I like my fire department. Now, I don't know about yours, but my fire department is not socialistic. See, the local fire department where I live is a private organization made up of volunteers. They operate by running fund raisers and otherwise getting donations.
Actually, the government that the Founding Fathers revolted against was also a democracy (despite their lambasting King George, their gripes were with Parliament), just not one that they were allowed to participate in. One can argue about the flaws in the democratic system of the UK at that time, but it was essentially a democratic-monarchic hybrid.
Really, can you point to a place where Republicans suggested that African-Americans would need special government help to compete with those of European decent? Democrats say it all the time.
The problem is that you take the word of Democrats for what the Republicans believe in.
Do you remember the fuss in the Republican primaries in 2000 over the Confederate flag flying over the statehouse in SC? The man who as governor proposed the law to fly it was then serving in the US Senate as a leading Democrat.
You can make a case that certain Republican strategies were racist, but there are arguments on both sides. If all of your sources favor Democrats, of course they make it seem like the "Southern Strategy" was a racist move by the Republicans. The problem is if you look at Republican sources, they make a good case that the "Southern Strategy" was about other issues. You can argue the case either way.
There is no argument that the Democratic Party supported slavery, was the birth place of the KKK, and was historically a strong proponent of segregation. Bill Clinton's political mentor was William Fulbright an unrepentant segregationist.
According to us, and our culture they may be, but not according to the host which has accepted them as a dinner guest. It's morally relative and looks a lot like a modern-day "The King and I".
The problem is you are comparing our culture to China's government, not China's culture. You may be right that China's culture says that censoring is the right thing to do. If China had a democracy, you could argue that its censorship rules reflected its culture (I would argue that you were wrong, but I would agree that you could make that case), but China does not have a government that even vaguely resembles a democracy, so the position of its government is not inherently a product of the culture of the majority of its people.
Actually, another problem with your idea that anti-censorship is a reflection of Western culture is that a large number of Westerners would support censorship of certain content if they could be sure that it would be limited to content that they oppose (see University speech codes).
Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement).
Not really, the Democrats just got better at hiding their motives. A larger percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act than of Democrats. Yet the Democrats get the credit for its passage and the Republicans get blamed for opposing it (which they did not). Republicans get called rascist for refusing to treat African-Americans like children who need to be taken care of.
Actually, it could be. "We give you the whole Internet. Some of our competitors limit where you can go on the Interent because they think you can't be trusted not to go to 'bad' sites (where a 'bad' site is any site the government says is bad). We think you can be trusted to know what is best for you."
Having a button in any type of chat application which either party can flag a conversation with is so interfering with a UI that you all hate the idea?
I don't have kids, and I cannot think of anything better then good parenting but I also cannot see any harm adding a simple for the sole purpose of making it easier to handle things such as bots, scammers, predators etc.
The only problem I can really see is misuse of the button when an ex-girlfriend decides she wants to fuck with her ex-boyfriend in a malicious manner.
I suppose filtering and priority detection can be implemented to possibly eliminate false positives etc.
Right, because we all know how careful the government is to make sure that people who have been accused of a crime and then exonerated have their records updated so that anyone who checks said records know that they have been exonerated./s
Misuse is the problem with this sort of thing and it won't just be ex-girlfriends. It will be any kid who gets pissed off at someone and lures them into a chat and then clicks the button. Or a kid who is in a chat with someone and decides it would be funny to click this button on the person on the other end. And once this is on your record it will be there forever, because even though an investigation turned up no evidence that you were a sexual predator, maybe you just hid it well and "better safe than sorry" when it comes to our kids.
The problem is not the level of control, but the length of time that they get to maintain it. If copyright was for a reasonable length of time (say 14 or 28 years), I would have no problem with fairly tight limits on how stuff could be copied. Of course, if copyright was that short, copyrighted material would be competing against stuff in the public domain which would increase the incentive to let people use it the way they wanted.
