If the law required that for a school to accept vouchers, they couldn't turn away any students (even those that are "special needs" students) and they were held to the same standardized test schedule and requirements, then it would be a little more equitable.
No way, the standardized testing paradigm is half of the problem with public schools. And why not let them turn away "special needs" (retarded) students? Is this a free country or not?
Lots of people can see that our inept, bureaucratic education system is one of the things running our country into the ground, but nobody wants to make the necessary changes. Wah, it's not fair to the poor kids and the retards. So pretty soon we're all poor and retarded... but at least we're EQUITABLE. Because that's what matters.
I mean, Jefferson also believed in slavery, and was a slave owner. This is not to rag on him, but it does point out that their oppinions are hardly infallable, and I *can* tell you that the courts aren't going to buy that explanation.
The Founding Fathers were imperfect but held generally excellent ideals.
If anything, you'll wind up like McVeigh & co.--that was their reasoning (if indeed it can be called such) in what they did, after all.
History is written by the victorious.
When no less a conservative and no less a gun enthusiast than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William Rhenquest, comes out and says your rationale is rediculous, you *might* want to rethink it.
I respect the opinions of leaders only when they also happen to be wise.
The right to bear arms, after all, is subservient to our right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You may notice "LIFE" being at the top of that list.
Gun ownership does not imply low esteem for human life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness -- just the opposite, in fact.
But what am I talking about? Nobody seems to care who they kill anymore, so long as they can rationalize those people as being somehow unworthy of life. The felons (including those retarded or juvenile), terminally ill, terrorists, small (rather than larger and supposedly more intelligent) blobs of cells whatever their species, Iraqis, insurgents, the poor, people in poor African countries, anyone you disagree with strongly enough... the list goes on, and on, and on...:-/
I hold myself and everyone I know as counter-examples.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I don't see much in there about keeping a government intact. On the contrary, it seems that the US Constitution exists for the benefit of the people. Justice, tranquility, defence, public welfare, and liberty are all imperiled by an imperfect union. So it seems right that the people should rise up in such cases. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people has nothing to fear from its citizens, so why take their weapons?
Oh yes, it required an expert to conclude that "one day" RAID-5 will become a non-feature included for free.
And you kindly offered a solution to those who want RAID-5 included - which is... to wait 2 years until that happens. Very insightful.
No need to put all these words in my mouth. I said nothing about "free", and I'm not offering solutions to anybody. I'm just saying that the inclusion of RAID-0 and RAID-1 on a budget motherboard is strong evidence that it won't be long before RAID-5 is included as well.
And don't give me shit about servers. The nForce chipset isn't targetted at servers in any way, shape, or form. They're targetted at businesses that would like cheap, decent 3D capability in their desktop fleets, as well as budget gamers. What about a power home user who would like to maintain a large, permanent collection of music, downloaded movies, ripped DVDs, whatever? Hardware RAID-5 is perfect and would be a nice selling point for such a user.
OF COURSE it will. Without a doubt. No question whatsoever. You sound pretty new to the industry for an expert on "server class hardware". It wasn't that long ago that the idea of hardware RAID-0 and 1 on a gaming-oriented board would have been considered ridiculous. It's just a matter of time now before RAID-5 gets thrown in there, too.
I have a feeling that you could probably also find just as many economists willing to sign something in favor of Kerry's policies, and that several of them would be high profile influential people in the field.
And yet that hasn't happened, despite the huge stakes. I wonder why.
Now hold up. You're saying that all the carbon dioxide that has ever been released into the atmosphere by volcanoes (or whatever) is either still there or was converted to oil? Surely there must be some other process that regulates it.
A lot of these ideas have almost zero chance of happening in 10 years, with 50 or 100 years being a better guess. Not for technological reasons, mostly, but just because people don't need this crap.
