The fact is, millions of kids all over the US are legally required to recite a pledge that just so happens to invoke God
I'm unaware of any laws that LEGALLY REQUIRE a given student to recite the Pledge. I agree with laws that require schools to have students recite the Pledge, just as I did. But if there are any laws that require the STUDENT to participate I would be in favor of having THAT law overturned.
So what if 90% of the citizens of the United States want to leave it as it is now? Why should they be able to dictate how or what the remaining 10%'s kids pledge allegiance to?
I would support those 10% of kids' right to not say the Pledge, or omit the words that are not consistent with their beliefs.
Should sheer majority rule have decided whether or not slavery was to be permitted?
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues--especially their impact on those "affected." They only thing they have in common is that they affect a minority. The similarity in the problem and the potential solutions end there.
There are some things in which it doesn't matter how many people want it.
Such as slavery, yes.
If even one person differs in certain things, it is not right for the majority to put their will onto the minority.
I support everyone's right to refrain from saying the Pledge, or those parts that bother them. I do think it is appropriate for them to stand quietly in respect of other peoples' beliefs, however.
You might have heard of them? There were 10 of them? The first of these amendments stands out pretty clearly, in this particular instance.
Ok, here we go:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Congress HASN'T made any law respecting an establishment of religion. There is no law that requires anyone to recite the Pledge, nor is there any law that says the official religion of the country is Christian or otherwise.
In any case, it's a relatively small change. Why are people so against bringing laws and tradition into a state where they no longer contradict each other?
Because the tradition DOESN'T violate the law. Of course, that's what these people are asking the Supreme Court to rule on. But there's no law nor anywhere in the Constitution that protects you from hearing about religion. The United States government CANNOT say "The official religion is Catholicism." That's what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.
I'm sure the Supreme Court will rule that the Pledge is fine as is. The people want it to remain unchanged and, in the end, it is an acknowledgement and/or description of our country--we ARE a nation under God by virtue of the fact that most people DO believe in God. Those that complain really can't make a convincing case that it really establishes any particular religion nor that it really harms them in any meaningful way.
Plus, practically speaking, to rule against the Pledge will essentially require the absolute removal of God from every facet of government function. Will Senators and Representatives still be able to sing "God Bless America?" Will we have to recall and reissue all our dollar bills and coins? Will the Supreme Court have to stop mentioning God themselves, or stop praying?
90%+ of the citizens of the United States couldn't give a flying fsck if there even WAS a "Pledge".
Hmmm. I've seen polls showing 90%+ in favor of leaving the Pledge as-is. I haven't seen any polls in favor of abolishing it.
The entire written pledge wrapped around the gymnasium like some unholy altar.
Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything wrong with believing what you are saying? Is there anything wrong with having pride in your country, even if you don't agree with its government sometimes?
Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
You can say all that because you believe in god. Now imagine if it said "Allah" or "Buddha".
Not the same. If you the Pledge said "One nation under Jehova" I would be just as upset. "Under God" can refer to just about anything. If people automatically think of a Christian God it's because, correctly, they recognize that the majority of this country is Christian. One could even make the case that it is a statement of fact... if more than 50% of this country believe in God, it *IS* a country "under God"--even if some citizens don't share the belief.
it's about freedom of religion, or lack of for that matter.
Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. You have no right to not hear God mentioned in everyday life. Get used to it.
would have been like Abe Lincoln saying "Well, slavery has been around for a long time now, so we better not mess with it. Carry on."
I knew that response would be coming but of course the response is silly. Anyone that cannot see the difference between how "under God" affects the godless and slavery affected the blacks is not one that really has anything valid to argue.
Exactly HOW does saying "under God" harm anyone? At all? Can the godless just say the Pledge and NOT SPEAK those two words if it is so contrary to their beliefs?
There are many ways conscious objectors to these words can resolve this without having to go pissing and moaning to the courts.
If it was put in in the 50's, that would mean that it wasn't there longer than it has been there.
The Pledge wasn't "standardized" in any significant way until Flag Day of 1923 (June 14, 1923). So it was only without "under God" for about 30 years and has been WITH "under God" for about 50. If you go back to the original Pledge in 1892, sure, you win by about 10 years. But that version was pretty different than the current Pledge anyway ("I pledge allegiance to my Flag" instead of "to the Flag of the United States of America.") You can definitely say the Pledge was standardized and significantly changed in 1923 and thereafter is when it became accepted and well-known outside of grade-schools.
Then again, why are we trying to keep these entirely human ideas set in stone? People change, times change, our ideas change. Since we are the ones following the traditions, why should they not change as well?
Because, if you haven't noticed, about 90%+ of the citizens of the United States want to leave it as it is now. It's a non-important reference that does not establish any religion yet some vocal minority has their panty in a bunch. Sorry, the rights of the minority have to be protected--but that doesn't mean the tradition of the majority has to be modified or destroyed because a few people can't handle the tradition most of us grew up with.
