Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
"When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.
Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.
Cayenne, you did it! You just gave me the idea thats gonna make us all buzzword rich! We're gonna virtualize televisions sets. One TV, many people. One set, but each watcher sees and hears their own show. I get to watch "Damnation Hell: The Bloodening" on the same set at the same time she sees "Wuthering Twilights: Team Gypsy." Arguments over the remote are a thing of the past. We're gonna be rich.
OK, so anyway, you go ahead and work out the minor details about how to make that happen, and when you get it, just forward them to me so I can file my patent...
Your argument is that with the arrival of essentially free energy, there'll be so much overflowing abundance that we'll all have more than we need.
The problem is that's been true since the invention of the iron plow, but there's still hunger in the world. Most famines aren't caused by blight or drought, but by politics. Aid workers routinely complain that their cargo shipments of food and supplies are confiscated and horded by the local authorities. This allows whoever's in charge locally to control who gets relief -- thereby securing their loyalty -- or to "deny aid and comfort to the rebels."
I think you're overlooking a basic tenet of human psychology. It's better to be a poor king over desperate subjects -- and therefore an asolute Lord and Master -- than to be a rich king among rich subjects -- and thus be relegated to a mere "First Among Equals." (Thanks, Thomas More).
I remember reading an article about a city doctor in the Third World who got himself demoted to the countryside. He arrived at a village shot through with diseases that all came back to the same cause -- not enough clean water. He learned the village used to have a system of canals that supplied plenty of clean water, but that the government had filled them all in during one of the many dam projects during the 60s. The village was supposed to have been tied into the new water network, but somehow that had never happened.
This doctor, who must have been bucking for sainthood, took something like three years and a shovel, and dug out the old canals by hand. Finally, with the next rainy season, the canals flooded, and for the first time in a generation, the village was overflowing with clean water. No babies would die for stupid reasons this year. Word of what the man had done shot through the area.
The bulldozers from the local authorities arrived almost immediately. It took them less than a day to fill the canals back in with mud. The doctor was summoned to a meeting with the local governor, and the doctor welcomed the chance to rail against the incompetence that had destroyed the work of three years.
He didn't get the chance. He arrived at the meeting and was placed under arrest. It was made extremely clear that it he picked up one more shovelful of dirt, he'd finish his career in prison. "If you need anything," he was told, "you come to us."
Let's suppose we finally get free energy, universal assemblers, Star Trek replicators -- what makes you think there's a chance in Hell that these tools will be allowed to actually threaten the status quo, short of armed and bloody revolution?
Oddly enough, I can't find any new BMWs in my area for less than ten thousand dollars. I am also unable to secure gold coins at less than three hundred dollars per ounce. I feel that the US government should intervene in this market and force outside suppliers who are not protected by US law to supply me with the goods I need so I can resell gold and BMWs on the US market.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider paying the prevailing wage for the skillsets you need to hire. Stop whining, accept the realities of the market, and compete! Personal responsibility for the win! Stop asking the government for a handout!
Does anyone really think we can split or stop metal parts by shining light on them?
I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?
-- Dick Jones, Robocop
Are you kidding? This idea is brilliant. It's an impossible goal that demands huge amounts of funding which the military will find as appealing as crack-soaked catnip served on hookers. It's not a blank check -- it's a limitless credit card that will never get declined. They've been buying this schtick since Reagan. When this idea plays out -- finally, a few decades from now -- we'll just move on to promising them phasers, then blasters and light sabers.
We don't question why people should have what they have here. That's class warfare. Today it's the shareware guy, tomorrow it's some kid who got expelled from Harvard for theft. People who have more money than you, no matter how they got it, have it because they're better than you. They're smarter, better-looking, harder-working and God flat-out loves them more than you. We don't need your whining jealously around here.
Remember, if you feed the poor, you're a saint, but if you ask why the poor have no food, you're just a jealous, whining, class-warrior Communist who should be taken out and shot.
Not all states have the family business exemption, as this Hartford pizzeria found out. If you're "managing" your kid's acting career, you can't touch a dime of their money under the Coogan Act. Even in states with family business exemptions, if CPS thinks it's a better deal for you than the kid, you'll end up paying more in lawyers than you saved by not hiring a grown-up.
I sympathize. I had my hopes cruelly dashed too when I found out my "adopt a thousand orphans/open a string of car washes" dream wouldn't work.
"or are you going to teach the little twerp to do what he's told for his own good?"
Thanks for that post. Now I've got Pink Floyd's "The Wall" fighting with Buffalo Bill from "Silence of the Lambs" for space on the constant loop in my head.
