Where did you get that he was the one issuing threatening emails?
Certainly not in TFA...
The only thing I found that he confessed was discussing with internet trolls while under morphine for his discal hernia.
The line of demarcation between left and right is collective property of means of production...
The left demands it (with variations in the calendar towards collective property and how to organize collective properties - e.g., state, cooperatives, or anything you can imagine) while the right oppose it.
Indeed. Child labor was challenged when the military discovered that a generation that lost its health toiling in unhealthy condition before puberty couldn't provide enough canon fodder for the next war when they grow up (even if they live long enough to be of enlisted age).
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that all this crap is not about losing money when people go torrent, but about losing control of what people get to watch...
Even without paranoïa about corporation-backed government needing a population of sheep, just remember the economic model of entertainement industries : the biggest investment decisions (producing a movie, a TV show, a book, a game or whatever else) are made before there is any way to estimate how sales will go: so millions are spent on crap shots with only a few empirical marketing rules, and even now while distribution is mostly an oligopole there is a high risk of not getting their money back.
So it's not really hard to understand how industry moguls (and even more, middle-level managers in the entertainment industry) may panic at the idea that they won't be able anymore to shove the last shitty blockbuster in your throat, would you want it or not, because "all your friends had seen it"...
Basically, it's simply that since computers have been used by people without a rigorous mathematical people, the old theorem crap in - crap out has been forgotten.
There has been greed and fraud, but what had made a cover for it is that most people that do not understand the maths involved in complex models don't dare to at least challenge the validity of the hypothesis upon which the model is build.
Actually, I can understand how banks may be "too big to fail".
But I don't understand why banksters would be "too big to go to jail" or at least "too big to go bankrupt" (if stupidity, not fraud, was the problem)?
Why do the bailed-out banks keep the same owners and top management?
In Houari Boumediene's Algeria stealing money from the state above a trigger amount was a capital offense, since in prevented state investments that would have saved lives;
With more than one billion dollars gone, would'nt it be of some justice that some high level managers and shareholders would have an appointment with the Chair?
I'm sure the mathematical conditions of validity for mathematical models to be used would be more thoroughly checked after a few examples would be made...
An organisation as big as the Catholic Church is in no way monolithic, and there are intense power struggles, some of them dirty, some of them democratic and transparent.
Individual catholics either side with some of the people involved in reformation (like the grassroot movement "we are the church" in Europe), "vote with their feet" by leaving practice, or go on with their religious practice while hoping that either history or God's will would bring an end to this corruption.
Remember that the Church hierarchy has actually very little power over the individual follower; the most they can do is beg them for money or deny them a rite (theorically there is the possibility of an excommunication process, but the heavy bureaucratic machinery involved makes it difficult to put in action, and it still would have no effect outside of barring one from holy rite).
Even the money given by individual followers to their local catholic church is usually used to pay for local costs; very few or usually none of it goes back to the Vatican.
So "individual catholics which want to abide to their chosen religion" as you point it mainly deal with their local priest, which is often a nice chap, and make their decisions about practice mostly in response to the way the local priests behave.
Actually if this could work (which I'm not certain since painting is not an exact science, and since computers and software are not fairy-build devices that can magically transform low-quality inputs in high-quality outputs) it could have quite an importance in social history.
"There will always be sexual abuse in any large organization with access to children"
Wrong.
There will always be sexual abuse in any large AUTHORITARIAN organization with access to children.
That's what's wrong in the church practice - there is no way being authoritarian may be in accordance with the Gospel.
I think the real problem is that "violent christian extremists" are (rightfully) characterized as extreme right militia-like hate groups, whether "violent muslim extremists" are depicted as "muslim extremists"...
Well, I understand it better now, thanks.
But who defines american standards? Congress, Senate, Ministry of Information, media owners, journalist's trade unions?
I'd even say that in a connected world, cheating is hiding which source you use, not using pre-existing sources.
If teachers are just a little bit working on keeping pace with their teaching (and evaluating) skills, they can make exams and questions that will allow use of external source and still need personal thinking from the student.
When I was in High School, the debate was about the pocket calculators we were using that began to have memories in them that we could use to store formulas, and even graphics that we could use to see the shape of a linear function that we were studying.
Lot of teachers were just complaining at us "cheating", but the ones building the final exams just made questions that failed students who used their calculators without thinking - and I skipped the pit in Physic but fell in it in Maths (and deserved it).
If teachers can't outsmart the kids without creating more repressive rules or tools, why are they teaching the students instead of learning from them?
Thanks for answering, but are you sure?
I don't know MSNBC personnally, but from what wikipedia says, it's relatively liberal comparing to other networks, but it's not a left-wing media.
So if debating in american media occurs between center-right speakers and far-right speakers it confirms the claim that left-wing speakers have been silenced. Or I am understanding something wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get that he was the one issuing threatening emails? Certainly not in TFA... The only thing I found that he confessed was discussing with internet trolls while under morphine for his discal hernia.
Seriously, would someone know how to remove McAfee from a Windows 7 computer?
You're just forgetting that the code is the law...
Have you tried "Gon"?
