Fix the broken American education system... Unfortunately there are a myriad of camps in the education system which will also frustrate fixing it.
That's an understatement.
However, I think that you see two different goals as contradictory when they are not. We can both improve the abilities of the best and brightest, while also bringing up the ability of the 'normals' (for lack of a better word).
In other words, if we tell the special interest groups and the "self-esteem is the most important part of school" camps to sit down and shut up while we fix the mess they made, then we can both leave "no child left behind" while also "holding no child back."
(note: at a certain point, it becomes not leaving a child behind but letting them walk away if they choose. In order to prevent that, we need to change the culture(s) in America to see education as something to strive for.)
My stance is, I don't know if this is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional, thats the Court's role.
See, that's the problem. You've given the court 3 jobs when they should only have 2. They seem to have liked that added job for the past 70-odd years too much, IMHO.
My stance is that it's the Court's final role to determine if it's "illegal or unconstitutional." If it's immoral, then that's up for the people to decide through their elected representatives.
The fact is that secession was written in to the Constitution and so it doesn't really matter what the issue that caused secession was.
Please site where in the Constitution this is. In fact in Art I section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation" would probably prohibit the south from froming a 'confederated states.'
What matters is that the voters of the Southern states excercised their supposed rights and had a war declared on them for it.
And who shot the first shot of the Civil War? Oh, it was the South? I guess we should rename it 'The War of Southern Aggression" then...
Yes, the entire reason that the US refuses to sign the mine ban treaty is the DMZ in Korea. The other parties in the treaty wouldn't allow for any sort of "we have a multi-mile range of fenced-off and cleary marked territory where there are big signs saying 'if you go here you will die'" exceptions.
As far as if we can sell mines. I don't know of any legal restrictions beyond the normal arms-selling laws, but I would doubt it.
If I'm a soldier on the field, and I see someone in the enemy's uniform carrying a radio? Damn skippy, he's the first person I'm gunning for.... Canteens and med kits, sure, those alone do not a reasonable target make.
And if all the guy had was a med kit, then you'd better sure that he also has a gun out and pointed in your direction, because otherwise you'll be in potential violation of the Geneva Convention (no shooting at medics, you know).
Yes, you've figured it out; George Bush is trying to get global warming to run up faster. That way, when it's almost too late, he can bring out his laser-based super-cooler at the South Pole. Then, he can demand that the word give him ONE MILLION DOLLARS, or he'll allow the ice caps to melt.
Besides, it would be total mystery if Earth wasn't warming up due to human activity.
The question isn't "is human activity chaning the climate" but "by how much is human activity chainging the climate." If 99.99% of any potential recent climate change is caused by normal variations , and.01% by humanity - well then we don't have as much to worry about then if it's 1/2 and 1/2.
In America, everyone has certain inalienable rights, but I guess a US base doesn't count.
Nice try at taking my sentence out of context. I said "under the Geneva Convention they are NOT POWs and have NO RIGHTS." In other words: they don't derive any rights from the Geneva Convention. They have to come under one of the 4 groupings of Art 4.A in order to gain those rights.
Now, the US was founded on a philosophy of inalienable rights. However, like all governments, the US has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. Now, the government is in a place where to give these people "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" would end up taking it away from others (namely: US Citizens).
Furthermore, if America is fighting a "War on terror" and have detained someone for being involed in terror, can't we assume that they are a "Prisoner of War"?
"Prisoner of War" has become a legal term, so it depends on if they fit the description. Of course, one of the requirements is that their group "[conduct] their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Note: I don't necessarily think that everything done by the US, it's allies, particular individuals elected or employed by the above, etc. is what should be done. I just see that we can't be throwing around things like 'the geneva convention' and the 'right to a trial' without determining if there is a basis for such.
Simply calling them detainees instead of POW's itself is a violation of article 4 of the Geneva convention.
Reading article 4, the only place that I can see these guys as potentially being covered is 4.A(2):
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Of course, since they violate sections b and d, they don't fall under this section. The US cannot violate the Geneva convention if the people in question don't fall under it's juristiction.
The primary problem with OS X is the indiscriminate use of the administrative password. Mac users are so used to typing in that password that if an installation ask for it the user automatically types it in. Instant root-kit installation.
Not root-kit, but admin-kit. The admin user can't modify root-owned files.
