The Modern Library 100 list is a prime example of what I said. One or two books out of 100? There are many science fiction/fantasy books that are superior to many entries on that list.
And USA Today is well...USA Today. It's aimed at the
The best example of what I'm saying might be Doris Lessing. Just won the Nobel Prize for literature, and considers herself a science fiction writer. She won the award for her earlier work though, and the literary critics have actually complained that she's writing science fiction. Fortunately she doesn't give a damn for them, but the fact still remains that genre fiction is looked down upon.
Games are not only going to be handicapped by their interactivity; they're also going to be handicapped by their setting. After 100 years science fiction still hasn't escaped its literary ghetto, and a large percentage of games incorporate science fiction aspects.
My dad is a pharmacist. My 18-year-old brother considered becoming a pharmacist as well, but my dad discouraged him from it. Basically pharmacy has become largely about quality assurance (aka "sign off on this please", medicare management, and a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork.
Unfortunately it's getting significantly harder in this economy to have a job you're deeply satisfied with. At this point all I want is something that pays a living wage, isn't completely and utterly miserable, and where the hours are such that I have time to do the things on my own time that I really do enjoy.
How the heck is CS as a science supposed to gain anything from the flock of people who select their subject of study based on which gives the best money/effort ratio at the moment?
Is computer science such a noble and hallowed field that it should escape what other lucrative fields do?
Do you honestly believe that accounting is full of people who got into the field because they just love double entry bookkeeping? If someone gets into CS just for the money, but is capable of doing the job, why should they be hounded out of it?
Employment rates at graduation are often incredibly skewed. Frequently only those with jobs will report the fact; a lot of people who still haven't found one won't. I picked the law school I went to partially based on its "percentage employed 6 months after graduation" number, plus it's median salary number. It wasn't until I graduated that I realized how fake the number was.
If I had to do it all over again I'd probably major in pharmacy. Good money, good job security, good hours.
Your saying there is no law to take criminal action against them if they don't sign it. That's not the same thing as what I am saying. They didn't "refuse" to sign it and they did receive a pay check. All of that is besides the point.
Well no, it's not besides the point. The statute provides punishment; if they had lost their jobs for just not remembering to sign the oath, that's one thing. However, the statute does not say that all acts of an employee who fails to sign the oath are void.
That was probably the intent of the legislature. How would you like to suddenly get called up and told that your driver's license was revoked because the person who issued it didn't sign the oath? Or that the trial you won 5 years ago had to be redone because the judge hadn't signed the oath. What about if that judge had appointed the trustee of a charitable trust? Is that trustee's appointment suddenly invalid? Do you then invalidate everything that trustee did?
Laws have remedies. It's not up to you or Jack Thompson to make up remedies that don't exist. You can read the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on the issue of loyalty oaths here.
No, in order to be a judge the law states they must sign it.
Nope, there is nothing in the law that says the actions taken by a judge who has not signed the loyalty are void. The law says basically a) refusal to sign the loyalty oath will result in discharge, and b) until they sign the oath they cannot receive a paycheck. Additionally, while the Florida Supreme Court has held that judges are to sign the loyalty oath, removal of judges is granted solely to the Supreme Court of Florida, after investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Jack Thompson was arguing not that there was a crime or a forgery, but that they never were judges at all to begin with.
Jack Thompson's legal skills are, in my opinion, subpar. I've read his argument as to the oath issue and it doesn't hold water. You can read the relevant statutes if you don't believe me. The judge's authority arises from their being elected or appointed, and from the oath of office they take.
but he might have had something with this and now the state wants him gone and the matter forgotten about.
The state thoroughly investigated the issue. They publicly released the results of the investigation. There is nothing here.
Agreed, that's how I read the headline at first; I thought it was strange they thought it was good news, I know the rabid slashdot libertarian contingent hate positive rights.
The reason for the lack of criminal charges is down to the statute of limitations - it's apparently nothing to do with the fact that Florida judges can rule in cases of law, despite forged signatures (which they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of at all).
IAAFL and his argument was completely ridiculous. There is no legal basis to support the contention that failure to sign the loyalty oath means a judge's orders are invalid or void. The relevant law has a remedy for failure to sign the oath; the person's supervisor is penalized for allowing the person to work without having signed it. As a side note the loyalty oath is almost indistinguishable from a part of the Florida Bar oath already taken by all lawyers (including the judges here) in the state.
