As I said before, "a Right is simply and opportunity to be responsible." In other words, he can say what he wishes. In return for that freedom, he has the obligation to ensure what he says to be reasoned, thought out, and free of factual inaccuracies.
It's merely the non-physical extension of "the Right to swiign your fist ends where my nose begins."
Freedoms are not absolute. Freedoms require citizens to be responsible.
You can have a non-conformist opinion. Refer to the other articles on Slashdot in regards to Global Warming and misapplied science to support that theory. A year or two ago, such a stance would be unthinkable. But if one analyzes the information, and finds an error and can support their position, then by all means, state their piece.
Whether its presented as fact or opinion, it should be held to the same standard, as much as possible. Feel free to ask your question, or state data to make your case. But we don't need inflammatory speech just to get the point across.
Even if people don't take his opinion for much, he should not be fired. One should only be fired if they can't do their job. Having low support is not a good enough reason to suppress him.
I agree, but there comes a point when one's outspoken stance on a subject can be detrimental to accomplishing the dictates of one's position.
The author wrote this piece in as detrimental and inflammatory style as possible. This was not presented as a reasoned and objective analysis.
As to Freedom of Speech... "A Right is simply an opportunity to be responsible." And it appears that the author may have abused that right.
Other posters here have put forth the theory that he presented this as a work of satire. And thus, I am waiting for confirmation of this before I call for the tar and feathers.
But, if he did intend this as a serious work, then he is woefully uninformed, and should no longer be in the position to advocate or implement any technology.
By putting a folder in the Links toolbar, it becomes a dropdown. Submenus open to the right (just like on the Start Menu).
When I started on the 'net, I was sold on NS 3 Gold. Then through all of the NS 4.x series. IE 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were all horribly clunky pieces of shit.
Then I was issued a laptop, and my only choice was the Windows 2K OS. I started using IE 6 and I was hooked. When Netscape 6 came out, i wanted to use it, I wanted to like it. But I couldn't... I am not happy with the Gecko engine. It's like I'm surfing through mud.
Popups annoyed the hell out of me, and when Netscape 7 and Mozilla 1.4 came out, again I wanted to shift over. No dice, the feedback to using those too was just quite annoying.
yes, they are technologically superior products. And IE isn't standards compliant. But the interface does what I want it to do, and it reacts consitantly across the board.
In other words, it's an ergonomics issue... I use the browser / os / app that works the best for me. I want to use linux on the desktop (right now it's on my server) but it's just too distracting to use on a regular basis.
IE 6.. I uses it, and I prefer the interface over Mozilla (1.4) and Opera (whatever) It's more responsive, and gives a better 'feedback'
Bookmarks on the side, yeah, if you want them. I usually put a folder or two in the personal toolbar, then use them as dropdowns. I don't like having EVERY bookmark there, just the commonly used ones.
The only add-on I have for IE is the google toolbar. No popups if I don't want them, and instant access to the search feature.
The only feature I wish I had with IE had was tabbed browsing... but since there won't be any new versions under this engine, I'll have to wait for Longhorn.
ATT.NET's mail server (mailhost.worldnet.att.net and postoffice.worldnet.att.net) are behind filter. Unless you are coming from an AT&T IP address, they will not respond.
All others have to use their 'open' servers with an SSL connection
SL-1, in Idaho. The Army decided to get a reactor of their own, and during a normal maintainence cycle, they pulled the control rods out too far. The resulting flash of heat superheated the coolant. 1) Spraying live, radioactive steam all over the place, 2) the rapid expansion of said steam shot the contol rods upward, impaling the poor schmuck to the ceiling.
1) never, ever, ever, punish the child while you're angry. That sets up a feedback look that is very easy for you to lose control of. Count to 10, wait a half hour, or what ever it takes for you to get in control of yourself. Don't leave the kid hanging during this time. Explain you are angry, and you will be back to deal with this in a short while.
2) Warn of consequences. Don't just go from observing an infraction to punishment. Give them a warning or two. "That's not appropriate behavior. Do not do it again, or you will [get the belt|stand in the corner|get spanked|etc].
3) Always follow through. If you threaten punishment, by $deity you had better follow through. Otherwise the child learns that these are empty threats, not predictions of consequences.