Every OSX machine I ever supported had the root user enabled, root user password changed, then disabled again.
They open a POW camp in Cuba, who hasn't signed the Geneva Convention. How fitting isn't it?
1. It's a US military base, so it's bound by the Geneva convention. 2. The people who were brought there were not wearing uniforms. Therefore, under the Geneva Convention, they are NOT POWs and have NO RIGHTS. The Geneva Convention would not prevent any country from torturing them and then killing them. Now, I'm not saying that the US should do this (or that it's been done), but that they have no legal responsibility under the Geneva Convention.
Just pointing out that the appeal to a unanimous Senate vote as a supporting argument means slightly less than a deed to the Brooklyn bridge.
But you compared the unanimous Senate vote againstthe Kyoto Treaty to the unanimous Senate vote for a spending bill that included something they don't like.
Voting for something knowing that it includes bad riders is not the same as voting against one particular thing.
And it is a whole hell of a lot better than emulation. Games will work
By the time Apple transitions over, they could easily have all of their computers running on chips which support VT. That will allow fast switching between the two OSes without restarting.
have a theory as to why Apple aren't coming out with them until sometime next year - I believe they actually want to come out with new machines at the same time as Vista is released.
Also, since we only have a chart and not more information, does this include multiple-OS exploits? Would an exploit on Linux and one on Windows count for 2 in the firefox column?
Except that, as far as the evidence has been shown so far, I don't think that Intel's business practices are illegal. I also think that AMD's behavior in taking out full-page ads saying "hey, we're suing Intel" seems like a cheap way to score some publicity. Third parties have pointed out that it sounds like it was produced more for public consumption than a real legal filing. Using legal filings as publicity smells like SCO to me.
Intel decided that the 'punishment' that Japan was proposing was a heck of a lot cheaper than trying to fight it, so they said "we're not going to fight the accusations, but deny no wrongdoing" and got less than a slap on the wrist.
So, ignore the facts of the case and listen to/.AMD fanboys ranting about how evil Intel is if you want to.
the point is it does NOT cost $600 for intel to produce and sell a CPU.
No, Intel makes a profit which it then re-invests or distributes to shareholders. Everyone should know that, it's what a company is supposed to do.
Was that 5 bn for this year alone?
Yes, this year alone.
they gross 60% profit. 60% that means for every dollar they take in only 40 cents is going to operating costs, including marketing etc.
Note: Gross, not net. 2004 Net was $7.5 billion Intel pays out over 30% of their income in taxes.
So are people paying $1,000 for a Pentium 4 d Extreme being ripped off?
That depends on your point of view, I guess. However, the law of supply and demand: the yeild on EEs IS lower, Intel can only make so many of them, so they are more rare - therefore they are higher priced.
Besides, if Intel sold these things for a lot less, then everyone would be screaming that Intel was trying to put AMD out of buisness...
And as far as 'minting money' goes... analysts were disapointed with the margins in Q2!
Your comment implies that what AMD claims took place is 100% accurate. You assume that whatever Intel may or may not have done must be illegal.
All we have so far is a grandstanding statement from AMD and a legal response from Intel. Maybe we should wait for the case to procede before determining guilt.
...Likewise, you cannot see an NC-17, regardless of parental presence. All this law would do is enforce the same standards....
The difference is that the movie ratings are inforced by the industry, not the government. The game industry needs to get better at self-policing in order to help get rid of government interference.
And from what I hear, one of the most useful classes you can take to get a job after completing a CS degree is Hindi.
Actually, one of the most useful classes I took for getting a job was Greek. That's because I didn't major in CS, I majored in a different subject and just worked a job that involved programing.
A few years later, I have a degree in a subject that's interesting, skills in decoding information (from my language classes), and programing experience in the real world (including picking up new progaming languages quickly).
Slashdot Mirror
Fix the broken American education system... Unfortunately there are a myriad of camps in the education system which will also frustrate fixing it.
That's an understatement.
However, I think that you see two different goals as contradictory when they are not. We can both improve the abilities of the best and brightest, while also bringing up the ability of the 'normals' (for lack of a better word).
In other words, if we tell the special interest groups and the "self-esteem is the most important part of school" camps to sit down and shut up while we fix the mess they made, then we can both leave "no child left behind" while also "holding no child back."