Given the sometimes cruel nature of peer pressure and cliques in public schools, do students really have that much of a viable choice
They have the same choice and peer pressure as adults. They might as well start getting used to it at an early age.
or do they risk being labeled as "anti-American" and treated as a social outcast if they decide to sit out on the recitation of the pledge?
If they SIT IT OUT? I'd hope so!
I'm an American, I live in Mexico, and I still STAND when they play their national anthem with their flag waving. I don't sing it, I don't salute it, but I certainly don't remain seated. That's just respect for someone elses beliefs.
Children (or adults) that don't want to salute the flag or say the Pledge, fine. They should stand silently in respect of others belief, if not out of respect for the flag or the country. Sit down or conspicuously leave the room? I hope they'd receive the same treatment as I'd receive in Mexico if I did the same thing in the same situation.
Part of going to school isn't just saying the Pledge, and it's not just about making your own beliefs known. It is also learning how to act when confronted with other peoples' beliefs, and how to be respectful of that even when you don't agree.
I think it's a matter of timing. Back when the "under God" words were added to the Pledge back in the 50's I would have agreed that it was improper and it should have gone to the courts back then.
I find it offensive that they want to declare it unconstitutional now. Yes, I believe in God. But God is with us regardless of whether or not we have the "under God" words in the Pledge. But at this point removing those words--or ANY words--from the Pledge is like removing a few words from the Star Spangled Banner. Just don't touch it.
I am optimistic the Supreme Court will recognize that the Pledge, in its entirety, is part of our national culture. For better or worse, whatever religious overtones "under God" may have should have been argued nearly half a century ago before it became a part of our culture.
Just like "In God We Trust" on dollar bills. Probably improper, I probably wouldn't have put it there myself, nor does it change my life drastically whether it's there or not. But now that it's there, leave it alone. Don't mess with our culture and traditions.
Well, the point is that if you're worried about going over "minute limits" of these sizes it'd pretty much have to be because you didn't have a landline. If you have a landline and are worried about going over even 400 minutes per month you're definitely way on the extreme end of the bell curve and probably ought to spend more time at work working and less talking on the cell phone.
What you didn't see is that nights begin at 10pm and end at 6am. Somewhat unconvenient times to call people.
9pm, actually. Not that unconvenient. And you still have your 400 - 600 anytime minutes for making plans before 9pm. For just chit-chatting for hours on end I really don't have a problem waiting for 9pm or weekends--those would usually be long distance calls anyway and that kind of just chatting away is the kind of thing I'd usually do on a weekend.
Then you have to add on another 5-10 bucks a month in taxes and fees for these rates.
Well, yeah, same for landlines. There are taxes up the wazoo. But that doesn't negate my original argument that with the number of free minutes that most people get on their wireless plans it's not really like you're "paying" to receive phone calls. You'd have to be a phone-aholic in order to consume all the free minutes most plans include.
Someone else mentioned 4500 minutes/month, I just went with that figure. I live in Mexico right now so I don't have a U.S. cell plan (wish I did). But I do see constant advertisements for huge numbers of minutes per month in the U.S.
You shouldn't and won't. Because if you have 4500 minutes available it is very unlikely you'll have consumed them--so, in reality, NO-ONE has to pay when they call you. On the other hand, if the caller pays then the caller ALWAYS has to pay even if you scarcely use your telephone.
Put it this way... look at it from the cell phone provider standpoint. On the "caller pays" system, every time a cell phone rings they are billing minutes. With the U.S. system the provider only bills minutes if you've consumed your huge allotment, and you'd have to be some cell-adicted exec to exceed 4500 minutes a month.
Obviously, in Mexico they switched from the U.S. system to the "caller pays" system not because of the generosity of the cell phone providers but because it providers higher revenues for the providers--which means it costs ME more. Which means I prefer the U.S. system and also like having a huge monthly allotment of minutes so high that I know I'll never use them all so I might as well use my cell phone. In Mexico, we make sure to call cell phones as infrequently as possible to avoid high phone bills on our land line and we avoid calling other cell phones with our cell phone because they are billed at twice the normal rate.
Thanks, I'll take the U.S. system. As much as Americans bitch and moan about it and as much as Europeans apparently can't comprehend "paying to receive a call", the consumer comes out ahead.
One other point: Whenever you want to determine the method that most abuses a consumer in any given industry, just look at how they do it in Mexico. It's a safe bet that that's the most abusive way to conduct an industry. Everything is expensive here by American standards, not just cell phones. So if Mexican cell companies went from the U.S. method to the "caller pay's" method you can be certain that it's because it's more effective at milking money from the customers.
