I don't suppose you'd venture to give us the proper criteria that clearly leads to a well-reared child? Will they be based off of what makes a child more empathetic (i.e. parents must be liberals), or more self-sufficient and enterprising (e.g. parents must have proven business track record), or hard-working (i.e. parents must be blue collar workers). I bet it's that old standby: intelligence. I hardly need to say that intelligence is a different and not superior trait does not trump the importance of any of these others I've listed.
And if it is not you that decides whether it is intelligence, hard-working, etc, then who is the qualified person/institution to decide the traits of an acceptable human (because that's the real point you're making) and, therefore, gets to be a parent?
Let me put it simply: you cannot decide to license away the right of someone to pass on their genes or raise their offspring for one reason because, if you open that door, I can walk right through it and revoke the same from you because you are dangerously short-sighted and arrogant. By extension, no person or institution has this right to decide.
That you even raised this suggestion is poison! While I hope you're simply trolling, the fact that you've been modded "Insightful" is an absolutely disgusting reflection of the current moderators. Your comment is an exposure of an all too common streak amongst geeks: a craving for a technocratic paradise where they, coincidently, form a cognoscenti aristocracy that engineers the systems to save society from the unsavory people that happen to comprise it.
If this democrat Congress abdicates its duty to subpoena this information (as they have abdicated their ability to do so much meaningful action to counter this administration), I won't regard them as merely outflanked, but complicit. It seems like a game of good cop/bad cop, where Congress got in with us by acting like our friend in the face of the "bad cop" president, but as soon as we're not in the same room with them they get along just fine, because they both want the same thing: the power.
We've been voting for dog catchers, mayors, prosecutors, judges, aldermen et al throughout this country's 200+ years of democratic existence. Therefore, it mustn't be the multitude of positions that suddenly requires computers to help us keep track.
I suggest the actual driving force is how unfathomably dissatisfied our citizens would be to have to wait days or weeks for the results to be tabulated by patriotic (and retired) voluteers. People are already disengaged from the process enough without offending their need for instant gratification. After all, any pop TV show can conduct a nation-wide election in under an hour using text messaging.
There are more cynical possibilities, but I think it's far more likely that this is regarded as necessary progress to keep our democratic process in step with the pace of change in every other facet of our lives.
Which I find superficial, dangerous to pursue for its own sake and a somewhat sad commentary on our priorities.
The sign is the key part about what made this okay. New Hampshire is a dual-consent state requiring that both parties of a conversation must agree to its being recorded. A sign that entering the premises constitutes express consent to such taping should do the trick.
Unfortunately Nashua, my home town, seems to have a police department that could use some work. It's no L.A. or Chicago, but it's the only city in the state that I know of with accusations of pulling people over for "driving while black" and most people in my childhood neighborhood knew that the church parking lot across from the police HQ is where a good deal of drug evidence "goes up in smoke".
Imagine it. A huge fund is started where the winning bid for each hurricane's name is deposited, and this is what we dip into to pick up the pieces afterward!
This way when Citigroup takes your house, it's because it cleaned it off it's foundation into the Gulf of Mexico!
But really, there will be such heavy bidding for the Category Fives so that every talking-head will be saying "remember this relief effort is brought to you by Walmart."
I haven't been able to log onto Google Talk with anything besides Gaim, which doesn't appear to list any Jabber transports available on the server.
For the uninitiated: transports are servers that talk with the Jabber server to bridge protocols with other services (AIM, MSN, etc).
I suspect there are none, because I don't think Google would want to attack AOL or Microsoft so directly. I'm sure that would end in a lawsuit. Though I'd believe it if there were a transport for Yahoo up there.
The article describes quantum key exchange -- what an eavesdropper would actually be reading would be the key to encrypt with before the message has been sent.
When the receiver would ordinarily reply to indicate that it got the key, it would instead indicate that the key was compromised and they would try again. Then the actual "Attack at dawn." message would be sent over normal mediums encrypted with the key they finally agreed on.
Besides that, do we remember his past predictions?
Programs would all have little "assistants" that end-users would love because it would make their job easier. And if I recall, I should have my credit card sized PDA/ID by now.
And let's not forget how Microsoft as a company failed to predict the success of the web, search engines or whatever and is continually forced to skateboard off the back of someone else's bumper to make it.
