Georgia Tech has a Graphics and Usability Lab within its School of Computing. A couple of years ago they had a few demonstrations on what people were working. Most of them were not GUI's per se, but one of the main things they were working on was interface -- through VR, Voice Recognition, Intuitive design, etc. There is research going on there, peeps.:)
People who adopt the disabilitied, the handicaped, the slow, the delinquent, the idon'tcarewhatitisbutitaintperfect.
Granted there are very few of these people, and usually they get turned into human interest stories in Readers Digest and 11 Alive news, but still, these people do exist.
I think what a lot of people, and Katz here don't recognize its not perfect children that parents want, but they want the best for their children. Which can and is misconstrued by both the public and the child. Sure there are soccer mom's and baseball dads that are der uberfuhrers that demand everything from their children, but by and large, most parents want their kids happy, and to have a good life.
And at the same time, We're discovering new music online and through other channels, going to that really cool resturaunt no one seems to know about out in the boonies, watching movies we've had imported from Overseas through friends we met online, and reading books / comics / stories / poetry by people the major publishers never even heard of. The Ministry of Tru-- er, AOLTimeWarner only has as much clout in your life as you let it. I like some mainstream music/movies/books, but I don't define my life by it. The simple fact that we are discussing this sets apart from other people, giving us a different insight on something other people take for granted.
Legal defense funds are more than just keeping poor businesses on their feet, they're speech (if you believe the supreme court.) And being speech, every dollar I spend at PayLars is a dollar I use to say "HEY LARS! YOU SUCK!" not to prop up someone. So, if there is going to be a defense fund, to whom do I write my check?
Secondly, any for as long as we legally view a corperation as an individual, we have the right to expect them to behave like individuals, and follow moral concepts. In fact, since a Corperate "individual" is technically immortal and functionally irrepremandable, what do we as a nation do? Well, eventually, the ball is going to hit the wall, and we'll have Concord and Lexington again. But I like being short, fat, and sitting down and not hiding in the bushes with a gun fighting for my rights. So lets stick them with the responsabilities that go with the priveledges that corperations have. They have more freedoms than the individual in persuing their goals, and can do so with a terrible efficiency. Its about high time we've held them accountable for their actions. REMOVING DMCA is one of them. And there are three ways to do so:
1. The by far most radical way is to storm the Redmond Vill-- er, Bastille, and fight for our rights violently. (um, see tidbit on being fat and not wanting to shoot people earlier).
2. The Ghandi way is to ignore it and suffer the consequences(if any) non-violently until Congress has no choice but to repeal the law or risk not having a people to govern; this includes boycotts, blatant infringment on superfluous copyrights, etc. This is by far the most morally upright way to break the law, btw.;)
3. Lobby, advocate and VOTE VOTE VOTE. It works. It has for 211 years.
umount/dev/soapbox Those that know it least, know it loudest (and I'm heard in Bangkok) Lef forvrin, that furious feline.
Really? And, if I can follow your hypothetical out logically, what would be the taste, the tact of that gesture if the study was brought about because of your friends death? Would that be tacky? This book is a commemoration of ALL victims of Columbine. The ones we admit to and the ones we don't. sheesh.
Don't blame the proliferation of ideas for the problems of not reaching out to your peers. You want to end Columbine-type violence? End hazing style High school politics. If you shut up people about Columbine, you are doomed to repeat it. Not the other way around. People just use that "Media propogates violence" crap because people are uncomfortable with the fact that PEOPLE propogate violence.
Ahh, the the flaming firebrand of indignance. This isn't tacky. Jon Katz,/. and the rest are commemorating the Anniversary. People are holding services, and moments of silence, and God knows what else, but are they being tacky? Jon Katz et al. are merely commemorating a different side of the issue. No better time than now.
Because in the end, that isn't what this is about. This is about freedom of expression and freedom from the tyranny of a majority. No where is it more marked and lethal than in the high school. Adolecense is the time when things are most haywire, most boggling. And then the clannishness of people, the tendence for anger and resentment. It is this that _Voices_ is about. The Profits from the book will serve its purpose continuing to provide a free and open forum for the discussion of these problems. The forum that gave rise to _Voices_ is/. I'm sure what Andover,/., and Jon Katz do with this money will be wellspent.
