It's a point of view that people have hammered in their head these days, mostly from liberals. It's not ok to excel. It's not ok to make a lot of money. Look around. This is what is being pushed on the children so of COURSE we don't make it so the brighter kids get challenged. We're too busy making sure the future burger flippers don't get 'left behind'. News flash - most of them will get left behind no matter what you do. The real problem is the kid that doesn't get into harvard. In any case, BOTH sides should get helped. And teachers should get tested just as hard as kids - and when they fail they should be suspended. But noooooo...teachers unions won't allow anything like that.
I was fortunate to be in a good school before this political crap got a strangle hold. My child will be in private school due to this crap - that and the liberal agenda that is forced down their throats.
Think I'm wrong about a liberal agenda? My buddies kid ( 7 years old at the time ) came home from public school about 5 years ago. His homework was to write a letter to President Bush telling him how war was wrong. Excuse me?
Look, I don't care what you think of Bush or Clinton or whatever, but you do NOT teach push one side or the other in school. Teachers should keep thier political agendas to themselves and this particular teacher should have simply been fired, no questios asked. You do not get to use my child as a political pawn.
As I've pointed out several times, it can't be trusted. It's only as accurate as the last person to edit it and you have NO way to know if the last person was an idiot, a corporate sponser or someone that actually knew what they were talking about. That said, let's dissect a bit further - those of you that consider yourself experts in your field - how many of the people around you in that field do you actually think know nearly as much as you do? Exactly.
And of course once the subject becomes a little bit fuzzy (global warming, Iraq war, oil drilling) all bets are off with the liberal edit most likely winning (or the points of view of the various 'neutral' overlord editors).
Pretty sure that simply means that the DS version can talk to other DS versions over the wiifi and means nothing about what might or might not be on the wii. Now it MIGHT mean it can talk to a wii version, but it's hardly conclusive. We can hope!
As yah, I like my wii, but my 360 sure looks a lot better. Really wish they had gone 1080....
Wouldn't it be easier to just start a topic called 'Please add Microsoft bashing threads' rather than wait for someone to jump up and claim they just saved...I mean that they managed to use linux for the two applications they need?
Not like Microsoft is going to get a fair shake here. On the other hand, I get a good laugh reading the posts (what, about every 2-3 months?) as everyone tries to convince themselves how 'ready' linux is to take over the desktop.
You beat me to the question. Despite the semi-insulting replies, it's a good question. Ignore their attitudes. By their same arguement, you could say we may as well not bother worrying about how much pollution comes out of the cars, after all the earth is so big, blah blah blah.
I don't know why everyone here has to be so condecending. Must be linux.
Pretty interesting post...maybe next time you could write it without having to insert a windows jibe.
Windows junkies want to be able to download some spyware-laden utility to magically give them 2 fps more on Quake Why couldn't you have written:
Windows junkies want to be able to download some utility to magically give them 2 fps more on Quake
It gets your point across without painting you as a linux fan-boi just trying to bash windows - instead you call your entire post into question by the need to insert irrelevant insults into an otherwise interesting post.
Seriously guys - you want to beat windows? Stop acting like 8 year olds having a trantrum eveytime you write something involving windows. Personally, I just want to get my job and make money (and play games) - right now, windows is by far the best avenue for that. It's a waste of my time to even try linux (I'm extemely busy with clients) nor, honestly, do I want to bother with it after reading posts here - they are so full of inane slaps at gates/windows/microsoft that I can't take most of them seriously. It's so seldom that someone writes a thoughtful post (there actually are in this thread for a change) unmarred by mostly cheap shots, that most of the time, I don't even bother reading the threads.
But what about the cases of photos taken of minors who are over the age of consent There's a question of what is the age of consent - which is the point I making about a 12 year old understanding what they are doing or the ramifications of it. Usually the age of consent is pretty close to when a person is considered a minor, as the two tend to go hand-in-hand. In any case, that's a pretty small window - the real issue is that age of consent should be directly tired to minor laws.
whether possession/distribution of materials should be a crime, independent of their production I really don't see a question here. If making it is against the law, of course possession should be as well. Only a defense lawyer would question it whether there's a difference or not - the two are only seperated by motives (maybe), but if we assume the harmed party here is a child, then both are in violation. I suppose a drug user vs drug dealer analogy could be made here, but it all just sounds like an excuse to me.