Hehhe, yes. And subnets work fine because only the local network has to care. But I doubt you'd want to have to remember the subnet for each network on the Internet on a daily basis.:)
Can't argue with that. Mexicans are nice people. But their government and companies are totally screwed up in every way known to man. You'd think that the U.S. was the land of honesty and pure competition compared to Mexico!
The thing I don't understand about the US system is that you're assigning a geographic number to a non-geographic device.
Perhaps, but even a mobile phone has a mailing address associated with it where bills are sent. I'd consider that "home" and it makes *some* sense to base the cell phone in that area code. And just because the mobile phone is mobile doesn't mean most of those users are all over the country. I'd wager MOST cell phone users use their phones 90% or more of the time in their local area code.
That said, I'd have no problem assigning a few area codes to cell phones AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED LONG DISTANCE. I.e., perhaps area code 990 through 999 can be reserved for cell phones. But if I'm in area code 303 and I dial 1-999-xxx-xxxx I better not have to pay to make that call. But then if someone in area code 212 wants to call someone in Denver they could just call the 1-999 number for free and essentially get free long distance. So that kind of makes that approach a non-starter.
That's the beauty of the U.S. system. You can call any phone number in your area code free. If the cell phone is in your area code (local to you), it's a free call for you. It's just simple.
I don't know about most of Europe, but France has 9 digit numbers for everything. Period. The first digit tells you where in France the line is, with 1 for Paris, 2-5 for various regions, and 6 for mobiles.
That's great! Score one for the French!:)
My problem is with the variable-length area or city codes. I.e., some cities or areas have 3-digit codes, some have 2-digit codes, some have 1-digit codes. In Mexico, Mexico City has a single-digit city code (5). Monterrey has a two-digit city code (81), and most cities have 3-digit codes. The more digits there are in an area code, the fewer digits there are in the local phone number.
I've never been to Europe, but I just look at the phone book and see the city codes for many European countries. Some are 1-digit, some are 2-digit, some are 3-digit... just like Mexico. It drives me crazy.:)
I did read the article. He said that a few percent were *already* getting past *HIS* Bayesian filter. My response was that he must have made a mistake when he wrote his Bayesian filter, because Paul Graham's and MY Bayesian filter are just getting more successful by the day. I started at 99.5% effectiveness with my Bayesian, it inched up last month to 99.7%, and so far this month I have 99.8% spam caught. I've seen spams that spammers tried to get through Bayesian filters by inserting random paragraphs or text. Of course, those were filtered with a Bayesian score of 98%, so it didn't really work.:)
The amount of spam I see in my inbox is going DOWN each month even though my spam went from 2171 in April to 6300 in October (projected).
My point being... If spammers are somehow getting past his Bayesian filter, it's not that the spammers are getting smart at getting past Bayesian. The problem is that something is broken in his Bayesian filter.
But read again: "using any automatic telephone dialing system". While there may be 1 or 2 telemarketers in some cave in Arkansas dialing by hand, I think everyone else in the country uses automatic dialers. The law doesn't appear to restrict just recorded messages, it appears to restrict anyone that uses autoamtic dialers. That's just about every telemarketer. Normally their system auto-dials you and when you pick it up it patches the call to the representative that just got free.
You only have to pay if you go over your monthly plan limit. If you have 4500 minutes a month it's doubtful you'll go over that even if they call you a lot. Plus at least one provider (Cingular?) let's you roll over your minutes to the next month.
What's fucked up is the situation I described a few posts earlier regarding Mexico's cell-phone system. I don't know how it works in Europe, but I like being able to just pick up a phone in the U.S. and call my friend without being on the clock. Since most of us dont' speak 4500 minutes a month on the phone NO-ONE pays. In countries like yours and Mexico, everyone pays every single time you call the cell phone, even if you seldom use your cell phone. Just like a slot machine--which is why providers like it.
Scewy? It makes sense to me. A phone number is a phone number is a phone number.
Mexico used to use the U.S. approach where the cell phone user paid for all incoming and outgoing calls. About 5 years ago they switched to "Caller pay's", everyone's cell phone number changed, and now the numbering system is:
If you want to call my cell phone from within my city, you dial 044-81-8xxx-xxxx. You pay for the call.
If you want to call my cell phone from somewhere else in Mexico, you dial 01-81-8xxx-xxxx. I.e., you dial it as a long distance phone number. You pay the long distance, I pay for the call.
If you call me from another cell phone within my city, you dial 044-81-8xxx-xxxx. You pay for the call, but it's twice as expensive (because you're paying for your airtime PLUS my airtime).
If you call me from another cell phone but you're outside my city, you dial 01-81-8xxx-xxxx. You pay for your airtime and the long distance, and I pay for my airtime.
