I don't see why the smart kids would get beaten up more by their peers. I was always the youngest kid in a mixed grade class, and usually the smartest, in addition to being white in a black school. I got in a fight maybe three times a year, but I made sure to win in intimidating fashion. Being willing to learn just a few basic fighting techniques from wrestling and judo(Double-leg, trip takedown, hip toss) can serve a smart kid really well. Choking a kid fully out scared other kids, so they didn't mess with you.
Of course, now I'm actually an amateur cage fighter (1-2), and am amazed at how little I actually knew in grade school. My point is that using violence when it's not strictly necessary means there will be fewer times you actually have to use violence. Teach the kids to fight back, it works.
That's about exactly wrong. You should get an award based on the work you put out. Maybe you can change the people you are competing against (think failing the kids who fail and skipping the smartest kids ahead) or the standard for the award, but in the end, the goal is results, not process.
Se. Stevens catches a lot of flack, but that's the wrong part of his idiotic tirade againt commercial use of the Internet.
The part you wanted was "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?"
We have been describing the Internet as a series of tubes which we connect fat pipes to for a long time, because that analogy makes sense. Sen. Stevens, on the other hand, doesn't.
I live in Va, on the south side of the river. What the post and tfa fail to mention is that the area where his congregation are is a heavy drug crime related area.
search Wickham Ave
Some more interesting data, the average income in this area is less than half the states average income. Income and home value tables
With numbers like these the problem is not video games or violent music, the true problem is socio-economical. It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Ron Paul doesn't apply common sense, he stands on principal even when it's not really the best pragmatic decision. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your perception.
It's patronizing and condescending because he's saying that if only things were better off for these people, they'd be going blue in droves. God forbid that these people are proud Americans who have values and traditions that they hold near and dear, it's that their values and traditions are a crutch to deal with the fact that the world is too hard for them. Imagine if he had said religion, guns, and cultural pride are the opiate of the masses and you get an idea of what people in the red states hear in his quote. And it's dishonest because that same anti-trade sentiment he is talking about is something that he embraces.
No one's saying he'd put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists. They're saying he'd appease Iran under Ahmadinejad and Hamas. And they don't really support terror so much as genocide. I don't want to Godwin the thread, so never mind.
Unfortunately, it does follow. They are the most free, but have the least order. There's a balance between freedom and order, and that one tends towards being a zero-sum game.
Of course, most Christians would call Romney not a Christian, and he's got a great shot at being the next republican nominee. Obama's theology about sin "[Sin is] Being out of alignment with my values." and the path to heaven "essentially that all people of faith â" Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone â" know the same God." are directly opposed to the bible.
That leaves aside the fact that he has just now figured out that his pastor of 20 years is a crazy racist, and that one of his 2other "spiritual mentors" Michael "America is the greatest sin against God" Pflegler also just now got disowned by Obama. How any American can take that kind of religion as a plus is beyond me.
McCain is at least smart enough not to talk about religion. But Obama makes it a centerpoint of his campaign, then goes on a spree renouncing all his pastors and churches. BTW, on Saturday he just quit his church of 20 years, presumably after finding out only during his run for president how extreme it is.
I'd rather have an atheist than the kind of religion Obama follows.
Love your sig, but dispute your determination on McCain. McCain is anti-torture now and forever. He has repeatedly said that he doesn't believe the techniques we use are torture. You can do some pretty bad things to people that assault human dignity without it being torture. He supports giving our interrogators the tools they need to extract information, but he does NOT support torture, even as he refuses to allow to U.N. to define torture for us.
I have one issue with your comment, and that is the idea that people on welfare are not on it by choice. Our society provides more opportunity for social mobility than is necessary for a person born into poverty to be able to escape. We have a completely free education system that guarantees 12 years of (admittedly inferior) education to anyone. We have a 5% unemployment rate. That means that jobs are out there. We have a minimum wage that can support a single person, so that no one who works 40 hours a week is left without food and shelter. America is still the land of opportunity, where anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
As far as shitty neighborhoods that aren't safe and where children don't get quality education, I think you're missing the point. The republicans are the party pushing for education reform, over the shouts of the people who currently run our nation's public education system, the NEA. Just try to offer school choice, charter schools, vouchers, the ability to fire or even discipline subjectively bad teachers, or the right for students to go to another school when their school doesn't provide the average student the most basic education, and you will hear the chorus of protestations rise up from the teachers unions and the democrats who support them. It's not the republicans who are standing in the way of providing real educational opportunities for everyone.
