Rosa Parks was just one person too.... and she ended up being arrested and jailed for what she did. But the action still was very much a catalyst for positive change.
Just because the outcomes for trying to stand up for what is right are bad right now, doesn't mean that it's going to be that way forever.
Hopefully, more people will have the courage to do what this man did. It's not an easy road to travel, but there's hope that future generations can still reap the rewards as long as people are willing to try.
I would bet you a billion dollars.../blockquote.That's a fail, right there. No sane person bets more than what they, or the person they are betting against, can actually afford to part with... even if they are right. Doing so is nothing less than irrational arrogance, not founded in the validity of your position.
Yeah.... IMO, it would help immensely if the preview and submit buttons weren't immediately beside eachother. I've accidentally hit submit when I meant preview so many times I've lost count.
Things not taken into account: If our home power or internet goes down, so does our server. Also, home IP numbers are prone to change now and then.
The former issue's severity can be weighed against the fact that if your home power or intenet goes down, you won't be able to use the service from home anyways. Plus, you can mitigate the issue of having to manually reboot the server should the power fail by either configuring the BIOS to do so, or investing in a UPS, which can keep it going for a few additional hours. But finally, and perhaps most significantly, one should also try to keep this in perspective here... this is for running a game, and not something that evidently is supposed to be generating any revenue, so is the necessity for 100% uptime actually worth the cost of renting a VPS?
The issue of home IP numbers changing can be resolved through the use of dynamic DNS, which can map a static host name to a possibly changing IP address. The cost for such services is on the order of no more than a few cents a day (some such services are even free), and I would strongly recommend such a service for somebody who wants to reliably connect to their home computer from outside of their network
Because certainly he must realize the severity of retaliation that would occur if he were to actually make an aggressive move against another nation.
And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites? Although I know that the recent nuclear testing doesn't exactly help their case in that regard, it's easily conceivable that it is naught more than posturing... an attempt (not necessarily an effective one) to try to intimidate other countries into letting them practice what they wanted to do.
Like I said... if their underlying intent were genuinely to launch an ICBM against another country, I'm pretty sure that the nation's leader realizes that there won't be a nation left for him to lead afterwards. Doesn't it then follow that, by course of the instinct for one's own survival, that he might, just might, actually be telling the truth?
Well, today you can buy a wireless router for about half of what you'd pay for for a 1gb hub with 16 ports, for example. As people ditch wired in favor of less expensive wireless, the latter will become increasingly ubiquitous, while the former will only become increasingly difficult to acquire, being considered ever more special purpose and niche interest, and raising its prices relative to more common technologies even more. I might dare suggest that in less than 20 years, they may not be commercially available at all for most people without having to special order them from a manufacturer... and certainly nowhere nearly as affordable. Almost as obsolete as the vacuum tube.
Just as bad as, perhaps... but still not the same thing.
The notion that these affected areas are somehow supposedly "constitution free'" is nothing but a blatant appeal to emotion (a fallacious line of reasoning, even if the underlying point is factual), an to suggest that they are can easily lead to people overlooking that just just this one right being suspended *IS* sufficient reason, all by its bloody lonesome, to warrant outrage.
Really... is honesty in reporting *THAT* criminal?
I don't personally believe that requiring a legitimate sexual outlet is strictly necessary.... In fact, I might suggest that if or when a priest finds that such desires are interfering with his ability conduct himself professionally then that priest ought to resign his post. The reason for abstinence is based on the notion that they can more fully devote their lives and passion to God. Right or wrong, it's their belief, and although I do not personally share it, I can still respect that value... as long as the objective behind it is maintained.
While certainly not everybody has the kind of willpower it takes to abstain from sex, it's entirely erroneous to think that absolutely nobody can... at least for a while. It's my own belief, in light of this, that such positions which they believe necessitate abstinence should probably not be held for more than perhaps 7 or 8 years, at the most.
It's a fact that molestations occur the most amongst popes and priests.