ARGH! Is that not screwy? It's completely confusing. My cell number changes depending on whether or not you are in my area code--and since area codes are not a fixed-length in Mexico but are variable like in Europe (another idiotic, non-standard numbering system) there's really no way to know if you are in the same area code or not and most of us don't know exactly where one area code ends and starts down here because there are so many of them (they are more like city codes, not AREA codes, but they're not always cities so you just don't know). Plus when I pick up the phone there's no way for me to know whether I'm paying for the call or you are unless the caller ID happens to give me a clue.
Give me a U.S.-style, "I pay for all my minutes but have 4500 free, including national long-distance" type system anytime.
Re:The best answer is not guaranteed to be easy
on
Another Whack at Spam
·
· Score: 1
Eliminating all but "some" spam produces a more than proportional benefit.
And using Bayesian to accomplish it does it for free and with no changes to the cost or anonymity of email.
Someone else: 2. I don't want to pay to send email. I just don't, I like the fact its free to anywhere in the world.
You: I wish I did not have to get a driver's license, but the fact that everybody does it protects me.
It protects you? From what? People still drive without a license, with an expired license. Many others get licenses even though it can honestly be argued they don't know how to drive, especially in rain or snow.
I use that technique too, but I understand that I am still paying (because my ISP is still paying) for their receipt.
And I understand that while receiving spam and paying for the bandwidth is a real cost, it is insignificant compared to the cost of my time to deal with them. If I don't have spam in my inbox, I've just addressed 95% of the cost of spam to me. If everyone uses Bayesian filters then we've just addressed 95% of the cost to society. Sure, it'd be nice to get 100%--but if everyone used Bayesian filters then the remaining 5% would just dry up and die anyway.
Just auto respond to everyone who is not in your email white-list with a challenge/response.
Ah, yes, challenge/response. The spammy solution to spam.
Challenge/response is a broken approach because it requires that for every spam you receive you send out a "spam" back (the challenge). If the reply-to address is forged (normally is) then you just spammed some innocent person so you can be spam-free. While sending email to the wrong person by mistake is not spam, an entire anti-spam system that is built on the premise asis that you will send challenges to addresses you you will be forged is a broken system.
I wish people would just stop talking about ideas that are "non-starters." The success of email is that is free. That is, of course, also what leads to spam. But I'm not willing to kill email to kill spam.
The author also complains that his Bayesian filter is no longer working effectively, with a few percent of spamg getting through his each day. If that is the case he has most definitely made a mistake in implementing Bayesian. It is not consistent with Paul Graham's latest report where he cites 99.7% effectiveness, nor is it consistent with my experience with my Bayesian filter which is just this month creeping up to 99.8%.
Spam is a problem. But if I had to choose between spammers and those that would charge for email, I'll take the spammers. At least I can filter them and it'll probably cost me less to do so than pay for email.
XP crashed on me five times in the last 3 days.
98 crased on me five times in the last 3 years.
No kidding. Everyone bitches about how unstable 98 was and how stable XP is. My experience was exactly the opposite. I very seldom had 98 crash on me. XP wouldn't BSOD, obviously, but something would crash and it would either slow to a crawl or other things would randomly act weird. No, I didn't install anything weird--it was the XP installation that came on my laptop. Plus everything ran slower under XP. Word 2000 loaded in 2 or 3 seconds under 98 but the same Word 2000 would take 10+ seconds to load under XP.
I upgraded to Linux in March and haven't looked back since. Every now and then you wish all the cool toys (Firewire, some external devices, etc.) would just plain work with Linux... but I wouldn't go back. Everything runs faster under Linux (including Word 2000 running under Win4Lin!) and it doesn't crash.
I've been tempted to look into getting a Mac, but as long as I'm on Intel I can't imagine running anything other than Linux at this point.
I'ave had similar problems. Sometimes when I write an article I go to "Preview" and the preview page is just the left sidebar of options and green "breaks" in the middle. Neither the original post nor my reply are visible. I have to go "Back" and re-Preview one or more times to see it.
And lately I've been getting "500 Internal Error" messages from Slashdot. That's definitely not a browser issue.
In the comments, one of the respondents mention they looked at Linux, but only about 5% of their users (at the company) could use it easily.
They said that, but there was no indication that it was more than an estimate as they did not (apparently) try to make the switch. It's also not clear whether only 5% could make the switch because they were "intelligent" or "technical" enough, or because the other 95% needed software (QuickBooks, Win devapps, etc.?) that simply don't exist on Linux so it's not possible--in their mind--to switch.
Mostly, people are used to Windows. They think if Office or QuickBooks doesn't run on it then they can't use it.
I recently installed RedHat9 on my HP ze1230 laptop. It worked as soon as I installed, automatically detecting the internal network card, the integrated mouse pad (with scroll function), the PCMCIA LinkSys wireless network card, and my connected USB Microsoft keyboard and USB Wingman Logitech mouse. It just worked. Period.