Then there is the issue of simulated content. I'm up in the air on this one - the ol' no victim, no crime thing. Honestly, I don't care about it one way or another - reality invades here anyway - you seldom find one without the other.
I understand your economic arguement, and it's a very interesting one. That said, I'm not sure where it leads - in the end a society has to do it's best to protect those that can't protect themselves.
I came to a point in my life a number of years ago where I realized there really aren't that many gray areas between right and wrong. Most things come down to what you are doing to someone else - and in those terms, the answers are usually pretty clear. We like to cloud the air to make it ok to do bad things. The art argument is one of the big ones - as I've said before, art isn't an excuse to do anything you want.
My point is that everyone knows child pornography is pretty evil - it's just not an area that needs to have it's limits pushed nor is there really much gray ground. Look, when a group called 'NAMBLA' can feel that things have gotten to where they don't have to hide in the shadows anymore, something is wrong. Period.
I find it interesting all the angles people are taking to double-talk naked pictures of children into being ok.
In a perfect world, it would be ok.
It's not remotely a perfect world.
The very countries you are propping up as being 'better' than the USA due to their younger 'adult ages' are the same ones that have rampant sexual child abuse. Again, the reality of an imperfect world.
To suggest that Brooke shields at the time had any realistic idea of what she was doing is simply silly. She was 12. Most 16 year olds don't have a realistic view of the world, so that's a specious argument at best. And irrelevant.
You're basically, intentionally or not, trying to justify exploitation of children with silly notions of art and simple-minded definitions of pedophilia. If you need naked pictures of children to satisfy your 'art' intake, you have a problem. This idea that anything and everything should be allowed in the name of art is stupid - maybe not in a perfect world, but see above. Most of the time that excuse is simply used by people with zero talent to get 15 minutes of fame by shocking everyone.
Actually, the problem with saying you have lower user ID...is the fact you felt the need to say 'I have the lowest user ID'. Hopefully he's a troll..because the alternative is...sad.
What little TV I watch is only when there's something recorded. I can't stand the number and length of commericals combined with jacking up the volume (which I could have sworn was against broadcast regulations). Part of that is the show switching from HD (5.1) to SD (stereo) - in any case, whatever on the people that sit and watch them. You obviously have too much time on your hands.
Yet another clueless poster pointing a finger at the US for commiting war crimes. You people never cease to amaze me. I wish just once we wouldn't come to the aid of these countries. Let them rot and kill each other off. It doesn't matter WHAT we do or HOW we handle it, we end up being the bad guys. If you're going to smack the US down for bombing infrastructure in a freaking war, well you have to smack EVERY country that's been at war, both sides, since air power came to be. WTF man, it's a WAR. You freaking destroy the infrastructure because that's how you WIN. What you REALLY mean is you don't agree with the wars - stop hiding behind inane comments. This tells me you're a 'peace at any price' person and thus your opinions on the matter are irreleveant.
BTW, as far as Hezbollah is concerned - you want to talk about civilian damage. These guys fire 'rockets', which are really just long distance grenade throws with no guidance systems into CIVILIAN populated areas. WTF do you call that? They do this EVERYDAY. I don't give a SHIT what they declare. I'm not particularly pro Israel, but come ON. Get your head out of the sand - again, your statements show what you are.
Well you had an interesting post til you insisted on inserting a stupid political jab. Fox News has no credibilty? I suppose the other networks that are pretty much in the bag for either Clinton or Obama are the ones to watch? You think it's an accident that Clinton came to Fox? I find this whole thing amusing - watching the Dem's self-destruct due to their own political machine (which is use to immediately calling conservatives racist - sucks to have it used on you, doesn't it?) The ONLY place Hillary could get a fair shake was Fox. And where does she go on Fox? The Factor! I laughed when I heard it. Put your head in the sand, whatever. The facts speak for themselves.
