I do appreciate you coming back with full comments.
I'm not going to convince you that things aren't "bat shit crazy" because, well, some people are "bat shit crazy". Does the US have more of them? Maybe. Does the US have more readily available firearms? Without a doubt.
I still don't know what country your from, but keep in mind that many states of the united states are as nearly as big as entire countries in Europe. If the US is 20 times bigger than your country then it has 20x greater chance of having a horrific event (all other things being equal). So the fact that US has "as many" gun deaths as the other 23 richest countries might not be all that telling. The US may be just as big as those other 23 all put together (probably not quite that big, but maybe)... I don't know either and since you didn't look it up I won't either!;)
Another thing worth mentioning (but only barely) is that around 2/3 of the gun deaths in the United States are suicide.... depending on the year. I don't know how much less suicide there would be if you removed guns (I doubt it would decrease much if any), but in a country with such a huge population and suicide rate that is not exactly "low" it's going to make gun deaths appear huge(ER) then they already are.
I know I won't convince you - I'm honestly not even trying to convince you or speak for the gun loving crowd. I'm speaking for me. I believe that the mere "chance" that I own a firearms keeps my family safer at night and in general. I believe that most criminals don't want to get "dead or defeated" and so they attack the weaker (or perceived weaker) among us. Firearms are a great equalizer and concealed firearms makes it so that the big bad wolf doesn't know if any given sheep is actually a sheep (a meal) or a shepherd in sheep's clothing (a prepared and ready to defend himself sheep).
I also believe the fact that a LARGE population of the US citizens are armed keeps the government at least somewhat honest. I have no doubts that the us government could crush an opposing group of ordinary citizens who have only their own weak little firearms (in comparison). But going against 150 million armed and devoted is a tough row to hoe. Knowing that it will get bloody rather than be simple makes it that much tougher to go against your own people and your armed forces may think twice before doing so even if you wanted them to do so. It's a fact that America grew out of a oppressive government and was therefore specifically designed against, warned against, and advised how to prevent it from happening again by our founding fathers. The 2nd amendment is an important part of making sure it never happens again... not here.
I can't expect you to understand what I'm saying, but what I've said is at least part of the deal as far as the attitude of Americans towards guns. I haven't even gotten into hunting and preparedness mentalities, but there's a lot involved. And for the record, I have kids myself and I can only imagine how the parents of those 20 kids feel right now. If I lost my children to such an event I might scream for more gun control, but that's emotion and that's not really going to fix anything. In reality it would only weaken the actual positive affects that an armed citizenry entails. Could I separate the two if it happened to me directly? I don't know. I'd like to think that I would know in my head that more gun control wasn't the fix even if the anger, fear, and sadness (all justifiable and fully warranted) in my heart said that "something" had to be done. But I do know, that here today and now, I'd rather have one and not need it that need one and not have one.
Whether you need them (or will eventually need them) and whether you're happy without them are two different things.
Since you said "here" I'm guessing you probably aren't from around "here" or you wouldn't have said "here". That being the case I'm not sure that your opinion really carries that much weight around "here" when it comes to events that happen "here" and how we "here" choose to handle ourselves. Say something useful (or at least thoughtful) or quit wasting my bandwidth.
I'll show some of my age here, but when I was kid I saw "The Karate Kid". There was the scene when Mr Miagi (sp?) was asking "Daniel-son" if he really thought that fighting was that important. Why did he want to learn to fight? Daniel responded with a mature answer. He wanted to learn to fight "so I don't have to fight". He wanted to know that he was capable and to let others know so that their aggression wouldn't be an issue anymore. The other kids were learning to fight so they could be badasses, but that obviously wasn't the only reason to learn though. Karate doesn't have intentions - people do.
As far as firearms are concerned there are people who will use them to threaten or kill for bad reasons. Then there are people who will use them to protect themselves, their loved ones, their fellow man, and their country... by killing.
Guns are tools, and regardless of whether one is designed to do "one thing" or not (and I'm not ready to concede that you've chosen the right word in 'kill') it is still put into the hands of men. They are the ones with intentions and those intentions may be good or bad depending on the man and depending on the situation.
It's my understanding that Slashdot is "News for nerds, Stuff that Matters". Not just "tech" news. If this doesn't matter to you (for any one of a number of possible reasons) then I'm you should consider yourself lucky.
I appreciate and care immensely about your deep concern for my children and their well being. You get the sarcasm there? Let me lay it on a little thicker for you. I'm sure your parenting style is / was far superior. I care SOOO much about how you raised your children and how they turned out. Get it?
I expect people to at least make an effort to think analytically... and regardless of your opinion of my parenting methodology (based on a snapshot in time no less) there is no doubt that my children know how to think. It's amazing, they actually understand the difference between a want and a need! Can you believe it? They know that (back to my previous example) a yummy pizza today is not worth the heartache that comes with not having a roof over your head the next day. They also understand hyperbole. Maybe not the word "hyperbole", but when it is used they recognize it for what it is. It's freaking amazing! They know what a budget is and they know that debt is bad. These aren't difficult concepts, but we've got a government and a significant portion of the population that just doesn't seem to get it. My kids, like all kids, even understand sarcasm. They are aware that sarcasm can be used to make a point quite effectively at times. They are also keenly aware that there is a time and place.