Still, I couldn't go cold-turkey on Windows. I bought Win4Lin so that I could run my legacy Windows apps. It works great. It runs everything I need--Quicken, QuickBooks, Microsoft Office, and MS DevStudio6 for the occasional Windows development I'm still hired to do. Of course, I seldom need to enter Win4Lin but it's there when I need it.
I had been meaning, for months, to try using OpenOffice but just hadn't gotten around to it. I still ran Win4Lin and then Word when I needed to do some word processing. Just Friday I finally used OpenOffice Write to open an existing, large (1.4MB) MS Office document that I plan on publishing in PDF format. All I needed to do was some minor pagination adjustments--the rest of the document (tables, paragraph, footers, table of contents, graphics, etc.) worked perfectly. I saved it in sxw format and the resulting file was 170k. 170k instead of 1.4MB? I actually exited OpenOffice and reloaded the saved document to make sure it was actually all there. It was, it just took 170k instead of Microsoft's 1.4MB. I then proceeded to print to PDF format with no "Destiller" add-on necessary. Flawless.
So... scratch Microsoft Office from my list of legacy apps that I still need to run. OpenOffice works fine.
We have a long way to get Linux on the desktop big-time. But it's more an issue of perception, not that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. We need to convince users to try Linux without getting "religious" on them and rediculing them. Linux can do what 95% of Windows users use Windows for if we can just them to try it. Once they're hooked, they won't go back. Neither will the companies that have to pay for the licensing or hardware; and in an enterprise, Linux is obviously easier to admin than Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm unaware of any laws that LEGALLY REQUIRE a given student to recite the Pledge. I agree with laws that require schools to have students recite the Pledge, just as I did. But if there are any laws that require the STUDENT to participate I would be in favor of having THAT law overturned.
So what if 90% of the citizens of the United States want to leave it as it is now? Why should they be able to dictate how or what the remaining 10%'s kids pledge allegiance to?
I would support those 10% of kids' right to not say the Pledge, or omit the words that are not consistent with their beliefs.
Should sheer majority rule have decided whether or not slavery was to be permitted?
Those that somehow bring slavery into this discussion lose site of the relative magnitude and importance of each of the issues--especially their impact on those "affected." They only thing they have in common is that they affect a minority. The similarity in the problem and the potential solutions end there.
Ok, you were right. Only 83% agree that the Pledge should not be changed. My bad.
Such as slavery, yes.
If even one person differs in certain things, it is not right for the majority to put their will onto the minority.
I support everyone's right to refrain from saying the Pledge, or those parts that bother them. I do think it is appropriate for them to stand quietly in respect of other peoples' beliefs, however.
You might have heard of them? There were 10 of them? The first of these amendments stands out pretty clearly, in this particular instance.
Ok, here we go:
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Congress HASN'T made any law respecting an establishment of religion. There is no law that requires anyone to recite the Pledge, nor is there any law that says the official religion of the country is Christian or otherwise.So... where is the 1st Amendment a problem?
Because the tradition DOESN'T violate the law. Of course, that's what these people are asking the Supreme Court to rule on. But there's no law nor anywhere in the Constitution that protects you from hearing about religion. The United States government CANNOT say "The official religion is Catholicism." That's what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.
I'm sure the Supreme Court will rule that the Pledge is fine as is. The people want it to remain unchanged and, in the end, it is an acknowledgement and/or description of our country--we ARE a nation under God by virtue of the fact that most people DO believe in God. Those that complain really can't make a convincing case that it really establishes any particular religion nor that it really harms them in any meaningful way.
Plus, practically speaking, to rule against the Pledge will essentially require the absolute removal of God from every facet of government function. Will Senators and Representatives still be able to sing "God Bless America?" Will we have to recall and reissue all our dollar bills and coins? Will the Supreme Court have to stop mentioning God themselves, or stop praying?
Nah... the Pledge will be ruled constitutional. :)
Hmmm. I've seen polls showing 90%+ in favor of leaving the Pledge as-is. I haven't seen any polls in favor of abolishing it.
The entire written pledge wrapped around the gymnasium like some unholy altar.
Is there anything wrong with the Pledge? Is there anything wrong with saying it? Is there anything wrong with believing what you are saying? Is there anything wrong with having pride in your country, even if you don't agree with its government sometimes?
Anti-Americanism within America is really annoying.
Not the same. If you the Pledge said "One nation under Jehova" I would be just as upset. "Under God" can refer to just about anything. If people automatically think of a Christian God it's because, correctly, they recognize that the majority of this country is Christian. One could even make the case that it is a statement of fact... if more than 50% of this country believe in God, it *IS* a country "under God"--even if some citizens don't share the belief.
it's about freedom of religion, or lack of for that matter.
Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. You have no right to not hear God mentioned in everyday life. Get used to it.
would have been like Abe Lincoln saying "Well, slavery has been around for a long time now, so we better not mess with it. Carry on."
