Got my BS in History and Political Science. The only difference at my University was that one program required a bunch of Literature and foreign language/culture classes, the other let me use the Calculus, Chemistry, and Biology credits from my attempt at the engineering program.
"Why yes, oddly enough, a B- in 5 credits of calculus I does count as a natural sciences core class." - My advisor.
Thus far, I see a lot of commentary on how the opt-in nature of this service should serve to fend off the ACLU suit. But other posts suggest that some 80% or more of the population will act as directed by one particular church. If Everyone BUT YOU opts in, do we have something different going on? Is this like the scenario where a volunteer is requested and everyone BUT YOU takes a step backwards?
Cities will just say: You made ten thousand dollars on interest last year, so you won't mind if we cut next years budget by ten thousand.
and
and if you think that their funding won't be cut by the same amount they take in then you have never lived in a state the year after it starts a weekly lotery game and promisses that \$$x will go to the underfunded schools.
This is actually a solution to underfunded libraries. The way the system works, I plop down my $20 deposit for an anonymous library card. So do 5,000 other people. Thats 100,000 sitting in the bank, collecting interest, and giving the library several thousand bucks extra every year.
This is much like the IOLTA system most lawyers keep. Whenever they accept money on behalf of a client, it must go into a special account. At the end of each year, the interest generated goes to fund public legal services.
Applied to libraries, nobody knows what I read, and the library gets extra funding. What's not to love?
It is unfair to charge a person a disposal fee at the time of purchase, because it is entirely possible that the person will handle disposal himself at some later point. Rather, a disposal fee at the landfill gate will target those buyers who chose to dispose of a computer in that way. Recycling companies may do likewise (and perhaps compete with landfills.) Lastly, the consumer may simply choose to keep the old hardware in his basement, or bury it on his own land.
(Why yes, I do have a stack of old tires at home, I find them useful for gardening, storage, and impromptu playground equipment.)
To clarify, he was using the American Bar Association (ABA) as his example. I know it confuses people, but the ABA is another example of a "national" organization that is far less important and authoritative than the corresponding state organization. The national ABA is not as practically significant as most people think. Membership in the ABA is not required to practice law. State bar membership usually is.
Many states are good at maintaining the quality of their bar association. Some are not. The ABA (like OSS) tends to accept all comers. Still, in the end, both the ABA and OSS also do a lot of public good, and they do it for free.
On behalf of Lutherans everywhere, I have to address this assertion:
The problem is that the Bible is not the flawless word of God. It is a book that was inspired by God to serve as a starting point for people to believe.
If the books that comprise the bible are not universally reliable as the word of God, which the book itself claims to be, how can one know which parts are reliable and which are not? Do we just get to pick and choose? Buffet a-la Bible?
Further, if it is only a starting point, where does one go from there? Certainly one cannot rely on his own feelings and ideas. This would be arrogant to the point of absurd. Experience teaches us how unreliable our own feelings are, they would be of no value in helping us to understand an eternal, transcendant, and unchaning God.
If we can't rely on what was written down, and we can't rely on our our own feelings, we're left with nothing on which to rely, and might as well be agnostic.
Well, there are three possible ways to look at this:
1. We're the product of evolution. We're the greatest and most interesting species evolution ever produced. We owe nothing to anyone but ourselves for our success and if we want to wipe out a few other forms of life so be it. We rock! And of course in the grand scheme of things if we did wind up wiping ourselves out, nobody will be around to care.
2. We're the product of intelligent design. If the Christians are right, the whole world is here for us to fill, subdue and use for our benefit. If we need to knock out a few species, its no different than me knocking out a wall in my house to make room for a pool table. We're the pinnacle of creation, We ROCK! And after ragnarok, there will be a whole new creation anyway.
3. We're either created or evolved, but we're adaptable enough that if the need arises we'll find a way to create new species to replace the ones we eliminated. Heck maybe we'll make whole new worlds. In this case, I guess the Mormons would be right. In any case, we're the smartest and most adaptable. We ROCK! In any case, we can always clean up the mess later.
Who am I to suggest I have the right to wipe out whole species? I AM MAN!
This is why I hope the terrorists bring down the USA. The USA is so flawed, where everything is measured in money, not human happiness.
This is a very broad generalization, and it is either flawed, or based on a very narrow sample. Where I live, in one of the united States, the majority of the population could easily make more money elsewhere. They choose to live here for other reasons. We don't have to lock our doors at night, we don't have to take our keys out of the ignition in our cars, (and our winters are cold enough to freeze your Winnebago.) Money is not the question, people live here because it makes them happy.
To whit, please do not encourage my nations' enemies to bring down my state. We quite like it here.