Not to sound trite, but doesn't it just make sense that Hemos was just the first to make the post? I mean, I'm probably showing some extreme lack of understanding for the illuminati-style inner workings of slashdot, but thats all I took it for. Besides, if you're not willing to see the other person's side of the argument, how much do you understand your own side?
You're missing the point. A gun is dissassociative. The knife wielding lunatic doesn't mind having your blood and guts and worse spilled all over his hand. Think about it for a moment. A bullet makes a little hole (Entry). Its about association and perception. There is little trivial about the difference between a knife wound and a gun wound, with the exception of shotguns, which are more messy than knives. But you are something like 30 times more likely to be mugged with a handgun than a shotgun.
Isn't that what we really want, central candidates? If really out there ones got in office, say ESR (who is great, but out there considering the Mainstream) that would be fine and good for us, but really bad for other peoples (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, well, the list goes on and on.) Who would do anything to get rid of him. But on the other hand, Pat Robertson could also get put in a posistion of great power. I use Pat Robertson only as an example. But with more central candidates, the opportunity for change or stabilization is there, without creating blocks against policy simply based on who the policy originated from (conflicts of personality). Things get done in compromise.
Here's a comment a friend of mine once made that has stuck with me and made me sure that I'd rather face a person with a gun: A person with a knife is aware that when they stick you, its going to get all over them too. There is no detatchment. Its visceral and personal. Now knowing that, who would you rather face?
Actually, at the time ( and I say at the time, because I don't know what laws have been passed since Columbine ) it was not illegal for an adult to transfer a rifle or a shotgun for a minor. But then again, saying EVERYWHERE in the US is like saying ALWAYS or NEVER in science: It just doesn't work that way. The federal government can't just mandate laws to the states. It can coerce laws from the states through money, but it can't just pull things into federal statutes, thanks to Amendment 10 (Whoa, a post about an amendment other than 1 or 2) which says ~Those powers that are not expressely given to the Federal Government, nor denied to the states, are the realm of the state, or the individual.~ Thats not verbatim, but very close. As for the rest of the gun control argument, I haven't seen anything that hasn't been said time and time again. Because we have PRO Gun Control groups screaming their heads off at the ANTI Gun Control groups and vice versa, there isn't going to be any kind of rational discourse on the subject. Take our Government. Hell, take this thread.:P Those who know it least, know it loudest... I'm being heard in Berlin.:) Forvrin
The only place sabotage gets on is on the black list. We're geeks. We fight with words, not fists. But we do fight.
Second, if getting arrested for civil disobedience or spending a night in jail bothers you, Get out. Stop your whining, because you don't deserve the things you complain about. I'm sure it bothered the Indians fighting for independance that they were going to be beaten by English Guards by sticks and worse, but did it stop them? And, the last time I checked, Gandhi wasn't an anarchist or worse.
Do not. I repeat, DO NOT destroy anything. We want to create freedoms. Not for us, but for EVERYONE. That means we can't infringe on another's freedoms to do so. So you want to participate in civil disobedience? You want to make a statement? Develop a device that defeats Region coding on DVD's. Program DeCSS. Then when they come to arrest you, accept it. When they fine you, don't pay. When they put you in jail, don't quaver. Is it worth it? To be free? I don't know what my part in all this is going to be, or even if I'm ready to make a part.
But for all that you might consider holy or worthy, do not hurt those of us who haven't made up our minds by wreckin' sh*t.:P
Actually, there was nothing civil about the disobediance in Seattle.:P
Civil Disobedience means two things: 1. that we defy the law because it is an unjust law. 2. We accept any and all consequences of said law, because in the end it is not the fact that we are getting away with it that is the problem, but the fact that the law is unjust, and we are willing to risk jail, beatings, hazings, and any number of other brutalities to see it repealed. So when you call for civil disobedience, remember Indians getting struck in the head with rattans, and civil rights protestors getting dogs and fire hoses turned on them.
