We're talking actual abuse here- intentional long-term malice which would result in criminal charges or restraining orders for adults.
That's where ideas like this lose me. If adults did stuff like this, they'd be subject to legal sanctions, therefore...schools should do that for kids? No, not at all. Therefore kids should ALSO be subject to those legal sanctions and schools should continue to exercise only the authority they actually have. They should stick to their proverbial knitting, which they're already bad enough at that they clearly need to try harder.
I was a subscriber for a while, until they sent me a renewal notice written to look like a collections notice. A prior orkplace used to routinely be named on a "Best Places to Work" list (not by Forbes, though) to the collective dismay of all who worked there. These sorts of lists don't mean what you think they mean, unless you think they don't mean anything.
When they're notable nerds, or die in a way that is of interest to nerds (falling off a launch pad qualifies) then the Slashdot stories for them are... uh... on slashdot.
Personally, I don't find falling off a launch pad newsworthy for Slashdot. It was an industrial accident, pure and simple. If someone were standing on the pad when the engines fired, that would be dramatically bizarre enough to be newsworthy.
FWIW, I don't intend to make a joke of this. Even if it's not "news", this was a real, live person, and his passing, family, and friends deserve respectful treatment. Someday I'll die, too, and I don't expect my passing to be newsworthy, either.
We really need a federal law that defines "unlimited broadband internet."
Ugh! We most certainly do not! This is why our laws are so massive as to be incomprehensible. We don't need a thousand different laws defining words in hundreds of industries. Truth in advertising is already there. Contract law is already there. You sell me unlimited internet, then limit it, and I can sue you for breach of contract. Why, $DIETY, why do we need MORE laws?
The DSL reports forums about Clear are horrific.
This is more effective than your law could ever be. In the best case, you make them stop calling it unlimited. The continue to offer the same service under different market speak. Is that what you want? I hope not. I think what you want to know is which providers are good value and which are not. A bunch of consumers telling you how the various services work out for them is exactly that, all without getting the government to (try to) do it for you.
People really need to stop looking to the government to solve every piddly little problem they have. We demand it do everything, then complain it costs too much.
Interesting. I'm generally on the side of DeVry, UoP, etc, suck, but I have a friend at Full Sail now. She started not knowing what Maya was, and now does work that quite frankly makes my jaw drop. My impression is that she's working a ot harder than I did in undergrad. So do I believe it's a 4 year degree crammed into 21 months? Actually, I do. In fairness, she did have actual artistic talent going in, but we're talking pencil and paper. I'm sure they can't take somebody like me who can't draw past stick figures and make them ready to work at Pixar, but I genuinely won't be surprised if she ends up doing exactly that.
It's not that we're Luddites, it's that we've been around this particular block before and it takes more than something shiny to turn our heads. When I was in college (not THAT long ago) there was the mandatory "buy our laptop" program which thankfully hit the class after me. It was a terribly stupid idea for me because I already has 24/7 use of a work provided laptop that was pretty much the best money could buy.
This isn't that different. I have a laptop. I have several desktops with various OSes. I have an iPhone. I don't want an iPad because, to me, it's nothing but a less portable iphone.
You might have also noticed a university education has become ever more expensive, at a rate much faster than inflation. Trinkets of dubious value to not impress.
Yes, exactly this. "Giving" means "force to buy", even if they don't need. FTFA, 80% of students recommended this, meaning 20% of those who were given the thing to use don't want it.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war either, but wars are thing governments do. Selling music is not. Mandating that I pay $10/month for music whether or not I consume or want it is simply wrong, and NOT a legitimate function of government. Bear in mind, the music industry is entirely free to offer YOU a contract whereby you can download any music you want for $10/month.
All of these proposals need an opt-out for people who don't want it and don't download illegally now.
I do this, too. My phone sits on the passenger seat, where I don't look at it while driving.
While there are laws about using phones while driving, and generically "distracted driving", having a phone turned on in the car is fine, and most people wouldn't consider it "using".
It's a shakedown, pure and simple. In my corner of the world, "court fees" have been around 4-8 times the fine, and are applied whether or not I go to court. There is simply no way disposing of my case cost anywhere near that. Judges don't make that kind of money, even if it take them an hour or two to "sign off" on my case. The difference between just paying the fine and hiring a lawyer to go deal with it for me ends up not being much.
You pay the money because if you don't, they'll fine you even more. I rather suspect this was one of those cases where it slipped into law because nobody wants to back the criminals, forgetting that with broadly written enough and numerous enough laws, "the criminals" is all of us.
That sounded wrong, and it is. I rip all my CDs to lossless format, some of which go up to 1 Mbps or a little over. CD format is 1.411 kbps. Not 150kbps. From the link you cite. 128 kbps mp3s are significantly less than CD quality, but I'll concede still plenty for the typical crappy earbuds most people use.