But you're right in one regard. I sometimes want to feel sorry for them too. They are growing up in a country being corrupted by leaders and political parties who prefer to make promises of free stuff rather than touting the opportunity that people have at a fair shake. They're growing up in a time when it is believed by a large portion of that population that paying people to NOT work somehow creates jobs. They're growing up in a time when the leader of their country believes that their should be no limits to his financial power, doesn't need a budget, and that debt is of no consequence.
Guess what else though. I am also very happy for them. I'm happy that they have parents who care enough to actually talk to them and not park them in front of a TV for the entirety of their evening. I'm happy that they are citizens of the United States and have an opportunity to live the dream if they'll only make it happen. They are blessed and for that I am grateful.
Please, if the Democrats had a bill to allow volunteers to help kids dying of cancer it wouldn't get bipartisan support from the Republicans... probably for some outrageous reason like "This endangers our right to pray in hospitals".
Would it endanger the ability to pray in hospitals? If so, wtf, why would the dems make such a requirement a part of such an important bill?
The senate GOP filibustered THEIR OWN BILL last week because the democrats agreed to vote on it.
The republicans were making a point when they proposed the bill. They thought the bill was so outrageous that everyone would get the point that it was just stupid to even start down the path (giving the president unilateral control of the amount of debt that the US can incur). They assumed that there was no way the dems would actually vote for such a bill as it was obviously bad for the country. Then, to their surprise, they found that the dems were in fact sufficiently stupid to go ahead and pass the bill and the republican had to filibuster "his own bill" just to keep a bit of what should have been satire from actually becoming law.
Occasionally as a parent I suggest something stupid to my kids when they are in "need" (really a want) something that we simply can't afford. I might make a suggestion like "why don't we sell our house for $20 so we can afford to order pizza tonight?" and I'm met with "Yay, pizza!" Then guess what happens, do you think I actually sell the house? Do you think even if some asshole at the gas station heard me say that and came running with a $20 bill that I'm going to sign over the house! No, I'm going to go back ON MY OWN SUGGESTION because it was not a real suggestion (shouldn't even have been interpreted as a real suggestion by a rational being) and was only said to make a point in the first place!
That someone could possibly not get this is beyond my comprehension.
There is a difference. This is a case where Ubuntu is unilaterally making the decision to share your private searches about things that already reside on your computer with amazon. It is a huge difference between all the examples you mentioned and the RMS issue. It's rare that I'm in complete agreement with RMS, but I'm pretty confident he got this one right, and I hope Ubuntu gets the message.
This is exactly right. Startups should generally move on with planned product and try to get a market going. Honestly, startups probably should not even read patents because having a read a patent and then infringing anyway comes with a worse penalty than unknowingly infringing on a patent.
The startups can deal with the legal mess (patent licensing, etc) later if they manage to actually create / enter a market in any significant way. Honestly, the odds of a startup even getting on the radar of an established company with a patent portfolio and getting squashed for doing so are practically nil. That doesn't happen until they become a threat or a possible acquistion (ready made market). Being a threat is a good thing even if their lawyers come calling, because by that point you can probably afford a lawyer yourself or afford to give up a piece of the pie via licensing in order to stay in business. Being an acquistion target can also be a good thing.
Can you get a little more sarcastic and still manage to say a little less? I'm not convinced that either is possible.
Any sane government would distribute AK47s and RPGs to every man, woman, and child in its jurisdiction.
No, that would be stupid and pretty much everyone agrees that it would be stupid.
And then they could fire all the police.... and have a crime rate of absolute 0...
The police are important for a number of reasons that wouldn't require guns. But the fact that they are useful for those circumstances doesn't automatically mean that they are the be all and end all to every problem (kinda like guns!).
And then they could fire all the... military... and be impossible to invade.
How'd it work out the last time someone tried to invade the US or even Texas? It wasn't just a standing army that made those wins possible. The fact is that due to its very nature the army is often like the police... they're minutes away when seconds count. They're still important and the people who do those jobs with the right heart should be commended for what they do. Having a well trained army will certainly increase one's capabilities, and it can be a deciding factor, but to put all your eggs in one basket is shamefully lacking in foresight (and hindsight for that matter).
I suspect that if a suburban white soccer mom had the same chance of getting shot to death as an inner city black teenager that America would have already banned most firearms.
I assume that your scenario involves the suburban crime rate rising to match the inner city rate rather than the other way around. So, Why are these white soccer moms all of a sudden being killed? Is it because crazies are walking into movie theaters? Or is it because the criminal elements are bleeding into new areas?
There simply aren't that many crazies so I think that problem will take care of itself in short order. In either case I believe that if that time you describe came about the citizens in that area will become even more likely to carry - including the soccer moms. I also believe those societies that make it easier to own and carry will find a sudden drop in criminal activity involving violence against "innocent" citizens. The fact is that criminals aren't stupid AND they are rational beings. They don't walk into the police station of their own free will causing a stir... and they don't walk into other areas acting out where they know their behavior won't be tolerated.