Slashdot Mirror
Georgia Tech has a Graphics and Usability Lab within its School of Computing. A couple of years ago they had a few demonstrations on what people were working. Most of them were not GUI's per se, but one of the main things they were working on was interface -- through VR, Voice Recognition, Intuitive design, etc. :)
There is research going on there, peeps.
People who adopt the disabilitied, the handicaped, the slow, the delinquent, the idon'tcarewhatitisbutitaintperfect.
Granted there are very few of these people, and usually they get turned into human interest stories in Readers Digest and 11 Alive news, but still, these people do exist.
I think what a lot of people, and Katz here don't recognize its not perfect children that parents want, but they want the best for their children. Which can and is misconstrued by both the public and the child. Sure there are soccer mom's and baseball dads that are der uberfuhrers that demand everything from their children, but by and large, most parents want their kids happy, and to have a good life.
Just not-so-pessimestic thoughts for ya! :D
And at the same time, We're discovering new music online and through other channels, going to that really cool resturaunt no one seems to know about out in the boonies, watching movies we've had imported from Overseas through friends we met online, and reading books / comics / stories / poetry by people the major publishers never even heard of. The Ministry of Tru-- er, AOLTimeWarner only has as much clout in your life as you let it. I like some mainstream music/movies/books, but I don't define my life by it. The simple fact that we are discussing this sets apart from other people, giving us a different insight on something other people take for granted.
Legal defense funds are more than just keeping poor businesses on their feet, they're speech (if you believe the supreme court.) And being speech, every dollar I spend at PayLars is a dollar I use to say "HEY LARS! YOU SUCK!" not to prop up someone. So, if there is going to be a defense fund, to whom do I write my check?
;)
/dev/soapbox
Secondly, any for as long as we legally view a corperation as an individual, we have the right to expect them to behave like individuals, and follow moral concepts. In fact, since a Corperate "individual" is technically immortal and functionally irrepremandable, what do we as a nation do? Well, eventually, the ball is going to hit the wall, and we'll have Concord and Lexington again. But I like being short, fat, and sitting down and not hiding in the bushes with a gun fighting for my rights. So lets stick them with the responsabilities that go with the priveledges that corperations have. They have more freedoms than the individual in persuing their goals, and can do so with a terrible efficiency. Its about high time we've held them accountable for their actions. REMOVING DMCA is one of them. And there are three ways to do so:
1. The by far most radical way is to storm the Redmond Vill-- er, Bastille, and fight for our rights violently. (um, see tidbit on being fat and not wanting to shoot people earlier).
2. The Ghandi way is to ignore it and suffer the consequences(if any) non-violently until Congress has no choice but to repeal the law or risk not having a people to govern; this includes boycotts, blatant infringment on superfluous copyrights, etc. This is by far the most morally upright way to break the law, btw.
3. Lobby, advocate and VOTE VOTE VOTE. It works. It has for 211 years.
umount
Those that know it least, know it loudest (and I'm heard in Bangkok)
Lef forvrin, that furious feline.
Really? And, if I can follow your hypothetical out logically, what would be the taste, the tact of that gesture if the study was brought about because of your friends death? Would that be tacky? This book is a commemoration of ALL victims of Columbine. The ones we admit to and the ones we don't. sheesh.
Don't blame the proliferation of ideas for the problems of not reaching out to your peers. You want to end Columbine-type violence? End hazing style High school politics. If you shut up people about Columbine, you are doomed to repeat it. Not the other way around. People just use that "Media propogates violence" crap because people are uncomfortable with the fact that PEOPLE propogate violence.
Ahh, the the flaming firebrand of indignance. This isn't tacky. Jon Katz, /. and the rest are commemorating the Anniversary. People are holding services, and moments of silence, and God knows what else, but are they being tacky? Jon Katz et al. are merely commemorating a different side of the issue. No better time than now.
Because in the end, that isn't what this is about. This is about freedom of expression and freedom from the tyranny of a majority. No where is it more marked and lethal than in the high school. Adolecense is the time when things are most haywire, most boggling. And then the clannishness of people, the tendence for anger and resentment. It is this that _Voices_ is about. The Profits from the book will serve its purpose continuing to provide a free and open forum for the discussion of these problems. The forum that gave rise to _Voices_ is /. I'm sure what Andover, /., and Jon Katz do with this money will be wellspent.
