... steroids and "performance enhancing" supplements. So by that line of logic, mathematics education outside of America = Lots of meth and piracetium?
This is a problem that is solved by altering how you code, that results in cluttering your code with adhoc validations you have to make specifically for SQL injections.
Fixed. I've coded some massive sites that needed protection of SQL injection, JS injections, and other XSS attacks and had to be scalable for millions of users. When half of the code on a form page is validation, (or you're slowing down your code in any way for it) that's not cleaner code - it's bloat. Essential bloat, but bloat nonetheless.
No, we know for sure that spending money on direct research will have some benefits. You're saying that focusing on a goal that has no direct benefits will probably have greater knock on benefits than direct research would have done. I think that puts the burden of proof onto you.
If you're claiming that research for research's sake is better for technology, then the burden of proof lies with you. Neccessity is the mother of invention. Money is not. Dumping money into a cloud named "research" is going to get you nowhere, no matter how much money you dump into it. Asking the world to conjure solutions to problems it doesn't even know exist will net you waste. In the 60's (and stretching even much later), everyone was sure that computers were going to get bigger and louder. The limitations of space travel completely reversed the direction of circuit research for this small group of engineers, and that revolutionized the evolution of computers. Were that money directed elsewhere, personal computers could still be a pipedream today.
The thing is that the moon missions were batshit crazy. We were locking people up into tin cans and shooting them at the moon for no reason other than to say we did it. Yeah, it worked, but it was insanely dangerous and resulted in virtually nothing.
without resorting to conspiracy theories, the approach toward the moon was extremely significant for humanity. To think that a few goldfish have actually escaped this huge glass bowl we call Earth (not to mention the fact they were able to return!) tells us that we've gone from simply staring at the stars to grasping at them, and from grasping at them, to leaping at them. We've reached the first one. We've sent machines to the second (the red star, 30 million miles away) and we're privatizing the ability to reach the first within 40 years of its initial landing. Just like Moore's law is coming up with insane new ways of finding data every day, we are developing propulsion technology at a rapid rate. We are developing biological longevity better than ever before. It's silly to think that we will go to the moon in our lifetimes. It's sillier to think that we can't.
Before we dive into the new research that states watching violence and porn can reduce real crime, let's take a look at laboratory experiments stating the opposite. The basic conclusion of most laboratory experiments is that watching violent images and video, will in fact cause parts of your brain that suppress aggressive behaviors to become less active
Yes, it's always prudent to take social surveys and correlational examinations over medical experiments and the scientific method when trying to prove something.[/sarcasm] At BEST, the studies show that viewing the depictions delays, not prevents, those actions, by admission that "They're too busy watching violence to commit violence."
My parents had similar sentiments. Instead of being accelerated through school, they just put me in the "Gifted Class" -- which was fine by me, because most of the kids in there were my friends (and the cute girls in school) anyway.
By the time I reached highschool, I slept through every single lecture, and aced all my classes. 90% of the time I spent there was "wasted" on an academic level -- but it gave me the experience of being on the football team and debate team (and I tell you, in their own way, some of the dumbest football players had it more together than some of the smartest debate kids). I liked going to school, because that's where I saw all my friends, every day.
Then I hit college, and started writing essays about my English professors and how they're just bitter throwbacks who will never be the philosophers they want to be, because they don't recognize any wisdom that predated the Age of Enlightenment... Damn general ed credits... At least my highschool teachers had a bloody sense of humor about it.
Physics is not just "math with a mask on" -- it's applied math. Math will ALWAYS prove math, because it's a constant system. If you have to reduce math's applicability to the observable universe in order to prove your theory, your theory is not physics, it's simply math. It's an addition problem, a chart, a graph. Addition problems are not physics, though physics rely on addition problems.
