"I've never been the victim of imminent domain, but I had assumed they couldn't just buy part of the property; since it would massively devalue what was left."
That is exactly what they can do, and that is exactly what happens.
FTA -- "Well I’ve saved the best for last. There was a landowner whose property stretched across the border between Georgia and Florida. He was mad at Florida DOT because he didn’t get enough money when they purchased the right-of-way to widen the highway that cut through his property."
Okay, super-raw nerve here... because this is happening to my father's farm even as we speak. (Power company taking a strip directly through the middle of the farm on a state border, used for 5 generations by my family, for an unnecessary power line to nowhere.) The guy is not mad "because he didn't get enough money". He's mad because you threatened him with eminent domain, that he had no capacity to refuse giving up the strip of land, and he's super-mad and frustrated to realize he doesn't actually control what he thought was his own property. And you ruined the use of that property by cutting it in two. And yes, the power company we're dealing with is spewing similar spin in the PR battle. But that doesn't make it so.
He's mad and feeling powerless because you stole something under threat of state violence. Sorry, today I can't laugh at what you thought was your crazy-hilarious "best" punch-line.
FTA: "Do you know how many people have died delivering gasoline?" said Tom Nugent, president and co-founder of LaserMotive, a Kent, Wash.-based company looking to replace fossil fuels with laser power. The answer to Nugent's question? Nearly 1,000 soldiers in the last decade. And that's why Nugent wants to drastically reduce the need for delivering fossil fuels. His company's approach could save lives."
Total snake-oil bait-and-switch bullshit. There is absolutely nothing in the article to suggest how this would cut fuel deliveries or save transporter's lives in any way. Fuel still needs to be delivered to the ground-based emitter units. Probably more, even (to whatever degree it's less efficient than a connected gasoline engine.)
FTA: "The beam emitter is located at a ground-based unit and operated by a person, who could control it from the same location or remotely from an entirely different place altogether."
"... you think the US government would really sit back and say 'Oh well it is cyber, so we have to just use computers in response.'? Hell no, they'd start blowing shit up."
I generally agree with your points. However, here's the weak link that I see: Would they blow the right shit up? Based on recent history (Iraq, etc.), I'm guessing the answer could very well be "absolutely not".
Regardless of whether or not the U.S. would win a cyberwar (or even if such a thing exists), the article makes no testable or even clear assertions on any such thing. It's all about Carl Jung and "interconnectedness" and mind/body material/immaterial synchronicity and at root:
"The Book of Changes or Yijing. It’s a divinatory oracle that dates back to the Qin dynasty and teaches that the universe is composed of parts that are interconnected. The yarrow stalks used in the Yijing symbolize those parts, while the casting of them symbolizes the mystery of how the universe works (Pauli's quantum indeterminacy). Chinese emperors and generals have used this oracle since approximately 300 BC, and it may still provide a glimmer of insight into the mysterious nature of this new age of cyber-space-time and how cyber battles may be fought and won. Unfortunately for Western nations, synchronicity has its origins in the East. Western nations have a tradition in causality, not synchronicity. And the US Defense Department is deeply grounded in traditional western thinking and practicality..."
Seriously, this article makes the argument that the DOD doesn't understand cyberspace because it spends insufficient time casting stalks and reading from a 2,300-year-old book of divinations. Made my eyes roll so hard it hurt my head. Possibly the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever seen on Slashdot. Yeah, the DOD is just too "practical" (insufficiently magical?), there's your argument.
"If you notify everyone you are conducting surveillance against, you would never stop any crime at all, right?"
Actually, I would think it would stop all crime immediately, but you'd never get to prosecute or imprison or confiscate anyone's property. Which would be fine by me, but I think the goal of the people working with/for the state is the opposite.
Thinking that legally-signed contracts make a difference (and spending time organizing them) may be part of the reason why you're not a billionaire. And same for me.
"Step one to a better USA - abolish the party system entirely. Your only affiliation should be to individual constituents."
I'm largely sympathetic to your position. But on this point -- How is this not an abridgement of free assembly? How would it be feasible to enforce? How would it work any better than Washington's departing plea against "factionalism"?
If anything, we need either a different voting system or a parliamentary system that actually accepts, understands, and deals with the existence of party groups.
"Propose an alternate theory if you like, but don't just discount mine because you think I'm a misogynist."
My alternate theory is that "ridiculous condescending attitude[s] sent them away".
I know several women from the game-development industry 10 years ago. Ridiculous double-standards, sexism, and locker-room behavior in the workplace had some of them borderline suicidal at the time. Some went, "screw this, I'd rather just stay at home with my kids". Or: My girlfriend now runs her own web business solo, but she's sworn off working with other people ever again in her life.
