Right... except that (s)he had to fight through basic training/boot camp/etc also. Being a nerd doesn't get you a free pass on the difficult training.
They may not be risking their lives, but there are a ton of "fake soldiers" who will never be stationed in a war-zone but are absolutely imperative to ensure that "real soldiers" have the best odds of survival possible and the country has the best odds of victory.
Implying that the enlisted men and women who don't serve in combat aren't "real soldiers" is a cheap and ignorant thing to do... maybe why you posted as AC, perhaps?
I've been keeping my eye on this camera too and the thing I've noticed about the digital camera SLR market is that the used cameras don't come down much in price over time (compared to digital point-and-shoot or film SLRs).
In other words, you're going to have a hard time getting a used D30/D60/D10 for much cheaper than you can get a new Digital Rebel. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd love to see it -- it'll save me some money.
(Aside: The problem with buying used is not that EVERYTHING has problems but that you don't know what problems you're getting. )
While you certainly make a valid point, classrooms aren't delivery rooms (thank you, captain obvious). I'm sure there are things that go on in operating rooms of all sorts that most ignorant people would think was wrong due to lack of education on the topic and experience; we've all been to a classroom and we all know how they should function. It's not life or death.
That bit of philosophy and idealism, of course, won't change the outcome, and that's that cameras would make firing teachers a lot more necessary, and schools would hate that.
"I've seen the other side though, and with the damned lawsuit-happy parents, the school would find itself perpetually in court."
The camera would certainly make the facts of the case clear, though, wouldn't it? After all, if little Susie claims that Mr. Teacher molested her after class, the camera would have something to say about that (either for or against), wouldn't it?
Think about it... if you allow the recalled gov back on the ballot w/o a primary, you're essentially guaranteeing them a victory. It would be nearly impossible for one candidate of 200 to garner more votes than the incumbent, unless said person had killed someone.
But answer this question, if the majority of the state wants him out, why should he be allowed back on the ballot? What about that isn't completely insane? My bet is that the only argument is "But the other candidates would get fewer votes!" Which isn't much of one.
Further, IIRC, a recall can't take place for six months after an election, so that's what's stopping an immediate recall. On top of that (as if we needed more) just because 90% didn't vote FOR someone, doesn't mean they'd vote FOR that person's recall.
The fairness of the recall has nothing to do with the subsequent election of the recalled governor's replacement. Period.
Finally, I think you'd find officials getting elected with 10% (or whatever) of the vote in MOST elections (recall or otherwise) without a primary system.
So we're going to recall a governor, which by it's very nature indicates that the electorate feels that something has gone horribly wrong in the Governor's office, then we're going to allow him to exploit the fact that there are so many people running against him to re-take the office he was just fired from? If that's your idea of fair, I'm glad you're not the one making the call here.
You also seem to be neglecting the fact that in the replacement election, there is no primary -- something that would eliminate probably 150 candidates from the ballot.
Without a primary, allowing a newly recalled governor back on the ballot is nothing but a tremendous waste of taxpayer's dollars and runs completely contrary to any sort of democratic ideal still held here.
From a procedural standpoint, the law may be poorly written, but it is fair. If a majority of the folks want him out, he should be out.
Further, he wasn't ELECTED by a majority (48%, in fact), why should his replacement be required to get a majority?
The candidates ALREADY face a more difficult standard to get him OUT of office (majority vs. plurality) than it took him to get in. If you look at it honesty, the recall procedure is slanted IN FAVOR OF the incumbent, not against.
The recall and the subsequent election are separate issues and should be treated as such.
That's not unfair at all. If receiving a majority of the votes were a requirement for election, the elections would be held differently -- in a way that would produce a majority of votes. In that method, if Davis were allowed back on the ballot, he would probably lose.
Davis being recalled says that the majority of the state doesn't want Davis... being unable to agree on his successor doesn't make the process unfair. The argument here is nothing more than a scope-shift, and it's completely invalid.
There's a huge difference there. First, let's remember that the national popular vote means nothing. Second, if it did, and had he needed a majority (and not a pluralty, which means having more votes than anyone else) perot (and everyone else) would've been booted from the race and there would've been a run off with the top two vote getters. That would've all but guaranteed a majority.