"It puts the lotion on itself or it gets the hose again YOU! YES YOU! STAND STILL WHILE YOU'RE HIT!"
Absolutely not. Kids are minors, and therefore enjoy greater protection from the law, not less. They still retain basic human rights and many civil liberties. You cannot force a child to work commercially for you for free. You cannot compel a child to testify against themselves. The police may not search children without a warrant. The only reason schools enjoy greater control over their students is by arguing "in loco parentis," that they are literally acting as the child's parent while the mother and father are absent. Even under this doctrine, there are limits. You cannot compel a child to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance. The school may not interfere with a child's practice of religion.
This is all how it should be.
My problem is with the implication of your post. Kids are not adults, so they have no human rights or civil liberties, so we can do what we want to them. The Great State of Texas has been a prime example of this, Kids get investigated as children with no human rights, and then tried as adults with no protections from the law.
And honestly, speaking as a teacher, demanding to see the notebook was a rookie mistake. The problem with you and your friends was that you weren't focused on the lesson. Your teacher should have put you back on task, but instead chose to make this a personal issue between you. Your teacher sacrificed the strong position of "You're not learning the lesson" for the weak position of "You're hurting my feelings."
Look at it this way. Do you remember what you were supposed to be learning that day?
Machines violate ACR and RSNA industry standards
on
DHS Eyes Covert Body Scans
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Of course, the reality is worse. Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research is reporting the machines are likely to routinely emit 20 times the radiation reported in the spec and are flat out a major public health risk. Dr. John Sedat, Professor of BioChemistry and Biophysics at the University of California San Francisco and a member of the National Academy of Sciences sent a letter to the White House with the following:
“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”
By the TSA's own numbers, which are undoubtedly low, they calculate more people will die from the eventual cancers than have been killed by all the terrorist acts in the world put together.
OK, so that's one side of the argument. What does the DHS have to say? Where are the medical professionals willing to certify these machines as safe?
Turns out, there aren't any. No medical professional of any kind has yet been willing to sign their name in public stating that these machines are safe. The only people saying so are the vendors who won the contract, and even they refuse to state unequivacably that the machines are safe, falling back instead on "We've built the machine to your spec and they should perform as ordered."
No one, not even the maker of the machines, is willing to certify them as safe.
The article references cavity scans for drug interdiction, which John Pistole swears on a stack of Bibles is NOT under the purview of the TSA. So, here's the TSA's logic.
"We're afraid he's shoved a couple kilograms of C4 up his butt. Therefore, we're going to send him to a busy hospital in the middle of town filled with vulnerable people who can't be moved. That way, when the terrorist blows, not only does he get a body count comparable to the airplane he wanted to take down, he also disables the medical infrastructure that could have helped cope with the victims of the blast."
It's like the guys running the show here thought "The Long Kiss Goodnight" was a how-to documentary. "We're going to maximize and facilitate terrorism to scare funding out of Congress..."
I never thought I'd live to see the day that people in the Middle East were fighting for their freedom while Americans were flushing theirs.
I grew up on base with an actual drill instructor for a father. I have heard bullets fired in anger fly past my head. I have a decade and a half teaching experience. My kids shoot, climb, cave and scuba-dive, all activities which cheerfully kill the undisciplined. My hair is short and gray, which judging from your user ID, yours probably is as well.
Even I think you're wound a little tight on this.:-)
No teacher worth a damn is just reading a script, even when they're teaching a class of 1000,,,
When I give a lecture, the students are feeding me information at the same time I'm feeding them. When I see a class filled with gray hair, I know I can get away with a Jerry Garcia reference. That won't work if I'm looking at kids wearing t-shirts from the latest Disney TV show. Am I getting silence because I have the class in rapt attention, or is it just the lull before the snoring starts? Are the frowns and forehead creases because they have no idea what I'm talking about or because I just tried to reference Charles Darwin in Dallas?
The difference between watching a video of a class and actually being in a classroom is the difference between watching porn and actually having sex.
Wikipedia, FTW: "Tongue-in-cheek: Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is ironically intended and it should not be taken at face value..."
This is why you hang out on Slashdot. You have no head for business.:-)
Dealing with heavily-armed criminals is a high-risk, no profit endeavor. Red-Light cameras and speed traps yield literally hundreds of dollars an hour in pure profit, and you get the added enjoyment of tasering senior citizens from time to time.
Will communities be willing to share their abilities...
Of course not, It's ridiculous to even consider. Imagine trying to get some random group of people to tackle any large project for free, like say, writing an OS...
