I dare say, we have an obligation to overthrow a government that is Tyrannical in nature, which doesn't hold up the cornerstone foundation of our country (the Constitution). It is clear, from the elections, that changing the politicians have little to no effect on the bureaucratic machine that is eroding our rights daily.
"but but but those are family men and women, innocent and didn't know any better... they were just following orders"
Capitalism is amoral. By that I mean it has no "right or wrong" other than a drive towards efficient market. People who make judgements have morals (or lack thereof) . We don't live in a Capitalist marketplace. There are way too many intrusions into free enterprise by government to be capitalist, we are just a socialist, corporatist, capitalist hybrid.
And of course, we have plenty of people who take a short term approach to market and cash out long term goals for short term profits, the long term result are a slew of failures that were rewarded early.
When all you see is the next quarter, you end up selling APPLE stock in '97 for $14.25 instead of holding onto it.
Palm's issue, was that the "Pre" was to late to the smart phone market, by then, Apple was already with iPhone. When I had my Palm, and my cellphone, I kept wondering why the two were not melded. My wonderment lasted over two years.
So if it was so difficult, why not break Palm OS to make it work on phones.
If you don't want G+, then don't sign up with Google at all. You don't need Google on Android at all. Nope, not required. The thing of it is, you want all the things Google does so well (which includes G+ IMHO), but don't want things you might not like. If you're that hung up on not using G+ (don't worry, Google already knows all about you) then don't use it.
Or you know, just buy an iPhone already. Or Blackberry (LOL, yeah I know it is android) or even a Windows Phone (ROFL).
Or grow some tech knowledge, root your phone, install a custom ROM and don't install the Google Apps package. I don't know if I am on/. or some whiny tinfoil hat blog.
Your "test" is assuming one thing too many, that the state has any ability at all to supervise children. It certainly does not.
The fact is, this assumption is completely false, and proven daily by the ill care of children in the "protective" custody of the state. The unfortunate thing is, trying to be proactive is causing unnecessary harm. The system is too slow to deal with these cases as "court/trial" style, and if it takes two years to "prove innocence", it is too fucking long.
These things, to be fair, need to be adjudicated immediately (i.e. days, not weeks / months / years), and the system is just not set up that way, and is likely never to get there.
It is exactly "rude, mean and nasty" to people of hate anyone portraying their beloved "prophet" in anyway they don't like. That's the thing about emotion, it isn't necessarily rational.
Look, the guy's hardly going to say it's OK to blaspheme, is he? It's
I've been accused of being a "religious nut" on occasion. But here is my stance. For people who don't believe like me, they are free to Blaspheme all they want. Not my job to stop them, and if what I believe is true, they will have their justice eventually. If not, no harm, no foul. But at the same time, if you think peeing in a glass and putting a cross in it is art, I can say, "that says a lot more about you than it does me".
Being rude, mean, nasty is what I would expect from people who hate, religious or otherwise.
For instance, now you have gun-cases juried only by people knowledgeable about - and presumably pro - weapons.
I can imagine a jury of informed gun people laughing at the definitions of "assault" weapons, that are virtually identical to other weapons in all the ways that really matter, but are illegal simply because "it looks dangerous".
But then again, when you have Diane Feintein saying that a certain configuration of an otherwise acceptable deer hunting rifle makes it "legal to hunt humans" (yes, she said that), you end up with a law based on hysterics.
A lot of IT people don't know how IT works. Because a lot of IT people aren't really in IT, but are managers of change. Very few IT people follow enough of the IT world to be able to have divergent conversations spanning various IT related issues.
Hell, I've met "Networking" professionals who don't have a clue about the OSI model and what it means. To them networking is plugging a bunch of switches together. These people couldn't build a patch cord to save their life.
And quite frankly, a jury of his peers doesn't really mean high school dropouts.
This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada.
This sort of thing CAN work in the US, if we change a couple regulations and set up a procedure to accomplish it in an orderly manner. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.
1) Is the area being served by any cell company? If the answer is no, proceed to #2 2) Community organizes and petitions for an FCC waiver to set up a cell tower on specified frequencies. 3) Cell companies can either respond by setting up a tower* or allowing the process to go forward, OR present data showing it is covered adequately (TBD) 4) FCC Grants waiver and monitors the new cell tower as needed.