I knew that response would be coming but of course the response is silly. Anyone that cannot see the difference between how "under God" affects the godless and slavery affected the blacks is not one that really has anything valid to argue.
Exactly HOW does saying "under God" harm anyone? At all? Can the godless just say the Pledge and NOT SPEAK those two words if it is so contrary to their beliefs?
There are many ways conscious objectors to these words can resolve this without having to go pissing and moaning to the courts.
The Pledge wasn't "standardized" in any significant way until Flag Day of 1923 (June 14, 1923). So it was only without "under God" for about 30 years and has been WITH "under God" for about 50. If you go back to the original Pledge in 1892, sure, you win by about 10 years. But that version was pretty different than the current Pledge anyway ("I pledge allegiance to my Flag" instead of "to the Flag of the United States of America.") You can definitely say the Pledge was standardized and significantly changed in 1923 and thereafter is when it became accepted and well-known outside of grade-schools.
Then again, why are we trying to keep these entirely human ideas set in stone? People change, times change, our ideas change. Since we are the ones following the traditions, why should they not change as well?
Because, if you haven't noticed, about 90%+ of the citizens of the United States want to leave it as it is now. It's a non-important reference that does not establish any religion yet some vocal minority has their panty in a bunch. Sorry, the rights of the minority have to be protected--but that doesn't mean the tradition of the majority has to be modified or destroyed because a few people can't handle the tradition most of us grew up with.
They have the same choice and peer pressure as adults. They might as well start getting used to it at an early age.
or do they risk being labeled as "anti-American" and treated as a social outcast if they decide to sit out on the recitation of the pledge?
If they SIT IT OUT? I'd hope so!
I'm an American, I live in Mexico, and I still STAND when they play their national anthem with their flag waving. I don't sing it, I don't salute it, but I certainly don't remain seated. That's just respect for someone elses beliefs.
Children (or adults) that don't want to salute the flag or say the Pledge, fine. They should stand silently in respect of others belief, if not out of respect for the flag or the country. Sit down or conspicuously leave the room? I hope they'd receive the same treatment as I'd receive in Mexico if I did the same thing in the same situation.
Part of going to school isn't just saying the Pledge, and it's not just about making your own beliefs known. It is also learning how to act when confronted with other peoples' beliefs, and how to be respectful of that even when you don't agree.
I find it offensive that they want to declare it unconstitutional now. Yes, I believe in God. But God is with us regardless of whether or not we have the "under God" words in the Pledge. But at this point removing those words--or ANY words--from the Pledge is like removing a few words from the Star Spangled Banner. Just don't touch it.
I am optimistic the Supreme Court will recognize that the Pledge, in its entirety, is part of our national culture. For better or worse, whatever religious overtones "under God" may have should have been argued nearly half a century ago before it became a part of our culture.
Just like "In God We Trust" on dollar bills. Probably improper, I probably wouldn't have put it there myself, nor does it change my life drastically whether it's there or not. But now that it's there, leave it alone. Don't mess with our culture and traditions.
Well, the point is that if you're worried about going over "minute limits" of these sizes it'd pretty much have to be because you didn't have a landline. If you have a landline and are worried about going over even 400 minutes per month you're definitely way on the extreme end of the bell curve and probably ought to spend more time at work working and less talking on the cell phone.
What you didn't see is that nights begin at 10pm and end at 6am. Somewhat unconvenient times to call people.
9pm, actually. Not that unconvenient. And you still have your 400 - 600 anytime minutes for making plans before 9pm. For just chit-chatting for hours on end I really don't have a problem waiting for 9pm or weekends--those would usually be long distance calls anyway and that kind of just chatting away is the kind of thing I'd usually do on a weekend.
Then you have to add on another 5-10 bucks a month in taxes and fees for these rates.
Well, yeah, same for landlines. There are taxes up the wazoo. But that doesn't negate my original argument that with the number of free minutes that most people get on their wireless plans it's not really like you're "paying" to receive phone calls. You'd have to be a phone-aholic in order to consume all the free minutes most plans include.
A quick search yielded:
AT&T Wireless: $39.99/mo. 600 anytime minutes, unlimited night & weekend=14,820 free minutes
Verizon: $39.99/mon. 400 anytime minutes, 1000 anytime mobile-to-mobile, unlimited nights & weekend=14,620 free minutes.
I figure if you're going to ditch your landline it isn't unreasonable to pay $40/month on your cell phone.
Put it this way... look at it from the cell phone provider standpoint. On the "caller pays" system, every time a cell phone rings they are billing minutes. With the U.S. system the provider only bills minutes if you've consumed your huge allotment, and you'd have to be some cell-adicted exec to exceed 4500 minutes a month.
