a meal at mc donalds costs under $6.00 unlike my tution which is $5000.00 per year (plus books/room/food/whatever).
The costs are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you're shelling out $5K a year, or you're spending $160/semester for a class at
the local community college, like I am. You still don't
get to tell your service provider how to conduct business.
The exchange of money for goods or services is limited to that exchange and gets you no other entitlements.
Actually, McDonalds is a public company, and IS required to give out this sort of information.
It's irrelevant to this conversation. McDonald's
is not a "public company", but rather a "publicly traded company". The information is for potential stockholders, not customers. That there is an intersection between those two sets is a happy coincidence for the customers who would like to know more.
Once you give the money over to the university, you've lost your right to say how it is spent behind the scenes. You don't have the right to say "Hey, I gave you money, you need to do what I say." But you're perfectly within your rights to say "I don't want to give any MORE money to you because I don't like what you do with it."
You're paying for a service. Giving the University of Whatever doesn't give you an ownership stake in the place, any more than forking over for a Happy Meal lets you tell McDonald's what to do.
If this were to be disallowed, then there would be nothing to keep corporations in check.
Nobody said anything about "disallowing" voting with your feet. That's a mighty big stretch from my original comments.
By the way, I never said that you don't have a right to know how the money is spent, but since you brought it up, you're right: You don't have any right to know. Do you demand that the manager at McDonald's open his accounting ledger?
Now, if we're talking about a public university that gets your tax dollars, then squawk away, but temper it with a sense of scope. We're only talking about $15,000/yr or so, which is relative chump change.
More than anything, I'd be annoyed at the absurdity of Drexel trying to block dissent through squatting.
What baffles me is why people think that paying for a service entitles them to something other than what's spelled out in the contract. It's just standard grist for the Slashdot mill: erroneously outraged folks with a false sense of entitlement.
I don't understand why this is posted here. There are really three questions:
Should the school be allowed to own over 300 domain names
Why not? Why does the school need to follow any different rules than any other entity? If CmdrTaco had 300 domains, would we care?
how many schools out there purchase domains with no intent to use them
Why does it matter how many others do it? What bearing does it have on your school?
And finally, should student tuition be used in this manner?
How presumptuous to think you have any say in how your tuition is spent. You don't wonder aloud what McDonald's does with your cash after you buy a Happy Meal, do you? And if you don't like it, you don't give them the money.
I guess the real question is "Why do people post tempest-in-a-teapot stories to Slashdot?"
It's a sign of the times, buddy. If mandated politeness wasn't necessary, it wouldn't exist.
Is accepting asshole behavior also a sign of the times? If you don't fight back against it, it'll only get worse.
I'd make it clear that you're not going to tolerate having someone waste your time and money. If someone talks in a movie theater, I take action to stop the behavior, so why not do the same thing in school?
I'd rather fight than throw my hands up and say "Oh well, life sucks", but maybe that's just me.
Doodling, for most people, is pretty quiet -- much moreso than hammering away at a keyboard or mouse while some of us are trying to pay attention.
So it's still a social issue, not a technical one.
What if the guy who was bored was practicing his tuba? Should you just say "Hey, please stop with the tuba. I'm trying to pay attention here"? Or failing that, ask the prof to do something about it? Or is it better that the school adopt a "no tubas in the classroom" policy, where they check to make sure that you're not bringing in your tuba?
Haven't you seen spy movies where signals were passed
according to whether a curtain was open or shut, the color of a shirt hanging on a clothesline, etc.?
How can they know that the 2E+09 images on eBay don't contain hidden messages? They might not have detected them, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Perhaps these damn terrorists (gasp!)
made their own software!
And who says that you have to post images to send a message? Maybe posting a baseball card for sale means that a cell is to attack on the day that the auction closes. A Sammy Sosa card means we fly into the Sears Tower; a Thurman Munson card means the WTC. The starting bid is the price is the time at which it's to happen.
The whole point of steganography is that the outside world doesn't even know what your encoding system is, much less be able to decipher it.