The day that group of people is just as likely to be killed is the day that the inner city criminals will find that there is price to be paid for your behavior even if the "criminal justice" system doesn't do its part to handle it. Of course, some police apparently do get it. I just now read another comment as I was typing this one (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3295209&cid=42191645) about some police who apparently do get it. Their war is a war on violence.
The fact is that there are enough rednecks (and I say that fondly) living both in the rural areas and in suburbia who try to just live their own lives and let others do the same. They aren't afraid... they just don't see a reason to get involved in someone elses fight. This group, I am confident, will have no problem saying "enough" when the time comes. They will quickly root out any violent criminals in their midst and they'll do it in such a way that will likely make any other potential criminals think twice before acting out in such an area. Criminals can watch out for the police, but when they have to assume that anyone can end them they will choose to find a weaker area in which to play their games.
You're statement, Plump, is right in that "patenting an improvement to an existing patent is perfectly legal and non-infringing". I'm replying to this for other's benefit, not necessarily yours.
Patenting something is NOT an infringment, but if you try to actually build the invention using "your" patented idea then you'd be infringing on the original patent even though you were using your patented way of doing things. If person A patents a "lever" to move the world and person B patents a "fulcrum and lever" (B improved the design of A by adding a fulcrum) then B still can't make use of A patent without infringing on A.
I recently worked with an attorney on a patent and I was SHOCKED how thorough they were in terms of expanding it to cover every possible use during the disclosure. The idea was that you don't want to patent something awesome and then have someone else come along and patent an improvement that then boxes you out of improving your own invention. It could happen if care is not taken for exactly the reason you mentioned... patenting an improvement is not an infringement.
I understand exactly what you're arguing... I just think you're not seeing the reality here. You keep saying that you believe she is being denied privacy (due to being) in a public place, but you believe that she's only there because she has been mandated to be in that place. I get it. And if it were true, I'd agree (to a degree), but it's simply not true in her case. She doesn't have to be there. She's not legally obligated. She's not even having to consider making a choice to escape to some other school outside of her zone... she's actually making the choice to go to THIS SCHOOL that is outside of her actual zone because they have something she WANTS. You get that right? She SHOULD be going to a different school based on where she lives but she CHOOSES to attend this one because she feels it is better for her aside from the whole tracking thing.
If this were truly her only option then we would get to have the discussion you are trying to have, but it's not, so your "point" appears, as the courts would say, to be not yet "ripe".
But for the sake of actually getting somewhere let's assume all the other schools are problematic for some reason and she can't homeschool for some reason. Then I think at that point the courts would have to decide to either (a) rule that she has no privacy rights on public property even when compelled to be there [reasonable maybe - ever been to court by summons?] or (b) that she can be let out of her legal obligation to attend school because of the burden it would place on her or (c) that the whole tracking concept is a bunch of BS and no one should have to deal with it. I'm thinking (a) actually covers your question well enough, but I'd sure like to see either of the other two choices as it would really open up legal options for everyone.
I took a look at your profile and I saw you had another exchange where you asserted that perhaps the parents might not enable a child to have other options and that somehow that should be taken into account........ it sounds like maybe what you have a problem with is that someone's PARENTS could be the one stopping them from having choices. That's how the parent-child relationship works! Parents are supposed to help you do the right thing (as her parents are) and snap you back into line when you're doing the "wrong" thing. Right and wrong and indifferent will be different for different families, but they pretty much all work this way. But, for the sake of argument I'll go ahead and put forth that if a parent is really making life that difficult a child can emancipate themselves. It's a little extreme, but, I'm just trying to point out that there are OPTIONS.
Her OPTIONS are not even close to being exhausted at this point. Any child in this situation has other schooling OPTIONS that don't use the card. Any child has the OPTION to be home schooled. If their family situation doesn't allow it in its current state of wellness then that OPTION is crossed off the list and they move on to the next possible OPTION. Any child can CHOOSE private school. If the familty situation (finances, proximity, etc) doesn't allow for private school in its current state then that OPTION is crossed off. The child can throw up her middle finger (or have her legal team do it) as an OPTION until that OPTION is exhausted. If all the schools there suck then the family has the OPTION to move to a new location to help the children get a better education (however they CHOOSE to define "better"). They may not like the OPTION and she may think it sucks to leave her friends but these are simply variables that must be tweaked until her and her family find the optimum solution that meets all of the constraints presented by their particular situation (beliefs, finances, other family issues).
It sounds like you think she has either option A or option B and it sucks that she has to choose B when A is clearly optimal for her. Life isn't always what it seems and sometimes people fail to see that even though A and B are both choices there are actually a lot more choices than just the two. VERY rarely, and mostly in the simplest cases, are we limited to only 2 choices. We've almost always got ways to expand our choices way beyond those that are staring us right in the face. In her case she's got quite a few options and all of those can be tweaked to present even more options. In the US, right now, we've got almost unlimited options on how to solve any given problem and her situation is no different. It comes down to how important is it to her and her family. [Good news, I just read she got a temporary injunction and will get to keep going to school there for a while longer until the courts decide on the badges]
So you can be fined, arrested, forced to move, and even locked in a secure facility if you don't do something, but you aren't legally compelled to do it?
You're taking what I said outside of the context in which it was said... on accident I'm sure. What I said was that she wasn't legally compelled to go to that particular school. I never said she wasn't legally compelled to get an education - she is. But there are more OPTIONS than just that one school.
