There rarely are rational thinking people in the room. Rational people would have very little need for government at all.
There really is a "slippery slope" in human psychology, but it goes by terms such as "cognitive inertia" and "confirmation bias". Once people get an idea stuck in their heads, they tend to go with it (to their deaths, at times) even when all logic points the other directions.
Yes, it does. I am not a chemist or biologist, but my understanding is that sunlight starts (or facilitates) a chemical process that produces Vitamin D. Without sunlight, that reaction does not happen.
There's a lot of discussion here about private property and rights, and those are certainly relevant issues. But the more important issue of common sense is hardly being addressed.
All (okay, most) rights aside, the reason you shouldn't trespass on someone's property has as much to do with your own safety as it does with rights. When someone reacts violently to your unannounced and unexpected presence on their land, whether they had the right to do so is completely irrelevant to you... because you're f'ing dead.
At that point, rights are just a matter for the lawyers and your next of kin to argue over. Even if your side "wins", you're still dead as a direct result of your decision to barge into private property unannounced.
Rights don't make you bulletproof. Common sense goes a lot further than rights do in keeping you alive.
I feel we need to raise the price of items to make it more economical to fix it than to trash it, or simply tax the item to make it cheaper to fix then to trash.
Unfortunately WE don't have the authority or ability to do either in a free enterprise society. Unless, of course, you mean the government... in which case you're no longer talking about free enterprise. You're talking about Fascism.
Do you really think the Democrats would be better? Take some time, think about it, and give yourself a totally honest answer. DO you think it would be better? Your answer is your own, but mine is a big fat "No".
We'd have different types of tyranny for an ostensibly different reason, but you'd still have blanket restrictions of freedoms and wholesale government monitoring of your activities. Only it would be "for the children," which is somehow supposed to make everything all right. It doesn't. The Democrats are more fascist (yes, I know what the word means) and inept than the Republicans will ever be.
So you want to vote for one evil just to put the brakes on another evil? Your choice, your vote. But you still end up with evil. A different evil, yes... but not quite as different as you think and hope.
And who's to say that the Libertarians (capital "L") will be any better? We don't know. We DO know that, at their core, they hold to a philosophy of government that is vastly different than the R's or the D's, a philosophy that a lot of people would agree with if the actually knew what it was. My personal opinion is that the Libertarians would be better for this country to the extent that they remain libertarian (small "L") and can resist corruption.
As for the flippant comment about the Democrats doing something "crazy" like make sure the children have healthcare: I don't want the children to have healthcare if it has to be paid for by non-voluntary contributions out of my wallet. The same goes for old people and drugs, and poor people and food. If you want to help people, let's get together and do it outside the realm of government so that people aren't forced to participate against their will. But I suppose I'm just one of those crazy extremists. Ummm... actually, I am.
First off, yes I do recognize the parent post as a parody, and yes I do have a sense of humor. I found it somewhat amusing... but misleading in its intent.
I am a conservative libertarian. I subscribe heavily to libertarian thought and philosophies... and while I can't speak for the Libertarian Party (with whom I disagree on several issues), I CAN say that your parody of what libertarians stand for is way off base. So in the interests of people who don't know much about libertarians and might be confused:
Libertarians are not corporate whores. We believe in personal responsibility, which also extends to the level of corporate responsibility. The collection of personal information without my knowledge is a breech of trust, though not necessarily illegal. It's commonly accepted that the collection and controlled distribution of personal information is necessary to facilitate the modern marketplace. Whether this is the actual case or not is up for debate (I'd vote no), but a lot of people think it is, and so the marketplace proceeds as if it were true. Yes, you have the choice not to give out any personal information... if you want to live in a cave. These days you can't even rent a movie without handing over some information that will eventually be used to market crap to you. Such is life until we decide to change it. Like it or not, that is the marketplace as it stands today, and none of it is illegal unless that information is collected by force or fraud (which it IS in some cases). According to libertarian philosophy, the government has the right to protect the marketplace from force, fraud, or other criminal activities. I consider the mishandling of personal information to be a gross negligence that is well within the government's field of concern and that should be punished by law even if it does not cause me harm. No, the government doesn't necessarily need to regulate anything (and I would be against such regulation on principle)... the courts just need to put the hammer down when somebody pulls a Choicepoint. Put it down hard... not just a slap on the wrist. Some of these companies shouldn't even exist right now. That is the opinion of a real, conservative libertarian. Not quite how it was parodied, eh?
Now that I've said that, watch the Libertarian Party come out and say something stupid...
These days, I do most of my 'reading' via audiobook, espescially fiction. With programs like Audible.com, listening to a book is more convienient than reading it on paper OR via ebook. How so? Because I can 'read' and drive at the same time. Because I can 'read' and walk or do other exercises. As someone brought up before, these are the overwhelming reasons for me to switch to audio. Are there similar reasons for ebooks? No. Yes, there are a few things to be gained from ebooks, but the advantages have yet to reach a critical mass where enough people will go "AHA! Ebooks are better!" Right now, ebooks are just 'a little better for some things'. Not good enough.