Obviously, in Mexico they switched from the U.S. system to the "caller pays" system not because of the generosity of the cell phone providers but because it providers higher revenues for the providers--which means it costs ME more. Which means I prefer the U.S. system and also like having a huge monthly allotment of minutes so high that I know I'll never use them all so I might as well use my cell phone. In Mexico, we make sure to call cell phones as infrequently as possible to avoid high phone bills on our land line and we avoid calling other cell phones with our cell phone because they are billed at twice the normal rate.
Thanks, I'll take the U.S. system. As much as Americans bitch and moan about it and as much as Europeans apparently can't comprehend "paying to receive a call", the consumer comes out ahead.
One other point: Whenever you want to determine the method that most abuses a consumer in any given industry, just look at how they do it in Mexico. It's a safe bet that that's the most abusive way to conduct an industry. Everything is expensive here by American standards, not just cell phones. So if Mexican cell companies went from the U.S. method to the "caller pay's" method you can be certain that it's because it's more effective at milking money from the customers.
Can't argue with that. Mexicans are nice people. But their government and companies are totally screwed up in every way known to man. You'd think that the U.S. was the land of honesty and pure competition compared to Mexico!
The thing I don't understand about the US system is that you're assigning a geographic number to a non-geographic device.
Perhaps, but even a mobile phone has a mailing address associated with it where bills are sent. I'd consider that "home" and it makes *some* sense to base the cell phone in that area code. And just because the mobile phone is mobile doesn't mean most of those users are all over the country. I'd wager MOST cell phone users use their phones 90% or more of the time in their local area code.
That said, I'd have no problem assigning a few area codes to cell phones AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED LONG DISTANCE. I.e., perhaps area code 990 through 999 can be reserved for cell phones. But if I'm in area code 303 and I dial 1-999-xxx-xxxx I better not have to pay to make that call. But then if someone in area code 212 wants to call someone in Denver they could just call the 1-999 number for free and essentially get free long distance. So that kind of makes that approach a non-starter.
That's the beauty of the U.S. system. You can call any phone number in your area code free. If the cell phone is in your area code (local to you), it's a free call for you. It's just simple.
That's great! Score one for the French! :)
My problem is with the variable-length area or city codes. I.e., some cities or areas have 3-digit codes, some have 2-digit codes, some have 1-digit codes. In Mexico, Mexico City has a single-digit city code (5). Monterrey has a two-digit city code (81), and most cities have 3-digit codes. The more digits there are in an area code, the fewer digits there are in the local phone number.
I've never been to Europe, but I just look at the phone book and see the city codes for many European countries. Some are 1-digit, some are 2-digit, some are 3-digit... just like Mexico. It drives me crazy. :)
The amount of spam I see in my inbox is going DOWN each month even though my spam went from 2171 in April to 6300 in October (projected).
My point being... If spammers are somehow getting past his Bayesian filter, it's not that the spammers are getting smart at getting past Bayesian. The problem is that something is broken in his Bayesian filter.
What's fucked up is the situation I described a few posts earlier regarding Mexico's cell-phone system. I don't know how it works in Europe, but I like being able to just pick up a phone in the U.S. and call my friend without being on the clock. Since most of us dont' speak 4500 minutes a month on the phone NO-ONE pays. In countries like yours and Mexico, everyone pays every single time you call the cell phone, even if you seldom use your cell phone. Just like a slot machine--which is why providers like it.
Mexico used to use the U.S. approach where the cell phone user paid for all incoming and outgoing calls. About 5 years ago they switched to "Caller pay's", everyone's cell phone number changed, and now the numbering system is:
If you want to call my cell phone from within my city, you dial 044-81-8xxx-xxxx. You pay for the call.
If you want to call my cell phone from somewhere else in Mexico, you dial 01-81-8xxx-xxxx. I.e., you dial it as a long distance phone number. You pay the long distance, I pay for the call.
If you call me from another cell phone within my city, you dial 044-81-8xxx-xxxx. You pay for the call, but it's twice as expensive (because you're paying for your airtime PLUS my airtime).
If you call me from another cell phone but you're outside my city, you dial 01-81-8xxx-xxxx. You pay for your airtime and the long distance, and I pay for my airtime.
ARGH! Is that not screwy? It's completely confusing. My cell number changes depending on whether or not you are in my area code--and since area codes are not a fixed-length in Mexico but are variable like in Europe (another idiotic, non-standard numbering system) there's really no way to know if you are in the same area code or not and most of us don't know exactly where one area code ends and starts down here because there are so many of them (they are more like city codes, not AREA codes, but they're not always cities so you just don't know). Plus when I pick up the phone there's no way for me to know whether I'm paying for the call or you are unless the caller ID happens to give me a clue.
Give me a U.S.-style, "I pay for all my minutes but have 4500 free, including national long-distance" type system anytime.
And using Bayesian to accomplish it does it for free and with no changes to the cost or anonymity of email.
Someone else: 2. I don't want to pay to send email. I just don't, I like the fact its free to anywhere in the world.