The line of demarcation between left and right is collective property of means of production... The left demands it (with variations in the calendar towards collective property and how to organize collective properties - e.g., state, cooperatives, or anything you can imagine) while the right oppose it.
Indeed. Child labor was challenged when the military discovered that a generation that lost its health toiling in unhealthy condition before puberty couldn't provide enough canon fodder for the next war when they grow up (even if they live long enough to be of enlisted age).
The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that all this crap is not about losing money when people go torrent, but about losing control of what people get to watch...
Even without paranoïa about corporation-backed government needing a population of sheep, just remember the economic model of entertainement industries : the biggest investment decisions (producing a movie, a TV show, a book, a game or whatever else) are made before there is any way to estimate how sales will go: so millions are spent on crap shots with only a few empirical marketing rules, and even now while distribution is mostly an oligopole there is a high risk of not getting their money back.
So it's not really hard to understand how industry moguls (and even more, middle-level managers in the entertainment industry) may panic at the idea that they won't be able anymore to shove the last shitty blockbuster in your throat, would you want it or not, because "all your friends had seen it"...
Maybe the problem was buying the idea that a PR campaign would be able to change the existing economic and politic structure?
(oooops! - mathematical people /mathematical background)
Basically, it's simply that since computers have been used by people without a rigorous mathematical people, the old theorem crap in - crap out has been forgotten. There has been greed and fraud, but what had made a cover for it is that most people that do not understand the maths involved in complex models don't dare to at least challenge the validity of the hypothesis upon which the model is build.
Actually, I can understand how banks may be "too big to fail". But I don't understand why banksters would be "too big to go to jail" or at least "too big to go bankrupt" (if stupidity, not fraud, was the problem)? Why do the bailed-out banks keep the same owners and top management? In Houari Boumediene's Algeria stealing money from the state above a trigger amount was a capital offense, since in prevented state investments that would have saved lives; With more than one billion dollars gone, would'nt it be of some justice that some high level managers and shareholders would have an appointment with the Chair? I'm sure the mathematical conditions of validity for mathematical models to be used would be more thoroughly checked after a few examples would be made...
An organisation as big as the Catholic Church is in no way monolithic, and there are intense power struggles, some of them dirty, some of them democratic and transparent. Individual catholics either side with some of the people involved in reformation (like the grassroot movement "we are the church" in Europe), "vote with their feet" by leaving practice, or go on with their religious practice while hoping that either history or God's will would bring an end to this corruption. Remember that the Church hierarchy has actually very little power over the individual follower; the most they can do is beg them for money or deny them a rite (theorically there is the possibility of an excommunication process, but the heavy bureaucratic machinery involved makes it difficult to put in action, and it still would have no effect outside of barring one from holy rite). Even the money given by individual followers to their local catholic church is usually used to pay for local costs; very few or usually none of it goes back to the Vatican. So "individual catholics which want to abide to their chosen religion" as you point it mainly deal with their local priest, which is often a nice chap, and make their decisions about practice mostly in response to the way the local priests behave.
Actually if this could work (which I'm not certain since painting is not an exact science, and since computers and software are not fairy-build devices that can magically transform low-quality inputs in high-quality outputs) it could have quite an importance in social history.
Testing with Multiple-Choice question is renouncing to teach anything else than "passing the exam"...
Maybe personal issues of one of the Warschawski brother had a role in destroying his creativity?
Would be to ban advertising.
"There will always be sexual abuse in any large organization with access to children" Wrong. There will always be sexual abuse in any large AUTHORITARIAN organization with access to children. That's what's wrong in the church practice - there is no way being authoritarian may be in accordance with the Gospel.
It's not strictly internet, but Murray Leinster's "A logic named Joe" was published in 1946...
I think the real problem is that "violent christian extremists" are (rightfully) characterized as extreme right militia-like hate groups, whether "violent muslim extremists" are depicted as "muslim extremists"...
It is by American standards.
Well, I understand it better now, thanks.
But who defines american standards? Congress, Senate, Ministry of Information, media owners, journalist's trade unions?
I'd even say that in a connected world, cheating is hiding which source you use, not using pre-existing sources.
If teachers are just a little bit working on keeping pace with their teaching (and evaluating) skills, they can make exams and questions that will allow use of external source and still need personal thinking from the student.
When I was in High School, the debate was about the pocket calculators we were using that began to have memories in them that we could use to store formulas, and even graphics that we could use to see the shape of a linear function that we were studying.
Lot of teachers were just complaining at us "cheating", but the ones building the final exams just made questions that failed students who used their calculators without thinking - and I skipped the pit in Physic but fell in it in Maths (and deserved it).
If teachers can't outsmart the kids without creating more repressive rules or tools, why are they teaching the students instead of learning from them?
Well, America is a free country.
We are a free people.
the rest is history...
No, the rest is (mostly) pre-history!
(pirates in the physical world are dangerous, armed criminals)
Who protect Somalia's marine ecosystems, by the way.
Thanks for answering, but are you sure?
I don't know MSNBC personnally, but from what wikipedia says, it's relatively liberal comparing to other networks, but it's not a left-wing media. So if debating in american media occurs between center-right speakers and far-right speakers it confirms the claim that left-wing speakers have been silenced. Or I am understanding something wrong?