*Must be maintained permanently to the "AVERAGE" capability of all cell towers owned by said company in the USA. Defined properly by regulation etc.
Actually, having been in IT for nearly 30 years, and 15 or so in a school of some sort, I can assure you that
1) Attitude usually starts with teachers who think they know more than everyone else, because... well they are a teacher. 2) I have to know a little about everyone's job, from Business to Teaching to custodial to.... We have a joke, that it if has a key, copper or uses electricity, it is our job. 3) What a crock. We have new tech all the time, and teachers want it to work magically. Why? because they view technology as magic.
Summarizing, most of the problem isn't IT, it is the user. IT has issues with users a lot, but where I am, IT is not the problem, not most of the time anyways.
The problem isn't standards. The problem is "One size fits all" standards. There are no gradations or levels of competency, just more or less "pass/fail" series of hoops.
The fact is the industrial method of teaching has to be changed, and we are starting to see those changes. But it is going to require a whole new type of teacher, and most teachers are not up to the task.
This is not the problem of those filling those jobs, it is the problem of those that need to fill so many spots and the candidates come in to fill those spots.
Lets take this over simplified example:
You have 100 spots to fill, and have VERY high standards. You put out a search and 1000 people apply, and only 10 people end up qualifing. Those 10 people are outstanding and will work for the pay you have indicated. How do you fill in the other 90 jobs you need filling? You have two choices, raise the pay, so that you can until you find 100 people who will do the job, OR you lower standards, or some sort of Combination.
IF you raise the pay, you have to raise it for EVERYONE who qualifies, the union contract requires everyone be paid exactly the same, regardless of performance, education, and other qualifications. Each person you hire, costs exponentially more than the last. So, that isn't really going to work.
So, what happens is that requirements are lowered, as you need to fill those positions.
And just so you know, most school districts, salary and benefits represent about 80% or more of the annual budget of most districts. Many, if not most, districts are struggling with the budgets set already. And lets not talk about Mandated programs that come with too little funding.
It is easy for armchair Superintendents of Schools to know how to fix the educational system.
As an aside, I work in IT for a school district, the biggest hindrance to teachers learning tech is the teachers themselves. There is a subtle attitude most teachers have, and it is something like this "I don't want to learn _______". Being in IT, and having to learn new things all the time, this attitude is painful to watch, as it is often reflected in those teachers actual effectiveness in the classroom.
Most users don't care. Most users wouldn't care that their keyboard COULD be logged, even if they were told. MOST users are using wireless keyboards to type twitter and facebook posts.
I'll extend that with enough support, there only needs to be ONE textbook for all jurisdictions.
Create a single textbook with all the variations needed for every district/board of education. Configure the "Textbook" software to download the entire book (all versions) and have a management feature that checks off which version to display, and the software formats the book accordingly.
This way, you could have a "progressive left" version and a "Bible Belt" version of the same book, each tailored to suit each constituency, but otherwise is the same information. The end result is that we'll see who the wackos are on both sides, and trend towards the sane balance.
I have a lot of politically diverse friends, and my socialist friends tell me that they cannot see much difference between Obama and GWB. I am a Libertarian, and I cannot see much difference between Obama and GWB. (D) people see all sorts of differences as do (R)s, but when confronted with the reality, and apart from perhaps ObamaCare, they are actually hard pressed to actually come up with any real differences (Abortion is not a real difference, and President has little say).
The only thing I can see is both Obama and GWB have cut Liberties substantially. To the point that I actually think that Obama is much much worse than GWB was (and that is saying something, because GWB was pretty bad), but (D) people don't care about liberties being diminished if there is a (D) after the president's name.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but the Declaration of Independence does.
I dare say, we have an obligation to overthrow a government that is Tyrannical in nature, which doesn't hold up the cornerstone foundation of our country (the Constitution). It is clear, from the elections, that changing the politicians have little to no effect on the bureaucratic machine that is eroding our rights daily.
"but but but those are family men and women, innocent and didn't know any better ... they were just following orders"
Capitalism is amoral. By that I mean it has no "right or wrong" other than a drive towards efficient market. People who make judgements have morals (or lack thereof) . We don't live in a Capitalist marketplace. There are way too many intrusions into free enterprise by government to be capitalist, we are just a socialist, corporatist, capitalist hybrid.