Well, I guess so. I mean, when you're voting for one man to fill one office... someone has to loose. At least in the United States, for the Presidency, the winner has to get a majority.
The bill does not mandate states change their licensing system and contribute to the database, what it does is prohibit federal agencies from accepting as valid ID the driver's licenses from states that do not. This raises two interesting points:
1. How hard will it be for my state to enact "check the box" options for whether or not my license will be federally accepted. If I want to keep my information from the database, I can choose to do so.
2. Even now, other states still accept my driver's license. How often do I give my drivers license to a federal agency? I'm having a hard time remembering.
" Why the state level? Why not county, city or individual level?
Because the city and county are just organs of the state government and do not enjoy independent authority.
And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative?
Why not, presently we vote on new taxation bills, and we frequently vote on any other topic that captures public interest. In fact, any law at all can be brought to a public vote with a minimum of effort. The same is not true in the federal column.
What about those who don't agree in your state, how are they different than those who disagree with a federal decision?
One gets a more homogeneous population at the state level, at least in terms of values and interests. It is therefore possible to obtain the support of very large percentages of the population if a proposed law or spending effort is to be enacted. Again the same is simply not true in the federal column. Further, those who disagree can more easily reach the entire voting population should they desire to oppose the consensus, or they can easily hop to a state that values the areas of law or research they prefer. One cannot easily reach the entire population of every congressional district in the united States, nor can one easily leave and hop to another place that better suits his values.
You somehow think the state will do something different
Having had to take and pass a Bar Exam in two different but very closely related states, I can attest to the vast differences in the laws and the underlying values that put them in place. It is not that I think individual states will do something different, this is very much a fact.
Just specific enough to reach a general consensus among the people of my state. If our research priorities are very different from those of California or Texas, We can fund them accordingly.
It is a common mistake to assume that all of our rules have to come down from the Federal Government. We're not all playing the same game.
Because everyone benefits and uses the research, not just people in that state?
SO what you're saying is that we should demand funding from Canada, France, Russia, and Iraq because hey, the'll use the research too?
The problem with letting science direct "the funding" is that "the funding" is comming out of MY pocket and frankly, I'd rather decide where it goes than a bunch of people in DC or California, be they scientists or politicians. I want my money going to research retinal implants for the blind rather than stems cells. The folks in California don't. I think they call this diversity.
This is where I get to mention (again) that my favorite vehicle for the open road is a motorcycle I rebuilt myself. It has exactly four circuits, headlight, taillight/breaklight, generator, ignition coil. No black box, no RFID, no computer controlled fues system... in fact, nothing I can't fix with a pocket knife and a crescent wrench on the side of the road.
The typical MS pattern is this: Make it easier to accomplish your goal with our software and the competition dies. Make it easier to just use our browser and netscape dies. Make it easier to use our word processor and Word Perfect dies.
Now take all these OSS groups. Many programmers want lots of people to use their software. They work for free, but they still get credit. Microsoft can give them all the credit in the world. All they have to do is bow down and worship... wait... all they have to do is write software for Windows. Do this, and the competitor (Linux) will die.
As I repsonded to the other people making the same assertion:
Unless all the participating nations have exactly the same existing infrastructure, exactly the same telecom industries, and exactly the same present use of the spectrum, different rules are going to have different costs and benefits for each nation. The final decisions are therefore very much questions of diplomacy.
Unless all the participating nations have exactly the same existing infrastructure, exactly the same telecom industries, and exactly the same present use of the spectrum, different rules are going to have different costs and benefits for each nation. The final decisions are therefore very much questions of diplomacy.
The Cardinals reject non-Catholic candidates for the Papacy.
Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work? Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements? It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.
But in practice not EVERYONE will have a computer in their car to help them avoid traffic jams. Many cars will navigate by more traditional methods. As time progresses transportation will continue to evolve, and these computers will become old hat as new devices and perhaps methods of transport arrive. You'll never get 100% saturation. These computers therefore could be a great asset.
Of course in my case, I'm lucky to see more than 10 moving cars on my drive to work, and my tinfoil hat would never permit me to use one of these...
Is for me to get out my pen and paper and neatly write my senator a letter asking him to oppose this bill. I notice (at least in a quick read) that TFA does not state the bill number. Can anyone provide it?
Unless you consider marriage under the more traditional definition, in which case it is a socioeconomic union that has little if anything to do with love. Further, the state has an interest in increasing its population because more people means more resources. Therefore laws encouraging unions that permit reproduction are beneficial to the state.
Slashdot Mirror
Got my BS in History and Political Science. The only difference at my University was that one program required a bunch of Literature and foreign language/culture classes, the other let me use the Calculus, Chemistry, and Biology credits from my attempt at the engineering program.