Clearly, expecting people to work together for the common good is a ridiculous pipe dream. None but the selfish and greedy ever accomplished anything of value. Greed is good, the only good.
You can't stop the signal? Did we see the same cut of "Serenity?" They stopped it for years. It took a multimillion-dollar geek outpost, a Reaver invasion, a dead pilot, a moved nerve cluster and a minor superhero to get the signal out.
BTW, the signal has already been stopped. Have you tried to run a mail server or a web server from your home lately?
...You find yourself Chief Justice of the Dred Scott Court. Go ahead. Make that call. Enforce a law you know to be morally repugnant. Put that man back in chains, shred that family, damn an entire ethnic group to torture, rape and slavery for as long as you can foresee.
Are you seriously telling me you can sleep at night telling yourself, "I didn't write the law, I just enforced it as written?"
If you can, are you by any chance posting from Argentina?
Slashdot Mirror
freedom of speech does not mean that you can remain anonymous
You do realize you're posting on /., home of the original AC, right?
from http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
These long-standing rights to anonymity and the protections it affords are critically important for the Internet. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Internet offers a new and powerful democratic forum in which anyone can become a "pamphleteer" or "a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Recuse
"When a judge is assigned to a case, she reviews the general facts of the case and determines whether she has any conflict of interest concerning the case. If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case. The initial presiding judge usually determines whether or not the apparent conflict requires her recusal, and the judge's decision is given considerable deference. Some jurisdictions, however, require another judge to decide whether or not the presiding judge should be disqualified. If a judge fails to recuse himself when a direct conflict of interest exists, the judge may later be reprimanded, suspended, or disciplined by the body that oversees Judicial Administration. In addition, in some cases where a judge presides over a matter in which he has a direct conflict of interest, any criminal conviction or civil damage award in the case may be reversed or set aside.
Generally, a judge must recuse himself if he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to the lawsuit or has personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in the proceeding. The Code of Judicial Conduct, a judicial ethics code drafted by the American Bar Association in 1972 and adopted by most states and the federal government, outlines situations in which a judge should disqualify himself from presiding over a matter. Canon 3C of the Judicial Code outlines these situations, including the judge's personal bias or prejudice toward a matter or its participants, personal knowledge of the facts that are disputed in a case, a professional or familial relationship with a party or an attorney, or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter. Most interpretations of the code mandate a judge's disqualification or recusal if any of these factors are present.
Agreed, the 99% of them do make the 1% of you look bad.
Replying to remove a misfired mod.
Sorry, using a stupid touchpad, meant to mod this up, not down.
Hi Belial6,
I just love Slashdot. Thanks for the response. I had no idea someone had ALREADY DONE THIS.
Wow. Just wow. Thanks for the post.
After a few questions, he admitted that didn't know who Jerome Bixby or Harlan Ellison were*, and that he'd never read anything by Isaac Asimov.
Never mind his nerd card. At that point it's time to wish him into the cornfield.
Cayenne, you did it! You just gave me the idea thats gonna make us all buzzword rich! We're gonna virtualize televisions sets. One TV, many people. One set, but each watcher sees and hears their own show. I get to watch "Damnation Hell: The Bloodening" on the same set at the same time she sees "Wuthering Twilights: Team Gypsy." Arguments over the remote are a thing of the past. We're gonna be rich.
OK, so anyway, you go ahead and work out the minor details about how to make that happen, and when you get it, just forward them to me so I can file my patent...
Your argument is that with the arrival of essentially free energy, there'll be so much overflowing abundance that we'll all have more than we need.
The problem is that's been true since the invention of the iron plow, but there's still hunger in the world. Most famines aren't caused by blight or drought, but by politics. Aid workers routinely complain that their cargo shipments of food and supplies are confiscated and horded by the local authorities. This allows whoever's in charge locally to control who gets relief -- thereby securing their loyalty -- or to "deny aid and comfort to the rebels."
I think you're overlooking a basic tenet of human psychology. It's better to be a poor king over desperate subjects -- and therefore an asolute Lord and Master -- than to be a rich king among rich subjects -- and thus be relegated to a mere "First Among Equals." (Thanks, Thomas More).
I remember reading an article about a city doctor in the Third World who got himself demoted to the countryside. He arrived at a village shot through with diseases that all came back to the same cause -- not enough clean water. He learned the village used to have a system of canals that supplied plenty of clean water, but that the government had filled them all in during one of the many dam projects during the 60s. The village was supposed to have been tied into the new water network, but somehow that had never happened.