BTW, you basically are doing THE EXACT same thing Slashdot has been doing (you and I are in complete agreement on that - the level of 'everything MS does is either stupid or evil' has long since gotten out of hand) with the Fox jab.
I've been programming for over 20 years and yes, it's mostly MS bashing.
First off, you're obviously an MS basher (MS languages vs good languages? oh you mean C++?) Not sure what word you think MS went back on..NET is pretty cool. The IDE still needs some work, but it's one of the better ones I've worked in. C# is quite cool.
Past that..did you actually just suggest that MS scrap backward compatibility? Are you serious? Yes, the linux zealots would love that - they might actually have a chance at a desktop...because of the user revolt. I mean, you are suggesting that a company PISS OFF a good portion of it's base users. ROFL - so that's what linux needs to be on a level playing field? Weak, man, weak. That's a new approach...let's see...eliminate your base so we have a fair chance at the desktop. Please. Obviously you don't run a business.
One of the main reasons Windows is the way it is, is BECAUSE of the backward compatilibity requirement. If Linux actually HAD some desktop penetration, it too would have to cater to the businesses and people running 15 year old software that they can't seem to get rid of. But, alas, that's not much of a problem, is it?
Personally, I use whatever works - and it's alot easier to make money in the windows world. Say what you want, but if I'm going to write desktop software, I'll pick the desktop with the most users.
British Government thought Iraq had WMDs -- unknown. Unless you're Tony Blair or his close ministers you don't know what he was really thinking. We should say 'British Intelligence', not Tony Blair and it wasn't what he was thinking. So I'd still say this was a fact (see - even you and I can't agree *smile*)
USA had every reason to believe what they told us -- subjective. Different people have different reasoning processes.
I should have said 'USA Intelligence community'. I was too vaque.
You can then add a list of reasons Americans claim as justification for the war. They don't have to be "valid", they just need to be the actual reasons America gave for the war, or the reasons Americans thought they were having the war for. Those are facts too.
And what are the chances that one side or the other will not immediately declare the piece completely biased? Zero. It is nearly impossible to present something (of length) on a hotly debated item that will not send one of the parties (I don't mean Dem/Rep) into orbit. That's why those items end up locked on Wiki (and I'd claim it was when the article sways from what the wiki 'self-appointed-gods' think is correct, but that's a debate for another thread).
My thoughts are not so much 'can just the facts be presented' as 'these days no one will see it that way, ESPECIALLY if it makes their side wrong'. And that's a KEY point here - when someone DOES properly detail the facts, it tends to make one side or the other look wrong. That side will then launch into a spin of the facts - and thus we get the nightly news. Or perhaps they will then dispute your facts. You see where I am headed.
People no longer want to bear personal responsibilty - this unfortunately includes owning up to being wrong.
Valid points and I agree completely with the idea behind your statements. But, well....
First off, you don't really believe most of the articles in wikipedia are NPOV, do you?
Second, I would still suggest that everyone will not agree on the definition of 'fact'. I could argue that it's a fact that the British government thought Iraq had WMDs. I could argue that it's a fact we had every reason to believe what they told us.
Now, what do you think are the chances that most of the people replying to this thread will agree those are facts?
The fact is (ahem) that most people are not interested in facts. They are interested in promoting their version of the truth. This is human nature.
Third, (and the war is a great example of this too) I can provide 10 people a set of facts and they will come to different conclusions as to what said facts mean.
I'd point a finger at the media today for an great example of what 'unbiased' points of view are. You have one network completely in bed with Obama. Another completely in bed with Clinton. Then they are either brazen enough to say they are unbiased or they are simply that stupid. Both are very scary propositions.
Most people wouldn't know bias if it spun out of the sky and sat on their face.
Wow this post is a sad view of human nature. I wish I didn't believe it.