"I want to add that this is just a theory, and that tt's not that I think women are incapable of understanding very complex systems, it's just that I think the majority of them have no interest in that kind of work."
More likely that kind of ridiculous condescending attitude sent them away.
"If women with computer science degrees peaked in 1984 at 37%, then it also means women working as software developers were less likely to have a degree."... in computer science.
For example, I worked as a software engineer with my M.A. in mathematics & statistics. I know others who had physics degrees, etc.
Research at Columbia University released today -- "Community-College Students Perform Worse Online Than Face to Face... Community-college students enrolled in online courses fail and drop out more often than those whose coursework is classroom-based, according to a new study released by the Community College Research Center at the Teachers College at Columbia University.... "People assume this generation is super-technologically sophisticated, but that's not necessarily true, especially in the community-college population, which tends to be low income, disadvantaged, and includes more older students," Ms. Jaggars said."
So this is kind of another example in the epic run of education experiments which work great at a small-scale and with self-selected students, but may greatly struggle to expand and benefit "all" students. Another example: That study in the South a few months ago that students who take an optional Advanced Algebra course are the most likely to succeed in college (proposed solution: now make it mandatory). The fact that someone even thinks to look outside the classroom for additional math information immediately puts them leaps and bounds ahead of the pack. The actual technical content need not be terribly helpful (and Columbia is showing online courses can actually be detrimental on average).
Slashdot Mirror
"I've never been the victim of imminent domain, but I had assumed they couldn't just buy part of the property; since it would massively devalue what was left."
That is exactly what they can do, and that is exactly what happens.
FTA -- "Well I’ve saved the best for last. There was a landowner whose property stretched across the border between Georgia and Florida. He was mad at Florida DOT because he didn’t get enough money when they purchased the right-of-way to widen the highway that cut through his property."
Okay, super-raw nerve here... because this is happening to my father's farm even as we speak. (Power company taking a strip directly through the middle of the farm on a state border, used for 5 generations by my family, for an unnecessary power line to nowhere.) The guy is not mad "because he didn't get enough money". He's mad because you threatened him with eminent domain, that he had no capacity to refuse giving up the strip of land, and he's super-mad and frustrated to realize he doesn't actually control what he thought was his own property. And you ruined the use of that property by cutting it in two. And yes, the power company we're dealing with is spewing similar spin in the PR battle. But that doesn't make it so.
He's mad and feeling powerless because you stole something under threat of state violence. Sorry, today I can't laugh at what you thought was your crazy-hilarious "best" punch-line.
So anyone who jumps aboard their video streaming service announced 2 weeks ago can get a glimpse of their future right now, eh?
FTA: "Do you know how many people have died delivering gasoline?" said Tom Nugent, president and co-founder of LaserMotive, a Kent, Wash.-based company looking to replace fossil fuels with laser power. The answer to Nugent's question? Nearly 1,000 soldiers in the last decade. And that's why Nugent wants to drastically reduce the need for delivering fossil fuels. His company's approach could save lives."
Total snake-oil bait-and-switch bullshit. There is absolutely nothing in the article to suggest how this would cut fuel deliveries or save transporter's lives in any way. Fuel still needs to be delivered to the ground-based emitter units. Probably more, even (to whatever degree it's less efficient than a connected gasoline engine.)
FTA: "The beam emitter is located at a ground-based unit and operated by a person, who could control it from the same location or remotely from an entirely different place altogether."
"... you think the US government would really sit back and say 'Oh well it is cyber, so we have to just use computers in response.'? Hell no, they'd start blowing shit up."
I generally agree with your points. However, here's the weak link that I see: Would they blow the right shit up? Based on recent history (Iraq, etc.), I'm guessing the answer could very well be "absolutely not".
Regardless of whether or not the U.S. would win a cyberwar (or even if such a thing exists), the article makes no testable or even clear assertions on any such thing. It's all about Carl Jung and "interconnectedness" and mind/body material/immaterial synchronicity and at root:
"The Book of Changes or Yijing. It’s a divinatory oracle that dates back to the Qin dynasty and teaches that the universe is composed of parts that are interconnected. The yarrow stalks used in the Yijing symbolize those parts, while the casting of them symbolizes the mystery of how the universe works (Pauli's quantum indeterminacy). Chinese emperors and generals have used this oracle since approximately 300 BC, and it may still provide a glimmer of insight into the mysterious nature of this new age of cyber-space-time and how cyber battles may be fought and won. Unfortunately for Western nations, synchronicity has its origins in the East. Western nations have a tradition in causality, not synchronicity. And the US Defense Department is deeply grounded in traditional western thinking and practicality..."