Allow me to use a car analogy:
If I can IMAGINE what a car is like, does that mean I have a car? (without getting existential). What if I had BLUEPRINTS? Does that mean that I have a car? I'm just lacking the 3,000lbs of steel, plastic, rubber, and leather -- the things that actually make up the car. If I have to ignore the fact I don't have the requisite ATOMS in my driveway to qualify as a car, in order to say I have a car, then I don't have a car.
That's because string theory is just math with a mask on. Math is math. 3 + 1 = 4. 2 + 2 = 4. Everyone knows these, but what if I say (3-1)+(1+1) = 4? If I add or subtract from the each of variables symmetrically, yet inversely, then I get the same sum. You can use this to calculate anything you want in physics, and it will prove that the universe is made up of 1 dimensional numbers, we just perceive it as more than that. How can you possibly dispute a statement like that, besides saying "That's not really connected..." to which I can tell you that you're just not getting it.
The same is with string theory. It's all math, and since physics follows math, the universe must be made up of vibrating strings, right? Wrong -- since anything that tells you that you have to add or subtract dimensions to make it work means it's not physics -- it's just more math.
There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can. It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all. This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst. Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers. People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed. Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.
Yeah, but if I can program a fly on the wall to recognize speech on the NYSE trading floor, and whenever it hears the words "The payoff is greater than the risk. Even the big guys are doing it like crazy. What's the worst that could happen?" then it sets off an alarm and shoots every Fortune 1000 controller in the face with a lethal stream of sulphuric acid... not only could I predict these things over a year before they happen, but after the two or three are predicted, I'm sure it would be at least 20 years before anything like this happens again... in the NYSE.
They only "have no privacy" if you deny them privacy. And what a shock, they don't expect privacy if no one ever gives them privacy. Do people only deserve rights if they ask for them? Is that how it works now? Good thing you're not a judge, because I'd hate to see how you interpret the 4th Amendment.
This is a textbook example of a strawman. I make a statement that says children have no privacy or expectation of privacy like adolescents or adults do, and you extrapolate that to mean that I advocate the idea that government should not allow any human being the rights to their privacy.
In an attempt to switch things up a bit, I did bother to read the article before posting... and after posting. The study was flawed and approached with great bias and blinders on to any mitigating factors. The article ignores a great many factors, and assumes some very questionable things. For example:
1) Article suggests Asian cultures do not have prominent, patriarchal gender roles.
2) Article ignores the different ways different countries take aptitude tests. For example, when I was growing up, I found out that teachers would be pressed by their union to test the challenged kids for "random samplings" for the national academic surveys in junior high and middle schools. This would show that our students were scoring low, and therefore needed more funding for the schools. When it came to SATs and ACTs, public schools allow all kids to be tested in the US. This is not the case in other countries, where only the cream of the crop are tested (while vocational students are sent to different schools or institutions for learning and are not included in worldwide aptitude tests). This may not affect the outcome, but ignoring it completely, as this study does, solicits error.
3) Article ignores the scientific studies that prove that testosterone takes social considerations into account when performing, and ignores testosterone levels differ across cultures (Asians have the lowest, while Africans and Caucasians typically have the highest in the studied age ranges) And that non-verbal intelligence was shown to be greatly enhanced by increased testosterone. It suspects that, where disparities show between genders, women are performing worse where, according to other (read: SCIENTIFIC) studies, it would be more likely that the men are simply performing better.
Men and women are different, yadda yadda. Yes, they are, and they may be even be different in ways that affect performance at certain jobs. But every time the issue is put to the test, we see that those differences are not nearly as signficant as the bigots desperately believe. The difference in means between the sexes, or any other groups into which people can conveniently be divided, is far smaller than the variances between individuals.