I don't mind the tight control. It is the fact that they can maintain that tight control for excessively long. If copyright was for a reasonable length of time (say, 14 or 28 years), then there is no problem with the very tight control. At the end of copyright it becomes public domain and anybody can do whatever they want with it. Since EMI is one of the groups responsible for copyright being so excessivley long, it is good to see them getting hit with the consequences of that state of affairs.
You ought to be applauding this because it is good for the individual, and protects the right to enter into and enforce contracts. Negotiation and trade of your labour and creative works by mutual consent.
And that is good for society. There is such a thing as society. Anything that promotes the good of the individuals of a society is good for that society. Things that are only selectively good for the individuals of a society are bad for that society.
The problem is not with the concept of society, it is with the idea that something that is bad for the individual members of a society can be good for the society as a whole.
The bottom line is that I have no confidence in the ability of the "main stream" medical community to define a single nutritional standard that will work for everyone.
I have no confidence in any group being able to find a single nutritional standard (aside from "everything in moderation") that will work for everyone. A friend of mine proposed that if nutritionists ever come to fully understand the nutritional needs of the majority of the population, they will discover that different people need different diets. He was suggesting that different people need a different ratio of carbs/proteins/fats. This makes sense to me. I suspect there is a lot of truth to that idea.
Are you telling me that the stuff Mortons sells isn't NaCl? (If you were trying to be funny, blame the moderators for marking you informative). NaCl is a necessary part of a human's diet. The only difference between the salt that Mortons sells and "real" sea salt is that sea salt contains minute amounts of other chemicals as well as NaCl.
In Louisville KY, the city is considering banning trans fat in restaurants. This just seems crazy.
This has been done already in many cities (I think some states have gotten on the band wagon as well). I do not approve of trans fat bans, but they are categorically a different thing than salt bans. As far as I know, trans fat is not a necessary part of the diet as opposed to salt, which is.
There is no downside to this ruling. Admittedly, people who would like to download only parts of Pink Floyd albums will be disappointed, but from a stand point of what is good for society this is a good ruling. Of course, if copyright didn't extend longer than it should, this ruling would be irrelevant since Pink Floyd's music would be in the public domain by now (or within a couple of years anyway).
The problem there is that they aren't firing the right 5-7 people. It sounds like one of the right 5-7 people to fire would be the CEO (although it may be that it is someone slightly lower in the management team of the company that is the problem).
Is it too much to ask that the editors at Slashdot at least GLANCE at the linked articles?
If Congresscritters can't be expected to read bills before they vote on them why would you expect editors at Slashdot to view articles before they make the front page?
Yes, I did have a prof that raced through the material. The solution to that is to interupt with questions from time to time (especially if you are missing things because they are going too fast). If the prof doesn't allow and/or respond to questions, complain to the Dean.
Indeed. Some profs went way too fast, I couldn't stop to think about what was being said, I had to get it all down.. and try to absorb it later. Nevermind that I can type faster than write, and I can actually read something I've typed as well.
That shows that you never learned to take notes properly. The idea of class notes is that they are the high lights of the lecture, the main points that all of the rest follows from. I had one professor who would somewhere near the beginning of his lecture put one word in the center of the board. Then as the elcture went on he woud write other words on the board. He would underline some words and circle others. He would connect them with lines. My notes would look much like the board. Why? Because that allowed me to follow what words were important and what ideas were linked.
If you need to write down everything the professor is saying then the professor is nothing more than a spoken textbook and you would be better served by having the professor write such a book then sitting in a lecture.
But who do you trust more: the government (run by politics and bureaucracy and greed and greenbacks) or companies (run by greed and greenbacks)?
There fixed that for ya.
The answer is, I don't trust either one, but with companies I can usually figure out where their interests lie and determine whether their interests are in conflict with mine. With government, I find that much harder.
Slashdot Mirror
I like my fire department. Now, I don't know about yours, but my fire department is not socialistic. See, the local fire department where I live is a private organization made up of volunteers. They operate by running fund raisers and otherwise getting donations.