I can't believe that anyone who has used Maya or 3DMax would fail to look at this and instantly see the Blender interface, and seeing it, wouldn't buy it because it's FREE. I have the Windoze version on the very PC I'm typing this from.
According to Alexa, slashdot is 40% US users. The US may be a small part of the global population, but it's well represented on the Internet, and even more so on an English language, US centric web site like Slashdot.
The problem is that some guy way back when had little sympathy for securing the rights of prisoners. Now you have little sympathy for securing the rights of the people who guard prisoners. Who's next? Every time you point at some group and demand they have less privacy, realize you're almost certainly part of some group someone else is pointing at.
You still fail. If it is fully public, you could have written "Does anyone want to go to the pub tonight?" on your own web site, retaining full control of said data. If it is intended just for your friends, you can text or e-mail them. Placing it on F shows that you don't care about it at all. How could an employer trust you that you would care more about company data?
Placing it on facebook shows you think the protections facebook affords are adequate to protect the data, which is the poster's decision. More security is not always better security. That's a very common failing. In the effort to appease auditors, we overprotect things that don't need protecting. Doing this often costs money. There is such a thing as appropriate levels of protection. Applying maximum protection to everything is "secure", but is usually the wrong answer.
Does it mean that everyone who uses FB is stupid? No, but it does make for an easy metric to weed out people who are less likely to make good decisions about confidentiality when they have a personal stake in the results.
No, it doesn't. Some people who use cars make very stupid decisions with them. Sometimes those decisions kill people. Do you weed out people who own cars? As others have posted, there are a set of people who use facebook, but don't put anything that would be damaging to them if released to the general public.
Your point has merit, it just struck a chord with an argument I hear too often. Simply put, taxes pay for things I care about, therefore taxes are good. It's ends justifying the means, and is wrong. Civilization is good. Taxes pay for civilization, sure, but the conclusion that taxes are good, or the more pernicious variant, that MORE taxes are good, is false. Taxes are a necessary evil. My counter example, which is based on personal experience, is that your tax dollar buys civilization, and a bunch of stuff you don't want.
I like civilization, and accept paying taxes as the price of that, but only at the level truly necessary. I do not like buying waste, or someone's friend/nephew/political donor a high paying job.
Slashdot Mirror
That's where ideas like this lose me. If adults did stuff like this, they'd be subject to legal sanctions, therefore...schools should do that for kids? No, not at all. Therefore kids should ALSO be subject to those legal sanctions and schools should continue to exercise only the authority they actually have. They should stick to their proverbial knitting, which they're already bad enough at that they clearly need to try harder.
I was a subscriber for a while, until they sent me a renewal notice written to look like a collections notice. A prior orkplace used to routinely be named on a "Best Places to Work" list (not by Forbes, though) to the collective dismay of all who worked there. These sorts of lists don't mean what you think they mean, unless you think they don't mean anything.
Personally, I don't find falling off a launch pad newsworthy for Slashdot. It was an industrial accident, pure and simple. If someone were standing on the pad when the engines fired, that would be dramatically bizarre enough to be newsworthy.
FWIW, I don't intend to make a joke of this. Even if it's not "news", this was a real, live person, and his passing, family, and friends deserve respectful treatment. Someday I'll die, too, and I don't expect my passing to be newsworthy, either.
Ugh! We most certainly do not! This is why our laws are so massive as to be incomprehensible. We don't need a thousand different laws defining words in hundreds of industries. Truth in advertising is already there. Contract law is already there. You sell me unlimited internet, then limit it, and I can sue you for breach of contract. Why, $DIETY, why do we need MORE laws?
This is more effective than your law could ever be. In the best case, you make them stop calling it unlimited. The continue to offer the same service under different market speak. Is that what you want? I hope not. I think what you want to know is which providers are good value and which are not. A bunch of consumers telling you how the various services work out for them is exactly that, all without getting the government to (try to) do it for you.
People really need to stop looking to the government to solve every piddly little problem they have. We demand it do everything, then complain it costs too much.
Really? grep ww /usr/share/dict/words has 87, a good portion of which appear to be unquestionably real words.
Interesting. I'm generally on the side of DeVry, UoP, etc, suck, but I have a friend at Full Sail now. She started not knowing what Maya was, and now does work that quite frankly makes my jaw drop. My impression is that she's working a ot harder than I did in undergrad. So do I believe it's a 4 year degree crammed into 21 months? Actually, I do. In fairness, she did have actual artistic talent going in, but we're talking pencil and paper. I'm sure they can't take somebody like me who can't draw past stick figures and make them ready to work at Pixar, but I genuinely won't be surprised if she ends up doing exactly that.