You know, IAAL in the same county as Thompson and the thing that has surprised me by reading the stuff he's written is how poor his actual legal skills are. I'm not talking about his conspiracy theories or ideology or harassment, I mean the actual legal reasoning he uses is really pitiful. He cites cases but apparently doesn't understand them, he uses legal terminology incorrectly, he constructs completely faulty arguments that aren't even valid on their face. I really don't understand how he's practiced this long.
AFAICT, he can still sue, as there doesn't seem to be any sort of vexatious litigant declaration in this. He can still sue and represent himself or get another lawyer to represent him (provided there is any lawyer who would take him as a client), same as any other person. He just can't act as or call himself a lawyer anymore.
I believe there's a prior order preventing him from filing cases pro se.
With the lunatic rambling this guy uses to defend his arguments, and all of his abuse of supposition in lieu of actual logic, I'm pretty sure no network would dream of giving him his own show.
Any microbiologists want to let us know how yeast can survive that long? I mean, it was in amber so I assume it wasn't actually active all that time. But you'd think that after 45 million years no cell machinery would even exist, let alone function.
I would posit that a traditional GPA structure reflects both work ethic and inherent ability. The corruption of our education system has removed the necessity of personal capacity from the struggle to achieve. I absolutely agree that talent is an important issue, and that is why classes should be harder. That is why more students should fail.
I think there's probably a sliding scale; and honestly at the high school level I don't really see that passing with little effort or talent is really that big a problem, simply because a high school degree no longer gives you any sort of benefit in life. The kind of jobs you're going to get with just a high school diploma are not going to be a "reward" in any sense of the word.
No one should pass just for being smart. Good grades need to reflect more than just intelligence. Similarly, I absolutely agree with your implication that no one should pass just for working hard, but that component must be measured as well.
Again, at the high school level I would disagree.
As a side note, it has always been my understanding that to become a medical or legal professional, a solid GPA (now generally considered to reflect work ethic) and decent LCAT/MCAT scores ("what you know") are both necessary.
I can't speak for medical professionals, but I got a solid GPA with little work in college, and that plus good LSAT scores got me into law school, where again I didn't really put too much effort into it but did well. Unfair maybe, and not necessarily a sign of brilliance, but I like to think I'm a good lawyer. Medical school is probably different, as I think there are very few "bad" medical schools, but in the law a mediocre GPA and lousy LSAT won't prevent you from getting into a bad (though accredited) law school and passing the bar. As a result the legal profession has a fair number of dim, albeit hardworking, members that I wouldn't allow near my case.
I don't care what you know, I only care how hard you'll work. If you're willing to work, it's easy to learn.
I disagree. For a lot of fields it really is what you know. I'd rather have a brilliant but lazy heart surgeon work on me than an incompetent but incredibly hard working one. I'd rather have a brilliant but slacker lawyer arguing my case than one who's hard working but can't get their head around the legal principles involved.
I'm too lazy to look up the last article on Slashdot about the US project, but if you crunch the numbers it's clear that fewer than 1% of submitted patents are even eligible for the program at all. A handful of patents will be rejected because of it, yes, but by and large the US patent office continues its work to let businesses patent everything possible.
If you believe the hype on slashdot, maybe. In real life the PTO actually denies a lot of patents. A friend of mine is a patent lawyer and her job would be a lot easier if the PTO actually did accept everything, but they most assuredly do not.
Can anyone say DRM? Consumers do not like DRM and thus are not buying Blu-Ray.
I doubt that's a factor for more than a negligible percentage of potential blu-ray buyers. DRM didn't sink the DVD, and it isn't the reason blu-ray is failing. It's all about the price; people are not going to spend $500 (or even $200) on a blu-ray player, then pay $30 each for blu-ray discs.
Why do you think that a court of law is a good place to administer discipline to a child?
Because that's the legitimate place for such discipline. We have laws, and judges to administer them, and school administrators shouldn't be able to dictate how kids act out of school.
Speaking of IANAL, since when did Slashdot publish essays on law from someone who explicitly states he's not a lawyer (although he's taken people to court under very different circumstances from the article)?
Well look at all those links to groklaw stories...
They don't even BEGIN to compare to civil rights protections in Canada and most of Europe
Ridiculous. Freedom of speech is actually stronger in the US than in Finland and most of Europe. Hate speech laws, which the majority (if not all) of European countries have, including Finland, are inimical to free speech. The true test of free speech is protecting unpopular speech, which Europe and Canada refuse to do.
Slashdot Mirror
The Modern Library 100 list is a prime example of what I said. One or two books out of 100? There are many science fiction/fantasy books that are superior to many entries on that list.