Actually, the government that the Founding Fathers revolted against was also a democracy (despite their lambasting King George, their gripes were with Parliament), just not one that they were allowed to participate in. One can argue about the flaws in the democratic system of the UK at that time, but it was essentially a democratic-monarchic hybrid.
Really, can you point to a place where Republicans suggested that African-Americans would need special government help to compete with those of European decent? Democrats say it all the time.
The problem is that you take the word of Democrats for what the Republicans believe in.
Do you remember the fuss in the Republican primaries in 2000 over the Confederate flag flying over the statehouse in SC? The man who as governor proposed the law to fly it was then serving in the US Senate as a leading Democrat.
You can make a case that certain Republican strategies were racist, but there are arguments on both sides. If all of your sources favor Democrats, of course they make it seem like the "Southern Strategy" was a racist move by the Republicans. The problem is if you look at Republican sources, they make a good case that the "Southern Strategy" was about other issues. You can argue the case either way.
There is no argument that the Democratic Party supported slavery, was the birth place of the KKK, and was historically a strong proponent of segregation. Bill Clinton's political mentor was William Fulbright an unrepentant segregationist.
No, not just politicians, most of the people who work in schools are Democrats (especially among the teachers and administrators).
According to us, and our culture they may be, but not according to the host which has accepted them as a dinner guest. It's morally relative and looks a lot like a modern-day "The King and I".
The problem is you are comparing our culture to China's government, not China's culture. You may be right that China's culture says that censoring is the right thing to do. If China had a democracy, you could argue that its censorship rules reflected its culture (I would argue that you were wrong, but I would agree that you could make that case), but China does not have a government that even vaguely resembles a democracy, so the position of its government is not inherently a product of the culture of the majority of its people.
Actually, another problem with your idea that anti-censorship is a reflection of Western culture is that a large number of Westerners would support censorship of certain content if they could be sure that it would be limited to content that they oppose (see University speech codes).
Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement).
Not really, the Democrats just got better at hiding their motives. A larger percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act than of Democrats. Yet the Democrats get the credit for its passage and the Republicans get blamed for opposing it (which they did not). Republicans get called rascist for refusing to treat African-Americans like children who need to be taken care of.
Is it really that bad in the US?
Yes, Democrats have been running our schools for at least 40 years. It is not in their interest to have an eductaed populace.
What level of unemployment should we reach in the united states before the government can act to protect its citizens?
So, I take it you are in favor of fully recreating the Great Depression by enacting protectionist laws?
Actually, it could be. "We give you the whole Internet. Some of our competitors limit where you can go on the Interent because they think you can't be trusted not to go to 'bad' sites (where a 'bad' site is any site the government says is bad). We think you can be trusted to know what is best for you."
Good parenting is a better option.
Having a button in any type of chat application which either party can flag a conversation with is so interfering with a UI that you all hate the idea?
I don't have kids, and I cannot think of anything better then good parenting but I also cannot see any harm adding a simple for the sole purpose of making it easier to handle things such as bots, scammers, predators etc.
The only problem I can really see is misuse of the button when an ex-girlfriend decides she wants to fuck with her ex-boyfriend in a malicious manner.
I suppose filtering and priority detection can be implemented to possibly eliminate false positives etc.
Right, because we all know how careful the government is to make sure that people who have been accused of a crime and then exonerated have their records updated so that anyone who checks said records know that they have been exonerated. /s
Misuse is the problem with this sort of thing and it won't just be ex-girlfriends. It will be any kid who gets pissed off at someone and lures them into a chat and then clicks the button. Or a kid who is in a chat with someone and decides it would be funny to click this button on the person on the other end. And once this is on your record it will be there forever, because even though an investigation turned up no evidence that you were a sexual predator, maybe you just hid it well and "better safe than sorry" when it comes to our kids.
The problem is not the level of control, but the length of time that they get to maintain it. If copyright was for a reasonable length of time (say 14 or 28 years), I would have no problem with fairly tight limits on how stuff could be copied. Of course, if copyright was that short, copyrighted material would be competing against stuff in the public domain which would increase the incentive to let people use it the way they wanted.
