Allowing children to read a prayer at their graduation is not a violation of the First Amendment.
Will you allow the same children to read a Muslim prayer at graduation? How about a pagan one? A satanic prayer? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you must answer "no" to all. To do otherwise would be to "respect an establishment of religion."
The point about Congress vs. the states is simply ignorance. The Supreme Court established back in 1925 that the Bill of Rights binds state legislatures too. And beside the point, most states have virtually the same wording in their own state constitutions, making the point moot.
It's amazing to hear people using the election in Iraq to justify the Bush policy. Don't get me wrong; it is a great turning point for Iraq, but Bush stood in the way every step of the way! First he wanted to hand power to the criminal Chalabi. Then he wanted to put Bremer in charge as the new Saddam with an American face. Then he wanted phony parliamentary elections that the citizens couldn't participate in. It's only because the (Iranian!) religious fanatic Ayatollah Sistani fought for real elections that we are finally getting them (and even then, the voters don't know the names of the candidates they're voting for -- there were even candidates who found out they were on the lists who said no, they weren't running!). And Sistani, remember, pushed for elections only because he thought it was the best way to kick the US out of Iraq!
And even when the Bush admin finally agreed (were forced to agree) to elections, Bush made sure that elections were postponed until after the US election!!! No matter how many Americans and Iraqis were killed in the meantime. Now he's gloating over having single handedly brought democracy to Iraq! It's nauseating. And the media swimming in it, like they're amazed Iraqis know how to stick a piece of paper in a box. This comes after we learn that the US has given up its search for the weapons that supposedly started this war in the first place. And you call the left hypocritical??
Finally, a sobering thought on this from an Iraqi blogger: "The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America...
Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now. " (from riverbend).
I teach a university course on freedom of expression in the US, and have consistently been appalled at this very problem. Even after a semester in the course (and we cover US Supreme Court decisions throughout the 20th century as well as a history of freedom of speech protection going back to the colonial era), it still surprises me how many people think that the limits to free expression should be far greater than they are (at least based on their final papers). I've read any number of papers calling for an all out ban on "pornography" on the internet -- this is after fairly detailed coverage of the Miller definition of obscenity, the several court decisions regarding the Communication Decency Act and its progeny, etc. I read a paper calling for criminal penalties for speech that denies the Armenian genocide. A paper calling for penalties for criticizing the draft (this was after discussing Cohen v. California; what was really odd was that the student seemed to be under the impression that a draft actually existed in 2002, since we were at war). Numerous papers about how the threat of terrorism requires restrictions on free speech (usually very vaguely argued, without any clear sense of what kind of free speech actually causes(?) terrorism). All in all, it's upsetting not only how little they know, but that even after they are given the information, they tend to cling to ideas that I would think are thoroughly refuted by the history of free speech in America.
The really sad thing is that the history of free speech tells us that free speech is not a right that was "given" to Americans by the first amendment (though of course it is enshrined there); it is a right that was won by Americans through frequent struggles, from the birth of the nation through the twenty first century, by people committed to the idea that true freedom is superior to its alternative. If people don't even know what that freedom is anymore, how can we expect them to continue that struggle?
What the hell kind of school do you go to that "forces" political correctness upon the student body? I teach at one of the most liberal campuses in California (which means it is probably one of the most liberal in the US), and I don't know of any courses where "political correctness" is "forced" on people "through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities." I may be a liberal myself but I actually agree with the right wingers that leftists who force their politics down people's throats are a terrible threat to academic freedom, but I just don't see this happening as often as the talking heads on Fox News (or the typing heads on frontpagemagazine.com) claim. Political correctness is a red herring -- rather than actually have to refute opinions that they disagree with, right wingers would rather whine about how unfair it is that they're being "forced" to learn something new. Get over it.
The jihad in Afghanistan. Both left and right want to give Reagan credit for this -- and indeed his admin sent tons of money and weapons to help the future Taliban fight the Soviet empire -- but that money would have been useless without people to do the fighting, and especially the call to global jihad that drew fighters from all over the middle east into Afghanistan. The Soviets were mired in that war for 10 years and lost a ton of resources there, plus it had a huge effect on the Russian population (many Muslims, and many people of other ethnicities, who longed for independence). The right wants to credit Reagan for everything because he is their hero; the left wants to blame Reagan for "creating" al Qaeda by funding the mujahedin, but both explanations are flat out wrong, not to mention completely insulting to the people who actually risked their lives in that bloody war.