This "repeat until accepted" method sounds a lot to me like the Dianetics psuedo-science Hubbard invented before founding Scientology. Which makes me scared that it either won't work in the long term and will just damage the person's psyche, or will work and will give Scientologists fuel to claim the legitimacy of their "faith".
Stick with your decision, but know that child porn isn't exhalted or even condoned on Freenet, and it isn't even specifically accepted as a necessary evil. Freenet merely redistributes in-demand files (as collections of bytes like all others) across a network in a way to prevent the ability of any party to suppress them or know their originator. This is to guarantee freedom of speech and expression. That some combinations of bytes form graphics that any responsible and/or balanced person would find repugnant, doesn't change the fact that they're still just bytes which freenet can't distinguish from "Das Capital", a treatise on democracy in China, a mirror of RIAA subpoenas or the latest episode of Enterprise.
If you want a system that can censor a particular kind of data, it would require a central authority to make that judgement -- and the entire point of a decentralized network of expression is lost.
They couldn't all be uninformed, because if it went in at the 11th hour the White House couldn't have added it (though we can still blame them a bunch for signing and most assuredly liking it), so it must've been a legislator. And I want to know which one.
in a pure constructionist view, the federal governments laws don't supercede the laws of the states because there should be no overlap. the federal form laws regarding the peculiarities of being a nation and in matters that inherently involve several states. The states are only concerned with their internal matters. Over time, this has come to no longer be the case, but as it has the idea of federal laws superceding state laws has become accepted convention.
So technically, in a pure Constitution sense, you're probably not entirely right.
If I'm getting this right, the bill is H.R.2417 and the text of it can be found here along with the ammendments. And even though the Senate disguised who passed it with a voice vote, the House did it the transparently democratic way and the vote broken down beyond yeas and nays into partys and names can be found here.
Re:Idiocy - bluetooth just taking off
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely. My new iPaq came bluetooth-enabled, almost certainly in consideration of using a mobile phone that way. But since it was bluetooth-capable, I was able to set up a wireless network for it using a $20 usb adapter on my desktop instead of a $70 Wi-Fi base station.
As these little devices permeate, more computers will support bluetooth to connect to them like this. And then more peripheral manufacturers will build it into their products to fulfill the cableless desktop dream. Snowball snowball snowball.
This is going to confuse almost every single American who catches it on the 11:00 news tonight. They'll think "we/wanted/ this! isn't this a democracy?! who does this judge think he is??". There's already evidence of this here on/.
My point being that they won't even question whether or not this can (or should) be regulated or legislated, because they're all so blinded by People Power and the infallibility of democracy. They'll be so caught up in 50 million Americans being listed, let alone the ones who just plain like the idea that they'll think it just perverse that -anyone- would dare question it.
It's all about getting it done, not getting it done in the right way, by the right people, or for the right reasons. The People have made their decree and may the spoilers who try and defy it be damned!
True, nearly every American gets their news from the infamous media 5 which definitely have interests other than (and probably overriding) telling the full story, but I find I can't trust other media outlets (Project Censored for example) just because they are not those 5. Not being among those known to be untrustworthy doesn't come with an intrinsic level of trust itself, it still has to be earned. And outlets carrying underreported stories don't have an easy time earning that trust.
When only two or three small news sources put their credibility on the line for such a story, it makes me long for a name I'd recognize doing it instead. When the AP carries a story, thousands of papers and other outlets carry it with a portion looking into it further to find a deeper story. It has an open-source "many eyes" characteristic in that way.
But these underreported stories (often carried by outlets that proclaim that you shouldn't trust the media) require you trust them without the backing of anyone but themselves and a very few others. It comes down to whether I'd sooner trust the headline on the New York Times, or the slogans shouted by that guy down in the square waving his homemade paper.
Truly! One of the most important but never mentioned aspects of a criminal justice system is that not everyone will always get caught. This allows people to screw up, get scared and straighten themselves out without imposing jail or fines on them or stressing the court or prison systems by putting them throught them.
Slashdot Mirror
Who calls it "codices"?
>> --- We need more Ron Paul!
I have a fever, and the only prescription is more Ron Paul!