The recall vote and the vote for Davis' successor are two separate (but related) things. Discussing the fairness of one using the other is somewhat silly.
"in the future" being the key phrase in the above post...
Years ago it was "too expensive" to have a computer in your home. Good thing nobody threw the idea out citing the fact that we already have "infrastructure in place" to use typewriters.
Does anyone know for sure that he did or did not contact any of those places? Starting with the result that he did not get enough money to fight the good fight against the RIAA, then inferring that he must not have tried seems to be be lacking a bit from a logical standpoint.
Additionally, that still doesn't change the fact that if he had fought that suit, he'd have had to made ABSOLUTELY SURE that he won. No probablys or maybes.
It's easy to be idealistic if it's not YOUR Billion Dollars.
Has anyone stopped to think that if he had challenged the RIAA and LOST he'd be losing a hell of a lot more than $12k?
Do you really think that if he'd gone to court and lost, the RIAA would've said "Well, it was a good fight... we'll let you out for the original settlement price!"
No. He would've gone for the whole amount (plus legal fees) -- he needed enough money not just to fight the RIAA, but to fight them well, and I doubt he'd have found that easily.
...you could spend the hours you'd otherwise be researching, building, testing, and marveling at your balls *snicker*, and work. At a job. For money. Then buy the real thing. And have some cash left over...
...presumably to spend on refreshments when all the ladies come over to look at your, umm, "glowing balls".
I think I'll start working on embedding readers in the seats of subway trains and then I'll develop a blackmarket surgical procedure to implant stolen ID's in other people's asses...
Since this person obviously cares about Linux/Mac users, WMP is not the best choice.
I've not seen anything that makes it very "obvious" that this person cares about Linux/Mac users. Being ignorant and caring about Linux or Mac are not synonimous or interchangable. (Thank goodness) The only rationale given (in the article) for not using WMP is because it's Microsoft. Ideologically, this might be a noble action. If you're worried about your pocketbook, however, ideologies can be dangerous.
Freedom is all well and good, but it sure doesn't pay the bills. Being able to upgrade your own software is all well and good, but if that were so easy, where is the Illustrator Clone for Unix? My point isn't that we should give up on free software. However, if you're trying to accomplish some goal, any goal, you need to accomplish it in the best way that you can. If that can't be done using free software, then it must be done some other way. Doing otherwise doesn't mark you as an intelligent being, rather, it marks you as a closed-minded fool.
(It must be noted that "the best way that you can" doesn't always involve commercial software. If you can't afford to purchase Illustrator, then you can't very well use it as one of your options... in some cases free software is the ONLY way for an individual/group to accomlish his/her/their goals.)
I find it remarkably ironic when linux zealots claim that people shouldn't use Win/Mac server solutions because they're not as good as Linux, then turn around and say that it shouldn't matter what graphics program you use, as long as it's linux.
When it comes right down to it, it IS all about what works best. Whether you like the platform that "it" runs on or not. Don't like windows? If you let that aversion lower the quality of your work you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Maybe someday someone will develop a linux app to reattach noses to faces...
A while back I ran across the website for a piece of software that claimed that it could "read" a poem or group of poems, analyze the style(s), and then "write" a new poem (or poems) based on what it had "read". I didn't download it when I had the chance and now I can't find the website again... has anyone seen what I'm talking about, or am I just going crazy?
I read through the transcript of the chat that was done and one thing became painfully obvious to me. Not a single one of you have any idea what's going on. You've been told that people are stealing your music. You've been told that by suing napster you can hope to stop this terrible level of piracy. But has anyone ever explained to any of you the technical side of the situation? Sure, hearing the lawyers advice is all well and good, but I seldom trust them when they DON'T have their own money at stake. So I guess the basic idea of the question is: Does Metallica even care enough to get a clue, or are they blissfully happy in their technical ignorance?
Slashdot Mirror
Right... except that (s)he had to fight through basic training/boot camp/etc also. Being a nerd doesn't get you a free pass on the difficult training.