4) Don't sweat the small stuff. No need to go ballistic over every single bit of misbehavior. Children will 'misbehave' but that's more a function of the world-view and wanting to push their own envelope, than a deep seated urge to do evil. Conversely, let the child know that there are some actions that are directly tied to their safety, that ANY infraction will bring about the worst possible consequences.
5)There is a relatively narrow range in which physical punishment works. Too young, and the child has no idea why he did was wrong (above the level of a slap on the wrist, or a swat on the butt). As they get older, they should already know what is and isn't appropriate behavior, so physcial punishment is simply diminishing returns. What are the proper ranges? Well, my Daughter is 12. Unless she breaks the one cardinal rule of the household (do not leave the property without first getting permission), she should never have to worry about getting spanked or whatnot.
But that range depends on the child. There is no 'one size fits all' rule here. And that seems to be where a lot of the confusion lies. What worked for me, may not work for my kids. And it certainly didn't always work for my siblings. Creative problems demand creative solutions.
Remember, our goal here isn't to have peace and quiet, it's to raise responsible and contributing members of human society. Make sure your methods are compatible with those goals.
Creationism does understand genetics. I believe it was Job who famous for his cattle, being larger and a better breed than any others.
Breeding for specific traits has been part of animal husbandry for thousands of years. Breeding for better traits, or to eliminate bad ones is a concept well understood.
Creationism just lacked the understanding of the dynamics and the mechinsim involved.
We haven't touched on evolution yet, just the basics of Mendel's theory of genetics.
Evolutions prime theorem is that simpler species evoloved or changed into more complex species.
As of yet, even given the millions of hours in laboratory observations, not a single creature has given birth to offspring of another species. (human experiments in gene therapy not withstanding)
So, as I said earlier: Evolution sounds like a neat theory. But wouldn't it contradict physics?
2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy always increases. In other words, a complex system will dengererate into a less ordered, more primative system. But Evolution claims the opposite effect.
ah well, nothing stirs the blood like a good debate.
Not proven, yet. The time scales involved do not lend themselves to direct observation.
Mayflies are often used in genetic testing, as they live and reproduce in a cycle measured in just a few days.
In hundreds of thousands of generations observed in laboratory conditions, not one mayfly has evolved into something else. Not a new trait, not a longer lifespan, nothing.
Not that I'm against evolution. It sounds good, and theory appears plausible. But it's not a fact.
>>In an education environment, it's quite reasonable to expect that both theories be taught.
>Not at all. Only the truth should be taught.
Ah, but what is truth? Is it 'Truth'? Or just the current revison of said Truth?
Is Yahoo! (and other IM servers) cutting off their own feet but blocking access to Trillian?
I use Trillian extensively, and have been doing so for two year. So do all of my friends. 55-60 people.
But if Yahoo! blocks Trillian, we'll just switch to another service. Most often I use MSN, but I can easily switch to ICQ or AOL if MSN starts blocking Trillian.
So, there's 50 users that Yahoo! lost, how many more times will this scenario be duplicated across the planet?
I think Yahoo! just made the same error other net services vendors (and the RIAA) made: They blocked usuage of their product by 'unathorized' (in their eyes) users. They are obviously hoping that people will start using Y! (or buy the CD, in the case of RIAA). But without giving the users a usable, convenient, and value-added service, users will just go someplace else. In the case of Y!, I'll drop it. CD's, I'll listen to what's on the radio, or net-cast, or listen to the MP3s I have.
They don't gain my loyalty, unless they offer a real alternative.
ex.
Y!: We don't want you to use their program for our service. It costs us money to maintain it, and when you don't use our program, we don't get any of it back.
User: But this program is easy to use, comes wit lots of neat features, and deosn't suck up a huge amount of memory or CPU cycles.
Y!: AH, but here's our new program. Y!+ for all the other features, and Y! Lite for just the bare bones. We'll even use plug-ins so you can have JUST the features you want.
User: Gee, thanks Y!. I'll use it, and be loyal forever!
The same way sailing ships move against the wind... A zig-zag course, called tacking.
The vector of your prime mover (wind, solar or terrestrial) is off axis compared to your center of mass. In a clipper ship, you couls simulate that by the action of the rudder. In space, you'd need something like an extendable boom, adjusting the postions of the crew areas, fuel tanks, cargo, etc in relation to the sail. You'd need to use manuvering rockets to change orientation of the sail at the endpoints of each tack, but probably no more fuel than the shuttle carries.