Ah but there's the catch. One persons 'whitewash' is anothers persons 'improved accuracy'. Which is the right answer? I mean, let's just take Iraq as a great example where if you sample 50 people, you'll get 50 different view points that all say something different. How in the world do you make an 'accurate' entry for it? Justifiable war? Invasion? Geneocide? Rescue mission? All depends on your point of view.
So it's ok for corporations and anti-[whatever] groups to post/edit for their benefit, but by God the government should just sit back and take it. I mean the whole thing is mostly a bunch of peoples opinions. One person here says 'whitewashing' the other person says 'making it more acurate'. We all know what opinions are like.
You're basically assuming that government edits = bad and everybody else's edits = good, which is far from the truth. I don't know what the answer is, but either you have an open edit system with rules or you don't. As soon as your start say 'x group of people can't edit'...well..what's the point?
I should add I think 'what's the point' in wikipedia period - I don't care for it and I don't use it.
I understand your point that 'people misuse wikipedia' and such. The problem is every day more and more people forget the weak points of wikipedia (which IMHO makes it only useful for getting a nice quick idea of what MIGHT be true about something) and instead think what they read is fact. It's a serious problem. As we've seen from numerous articles, the controlling body is full of corruption, self denial and indeed, self gratification.
Wikipedia wants to be thought of as more accurate that an encylopedia but in reality can never be without a major change in the way it functions. A good first step would be putting in a controlling board that isn't corrupt.
It is now, of course, quite amusing to go back and read all the knee-jerk posts from the previous news stories. Makes more than a few of you look a bit stupid.
Hard to answer such a big question with so little information.
The answer is really dependent, as many have pointed out, by who you are and what you want to do with your life. I'm not going to presume to answer it.
All that said, I will give the advice I always give to techies headed for college. I went to a tech college - but the best part of it, by far, was co-oping at IBM. The degree is nice, but when all you can list is 'wrote program for lunch departement'..meh. But if you can show a degree and say 2-3 years experience at a software company...you see what I mean.
I will also add I did tech interviews at a major package delivery firm for many year (as a favor to the client) - if you hold two resumes, one a 4.0 gpa with no experience and another a 3.5 gpa, but co-oped with programming experience...you get the picture.
It also gives you a better look at the real world than a lot of profs are going to do - nothing like a bit of reality to counter the barrage of liberal messages you'll get.
BTW, Mr. 'I read fluently and did basic algebra', it's 'Kindergarten'. Of course, maybe that proves school hosed you. rofl. And I propogated your mistake instead of confirming it when it didn't look right. Oh well.
Blah blah blah...ok so you were a genius before you went into kindergarden and then the school system failed you.
Whatever. I suspect the easy answer is you are an Obama fan-boi, but that's not my point.
There is little research that plausibly shows dumping yet MORE money on this problem will actually solve it - in fact, you can take across the board and show that per capita per child isn't the deciding factor.
You want to solve it? It's actually fairly simple but no one is going to pull it off.
First off, kill the teacher's unions. It allows second rate (at best) teachers to STAY teachers.
Now with the union gone, you _can_ start putting more money..towards paying for better teachers. And said teachers should be audited for their ability to teach in real ways - not by what grades their students get but by how well they actually teach.
See the problem is somewhere along the line someone convinced most people that either give every kid a laptop (cause people with computers are smart) or whatever. This is insane.
We REALLY need to recgonize that while people are equal under the law, they are NOT equal when it comes to intelligence. There have been signficant moves to homogenize and take the will to succeed out of kids these days. A lot of schools no longer parse the children up by how fast they learn (that makes the morons feel bad)- thus we SEVERELY hold back the brightest kids for the sake of the feelings of the slower ones. Yeah, that's a great idea.
The entire idea of getting everyone 'on the same footing' before they enter first grade is just stupid. Can't be done, assuming you don't plan to start making them fail kindergarden.