They may not be risking their lives, but there are a ton of "fake soldiers" who will never be stationed in a war-zone but are absolutely imperative to ensure that "real soldiers" have the best odds of survival possible and the country has the best odds of victory.
Implying that the enlisted men and women who don't serve in combat aren't "real soldiers" is a cheap and ignorant thing to do... maybe why you posted as AC, perhaps?
These kind of tools are EVERYWHERE.
Oh... you weren't talking about the people, were you?
I've been keeping my eye on this camera too and the thing I've noticed about the digital camera SLR market is that the used cameras don't come down much in price over time (compared to digital point-and-shoot or film SLRs).
In other words, you're going to have a hard time getting a used D30/D60/D10 for much cheaper than you can get a new Digital Rebel. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd love to see it -- it'll save me some money.
(Aside: The problem with buying used is not that EVERYTHING has problems but that you don't know what problems you're getting. )
While you certainly make a valid point, classrooms aren't delivery rooms (thank you, captain obvious). I'm sure there are things that go on in operating rooms of all sorts that most ignorant people would think was wrong due to lack of education on the topic and experience; we've all been to a classroom and we all know how they should function. It's not life or death.
That bit of philosophy and idealism, of course, won't change the outcome, and that's that cameras would make firing teachers a lot more necessary, and schools would hate that.
"I've seen the other side though, and with the damned lawsuit-happy parents, the school would find itself perpetually in court."
The camera would certainly make the facts of the case clear, though, wouldn't it? After all, if little Susie claims that Mr. Teacher molested her after class, the camera would have something to say about that (either for or against), wouldn't it?
Think about it... if you allow the recalled gov back on the ballot w/o a primary, you're essentially guaranteeing them a victory. It would be nearly impossible for one candidate of 200 to garner more votes than the incumbent, unless said person had killed someone.
But answer this question, if the majority of the state wants him out, why should he be allowed back on the ballot? What about that isn't completely insane? My bet is that the only argument is "But the other candidates would get fewer votes!" Which isn't much of one.
Further, IIRC, a recall can't take place for six months after an election, so that's what's stopping an immediate recall. On top of that (as if we needed more) just because 90% didn't vote FOR someone, doesn't mean they'd vote FOR that person's recall.
The fairness of the recall has nothing to do with the subsequent election of the recalled governor's replacement. Period.
Finally, I think you'd find officials getting elected with 10% (or whatever) of the vote in MOST elections (recall or otherwise) without a primary system.
So say the democrats, but apparently the electorate doesn't feel the same way.
Simply absurd.
So we're going to recall a governor, which by it's very nature indicates that the electorate feels that something has gone horribly wrong in the Governor's office, then we're going to allow him to exploit the fact that there are so many people running against him to re-take the office he was just fired from? If that's your idea of fair, I'm glad you're not the one making the call here.
You also seem to be neglecting the fact that in the replacement election, there is no primary -- something that would eliminate probably 150 candidates from the ballot.
Without a primary, allowing a newly recalled governor back on the ballot is nothing but a tremendous waste of taxpayer's dollars and runs completely contrary to any sort of democratic ideal still held here.
From a procedural standpoint, the law may be poorly written, but it is fair. If a majority of the folks want him out, he should be out.
Further, he wasn't ELECTED by a majority (48%, in fact), why should his replacement be required to get a majority?
The candidates ALREADY face a more difficult standard to get him OUT of office (majority vs. plurality) than it took him to get in. If you look at it honesty, the recall procedure is slanted IN FAVOR OF the incumbent, not against.
The recall and the subsequent election are separate issues and should be treated as such.
That's not unfair at all. If receiving a majority of the votes were a requirement for election, the elections would be held differently -- in a way that would produce a majority of votes. In that method, if Davis were allowed back on the ballot, he would probably lose.
Davis being recalled says that the majority of the state doesn't want Davis... being unable to agree on his successor doesn't make the process unfair. The argument here is nothing more than a scope-shift, and it's completely invalid.
*bzzzzt*
Wrong. He got a plurality. A majority is 50% +1.