Chemically, testosterone and estrogen have different, powerful effects on the brain and body. Be careful not to call people "bigots" because they celebrate this diversity and seek out the advantages it contains, or you must call yourself a bigot for your intolerance toward anyone who thinks that any notable differences are an evil that needs to be squashed. Yes, with extra effort, one sex can almost always measurably outperform the opposite sex where the opposite sex is more fitted, biologically, to a purpose -- but that doesn't reinforce your point; it contradicts it. If a woman and a man can perform equally at math, but the woman has to study n% longer, then the man is inherently better at math. That's what inherency means. It's not politically correct, but it's nature... however, I vehemently agree that the product of nurture and identity should always have the/choice/ to agree with nature or to struggle to see if it can obtain something better. If a woman chooses to study n% longer than the man to perform equally at math, her identity shows that she would be the better mathematician -- because she's more willing to put forth the necessary effort-- but don't hate or belittle people because they accept what nature has given us as a gift, rather than viewing it as a curse.
It's still a strawman to say that keeping children under the watch of their parents leads to Orwellian governments keeping overbearing watch over its people. You obviously haven't spent thousands of hours taking care of children, or you would know that they have no privacy and have no expectation of privacy. They don't develop the psychological yearning for it until adolescence. (Or, at the very earliest, until they get report cards)
But I agree with the parent: get some perspective on things by waiting for a bit before subjecting your daughter to Big-Brother-like monitoring.
That's ridiculous. If you're not Big-Brother-like monitoring your kid, you're not a parent. Kids below middle-school age have no privacy. There is no reason for a 8 year old to be anywhere but where their parent thinks they should be. This thing may be an issue for kids over the age of 12, but when they're still developmental grubs, advocating their rights to privacy is ignorance and dangerous for the child's development. The one who has lost perspective is the one who thinks that children are fully-cogent, underaged adults.
I tried to come up with an analogy for just how bad this analogy is, but I failed. There is no expressing how far off base you are and you're so far from being understandable that I can't explain to you the number of ways that you're mistaken. (Stealing cars == Abandoning paying customers???)
How about we start with the ways you're mistaken? "Tantamount" does not mean I'm starting an analogy. It means I'm making a comparison of value to show what other ideas could be so well-intentioned, yet naive, as to cause disaster. Now for an analogy: You tried swinging at a curveball (because EVERY slashdotter throws curveballs) and still don't recognize that I threw a fast pitch instead.
Besides, it wouldn't be STEALING cars... it would be government-sanctioned temporary removal of their driving rights through removing their car as regulated by someone who cannot be trusted, as said regulator possibly stands to benefit from every removal, financially. The ISPs wouldn't be STEALING the internets. They would just be stealing the monthly payment then cut off service before they have to provide.
And because you seem to have trouble identifying literary devices, my sig is a meta-metaphor.
I can't explain to you the amount of horrible that idea is. You seem to think that ISPs and telecoms are some of the most honest, upstanding companies on the planet who are not in the business simply to make money for the least amount of service they can legally provide, but to provide a dedicated service to their community -- like garbage men or the post office.
You'd be asking the foxes to guard the henhouse. They don't want to cut off peoples' internets because that's how they make money. Instead, they'll simply throttle your service. They'll inject ads into your websites, they'll charge more and give you less. These are the same corporations that managed to prove, within the last year, that the grand majority of congress cares more about them than the constitution.
This would be tantamount to giving every highway construction company (the ones who take 6 years to rebuild 3 miles of freeway for $500 Million of your state's budget) police rights, and say "Make sure nobody speeds on this new freeway -- if you catch anyone speeding, you can take their car, and it's up to you to come up with ways to figure out if people are speeding." Bad Idea.
I don't lock my doors as night, but I do consider my security system secure. If anyone touches the door handle after 8:00pm, it triggers a shotgun that blows their head off. You wouldn't believe the piles of dead robbers we have in my garage!
Of course it's a losing battle -- just like honking a car horn at a bad driver who's swerving across 3 lanes while texting. Your efforts will not change their ways, and when they do manage to drive themselves off the road into a reservoir, they will be replaced by 10 more, just like them. There is, however, a sense of satisfaction at sitting down and pointing out to the person just how they are a ruiner of humanity. Honking a horn only gets the message so far. Flipping off a bad driver goes a bit further. When some AC posts this sort of thing on slashdot, it's like you just pulled into the same gas station as the guy who cut you off. He's not going anywhere, so you get to say just what you think about his poor performance at the wheel. Allow me to liken it to John Malkovich's Osbourne Cox in Burn After Reading:
Osbourne Cox: And you're my wife's lover?
Ted Treffon: No.
Osbourne Cox: Then what are you doing here?... I know you. You're the guy from the gym.
Ted Treffon: I'm not here representing HardBodies.
Osbourne Cox: Oh, yes. I know very well what you represent.... You represent the idiocy of today.
Ted Treffon: No, I don't represent that either.
Osbourne Cox: Yeah. You're the guy at the gym when I asked about that moronic woman.
Ted Treffon: She's not a moron.
Osbourne Cox: You're in league with that moronic woman. You are part of a league of morons.
Ted Treffon: No. No.
Osbourne Cox: Oh, yes. You see, you're one of the morons I've been fighting my whole life. My whole fucking life. But guess what... Today, I win.
There is nothing to win here, of course. In fact, more likely I'll end up taking a Karma hit for it (-1 Offtopic/Flamebait), but sometimes I simply feel honorbound to keep an idiot from walking away without hearing that he's an idiot, fully aware it is a war in which one cannot hope to make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
... steroids and "performance enhancing" supplements. So by that line of logic, mathematics education outside of America = Lots of meth and piracetium?
Caffeine and artificial cheese flavoring.
We challenge China...
To Space Jam
From your post, I don't think you're aware that Time Warner is actually one of the presiding members of the RIAA (and the MPAA).
By that reasoning, I suppose you could look down and see part of the milky way too.
Are you saying I have manboobs?
This is a problem that is solved by altering how you code, that results in cluttering your code with adhoc validations you have to make specifically for SQL injections.
Fixed. I've coded some massive sites that needed protection of SQL injection, JS injections, and other XSS attacks and had to be scalable for millions of users. When half of the code on a form page is validation, (or you're slowing down your code in any way for it) that's not cleaner code - it's bloat. Essential bloat, but bloat nonetheless.
No, we know for sure that spending money on direct research will have some benefits. You're saying that focusing on a goal that has no direct benefits will probably have greater knock on benefits than direct research would have done. I think that puts the burden of proof onto you.
If you're claiming that research for research's sake is better for technology, then the burden of proof lies with you. Neccessity is the mother of invention. Money is not. Dumping money into a cloud named "research" is going to get you nowhere, no matter how much money you dump into it. Asking the world to conjure solutions to problems it doesn't even know exist will net you waste. In the 60's (and stretching even much later), everyone was sure that computers were going to get bigger and louder. The limitations of space travel completely reversed the direction of circuit research for this small group of engineers, and that revolutionized the evolution of computers. Were that money directed elsewhere, personal computers could still be a pipedream today.
The thing is that the moon missions were batshit crazy. We were locking people up into tin cans and shooting them at the moon for no reason other than to say we did it. Yeah, it worked, but it was insanely dangerous and resulted in virtually nothing.
without resorting to conspiracy theories, the approach toward the moon was extremely significant for humanity. To think that a few goldfish have actually escaped this huge glass bowl we call Earth (not to mention the fact they were able to return!) tells us that we've gone from simply staring at the stars to grasping at them, and from grasping at them, to leaping at them. We've reached the first one. We've sent machines to the second (the red star, 30 million miles away) and we're privatizing the ability to reach the first within 40 years of its initial landing. Just like Moore's law is coming up with insane new ways of finding data every day, we are developing propulsion technology at a rapid rate. We are developing biological longevity better than ever before. It's silly to think that we will go to the moon in our lifetimes. It's sillier to think that we can't.
Unless you're an asshole... In the grand scheme, we're still just scratching the surface.
We're just scratching the surface of our assholes? Hey, I mean we haven't discovered any working grand unified theory yet, but at least we're TRYING!