It's not that we're Luddites, it's that we've been around this particular block before and it takes more than something shiny to turn our heads. When I was in college (not THAT long ago) there was the mandatory "buy our laptop" program which thankfully hit the class after me. It was a terribly stupid idea for me because I already has 24/7 use of a work provided laptop that was pretty much the best money could buy.
This isn't that different. I have a laptop. I have several desktops with various OSes. I have an iPhone. I don't want an iPad because, to me, it's nothing but a less portable iphone.
You might have also noticed a university education has become ever more expensive, at a rate much faster than inflation. Trinkets of dubious value to not impress.
Yes, exactly this. "Giving" means "force to buy", even if they don't need. FTFA, 80% of students recommended this, meaning 20% of those who were given the thing to use don't want it.
If I do, do I get lots of popcorn?
I'm no fan of the Iraq war either, but wars are thing governments do. Selling music is not. Mandating that I pay $10/month for music whether or not I consume or want it is simply wrong, and NOT a legitimate function of government. Bear in mind, the music industry is entirely free to offer YOU a contract whereby you can download any music you want for $10/month.
All of these proposals need an opt-out for people who don't want it and don't download illegally now.
Your major error is forgetting that the GP's post refers to the FEDERAL government. The federal government does not license drivers. States do.
I do this, too. My phone sits on the passenger seat, where I don't look at it while driving.
While there are laws about using phones while driving, and generically "distracted driving", having a phone turned on in the car is fine, and most people wouldn't consider it "using".
It's a shakedown, pure and simple. In my corner of the world, "court fees" have been around 4-8 times the fine, and are applied whether or not I go to court. There is simply no way disposing of my case cost anywhere near that. Judges don't make that kind of money, even if it take them an hour or two to "sign off" on my case. The difference between just paying the fine and hiring a lawyer to go deal with it for me ends up not being much.
You pay the money because if you don't, they'll fine you even more. I rather suspect this was one of those cases where it slipped into law because nobody wants to back the criminals, forgetting that with broadly written enough and numerous enough laws, "the criminals" is all of us.
That sounded wrong, and it is. I rip all my CDs to lossless format, some of which go up to 1 Mbps or a little over. CD format is 1.411 kbps. Not 150kbps. From the link you cite. 128 kbps mp3s are significantly less than CD quality, but I'll concede still plenty for the typical crappy earbuds most people use.
I can't believe that anyone who has used Maya or 3DMax would fail to look at this and instantly see the Blender interface, and seeing it, wouldn't buy it because it's FREE. I have the Windoze version on the very PC I'm typing this from.
Not in a work of fiction, it's not. Then it's simply fiction. It's lying if you represent it as truth.
Different animal. Steve Jobs is not dead.
According to Alexa, slashdot is 40% US users. The US may be a small part of the global population, but it's well represented on the Internet, and even more so on an English language, US centric web site like Slashdot.
The problem is that some guy way back when had little sympathy for securing the rights of prisoners. Now you have little sympathy for securing the rights of the people who guard prisoners. Who's next? Every time you point at some group and demand they have less privacy, realize you're almost certainly part of some group someone else is pointing at.
You really need to get out more if you believe that.
Placing it on facebook shows you think the protections facebook affords are adequate to protect the data, which is the poster's decision. More security is not always better security. That's a very common failing. In the effort to appease auditors, we overprotect things that don't need protecting. Doing this often costs money. There is such a thing as appropriate levels of protection. Applying maximum protection to everything is "secure", but is usually the wrong answer.
No, it doesn't. Some people who use cars make very stupid decisions with them. Sometimes those decisions kill people. Do you weed out people who own cars? As others have posted, there are a set of people who use facebook, but don't put anything that would be damaging to them if released to the general public.
Your point has merit, it just struck a chord with an argument I hear too often. Simply put, taxes pay for things I care about, therefore taxes are good. It's ends justifying the means, and is wrong. Civilization is good. Taxes pay for civilization, sure, but the conclusion that taxes are good, or the more pernicious variant, that MORE taxes are good, is false. Taxes are a necessary evil. My counter example, which is based on personal experience, is that your tax dollar buys civilization, and a bunch of stuff you don't want.
I like civilization, and accept paying taxes as the price of that, but only at the level truly necessary. I do not like buying waste, or someone's friend/nephew/political donor a high paying job.
No, religion is religious institutions trolling everyone else.
BTW, try working for a government institution sometime and learn what besides civilization your tax dollars buy. Most of it is wasted.
No, it wouldn't. This parent would respond "It's 8pm in the evening, not during school hours, and it's none of your business where my children are."