This doctor, who must have been bucking for sainthood, took something like three years and a shovel, and dug out the old canals by hand. Finally, with the next rainy season, the canals flooded, and for the first time in a generation, the village was overflowing with clean water. No babies would die for stupid reasons this year. Word of what the man had done shot through the area.
The bulldozers from the local authorities arrived almost immediately. It took them less than a day to fill the canals back in with mud. The doctor was summoned to a meeting with the local governor, and the doctor welcomed the chance to rail against the incompetence that had destroyed the work of three years.
He didn't get the chance. He arrived at the meeting and was placed under arrest. It was made extremely clear that it he picked up one more shovelful of dirt, he'd finish his career in prison. "If you need anything," he was told, "you come to us."
Let's suppose we finally get free energy, universal assemblers, Star Trek replicators -- what makes you think there's a chance in Hell that these tools will be allowed to actually threaten the status quo, short of armed and bloody revolution?
Oddly enough, I can't find any new BMWs in my area for less than ten thousand dollars. I am also unable to secure gold coins at less than three hundred dollars per ounce. I feel that the US government should intervene in this market and force outside suppliers who are not protected by US law to supply me with the goods I need so I can resell gold and BMWs on the US market.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider paying the prevailing wage for the skillsets you need to hire. Stop whining, accept the realities of the market, and compete! Personal responsibility for the win! Stop asking the government for a handout!
Does anyone really think we can split or stop metal parts by shining light on them?
I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209. Renovation program. Spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it worked or not?
-- Dick Jones, Robocop
Are you kidding? This idea is brilliant. It's an impossible goal that demands huge amounts of funding which the military will find as appealing as crack-soaked catnip served on hookers. It's not a blank check -- it's a limitless credit card that will never get declined. They've been buying this schtick since Reagan. When this idea plays out -- finally, a few decades from now -- we'll just move on to promising them phasers, then blasters and light sabers.
Hey H3llfish,
We don't question why people should have what they have here. That's class warfare. Today it's the shareware guy, tomorrow it's some kid who got expelled from Harvard for theft. People who have more money than you, no matter how they got it, have it because they're better than you. They're smarter, better-looking, harder-working and God flat-out loves them more than you. We don't need your whining jealously around here.
Remember, if you feed the poor, you're a saint, but if you ask why the poor have no food, you're just a jealous, whining, class-warrior Communist who should be taken out and shot.
Not all states have the family business exemption, as this Hartford pizzeria found out. If you're "managing" your kid's acting career, you can't touch a dime of their money under the Coogan Act. Even in states with family business exemptions, if CPS thinks it's a better deal for you than the kid, you'll end up paying more in lawyers than you saved by not hiring a grown-up.
I sympathize. I had my hopes cruelly dashed too when I found out my "adopt a thousand orphans/open a string of car washes" dream wouldn't work.
"or are you going to teach the little twerp to do what he's told for his own good?"
Thanks for that post. Now I've got Pink Floyd's "The Wall" fighting with Buffalo Bill from "Silence of the Lambs" for space on the constant loop in my head.
"It puts the lotion on itself or it gets the hose again YOU! YES YOU! STAND STILL WHILE YOU'RE HIT!"
I really, really hope you're not a parent.
Absolutely not. Kids are minors, and therefore enjoy greater protection from the law, not less. They still retain basic human rights and many civil liberties. You cannot force a child to work commercially for you for free. You cannot compel a child to testify against themselves. The police may not search children without a warrant. The only reason schools enjoy greater control over their students is by arguing "in loco parentis," that they are literally acting as the child's parent while the mother and father are absent. Even under this doctrine, there are limits. You cannot compel a child to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance. The school may not interfere with a child's practice of religion.
This is all how it should be.
My problem is with the implication of your post. Kids are not adults, so they have no human rights or civil liberties, so we can do what we want to them. The Great State of Texas has been a prime example of this, Kids get investigated as children with no human rights, and then tried as adults with no protections from the law.
And honestly, speaking as a teacher, demanding to see the notebook was a rookie mistake. The problem with you and your friends was that you weren't focused on the lesson. Your teacher should have put you back on task, but instead chose to make this a personal issue between you. Your teacher sacrificed the strong position of "You're not learning the lesson" for the weak position of "You're hurting my feelings."
Look at it this way. Do you remember what you were supposed to be learning that day?
The American College of Radiology and the Radiological Society of North America have already expressed concerns about the levels of radiation given to patients in the normal course of medical practice. They've already recommended limiting scans to cases where absolutely necessary, where you can justifiably state "getting this scan is worth increasing the odds my patient will get cancer."
