Moving 2 million(or even a substantial fraction thereof), in a country with a GDP per capita of ~$2,700 could get ugly. Like "squalid children with big eyes huddled under sodden tarps in disease-infested refugee camps" ugly.
Moving 2 million people from the surface of the earth to 100m underground in less than 5 seconds would be pretty ugly too.
does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure
Yes, it makes sense to consider a one time, up front investment in your infrastructure as opposed to a perpetual license fee and vendor lock-in.
It means that the government has to follow the rules that they laid down for public tenders, and not (1) try to subvert the process, and (2) lie about it afterwords.
It's pretty meaningless unless there are consequences for the government if they do. Were there damages awarded?
"he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time".
Same thing in America. We have to rely on a comedian to catch our politicians contradicting themselves.
Yeah, I get all that. My problem is that they never told me how to derive the correct answer. In math & science, there's a method to solving problems. They teach you that method in class, you practice it on the homework, and then you do it in the exam to prove you learned it.
In English, they expect you to pull a bunch of words out of your ass, and proceed to mark you down for everything you left out, and everything you got wrong. This, despite the fact that they never tell you how to come up with correct answers, or how to check your answers.
This was my experience not only from 7th grade to graduating high school, but in college classes as well. I tried pretty hard to figure out how to do what was expected of me. Asking my professors "how do I figure that out?" "how do you know that" "how do you know this is a symbol and not meant to be taken literally?". I never got any good answers, and I'm pretty sure the only reason I passed is because of the amount of class participation. I certainly could not have passed based on the grades I got on my papers.
So yeah I had problems in English class. And after suffering through it, I don't feel like I got anything out of it. In fact, I probably held back the class with my constant questions, much like the slackers in my math and science classes held them back. We both would have been better served by spending our time doing what we were interested in and staying out of each others way.
But what do you do with the kids who aren't interested in anything.
Every kid is interested in something, it's biological. If your child isn't interested in anything, you're doing something wrong. Probably killing his natural curiosity by teaching him that learning is a chore that should be mandatory instead of something that brings you joy as you increase your understanding of the world around you.
The only class we had to take every year was English, and that's arguably important no matter what field you want to work in.
Other than spelling and grammar, English is unimportant in essentially every field. We stopped doing spelling and grammar in 7th grade. I have never once thought to myself "Boy, good thing I read The Scarlet Letter in 11th grade, or I'd have been screwed!". High school math, physics, and chemistry come in handy every single day, even outside of my work.
Sure you can't just start programming full time as an apprentice type situation in high school
My best friend in High School did exactly that. Well, it was contract work, but that's not the point. He ended up dropping out of high school for it. The nature of our school system drives away really smart people, and that's a shame. We should be adapting our school system to fit our brightest students, not the other way around.
The chain of evidence is only as strong as it's weakest link. The word of a cop with a radar detector is worth exactly as much as the word of a cop without a radar detector. That is, exactly nothing.
Most of the time in those accidents the car is turning right after just passing the cyclist.
I'm having trouble visualizing how that would happen. If I pass a cyclist and then make a turn, I've got to slow down. If the cyclist is directly to my right, he will be able to pass me as I slow down for the turn. If he's already behind me, then he should stay behind me or pass me on the left like any other vehicle.
Consider collision types 5,6,&7 on bycyclesafe.com. These are the sorts of events I'm talking about, and their advice is the same as mine. Don't pass on the right. Yet somehow nearly every single time I pass a cyclist and come to a stoplight, he zooms right past me on the right.
I have no bone to pick with cyclists. I don't want to hit them. That's why I want to make them aware of their dangerous habits.
Audacity is hardly comparable to ProTools, or even Ardour. If you're recording voice over tracks, or a live performance, Audacity is pretty good. If you're mixing an album, forget about it.
For the system to function, it has to place trust in a group of people at some point.
In a democracy, we place that trust on the people. Power corrupts, so it would be foolish to place trust in those with authority.
If the police can't be trusted, then they can't do their job
Nonsense. Verifying that the police are in fact doing their job in no way prevents them from doing their job.
So even if they do their job poorly, and with frequent abuses, the system will tolerate this because the system depends on the assumption that they can be trusted
If the police don't do their job well, the people lose their trust in the police, and therefore the system. If you care about the stability of the system, you must ensure that they do their job well. The only way to do that is to keep tabs on them. Like, you know, with cameras and stuff.