You: I wish I did not have to get a driver's license, but the fact that everybody does it protects me.
It protects you? From what? People still drive without a license, with an expired license. Many others get licenses even though it can honestly be argued they don't know how to drive, especially in rain or snow.
I use that technique too, but I understand that I am still paying (because my ISP is still paying) for their receipt.
And I understand that while receiving spam and paying for the bandwidth is a real cost, it is insignificant compared to the cost of my time to deal with them. If I don't have spam in my inbox, I've just addressed 95% of the cost of spam to me. If everyone uses Bayesian filters then we've just addressed 95% of the cost to society. Sure, it'd be nice to get 100%--but if everyone used Bayesian filters then the remaining 5% would just dry up and die anyway.
Ah, yes, challenge/response. The spammy solution to spam.
Challenge/response is a broken approach because it requires that for every spam you receive you send out a "spam" back (the challenge). If the reply-to address is forged (normally is) then you just spammed some innocent person so you can be spam-free. While sending email to the wrong person by mistake is not spam, an entire anti-spam system that is built on the premise asis that you will send challenges to addresses you you will be forged is a broken system.
The author also complains that his Bayesian filter is no longer working effectively, with a few percent of spamg getting through his each day. If that is the case he has most definitely made a mistake in implementing Bayesian. It is not consistent with Paul Graham's latest report where he cites 99.7% effectiveness, nor is it consistent with my experience with my Bayesian filter which is just this month creeping up to 99.8%.
Spam is a problem. But if I had to choose between spammers and those that would charge for email, I'll take the spammers. At least I can filter them and it'll probably cost me less to do so than pay for email.
No kidding. Everyone bitches about how unstable 98 was and how stable XP is. My experience was exactly the opposite. I very seldom had 98 crash on me. XP wouldn't BSOD, obviously, but something would crash and it would either slow to a crawl or other things would randomly act weird. No, I didn't install anything weird--it was the XP installation that came on my laptop. Plus everything ran slower under XP. Word 2000 loaded in 2 or 3 seconds under 98 but the same Word 2000 would take 10+ seconds to load under XP.
I upgraded to Linux in March and haven't looked back since. Every now and then you wish all the cool toys (Firewire, some external devices, etc.) would just plain work with Linux... but I wouldn't go back. Everything runs faster under Linux (including Word 2000 running under Win4Lin!) and it doesn't crash.
I've been tempted to look into getting a Mac, but as long as I'm on Intel I can't imagine running anything other than Linux at this point.
And lately I've been getting "500 Internal Error" messages from Slashdot. That's definitely not a browser issue.
They said that, but there was no indication that it was more than an estimate as they did not (apparently) try to make the switch. It's also not clear whether only 5% could make the switch because they were "intelligent" or "technical" enough, or because the other 95% needed software (QuickBooks, Win devapps, etc.?) that simply don't exist on Linux so it's not possible--in their mind--to switch.
Mostly, people are used to Windows. They think if Office or QuickBooks doesn't run on it then they can't use it.
I recently installed RedHat9 on my HP ze1230 laptop. It worked as soon as I installed, automatically detecting the internal network card, the integrated mouse pad (with scroll function), the PCMCIA LinkSys wireless network card, and my connected USB Microsoft keyboard and USB Wingman Logitech mouse. It just worked. Period.
Still, I couldn't go cold-turkey on Windows. I bought Win4Lin so that I could run my legacy Windows apps. It works great. It runs everything I need--Quicken, QuickBooks, Microsoft Office, and MS DevStudio6 for the occasional Windows development I'm still hired to do. Of course, I seldom need to enter Win4Lin but it's there when I need it.
I had been meaning, for months, to try using OpenOffice but just hadn't gotten around to it. I still ran Win4Lin and then Word when I needed to do some word processing. Just Friday I finally used OpenOffice Write to open an existing, large (1.4MB) MS Office document that I plan on publishing in PDF format. All I needed to do was some minor pagination adjustments--the rest of the document (tables, paragraph, footers, table of contents, graphics, etc.) worked perfectly. I saved it in sxw format and the resulting file was 170k. 170k instead of 1.4MB? I actually exited OpenOffice and reloaded the saved document to make sure it was actually all there. It was, it just took 170k instead of Microsoft's 1.4MB. I then proceeded to print to PDF format with no "Destiller" add-on necessary. Flawless.
So... scratch Microsoft Office from my list of legacy apps that I still need to run. OpenOffice works fine.
We have a long way to get Linux on the desktop big-time. But it's more an issue of perception, not that Linux isn't ready for the desktop. We need to convince users to try Linux without getting "religious" on them and rediculing them. Linux can do what 95% of Windows users use Windows for if we can just them to try it. Once they're hooked, they won't go back. Neither will the companies that have to pay for the licensing or hardware; and in an enterprise, Linux is obviously easier to admin than Windows.