I don't suppose you'd venture to give us the proper criteria that clearly leads to a well-reared child? Will they be based off of what makes a child more empathetic (i.e. parents must be liberals), or more self-sufficient and enterprising (e.g. parents must have proven business track record), or hard-working (i.e. parents must be blue collar workers). I bet it's that old standby: intelligence. I hardly need to say that intelligence is a different and not superior trait does not trump the importance of any of these others I've listed.
And if it is not you that decides whether it is intelligence, hard-working, etc, then who is the qualified person/institution to decide the traits of an acceptable human (because that's the real point you're making) and, therefore, gets to be a parent?
Let me put it simply: you cannot decide to license away the right of someone to pass on their genes or raise their offspring for one reason because, if you open that door, I can walk right through it and revoke the same from you because you are dangerously short-sighted and arrogant. By extension, no person or institution has this right to decide.
That you even raised this suggestion is poison! While I hope you're simply trolling, the fact that you've been modded "Insightful" is an absolutely disgusting reflection of the current moderators. Your comment is an exposure of an all too common streak amongst geeks: a craving for a technocratic paradise where they, coincidently, form a cognoscenti aristocracy that engineers the systems to save society from the unsavory people that happen to comprise it.
If this democrat Congress abdicates its duty to subpoena this information (as they have abdicated their ability to do so much meaningful action to counter this administration), I won't regard them as merely outflanked, but complicit. It seems like a game of good cop/bad cop, where Congress got in with us by acting like our friend in the face of the "bad cop" president, but as soon as we're not in the same room with them they get along just fine, because they both want the same thing: the power.
We've been voting for dog catchers, mayors, prosecutors, judges, aldermen et al throughout this country's 200+ years of democratic existence. Therefore, it mustn't be the multitude of positions that suddenly requires computers to help us keep track.
I suggest the actual driving force is how unfathomably dissatisfied our citizens would be to have to wait days or weeks for the results to be tabulated by patriotic (and retired) voluteers. People are already disengaged from the process enough without offending their need for instant gratification. After all, any pop TV show can conduct a nation-wide election in under an hour using text messaging.
There are more cynical possibilities, but I think it's far more likely that this is regarded as necessary progress to keep our democratic process in step with the pace of change in every other facet of our lives.
Which I find superficial, dangerous to pursue for its own sake and a somewhat sad commentary on our priorities.
The sign is the key part about what made this okay. New Hampshire is a dual-consent state requiring that both parties of a conversation must agree to its being recorded. A sign that entering the premises constitutes express consent to such taping should do the trick.
Unfortunately Nashua, my home town, seems to have a police department that could use some work. It's no L.A. or Chicago, but it's the only city in the state that I know of with accusations of pulling people over for "driving while black" and most people in my childhood neighborhood knew that the church parking lot across from the police HQ is where a good deal of drug evidence "goes up in smoke".
corporate sponsorship!
Imagine it. A huge fund is started where the winning bid for each hurricane's name is deposited, and this is what we dip into to pick up the pieces afterward!
This way when Citigroup takes your house, it's because it cleaned it off it's foundation into the Gulf of Mexico!
But really, there will be such heavy bidding for the Category Fives so that every talking-head will be saying "remember this relief effort is brought to you by Walmart."
I haven't been able to log onto Google Talk with anything besides Gaim, which doesn't appear to list any Jabber transports available on the server.
For the uninitiated: transports are servers that talk with the Jabber server to bridge protocols with other services (AIM, MSN, etc).
I suspect there are none, because I don't think Google would want to attack AOL or Microsoft so directly. I'm sure that would end in a lawsuit. Though I'd believe it if there were a transport for Yahoo up there.
The article describes quantum key exchange -- what an eavesdropper would actually be reading would be the key to encrypt with before the message has been sent.
When the receiver would ordinarily reply to indicate that it got the key, it would instead indicate that the key was compromised and they would try again. Then the actual "Attack at dawn." message would be sent over normal mediums encrypted with the key they finally agreed on.
Besides that, do we remember his past predictions?
Programs would all have little "assistants" that end-users would love because it would make their job easier. And if I recall, I should have my credit card sized PDA/ID by now.
And let's not forget how Microsoft as a company failed to predict the success of the web, search engines or whatever and is continually forced to skateboard off the back of someone else's bumper to make it.
Sorry Bill, but you're no Nostradamus.
The Spirit rover, for one, welcomes the Mars' new alien overlords.