And of course, we have plenty of people who take a short term approach to market and cash out long term goals for short term profits, the long term result are a slew of failures that were rewarded early.
When all you see is the next quarter, you end up selling APPLE stock in '97 for $14.25 instead of holding onto it.
Palm's issue, was that the "Pre" was to late to the smart phone market, by then, Apple was already with iPhone. When I had my Palm, and my cellphone, I kept wondering why the two were not melded. My wonderment lasted over two years.
So if it was so difficult, why not break Palm OS to make it work on phones.
If you don't want G+, then don't sign up with Google at all. You don't need Google on Android at all. Nope, not required. The thing of it is, you want all the things Google does so well (which includes G+ IMHO), but don't want things you might not like. If you're that hung up on not using G+ (don't worry, Google already knows all about you) then don't use it.
Or you know, just buy an iPhone already. Or Blackberry (LOL, yeah I know it is android) or even a Windows Phone (ROFL).
Or grow some tech knowledge, root your phone, install a custom ROM and don't install the Google Apps package. I don't know if I am on /. or some whiny tinfoil hat blog.
Your "test" is assuming one thing too many, that the state has any ability at all to supervise children. It certainly does not.
The fact is, this assumption is completely false, and proven daily by the ill care of children in the "protective" custody of the state. The unfortunate thing is, trying to be proactive is causing unnecessary harm. The system is too slow to deal with these cases as "court/trial" style, and if it takes two years to "prove innocence", it is too fucking long.
These things, to be fair, need to be adjudicated immediately (i.e. days, not weeks / months / years), and the system is just not set up that way, and is likely never to get there.
governmental overreach is to be expected.
How else does a government lackey justify their job?
AND also why I am a libertarian.
Socialism requires a police state, or willing sheep.
Who gets to decide what is and what isn't art?
It might be "art", but it is no better than stick figure art my kids made in 2nd grade. And takes about as much talent.
Yup. You pretty much proved my point ;-)
That, and POT meet KETTLE.
It is exactly "rude, mean and nasty" to people of hate anyone portraying their beloved "prophet" in anyway they don't like. That's the thing about emotion, it isn't necessarily rational.
Being violent and murderous is what happens in Atheist countries to people of faith. You saying that makes them religious nuts?
Oh right, those aren't proper Atheists ... which ... is exactly what every other "religion" says about the violent murderous among them ;-)
Defining yourself by what you DON'T believe in is ... impossible.
Look, the guy's hardly going to say it's OK to blaspheme, is he? It's
I've been accused of being a "religious nut" on occasion. But here is my stance. For people who don't believe like me, they are free to Blaspheme all they want. Not my job to stop them, and if what I believe is true, they will have their justice eventually. If not, no harm, no foul. But at the same time, if you think peeing in a glass and putting a cross in it is art, I can say, "that says a lot more about you than it does me".
Being rude, mean, nasty is what I would expect from people who hate, religious or otherwise.
SILENCE ... I KILL YOU!!!!!!
For instance, now you have gun-cases juried only by people knowledgeable about - and presumably pro - weapons.
I can imagine a jury of informed gun people laughing at the definitions of "assault" weapons, that are virtually identical to other weapons in all the ways that really matter, but are illegal simply because "it looks dangerous".
But then again, when you have Diane Feintein saying that a certain configuration of an otherwise acceptable deer hunting rifle makes it "legal to hunt humans" (yes, she said that), you end up with a law based on hysterics.
Trials should be about truth, and knowledge. However, they are not.
A lot of IT people don't know how IT works. Because a lot of IT people aren't really in IT, but are managers of change. Very few IT people follow enough of the IT world to be able to have divergent conversations spanning various IT related issues.
Hell, I've met "Networking" professionals who don't have a clue about the OSI model and what it means. To them networking is plugging a bunch of switches together. These people couldn't build a patch cord to save their life.
And quite frankly, a jury of his peers doesn't really mean high school dropouts.
This sort of thing could never work in the US or Canada.
This sort of thing CAN work in the US, if we change a couple regulations and set up a procedure to accomplish it in an orderly manner. It doesn't have to be all that complicated.