Once again, bureaucracy takes the simple, obvious, ham-fisted approach by making a technical "solution" to what is a social problem.
It's commonplace in business, so it's not surprising to see it spread to education.
It's short-sighted to think that once the net access is cut that students will pay attention. The net use is a symptom, not a disease. People will always find a way to goof off if they want. No net? Just doodle.
It's not much different than the poor IS guy who has to go on a seek 'n' destroy mission on all N-hundred company PCs for C:\WINDOWS\SOL.EXE because Upper Management decided that people were spending too much time playing solitaire. The IS guy's time is wasted, and the benefit to the company is negligible, since lazy workers find
other things to waste company time with.
A large corporation has told its business units how to conduct business. It is no different than if McDonald's told its franchise stores how to interact with the customer. Is it censorship for Joe Polyester to have to say "Would you like a hot apple pie with that?", and not say "Bummer about all those dead folks, ma'am"?
Nobody is banning anything. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because someone doesn't play a song that the song has been "banned". If I come to your house and find that you don't have any Slim Whitman in your CD collection, does that mean that you've "banned" Slim Whitman songs? And is that a problem?
Remember that mass media is, whether we like it or not, business. It's not your personal source for Rage Against The Machine songs. If you're concerned about not being able to hear "Guerilla Radio", then go "The Battle Of Los Angeles". (Which you should do anyway, 'cause it's a damn fine album)
A more appropriate response to the list is laughter, not righteous indignation at supposed suppression of your rights. If you're going to lament anything, lament the bland and safe state of mass media.
Re:My 2 cents (or 4 cents Australian)
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
The irony of posting the poem that Timothy McVeigh
quoted before his execution is not lost on me. I'll say it again: I'm just glad he's not alive to see these events.
Mea culpa. I misunderstood. I thought that the $1,000,000 was all Red Cross donations, not just thru Amazon. Thru that light, that is indeed pretty cool.
It has just passed $1 million collected with
over 36,000 people contributing. Truely amazing.
God bless the one in 7,000 people who contributed. This is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in America donating four tenths of a penny.
Truly, we have opened our hearts and pocketbooks.
The terrorists have absolutely no reason to let the passengers know what's really going to happen to them at the end of the flight. And the passengers have very little reason to suspect it.
Except that at least Barbara Olson knew what was happening. She twice talked to her husband, who let her know about the two planes having crashed into the WTC.
The logical part of me says "Why didn't she just say 'hey, they're going to crash us into a building' and overtake the hijackers." But how can I possibly second guess such a situation?
And it may well turn out that something similar happened in Pennsylvania.
Slashdot Mirror
The costs are irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you're shelling out $5K a year, or you're spending $160/semester for a class at the local community college, like I am. You still don't get to tell your service provider how to conduct business.
The exchange of money for goods or services is limited to that exchange and gets you no other entitlements.
It's irrelevant to this conversation. McDonald's is not a "public company", but rather a "publicly traded company". The information is for potential stockholders, not customers. That there is an intersection between those two sets is a happy coincidence for the customers who would like to know more.
I apologize. Let me clarify.
Once you give the money over to the university, you've lost your right to say how it is spent behind the scenes. You don't have the right to say "Hey, I gave you money, you need to do what I say." But you're perfectly within your rights to say "I don't want to give any MORE money to you because I don't like what you do with it."
You're paying for a service. Giving the University of Whatever doesn't give you an ownership stake in the place, any more than forking over for a Happy Meal lets you tell McDonald's what to do.
If this were to be disallowed, then there would be nothing to keep corporations in check.
Nobody said anything about "disallowing" voting with your feet. That's a mighty big stretch from my original comments.
By the way, I never said that you don't have a right to know how the money is spent, but since you brought it up, you're right: You don't have any right to know. Do you demand that the manager at McDonald's open his accounting ledger?
Now, if we're talking about a public university that gets your tax dollars, then squawk away, but temper it with a sense of scope. We're only talking about $15,000/yr or so, which is relative chump change. More than anything, I'd be annoyed at the absurdity of Drexel trying to block dissent through squatting.