Cite sources, please. I'm not saying it doesn't happen a lot, but can you show a single study that conclusively shows a higher incidence rate inside of a church than outside? Of all the people that I know well enough to know that they had suffered some sort of sexual abuse while younger, I can only think of *ONE* who was actually abused by a religious leader (which led to him, quite understandably, deeply resenting the entire concept of the church). Most of them were unfortunately abused by either a family member or somebody who their parents knew. It's my own perception that the reason the report rate for such abuse in churches may be so high is because these are people who simply aren't getting away with it as much as it happens elsewhere, on account of the increased visibility that their position of power offers. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the church (it's abhorrent that it happens at all, anywhere).... I'm just suggesting that it might be on account of the fact that between the type of position that such religious leaders hold, and that such behavior is so incredibly hypocritical on their part that it may end up inflating the perception of just how frequently it actually happens.
If the people there want to use radio for things, then yes, they need to get out.
My point is that it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of when. Right now they still have the readily available option of land lines and wired LANs. But, as the saying goes, but it's all too true, the one constant in progress and technology is change. You cannot assume that ANY type of technology that we might use at one point in time is going to be just as viable in the future as it is at that moment. The technologies themselves might well continue to be available, but they may not only be rendered wholly obsolete by future technologies, but as different technologies come out, what was fairly easy to come by at one time may well get prohibitively difficult to obtain in the future. The error, I maintain, was on the part of the managers of the radio telescope, believing that allowing a community to develop there while maintaining a radio-free zone could somehow ever hope to be perpetually viable.
... when people can convince TV stations to not rely on it for the streaming of their shows via their website.
I don't watch enough TV to justify paying for cable, but I still like a handful of shows that I really still want to watch each week. The networks put them up on their website for free streaming only one day after they air normally, and leave them up for a week or two, and I can watch all of my favorite shows at my leisure. Of course, all of these network websites utilize flash for delivering the video content. And okay, so I have to still sit through a minute or two of commercials every 10 minutes or so... that's no different than it would be if I were to actually watch it on television when it airs. The only real alternative to this would be finding pirated copies of my shows on P2P networks (which would probably be pretty easy, as the shows I like are fairly popular), but to be frank, my resorting to such measures would bother me personally far more than the fact that I have to use flash.
But back onto the matter of the websites requiring flash, it really seems to me like they just don't care about any potential audience that doesn't want to have flash installed, because they are a sufficiently small enough minority that the networks can dictate that you either have flash to watch their shows... or... well... tough.
2. The issue is serious enough all by its bloody lonesome, and doesn't necessitate that every other constitutional right be voided in order to have a justifiable cause to be upset. Somehow implying that suspension of one right will necessarily lead to the utter ruin of the entire constitution can easily cause people to not see the seriousness of what might seem like the smaller issue of what is really only one amendment being affected. If you're going to fight for your rights, you should know what you are really fighting for, or else you're just going to end up sounding like an idiot to people who actually know what this is about.
Talk about government searches and 3/4 will drone on about "having nothing to hide".
To anyone that says such a thing, I would ask them this question, which would hopefully enlighten them about why that's a problematic belief: "Why are you wearing any clothes right now? Is it because there's something wrong with your naked body, or is because your naked body is private?" The notion that you must have to have done something wrong to have something to hide is nothing but a fallacy, plain and simple.
Right... and why should you have to decrypt that dvd movie you bought to watch it on your Linux computer, when you could have chosen to buy an unencrypted dvd instead? Oh, wait...
You see? This isn't just about whether or not a school or community can use wifi. it's about arbitrarily creating restrictions around technology that define what kinds of technologies people, especially future generations, are going to be permitted to use simply so that *YOU* can continue your work. This issue is only going to get worse as time goes on, and wireless technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous. Today it's a school having to use a wired lan instead of wifi (a restriction that, alone, I think is unreasonable in the 21st century), but what will end up being affected 50 years more from today? If the radio telescope institution has more right to be there, then the town needs to get the hell out... now. Before the problems get any worse.
Really, it has much less to do with entitlement than it does with the fact that the people who ran that institution made a very poor judgement call when they agreed to allow development on their property in the first place. While it's one thing to bind someone to an agreement to not use particular technologies, it's quite another to expect the such bindings should somehow automatically apply to future generations, effectively restricting future technological progress.
But yes... if the institution has more right to be there than the town, then the town *SHOULD* move.... because with the principles involved, there's infinitely more at stake here than just whether or not these people can use wifi at school. As technology advances, the prohibitions against the use of electronics which might cause radio interference with the telescope are only going to become increasingly difficult to manage as such new technology becomes ubiquitous. This story is only the beginning.
It still seems to me, however, that in the 21st century, such a prohibition is not particularly reasonable in a technologically developed nation. It may have seemed quite reasonable 50 years ago, but times change.
Please.... that sort of exaggeration is tantamount to saying that Connecticut shooter last December killed everyone in the entire school.
He didn't... he killed 26 people, plus himself. Yeah, it's serious... yeah, it's something that people can be rightfully upset about, but for chrissake, it doesn't hurt a damn thing to say what it is...
The areas within 100 miles of any border are not in any way, shape, or form *REMOTELY* constitution-free. They are, however, 4th-ammendment rights free, and that's quite reasonably a serious issue.
Calling it constitution-free smacks strongly of trying to incite some sort of emotional sympathy without needing any logical basis, even if there might happen be one. and worse yet, it can cause a person to overlook the *real* reason that there is to be upset about this. Unreasonable search and seizure is an extremely serious issue all by its bloody self, and you don't need to have the threat of the failing of the entire US constitution to have any justification to be incredibly upset about it.
So what I'm suggesting then is that people ought to let *THAT* be the reason for fighting against those who would cause it... not something that hasn't even actually happened, anywhere... and only looks ridiculously made-up to people who actually understand what is going on... and at worst only serves to spread disinformation to the general public about why this is actually a problem.
I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall? While I can get that such a consequence is something to perhaps watch out carefully for in the future and certainly try to prevent, the reaction that a single right from the constitution being suspended should somehow necessarily invalidate any or all of the others to be a bit... uhmm.... needlessly melodramatic.
The National Radio Astronomy Quiet Zone, aka the NRAQZ, was setup in the 1950's as someone has already pointed out, and it is a natural bowl with 3 to 5 miles of real estate that is shielded from a lot of earthy interference because of the surrounding hills.
Then why on earth is there any civilian development inside of that bowl in the first place? No wifi in the school is one thing... what about nearby homes? What about interference caused by cell phones? What about interference caused by passing automobiles running sophisticated electronics?
Slashdot Mirror
Or could it wind up mapping to something completely different, as the brain learns to interpret the signals?
Rosa Parks was just one person too.... and she ended up being arrested and jailed for what she did. But the action still was very much a catalyst for positive change.
Just because the outcomes for trying to stand up for what is right are bad right now, doesn't mean that it's going to be that way forever.
Hopefully, more people will have the courage to do what this man did. It's not an easy road to travel, but there's hope that future generations can still reap the rewards as long as people are willing to try.
Hey.... you have to admit, having a watch that allowed you to travel through time would be pretty kick-ass.
Yeah.... IMO, it would help immensely if the preview and submit buttons weren't immediately beside eachother. I've accidentally hit submit when I meant preview so many times I've lost count.
It's my understanding that running such services would only be problematic when the usage has been noticed to be unusually high.
What does ''... for favor or consideration" mean, exactly?
How the heck did your ISP figure it out, with such a small user base?
The former issue's severity can be weighed against the fact that if your home power or intenet goes down, you won't be able to use the service from home anyways. Plus, you can mitigate the issue of having to manually reboot the server should the power fail by either configuring the BIOS to do so, or investing in a UPS, which can keep it going for a few additional hours. But finally, and perhaps most significantly, one should also try to keep this in perspective here... this is for running a game, and not something that evidently is supposed to be generating any revenue, so is the necessity for 100% uptime actually worth the cost of renting a VPS?
The issue of home IP numbers changing can be resolved through the use of dynamic DNS, which can map a static host name to a possibly changing IP address. The cost for such services is on the order of no more than a few cents a day (some such services are even free), and I would strongly recommend such a service for somebody who wants to reliably connect to their home computer from outside of their network
Because certainly he must realize the severity of retaliation that would occur if he were to actually make an aggressive move against another nation.
And given that... is it really so naive to think that they really just wanted to launch peaceful satellites? Although I know that the recent nuclear testing doesn't exactly help their case in that regard, it's easily conceivable that it is naught more than posturing... an attempt (not necessarily an effective one) to try to intimidate other countries into letting them practice what they wanted to do.
Like I said... if their underlying intent were genuinely to launch an ICBM against another country, I'm pretty sure that the nation's leader realizes that there won't be a nation left for him to lead afterwards. Doesn't it then follow that, by course of the instinct for one's own survival, that he might, just might, actually be telling the truth?
Well, today you can buy a wireless router for about half of what you'd pay for for a 1gb hub with 16 ports, for example. As people ditch wired in favor of less expensive wireless, the latter will become increasingly ubiquitous, while the former will only become increasingly difficult to acquire, being considered ever more special purpose and niche interest, and raising its prices relative to more common technologies even more. I might dare suggest that in less than 20 years, they may not be commercially available at all for most people without having to special order them from a manufacturer... and certainly nowhere nearly as affordable. Almost as obsolete as the vacuum tube.
Just as bad as, perhaps... but still not the same thing.
The notion that these affected areas are somehow supposedly "constitution free'" is nothing but a blatant appeal to emotion (a fallacious line of reasoning, even if the underlying point is factual), an to suggest that they are can easily lead to people overlooking that just just this one right being suspended *IS* sufficient reason, all by its bloody lonesome, to warrant outrage.
Really... is honesty in reporting *THAT* criminal?
I don't personally believe that requiring a legitimate sexual outlet is strictly necessary.... In fact, I might suggest that if or when a priest finds that such desires are interfering with his ability conduct himself professionally then that priest ought to resign his post. The reason for abstinence is based on the notion that they can more fully devote their lives and passion to God. Right or wrong, it's their belief, and although I do not personally share it, I can still respect that value... as long as the objective behind it is maintained.
While certainly not everybody has the kind of willpower it takes to abstain from sex, it's entirely erroneous to think that absolutely nobody can... at least for a while. It's my own belief, in light of this, that such positions which they believe necessitate abstinence should probably not be held for more than perhaps 7 or 8 years, at the most.
Cite sources, please. I'm not saying it doesn't happen a lot, but can you show a single study that conclusively shows a higher incidence rate inside of a church than outside? Of all the people that I know well enough to know that they had suffered some sort of sexual abuse while younger, I can only think of *ONE* who was actually abused by a religious leader (which led to him, quite understandably, deeply resenting the entire concept of the church). Most of them were unfortunately abused by either a family member or somebody who their parents knew. It's my own perception that the reason the report rate for such abuse in churches may be so high is because these are people who simply aren't getting away with it as much as it happens elsewhere, on account of the increased visibility that their position of power offers. I'm not saying that's a good thing for the church (it's abhorrent that it happens at all, anywhere).... I'm just suggesting that it might be on account of the fact that between the type of position that such religious leaders hold, and that such behavior is so incredibly hypocritical on their part that it may end up inflating the perception of just how frequently it actually happens.
My point is that it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of when. Right now they still have the readily available option of land lines and wired LANs. But, as the saying goes, but it's all too true, the one constant in progress and technology is change. You cannot assume that ANY type of technology that we might use at one point in time is going to be just as viable in the future as it is at that moment. The technologies themselves might well continue to be available, but they may not only be rendered wholly obsolete by future technologies, but as different technologies come out, what was fairly easy to come by at one time may well get prohibitively difficult to obtain in the future. The error, I maintain, was on the part of the managers of the radio telescope, believing that allowing a community to develop there while maintaining a radio-free zone could somehow ever hope to be perpetually viable.
I don't watch enough TV to justify paying for cable, but I still like a handful of shows that I really still want to watch each week. The networks put them up on their website for free streaming only one day after they air normally, and leave them up for a week or two, and I can watch all of my favorite shows at my leisure. Of course, all of these network websites utilize flash for delivering the video content. And okay, so I have to still sit through a minute or two of commercials every 10 minutes or so... that's no different than it would be if I were to actually watch it on television when it airs. The only real alternative to this would be finding pirated copies of my shows on P2P networks (which would probably be pretty easy, as the shows I like are fairly popular), but to be frank, my resorting to such measures would bother me personally far more than the fact that I have to use flash.
But back onto the matter of the websites requiring flash, it really seems to me like they just don't care about any potential audience that doesn't want to have flash installed, because they are a sufficiently small enough minority that the networks can dictate that you either have flash to watch their shows... or... well... tough.