The system is happy to hide the occasional act of injustice (and punish those who expose them) because the public's trust in the institution is vital to its continued functioning. It's paradoxical, unfair, illogical... and true.
Hiding the act of injustice is only proof of systemic injustice which is even more damaging to the system. People are willing to forgive occasional missteps. They will not forgive a cover-up. When an officer abuses his power, the right thing to do is for the police department to come clean. Punish the officer, and let the public know he's being punished. THAT would make me trust the system.
This damage to public property and trust far outweighed what happened between those five men. It was later determined by a court long after the public controversy had moved off the radar that training practices needed adjustment, which is exactly the kind of self-correcting behavior that is supposed to (and usually does) happen when mistakes are made.
Do you think that they would have adjusted those training practices if there had not been public outrage? Public outrage, even the occasional riot, is necessary to keep the government in line. Yes, the LA riots caused more damage than the Rodney King incident. But the riots weren't a reaction solely to the Rodney King incident. It was a reaction to a culture of abuse that had gone on for years. The riots forced a change that was badly needed, and in the long run LA is better off for it.
Remember, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. When authority becomes too abusive, open rebellion is natural and healthy. If you are able to cover up your abuses, you suffer no consequences, and therefore have no motivation to change.
I hated English* and foreign languages too. I would not be in favor of forcing anyone to take them either. Education works best when the student is motivated and interested. Forcing them to study subjects they hate only takes away time they could be doing something they like and are good at and will use in the future. I would have preferred to have no disinterested students in my science and math classes as well.
*English was particularly bad. For as many times as I was told "there is no right answer" I sure as hell found a lot of wrong answers.
Slashdot Mirror
Moving 2 million(or even a substantial fraction thereof), in a country with a GDP per capita of ~$2,700 could get ugly. Like "squalid children with big eyes huddled under sodden tarps in disease-infested refugee camps" ugly.
Moving 2 million people from the surface of the earth to 100m underground in less than 5 seconds would be pretty ugly too.
does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure
Yes, it makes sense to consider a one time, up front investment in your infrastructure as opposed to a perpetual license fee and vendor lock-in.
It means that the government has to follow the rules that they laid down for public tenders, and not (1) try to subvert the process, and (2) lie about it afterwords.
It's pretty meaningless unless there are consequences for the government if they do. Were there damages awarded?
"he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time".
Same thing in America. We have to rely on a comedian to catch our politicians contradicting themselves.
I found it. At $450, it's not quite in the same market as this thing. Worth it if you're Stallman, but not for the rest of us.
That's pretty nice. How much and where can I order one?
Simpsons did it.
I guess you can have an 80x30 terminal though, with a 4x8 pixel font.
Isn't that enough?
Yeah, I get all that. My problem is that they never told me how to derive the correct answer. In math & science, there's a method to solving problems. They teach you that method in class, you practice it on the homework, and then you do it in the exam to prove you learned it.
In English, they expect you to pull a bunch of words out of your ass, and proceed to mark you down for everything you left out, and everything you got wrong. This, despite the fact that they never tell you how to come up with correct answers, or how to check your answers.
This was my experience not only from 7th grade to graduating high school, but in college classes as well. I tried pretty hard to figure out how to do what was expected of me. Asking my professors "how do I figure that out?" "how do you know that" "how do you know this is a symbol and not meant to be taken literally?". I never got any good answers, and I'm pretty sure the only reason I passed is because of the amount of class participation. I certainly could not have passed based on the grades I got on my papers.
So yeah I had problems in English class. And after suffering through it, I don't feel like I got anything out of it. In fact, I probably held back the class with my constant questions, much like the slackers in my math and science classes held them back. We both would have been better served by spending our time doing what we were interested in and staying out of each others way.
But what do you do with the kids who aren't interested in anything.
Every kid is interested in something, it's biological. If your child isn't interested in anything, you're doing something wrong. Probably killing his natural curiosity by teaching him that learning is a chore that should be mandatory instead of something that brings you joy as you increase your understanding of the world around you.
The only class we had to take every year was English, and that's arguably important no matter what field you want to work in.
Other than spelling and grammar, English is unimportant in essentially every field. We stopped doing spelling and grammar in 7th grade. I have never once thought to myself "Boy, good thing I read The Scarlet Letter in 11th grade, or I'd have been screwed!". High school math, physics, and chemistry come in handy every single day, even outside of my work.