Meh..I could go on and on. The education system is so hosed right now I'm not sure it can be salvaged - throwing money at it is the last thing that needs to be done.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a point of view that people have hammered in their head these days, mostly from liberals. It's not ok to excel. It's not ok to make a lot of money. Look around. This is what is being pushed on the children so of COURSE we don't make it so the brighter kids get challenged. We're too busy making sure the future burger flippers don't get 'left behind'. News flash - most of them will get left behind no matter what you do. The real problem is the kid that doesn't get into harvard. In any case, BOTH sides should get helped. And teachers should get tested just as hard as kids - and when they fail they should be suspended. But noooooo...teachers unions won't allow anything like that.
I was fortunate to be in a good school before this political crap got a strangle hold. My child will be in private school due to this crap - that and the liberal agenda that is forced down their throats.
Think I'm wrong about a liberal agenda? My buddies kid ( 7 years old at the time ) came home from public school about 5 years ago. His homework was to write a letter to President Bush telling him how war was wrong. Excuse me?
Look, I don't care what you think of Bush or Clinton or whatever, but you do NOT teach push one side or the other in school. Teachers should keep thier political agendas to themselves and this particular teacher should have simply been fired, no questios asked. You do not get to use my child as a political pawn.
EK
I'm so happy to see you ask this question.
As I've pointed out several times, it can't be trusted. It's only as accurate as the last person to edit it and you have NO way to know if the last person was an idiot, a corporate sponser or someone that actually knew what they were talking about. That said, let's dissect a bit further - those of you that consider yourself experts in your field - how many of the people around you in that field do you actually think know nearly as much as you do? Exactly.
And of course once the subject becomes a little bit fuzzy (global warming, Iraq war, oil drilling) all bets are off with the liberal edit most likely winning (or the points of view of the various 'neutral' overlord editors).
EK
Pretty sure that simply means that the DS version can talk to other DS versions over the wiifi and means nothing about what might or might not be on the wii. Now it MIGHT mean it can talk to a wii version, but it's hardly conclusive. We can hope!
As yah, I like my wii, but my 360 sure looks a lot better. Really wish they had gone 1080....
EK
Wouldn't it be easier to just start a topic called 'Please add Microsoft bashing threads' rather than wait for someone to jump up and claim they just saved...I mean that they managed to use linux for the two applications they need?
Not like Microsoft is going to get a fair shake here. On the other hand, I get a good laugh reading the posts (what, about every 2-3 months?) as everyone tries to convince themselves how 'ready' linux is to take over the desktop.
Keep up the good work.
You beat me to the question. Despite the semi-insulting replies, it's a good question. Ignore their attitudes. By their same arguement, you could say we may as well not bother worrying about how much pollution comes out of the cars, after all the earth is so big, blah blah blah.
I don't know why everyone here has to be so condecending. Must be linux.
Windows junkies want to be able to download some spyware-laden utility to magically give them 2 fps more on Quake Why couldn't you have written:
Windows junkies want to be able to download some utility to magically give them 2 fps more on Quake
It gets your point across without painting you as a linux fan-boi just trying to bash windows - instead you call your entire post into question by the need to insert irrelevant insults into an otherwise interesting post.
Seriously guys - you want to beat windows? Stop acting like 8 year olds having a trantrum eveytime you write something involving windows. Personally, I just want to get my job and make money (and play games) - right now, windows is by far the best avenue for that. It's a waste of my time to even try linux (I'm extemely busy with clients) nor, honestly, do I want to bother with it after reading posts here - they are so full of inane slaps at gates/windows/microsoft that I can't take most of them seriously. It's so seldom that someone writes a thoughtful post (there actually are in this thread for a change) unmarred by mostly cheap shots, that most of the time, I don't even bother reading the threads.
Except that more likely, they won't bother. This is that linux attitude problem....