(I'm referring the main tank, not the hydrazine supply for the OMBs)
The mini-series looked more like a stage production. Being shot on a closed set with blue-screened and CGI backgrounds processed in aferwards only further added to the feeling.
The movie, being shot on location, had an entirely different feeling. Grander, broader.
The casting for the mini-series was ok, but forgettable; to this day when I reread the books, I envison Lynch's cast, they were right on. Not just in appearence, but in feeling and attitude.
The worst thing I can say about the movie is that "it was too short", and "were the hell did the weirding modules come from?"
The mini series added some depth and detail to the mythos, and overall was entertaining to watch once.
The movie was very entertaining to experience over and over again. Sure, it could have been better, but it was very good on it's own. Not to mention the author of the book himself, Frank Herbert, was estatic over the movie. Hey, if he's happy about it, why the hell even bother to dis it?
Her Vor series has excellent character development, up there with RAH's later works, and a socio-political background that compares well to anything Pournelle ever created.
On that note, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle both make some great stories, together and indivudually.
That's hard to believe... We had the flag, and man were our nubs in so much shit to get qualified so we could get it back. But giving them away? Never in my years did anyone get graped off.
No one EVER gets it right. It's "100 men go down, 51 couples come up."
Somebody's ALWAYS cheating.
Re:Incompetent pilot?
on
Book on NR-1
·
· Score: 1
Welcome to the club. On my first WESTPAC we went to the Gulf with all warshots, 12 birds in VLS, and 27 MK 48's and did blockade work for Desert Shield. We were on point when it became Desert Storm. Pucker factor was pretty tight.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said before, "a Right is simply and opportunity to be responsible." In other words, he can say what he wishes. In return for that freedom, he has the obligation to ensure what he says to be reasoned, thought out, and free of factual inaccuracies.
It's merely the non-physical extension of "the Right to swiign your fist ends where my nose begins."
Freedoms are not absolute. Freedoms require citizens to be responsible.
You can have a non-conformist opinion. Refer to the other articles on Slashdot in regards to Global Warming and misapplied science to support that theory. A year or two ago, such a stance would be unthinkable. But if one analyzes the information, and finds an error and can support their position, then by all means, state their piece.
Whether its presented as fact or opinion, it should be held to the same standard, as much as possible. Feel free to ask your question, or state data to make your case. But we don't need inflammatory speech just to get the point across.
She's dead, Jim.
Even if people don't take his opinion for much, he should not be fired. One should only be fired if they can't do their job. Having low support is not a good enough reason to suppress him.
I agree, but there comes a point when one's outspoken stance on a subject can be detrimental to accomplishing the dictates of one's position.
The author wrote this piece in as detrimental and inflammatory style as possible. This was not presented as a reasoned and objective analysis.
As to Freedom of Speech... "A Right is simply an opportunity to be responsible." And it appears that the author may have abused that right.
Other posters here have put forth the theory that he presented this as a work of satire. And thus, I am waiting for confirmation of this before I call for the tar and feathers.
But, if he did intend this as a serious work, then he is woefully uninformed, and should no longer be in the position to advocate or implement any technology.
GATOR is Spyware, Crapware, and generally a piece of odoriferous shit.
GATOR is Spyware, Crapware, and generally a piece of odoriferous shit.
By putting a folder in the Links toolbar, it becomes a dropdown. Submenus open to the right (just like on the Start Menu).
When I started on the 'net, I was sold on NS 3 Gold. Then through all of the NS 4.x series. IE 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were all horribly clunky pieces of shit.
Then I was issued a laptop, and my only choice was the Windows 2K OS. I started using IE 6 and I was hooked. When Netscape 6 came out, i wanted to use it, I wanted to like it. But I couldn't... I am not happy with the Gecko engine. It's like I'm surfing through mud.
Popups annoyed the hell out of me, and when Netscape 7 and Mozilla 1.4 came out, again I wanted to shift over. No dice, the feedback to using those too was just quite annoying.
yes, they are technologically superior products. And IE isn't standards compliant. But the interface does what I want it to do, and it reacts consitantly across the board.
In other words, it's an ergonomics issue... I use the browser / os / app that works the best for me. I want to use linux on the desktop (right now it's on my server) but it's just too distracting to use on a regular basis.
