be protected by default anyway, no venom required. Unless they actively choose to retain data, it might not even be there to begin with. (And if they actively choose to retain data... wow. You probably want to know about it anyway, and a library making that kind of choice is even more unlikely to implement an anonymous checkout like the one proposed.)
The only place we seem to differ is in regard to current checkouts.
Just because you don't have enough faith in people to come back and collect thier dough does not mean it will be treated like a bookstore.
This bit isn't a matter of "lacking faith". It is a simple matter of long term experience and observation of people doing exactly that... even in the face of obstacles to discourage the practice. This would remove all of them.
Early libraries were not free, you had to pay some sort of bond to ensure you brought the stuff back, somehow they survived.
True. However, these were not considered public libraries, and the borrowing certainly was not anonymous. There was incentive there to return materials beyond raw economics.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You're right of course, but that's not what I mean.
I'm saying if you "are truly concerned about privacy and how your library handles it", there are a number of different people you can talk to for information.
The director and the board can inform you about policies, and have the power to change them.
The sysadmin can tell you about how those policies are put into action, and/or what actually happens with your data within the system.
For example... what info is collected (or not) by the system, how long it is kept, what for, etc.
In other words, technical details that others may/may not be familiar with, which might suffice to answer your questions. Info that might satisfy the average Slashdotter better than hearing a bigwig say "of course we protect your data" will.
That is all.
Well, part of the problem is that the item is meant to be available to the public. The turnaround time neccessary to replace "kept" books is time that the item is unavailable for use, when it shouldn't be.
Another part of the problem is cost. The typical replacement fee + processing charge really doesn't pay for the entire cost. Adjustments could be made of course... but that cost might be higher than you'd think.
Another one... libraries get books at a steep discount. Even after fees, it might be less than retail. Good luck retaining a collection in that scenario.
Along with that, if libraries were selling books for a profit, vendors would end those discounts pretty quickly. Whoops! Boy would that screw up a few budgets (and bang for your tax buck).
In many places it is simply not legal for government entities to compete with private businesses. (Or to turn a profit, for that matter.) Even if that were all fixed and it were legal... what would happen to local support from businesses? (Such as bookstores, music stores, movie rental/sales joints, etc.) Chamber of Commerce vs. Library. Oh, joy!
Jeez... I could keep going.
I actually understand what you are getting at, and find it admirable. But from my vantage point, I don't see how it could work. (It's always the little things, that may not be obvious at first, or to those outside of the playing field.)