As a product of Milwaukee Public Schools, I know first hand that school choice drastically improves the lot of those that take advantage of it. Sadly, even with the opportunity to attend a superior school, most people just don't care enough about their education to be bussed halfway across the city to attend a better school. But for those that do care, the republican education reforms are an absolute godsend.
Firsthand personal experience tells me that someone raised in a welfare family, in the public housing projects of Milwaukee, WI, who lived in these shitty unsafe neighborhoods with low-quality education, is able to influence their own fate in such a way that results in success.
The No Child Left Behind act is not just a policy, it's a law that gives every child in America the ability to escape a failing school they would otherwise be trapped in.
Exactly right. Once purchased, the copyright holders lost the rights to control the sale or rental of a particular copy (except for audio and software). With all the knowledge of IP rights on Slashdot, this shouldn't even be a discussion.
All cites are from USC Chapter 17.
Section 106(c) provides a copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Then 109(a) says, in part, notwithstanding 106(c), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title,... is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
This is a limitation on the exclusive right of distribution.
Then 109(b)(1)(A) restricts the newly granted rights from 109(a) to the following extent:
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), unless authorized by the owners of copyright in the sound recording or the owner of copyright in a computer program..., neither the owner of a particular phonorecord nor any person in possession of a particular copy of a computer program... may, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage, dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program... by rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending.
This section would be completely unnecessary and would not reference a change to subsection(a) unless subsection(a) would otherwise have granted the rights being restricted. Thus, we can conclude without question that the rights proscribed in 109(b)(1)(A) would otherwise have been granted in 109(a). Because 109(a) addresses all owners of particular copy of a copyrighted work, it applies to all types of copyrighted works except as proscribed in 109(b)(1)(A), or elsewhere. This includes videos, pictures, books, and anything else under copyright of which a copy can be made and purchased.
As an aside, this would restrict video game rental, as video games are computer programs, except that video game rentals are specifically provided for in 109(b)(1)(B)(ii).
In conclusion, any particular legally acquired copy of any copyrighted work can be disposed of through sale. Any particular legally acquired copy of any copyrighted work except sound recordings and computer programs may be disposed of in any way, including sale, rental, loan, or lease.
More reading if anyone cares first sale doctrine.
The rental of sound recordings and computer programs is prohibited. Everything else is fair game. That includes video. And it is expansive enough that it even includes audiobooks.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why the smart kids would get beaten up more by their peers. I was always the youngest kid in a mixed grade class, and usually the smartest, in addition to being white in a black school. I got in a fight maybe three times a year, but I made sure to win in intimidating fashion. Being willing to learn just a few basic fighting techniques from wrestling and judo(Double-leg, trip takedown, hip toss) can serve a smart kid really well. Choking a kid fully out scared other kids, so they didn't mess with you.
Of course, now I'm actually an amateur cage fighter (1-2), and am amazed at how little I actually knew in grade school. My point is that using violence when it's not strictly necessary means there will be fewer times you actually have to use violence. Teach the kids to fight back, it works.
That's about exactly wrong. You should get an award based on the work you put out. Maybe you can change the people you are competing against (think failing the kids who fail and skipping the smartest kids ahead) or the standard for the award, but in the end, the goal is results, not process.
Logic is merely applied reality.
Se. Stevens catches a lot of flack, but that's the wrong part of his idiotic tirade againt commercial use of the Internet.
The part you wanted was "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?"
We have been describing the Internet as a series of tubes which we connect fat pipes to for a long time, because that analogy makes sense. Sen. Stevens, on the other hand, doesn't.
Thanks for the car analogy. I was starting to get a little lost there.
Some rappers do have mind control.
Ron Paul doesn't apply common sense, he stands on principal even when it's not really the best pragmatic decision. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your perception.
It's patronizing and condescending because he's saying that if only things were better off for these people, they'd be going blue in droves. God forbid that these people are proud Americans who have values and traditions that they hold near and dear, it's that their values and traditions are a crutch to deal with the fact that the world is too hard for them. Imagine if he had said religion, guns, and cultural pride are the opiate of the masses and you get an idea of what people in the red states hear in his quote. And it's dishonest because that same anti-trade sentiment he is talking about is something that he embraces.
No one's saying he'd put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists. They're saying he'd appease Iran under Ahmadinejad and Hamas. And they don't really support terror so much as genocide. I don't want to Godwin the thread, so never mind.
Unfortunately, it does follow. They are the most free, but have the least order. There's a balance between freedom and order, and that one tends towards being a zero-sum game.
The way he speaks? People who wouldn't vote for Obama because of his name will all note that he is very articulate. /meta
You want a president that's good for the economy (if that's your single issue) then you want to support Romney. Sad but true.