This "repeat until accepted" method sounds a lot to me like the Dianetics psuedo-science Hubbard invented before founding Scientology. Which makes me scared that it either won't work in the long term and will just damage the person's psyche, or will work and will give Scientologists fuel to claim the legitimacy of their "faith".
See what I mean at Operation Clam Bake
Stick with your decision, but know that child porn isn't exhalted or even condoned on Freenet, and it isn't even specifically accepted as a necessary evil. Freenet merely redistributes in-demand files (as collections of bytes like all others) across a network in a way to prevent the ability of any party to suppress them or know their originator. This is to guarantee freedom of speech and expression. That some combinations of bytes form graphics that any responsible and/or balanced person would find repugnant, doesn't change the fact that they're still just bytes which freenet can't distinguish from "Das Capital", a treatise on democracy in China, a mirror of RIAA subpoenas or the latest episode of Enterprise.
If you want a system that can censor a particular kind of data, it would require a central authority to make that judgement -- and the entire point of a decentralized network of expression is lost.
Episode 1 = sucked.
Episode 2 = sucked.
Episode 3 = PROFIT!!
They couldn't all be uninformed, because if it went in at the 11th hour the White House couldn't have added it (though we can still blame them a bunch for signing and most assuredly liking it), so it must've been a legislator. And I want to know which one.
It's not even several hours old and you've already forgotten the Linux 2.6.0 being released!
what happened to sprinkling penguin pee?
in a pure constructionist view, the federal governments laws don't supercede the laws of the states because there should be no overlap. the federal form laws regarding the peculiarities of being a nation and in matters that inherently involve several states. The states are only concerned with their internal matters. Over time, this has come to no longer be the case, but as it has the idea of federal laws superceding state laws has become accepted convention.
So technically, in a pure Constitution sense, you're probably not entirely right.
an fu fme drive would be might fine as well
If I'm getting this right, the bill is H.R.2417 and the text of it can be found here along with the ammendments. And even though the Senate disguised who passed it with a voice vote, the House did it the transparently democratic way and the vote broken down beyond yeas and nays into partys and names can be found here.
Absolutely. My new iPaq came bluetooth-enabled, almost certainly in consideration of using a mobile phone that way. But since it was bluetooth-capable, I was able to set up a wireless network for it using a $20 usb adapter on my desktop instead of a $70 Wi-Fi base station.
As these little devices permeate, more computers will support bluetooth to connect to them like this. And then more peripheral manufacturers will build it into their products to fulfill the cableless desktop dream. Snowball snowball snowball.
But it's all starting with these mobile phones.
This is going to confuse almost every single American who catches it on the 11:00 news tonight. They'll think "we /wanted/ this! isn't this a democracy?! who does this judge think he is??". There's already evidence of this here on /.
My point being that they won't even question whether or not this can (or should) be regulated or legislated, because they're all so blinded by People Power and the infallibility of democracy. They'll be so caught up in 50 million Americans being listed, let alone the ones who just plain like the idea that they'll think it just perverse that -anyone- would dare question it.
It's all about getting it done, not getting it done in the right way, by the right people, or for the right reasons. The People have made their decree and may the spoilers who try and defy it be damned!
But it is amusing that the site is ASP-driven.
True, nearly every American gets their news from the infamous media 5 which definitely have interests other than (and probably overriding) telling the full story, but I find I can't trust other media outlets (Project Censored for example) just because they are not those 5. Not being among those known to be untrustworthy doesn't come with an intrinsic level of trust itself, it still has to be earned. And outlets carrying underreported stories don't have an easy time earning that trust.
When only two or three small news sources put their credibility on the line for such a story, it makes me long for a name I'd recognize doing it instead. When the AP carries a story, thousands of papers and other outlets carry it with a portion looking into it further to find a deeper story. It has an open-source "many eyes" characteristic in that way.
But these underreported stories (often carried by outlets that proclaim that you shouldn't trust the media) require you trust them without the backing of anyone but themselves and a very few others. It comes down to whether I'd sooner trust the headline on the New York Times, or the slogans shouted by that guy down in the square waving his homemade paper.
Truly! One of the most important but never mentioned aspects of a criminal justice system is that not everyone will always get caught. This allows people to screw up, get scared and straighten themselves out without imposing jail or fines on them or stressing the court or prison systems by putting them throught them.