What baffles me is why people think that paying for a service entitles them to something other than what's spelled out in the contract. It's just standard grist for the Slashdot mill: erroneously outraged folks with a false sense of entitlement.
Should the school be allowed to own over 300 domain names
Why not? Why does the school need to follow any different rules than any other entity? If CmdrTaco had 300 domains, would we care?
how many schools out there purchase domains with no intent to use them
Why does it matter how many others do it? What bearing does it have on your school?
And finally, should student tuition be used in this manner?
How presumptuous to think you have any say in how your tuition is spent. You don't wonder aloud what McDonald's does with your cash after you buy a Happy Meal, do you? And if you don't like it, you don't give them the money.
I guess the real question is "Why do people post tempest-in-a-teapot stories to Slashdot?"
Translation: "I prefer the intuitiveness of Wordstar!"
Steve Oualline's book "Vi IMproved--Vim" is pretty good both as an introduction to vi, and to the vim-specific things as well. It's also released under the Open Publication License.
Is accepting asshole behavior also a sign of the times? If you don't fight back against it, it'll only get worse.
I'd make it clear that you're not going to tolerate having someone waste your time and money. If someone talks in a movie theater, I take action to stop the behavior, so why not do the same thing in school?
I'd rather fight than throw my hands up and say "Oh well, life sucks", but maybe that's just me.
So it's still a social issue, not a technical one.
What if the guy who was bored was practicing his tuba? Should you just say "Hey, please stop with the tuba. I'm trying to pay attention here"? Or failing that, ask the prof to do something about it? Or is it better that the school adopt a "no tubas in the classroom" policy, where they check to make sure that you're not bringing in your tuba?
"One if by land, two if by sea."
And who says that you have to post images to send a message? Maybe posting a baseball card for sale means that a cell is to attack on the day that the auction closes. A Sammy Sosa card means we fly into the Sears Tower; a Thurman Munson card means the WTC. The starting bid is the price is the time at which it's to happen.
The whole point of steganography is that the outside world doesn't even know what your encoding system is, much less be able to decipher it.
It's short-sighted to think that once the net access is cut that students will pay attention. The net use is a symptom, not a disease. People will always find a way to goof off if they want. No net? Just doodle.
It's not much different than the poor IS guy who has to go on a seek 'n' destroy mission on all N-hundred company PCs for C:\WINDOWS\SOL.EXE because Upper Management decided that people were spending too much time playing solitaire. The IS guy's time is wasted, and the benefit to the company is negligible, since lazy workers find other things to waste company time with.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of lobbyists!
Does that mean there were others?
Michael Jackson is such a prime example of someone who just needs to pack it in and stay at home.
A more appropriate response to the list is laughter, not righteous indignation at supposed suppression of your rights. If you're going to lament anything, lament the bland and safe state of mass media.
I'm sorry. Really.
</POST>
The irony of posting the poem that Timothy McVeigh quoted before his execution is not lost on me. I'll say it again: I'm just glad he's not alive to see these events.
Mea culpa. I misunderstood. I thought that the $1,000,000 was all Red Cross donations, not just thru Amazon. Thru that light, that is indeed pretty cool.
God bless the one in 7,000 people who contributed. This is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in America donating four tenths of a penny. Truly, we have opened our hearts and pocketbooks.
It's not as if the 50,000 people who worked there on Monday were unaware of the attack in 1993...
Except that at least Barbara Olson knew what was happening. She twice talked to her husband, who let her know about the two planes having crashed into the WTC.
The logical part of me says "Why didn't she just say 'hey, they're going to crash us into a building' and overtake the hijackers." But how can I possibly second guess such a situation?
And it may well turn out that something similar happened in Pennsylvania.
It's ironic and sad...
It's almost certianly NOT ironic, or unintentional. Remember, Camp David was a target as well.
And thanks to all who flamed Katz for his drivel, saving me the bother and profanity.
I'm glad Timothy McVeigh's not alive to see it.
What, are you the Fresh Prince, pre-BelAir?
Is "very addictive" a positive or a negative? And how does that tie into the time management?