Of course, most Christians would call Romney not a Christian, and he's got a great shot at being the next republican nominee. Obama's theology about sin "[Sin is] Being out of alignment with my values." and the path to heaven "essentially that all people of faith â" Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone â" know the same God." are directly opposed to the bible.
That leaves aside the fact that he has just now figured out that his pastor of 20 years is a crazy racist, and that one of his 2other "spiritual mentors" Michael "America is the greatest sin against God" Pflegler also just now got disowned by Obama. How any American can take that kind of religion as a plus is beyond me.
McCain is at least smart enough not to talk about religion. But Obama makes it a centerpoint of his campaign, then goes on a spree renouncing all his pastors and churches. BTW, on Saturday he just quit his church of 20 years, presumably after finding out only during his run for president how extreme it is.
I'd rather have an atheist than the kind of religion Obama follows.
Love your sig, but dispute your determination on McCain. McCain is anti-torture now and forever. He has repeatedly said that he doesn't believe the techniques we use are torture. You can do some pretty bad things to people that assault human dignity without it being torture. He supports giving our interrogators the tools they need to extract information, but he does NOT support torture, even as he refuses to allow to U.N. to define torture for us.
John Glenn never had a "real job" either. :)
There is no perceivable difference between Hillary and Obama. The differences are really cosmetic.
Fixed that for you.
Their policies really are the same.
I have one issue with your comment, and that is the idea that people on welfare are not on it by choice. Our society provides more opportunity for social mobility than is necessary for a person born into poverty to be able to escape. We have a completely free education system that guarantees 12 years of (admittedly inferior) education to anyone. We have a 5% unemployment rate. That means that jobs are out there. We have a minimum wage that can support a single person, so that no one who works 40 hours a week is left without food and shelter. America is still the land of opportunity, where anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
As far as shitty neighborhoods that aren't safe and where children don't get quality education, I think you're missing the point. The republicans are the party pushing for education reform, over the shouts of the people who currently run our nation's public education system, the NEA. Just try to offer school choice, charter schools, vouchers, the ability to fire or even discipline subjectively bad teachers, or the right for students to go to another school when their school doesn't provide the average student the most basic education, and you will hear the chorus of protestations rise up from the teachers unions and the democrats who support them. It's not the republicans who are standing in the way of providing real educational opportunities for everyone.
As a product of Milwaukee Public Schools, I know first hand that school choice drastically improves the lot of those that take advantage of it. Sadly, even with the opportunity to attend a superior school, most people just don't care enough about their education to be bussed halfway across the city to attend a better school. But for those that do care, the republican education reforms are an absolute godsend.
Firsthand personal experience tells me that someone raised in a welfare family, in the public housing projects of Milwaukee, WI, who lived in these shitty unsafe neighborhoods with low-quality education, is able to influence their own fate in such a way that results in success.
The No Child Left Behind act is not just a policy, it's a law that gives every child in America the ability to escape a failing school they would otherwise be trapped in.
Foot in mouth?
You mean like these?
The flash was first.
BKX,
Exactly right. Once purchased, the copyright holders lost the rights to control the sale or rental of a particular copy (except for audio and software). With all the knowledge of IP rights on Slashdot, this shouldn't even be a discussion.
That's somewhat correct. The rental, lease, or lending of music and software is not OK. Everything else can be rented without consent.
Thanks for explaining that with a car. I was getting confused there for a second. :)
Then 109(a) says, in part, notwithstanding 106(c), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title,
This is a limitation on the exclusive right of distribution.
Then 109(b)(1)(A) restricts the newly granted rights from 109(a) to the following extent:
This section would be completely unnecessary and would not reference a change to subsection(a) unless subsection(a) would otherwise have granted the rights being restricted. Thus, we can conclude without question that the rights proscribed in 109(b)(1)(A) would otherwise have been granted in 109(a). Because 109(a) addresses all owners of particular copy of a copyrighted work, it applies to all types of copyrighted works except as proscribed in 109(b)(1)(A), or elsewhere. This includes videos, pictures, books, and anything else under copyright of which a copy can be made and purchased.
As an aside, this would restrict video game rental, as video games are computer programs, except that video game rentals are specifically provided for in 109(b)(1)(B)(ii).
In conclusion, any particular legally acquired copy of any copyrighted work can be disposed of through sale. Any particular legally acquired copy of any copyrighted work except sound recordings and computer programs may be disposed of in any way, including sale, rental, loan, or lease. More reading if anyone cares first sale doctrine.
The rental of sound recordings and computer programs is prohibited. Everything else is fair game. That includes video. And it is expansive enough that it even includes audiobooks.