-Better alarm clock with brainwave monitoring: alarm clocks work fine. -Robokitchen makes breakfast: why? You can get "instant" microwavable crap now. -End of memorization: utter bullshit, it will always be vital to the educational process, or at least into the indefinite future. -Car drives itself: technology is still far off, at which point there's still a huge infrustructural investment to be made. -FMV email: we could do it now, but people don't want it. Ditto for voice synthesizers. -Cellphone/PDA/camera/wristwatch: of course we'll have them, but we won't be so attached that we wear them to bed. -Virtual wall: what is this, another term for video teleconferencing? Will remain a sci-fi movie staple with little real world use. -Text-overlaying, face-recognizing contact lenses: come on, in 10 years? No way. It'll happen in a few decades or centuries, though.
And so on and so on. Simply the number of times he mentions "virtual reality" tells you what kind of 80's movie world he's living in.
WTF is Google going to do with so much capital, anyway? What market will this money open up to them? It seemed like they were doing everything they wanted to do.
You made some great points and then came to the wrong conclusion. An international legal framework won't change anything; it will only set down on paper what has already been determined through military conflict. War will determine who gets what in space, not laws. Law will come later.
You can stake a claim to anything, anywhere, even on earth. The reason no one recognizes my claim to ownership of all southern California, for example, is that I don't have the miitary might to defend it. The same age-old rules will apply in space.
The RIAA and MPAA claim that file sharing hurts sales, but some recent figures show that file sharing works FOR the industry.
Yeah, go on, keep repeating that and people will start to actually believe it.
Maybe, somehow, file sharing DOES currently help the music and movie industries. (I doubt it.) It would not stay they way if file sharing became morally and legally acceptable. People would stop buying faster than you can say "Napster." I mean, think about it. You're counting on the altruism of human beings. Human beings are STINGY.
Slashdot Mirror
If the law required that for a school to accept vouchers, they couldn't turn away any students (even those that are "special needs" students) and they were held to the same standardized test schedule and requirements, then it would be a little more equitable.
No way, the standardized testing paradigm is half of the problem with public schools. And why not let them turn away "special needs" (retarded) students? Is this a free country or not?
Lots of people can see that our inept, bureaucratic education system is one of the things running our country into the ground, but nobody wants to make the necessary changes. Wah, it's not fair to the poor kids and the retards. So pretty soon we're all poor and retarded... but at least we're EQUITABLE. Because that's what matters.
I mean, Jefferson also believed in slavery, and was a slave owner. This is not to rag on him, but it does point out that their oppinions are hardly infallable, and I *can* tell you that the courts aren't going to buy that explanation.
:-/
The Founding Fathers were imperfect but held generally excellent ideals.
If anything, you'll wind up like McVeigh & co.--that was their reasoning (if indeed it can be called such) in what they did, after all.
History is written by the victorious.
When no less a conservative and no less a gun enthusiast than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, William Rhenquest, comes out and says your rationale is rediculous, you *might* want to rethink it.
I respect the opinions of leaders only when they also happen to be wise.
The right to bear arms, after all, is subservient to our right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. You may notice "LIFE" being at the top of that list.
Gun ownership does not imply low esteem for human life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness -- just the opposite, in fact.
But what am I talking about? Nobody seems to care who they kill anymore, so long as they can rationalize those people as being somehow unworthy of life. The felons (including those retarded or juvenile), terminally ill, terrorists, small (rather than larger and supposedly more intelligent) blobs of cells whatever their species, Iraqis, insurgents, the poor, people in poor African countries, anyone you disagree with strongly enough... the list goes on, and on, and on...
I hold myself and everyone I know as counter-examples.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I don't see much in there about keeping a government intact. On the contrary, it seems that the US Constitution exists for the benefit of the people. Justice, tranquility, defence, public welfare, and liberty are all imperiled by an imperfect union. So it seems right that the people should rise up in such cases. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people has nothing to fear from its citizens, so why take their weapons?
Oh yes, it required an expert to conclude that "one day" RAID-5 will become a non-feature included for free.
And you kindly offered a solution to those who want RAID-5 included - which is... to wait 2 years until that happens. Very insightful.
No need to put all these words in my mouth. I said nothing about "free", and I'm not offering solutions to anybody. I'm just saying that the inclusion of RAID-0 and RAID-1 on a budget motherboard is strong evidence that it won't be long before RAID-5 is included as well.