Not to sound trite, but doesn't it just make sense that Hemos was just the first to make the post? I mean, I'm probably showing some extreme lack of understanding for the illuminati-style inner workings of slashdot, but thats all I took it for. Besides, if you're not willing to see the other person's side of the argument, how much do you understand your own side?
You're missing the point. A gun is dissassociative. The knife wielding lunatic doesn't mind having your blood and guts and worse spilled all over his hand. Think about it for a moment. A bullet makes a little hole (Entry). Its about association and perception. There is little trivial about the difference between a knife wound and a gun wound, with the exception of shotguns, which are more messy than knives. But you are something like 30 times more likely to be mugged with a handgun than a shotgun.
Isn't that what we really want, central candidates? If really out there ones got in office, say ESR (who is great, but out there considering the Mainstream) that would be fine and good for us, but really bad for other peoples (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, well, the list goes on and on.) Who would do anything to get rid of him. But on the other hand, Pat Robertson could also get put in a posistion of great power. I use Pat Robertson only as an example. But with more central candidates, the opportunity for change or stabilization is there, without creating blocks against policy simply based on who the policy originated from (conflicts of personality). Things get done in compromise.
Here's a comment a friend of mine once made that has stuck with me and made me sure that I'd rather face a person with a gun: A person with a knife is aware that when they stick you, its going to get all over them too. There is no detatchment. Its visceral and personal. Now knowing that, who would you rather face?
Actually, at the time ( and I say at the time, because I don't know what laws have been passed since Columbine ) it was not illegal for an adult to transfer a rifle or a shotgun for a minor. But then again, saying EVERYWHERE in the US is like saying ALWAYS or NEVER in science: It just doesn't work that way. The federal government can't just mandate laws to the states. It can coerce laws from the states through money, but it can't just pull things into federal statutes, thanks to Amendment 10 (Whoa, a post about an amendment other than 1 or 2) which says ~Those powers that are not expressely given to the Federal Government, nor denied to the states, are the realm of the state, or the individual.~ Thats not verbatim, but very close. As for the rest of the gun control argument, I haven't seen anything that hasn't been said time and time again. Because we have PRO Gun Control groups screaming their heads off at the ANTI Gun Control groups and vice versa, there isn't going to be any kind of rational discourse on the subject. Take our Government. Hell, take this thread. :P Those who know it least, know it loudest... I'm being heard in Berlin. :) Forvrin
A couple things.
:P
You're both wrong. To an extent.
The only place sabotage gets on is on the black list. We're geeks. We fight with words, not fists. But we do fight.
Second, if getting arrested for civil disobedience or spending a night in jail bothers you, Get out. Stop your whining, because you don't deserve the things you complain about. I'm sure it bothered the Indians fighting for independance that they were going to be beaten by English Guards by sticks and worse, but did it stop them? And, the last time I checked, Gandhi wasn't an anarchist or worse.
Do not. I repeat, DO NOT destroy anything. We want to create freedoms. Not for us, but for EVERYONE. That means we can't infringe on another's freedoms to do so. So you want to participate in civil disobedience? You want to make a statement? Develop a device that defeats Region coding on DVD's. Program DeCSS. Then when they come to arrest you, accept it. When they fine you, don't pay. When they put you in jail, don't quaver. Is it worth it? To be free? I don't know what my part in all this is going to be, or even if I'm ready to make a part.
But for all that you might consider holy or worthy, do not hurt those of us who haven't made up our minds by wreckin' sh*t.
Actually, there was nothing civil about the disobediance in Seattle. :P
Civil Disobedience means two things: 1. that we defy the law because it is an unjust law. 2. We accept any and all consequences of said law, because in the end it is not the fact that we are getting away with it that is the problem, but the fact that the law is unjust, and we are willing to risk jail, beatings, hazings, and any number of other brutalities to see it repealed. So when you call for civil disobedience, remember Indians getting struck in the head with rattans, and civil rights protestors getting dogs and fire hoses turned on them.