Before we dive into the new research that states watching violence and porn can reduce real crime, let's take a look at laboratory experiments stating the opposite. The basic conclusion of most laboratory experiments is that watching violent images and video, will in fact cause parts of your brain that suppress aggressive behaviors to become less active
Yes, it's always prudent to take social surveys and correlational examinations over medical experiments and the scientific method when trying to prove something.[/sarcasm] At BEST, the studies show that viewing the depictions delays, not prevents, those actions, by admission that "They're too busy watching violence to commit violence."
My parents had similar sentiments. Instead of being accelerated through school, they just put me in the "Gifted Class" -- which was fine by me, because most of the kids in there were my friends (and the cute girls in school) anyway.
By the time I reached highschool, I slept through every single lecture, and aced all my classes. 90% of the time I spent there was "wasted" on an academic level -- but it gave me the experience of being on the football team and debate team (and I tell you, in their own way, some of the dumbest football players had it more together than some of the smartest debate kids). I liked going to school, because that's where I saw all my friends, every day.
Then I hit college, and started writing essays about my English professors and how they're just bitter throwbacks who will never be the philosophers they want to be, because they don't recognize any wisdom that predated the Age of Enlightenment... Damn general ed credits... At least my highschool teachers had a bloody sense of humor about it.
Physics is not just "math with a mask on" -- it's applied math. Math will ALWAYS prove math, because it's a constant system. If you have to reduce math's applicability to the observable universe in order to prove your theory, your theory is not physics, it's simply math. It's an addition problem, a chart, a graph. Addition problems are not physics, though physics rely on addition problems.
Allow me to use a car analogy:
If I can IMAGINE what a car is like, does that mean I have a car? (without getting existential). What if I had BLUEPRINTS? Does that mean that I have a car? I'm just lacking the 3,000lbs of steel, plastic, rubber, and leather -- the things that actually make up the car. If I have to ignore the fact I don't have the requisite ATOMS in my driveway to qualify as a car, in order to say I have a car, then I don't have a car.
That's because string theory is just math with a mask on. Math is math. 3 + 1 = 4. 2 + 2 = 4. Everyone knows these, but what if I say (3-1)+(1+1) = 4? If I add or subtract from the each of variables symmetrically, yet inversely, then I get the same sum. You can use this to calculate anything you want in physics, and it will prove that the universe is made up of 1 dimensional numbers, we just perceive it as more than that. How can you possibly dispute a statement like that, besides saying "That's not really connected..." to which I can tell you that you're just not getting it.
The same is with string theory. It's all math, and since physics follows math, the universe must be made up of vibrating strings, right? Wrong -- since anything that tells you that you have to add or subtract dimensions to make it work means it's not physics -- it's just more math.
There is a serious flaw in thinking that computers can accurately model macroeconomics, or predict systematic collapses, any better than commonsense and basic logic can. It is a given that if you massively inflate the monetary supply, you will create a false sense of wealth and a false understanding of risk, and people will malinvest in sectors that they otherwise would have spent far less resources on, or none at all. This is an unsustainable artificially created bubble, and all bubbles burst. Many people saw this coming years, even decades ago, and didn't have supercomputers. People understood this scenario centuries ago, before computers even existed. Using computers as a crutch to make up for a lack of understanding of basic economics is an aggravating factor in the current scenario, not the solution.
Yeah, but if I can program a fly on the wall to recognize speech on the NYSE trading floor, and whenever it hears the words "The payoff is greater than the risk. Even the big guys are doing it like crazy. What's the worst that could happen?" then it sets off an alarm and shoots every Fortune 1000 controller in the face with a lethal stream of sulphuric acid... not only could I predict these things over a year before they happen, but after the two or three are predicted, I'm sure it would be at least 20 years before anything like this happens again... in the NYSE.
They only "have no privacy" if you deny them privacy. And what a shock, they don't expect privacy if no one ever gives them privacy. Do people only deserve rights if they ask for them? Is that how it works now? Good thing you're not a judge, because I'd hate to see how you interpret the 4th Amendment.