I'm going to say this upfront again. I don't agree with what is happening and I hope she wins and takes the whole "house of cards" down. This comment is in response to what you said only. Now on to it.
Sure, IF her parents allow it [home school]. But unless conditions outside of her control allow for other options, she really is "legally compelled to be at this particular school".
No, she isn't legally compelled for two reasons. First, going by your asserted / alluded version of the story (parents are forcing her to this school) she is at most parentally compelled. Law enforcement will be all too glad to illustrate the difference to the parents if they keep taking her once she has been fully expelled. If the school and judge says she can't be there then she can't be there no matter what her, her parents, or her granny think.
Second, as you would know if you read the article, the school is a magnet school. It's not a RIGHT to attend that school. You don't EARN your RIGHT to go to that school. You EARN an OPPORTUNITY to attend that school. The system has now added on a requirement, and that is the wearing of these stupid cards. They seem to think that they can do that. I think it's crapola and I hope in the end a judge somewhere declares the whole thing in her favor. But for now, she wants to go to the special school so she has to jump through the special hoops.
Really? Every student at an American public school can simply choose to go elsewhere, without even parental consent?
Come on, guy, get real. Her parents seem very supportive, but you phrase the question like they are locking her in to this situation so let's go with that. In that case she definitely still has a choice. Kids (we're talking highschool here) choose every day not to attend the school that their parents consent to. Kids choose to go to the school of hard knocks rather than to go to their city high school. The fact is that the choice of schooling, with or without mommy and daddy's approval is made every day by every kid when they choose whether to walk in that front door at the school house. Now, if you choose not to go to your local school then big brother will insist that you be home schooled or go to a private school. If you choose not to go for that then you may find yourself in a forced school situation when DCS decides that your parents aren't looking after your educational needs (even if they are trying). It just gets worse from there. But in the end, yes, it's a choice.
Other than that one case (kid refusing to go to school), it generally comes down to what the parent and kid can agree on. But, since you are capable of stringing a group of words into a sentence AND picking the nits to that degree that you have then I'm certain that you are choosing to ignore the original point rather than not being able to understand it. The kid (and her family) have choices... they are not legally compelled as a family to have her in that particular school.
That's awesome... you got the second part of your comment right on the money, but somehow in the first part of your comment you managed to ignore the exact point you made in the second part of your comment.
Just as she is not legally compelled to work for some big corp, or even to work at all, she's not legally compelled to be at this particular school. She's legally compelled to be educated. She can home school or choose to go to a private school. Don't misunderstand, I think what they are asking of her is garbage, but they are only asking it. She has a choice and that choice is to be educated elsewhere. If enough people opted to make a different choice then you'd see a QUICK turnaround by the school systems when their federal dollars (tied to having butts in the seats) took a hit.
The weird thing with most people on slashdot is that, presumably because they're American, they seem to think working is a fun, good thing in itself. Well, for mot of us, it's not. It's shit you have to do to avoid ending up sleeping drowned in cheap wine in a cardboard box with no family or friends willing to talk to you.
Worth is both... almost always. If you intentionally don't work and you don't take care of your family (self included) then you're a net drag on the world. In the absense of other options you do what you have to do, and in this case then it's "shit you have to do". But sometimes there are other options (or you can make your own). In those cases then work can be "fun", but it's still work and it's probably still "hard"... no one said life is easy and you should get everything you want for free. And yes, I'm American, but I'd like to think it's a personality type that believes in "freedom" relating to your work... not purely a citizenship thing.
He might be a little wiser about it now, but I guarantee you if brands leave FB en masse those "other services" will be paying attention and they will handle things differently. Not necessarily better, but differently.
I think the takeaway here is that companies need to have a plan for revenue beforehand rather than after the fact. After the fact planning is pretty much going to force you to make some tough decisions that are going to really have an impact on how you're seen by your eventual customers. Either that, or they should work like hell on their method of delivering the bad news! I mean, seriously, Cuban seems to have found out about this when he wanted to send a message to his 'likers' and facebook tried to bill him on the spot with the "threat" that not everyone would receive his message if he didn't pay up. Come on! This change should have been implemented slowly... tell them they get 4 more free broadcasts this month and then it's going to cost some super small amount PER USER rather than a big freaking number with lots of zeros after it. The way they did it caused a NEGATIVE, EMOTIONAL reaction - not something you want from the customers you hope will be high dollar customers.
3000 dollars per 1,000,000 users = $3000 / 1000000 users = $0.003 dollars per user
It's super cheap, way cheaper than your "corrected" number. But that's not the point. The point is that brands expected to get the facebook service without additional costs beyond procuring of 'likes'. Cuban specifically stated that his companies spent significant money getting people to go to facebook and like the Mavs page. They ran promotions, they gave stuff away, the used up webpage realestate... all to get people to 'like' them on facebook. Facebook benefitted from this and I think it was a good thing for everyone. The mavs now had a way to reach out and touch someone, facebook had more users / more interaction within their own brand, and the users got whatever information they were wanting from the Mavs. Then facebook decided to start charging brands to reach the customers that these brands spent a lot of money to send to facebook in the first place!