IE 6.. I uses it, and I prefer the interface over Mozilla (1.4) and Opera (whatever) It's more responsive, and gives a better 'feedback'
Bookmarks on the side, yeah, if you want them. I usually put a folder or two in the personal toolbar, then use them as dropdowns. I don't like having EVERY bookmark there, just the commonly used ones.
The only add-on I have for IE is the google toolbar. No popups if I don't want them, and instant access to the search feature.
The only feature I wish I had with IE had was tabbed browsing... but since there won't be any new versions under this engine, I'll have to wait for Longhorn.
ATT.NET's mail server (mailhost.worldnet.att.net and postoffice.worldnet.att.net) are behind filter. Unless you are coming from an AT&T IP address, they will not respond.
All others have to use their 'open' servers with an SSL connection
SL-1, in Idaho. The Army decided to get a reactor of their own, and during a normal maintainence cycle, they pulled the control rods out too far. The resulting flash of heat superheated the coolant. 1) Spraying live, radioactive steam all over the place, 2) the rapid expansion of said steam shot the contol rods upward, impaling the poor schmuck to the ceiling.
A few things that work for me:
1) never, ever, ever, punish the child while you're angry. That sets up a feedback look that is very easy for you to lose control of. Count to 10, wait a half hour, or what ever it takes for you to get in control of yourself. Don't leave the kid hanging during this time. Explain you are angry, and you will be back to deal with this in a short while.
2) Warn of consequences. Don't just go from observing an infraction to punishment. Give them a warning or two. "That's not appropriate behavior. Do not do it again, or you will [get the belt|stand in the corner|get spanked|etc].
3) Always follow through. If you threaten punishment, by $deity you had better follow through. Otherwise the child learns that these are empty threats, not predictions of consequences.
4) Don't sweat the small stuff. No need to go ballistic over every single bit of misbehavior. Children will 'misbehave' but that's more a function of the world-view and wanting to push their own envelope, than a deep seated urge to do evil. Conversely, let the child know that there are some actions that are directly tied to their safety, that ANY infraction will bring about the worst possible consequences.
5)There is a relatively narrow range in which physical punishment works. Too young, and the child has no idea why he did was wrong (above the level of a slap on the wrist, or a swat on the butt). As they get older, they should already know what is and isn't appropriate behavior, so physcial punishment is simply diminishing returns. What are the proper ranges? Well, my Daughter is 12. Unless she breaks the one cardinal rule of the household (do not leave the property without first getting permission), she should never have to worry about getting spanked or whatnot.
But that range depends on the child. There is no 'one size fits all' rule here. And that seems to be where a lot of the confusion lies. What worked for me, may not work for my kids. And it certainly didn't always work for my siblings. Creative problems demand creative solutions.
Remember, our goal here isn't to have peace and quiet, it's to raise responsible and contributing members of human society. Make sure your methods are compatible with those goals.
Creationism does understand genetics. I believe it was Job who famous for his cattle, being larger and a better breed than any others.
Breeding for specific traits has been part of animal husbandry for thousands of years. Breeding for better traits, or to eliminate bad ones is a concept well understood.
Creationism just lacked the understanding of the dynamics and the mechinsim involved.
We haven't touched on evolution yet, just the basics of Mendel's theory of genetics.
Evolutions prime theorem is that simpler species evoloved or changed into more complex species.
As of yet, even given the millions of hours in laboratory observations, not a single creature has given birth to offspring of another species. (human experiments in gene therapy not withstanding)
So, as I said earlier: Evolution sounds like a neat theory. But wouldn't it contradict physics?
2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy always increases. In other words, a complex system will dengererate into a less ordered, more primative system. But Evolution claims the opposite effect.
ah well, nothing stirs the blood like a good debate.
>Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.
Not proven, yet. The time scales involved do not lend themselves to direct observation.
Mayflies are often used in genetic testing, as they live and reproduce in a cycle measured in just a few days.
In hundreds of thousands of generations observed in laboratory conditions, not one mayfly has evolved into something else. Not a new trait, not a longer lifespan, nothing.
Not that I'm against evolution. It sounds good, and theory appears plausible. But it's not a fact.
>>In an education environment, it's quite reasonable to expect that both theories be taught.
>Not at all. Only the truth should be taught.
Ah, but what is truth? Is it 'Truth'? Or just the current revison of said Truth?
You have a point.
But the question I have is this:
Is Yahoo! (and other IM servers) cutting off their own feet but blocking access to Trillian?