This is a textbook example of a strawman. I make a statement that says children have no privacy or expectation of privacy like adolescents or adults do, and you extrapolate that to mean that I advocate the idea that government should not allow any human being the rights to their privacy.
In an attempt to switch things up a bit, I did bother to read the article before posting... and after posting. The study was flawed and approached with great bias and blinders on to any mitigating factors. The article ignores a great many factors, and assumes some very questionable things. For example:
1) Article suggests Asian cultures do not have prominent, patriarchal gender roles.
2) Article ignores the different ways different countries take aptitude tests. For example, when I was growing up, I found out that teachers would be pressed by their union to test the challenged kids for "random samplings" for the national academic surveys in junior high and middle schools. This would show that our students were scoring low, and therefore needed more funding for the schools. When it came to SATs and ACTs, public schools allow all kids to be tested in the US. This is not the case in other countries, where only the cream of the crop are tested (while vocational students are sent to different schools or institutions for learning and are not included in worldwide aptitude tests). This may not affect the outcome, but ignoring it completely, as this study does, solicits error.
3) Article ignores the scientific studies that prove that testosterone takes social considerations into account when performing, and ignores testosterone levels differ across cultures (Asians have the lowest, while Africans and Caucasians typically have the highest in the studied age ranges) And that non-verbal intelligence was shown to be greatly enhanced by increased testosterone. It suspects that, where disparities show between genders, women are performing worse where, according to other (read: SCIENTIFIC) studies, it would be more likely that the men are simply performing better.
Children are NOT adults. It's dangerous to treat them as such.
And quit building up so many strawmen, you're embarassing yourself.
Men and women are different, yadda yadda. Yes, they are, and they may be even be different in ways that affect performance at certain jobs. But every time the issue is put to the test, we see that those differences are not nearly as signficant as the bigots desperately believe. The difference in means between the sexes, or any other groups into which people can conveniently be divided, is far smaller than the variances between individuals.
Chemically, testosterone and estrogen have different, powerful effects on the brain and body. Be careful not to call people "bigots" because they celebrate this diversity and seek out the advantages it contains, or you must call yourself a bigot for your intolerance toward anyone who thinks that any notable differences are an evil that needs to be squashed. Yes, with extra effort, one sex can almost always measurably outperform the opposite sex where the opposite sex is more fitted, biologically, to a purpose -- but that doesn't reinforce your point; it contradicts it. If a woman and a man can perform equally at math, but the woman has to study n% longer, then the man is inherently better at math. That's what inherency means. It's not politically correct, but it's nature... however, I vehemently agree that the product of nurture and identity should always have the /choice/ to agree with nature or to struggle to see if it can obtain something better. If a woman chooses to study n% longer than the man to perform equally at math, her identity shows that she would be the better mathematician -- because she's more willing to put forth the necessary effort-- but don't hate or belittle people because they accept what nature has given us as a gift, rather than viewing it as a curse.
It's still a strawman to say that keeping children under the watch of their parents leads to Orwellian governments keeping overbearing watch over its people. You obviously haven't spent thousands of hours taking care of children, or you would know that they have no privacy and have no expectation of privacy. They don't develop the psychological yearning for it until adolescence. (Or, at the very earliest, until they get report cards)
Don't forget about the one who thinks only "fully-cogent ... adults" deserve any rights. He's lost quite a bit of perspective too.
That's a strawman. Knowing where you children are at 1:30PM is NOT on the slippery slope.
But I agree with the parent: get some perspective on things by waiting for a bit before subjecting your daughter to Big-Brother-like monitoring.
That's ridiculous. If you're not Big-Brother-like monitoring your kid, you're not a parent. Kids below middle-school age have no privacy. There is no reason for a 8 year old to be anywhere but where their parent thinks they should be. This thing may be an issue for kids over the age of 12, but when they're still developmental grubs, advocating their rights to privacy is ignorance and dangerous for the child's development. The one who has lost perspective is the one who thinks that children are fully-cogent, underaged adults.