Slashdot Mirror
I do appreciate you coming back with full comments.
;)
I'm not going to convince you that things aren't "bat shit crazy" because, well, some people are "bat shit crazy". Does the US have more of them? Maybe. Does the US have more readily available firearms? Without a doubt.
I still don't know what country your from, but keep in mind that many states of the united states are as nearly as big as entire countries in Europe. If the US is 20 times bigger than your country then it has 20x greater chance of having a horrific event (all other things being equal). So the fact that US has "as many" gun deaths as the other 23 richest countries might not be all that telling. The US may be just as big as those other 23 all put together (probably not quite that big, but maybe)... I don't know either and since you didn't look it up I won't either!
Another thing worth mentioning (but only barely) is that around 2/3 of the gun deaths in the United States are suicide.... depending on the year. I don't know how much less suicide there would be if you removed guns (I doubt it would decrease much if any), but in a country with such a huge population and suicide rate that is not exactly "low" it's going to make gun deaths appear huge(ER) then they already are.
I know I won't convince you - I'm honestly not even trying to convince you or speak for the gun loving crowd. I'm speaking for me. I believe that the mere "chance" that I own a firearms keeps my family safer at night and in general. I believe that most criminals don't want to get "dead or defeated" and so they attack the weaker (or perceived weaker) among us. Firearms are a great equalizer and concealed firearms makes it so that the big bad wolf doesn't know if any given sheep is actually a sheep (a meal) or a shepherd in sheep's clothing (a prepared and ready to defend himself sheep).
I also believe the fact that a LARGE population of the US citizens are armed keeps the government at least somewhat honest. I have no doubts that the us government could crush an opposing group of ordinary citizens who have only their own weak little firearms (in comparison). But going against 150 million armed and devoted is a tough row to hoe. Knowing that it will get bloody rather than be simple makes it that much tougher to go against your own people and your armed forces may think twice before doing so even if you wanted them to do so. It's a fact that America grew out of a oppressive government and was therefore specifically designed against, warned against, and advised how to prevent it from happening again by our founding fathers. The 2nd amendment is an important part of making sure it never happens again... not here.
I can't expect you to understand what I'm saying, but what I've said is at least part of the deal as far as the attitude of Americans towards guns. I haven't even gotten into hunting and preparedness mentalities, but there's a lot involved. And for the record, I have kids myself and I can only imagine how the parents of those 20 kids feel right now. If I lost my children to such an event I might scream for more gun control, but that's emotion and that's not really going to fix anything. In reality it would only weaken the actual positive affects that an armed citizenry entails. Could I separate the two if it happened to me directly? I don't know. I'd like to think that I would know in my head that more gun control wasn't the fix even if the anger, fear, and sadness (all justifiable and fully warranted) in my heart said that "something" had to be done. But I do know, that here today and now, I'd rather have one and not need it that need one and not have one.
Whether you need them (or will eventually need them) and whether you're happy without them are two different things.
Since you said "here" I'm guessing you probably aren't from around "here" or you wouldn't have said "here". That being the case I'm not sure that your opinion really carries that much weight around "here" when it comes to events that happen "here" and how we "here" choose to handle ourselves. Say something useful (or at least thoughtful) or quit wasting my bandwidth.
Ending life is a fact of life, unless you are a plant.
No need for qualifying your remark... Carnivorous Plants! (venus fly traps and the like)
I'll show some of my age here, but when I was kid I saw "The Karate Kid". There was the scene when Mr Miagi (sp?) was asking "Daniel-son" if he really thought that fighting was that important. Why did he want to learn to fight? Daniel responded with a mature answer. He wanted to learn to fight "so I don't have to fight". He wanted to know that he was capable and to let others know so that their aggression wouldn't be an issue anymore. The other kids were learning to fight so they could be badasses, but that obviously wasn't the only reason to learn though. Karate doesn't have intentions - people do.
As far as firearms are concerned there are people who will use them to threaten or kill for bad reasons. Then there are people who will use them to protect themselves, their loved ones, their fellow man, and their country... by killing.
Guns are tools, and regardless of whether one is designed to do "one thing" or not (and I'm not ready to concede that you've chosen the right word in 'kill') it is still put into the hands of men. They are the ones with intentions and those intentions may be good or bad depending on the man and depending on the situation.
It's my understanding that Slashdot is "News for nerds, Stuff that Matters". Not just "tech" news. If this doesn't matter to you (for any one of a number of possible reasons) then I'm you should consider yourself lucky.
Exactly. And this is why citizens need firearms. The tyrants being the only ones with the firearms is not at all in the citizens best interest.
the number of people killed by gun FAR out number the number of people who may have been saved becasue they have one.
Wow... that's a tough statement to back up! I'm ready to see your facts and figures now!
I appreciate and care immensely about your deep concern for my children and their well being. You get the sarcasm there? Let me lay it on a little thicker for you. I'm sure your parenting style is / was far superior. I care SOOO much about how you raised your children and how they turned out. Get it?