Seriously, this article makes the argument that the DOD doesn't understand cyberspace because it spends insufficient time casting stalks and reading from a 2,300-year-old book of divinations. Made my eyes roll so hard it hurt my head. Possibly the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever seen on Slashdot. Yeah, the DOD is just too "practical" (insufficiently magical?), there's your argument.
"If you notify everyone you are conducting surveillance against, you would never stop any crime at all, right?"
Actually, I would think it would stop all crime immediately, but you'd never get to prosecute or imprison or confiscate anyone's property. Which would be fine by me, but I think the goal of the people working with/for the state is the opposite.
"Can't blame Bush anymore."
I blame Bush for starting this stuff. I blame Obama for not ending it.
Thinking that legally-signed contracts make a difference (and spending time organizing them) may be part of the reason why you're not a billionaire. And same for me.
I'm pretty sure I had a theater professor like that, so I just dropped the class.
Who cares what "could" happen? Freedom of speech & association. And generally enough fiddly victim-named laws already.
If improper favoritism or relationships develop, then discipline that. Once you have evidence. And someone's actually hurt by it.
"For an ironic twist, if I was a governor, I'd create a lottery and put the proceeds into education :)"
That's how it's sold (initially) in, like, all states. Yes, "for the children" does get a lot of evil legislation passed.
Further note: I'm talking about observations at maybe 4-5 different game companies that I & friends worked at.
Also: The managers are always worse than the programmers.
"You couldn't eradicate fraternization but you could certain ban group funding, group advertising, et cetera"
Except for how exactly that was forbidden by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case last year, as an abridgement of free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
"Step one to a better USA - abolish the party system entirely. Your only affiliation should be to individual constituents."
I'm largely sympathetic to your position. But on this point -- How is this not an abridgement of free assembly? How would it be feasible to enforce? How would it work any better than Washington's departing plea against "factionalism"?
If anything, we need either a different voting system or a parliamentary system that actually accepts, understands, and deals with the existence of party groups.
"Propose an alternate theory if you like, but don't just discount mine because you think I'm a misogynist."
My alternate theory is that "ridiculous condescending attitude[s] sent them away".
I know several women from the game-development industry 10 years ago. Ridiculous double-standards, sexism, and locker-room behavior in the workplace had some of them borderline suicidal at the time. Some went, "screw this, I'd rather just stay at home with my kids". Or: My girlfriend now runs her own web business solo, but she's sworn off working with other people ever again in her life.
"I want to add that this is just a theory, and that tt's not that I think women are incapable of understanding very complex systems, it's just that I think the majority of them have no interest in that kind of work."
More likely that kind of ridiculous condescending attitude sent them away.
You sound like one of my community-college stats students.
"If women with computer science degrees peaked in 1984 at 37%, then it also means women working as software developers were less likely to have a degree." ... in computer science.
For example, I worked as a software engineer with my M.A. in mathematics & statistics. I know others who had physics degrees, etc.
Perhaps software is better when you can serve somebody a legal summons for malfeasance.
Research at Columbia University released today -- "Community-College Students Perform Worse Online Than Face to Face... Community-college students enrolled in online courses fail and drop out more often than those whose coursework is classroom-based, according to a new study released by the Community College Research Center at the Teachers College at Columbia University.... "People assume this generation is super-technologically sophisticated, but that's not necessarily true, especially in the community-college population, which tends to be low income, disadvantaged, and includes more older students," Ms. Jaggars said."
So this is kind of another example in the epic run of education experiments which work great at a small-scale and with self-selected students, but may greatly struggle to expand and benefit "all" students. Another example: That study in the South a few months ago that students who take an optional Advanced Algebra course are the most likely to succeed in college (proposed solution: now make it mandatory). The fact that someone even thinks to look outside the classroom for additional math information immediately puts them leaps and bounds ahead of the pack. The actual technical content need not be terribly helpful (and Columbia is showing online courses can actually be detrimental on average).
"And FB requires you to use your real name as well."
Say what? I know numerous people who maintain multiple profiles (one as stage name, one as real name).
One person I know is even using MY name, swapped first-for-last, causing quite a bit of confusion. So I'm pretty sensitized to this.
Mod this up.
"If we keep spending at the rate we are, it'll be a much faster decline."
The spending would be fine if we actually paid for it.
"There was some websites that were hosted by outside vendors that had slowness, sluggishness, people had trouble getting in."
Wait, what? Outside vendors had their sites crash, but sites run by the Congress staff itself ran with the load?
That can't be right. That contradicts everything I'm told about privatization and outsourcing uber alles.
[/sarcasm]