There's a huge difference there. First, let's remember that the national popular vote means nothing. Second, if it did, and had he needed a majority (and not a pluralty, which means having more votes than anyone else) perot (and everyone else) would've been booted from the race and there would've been a run off with the top two vote getters. That would've all but guaranteed a majority.
The recall vote and the vote for Davis' successor are two separate (but related) things. Discussing the fairness of one using the other is somewhat silly.
"in the future" being the key phrase in the above post...
Years ago it was "too expensive" to have a computer in your home. Good thing nobody threw the idea out citing the fact that we already have "infrastructure in place" to use typewriters.
Does anyone know for sure that he did or did not contact any of those places? Starting with the result that he did not get enough money to fight the good fight against the RIAA, then inferring that he must not have tried seems to be be lacking a bit from a logical standpoint.
Additionally, that still doesn't change the fact that if he had fought that suit, he'd have had to made ABSOLUTELY SURE that he won. No probablys or maybes.
It's easy to be idealistic if it's not YOUR Billion Dollars.
Has anyone stopped to think that if he had challenged the RIAA and LOST he'd be losing a hell of a lot more than $12k?
Do you really think that if he'd gone to court and lost, the RIAA would've said "Well, it was a good fight... we'll let you out for the original settlement price!"
No. He would've gone for the whole amount (plus legal fees) -- he needed enough money not just to fight the RIAA, but to fight them well, and I doubt he'd have found that easily.
Yeah... gotta hate it when that damn rains goes *vertical*
It's almost like it's coming straight down on you.
...you could spend the hours you'd otherwise be researching, building, testing, and marveling at your balls *snicker*, and work. At a job. For money. Then buy the real thing. And have some cash left over...
...presumably to spend on refreshments when all the ladies come over to look at your, umm, "glowing balls".
I think I'll start working on embedding readers in the seats of subway trains and then I'll develop a blackmarket surgical procedure to implant stolen ID's in other people's asses...
Since this person obviously cares about Linux/Mac users, WMP is not the best choice.
I've not seen anything that makes it very "obvious" that this person cares about Linux/Mac users. Being ignorant and caring about Linux or Mac are not synonimous or interchangable. (Thank goodness) The only rationale given (in the article) for not using WMP is because it's Microsoft. Ideologically, this might be a noble action. If you're worried about your pocketbook, however, ideologies can be dangerous.
Freedom is all well and good, but it sure doesn't pay the bills. Being able to upgrade your own software is all well and good, but if that were so easy, where is the Illustrator Clone for Unix? My point isn't that we should give up on free software. However, if you're trying to accomplish some goal, any goal, you need to accomplish it in the best way that you can. If that can't be done using free software, then it must be done some other way. Doing otherwise doesn't mark you as an intelligent being, rather, it marks you as a closed-minded fool.
(It must be noted that "the best way that you can" doesn't always involve commercial software. If you can't afford to purchase Illustrator, then you can't very well use it as one of your options... in some cases free software is the ONLY way for an individual/group to accomlish his/her/their goals.)
I find it remarkably ironic when linux zealots claim that people shouldn't use Win/Mac server solutions because they're not as good as Linux, then turn around and say that it shouldn't matter what graphics program you use, as long as it's linux.
When it comes right down to it, it IS all about what works best. Whether you like the platform that "it" runs on or not. Don't like windows? If you let that aversion lower the quality of your work you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Maybe someday someone will develop a linux app to reattach noses to faces...
A while back I ran across the website for a piece of software that claimed that it could "read" a poem or group of poems, analyze the style(s), and then "write" a new poem (or poems) based on what it had "read". I didn't download it when I had the chance and now I can't find the website again... has anyone seen what I'm talking about, or am I just going crazy?
-Pete
I read through the transcript of the chat that was done and one thing became painfully obvious to me. Not a single one of you have any idea what's going on. You've been told that people are stealing your music. You've been told that by suing napster you can hope to stop this terrible level of piracy. But has anyone ever explained to any of you the technical side of the situation? Sure, hearing the lawyers advice is all well and good, but I seldom trust them when they DON'T have their own money at stake. So I guess the basic idea of the question is: Does Metallica even care enough to get a clue, or are they blissfully happy in their technical ignorance?