I expect people to at least make an effort to think analytically... and regardless of your opinion of my parenting methodology (based on a snapshot in time no less) there is no doubt that my children know how to think. It's amazing, they actually understand the difference between a want and a need! Can you believe it? They know that (back to my previous example) a yummy pizza today is not worth the heartache that comes with not having a roof over your head the next day. They also understand hyperbole. Maybe not the word "hyperbole", but when it is used they recognize it for what it is. It's freaking amazing! They know what a budget is and they know that debt is bad. These aren't difficult concepts, but we've got a government and a significant portion of the population that just doesn't seem to get it. My kids, like all kids, even understand sarcasm. They are aware that sarcasm can be used to make a point quite effectively at times. They are also keenly aware that there is a time and place.
But you're right in one regard. I sometimes want to feel sorry for them too. They are growing up in a country being corrupted by leaders and political parties who prefer to make promises of free stuff rather than touting the opportunity that people have at a fair shake. They're growing up in a time when it is believed by a large portion of that population that paying people to NOT work somehow creates jobs. They're growing up in a time when the leader of their country believes that their should be no limits to his financial power, doesn't need a budget, and that debt is of no consequence.
Guess what else though. I am also very happy for them. I'm happy that they have parents who care enough to actually talk to them and not park them in front of a TV for the entirety of their evening. I'm happy that they are citizens of the United States and have an opportunity to live the dream if they'll only make it happen. They are blessed and for that I am grateful.
Please, if the Democrats had a bill to allow volunteers to help kids dying of cancer it wouldn't get bipartisan support from the Republicans... probably for some outrageous reason like "This endangers our right to pray in hospitals".
Would it endanger the ability to pray in hospitals? If so, wtf, why would the dems make such a requirement a part of such an important bill?
The senate GOP filibustered THEIR OWN BILL last week because the democrats agreed to vote on it.
The republicans were making a point when they proposed the bill. They thought the bill was so outrageous that everyone would get the point that it was just stupid to even start down the path (giving the president unilateral control of the amount of debt that the US can incur). They assumed that there was no way the dems would actually vote for such a bill as it was obviously bad for the country. Then, to their surprise, they found that the dems were in fact sufficiently stupid to go ahead and pass the bill and the republican had to filibuster "his own bill" just to keep a bit of what should have been satire from actually becoming law.
Occasionally as a parent I suggest something stupid to my kids when they are in "need" (really a want) something that we simply can't afford. I might make a suggestion like "why don't we sell our house for $20 so we can afford to order pizza tonight?" and I'm met with "Yay, pizza!" Then guess what happens, do you think I actually sell the house? Do you think even if some asshole at the gas station heard me say that and came running with a $20 bill that I'm going to sign over the house! No, I'm going to go back ON MY OWN SUGGESTION because it was not a real suggestion (shouldn't even have been interpreted as a real suggestion by a rational being) and was only said to make a point in the first place!
That someone could possibly not get this is beyond my comprehension.
There is a difference. This is a case where Ubuntu is unilaterally making the decision to share your private searches about things that already reside on your computer with amazon. It is a huge difference between all the examples you mentioned and the RMS issue. It's rare that I'm in complete agreement with RMS, but I'm pretty confident he got this one right, and I hope Ubuntu gets the message.
This is exactly right. Startups should generally move on with planned product and try to get a market going. Honestly, startups probably should not even read patents because having a read a patent and then infringing anyway comes with a worse penalty than unknowingly infringing on a patent.
The startups can deal with the legal mess (patent licensing, etc) later if they manage to actually create / enter a market in any significant way. Honestly, the odds of a startup even getting on the radar of an established company with a patent portfolio and getting squashed for doing so are practically nil. That doesn't happen until they become a threat or a possible acquistion (ready made market). Being a threat is a good thing even if their lawyers come calling, because by that point you can probably afford a lawyer yourself or afford to give up a piece of the pie via licensing in order to stay in business. Being an acquistion target can also be a good thing.
Any sane government would distribute AK47s and RPGs to every man, woman, and child in its jurisdiction.
No, that would be stupid and pretty much everyone agrees that it would be stupid.
And then they could fire all the police.... and have a crime rate of absolute 0...
The police are important for a number of reasons that wouldn't require guns. But the fact that they are useful for those circumstances doesn't automatically mean that they are the be all and end all to every problem (kinda like guns!).
And then they could fire all the ... military ... and be impossible to invade.
How'd it work out the last time someone tried to invade the US or even Texas? It wasn't just a standing army that made those wins possible. The fact is that due to its very nature the army is often like the police... they're minutes away when seconds count. They're still important and the people who do those jobs with the right heart should be commended for what they do. Having a well trained army will certainly increase one's capabilities, and it can be a deciding factor, but to put all your eggs in one basket is shamefully lacking in foresight (and hindsight for that matter).
I suspect that if a suburban white soccer mom had the same chance of getting shot to death as an inner city black teenager that America would have already banned most firearms.
I assume that your scenario involves the suburban crime rate rising to match the inner city rate rather than the other way around. So, Why are these white soccer moms all of a sudden being killed? Is it because crazies are walking into movie theaters? Or is it because the criminal elements are bleeding into new areas?
There simply aren't that many crazies so I think that problem will take care of itself in short order. In either case I believe that if that time you describe came about the citizens in that area will become even more likely to carry - including the soccer moms. I also believe those societies that make it easier to own and carry will find a sudden drop in criminal activity involving violence against "innocent" citizens. The fact is that criminals aren't stupid AND they are rational beings. They don't walk into the police station of their own free will causing a stir... and they don't walk into other areas acting out where they know their behavior won't be tolerated.