But what about the cases of photos taken of minors who are over the age of consent There's a question of what is the age of consent - which is the point I making about a 12 year old understanding what they are doing or the ramifications of it. Usually the age of consent is pretty close to when a person is considered a minor, as the two tend to go hand-in-hand. In any case, that's a pretty small window - the real issue is that age of consent should be directly tired to minor laws.
whether possession/distribution of materials should be a crime, independent of their production I really don't see a question here. If making it is against the law, of course possession should be as well. Only a defense lawyer would question it whether there's a difference or not - the two are only seperated by motives (maybe), but if we assume the harmed party here is a child, then both are in violation. I suppose a drug user vs drug dealer analogy could be made here, but it all just sounds like an excuse to me.
Then there is the issue of simulated content. I'm up in the air on this one - the ol' no victim, no crime thing. Honestly, I don't care about it one way or another - reality invades here anyway - you seldom find one without the other.
I understand your economic arguement, and it's a very interesting one. That said, I'm not sure where it leads - in the end a society has to do it's best to protect those that can't protect themselves.
I came to a point in my life a number of years ago where I realized there really aren't that many gray areas between right and wrong. Most things come down to what you are doing to someone else - and in those terms, the answers are usually pretty clear. We like to cloud the air to make it ok to do bad things. The art argument is one of the big ones - as I've said before, art isn't an excuse to do anything you want.
My point is that everyone knows child pornography is pretty evil - it's just not an area that needs to have it's limits pushed nor is there really much gray ground. Look, when a group called 'NAMBLA' can feel that things have gotten to where they don't have to hide in the shadows anymore, something is wrong. Period.
EK
I find it interesting all the angles people are taking to double-talk naked pictures of children into being ok.
In a perfect world, it would be ok.
It's not remotely a perfect world.
The very countries you are propping up as being 'better' than the USA due to their younger 'adult ages' are the same ones that have rampant sexual child abuse. Again, the reality of an imperfect world.
To suggest that Brooke shields at the time had any realistic idea of what she was doing is simply silly. She was 12. Most 16 year olds don't have a realistic view of the world, so that's a specious argument at best. And irrelevant.
You're basically, intentionally or not, trying to justify exploitation of children with silly notions of art and simple-minded definitions of pedophilia. If you need naked pictures of children to satisfy your 'art' intake, you have a problem. This idea that anything and everything should be allowed in the name of art is stupid - maybe not in a perfect world, but see above. Most of the time that excuse is simply used by people with zero talent to get 15 minutes of fame by shocking everyone.
EK
Nor is it an encyclopedia but any rational definition.
Actually, the problem with saying you have lower user ID...is the fact you felt the need to say 'I have the lowest user ID'. Hopefully he's a troll..because the alternative is...sad.
What little TV I watch is only when there's something recorded. I can't stand the number and length of commericals combined with jacking up the volume (which I could have sworn was against broadcast regulations). Part of that is the show switching from HD (5.1) to SD (stereo) - in any case, whatever on the people that sit and watch them. You obviously have too much time on your hands.
EK
ROFLMAO.....
Yet another clueless poster pointing a finger at the US for commiting war crimes. You people never cease to amaze me. I wish just once we wouldn't come to the aid of these countries. Let them rot and kill each other off. It doesn't matter WHAT we do or HOW we handle it, we end up being the bad guys. If you're going to smack the US down for bombing infrastructure in a freaking war, well you have to smack EVERY country that's been at war, both sides, since air power came to be. WTF man, it's a WAR. You freaking destroy the infrastructure because that's how you WIN. What you REALLY mean is you don't agree with the wars - stop hiding behind inane comments. This tells me you're a 'peace at any price' person and thus your opinions on the matter are irreleveant.
BTW, as far as Hezbollah is concerned - you want to talk about civilian damage. These guys fire 'rockets', which are really just long distance grenade throws with no guidance systems into CIVILIAN populated areas. WTF do you call that? They do this EVERYDAY. I don't give a SHIT what they declare. I'm not particularly pro Israel, but come ON. Get your head out of the sand - again, your statements show what you are.