Sure you can't just start programming full time as an apprentice type situation in high school
My best friend in High School did exactly that. Well, it was contract work, but that's not the point. He ended up dropping out of high school for it. The nature of our school system drives away really smart people, and that's a shame. We should be adapting our school system to fit our brightest students, not the other way around.
The chain of evidence is only as strong as it's weakest link. The word of a cop with a radar detector is worth exactly as much as the word of a cop without a radar detector. That is, exactly nothing.
Most of the time in those accidents the car is turning right after just passing the cyclist.
I'm having trouble visualizing how that would happen. If I pass a cyclist and then make a turn, I've got to slow down. If the cyclist is directly to my right, he will be able to pass me as I slow down for the turn. If he's already behind me, then he should stay behind me or pass me on the left like any other vehicle.
Consider collision types 5,6,&7 on bycyclesafe.com. These are the sorts of events I'm talking about, and their advice is the same as mine. Don't pass on the right. Yet somehow nearly every single time I pass a cyclist and come to a stoplight, he zooms right past me on the right.
I have no bone to pick with cyclists. I don't want to hit them. That's why I want to make them aware of their dangerous habits.
You have the testimony of a cop as evidence. Which is exactly as much evidence as you have when they use radar.
Audacity is hardly comparable to ProTools, or even Ardour. If you're recording voice over tracks, or a live performance, Audacity is pretty good. If you're mixing an album, forget about it.
Now rate them for watts/FLOP and tell us who wins.
I don't watch commercials, and I've never seen Jim Lehrer mention American Idol. Problem solved.
Good luck suing the hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites that will still link to your info
Some people have no problem suing thousands of internet users to protect a dying business model.
Somehow I don't remember the DMCA or the Copyright Term Extension Act being passed during a recession.
Funny, I was just thinking that these comments were some of the most abjectly craven rationalizations I've ever seen a bootlicker post on slashdot.
The system is corrupt. If you film corrupt officers, people will do something about that corruption, therefore undermining the corrupt system.
For the system to function, it has to place trust in a group of people at some point.
In a democracy, we place that trust on the people. Power corrupts, so it would be foolish to place trust in those with authority.
If the police can't be trusted, then they can't do their job
Nonsense. Verifying that the police are in fact doing their job in no way prevents them from doing their job.
So even if they do their job poorly, and with frequent abuses, the system will tolerate this because the system depends on the assumption that they can be trusted
If the police don't do their job well, the people lose their trust in the police, and therefore the system. If you care about the stability of the system, you must ensure that they do their job well. The only way to do that is to keep tabs on them. Like, you know, with cameras and stuff.
The system is happy to hide the occasional act of injustice (and punish those who expose them) because the public's trust in the institution is vital to its continued functioning. It's paradoxical, unfair, illogical... and true.
Hiding the act of injustice is only proof of systemic injustice which is even more damaging to the system. People are willing to forgive occasional missteps. They will not forgive a cover-up. When an officer abuses his power, the right thing to do is for the police department to come clean. Punish the officer, and let the public know he's being punished. THAT would make me trust the system.
This damage to public property and trust far outweighed what happened between those five men. It was later determined by a court long after the public controversy had moved off the radar that training practices needed adjustment, which is exactly the kind of self-correcting behavior that is supposed to (and usually does) happen when mistakes are made.
Do you think that they would have adjusted those training practices if there had not been public outrage? Public outrage, even the occasional riot, is necessary to keep the government in line. Yes, the LA riots caused more damage than the Rodney King incident. But the riots weren't a reaction solely to the Rodney King incident. It was a reaction to a culture of abuse that had gone on for years. The riots forced a change that was badly needed, and in the long run LA is better off for it.
Remember, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. When authority becomes too abusive, open rebellion is natural and healthy. If you are able to cover up your abuses, you suffer no consequences, and therefore have no motivation to change.
80% of accidents involving cyclists are caused by a car that missed the cyclists when making a right turn.
Easy solution. Don't pass on the right.
Most police officers ...[protect] all their buddies no matter what they have done.
So what you're saying is, most police officers are corrupt.
I hated English* and foreign languages too. I would not be in favor of forcing anyone to take them either. Education works best when the student is motivated and interested. Forcing them to study subjects they hate only takes away time they could be doing something they like and are good at and will use in the future. I would have preferred to have no disinterested students in my science and math classes as well.
*English was particularly bad. For as many times as I was told "there is no right answer" I sure as hell found a lot of wrong answers.
You know, you don't have to watch it. I'm sure I wouldn't notice if American Idol went off the air.