The day that group of people is just as likely to be killed is the day that the inner city criminals will find that there is price to be paid for your behavior even if the "criminal justice" system doesn't do its part to handle it. Of course, some police apparently do get it. I just now read another comment as I was typing this one (http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3295209&cid=42191645) about some police who apparently do get it. Their war is a war on violence.
The fact is that there are enough rednecks (and I say that fondly) living both in the rural areas and in suburbia who try to just live their own lives and let others do the same. They aren't afraid... they just don't see a reason to get involved in someone elses fight. This group, I am confident, will have no problem saying "enough" when the time comes. They will quickly root out any violent criminals in their midst and they'll do it in such a way that will likely make any other potential criminals think twice before acting out in such an area. Criminals can watch out for the police, but when they have to assume that anyone can end them they will choose to find a weaker area in which to play their games.
You're statement, Plump, is right in that "patenting an improvement to an existing patent is perfectly legal and non-infringing". I'm replying to this for other's benefit, not necessarily yours.
Patenting something is NOT an infringment, but if you try to actually build the invention using "your" patented idea then you'd be infringing on the original patent even though you were using your patented way of doing things. If person A patents a "lever" to move the world and person B patents a "fulcrum and lever" (B improved the design of A by adding a fulcrum) then B still can't make use of A patent without infringing on A.
I recently worked with an attorney on a patent and I was SHOCKED how thorough they were in terms of expanding it to cover every possible use during the disclosure. The idea was that you don't want to patent something awesome and then have someone else come along and patent an improvement that then boxes you out of improving your own invention. It could happen if care is not taken for exactly the reason you mentioned... patenting an improvement is not an infringement.
I understand exactly what you're arguing... I just think you're not seeing the reality here. You keep saying that you believe she is being denied privacy (due to being) in a public place, but you believe that she's only there because she has been mandated to be in that place. I get it. And if it were true, I'd agree (to a degree), but it's simply not true in her case. She doesn't have to be there. She's not legally obligated. She's not even having to consider making a choice to escape to some other school outside of her zone... she's actually making the choice to go to THIS SCHOOL that is outside of her actual zone because they have something she WANTS. You get that right? She SHOULD be going to a different school based on where she lives but she CHOOSES to attend this one because she feels it is better for her aside from the whole tracking thing.
If this were truly her only option then we would get to have the discussion you are trying to have, but it's not, so your "point" appears, as the courts would say, to be not yet "ripe".
But for the sake of actually getting somewhere let's assume all the other schools are problematic for some reason and she can't homeschool for some reason. Then I think at that point the courts would have to decide to either (a) rule that she has no privacy rights on public property even when compelled to be there [reasonable maybe - ever been to court by summons?] or (b) that she can be let out of her legal obligation to attend school because of the burden it would place on her or (c) that the whole tracking concept is a bunch of BS and no one should have to deal with it. I'm thinking (a) actually covers your question well enough, but I'd sure like to see either of the other two choices as it would really open up legal options for everyone.
Her OPTIONS are not even close to being exhausted at this point. Any child in this situation has other schooling OPTIONS that don't use the card. Any child has the OPTION to be home schooled. If their family situation doesn't allow it in its current state of wellness then that OPTION is crossed off the list and they move on to the next possible OPTION. Any child can CHOOSE private school. If the familty situation (finances, proximity, etc) doesn't allow for private school in its current state then that OPTION is crossed off. The child can throw up her middle finger (or have her legal team do it) as an OPTION until that OPTION is exhausted. If all the schools there suck then the family has the OPTION to move to a new location to help the children get a better education (however they CHOOSE to define "better"). They may not like the OPTION and she may think it sucks to leave her friends but these are simply variables that must be tweaked until her and her family find the optimum solution that meets all of the constraints presented by their particular situation (beliefs, finances, other family issues).
It sounds like you think she has either option A or option B and it sucks that she has to choose B when A is clearly optimal for her. Life isn't always what it seems and sometimes people fail to see that even though A and B are both choices there are actually a lot more choices than just the two. VERY rarely, and mostly in the simplest cases, are we limited to only 2 choices. We've almost always got ways to expand our choices way beyond those that are staring us right in the face. In her case she's got quite a few options and all of those can be tweaked to present even more options. In the US, right now, we've got almost unlimited options on how to solve any given problem and her situation is no different. It comes down to how important is it to her and her family. [Good news, I just read she got a temporary injunction and will get to keep going to school there for a while longer until the courts decide on the badges]
So you can be fined, arrested, forced to move, and even locked in a secure facility if you don't do something, but you aren't legally compelled to do it?
You're taking what I said outside of the context in which it was said... on accident I'm sure. What I said was that she wasn't legally compelled to go to that particular school. I never said she wasn't legally compelled to get an education - she is. But there are more OPTIONS than just that one school.
Sure, IF her parents allow it [home school]. But unless conditions outside of her control allow for other options, she really is "legally compelled to be at this particular school".