1) Is the area being served by any cell company? If the answer is no, proceed to #2
2) Community organizes and petitions for an FCC waiver to set up a cell tower on specified frequencies.
3) Cell companies can either respond by setting up a tower* or allowing the process to go forward, OR present data showing it is covered adequately (TBD)
4) FCC Grants waiver and monitors the new cell tower as needed.
*Must be maintained permanently to the "AVERAGE" capability of all cell towers owned by said company in the USA. Defined properly by regulation etc.
LastPass makes me immune to THIS kind of attack.
Actually, having been in IT for nearly 30 years, and 15 or so in a school of some sort, I can assure you that
1) Attitude usually starts with teachers who think they know more than everyone else, because ... well they are a teacher. .... We have a joke, that it if has a key, copper or uses electricity, it is our job.
2) I have to know a little about everyone's job, from Business to Teaching to custodial to
3) What a crock. We have new tech all the time, and teachers want it to work magically. Why? because they view technology as magic.
Summarizing, most of the problem isn't IT, it is the user. IT has issues with users a lot, but where I am, IT is not the problem, not most of the time anyways.
The problem isn't standards. The problem is "One size fits all" standards. There are no gradations or levels of competency, just more or less "pass/fail" series of hoops.
The fact is the industrial method of teaching has to be changed, and we are starting to see those changes. But it is going to require a whole new type of teacher, and most teachers are not up to the task.
I don't see why collaboratively creating a third grade math book should be that difficult.
Politics.
how hard your position is to fill
This is not the problem of those filling those jobs, it is the problem of those that need to fill so many spots and the candidates come in to fill those spots.
Lets take this over simplified example:
You have 100 spots to fill, and have VERY high standards. You put out a search and 1000 people apply, and only 10 people end up qualifing. Those 10 people are outstanding and will work for the pay you have indicated. How do you fill in the other 90 jobs you need filling? You have two choices, raise the pay, so that you can until you find 100 people who will do the job, OR you lower standards, or some sort of Combination.
IF you raise the pay, you have to raise it for EVERYONE who qualifies, the union contract requires everyone be paid exactly the same, regardless of performance, education, and other qualifications. Each person you hire, costs exponentially more than the last. So, that isn't really going to work.
So, what happens is that requirements are lowered, as you need to fill those positions.
And just so you know, most school districts, salary and benefits represent about 80% or more of the annual budget of most districts. Many, if not most, districts are struggling with the budgets set already. And lets not talk about Mandated programs that come with too little funding.
It is easy for armchair Superintendents of Schools to know how to fix the educational system.
As an aside, I work in IT for a school district, the biggest hindrance to teachers learning tech is the teachers themselves. There is a subtle attitude most teachers have, and it is something like this "I don't want to learn _______". Being in IT, and having to learn new things all the time, this attitude is painful to watch, as it is often reflected in those teachers actual effectiveness in the classroom.
Most users don't care. Most users wouldn't care that their keyboard COULD be logged, even if they were told. MOST users are using wireless keyboards to type twitter and facebook posts.
In Spy vs Spy, which spy did you root for?
THIS ^^^^^^
I'll extend that with enough support, there only needs to be ONE textbook for all jurisdictions.
Create a single textbook with all the variations needed for every district/board of education. Configure the "Textbook" software to download the entire book (all versions) and have a management feature that checks off which version to display, and the software formats the book accordingly.
This way, you could have a "progressive left" version and a "Bible Belt" version of the same book, each tailored to suit each constituency, but otherwise is the same information. The end result is that we'll see who the wackos are on both sides, and trend towards the sane balance.
I have a lot of politically diverse friends, and my socialist friends tell me that they cannot see much difference between Obama and GWB. I am a Libertarian, and I cannot see much difference between Obama and GWB. (D) people see all sorts of differences as do (R)s, but when confronted with the reality, and apart from perhaps ObamaCare, they are actually hard pressed to actually come up with any real differences (Abortion is not a real difference, and President has little say).
The only thing I can see is both Obama and GWB have cut Liberties substantially. To the point that I actually think that Obama is much much worse than GWB was (and that is saying something, because GWB was pretty bad), but (D) people don't care about liberties being diminished if there is a (D) after the president's name.