I don't mind the tight control. It is the fact that they can maintain that tight control for excessively long. If copyright was for a reasonable length of time (say, 14 or 28 years), then there is no problem with the very tight control. At the end of copyright it becomes public domain and anybody can do whatever they want with it. Since EMI is one of the groups responsible for copyright being so excessivley long, it is good to see them getting hit with the consequences of that state of affairs.
You ought to be applauding this because it is good for the individual, and protects the right to enter into and enforce contracts. Negotiation and trade of your labour and creative works by mutual consent.
And that is good for society. There is such a thing as society. Anything that promotes the good of the individuals of a society is good for that society. Things that are only selectively good for the individuals of a society are bad for that society.
The problem is not with the concept of society, it is with the idea that something that is bad for the individual members of a society can be good for the society as a whole.
The bottom line is that I have no confidence in the ability of the "main stream" medical community to define a single nutritional standard that will work for everyone.
I have no confidence in any group being able to find a single nutritional standard (aside from "everything in moderation") that will work for everyone. A friend of mine proposed that if nutritionists ever come to fully understand the nutritional needs of the majority of the population, they will discover that different people need different diets. He was suggesting that different people need a different ratio of carbs/proteins/fats. This makes sense to me. I suspect there is a lot of truth to that idea.
Are you telling me that the stuff Mortons sells isn't NaCl? (If you were trying to be funny, blame the moderators for marking you informative). NaCl is a necessary part of a human's diet. The only difference between the salt that Mortons sells and "real" sea salt is that sea salt contains minute amounts of other chemicals as well as NaCl.
In Louisville KY, the city is considering banning trans fat in restaurants. This just seems crazy.
This has been done already in many cities (I think some states have gotten on the band wagon as well). I do not approve of trans fat bans, but they are categorically a different thing than salt bans. As far as I know, trans fat is not a necessary part of the diet as opposed to salt, which is.
There is no downside to this ruling. Admittedly, people who would like to download only parts of Pink Floyd albums will be disappointed, but from a stand point of what is good for society this is a good ruling. Of course, if copyright didn't extend longer than it should, this ruling would be irrelevant since Pink Floyd's music would be in the public domain by now (or within a couple of years anyway).
The problem there is that they aren't firing the right 5-7 people. It sounds like one of the right 5-7 people to fire would be the CEO (although it may be that it is someone slightly lower in the management team of the company that is the problem).
Any system that can reliably take botnets offline can also be (mis)used to reliably take something like wikileaks offline.
Is it too much to ask that the editors at Slashdot at least GLANCE at the linked articles?
If Congresscritters can't be expected to read bills before they vote on them why would you expect editors at Slashdot to view articles before they make the front page?
Yes, I did have a prof that raced through the material. The solution to that is to interupt with questions from time to time (especially if you are missing things because they are going too fast). If the prof doesn't allow and/or respond to questions, complain to the Dean.
Indeed. Some profs went way too fast, I couldn't stop to think about what was being said, I had to get it all down.. and try to absorb it later. Nevermind that I can type faster than write, and I can actually read something I've typed as well.
That shows that you never learned to take notes properly. The idea of class notes is that they are the high lights of the lecture, the main points that all of the rest follows from. I had one professor who would somewhere near the beginning of his lecture put one word in the center of the board. Then as the elcture went on he woud write other words on the board. He would underline some words and circle others. He would connect them with lines. My notes would look much like the board. Why? Because that allowed me to follow what words were important and what ideas were linked.
If you need to write down everything the professor is saying then the professor is nothing more than a spoken textbook and you would be better served by having the professor write such a book then sitting in a lecture.
How does a "legit Intel distributor" have a division that deals in gray market chips?
But who do you trust more: the government (run by politics and bureaucracy and greed and greenbacks) or companies (run by greed and greenbacks)?
There fixed that for ya.
The answer is, I don't trust either one, but with companies I can usually figure out where their interests lie and determine whether their interests are in conflict with mine. With government, I find that much harder.