I tried to come up with an analogy for just how bad this analogy is, but I failed. There is no expressing how far off base you are and you're so far from being understandable that I can't explain to you the number of ways that you're mistaken. (Stealing cars == Abandoning paying customers???)
How about we start with the ways you're mistaken? "Tantamount" does not mean I'm starting an analogy. It means I'm making a comparison of value to show what other ideas could be so well-intentioned, yet naive, as to cause disaster. Now for an analogy: You tried swinging at a curveball (because EVERY slashdotter throws curveballs) and still don't recognize that I threw a fast pitch instead.
Besides, it wouldn't be STEALING cars... it would be government-sanctioned temporary removal of their driving rights through removing their car as regulated by someone who cannot be trusted, as said regulator possibly stands to benefit from every removal, financially. The ISPs wouldn't be STEALING the internets. They would just be stealing the monthly payment then cut off service before they have to provide.
And because you seem to have trouble identifying literary devices, my sig is a meta-metaphor.
I can't explain to you the amount of horrible that idea is. You seem to think that ISPs and telecoms are some of the most honest, upstanding companies on the planet who are not in the business simply to make money for the least amount of service they can legally provide, but to provide a dedicated service to their community -- like garbage men or the post office.
You'd be asking the foxes to guard the henhouse. They don't want to cut off peoples' internets because that's how they make money. Instead, they'll simply throttle your service. They'll inject ads into your websites, they'll charge more and give you less. These are the same corporations that managed to prove, within the last year, that the grand majority of congress cares more about them than the constitution.
This would be tantamount to giving every highway construction company (the ones who take 6 years to rebuild 3 miles of freeway for $500 Million of your state's budget) police rights, and say "Make sure nobody speeds on this new freeway -- if you catch anyone speeding, you can take their car, and it's up to you to come up with ways to figure out if people are speeding." Bad Idea.
I don't lock my doors as night, but I do consider my security system secure. If anyone touches the door handle after 8:00pm, it triggers a shotgun that blows their head off. You wouldn't believe the piles of dead robbers we have in my garage!
I'll play as Mr. Darcy, as babes choose him consistently over Mr. Collins, and he has a job.
Of course it's a losing battle -- just like honking a car horn at a bad driver who's swerving across 3 lanes while texting. Your efforts will not change their ways, and when they do manage to drive themselves off the road into a reservoir, they will be replaced by 10 more, just like them. There is, however, a sense of satisfaction at sitting down and pointing out to the person just how they are a ruiner of humanity. Honking a horn only gets the message so far. Flipping off a bad driver goes a bit further. When some AC posts this sort of thing on slashdot, it's like you just pulled into the same gas station as the guy who cut you off. He's not going anywhere, so you get to say just what you think about his poor performance at the wheel. Allow me to liken it to John Malkovich's Osbourne Cox in Burn After Reading:
Osbourne Cox: And you're my wife's lover?
Ted Treffon: No.
Osbourne Cox: Then what are you doing here?... I know you. You're the guy from the gym.
Ted Treffon: I'm not here representing HardBodies.
Osbourne Cox: Oh, yes. I know very well what you represent.... You represent the idiocy of today.
Ted Treffon: No, I don't represent that either.
Osbourne Cox: Yeah. You're the guy at the gym when I asked about that moronic woman.
Ted Treffon: She's not a moron.
Osbourne Cox: You're in league with that moronic woman. You are part of a league of morons.
Ted Treffon: No. No.
Osbourne Cox: Oh, yes. You see, you're one of the morons I've been fighting my whole life. My whole fucking life. But guess what... Today, I win.
There is nothing to win here, of course. In fact, more likely I'll end up taking a Karma hit for it (-1 Offtopic/Flamebait), but sometimes I simply feel honorbound to keep an idiot from walking away without hearing that he's an idiot, fully aware it is a war in which one cannot hope to make a difference.