Indeed. Slashdot needs to make up its mind about Bush. Is he an idiot with no clue as to what is going on, or is he an evil genius who advances his agenda by exercising immediate personal control over every decision made in the executive branch?
If they're going to indulge in baseless Bush-bashing, they could at least be consistent about it.
You know I am sick of this belief that slashdot is "Taco's Bookmarks". Yes this may have been the case years ago but once Slashdot grew into a commerical entity it lost the right to be judged so lightly.
I don't follow this argument at all. Slashdot became a commercial entity because of what it was, and therefore it should now be judged on completely different terms, as something it's not?
I am surprised that you have not been exposed (at least in the news) to religions that have propagated...
Oh, of course I have been exposed to religions, and uses of religion, which promote these and other terrible agendas. I am sickened and offended by them. But I have also been exposed to religions and uses of religion which promote peace, tolerance, justice, and the quest for scientific knowledge. And other religions which don't promote much of anything, but just offer a way of looking at the world that you can take or leave at your pleasure. So I'm not prepared to paint all religions with the same broad brush of suspicion, however much some so-called christians may have done to earn it.
As far as selection/filtering is concerned, I mean only that the generalizations you use (point 1 being the most extreme, I think) leave out so much of my understanding and experience of religion that I have a hard time accepting the arguments that flow from them. Based upon my experience and understanding, I don't conclude that people who want to allow religious clubs to use school property must be seeking to recuit or indoctrinate others, or promote some agenda. Maybe meeting in a schoolroom after classes is just a matter of convenience. So as long as the clubs are voluntary, extracurricular, and aren't given any preferential treatment over other clubs (religious or not), I have no problem with them.
Your "givens" are so carefully selected/filtered to support your result, some to the point of irrelevance, that they make your logic hard for me to take seriously. But if "1" really describes your perception of religion, then I begin to uderstand why you hold the position you do, and why you defend it so strongly.
I am not opposed to the expression. I am opposed to cults recruiting on my tax dollars....
This same "Not with my tax dollars!" logic could be used by others to block the teaching of evolution, sex education, racial equality...and pretty much anything else.
Religion-oriented after-school clubs aren't about adding religion to the curriculum. They are voluntary.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of such clubs. I just think they should have a right to exist, with standing no better or worse than any other group. And that goes for Wicca, Satanism and SubGenius clubs as much as it does for Chistian, Jewish and Muslim clubs.
Significant amounts of people are not opposed to the chess club, and the sports clubs. Whereas religion is a hotbed of debate....
I think that if the First Amendment stands for anything, it stands for the idea that no one's opposition to an idea should have any bearing on how the law treats the expression of that idea.
I defy anyone to explain to me how (as W would have it) it can be okay to finance research on human stem cell lines that were created before a certain date (date of W's speech?), and verboten to finance research on stem cells created after that date.
The point is not some arbitrary date. The point is the idea that "What's done is done, but don't do it again."
Here's a very close analogy: It's OK for medical students to work on cadavers for educational purposes. It is not OK to go out and kill people to ensure an adequate supply of cadavers.
Re:will work for homemade bandwidth
on
Make Your Own DSL
·
· Score: 1
Step 1: Procure several hundred pounds of sand.
Step 2: Melt sand into high-quality optically pure glass.
"This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches."
From what I can tell, this isn't a public school. Ridgeview "Classical" has a Mission Statement,.com address, and a fairly strict Dress Code, which includes "clean, neat, traditionally styled hair" with no wild colors, and shirts without any visible collarbone or logos of any kind.
Ridgeview Classical is a Charter School, which is a kind of alternative public school authorized by statute in Colorado.
Over ten years ago I used to hang out at Club Caribe, a virtual world on Quantum Link, the Commodore-64 online service that later morphed into AOL. Club Caribe may not have been very 3-D, but it was certainly goal-free and emphasized action more than talk.
Isn't it tragic that legislation and treaties are needed to control stuff like this? I find it very depressing that "common sense" and "good of the community" are such hard concepts to follow. I know all about the "tragedy of the commons" and understand that it is a reality, but it just seems absurd that an intelligent (maybe that's my mistake?) species can't see that we would make much more progress and be much more comfortable (albeit as a species) if we could cooperate.
What you're asking for is exactly what laws are supposed to be: Cooperation. Agreements about how to behave regarding things that affect the "good of the community."
And it's often good to decide such agreements up front, since different individuals can have very different ideas about what's "good for the community."
That's something i have no experience with. can you (or someone else) briefly explain the perjury laws, as they would apply in this case?