No, she isn't legally compelled for two reasons. First, going by your asserted / alluded version of the story (parents are forcing her to this school) she is at most parentally compelled. Law enforcement will be all too glad to illustrate the difference to the parents if they keep taking her once she has been fully expelled. If the school and judge says she can't be there then she can't be there no matter what her, her parents, or her granny think.
Second, as you would know if you read the article, the school is a magnet school. It's not a RIGHT to attend that school. You don't EARN your RIGHT to go to that school. You EARN an OPPORTUNITY to attend that school. The system has now added on a requirement, and that is the wearing of these stupid cards. They seem to think that they can do that. I think it's crapola and I hope in the end a judge somewhere declares the whole thing in her favor. But for now, she wants to go to the special school so she has to jump through the special hoops.
Really? Every student at an American public school can simply choose to go elsewhere, without even parental consent?
Come on, guy, get real. Her parents seem very supportive, but you phrase the question like they are locking her in to this situation so let's go with that. In that case she definitely still has a choice. Kids (we're talking highschool here) choose every day not to attend the school that their parents consent to. Kids choose to go to the school of hard knocks rather than to go to their city high school. The fact is that the choice of schooling, with or without mommy and daddy's approval is made every day by every kid when they choose whether to walk in that front door at the school house. Now, if you choose not to go to your local school then big brother will insist that you be home schooled or go to a private school. If you choose not to go for that then you may find yourself in a forced school situation when DCS decides that your parents aren't looking after your educational needs (even if they are trying). It just gets worse from there. But in the end, yes, it's a choice.
Other than that one case (kid refusing to go to school), it generally comes down to what the parent and kid can agree on. But, since you are capable of stringing a group of words into a sentence AND picking the nits to that degree that you have then I'm certain that you are choosing to ignore the original point rather than not being able to understand it. The kid (and her family) have choices... they are not legally compelled as a family to have her in that particular school.
That's awesome... you got the second part of your comment right on the money, but somehow in the first part of your comment you managed to ignore the exact point you made in the second part of your comment.
Just as she is not legally compelled to work for some big corp, or even to work at all, she's not legally compelled to be at this particular school. She's legally compelled to be educated. She can home school or choose to go to a private school. Don't misunderstand, I think what they are asking of her is garbage, but they are only asking it. She has a choice and that choice is to be educated elsewhere. If enough people opted to make a different choice then you'd see a QUICK turnaround by the school systems when their federal dollars (tied to having butts in the seats) took a hit.
Even the giraffes are chuckling... but I went to the zoo this weekend and, well, they smell really bad so who cares they think.
The weird thing with most people on slashdot is that, presumably because they're American, they seem to think working is a fun, good thing in itself. Well, for mot of us, it's not. It's shit you have to do to avoid ending up sleeping drowned in cheap wine in a cardboard box with no family or friends willing to talk to you.
Worth is both... almost always. If you intentionally don't work and you don't take care of your family (self included) then you're a net drag on the world. In the absense of other options you do what you have to do, and in this case then it's "shit you have to do". But sometimes there are other options (or you can make your own). In those cases then work can be "fun", but it's still work and it's probably still "hard"... no one said life is easy and you should get everything you want for free. And yes, I'm American, but I'd like to think it's a personality type that believes in "freedom" relating to your work... not purely a citizenship thing.
I know who doesn't need employees! A company that doesn't exist! Or one that's in bankruptcy...
Doesn't look like these folks will have a 40 hour work week for long... unless you consider filing for unemployment a "job".
He might be a little wiser about it now, but I guarantee you if brands leave FB en masse those "other services" will be paying attention and they will handle things differently. Not necessarily better, but differently.
I think the takeaway here is that companies need to have a plan for revenue beforehand rather than after the fact. After the fact planning is pretty much going to force you to make some tough decisions that are going to really have an impact on how you're seen by your eventual customers. Either that, or they should work like hell on their method of delivering the bad news! I mean, seriously, Cuban seems to have found out about this when he wanted to send a message to his 'likers' and facebook tried to bill him on the spot with the "threat" that not everyone would receive his message if he didn't pay up. Come on! This change should have been implemented slowly... tell them they get 4 more free broadcasts this month and then it's going to cost some super small amount PER USER rather than a big freaking number with lots of zeros after it. The way they did it caused a NEGATIVE, EMOTIONAL reaction - not something you want from the customers you hope will be high dollar customers.
Check your calculator, rockout.
3000 dollars per 1,000,000 users = $3000 / 1000000 users = $0.003 dollars per user
It's super cheap, way cheaper than your "corrected" number. But that's not the point. The point is that brands expected to get the facebook service without additional costs beyond procuring of 'likes'. Cuban specifically stated that his companies spent significant money getting people to go to facebook and like the Mavs page. They ran promotions, they gave stuff away, the used up webpage realestate... all to get people to 'like' them on facebook. Facebook benefitted from this and I think it was a good thing for everyone. The mavs now had a way to reach out and touch someone, facebook had more users / more interaction within their own brand, and the users got whatever information they were wanting from the Mavs. Then facebook decided to start charging brands to reach the customers that these brands spent a lot of money to send to facebook in the first place!
You're already a "5, funny" so I'll use my mods elsewhere, but your post was absolutely classic!