Of course, the reality is worse. Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research is reporting the machines are likely to routinely emit 20 times the radiation reported in the spec and are flat out a major public health risk. Dr. John Sedat, Professor of BioChemistry and Biophysics at the University of California San Francisco and a member of the National Academy of Sciences sent a letter to the White House with the following:
“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”
By the TSA's own numbers, which are undoubtedly low, they calculate more people will die from the eventual cancers than have been killed by all the terrorist acts in the world put together.
OK, so that's one side of the argument. What does the DHS have to say? Where are the medical professionals willing to certify these machines as safe?
Turns out, there aren't any. No medical professional of any kind has yet been willing to sign their name in public stating that these machines are safe. The only people saying so are the vendors who won the contract, and even they refuse to state unequivacably that the machines are safe, falling back instead on "We've built the machine to your spec and they should perform as ordered."
No one, not even the maker of the machines, is willing to certify them as safe.
The article references cavity scans for drug interdiction, which John Pistole swears on a stack of Bibles is NOT under the purview of the TSA. So, here's the TSA's logic.
"We're afraid he's shoved a couple kilograms of C4 up his butt. Therefore, we're going to send him to a busy hospital in the middle of town filled with vulnerable people who can't be moved. That way, when the terrorist blows, not only does he get a body count comparable to the airplane he wanted to take down, he also disables the medical infrastructure that could have helped cope with the victims of the blast."
It's like the guys running the show here thought "The Long Kiss Goodnight" was a how-to documentary. "We're going to maximize and facilitate terrorism to scare funding out of Congress..."
I never thought I'd live to see the day that people in the Middle East were fighting for their freedom while Americans were flushing theirs.
Hi Geekoid,
I grew up on base with an actual drill instructor for a father. I have heard bullets fired in anger fly past my head. I have a decade and a half teaching experience. My kids shoot, climb, cave and scuba-dive, all activities which cheerfully kill the undisciplined. My hair is short and gray, which judging from your user ID, yours probably is as well.
Even I think you're wound a little tight on this. :-)
Wow! I had no idea Joseph Smith was that much of a "Stargate" fan.
No teacher worth a damn is just reading a script, even when they're teaching a class of 1000,,,
When I give a lecture, the students are feeding me information at the same time I'm feeding them. When I see a class filled with gray hair, I know I can get away with a Jerry Garcia reference. That won't work if I'm looking at kids wearing t-shirts from the latest Disney TV show. Am I getting silence because I have the class in rapt attention, or is it just the lull before the snoring starts? Are the frowns and forehead creases because they have no idea what I'm talking about or because I just tried to reference Charles Darwin in Dallas?
The difference between watching a video of a class and actually being in a classroom is the difference between watching porn and actually having sex.
Sarcasm ... do you speak it? :-)
Wikipedia, FTW:
"Tongue-in-cheek: Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is ironically intended and it should not be taken at face value..."
It's time for big business to realize that capitalism does not require anyone to give you money for your offerings.
No, but it works so much better when you can arrange it that way.
Corporations have money, but no political power. Politicians have political power, but no money. It's a "no-brainer win-win" for both sides.
Don't like it? Well, looks like you should have picked your parents with a little more care, doesn't it? Personal Responsibility, FTW!
This is why you hang out on Slashdot. You have no head for business. :-)
Dealing with heavily-armed criminals is a high-risk, no profit endeavor. Red-Light cameras and speed traps yield literally hundreds of dollars an hour in pure profit, and you get the added enjoyment of tasering senior citizens from time to time.
Will communities be willing to share their abilities ...
Of course not, It's ridiculous to even consider. Imagine trying to get some random group of people to tackle any large project for free, like say, writing an OS...
Clearly, expecting people to work together for the common good is a ridiculous pipe dream. None but the selfish and greedy ever accomplished anything of value. Greed is good, the only good.
Don't worry. It's Joss writing. I'm sure Wash is only Buffy-dead.
You can't stop the signal? Did we see the same cut of "Serenity?" They stopped it for years. It took a multimillion-dollar geek outpost, a Reaver invasion, a dead pilot, a moved nerve cluster and a minor superhero to get the signal out.
BTW, the signal has already been stopped. Have you tried to run a mail server or a web server from your home lately?
...You find yourself Chief Justice of the Dred Scott Court. Go ahead. Make that call. Enforce a law you know to be morally repugnant. Put that man back in chains, shred that family, damn an entire ethnic group to torture, rape and slavery for as long as you can foresee.
Are you seriously telling me you can sleep at night telling yourself, "I didn't write the law, I just enforced it as written?"
If you can, are you by any chance posting from Argentina?