"The mothers are going to walk right up to that computer and say, 'My children are dying, what can you do?' They're not going to sit there and like, browse eBay."
But, to reaffirm what others have said in this thread, this machine is being designed to be sold to governments, not to families.
Louder and hotter than a Mac Mini. No Firewire. Lame.
Seriously it's a fair point -- who the hell would actually want to use this thing? I understand that it's cool to do something new or unexpected with a piece of technology, but why go out of your way to make something so much worse than it is? Hell, this would be a lot cooler if he put an aquarium into the mini.
Re:Nah! Let's try something better...
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So nobody recalls the Mac original name here?
You mean "Lisa"?
If Macintoshes were ever called McIntoshes, there's no mention of it here. I think you're wrong.
I *love* those amplifiers.
Agreed -- my family used to have one of these (and a preamp) years ago. Wish I could afford one. Until following the (audiophile pornography!) link above (and wasting half an hour drooling and clicking), I had no idea they made speakers too.
What is a geek to do? Run OSX, kill the Dock, run an X11 server, and compile your own apps (or use something like fink).
That's exactly what to do (though I recommend darwin-ports over fink). If you really want to run your own window manager just install it and then log in with ">console" to enter darwin without the GUI, then start x in your favorite way after you log in. Then you pretty much have a pure BSD system and you can install and run whatever you used to run under linux. Of course, you won't be able to run OS X apps (except command-line apps) without starting the OS X GUI. You'll probably want to run the X11 server on top of the OSX GUI even though it's a little kludgy.
Chances are, you will eventually learn to love the OS X GUI as much as the rest of us, and a lot of commonly used linux apps have been rewritten to take advantage of Apple's GUI which means you won't have to run them under Apple's X11 server anymore.
The point is that you have at least two known psychopaths with shotguns in a room full of other people of dubious morality. The room is getting rapidly hotter and you are running out of food. There was an escape stairwell, but it's dangerous, broken and expensive to fix.
In the meantime Iraq is actually having free and open elections so democracy will arrive.
You think so. Think about this. Iraqi voters don't even know the names of the candidates on the ballots. The actual voter lists are secret. Read the Jan 2 entry here for one Iraqi's view on the upcoming election. It's an important part of Iraqi history, no doubt, but I think the word "democracy" is being abused when used to describe what is happening there.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you slashdot fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of slashdot.org for about 20 seconds now while it attempts to load an HTML page. 20 seconds. At home, on cnn.com, which by all standards should be a lot slower than slashdot.org, the same operation would take about 2 seconds. If that.
Slashdot Mirror
Will you allow the same children to read a Muslim prayer at graduation? How about a pagan one? A satanic prayer? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, you must answer "no" to all. To do otherwise would be to "respect an establishment of religion."
The point about Congress vs. the states is simply ignorance. The Supreme Court established back in 1925 that the Bill of Rights binds state legislatures too. And beside the point, most states have virtually the same wording in their own state constitutions, making the point moot.
And even when the Bush admin finally agreed (were forced to agree) to elections, Bush made sure that elections were postponed until after the US election!!! No matter how many Americans and Iraqis were killed in the meantime. Now he's gloating over having single handedly brought democracy to Iraq! It's nauseating. And the media swimming in it, like they're amazed Iraqis know how to stick a piece of paper in a box. This comes after we learn that the US has given up its search for the weapons that supposedly started this war in the first place. And you call the left hypocritical??
Finally, a sobering thought on this from an Iraqi blogger: "The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America... Congratulations Bush- we are a threat now. " (from riverbend).
Plus they send you cute little plastic dogs with every purchase. woof!