The short non-technical answer: Everything offered as evidence, unless both sides otherwise agree (if the court lets them), has to have a live person testifying about it, to vouch for its accuracy and authenticity. Physical evidence found at the crime scene? The cop who bagged it testifies as to where and when he found it, the condition it was in, etc. Surveilance video or audio tape? Someone has to testify as to how and when it was made, how accurate the process is, etc. Those witnesses, of course, are subject to cross-examination, and are subject to the laws against perjury.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
Starlitz has long been a favorite of mine, and for years I've been saying that "Hollywood Kremlin" could be turned into a terrific screenplay. (Mr. Sterling, are you listening? Is your agent?)
The CPU power in the newer Palms will probably (I don't have any good insider information) go towards tasks to make it a better organizer. For example, speech to text notetaking.
Now that would be the Killer App to finally get me to buy a handheld computer. I have boxes and boxes of microcassettes filed with random notes about anything and everything. But in order to find anything more than a week old, I still have to hunt through my hand-written diaries to figure out when something happened, and then hunt through tapes until I find the notes I need.
A pocket device that could turn spoken notes into GREP-able text would be sweet indeed.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
My understanding is that the first ep wasn't included in the original Japanese TV run because the plot involves drug trafficking -- a very sensitive subject in Japan, but no problem for most American prime-time dramas.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
The question is - why keep pitchers at all? When society realized that it was better to plow with a tractor than a bunch of oxen, we got rid of the oxen. When we realized that it was better to manufacture and box crayons with robotics than with third-world child labor, we did that, too.
The purpose of plowing with oxen was to hget the plowing done, not to exercise the oxen. The purpose of manufacturing and boxing crayons is to have boxes of crayons to sell. The purpose of Paul Bunyan's lumberjacking was to get trees cut down so they could be used as wood. Etcetera.
The purpose of baseball isn't to get pitches thrown, or to get home runs hit. The world has no independent need for well-thrown pitches or home runs, outside the context of baseball. (When we do need similar activities performed outside of baseball, we already do use machines -- see, for example, the grenade launcher.)
The purpose of baseball, if it has one, is to experience and observe competition among teams of human beings. Therefore, replacing the human beings with robots necessarily undermines the point of the activity.
I'd be delighted to see a seprate league for robot-vs-robot baseball games, but it doesn't make sense to replace human athletes because the machines perform the tasks "better." By that standard, the dawn of auto racing should have meant the end of track & field sports. After all, cars are "better" than runners at getting from Point A to Point B quickly, aren't they?
Slashdot Mirror
In this context I was talking about "Slashdot" as the (collective) voice of its editors. Sorry for the confusion.
Indeed. Slashdot needs to make up its mind about Bush. Is he an idiot with no clue as to what is going on, or is he an evil genius who advances his agenda by exercising immediate personal control over every decision made in the executive branch?
If they're going to indulge in baseless Bush-bashing, they could at least be consistent about it.
Well said.
A plea of "not guilty" might be better understood as a plea of "Oh yeah? Prove it."
I don't follow this argument at all. Slashdot became a commercial entity because of what it was, and therefore it should now be judged on completely different terms, as something it's not?
Oh, of course I have been exposed to religions, and uses of religion, which promote these and other terrible agendas. I am sickened and offended by them. But I have also been exposed to religions and uses of religion which promote peace, tolerance, justice, and the quest for scientific knowledge. And other religions which don't promote much of anything, but just offer a way of looking at the world that you can take or leave at your pleasure. So I'm not prepared to paint all religions with the same broad brush of suspicion, however much some so-called christians may have done to earn it.
As far as selection/filtering is concerned, I mean only that the generalizations you use (point 1 being the most extreme, I think) leave out so much of my understanding and experience of religion that I have a hard time accepting the arguments that flow from them. Based upon my experience and understanding, I don't conclude that people who want to allow religious clubs to use school property must be seeking to recuit or indoctrinate others, or promote some agenda. Maybe meeting in a schoolroom after classes is just a matter of convenience. So as long as the clubs are voluntary, extracurricular, and aren't given any preferential treatment over other clubs (religious or not), I have no problem with them.
Your "givens" are so carefully selected/filtered to support your result, some to the point of irrelevance, that they make your logic hard for me to take seriously. But if "1" really describes your perception of religion, then I begin to uderstand why you hold the position you do, and why you defend it so strongly.
This same "Not with my tax dollars!" logic could be used by others to block the teaching of evolution, sex education, racial equality...and pretty much anything else.
Religion-oriented after-school clubs aren't about adding religion to the curriculum. They are voluntary.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of such clubs. I just think they should have a right to exist, with standing no better or worse than any other group. And that goes for Wicca, Satanism and SubGenius clubs as much as it does for Chistian, Jewish and Muslim clubs.
I think that if the First Amendment stands for anything, it stands for the idea that no one's opposition to an idea should have any bearing on how the law treats the expression of that idea.
The point is not some arbitrary date. The point is the idea that "What's done is done, but don't do it again."
Here's a very close analogy: It's OK for medical students to work on cadavers for educational purposes. It is not OK to go out and kill people to ensure an adequate supply of cadavers.