Two main problems with that...
1. Can is not the same thing as will.
But even more importantly...
2. The issue is serious enough all by its bloody lonesome, and doesn't necessitate that every other constitutional right be voided in order to have a justifiable cause to be upset. Somehow implying that suspension of one right will necessarily lead to the utter ruin of the entire constitution can easily cause people to not see the seriousness of what might seem like the smaller issue of what is really only one amendment being affected. If you're going to fight for your rights, you should know what you are really fighting for, or else you're just going to end up sounding like an idiot to people who actually know what this is about.
To anyone that says such a thing, I would ask them this question, which would hopefully enlighten them about why that's a problematic belief: "Why are you wearing any clothes right now? Is it because there's something wrong with your naked body, or is because your naked body is private?" The notion that you must have to have done something wrong to have something to hide is nothing but a fallacy, plain and simple.
Right... and why should you have to decrypt that dvd movie you bought to watch it on your Linux computer, when you could have chosen to buy an unencrypted dvd instead? Oh, wait...
You see? This isn't just about whether or not a school or community can use wifi. it's about arbitrarily creating restrictions around technology that define what kinds of technologies people, especially future generations, are going to be permitted to use simply so that *YOU* can continue your work. This issue is only going to get worse as time goes on, and wireless technology becomes increasingly ubiquitous. Today it's a school having to use a wired lan instead of wifi (a restriction that, alone, I think is unreasonable in the 21st century), but what will end up being affected 50 years more from today? If the radio telescope institution has more right to be there, then the town needs to get the hell out... now. Before the problems get any worse.
Really, it has much less to do with entitlement than it does with the fact that the people who ran that institution made a very poor judgement call when they agreed to allow development on their property in the first place. While it's one thing to bind someone to an agreement to not use particular technologies, it's quite another to expect the such bindings should somehow automatically apply to future generations, effectively restricting future technological progress.
But yes... if the institution has more right to be there than the town, then the town *SHOULD* move.... because with the principles involved, there's infinitely more at stake here than just whether or not these people can use wifi at school. As technology advances, the prohibitions against the use of electronics which might cause radio interference with the telescope are only going to become increasingly difficult to manage as such new technology becomes ubiquitous. This story is only the beginning.
It still seems to me, however, that in the 21st century, such a prohibition is not particularly reasonable in a technologically developed nation. It may have seemed quite reasonable 50 years ago, but times change.
Please.... that sort of exaggeration is tantamount to saying that Connecticut shooter last December killed everyone in the entire school.
He didn't... he killed 26 people, plus himself. Yeah, it's serious... yeah, it's something that people can be rightfully upset about, but for chrissake, it doesn't hurt a damn thing to say what it is...
The areas within 100 miles of any border are not in any way, shape, or form *REMOTELY* constitution-free. They are, however, 4th-ammendment rights free, and that's quite reasonably a serious issue.
Calling it constitution-free smacks strongly of trying to incite some sort of emotional sympathy without needing any logical basis, even if there might happen be one. and worse yet, it can cause a person to overlook the *real* reason that there is to be upset about this. Unreasonable search and seizure is an extremely serious issue all by its bloody self, and you don't need to have the threat of the failing of the entire US constitution to have any justification to be incredibly upset about it.
So what I'm suggesting then is that people ought to let *THAT* be the reason for fighting against those who would cause it... not something that hasn't even actually happened, anywhere... and only looks ridiculously made-up to people who actually understand what is going on... and at worst only serves to spread disinformation to the general public about why this is actually a problem.
Of course I'm going to protest.... but I'm going to protest that you chopped of my finger, not that you chopped off my whole hand.
I mean, is the constitutional bill of rights such a house-of-cards that tampering with even one of them *guarantees* that the rest will fall? While I can get that such a consequence is something to perhaps watch out carefully for in the future and certainly try to prevent, the reaction that a single right from the constitution being suspended should somehow necessarily invalidate any or all of the others to be a bit... uhmm.... needlessly melodramatic.
Then why on earth is there any civilian development inside of that bowl in the first place? No wifi in the school is one thing... what about nearby homes? What about interference caused by cell phones? What about interference caused by passing automobiles running sophisticated electronics?