(note: at a certain point, it becomes not leaving a child behind but letting them walk away if they choose. In order to prevent that, we need to change the culture(s) in America to see education as something to strive for.)
Do you ever go back to Avalon Hill's Advanced Civilization for more inspiration?
Like the shape has some magical property or that they were influenced by aliens
Duh, I saw this Documentary on how aliens really build the pyramids. I'm sure it's all true because it was on TV.
My stance is, I don't know if this is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional, thats the Court's role.
See, that's the problem. You've given the court 3 jobs when they should only have 2. They seem to have liked that added job for the past 70-odd years too much, IMHO.
My stance is that it's the Court's final role to determine if it's "illegal or unconstitutional." If it's immoral, then that's up for the people to decide through their elected representatives.
The fact is that secession was written in to the Constitution and so it doesn't really matter what the issue that caused secession was.
Please site where in the Constitution this is. In fact in Art I section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation" would probably prohibit the south from froming a 'confederated states.'
What matters is that the voters of the Southern states excercised their supposed rights and had a war declared on them for it.
And who shot the first shot of the Civil War? Oh, it was the South? I guess we should rename it 'The War of Southern Aggression" then...
Yes, the entire reason that the US refuses to sign the mine ban treaty is the DMZ in Korea. The other parties in the treaty wouldn't allow for any sort of "we have a multi-mile range of fenced-off and cleary marked territory where there are big signs saying 'if you go here you will die'" exceptions.
As far as if we can sell mines. I don't know of any legal restrictions beyond the normal arms-selling laws, but I would doubt it.
If I'm a soldier on the field, and I see someone in the enemy's uniform carrying a radio? Damn skippy, he's the first person I'm gunning for.... Canteens and med kits, sure, those alone do not a reasonable target make.
And if all the guy had was a med kit, then you'd better sure that he also has a gun out and pointed in your direction, because otherwise you'll be in potential violation of the Geneva Convention (no shooting at medics, you know).
Yes, you've figured it out; George Bush is trying to get global warming to run up faster. That way, when it's almost too late, he can bring out his laser-based super-cooler at the South Pole. Then, he can demand that the word give him ONE MILLION DOLLARS, or he'll allow the ice caps to melt.
Besides, it would be total mystery if Earth wasn't warming up due to human activity.
.01% by humanity - well then we don't have as much to worry about then if it's 1/2 and 1/2.
The question isn't "is human activity chaning the climate" but "by how much is human activity chainging the climate." If 99.99% of any potential recent climate change is caused by normal variations , and
I'm sure they'll be worrying about it as soon as they find where that darn magic is coming from.
It comes from the Magic Smoke of course!
In America, everyone has certain inalienable rights, but I guess a US base doesn't count.
Nice try at taking my sentence out of context. I said "under the Geneva Convention they are NOT POWs and have NO RIGHTS." In other words: they don't derive any rights from the Geneva Convention. They have to come under one of the 4 groupings of Art 4.A in order to gain those rights.
Now, the US was founded on a philosophy of inalienable rights. However, like all governments, the US has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. Now, the government is in a place where to give these people "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" would end up taking it away from others (namely: US Citizens).
Furthermore, if America is fighting a "War on terror" and have detained someone for being involed in terror, can't we assume that they are a "Prisoner of War"?
"Prisoner of War" has become a legal term, so it depends on if they fit the description. Of course, one of the requirements is that their group "[conduct] their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
Note: I don't necessarily think that everything done by the US, it's allies, particular individuals elected or employed by the above, etc. is what should be done. I just see that we can't be throwing around things like 'the geneva convention' and the 'right to a trial' without determining if there is a basis for such.
Simply calling them detainees instead of POW's itself is a violation of article 4 of the Geneva convention.
Reading article 4, the only place that I can see these guys as potentially being covered is 4.A(2):
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Of course, since they violate sections b and d, they don't fall under this section. The US cannot violate the Geneva convention if the people in question don't fall under it's juristiction.
The primary problem with OS X is the indiscriminate use of the administrative password. Mac users are so used to typing in that password that if an installation ask for it the user automatically types it in. Instant root-kit installation.
Not root-kit, but admin-kit. The admin user can't modify root-owned files.
Every OSX machine I ever supported had the root user enabled, root user password changed, then disabled again.