"Why yes, oddly enough, a B- in 5 credits of calculus I does count as a natural sciences core class." - My advisor.
Thus far, I see a lot of commentary on how the opt-in nature of this service should serve to fend off the ACLU suit. But other posts suggest that some 80% or more of the population will act as directed by one particular church. If Everyone BUT YOU opts in, do we have something different going on? Is this like the scenario where a volunteer is requested and everyone BUT YOU takes a step backwards?
Cities will just say: You made ten thousand dollars on interest last year, so you won't mind if we cut next years budget by ten thousand.
and
and if you think that their funding won't be cut by the same amount they take in then you have never lived in a state the year after it starts a weekly lotery game and promisses that \$$x will go to the underfunded schools.
Blast it all, stop raining on my utopia!
This is actually a solution to underfunded libraries. The way the system works, I plop down my $20 deposit for an anonymous library card. So do 5,000 other people. Thats 100,000 sitting in the bank, collecting interest, and giving the library several thousand bucks extra every year.
This is much like the IOLTA system most lawyers keep. Whenever they accept money on behalf of a client, it must go into a special account. At the end of each year, the interest generated goes to fund public legal services.
Applied to libraries, nobody knows what I read, and the library gets extra funding. What's not to love?
It is unfair to charge a person a disposal fee at the time of purchase, because it is entirely possible that the person will handle disposal himself at some later point. Rather, a disposal fee at the landfill gate will target those buyers who chose to dispose of a computer in that way. Recycling companies may do likewise (and perhaps compete with landfills.) Lastly, the consumer may simply choose to keep the old hardware in his basement, or bury it on his own land.
(Why yes, I do have a stack of old tires at home, I find them useful for gardening, storage, and impromptu playground equipment.)
To clarify, he was using the American Bar Association (ABA) as his example. I know it confuses people, but the ABA is another example of a "national" organization that is far less important and authoritative than the corresponding state organization. The national ABA is not as practically significant as most people think. Membership in the ABA is not required to practice law. State bar membership usually is.
Many states are good at maintaining the quality of their bar association. Some are not. The ABA (like OSS) tends to accept all comers. Still, in the end, both the ABA and OSS also do a lot of public good, and they do it for free.
On behalf of Lutherans everywhere, I have to address this assertion:
The problem is that the Bible is not the flawless word of God. It is a book that was inspired by God to serve as a starting point for people to believe.
If the books that comprise the bible are not universally reliable as the word of God, which the book itself claims to be, how can one know which parts are reliable and which are not? Do we just get to pick and choose? Buffet a-la Bible?
Further, if it is only a starting point, where does one go from there? Certainly one cannot rely on his own feelings and ideas. This would be arrogant to the point of absurd. Experience teaches us how unreliable our own feelings are, they would be of no value in helping us to understand an eternal, transcendant, and unchaning God.
If we can't rely on what was written down, and we can't rely on our our own feelings, we're left with nothing on which to rely, and might as well be agnostic.
Well, there are three possible ways to look at this:
1. We're the product of evolution. We're the greatest and most interesting species evolution ever produced. We owe nothing to anyone but ourselves for our success and if we want to wipe out a few other forms of life so be it. We rock! And of course in the grand scheme of things if we did wind up wiping ourselves out, nobody will be around to care.
2. We're the product of intelligent design. If the Christians are right, the whole world is here for us to fill, subdue and use for our benefit. If we need to knock out a few species, its no different than me knocking out a wall in my house to make room for a pool table. We're the pinnacle of creation, We ROCK! And after ragnarok, there will be a whole new creation anyway.
3. We're either created or evolved, but we're adaptable enough that if the need arises we'll find a way to create new species to replace the ones we eliminated. Heck maybe we'll make whole new worlds. In this case, I guess the Mormons would be right. In any case, we're the smartest and most adaptable. We ROCK! In any case, we can always clean up the mess later.
Who am I to suggest I have the right to wipe out whole species? I AM MAN!
This is why I hope the terrorists bring down the USA. The USA is so flawed, where everything is measured in money, not human happiness.
This is a very broad generalization, and it is either flawed, or based on a very narrow sample. Where I live, in one of the united States, the majority of the population could easily make more money elsewhere. They choose to live here for other reasons. We don't have to lock our doors at night, we don't have to take our keys out of the ignition in our cars, (and our winters are cold enough to freeze your Winnebago.) Money is not the question, people live here because it makes them happy.
To whit, please do not encourage my nations' enemies to bring down my state. We quite like it here.
Well, I guess so. I mean, when you're voting for one man to fill one office... someone has to loose. At least in the United States, for the Presidency, the winner has to get a majority.
49% of the votes? Last time I looked every one of my state's electoral votes was counted, just like every other state.