And don't give me shit about servers. The nForce chipset isn't targetted at servers in any way, shape, or form. They're targetted at businesses that would like cheap, decent 3D capability in their desktop fleets, as well as budget gamers. What about a power home user who would like to maintain a large, permanent collection of music, downloaded movies, ripped DVDs, whatever? Hardware RAID-5 is perfect and would be a nice selling point for such a user.
It will never happe, so stop looking for it.
OF COURSE it will. Without a doubt. No question whatsoever. You sound pretty new to the industry for an expert on "server class hardware". It wasn't that long ago that the idea of hardware RAID-0 and 1 on a gaming-oriented board would have been considered ridiculous. It's just a matter of time now before RAID-5 gets thrown in there, too.
This should bring them around.
I'd like to commission a new acronym: YPTWTROOYA. You pulled that whole thing right out of your ass.
I have a feeling that you could probably also find just as many economists willing to sign something in favor of Kerry's policies, and that several of them would be high profile influential people in the field.
And yet that hasn't happened, despite the huge stakes. I wonder why.
Now hold up. You're saying that all the carbon dioxide that has ever been released into the atmosphere by volcanoes (or whatever) is either still there or was converted to oil? Surely there must be some other process that regulates it.
What we need is real solutions, not some half-assed band-aid effort. This is not a solution, but a cop-out.
Abso-god-damn-lutely!
So, got any ideas?
Oh, the humanity! I'll bet their server is on fire! Roffles!
Wait, no. I'm getting 50 KB/sec here.
Thanks, try again.
Overuse of acronyms degrade language, you know.
Overuse of acronyms degrades language, but it is a lost cause anyway.
Imperial Eye For a Jedi
Master and puppet?
Who cares? It's a frickin' TERABYTE. Put it in its own disk caddy and never touch it at all.
A lot of these ideas have almost zero chance of happening in 10 years, with 50 or 100 years being a better guess. Not for technological reasons, mostly, but just because people don't need this crap.
-Better alarm clock with brainwave monitoring: alarm clocks work fine.
-Robokitchen makes breakfast: why? You can get "instant" microwavable crap now.
-End of memorization: utter bullshit, it will always be vital to the educational process, or at least into the indefinite future.
-Car drives itself: technology is still far off, at which point there's still a huge infrustructural investment to be made.
-FMV email: we could do it now, but people don't want it. Ditto for voice synthesizers.
-Cellphone/PDA/camera/wristwatch: of course we'll have them, but we won't be so attached that we wear them to bed.
-Virtual wall: what is this, another term for video teleconferencing? Will remain a sci-fi movie staple with little real world use.
-Text-overlaying, face-recognizing contact lenses: come on, in 10 years? No way. It'll happen in a few decades or centuries, though.
And so on and so on. Simply the number of times he mentions "virtual reality" tells you what kind of 80's movie world he's living in.
WTF is Google going to do with so much capital, anyway? What market will this money open up to them? It seemed like they were doing everything they wanted to do.
Yes, that's it. We're all idiots. Why oh why did we never think of using the power of the sun?
Damn, that chick is all that the greatest and wealthiest of geeks can come up with? Spells bad news for the rest of you guys...
Yeah, THAT is probably the only muscle you've got.
Interesting how many times someone has literally reinvented the wheel.
Where's Natalie Portman when you need her?
You made some great points and then came to the wrong conclusion. An international legal framework won't change anything; it will only set down on paper what has already been determined through military conflict. War will determine who gets what in space, not laws. Law will come later.
You can stake a claim to anything, anywhere, even on earth. The reason no one recognizes my claim to ownership of all southern California, for example, is that I don't have the miitary might to defend it. The same age-old rules will apply in space.
The RIAA and MPAA claim that file sharing hurts sales, but some recent figures show that file sharing works FOR the industry.
Yeah, go on, keep repeating that and people will start to actually believe it.
Maybe, somehow, file sharing DOES currently help the music and movie industries. (I doubt it.) It would not stay they way if file sharing became morally and legally acceptable. People would stop buying faster than you can say "Napster." I mean, think about it. You're counting on the altruism of human beings. Human beings are STINGY.
Uh, I don't follow. Are we supposed to ban hammers?