EK
Well you had an interesting post til you insisted on inserting a stupid political jab. Fox News has no credibilty? I suppose the other networks that are pretty much in the bag for either Clinton or Obama are the ones to watch? You think it's an accident that Clinton came to Fox? I find this whole thing amusing - watching the Dem's self-destruct due to their own political machine (which is use to immediately calling conservatives racist - sucks to have it used on you, doesn't it?) The ONLY place Hillary could get a fair shake was Fox. And where does she go on Fox? The Factor! I laughed when I heard it. Put your head in the sand, whatever. The facts speak for themselves.
BTW, you basically are doing THE EXACT same thing Slashdot has been doing (you and I are in complete agreement on that - the level of 'everything MS does is either stupid or evil' has long since gotten out of hand) with the Fox jab.
EK
I've been programming for over 20 years and yes, it's mostly MS bashing.
.NET is pretty cool. The IDE still needs some work, but it's one of the better ones I've worked in. C# is quite cool.
First off, you're obviously an MS basher (MS languages vs good languages? oh you mean C++?) Not sure what word you think MS went back on.
Past that..did you actually just suggest that MS scrap backward compatibility? Are you serious? Yes, the linux zealots would love that - they might actually have a chance at a desktop...because of the user revolt. I mean, you are suggesting that a company PISS OFF a good portion of it's base users. ROFL - so that's what linux needs to be on a level playing field? Weak, man, weak. That's a new approach...let's see...eliminate your base so we have a fair chance at the desktop. Please. Obviously you don't run a business.
One of the main reasons Windows is the way it is, is BECAUSE of the backward compatilibity requirement. If Linux actually HAD some desktop penetration, it too would have to cater to the businesses and people running 15 year old software that they can't seem to get rid of. But, alas, that's not much of a problem, is it?
Personally, I use whatever works - and it's alot easier to make money in the windows world. Say what you want, but if I'm going to write desktop software, I'll pick the desktop with the most users.
Your reply should be modded 'pandering'.
EK
I should have said 'USA Intelligence community'. I was too vaque.
You can then add a list of reasons Americans claim as justification for the war. They don't have to be "valid", they just need to be the actual reasons America gave for the war, or the reasons Americans thought they were having the war for. Those are facts too.
And what are the chances that one side or the other will not immediately declare the piece completely biased? Zero. It is nearly impossible to present something (of length) on a hotly debated item that will not send one of the parties (I don't mean Dem/Rep) into orbit. That's why those items end up locked on Wiki (and I'd claim it was when the article sways from what the wiki 'self-appointed-gods' think is correct, but that's a debate for another thread).
My thoughts are not so much 'can just the facts be presented' as 'these days no one will see it that way, ESPECIALLY if it makes their side wrong'. And that's a KEY point here - when someone DOES properly detail the facts, it tends to make one side or the other look wrong. That side will then launch into a spin of the facts - and thus we get the nightly news. Or perhaps they will then dispute your facts. You see where I am headed.
People no longer want to bear personal responsibilty - this unfortunately includes owning up to being wrong.
EK
Valid points and I agree completely with the idea behind your statements. But, well....
First off, you don't really believe most of the articles in wikipedia are NPOV, do you?
Second, I would still suggest that everyone will not agree on the definition of 'fact'. I could argue that it's a fact that the British government thought Iraq had WMDs. I could argue that it's a fact we had every reason to believe what they told us.
Now, what do you think are the chances that most of the people replying to this thread will agree those are facts?
The fact is (ahem) that most people are not interested in facts. They are interested in promoting their version of the truth. This is human nature.
Third, (and the war is a great example of this too) I can provide 10 people a set of facts and they will come to different conclusions as to what said facts mean.
I'd point a finger at the media today for an great example of what 'unbiased' points of view are. You have one network completely in bed with Obama. Another completely in bed with Clinton. Then they are either brazen enough to say they are unbiased or they are simply that stupid. Both are very scary propositions.
Most people wouldn't know bias if it spun out of the sky and sat on their face.
Wow this post is a sad view of human nature. I wish I didn't believe it.