Step 1: Procure several hundred pounds of sand.
Step 2: Melt sand into high-quality optically pure glass.
Step 3: Draw glass into very thin
strands.
Step 4: ....
"This is a new technology that can integrate into existing production lines and can halve the depth of a CRT type tube. A TV normally 22 inches deep would be only 11 inches."
All thanks to those changing laws of physics!
Or Remember, i guess.
Or, as Iron Chef fans would have it, Watakushi no kioku ga tashika naraba...
The world would be a better place if GUIs had never been invented.
Absolutely. And how about that Guttenburg guy, fixing it so that any random schmuck can read the Bible for himself?
From what I can tell, this isn't a public school. Ridgeview "Classical" has a Mission Statement, .com address, and a fairly strict Dress Code, which includes "clean, neat, traditionally styled hair" with no wild colors, and shirts without any visible collarbone or logos of any kind.
Ridgeview Classical is a Charter School, which is a kind of alternative public school authorized by statute in Colorado.
You nearly had me, there, until you suggested that liberals would want anything to do with nuclear power.
No. It's a kind of double-reverse arm lock. Hard to describe. But it is sanctioned by the WWF (Windows Wrestling Federation).
Over ten years ago I used to hang out at Club Caribe, a virtual world on Quantum Link, the Commodore-64 online service that later morphed into AOL. Club Caribe may not have been very 3-D, but it was certainly goal-free and emphasized action more than talk.
Isn't it tragic that legislation and treaties are needed to control stuff like this? I find it very depressing that "common sense" and "good of the community" are such hard concepts to follow. I know all about the "tragedy of the commons" and understand that it is a reality, but it just seems absurd that an intelligent (maybe that's my mistake?) species can't see that we would make much more progress and be much more comfortable (albeit as a species) if we could cooperate.
What you're asking for is exactly what laws are supposed to be: Cooperation. Agreements about how to behave regarding things that affect the "good of the community."
And it's often good to decide such agreements up front, since different individuals can have very different ideas about what's "good for the community."
That's something i have no experience with. can you (or someone else) briefly explain the perjury laws, as they would apply in this case?
The short non-technical answer:
Everything offered as evidence, unless both sides otherwise agree (if the court lets them), has to have a live person testifying about it, to vouch for its accuracy and authenticity. Physical evidence found at the crime scene? The cop who bagged it testifies as to where and when he found it, the condition it was in, etc. Surveilance video or audio tape? Someone has to testify as to how and when it was made, how accurate the process is, etc. Those witnesses, of course, are subject to cross-examination, and are subject to the laws against perjury.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
I cannot count the number of newbies that kill their windows partition by installing linux!
Is this a bug, or a feature?
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
Starlitz has long been a favorite of mine, and for years I've been saying that "Hollywood Kremlin" could be turned into a terrific screenplay. (Mr. Sterling, are you listening? Is your agent?)
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
The CPU power in the newer Palms will probably (I don't have any good insider information) go towards tasks to make it a better organizer. For example, speech to text notetaking.
Now that would be the Killer App to finally get me to buy a handheld computer. I have boxes and boxes of microcassettes filed with random notes about anything and everything. But in order to find anything more than a week old, I still have to hunt through my hand-written diaries to figure out when something happened, and then hunt through tapes until I find the notes I need.
A pocket device that could turn spoken notes into GREP-able text would be sweet indeed.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
My understanding is that the first ep wasn't included in the original Japanese TV run because the plot involves drug trafficking -- a very sensitive subject in Japan, but no problem for most American prime-time dramas.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
b) You would have a tough time proving that it is actually stolen code. (Companies releasing closed source code? I don't think so.)
That's what discovery procedures in litigation are for.
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG
The question is - why keep pitchers at all? When society realized that it was better to plow with a tractor than a bunch of oxen, we got rid of the oxen. When we realized that it was better to manufacture and box crayons with robotics than with third-world child labor, we did that, too.
The purpose of plowing with oxen was to hget the plowing done, not to exercise the oxen. The purpose of manufacturing and boxing crayons is to have boxes of crayons to sell. The purpose of Paul Bunyan's lumberjacking was to get trees cut down so they could be used as wood. Etcetera.
The purpose of baseball isn't to get pitches thrown, or to get home runs hit. The world has no independent need for well-thrown pitches or home runs, outside the context of baseball. (When we do need similar activities performed outside of baseball, we already do use machines -- see, for example, the grenade launcher.)
The purpose of baseball, if it has one, is to experience and observe competition among teams of human beings. Therefore, replacing the human beings with robots necessarily undermines the point of the activity.
I'd be delighted to see a seprate league for robot-vs-robot baseball games, but it doesn't make sense to replace human athletes because the machines perform the tasks "better." By that standard, the dawn of auto racing should have meant the end of track & field sports. After all, cars are "better" than runners at getting from Point A to Point B quickly, aren't they?
--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG