You're absolutely right--not a great deal of outdoor lights are pointed directly up. How many are unshielded on top? How many are unshielded on the sides? Perhaps you would like to make up the reading you SHOULD have done before posting silly comments and find one example of a town ordinance that deals with the problem we're talking about? I can point you in the right direction, if you'd like.
The point is, even if you keep that light--light reflecting off ground objects--at exactly the same level, if you manage to cut the amount of light going directly from the light into the sky at some angle, there's less light pollution. And if you can use less energy to produce the same amount of ground light, all the better.
Well, everyone can, should, and of course DOES have their own opinions! I happen to find twitter's brand of hyperbole AND his frequent ad hominem attacks particularly obnoxious (calling people liars?!), and even when he's onto something, I find his presentation more likely to turn more people off than if he just acted like a reasonable person.
Using Erris the way he does is particularly lame, IMHO...
Beyond that, I agree with you--his words SHOULD be judged, and the post I linked to gives plenty examples of his words.
I read friend/foe/freak/friend of */ with +1s, so, I end up seeing a lot of Twitter:)
Small network, OpenBSD firewall+NAT, w2003 server is inward facing only, firewalled and only used for a few things--in other words, I don't reboot for patches unless it seems like it's a very critical one. Haven't had any problems so far (watch me get hacked next week..). We end up losing power for an extended time probably once every 3-6 months on average as well, so the uptime possibilities aren't THAT great.. longest I ever got with FreeBSD was around 220 days.
Don't even bother feeding the Troll--Twitter that is. He's a huge troll who frequently brings his sock puppet "Erris" into discussions when he gets modded down.
And just FWIW, I agree with you about XP. I use OSX almost exclusively now, but I've had some very solid XP installations, and at work our Win2003 server regularly matches our FreeBSD server for uptime (poor power being the main limiting factor)
The official report, released before his statements, directly contradicts the anti-environmentalists. This is a theory that originates from one of AK Marc's LIES.
Get your facts straight, or at least if you can't do that, READ MY POST--the report was released almost a month later according to Wikipedia--August 26.
I do not understand the sheer hypocrisy you exhibit here. You go ballistic someone you disagree with you has intentionally lied, all the while spreading further lies (by your standard of lie) yourself!
Limbaugh says "there's a theory going around" and after explaining it says "a lot of people are beginning to think that the banning of Freon actually caused the shuttle accident, the Columbia shuttle accident, two flights ago. And I'm inclined to believe it when I hear this." This was on August 3rd, according to media matters. At this point the NASA report had not been released yet--it wouldn't be fully released for months! There was nothing to lie about!
Can someone really "lie" when they say "there's a theory I'm inclined to believe" ?
But I suppose it's just much easier to hysterically claim that Rush Limbaugh both originated the theory AND lied about it that to actually read your own link though!
Hmmm... I would say that if you think you have nothing to learn from teachers, then you have a lot to learn:-)
Now I'm not talking about BAD teachers who are horrible all around--we've all had those. But a good teacher--and they can be rare!--is one who can expand your knowledge, but more importantly, extend your way of thinking and prod you on into new directions beyond what a textbook can do. I say this as someone who did history/comp sci/religion in undergrad and went on to history-related MA. Every single one of the best teachers I had was NOT a lecturer but was someone that inspired students (and me!).
Sounds kinda silly, but one of my all-time favorite teachers taught American 1750-1850 history. I'm not a big American history fan in general, but he spiced it and made wide ranging! He would have some seemingly random story--ranging from playing tennis with his dad one day, to contemporary politics, whatever--that would fold into the lesson of the class each day. It was almost zen;-) For instance, when talking about William Loyd Garrison in the 1850s burning a constitution, he brought in a copy of the constitution, and as he was talking about garrison, lit a lighter and made as if he was going to burn the copy. Most of the class was shocked--that's not something you see everyday! Some people were visibly upset. An important lesson in the value of things and actions. We had all READ about Garrison and the constitution, but seeing it firsthand, totally different!
Most of my comp sci professors stank, though I did like a few... I think the problem with many science/math professors/teachers is that the best+brightest have the option of being elsewhere (probably making more money!) and thus you are left with ones that love teaching and the mediocre ones... so you can have great experiences, or awful ones, with not a lot in between.
One of my favorite quotes (I've forgotten who said it) on the way our school system works is: The classroom lecture is the best way known for teaching students who can't read. When I got my MA, only 1 class out of 18 was lecture. ~shrug~ When I was in undergrad, about the only lecture classes I had were sciences. I do think there are substantial variations between schools..
(Note that I've carefully said nothing that would identify the schools. This is intentional, so you might suspect that it might be schools in your area.;-) Let me guess.. Washington State and Wisconsin??;-)
But seriously, that's pretty pathetic. At my highschool, there were a handful (out of a graduating class of ~300, maybe... 4-5?) kids who were above AP Calc BC level and were going to a local university to take math classes. I kinda feel like in a situation where teachers are hostile and unhelpful, parents really need to get involved if the teachers are too lazy to do anything on their own!
With regards to prerequisites... they are about knowledge yes, but they are also about work. Plenty of people can score well on tests, but a lot of those people then don't have the willpower to work. Whether it's laziness, getting distracted by parties, social life, video games, whatever. The education system is basically about weeding people out, and prereqs are just one way of doing that.
One of my friends since middleschool (say age 11/12 or so) is an absolutely brilliant guy. In school he was excellent at math and physics and a supremely talented musician. ~8 years after we started college, he still hasn't completed his undergrad, and works at a waffle house. Kinda makes me sad because he would be absolutely brilliant at whatever he did, but he just can't pull it together. He's pretty happy though--he spends most of his time as a moderator on a gaming board, gaming, and ranting about corporations and the system. He's smarter than me, so maybe he knows something I don't:-)
Interestingly, you are also not answering his point. He probably shouldn't have sworn at you, but he makes a valid point. Considering that you just assumed that I was opposed to the investigation of leaked classified information when I'm not actually opposed to this, that's pretty ironic. Also, I suppose that it escapes you that you are also a random guy on slashdot? I don't think I assumed that about you--I asked a question? If I assumed anything incorrectly, apologies. If you're not opposed to investigation, then I don't see what the problem is? I'm a random guy on slashdot absolutely--but I'm also not claiming that I know 100% what is constitutional / legal what not, and I'm not setting arbitrary standards for investigation. My POV is simple--if there is a crime, or a seeming crime, it should be investigated. An investigation where there is evidence of a crime is not an abuse of power.
Perhaps you might like to answer his valid point about non-authorized wiretaps? Well, now they ARE legal (or soon to be legal) even if previously they were not. I'm not sure--Bush obviously had a lot of people working for him who said it WAS legal. Clearly many others say it's NOT legal. Who's right--well, we have other institutions to decide that. We're getting kind of into legal theosophy;) here I think, but if a law is passed, authorized by pres, etc, is it by nature constitutional? Is a law presumed constitutional before being proven otherwise? Kind of an interesting dilemma.
I see your point and I'm not trying to be rude, but this is called comparing apples to oranges. Was exposing the identity of Valerie Plame done for the greater good of the population? I can't even begin to guess at what Armitage's motivations were--nor Libby, etc. Maybe they (or Libby, etc) thought that they WERE acting for the greater good? Does it matter?
So leaking the name of an alleged covert* CIA agent was perfectly fine, but exposing an act that had serious constitutional problems warrants a full raid? But they DID perform a full investigation of the leak, including jailing reporters! That's not peanuts!
These are all arbitrary standards! one man's "for the public good" is another man's "destroy person x's career." I don't disagree that sometimes things DO need to be leaked, and sometimes people do need to act individually against the government. Even in these cases though, investigations are not evil! From many posts I've replied to, you would think the act of investigating this leak put Bush in league with Stalin, Hitler, etc (well, I think a lot of people believe that anyway.) The point is, a crime was committed, and it gets investigated. No charges have been made yet, etc, so we don't have a clue what will happen yet.
The Valerie Plame leak investigation has NOTHING in common with this case. Your Government was breaking the law by wiretapping without warrants. The fact that Bush excused the whole thing does NOT make it any more legal. I'm glad you are the arbiter of what is legal and what is not! Good to know that some random guy on slashdot who swears a lot and has poor emotional control gets to decide these things! Does the fact that congress passed a law chance anything for you?
You Republican morons sometimes make me want to weep, you're so fucking dumb. That's sweet. Take a chill pill dude, there's room for people to disagree with you without being "fucking dumb." to think otherwise is pretty arrogant!
Do you think Bush and his cronies give a flying fuck about you, mr "I'm too dumb to understand the law"? Do you have megabucks to pay for their coke parties and cheap women? Well then, they don't give a flying fuck whether you live or die, apart from the knlowledge that you continue to make excuses for them, no matter what they fucking do. If you had an actual point I would reply, but since you're doing nothing but spewing vitriol and letting your emotions run rampant, I don't think I shall.
So your stance is legal or not, classified data should be kept classified? Exactly how does leaking the fact that our government is spying on citizens directly impact national security? I think that's pretty much the definition of classified! There ARE ways of classified material becoming unclassified-the pres can do it for instance. And I think most thinks expire thanks to freedom of info automatically now.
If he had leaked intel that would put agents lives at risk (for example), that's a bit different than exposing another one of this administrations dirty little secrets that will ultimately be swept under the rug again anyway. Again, in your opinion. But we really don't know, and that's just the point.
Ok, so it's bad for another COUNTRY to know, but is it bad for al-Qaida to know? Bad for whatever terrorist cell of the week to know? It definitely is! Afterall, these are the people who were (are) being targeted by the program.
That's really immaterial though, the only point I am trying to make is that the law cannot operate without standards. Neither you nor I can arbitrarily decide these standards. After all, what seems clear cut to me may not be so to you--and ad infinitum. Because of this, investigations have to be performed.
He talked about the actions of police officers--he presented a seemingly official version of what happened. This absolutely and directly affects the people involved, and any potential trial they would might be involved in.
I'm unsure of the differences between UK and US trials involving a jury, but surely there are concerns about poisoning the jury pool? And this is only looking at the matter from one perspective, ignoring the reputations and private lives of the men involved.
I'm not trying to make a huge deal out of this one case--the police got off, and the reporter got off. Other than some wasted time, nobody was worse for it--except the innocent victim. The police did wrong, that's pretty clear. What's not clear is how leaking information from an ongoing investigation can be ok in one investigation and wrong in another--and who gets to decide this.
Wow, you're claiming that no government employees can have a right to privacy?
That's pretty wide reaching!! that doesn't seem right that just by having an employer with a "G" in the title a huge number of people lose their rights. Better make corporate employees have the same standards--it's only fair. And now nobody has a right to privacy.
At least to me there is a decisive difference between leaking information to a foreign country (for that country's benefit) or leaking information to the US public for their benefit. The question is, who gets to decide that? I don't disagree, I also think that there is a difference. But if there's a situation where anyone can leak anything just because they feel like it--and without any thought for the consequences--then secrecy is worth nothing!
I DO believe the govt at times needs to keep secrets. I believe that sometimes secrecy is needed to protect the country and citizens. As such, a secret has to actually be secret!
Ultimately it was decided that no crime took place (other than Libby's perjury/obstruction/what not) but you'll note that there was an investigation which took place over many months. That's how investigations go!
Ok, so I can see where you're coming from... you believe that this case--investigating the leak of classified material is an abuse (though I fail to see how it's related to FISA reform).
Were you also against any investigation into the Valerie Plame leak?
Who will investigate FBI? Congress? Justice Department? the head of national Intelligence? etc...
With regards to the reporter you're talking about... Think about it another way--if YOU were being investigated and somebody leaked details of the case, the investigation, your personal information, etc--details that could one day make or break your case in court, details that were in no way confirmed or guaranteed--would you want the leaker investigated? It's good that in this particular case the reporter got it right--but what if he had received incorrect information that unfairly damned people? What about a right to privacy?
Secret Service used to be run by Treasury--it's not Homeland Security. Interestingly, I read an article the other day about how due to the huge number of presidential candidates receiving protection that they were running low on investigators to fulfill their other duties--like dealing with counterfeit currency!
By your logic - the government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and call it classified and if anyone talks about it they go to jail. That would be something that Saddaam would have done. Or Hitler. Or Roosevelt. Or Clinton. Or any number of other presidents. Plenty of people have been jailed for leaking/selling/whatever classified material--it's often called spying! Furthermore, declaring something classified isn't just something that anyone can go around doing!
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL, way to skewer the American tourist!!!
Using SLR cameras..LOL!
Nice, didn't read the article OR the comments...
You're absolutely right--not a great deal of outdoor lights are pointed directly up. How many are unshielded on top? How many are unshielded on the sides? Perhaps you would like to make up the reading you SHOULD have done before posting silly comments and find one example of a town ordinance that deals with the problem we're talking about? I can point you in the right direction, if you'd like.
The point is, even if you keep that light--light reflecting off ground objects--at exactly the same level, if you manage to cut the amount of light going directly from the light into the sky at some angle, there's less light pollution. And if you can use less energy to produce the same amount of ground light, all the better.
Wow, the Mars rovers aren't interesting to you--you're not amazed? Maybe it's more you that have become world-wise/jaded and less NASA changing :p
Well, everyone can, should, and of course DOES have their own opinions! I happen to find twitter's brand of hyperbole AND his frequent ad hominem attacks particularly obnoxious (calling people liars?!), and even when he's onto something, I find his presentation more likely to turn more people off than if he just acted like a reasonable person.
:)
Using Erris the way he does is particularly lame, IMHO...
Beyond that, I agree with you--his words SHOULD be judged, and the post I linked to gives plenty examples of his words.
I read friend/foe/freak/friend of */ with +1s, so, I end up seeing a lot of Twitter
Small network, OpenBSD firewall+NAT, w2003 server is inward facing only, firewalled and only used for a few things--in other words, I don't reboot for patches unless it seems like it's a very critical one. Haven't had any problems so far (watch me get hacked next week..). We end up losing power for an extended time probably once every 3-6 months on average as well, so the uptime possibilities aren't THAT great.. longest I ever got with FreeBSD was around 220 days.
Don't even bother feeding the Troll--Twitter that is. He's a huge troll who frequently brings his sock puppet "Erris" into discussions when he gets modded down.
2 64293
Here's a post that sums up a lot about twitter--posting it so that perhaps a few more people might be alerted to twitter's activities! http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198321&cid=16
And just FWIW, I agree with you about XP. I use OSX almost exclusively now, but I've had some very solid XP installations, and at work our Win2003 server regularly matches our FreeBSD server for uptime (poor power being the main limiting factor)
Get your facts straight, or at least if you can't do that, READ MY POST--the report was released almost a month later according to Wikipedia--August 26.
I do not understand the sheer hypocrisy you exhibit here. You go ballistic someone you disagree with you has intentionally lied, all the while spreading further lies (by your standard of lie) yourself!
Did you even read what you linked to?
Limbaugh says "there's a theory going around" and after explaining it says "a lot of people are beginning to think that the banning of Freon actually caused the shuttle accident, the Columbia shuttle accident, two flights ago. And I'm inclined to believe it when I hear this." This was on August 3rd, according to media matters. At this point the NASA report had not been released yet--it wouldn't be fully released for months! There was nothing to lie about!
Can someone really "lie" when they say "there's a theory I'm inclined to believe" ?
But I suppose it's just much easier to hysterically claim that Rush Limbaugh both originated the theory AND lied about it that to actually read your own link though!
The revisionists are everywhere unfortunately..
Every time I see a wikipedia page with MiB or mebibyte or whatever the heck, I want to change--fix--it!
e.g..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo2
Hmmm... I would say that if you think you have nothing to learn from teachers, then you have a lot to learn :-)
;-) For instance, when talking about William Loyd Garrison in the 1850s burning a constitution, he brought in a copy of the constitution, and as he was talking about garrison, lit a lighter and made as if he was going to burn the copy. Most of the class was shocked--that's not something you see everyday! Some people were visibly upset. An important lesson in the value of things and actions. We had all READ about Garrison and the constitution, but seeing it firsthand, totally different!
Now I'm not talking about BAD teachers who are horrible all around--we've all had those. But a good teacher--and they can be rare!--is one who can expand your knowledge, but more importantly, extend your way of thinking and prod you on into new directions beyond what a textbook can do. I say this as someone who did history/comp sci/religion in undergrad and went on to history-related MA. Every single one of the best teachers I had was NOT a lecturer but was someone that inspired students (and me!).
Sounds kinda silly, but one of my all-time favorite teachers taught American 1750-1850 history. I'm not a big American history fan in general, but he spiced it and made wide ranging! He would have some seemingly random story--ranging from playing tennis with his dad one day, to contemporary politics, whatever--that would fold into the lesson of the class each day. It was almost zen
Most of my comp sci professors stank, though I did like a few... I think the problem with many science/math professors/teachers is that the best+brightest have the option of being elsewhere (probably making more money!) and thus you are left with ones that love teaching and the mediocre ones... so you can have great experiences, or awful ones, with not a lot in between.
But seriously, that's pretty pathetic. At my highschool, there were a handful (out of a graduating class of ~300, maybe
With regards to prerequisites... they are about knowledge yes, but they are also about work. Plenty of people can score well on tests, but a lot of those people then don't have the willpower to work. Whether it's laziness, getting distracted by parties, social life, video games, whatever. The education system is basically about weeding people out, and prereqs are just one way of doing that.
One of my friends since middleschool (say age 11/12 or so) is an absolutely brilliant guy. In school he was excellent at math and physics and a supremely talented musician. ~8 years after we started college, he still hasn't completed his undergrad, and works at a waffle house. Kinda makes me sad because he would be absolutely brilliant at whatever he did, but he just can't pull it together. He's pretty happy though--he spends most of his time as a moderator on a gaming board, gaming, and ranting about corporations and the system. He's smarter than me, so maybe he knows something I don't
These are all arbitrary standards! one man's "for the public good" is another man's "destroy person x's career." I don't disagree that sometimes things DO need to be leaked, and sometimes people do need to act individually against the government. Even in these cases though, investigations are not evil! From many posts I've replied to, you would think the act of investigating this leak put Bush in league with Stalin, Hitler, etc (well, I think a lot of people believe that anyway.) The point is, a crime was committed, and it gets investigated. No charges have been made yet, etc, so we don't have a clue what will happen yet.
Do you have megabucks to pay for their coke parties and cheap women?
Well then, they don't give a flying fuck whether you live or die, apart from the knlowledge that you continue to make excuses for them, no matter what they fucking do. If you had an actual point I would reply, but since you're doing nothing but spewing vitriol and letting your emotions run rampant, I don't think I shall.
Ok, so it's bad for another COUNTRY to know, but is it bad for al-Qaida to know? Bad for whatever terrorist cell of the week to know? It definitely is! Afterall, these are the people who were (are) being targeted by the program.
That's really immaterial though, the only point I am trying to make is that the law cannot operate without standards. Neither you nor I can arbitrarily decide these standards. After all, what seems clear cut to me may not be so to you--and ad infinitum. Because of this, investigations have to be performed.
He talked about the actions of police officers--he presented a seemingly official version of what happened. This absolutely and directly affects the people involved, and any potential trial they would might be involved in.
I'm unsure of the differences between UK and US trials involving a jury, but surely there are concerns about poisoning the jury pool? And this is only looking at the matter from one perspective, ignoring the reputations and private lives of the men involved.
I'm not trying to make a huge deal out of this one case--the police got off, and the reporter got off. Other than some wasted time, nobody was worse for it--except the innocent victim. The police did wrong, that's pretty clear. What's not clear is how leaking information from an ongoing investigation can be ok in one investigation and wrong in another--and who gets to decide this.
Wow, you're claiming that no government employees can have a right to privacy?
That's pretty wide reaching!! that doesn't seem right that just by having an employer with a "G" in the title a huge number of people lose their rights. Better make corporate employees have the same standards--it's only fair. And now nobody has a right to privacy.
I DO believe the govt at times needs to keep secrets. I believe that sometimes secrecy is needed to protect the country and citizens. As such, a secret has to actually be secret!
The point was, it was investigated as a crime!
Ultimately it was decided that no crime took place (other than Libby's perjury/obstruction/what not) but you'll note that there was an investigation which took place over many months. That's how investigations go!
Ok, so I can see where you're coming from... you believe that this case--investigating the leak of classified material is an abuse (though I fail to see how it's related to FISA reform).
Were you also against any investigation into the Valerie Plame leak?
Who will investigate FBI? Congress? Justice Department? the head of national Intelligence? etc...
With regards to the reporter you're talking about... Think about it another way--if YOU were being investigated and somebody leaked details of the case, the investigation, your personal information, etc--details that could one day make or break your case in court, details that were in no way confirmed or guaranteed--would you want the leaker investigated? It's good that in this particular case the reporter got it right--but what if he had received incorrect information that unfairly damned people? What about a right to privacy?
Secret Service used to be run by Treasury--it's not Homeland Security. Interestingly, I read an article the other day about how due to the huge number of presidential candidates receiving protection that they were running low on investigators to fulfill their other duties--like dealing with counterfeit currency! By your logic - the government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and call it classified and if anyone talks about it they go to jail. That would be something that Saddaam would have done. Or Hitler. Or Roosevelt. Or Clinton. Or any number of other presidents. Plenty of people have been jailed for leaking/selling/whatever classified material--it's often called spying! Furthermore, declaring something classified isn't just something that anyone can go around doing!