The rights that you are talking about, technically, only apply to citizens.
If this is a war, then declare them POWs.
However, as they are not members of a standing army and were not in any uniforms when captured - they don't fit the description of POWs.
There's already functions in place to deal with "enemy combatants" and has been for over a century.
Yes, there have been. Namely: shoot on sight. It's only been in the last few years that our rules of engagement have disallowed this
Guantanamo Bay
They open a POW camp in Cuba, who hasn't signed the Geneva Convention. How fitting isn't it?
1. It's a US military base, so it's bound by the Geneva convention.
2. The people who were brought there were not wearing uniforms. Therefore, under the Geneva Convention, they are NOT POWs and have NO RIGHTS. The Geneva Convention would not prevent any country from torturing them and then killing them. Now, I'm not saying that the US should do this (or that it's been done), but that they have no legal responsibility under the Geneva Convention.
Just pointing out that the appeal to a unanimous Senate vote as a supporting argument means slightly less than a deed to the Brooklyn bridge.
But you compared the unanimous Senate vote againstthe Kyoto Treaty to the unanimous Senate vote for a spending bill that included something they don't like.
Voting for something knowing that it includes bad riders is not the same as voting against one particular thing.
I have this great theory that you know what the hell you're talking about, but it fails in reality. Where is the fault in this situation?
Your sense of humor?
And it is a whole hell of a lot better than emulation. Games will work
By the time Apple transitions over, they could easily have all of their computers running on chips which support VT. That will allow fast switching between the two OSes without restarting.
That will kick ass!
have a theory as to why Apple aren't coming out with them until sometime next year - I believe they actually want to come out with new machines at the same time as Vista is released.
My theory has one word: Merom.
Also, since we only have a chart and not more information, does this include multiple-OS exploits? Would an exploit on Linux and one on Windows count for 2 in the firefox column?
Except that, as far as the evidence has been shown so far, I don't think that Intel's business practices are illegal. I also think that AMD's behavior in taking out full-page ads saying "hey, we're suing Intel" seems like a cheap way to score some publicity. Third parties have pointed out that it sounds like it was produced more for public consumption than a real legal filing. Using legal filings as publicity smells like SCO to me.
/.AMD fanboys ranting about how evil Intel is if you want to.
Intel decided that the 'punishment' that Japan was proposing was a heck of a lot cheaper than trying to fight it, so they said "we're not going to fight the accusations, but deny no wrongdoing" and got less than a slap on the wrist.
So, ignore the facts of the case and listen to
the point is it does NOT cost $600 for intel to produce and sell a CPU.
No, Intel makes a profit which it then re-invests or distributes to shareholders. Everyone should know that, it's what a company is supposed to do.
Was that 5 bn for this year alone?
Yes, this year alone.
they gross 60% profit. 60% that means for every dollar they take in only 40 cents is going to operating costs, including marketing etc.
Note: Gross, not net. 2004 Net was $7.5 billion Intel pays out over 30% of their income in taxes.
So are people paying $1,000 for a Pentium 4 d Extreme being ripped off?
That depends on your point of view, I guess. However, the law of supply and demand: the yeild on EEs IS lower, Intel can only make so many of them, so they are more rare - therefore they are higher priced.
Besides, if Intel sold these things for a lot less, then everyone would be screaming that Intel was trying to put AMD out of buisness...
And as far as 'minting money' goes... analysts were disapointed with the margins in Q2!
Your comment implies that what AMD claims took place is 100% accurate. You assume that whatever Intel may or may not have done must be illegal.
All we have so far is a grandstanding statement from AMD and a legal response from Intel. Maybe we should wait for the case to procede before determining guilt.
...Likewise, you cannot see an NC-17, regardless of parental presence. All this law would do is enforce the same standards. ...
The difference is that the movie ratings are inforced by the industry, not the government. The game industry needs to get better at self-policing in order to help get rid of government interference.
And from what I hear, one of the most useful classes you can take to get a job after completing a CS degree is Hindi.
Actually, one of the most useful classes I took for getting a job was Greek. That's because I didn't major in CS, I majored in a different subject and just worked a job that involved programing.
A few years later, I have a degree in a subject that's interesting, skills in decoding information (from my language classes), and programing experience in the real world (including picking up new progaming languages quickly).
(PS, I know the parent post was a joke)