And USA Today is well...USA Today. It's aimed at the
The best example of what I'm saying might be Doris Lessing. Just won the Nobel Prize for literature, and considers herself a science fiction writer. She won the award for her earlier work though, and the literary critics have actually complained that she's writing science fiction. Fortunately she doesn't give a damn for them, but the fact still remains that genre fiction is looked down upon.
Games are not only going to be handicapped by their interactivity; they're also going to be handicapped by their setting. After 100 years science fiction still hasn't escaped its literary ghetto, and a large percentage of games incorporate science fiction aspects.
With a tiny magnet, flipping 1's and 0's.
You were spoiled, in my day we only had 0's.
My dad is a pharmacist. My 18-year-old brother considered becoming a pharmacist as well, but my dad discouraged him from it. Basically pharmacy has become largely about quality assurance (aka "sign off on this please", medicare management, and a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork.
Unfortunately it's getting significantly harder in this economy to have a job you're deeply satisfied with. At this point all I want is something that pays a living wage, isn't completely and utterly miserable, and where the hours are such that I have time to do the things on my own time that I really do enjoy.
How the heck is CS as a science supposed to gain anything from the flock of people who select their subject of study based on which gives the best money/effort ratio at the moment?
Is computer science such a noble and hallowed field that it should escape what other lucrative fields do?
Do you honestly believe that accounting is full of people who got into the field because they just love double entry bookkeeping? If someone gets into CS just for the money, but is capable of doing the job, why should they be hounded out of it?
Employment rates at graduation are often incredibly skewed. Frequently only those with jobs will report the fact; a lot of people who still haven't found one won't. I picked the law school I went to partially based on its "percentage employed 6 months after graduation" number, plus it's median salary number. It wasn't until I graduated that I realized how fake the number was.
If I had to do it all over again I'd probably major in pharmacy. Good money, good job security, good hours.
Your saying there is no law to take criminal action against them if they don't sign it. That's not the same thing as what I am saying. They didn't "refuse" to sign it and they did receive a pay check. All of that is besides the point.
Well no, it's not besides the point. The statute provides punishment; if they had lost their jobs for just not remembering to sign the oath, that's one thing. However, the statute does not say that all acts of an employee who fails to sign the oath are void.
That was probably the intent of the legislature. How would you like to suddenly get called up and told that your driver's license was revoked because the person who issued it didn't sign the oath? Or that the trial you won 5 years ago had to be redone because the judge hadn't signed the oath. What about if that judge had appointed the trustee of a charitable trust? Is that trustee's appointment suddenly invalid? Do you then invalidate everything that trustee did?
Laws have remedies. It's not up to you or Jack Thompson to make up remedies that don't exist. You can read the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on the issue of loyalty oaths here.
No, in order to be a judge the law states they must sign it.
Nope, there is nothing in the law that says the actions taken by a judge who has not signed the loyalty are void. The law says basically a) refusal to sign the loyalty oath will result in discharge, and b) until they sign the oath they cannot receive a paycheck. Additionally, while the Florida Supreme Court has held that judges are to sign the loyalty oath, removal of judges is granted solely to the Supreme Court of Florida, after investigation by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Jack Thompson was arguing not that there was a crime or a forgery, but that they never were judges at all to begin with.
Jack Thompson's legal skills are, in my opinion, subpar. I've read his argument as to the oath issue and it doesn't hold water. You can read the relevant statutes if you don't believe me. The judge's authority arises from their being elected or appointed, and from the oath of office they take.
but he might have had something with this and now the state wants him gone and the matter forgotten about.
The state thoroughly investigated the issue. They publicly released the results of the investigation. There is nothing here.
Agreed, that's how I read the headline at first; I thought it was strange they thought it was good news, I know the rabid slashdot libertarian contingent hate positive rights.
The reason for the lack of criminal charges is down to the statute of limitations - it's apparently nothing to do with the fact that Florida judges can rule in cases of law, despite forged signatures (which they had nothing to do with and no knowledge of at all).
IAAFL and his argument was completely ridiculous. There is no legal basis to support the contention that failure to sign the loyalty oath means a judge's orders are invalid or void. The relevant law has a remedy for failure to sign the oath; the person's supervisor is penalized for allowing the person to work without having signed it. As a side note the loyalty oath is almost indistinguishable from a part of the Florida Bar oath already taken by all lawyers (including the judges here) in the state.
You know, IAAL in the same county as Thompson and the thing that has surprised me by reading the stuff he's written is how poor his actual legal skills are. I'm not talking about his conspiracy theories or ideology or harassment, I mean the actual legal reasoning he uses is really pitiful. He cites cases but apparently doesn't understand them, he uses legal terminology incorrectly, he constructs completely faulty arguments that aren't even valid on their face. I really don't understand how he's practiced this long.