The really sad thing is that the history of free speech tells us that free speech is not a right that was "given" to Americans by the first amendment (though of course it is enshrined there); it is a right that was won by Americans through frequent struggles, from the birth of the nation through the twenty first century, by people committed to the idea that true freedom is superior to its alternative. If people don't even know what that freedom is anymore, how can we expect them to continue that struggle?
What the hell kind of school do you go to that "forces" political correctness upon the student body? I teach at one of the most liberal campuses in California (which means it is probably one of the most liberal in the US), and I don't know of any courses where "political correctness" is "forced" on people "through the threat of denial of education and other opportunities." I may be a liberal myself but I actually agree with the right wingers that leftists who force their politics down people's throats are a terrible threat to academic freedom, but I just don't see this happening as often as the talking heads on Fox News (or the typing heads on frontpagemagazine.com) claim. Political correctness is a red herring -- rather than actually have to refute opinions that they disagree with, right wingers would rather whine about how unfair it is that they're being "forced" to learn something new. Get over it.
Also, if schools spend all their time on propaganda, they won't have time to teach spelling.
The jihad in Afghanistan. Both left and right want to give Reagan credit for this -- and indeed his admin sent tons of money and weapons to help the future Taliban fight the Soviet empire -- but that money would have been useless without people to do the fighting, and especially the call to global jihad that drew fighters from all over the middle east into Afghanistan. The Soviets were mired in that war for 10 years and lost a ton of resources there, plus it had a huge effect on the Russian population (many Muslims, and many people of other ethnicities, who longed for independence). The right wants to credit Reagan for everything because he is their hero; the left wants to blame Reagan for "creating" al Qaeda by funding the mujahedin, but both explanations are flat out wrong, not to mention completely insulting to the people who actually risked their lives in that bloody war.
Would that be "friend chicken" then?
Yes; it's so great we live in the developed world where corruption is virtually nonexistent.
But, to reaffirm what others have said in this thread, this machine is being designed to be sold to governments, not to families.
Do you think this will void his Apple warranty?
Lame.
Seriously it's a fair point -- who the hell would actually want to use this thing? I understand that it's cool to do something new or unexpected with a piece of technology, but why go out of your way to make something so much worse than it is? Hell, this would be a lot cooler if he put an aquarium into the mini.
You mean "Lisa"?
If Macintoshes were ever called McIntoshes, there's no mention of it here. I think you're wrong.
I *love* those amplifiers.
Agreed -- my family used to have one of these (and a preamp) years ago. Wish I could afford one. Until following the (audiophile pornography!) link above (and wasting half an hour drooling and clicking), I had no idea they made speakers too.
How can you call him successful? He only makes $1 a year!
This version may only have one wheel but it has 3 mouse buttons!
That's exactly what to do (though I recommend darwin-ports over fink). If you really want to run your own window manager just install it and then log in with ">console" to enter darwin without the GUI, then start x in your favorite way after you log in. Then you pretty much have a pure BSD system and you can install and run whatever you used to run under linux. Of course, you won't be able to run OS X apps (except command-line apps) without starting the OS X GUI. You'll probably want to run the X11 server on top of the OSX GUI even though it's a little kludgy.
Chances are, you will eventually learn to love the OS X GUI as much as the rest of us, and a lot of commonly used linux apps have been rewritten to take advantage of Apple's GUI which means you won't have to run them under Apple's X11 server anymore.
Just wait until I buy a PowerBook G4. The G5's are certain to come out within the next couple weeks.
You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
GNU/Ubuntu?
We can just count the number of posts to Usenet mentioning Steve Jobs.
You think so. Think about this. Iraqi voters don't even know the names of the candidates on the ballots. The actual voter lists are secret. Read the Jan 2 entry here for one Iraqi's view on the upcoming election. It's an important part of Iraqi history, no doubt, but I think the word "democracy" is being abused when used to describe what is happening there.
Will this run on a Lexus?
I'd be happy to "dispose" of your Mac Mini -- or your $575 -- for free, any time!
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you slashdot fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of slashdot.org for about 20 seconds now while it attempts to load an HTML page. 20 seconds. At home, on cnn.com, which by all standards should be a lot slower than slashdot.org, the same operation would take about 2 seconds. If that.
Try the Mac Mini.