I use Trillian extensively, and have been doing so for two year. So do all of my friends. 55-60 people.
But if Yahoo! blocks Trillian, we'll just switch to another service. Most often I use MSN, but I can easily switch to ICQ or AOL if MSN starts blocking Trillian.
So, there's 50 users that Yahoo! lost, how many more times will this scenario be duplicated across the planet?
I think Yahoo! just made the same error other net services vendors (and the RIAA) made: They blocked usuage of their product by 'unathorized' (in their eyes) users. They are obviously hoping that people will start using Y! (or buy the CD, in the case of RIAA). But without giving the users a usable, convenient, and value-added service, users will just go someplace else. In the case of Y!, I'll drop it. CD's, I'll listen to what's on the radio, or net-cast, or listen to the MP3s I have.
They don't gain my loyalty, unless they offer a real alternative.
ex.
Y!: We don't want you to use their program for our service. It costs us money to maintain it, and when you don't use our program, we don't get any of it back.
User: But this program is easy to use, comes wit lots of neat features, and deosn't suck up a huge amount of memory or CPU cycles.
Y!: AH, but here's our new program. Y!+ for all the other features, and Y! Lite for just the bare bones. We'll even use plug-ins so you can have JUST the features you want.
User: Gee, thanks Y!. I'll use it, and be loyal forever!
Yeah...
You ever notice how they never say "Please help me to stop, I am so weak!" ?
No, it's always "Let's stop all of them, because some of them are too weak."
It comes down to responsibility. If you have it, then these silly things won't bother you.
If you lack it, then you deserve what you get. Evolution in action.
The same way sailing ships move against the wind... A zig-zag course, called tacking.
The vector of your prime mover (wind, solar or terrestrial) is off axis compared to your center of mass. In a clipper ship, you couls simulate that by the action of the rudder. In space, you'd need something like an extendable boom, adjusting the postions of the crew areas, fuel tanks, cargo, etc in relation to the sail. You'd need to use manuvering rockets to change orientation of the sail at the endpoints of each tack, but probably no more fuel than the shuttle carries.
(I'm referring the main tank, not the hydrazine supply for the OMBs)
Glacial? Hardly.
Solar sails should be able to pull 1/1000th of a G. That's Pluto and back in under six months.
In the mid-late 1800's, traders got rich running clipper ships to Asia and back using the same time frame.
Heinlein has an essay on it in his Expanded Universe collection. I seem unable to find a web version of it, though.
Hmm... I tried Opera on my Thinkpad... I couldn't get it to scroll using the Trackpoint. If I could it to scroll, I'd leave IE behind.
The mini-series looked more like a stage production. Being shot on a closed set with blue-screened and CGI backgrounds processed in aferwards only further added to the feeling.
The movie, being shot on location, had an entirely different feeling. Grander, broader.
The casting for the mini-series was ok, but forgettable; to this day when I reread the books, I envison Lynch's cast, they were right on. Not just in appearence, but in feeling and attitude.
The worst thing I can say about the movie is that "it was too short", and "were the hell did the weirding modules come from?"
The mini series added some depth and detail to the mythos, and overall was entertaining to watch once.
The movie was very entertaining to experience over and over again. Sure, it could have been better, but it was very good on it's own. Not to mention the author of the book himself, Frank Herbert, was estatic over the movie. Hey, if he's happy about it, why the hell even bother to dis it?
Lois McMaster Bujold
Her Vor series has excellent character development, up there with RAH's later works, and a socio-political background that compares well to anything Pournelle ever created.
On that note, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle both make some great stories, together and indivudually.
The Kindred was pretty cool. Short lived on Fox, but based on the Vampire:The Masquerade by White Wolf. Did it justice, too.
That's hard to believe... We had the flag, and man were our nubs in so much shit to get qualified so we could get it back. But giving them away? Never in my years did anyone get graped off.
No one EVER gets it right. It's "100 men go down, 51 couples come up."
Somebody's ALWAYS cheating.
Welcome to the club. On my first WESTPAC we went to the Gulf with all warshots, 12 birds in VLS, and 27 MK 48's and did blockade work for Desert Shield. We were on point when it became Desert Storm. Pucker factor was pretty tight.
Snap rolls, anyone?
Or when your family on the pier could SMELL the boat, long before it came 'round the point?
Tail end of the cold war... Joined in '88. Was a sonar tech. Did my share of WESTPACs.