The bill does not mandate states change their licensing system and contribute to the database, what it does is prohibit federal agencies from accepting as valid ID the driver's licenses from states that do not. This raises two interesting points:
1. How hard will it be for my state to enact "check the box" options for whether or not my license will be federally accepted. If I want to keep my information from the database, I can choose to do so.
2. Even now, other states still accept my driver's license. How often do I give my drivers license to a federal agency? I'm having a hard time remembering.
" Why the state level? Why not county, city or individual level?
Because the city and county are just organs of the state government and do not enjoy independent authority.
And how do you plan to get a consensus? Vote for every single science initiative?
Why not, presently we vote on new taxation bills, and we frequently vote on any other topic that captures public interest. In fact, any law at all can be brought to a public vote with a minimum of effort. The same is not true in the federal column.
What about those who don't agree in your state, how are they different than those who disagree with a federal decision?
One gets a more homogeneous population at the state level, at least in terms of values and interests. It is therefore possible to obtain the support of very large percentages of the population if a proposed law or spending effort is to be enacted. Again the same is simply not true in the federal column. Further, those who disagree can more easily reach the entire voting population should they desire to oppose the consensus, or they can easily hop to a state that values the areas of law or research they prefer. One cannot easily reach the entire population of every congressional district in the united States, nor can one easily leave and hop to another place that better suits his values.
You somehow think the state will do something different
Having had to take and pass a Bar Exam in two different but very closely related states, I can attest to the vast differences in the laws and the underlying values that put them in place. It is not that I think individual states will do something different, this is very much a fact.
How specific does it have to be?
Just specific enough to reach a general consensus among the people of my state. If our research priorities are very different from those of California or Texas, We can fund them accordingly.
It is a common mistake to assume that all of our rules have to come down from the Federal Government. We're not all playing the same game.
Because everyone benefits and uses the research, not just people in that state?
SO what you're saying is that we should demand funding from Canada, France, Russia, and Iraq because hey, the'll use the research too?
The problem with letting science direct "the funding" is that "the funding" is comming out of MY pocket and frankly, I'd rather decide where it goes than a bunch of people in DC or California, be they scientists or politicians. I want my money going to research retinal implants for the blind rather than stems cells. The folks in California don't. I think they call this diversity.
This is where I get to mention (again) that my favorite vehicle for the open road is a motorcycle I rebuilt myself. It has exactly four circuits, headlight, taillight/breaklight, generator, ignition coil. No black box, no RFID, no computer controlled fues system... in fact, nothing I can't fix with a pocket knife and a crescent wrench on the side of the road.
Why can't we have more cars like this?
The typical MS pattern is this: Make it easier to accomplish your goal with our software and the competition dies. Make it easier to just use our browser and netscape dies. Make it easier to use our word processor and Word Perfect dies.
... wait... all they have to do is write software for Windows. Do this, and the competitor (Linux) will die.
Now take all these OSS groups. Many programmers want lots of people to use their software. They work for free, but they still get credit. Microsoft can give them all the credit in the world. All they have to do is bow down and worship
As I repsonded to the other people making the same assertion:
Unless all the participating nations have exactly the same existing infrastructure, exactly the same telecom industries, and exactly the same present use of the spectrum, different rules are going to have different costs and benefits for each nation. The final decisions are therefore very much questions of diplomacy.
Unless all the participating nations have exactly the same existing infrastructure, exactly the same telecom industries, and exactly the same present use of the spectrum, different rules are going to have different costs and benefits for each nation. The final decisions are therefore very much questions of diplomacy.
The Cardinals reject non-Catholic candidates for the Papacy.
Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work? Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements? It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.
But in practice not EVERYONE will have a computer in their car to help them avoid traffic jams. Many cars will navigate by more traditional methods. As time progresses transportation will continue to evolve, and these computers will become old hat as new devices and perhaps methods of transport arrive. You'll never get 100% saturation. These computers therefore could be a great asset.
Of course in my case, I'm lucky to see more than 10 moving cars on my drive to work, and my tinfoil hat would never permit me to use one of these...
I have one word for you:
MUDs
These old text games have probably been the cause of more skipped final exams and lost study time than any two modern games together.
Is for me to get out my pen and paper and neatly write my senator a letter asking him to oppose this bill. I notice (at least in a quick read) that TFA does not state the bill number. Can anyone provide it?
Unless you consider marriage under the more traditional definition, in which case it is a socioeconomic union that has little if anything to do with love. Further, the state has an interest in increasing its population because more people means more resources. Therefore laws encouraging unions that permit reproduction are beneficial to the state.
Certain to be fast, amazing, and internet enabled. So will it have a telnet/MUD client?
"Welcom to Microsoft MUD. It looks like you're trying to PK. Would you like..."