EK
Ah but there's the catch. One persons 'whitewash' is anothers persons 'improved accuracy'. Which is the right answer? I mean, let's just take Iraq as a great example where if you sample 50 people, you'll get 50 different view points that all say something different. How in the world do you make an 'accurate' entry for it? Justifiable war? Invasion? Geneocide? Rescue mission? All depends on your point of view.
EK
So it's ok for corporations and anti-[whatever] groups to post/edit for their benefit, but by God the government should just sit back and take it. I mean the whole thing is mostly a bunch of peoples opinions. One person here says 'whitewashing' the other person says 'making it more acurate'. We all know what opinions are like.
You're basically assuming that government edits = bad and everybody else's edits = good, which is far from the truth. I don't know what the answer is, but either you have an open edit system with rules or you don't. As soon as your start say 'x group of people can't edit'...well..what's the point?
I should add I think 'what's the point' in wikipedia period - I don't care for it and I don't use it.
EK
I understand your point that 'people misuse wikipedia' and such. The problem is every day more and more people forget the weak points of wikipedia (which IMHO makes it only useful for getting a nice quick idea of what MIGHT be true about something) and instead think what they read is fact. It's a serious problem. As we've seen from numerous articles, the controlling body is full of corruption, self denial and indeed, self gratification.
Wikipedia wants to be thought of as more accurate that an encylopedia but in reality can never be without a major change in the way it functions. A good first step would be putting in a controlling board that isn't corrupt.
EK
It is now, of course, quite amusing to go back and read all the knee-jerk posts from the previous news stories. Makes more than a few of you look a bit stupid.
EK
Hard to answer such a big question with so little information.
The answer is really dependent, as many have pointed out, by who you are and what you want to do with your life. I'm not going to presume to answer it.
All that said, I will give the advice I always give to techies headed for college. I went to a tech college - but the best part of it, by far, was co-oping at IBM. The degree is nice, but when all you can list is 'wrote program for lunch departement'..meh. But if you can show a degree and say 2-3 years experience at a software company...you see what I mean.
I will also add I did tech interviews at a major package delivery firm for many year (as a favor to the client) - if you hold two resumes, one a 4.0 gpa with no experience and another a 3.5 gpa, but co-oped with programming experience...you get the picture.
It also gives you a better look at the real world than a lot of profs are going to do - nothing like a bit of reality to counter the barrage of liberal messages you'll get.
EK
BTW, Mr. 'I read fluently and did basic algebra', it's 'Kindergarten'. Of course, maybe that proves school hosed you. rofl. And I propogated your mistake instead of confirming it when it didn't look right. Oh well.
Blah blah blah...ok so you were a genius before you went into kindergarden and then the school system failed you.
Whatever. I suspect the easy answer is you are an Obama fan-boi, but that's not my point.
There is little research that plausibly shows dumping yet MORE money on this problem will actually solve it - in fact, you can take across the board and show that per capita per child isn't the deciding factor.
You want to solve it? It's actually fairly simple but no one is going to pull it off.
First off, kill the teacher's unions. It allows second rate (at best) teachers to STAY teachers.
Now with the union gone, you _can_ start putting more money..towards paying for better teachers. And said teachers should be audited for their ability to teach in real ways - not by what grades their students get but by how well they actually teach.
See the problem is somewhere along the line someone convinced most people that either give every kid a laptop (cause people with computers are smart) or whatever. This is insane.
We REALLY need to recgonize that while people are equal under the law, they are NOT equal when it comes to intelligence. There have been signficant moves to homogenize and take the will to succeed out of kids these days. A lot of schools no longer parse the children up by how fast they learn (that makes the morons feel bad)- thus we SEVERELY hold back the brightest kids for the sake of the feelings of the slower ones. Yeah, that's a great idea.
The entire idea of getting everyone 'on the same footing' before they enter first grade is just stupid. Can't be done, assuming you don't plan to start making them fail kindergarden.
Meh..I could go on and on. The education system is so hosed right now I'm not sure it can be salvaged - throwing money at it is the last thing that needs to be done.
If you click the broadband link, they admit they were wrong. Non-story.