It seems that every time a new innovation is mentioned on Slashdot someone says it's already been done without even RTFA.
I know! If all these things "unoriginal" things have already been done before, then:
a)why have few people ever seen it
b)why would someone be trying to reinvent the wheel.
I agree that there was a lack of substance, but that is understandable considering the breadth of the issues. Yes it didn't have a plan; yes it was a rant. However, it was a provocative rant, which was the entire point. Basically saying let's get our act together. Should geeks have more political influence?
I wonder if geeks could form some sort of voting block/interest group. We could stand up to tyranny.
Seriously though, I'm not sure the extent to which this is feasible. First of all, people don't generally expect politicians to have a clue about tech. In Canada, it is a non-issue. These kinds of issues can simply be sidestepped by politicians. I guess the question is: how many people (not just/.) would actually change their vote based on a candidate's tech policy? Personally, Obama's tech credentials put him just over McCain (if I could vote there), but ALL OF PARLIMENT/CONGRESS needs to understand these issues in order to enact sound policy and not be easily persuaded by lobbyists.
But let's be honest. Many/most of these issues have little tangible effect on typical people. It's hard to persuade people that tech issues are up there with Heath Care and the Economy.
"Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war."
Would the "War on Drugs" in this case be grounds for the President determining his own powers?
While I believe that no one such have such uncheck spying powers, I think the real issue is that the Bush administration has proven, in so many cases, to be inept and untrustworthy, especially with Americans' privacy. How can we trust him when he says (or rather, directly implies) that the result of the bill not passing WILL be a terrorist attack on the US? This is a blatant fear mongering technique; he has not clarified how the program helps fight terrorists, yet he expects everyone to be afraid enough to give him anything he wants. Lately, Republicans have made it sound like the House Democrats are responsible for a coming wave of destruction on America. This emotional play is unacceptable: we need evidence that the wiretapping is actually doing some good, not more fear.
Slashdot Mirror
I really can't tell if this is tongue in cheek.
It seems that every time a new innovation is mentioned on Slashdot someone says it's already been done without even RTFA.
I know! If all these things "unoriginal" things have already been done before, then: a)why have few people ever seen it b)why would someone be trying to reinvent the wheel.
I agree that there was a lack of substance, but that is understandable considering the breadth of the issues. Yes it didn't have a plan; yes it was a rant. However, it was a provocative rant, which was the entire point. Basically saying let's get our act together. Should geeks have more political influence?
I wonder if geeks could form some sort of voting block/interest group. We could stand up to tyranny. Seriously though, I'm not sure the extent to which this is feasible. First of all, people don't generally expect politicians to have a clue about tech. In Canada, it is a non-issue. These kinds of issues can simply be sidestepped by politicians. I guess the question is: how many people (not just /.) would actually change their vote based on a candidate's tech policy? Personally, Obama's tech credentials put him just over McCain (if I could vote there), but ALL OF PARLIMENT/CONGRESS needs to understand these issues in order to enact sound policy and not be easily persuaded by lobbyists.
But let's be honest. Many/most of these issues have little tangible effect on typical people. It's hard to persuade people that tech issues are up there with Heath Care and the Economy.
"Whitehouse said the documents assert that the president has the power to determine what his constitutional powers are, particularly in a time of war." Would the "War on Drugs" in this case be grounds for the President determining his own powers? While I believe that no one such have such uncheck spying powers, I think the real issue is that the Bush administration has proven, in so many cases, to be inept and untrustworthy, especially with Americans' privacy. How can we trust him when he says (or rather, directly implies) that the result of the bill not passing WILL be a terrorist attack on the US? This is a blatant fear mongering technique; he has not clarified how the program helps fight terrorists, yet he expects everyone to be afraid enough to give him anything he wants. Lately, Republicans have made it sound like the House Democrats are responsible for a coming wave of destruction on America. This emotional play is unacceptable: we need evidence that the wiretapping is actually doing some good, not more fear.
Web 2.0 brought social networking; I think many of us want to leave this dark chapter behind as soon as possible.
...math and physics articles will forever be incomprehensible to mere enthusiasts.
Enough fish analogies!