AFAICT, he can still sue, as there doesn't seem to be any sort of vexatious litigant declaration in this. He can still sue and represent himself or get another lawyer to represent him (provided there is any lawyer who would take him as a client), same as any other person. He just can't act as or call himself a lawyer anymore.
I believe there's a prior order preventing him from filing cases pro se.
With the lunatic rambling this guy uses to defend his arguments, and all of his abuse of supposition in lieu of actual logic, I'm pretty sure no network would dream of giving him his own show.
Worked for Nancy Grace.
Nothing in that article explains how a spore can last 45 million years then become active.
Any microbiologists want to let us know how yeast can survive that long? I mean, it was in amber so I assume it wasn't actually active all that time. But you'd think that after 45 million years no cell machinery would even exist, let alone function.
I would posit that a traditional GPA structure reflects both work ethic and inherent ability. The corruption of our education system has removed the necessity of personal capacity from the struggle to achieve. I absolutely agree that talent is an important issue, and that is why classes should be harder. That is why more students should fail.
I think there's probably a sliding scale; and honestly at the high school level I don't really see that passing with little effort or talent is really that big a problem, simply because a high school degree no longer gives you any sort of benefit in life. The kind of jobs you're going to get with just a high school diploma are not going to be a "reward" in any sense of the word.
No one should pass just for being smart. Good grades need to reflect more than just intelligence. Similarly, I absolutely agree with your implication that no one should pass just for working hard, but that component must be measured as well.
Again, at the high school level I would disagree.
As a side note, it has always been my understanding that to become a medical or legal professional, a solid GPA (now generally considered to reflect work ethic) and decent LCAT/MCAT scores ("what you know") are both necessary.
I can't speak for medical professionals, but I got a solid GPA with little work in college, and that plus good LSAT scores got me into law school, where again I didn't really put too much effort into it but did well. Unfair maybe, and not necessarily a sign of brilliance, but I like to think I'm a good lawyer. Medical school is probably different, as I think there are very few "bad" medical schools, but in the law a mediocre GPA and lousy LSAT won't prevent you from getting into a bad (though accredited) law school and passing the bar. As a result the legal profession has a fair number of dim, albeit hardworking, members that I wouldn't allow near my case.
I don't care what you know, I only care how hard you'll work. If you're willing to work, it's easy to learn.
I disagree. For a lot of fields it really is what you know. I'd rather have a brilliant but lazy heart surgeon work on me than an incompetent but incredibly hard working one. I'd rather have a brilliant but slacker lawyer arguing my case than one who's hard working but can't get their head around the legal principles involved.
Linux hasn't even captured 10% of the market.
But Linux has only been around for 16 years; I promise you, next year will finally be the year of Linux on the desktop!
I'm too lazy to look up the last article on Slashdot about the US project, but if you crunch the numbers it's clear that fewer than 1% of submitted patents are even eligible for the program at all. A handful of patents will be rejected because of it, yes, but by and large the US patent office continues its work to let businesses patent everything possible.
If you believe the hype on slashdot, maybe. In real life the PTO actually denies a lot of patents. A friend of mine is a patent lawyer and her job would be a lot easier if the PTO actually did accept everything, but they most assuredly do not.
Give them a touch of the cat every once in a while and they'll fall in line.
Can anyone say DRM? Consumers do not like DRM and thus are not buying Blu-Ray.
I doubt that's a factor for more than a negligible percentage of potential blu-ray buyers. DRM didn't sink the DVD, and it isn't the reason blu-ray is failing. It's all about the price; people are not going to spend $500 (or even $200) on a blu-ray player, then pay $30 each for blu-ray discs.
This is not.
Why not?
Why do you think that a court of law is a good place to administer discipline to a child?
Because that's the legitimate place for such discipline. We have laws, and judges to administer them, and school administrators shouldn't be able to dictate how kids act out of school.
Speaking of IANAL, since when did Slashdot publish essays on law from someone who explicitly states he's not a lawyer (although he's taken people to court under very different circumstances from the article)?
Well look at all those links to groklaw stories...
U.S. free speech protections are a joke.
You obviously know nothing about the subject.
They don't even BEGIN to compare to civil rights protections in Canada and most of Europe
Ridiculous. Freedom of speech is actually stronger in the US than in Finland and most of Europe. Hate speech laws, which the majority (if not all) of European countries have, including Finland, are inimical to free speech. The true test of free speech is protecting unpopular speech, which Europe and Canada refuse to do.