Obviously some books can't translate well into audio. Text that contain graphics, charts, code fragments, or which must be highlighted or marked-up to be useful don't make the transfer. They don't make the transfer to ebook for pretty much the exact same reasons.
Taking audiobooks out of the equation for a moment, here, in specifics, is why I don't make the total switch to ebooks:
Although e-readers can hold dozens or hundreds of books, the number of words on a page is still (usually) less than with a typical physical book. My eyes and 'reading style' are accustomed to reading a certain amount of text before I have to take some action like turn a page. With a PDA, I'm reading two paragraphs before I have to put my brain on 'pause' for a second to 'flip the page'. Yes, this is a really minor nitpick, but when people say that ebook readers just don't "feel right"... this is what they're talking about.
I don't do a lot of reading in odd places... like the toilet or the bathtub. Yes I DO take a book or a magazine with me on occasion, but the time I spend in there isn't worth investing in some new technology.. . espescially when, once I get out of the bathroom, I'll want to switch back to a physical book.
Screen size and quality. 'Nuff said.
And that's pretty much it. But, as stated before, the REAL reason ebooks haven't taken off isn't because of any list of disadvantages, but because the list of advantages isn't long enough yet. What have you got so far? Portability? The ability to take thousands of books with you on vacation? I don't really need either, so NOW what do they have to offer?...
Unless you are self-employed, a tech-addict, or someone else who's constant connectivity is self-mandated. If it is mandated by by your employer, then the off switch is really a "reprimand me" button. Don't believe me? Whatever 'it' is, leave 'it' off and see what happens.
As for whether connectivity hinders or enhances your productivity, it really depends your job and the tasks/responsibilities thereof. I was constantly connected at my last job. It helped somethings... like being able to respond to emergencies (both real ones and management-defined ones) and being able to reach co-workers to ask questions or offer/recieve assistance. But it hurt a lot of other areas, like being able to finish a task or talk to a customer without interruption. Luckily my boss allowed us to use the 'off' switch. Yours may not. I found that in order to get any actual work done, I had to turn the instant-link radio off, shut down email, and forward the phone to voicemail... effectively cutting off my precious connectivity. But I could only do this rarely because 'people needed to reach me'. In the end, it was basically a wash. An incredibly annoying wash. Even when its a definite benefit, it's still annoying.
In my personal life, being constantly connected is more of a blessing... but its a one-way connection. When either of the phones ring, I let voicemail catch it unless it is my wife or I am expecting a call. My 'goal' is get people out of the notion that they can pick up a phone and interrupt me whenever they feel like it. My phones are for my convienience... not anyone else's. Most people have gotten the hint that if they need to reach me then the best way to do it is to send me an email or leave me a message. If they need to reach me NOW, RIGHT NOW DAMMIT, then most of them are out of luck. I don't do 'now, right now dammit'. Those closest to me can email my blackberry for a rapid response... once I've decided whether one is necessary. I think this is the way its supposed to work, even at work. Unfortunately we lack the power to do it anywhere other than our private lives. And by 'it' I mean the philosophy that the end user... the reciever of the message/phone call... should be in the position to determine whether it interrupts them or not. The default mode of instant-connectivity takes that decision out of our hands and puts it in the hands of technology, but... at least personally... we can take that power back. Unless you are self-employed, a tech-addict, or someone else who's constant connectivity is self-mandated. If it is mandated by your employer, then the off switch is really a "reprimand me" button. Don't believe me? Whatever 'it' is, leave 'it' off and see what happens.
As for whether connectivity hinders or enhances your productivity, it really depends your job and the tasks/responsibilities thereof. I was constantly connected at my last job. It helped some things... like being able to respond to emergencies (both real ones and management-defined ones) and being able to reach co-workers to ask questions or offer/receive assistance. But it hurt a lot of other areas, like being able to finish a task or talk to a customer without interruption. I found that in order to get any actual work done, I had to turn the instant-link radio off, shut down email, and forward the phone to voicemail... effectively cutting off my precious connectivity. But I could only do this rarely because 'people needed to reach me'. In the end, it was basically a wash. An incredibly annoying wash. Even when its a definite benefit, it's still annoying.
In my personal life, being constantly connected is more of a blessing... but its a one-way connection. When either of the phones ring, I let voicemail catch it unless it is my wife or I am expecting a call. My 'goal' is get people out of the notion that they can pick up a phone and interrupt me whenever they feel like it. My phones are for my convenience... not anyone else's. Most people have gotten th
When the government tells you what you can and cannot say, that is a violation of free speech. But the government wasn't involved in this case... a fact that almost everyone here seems to understand by now. The school involved was a private institution, and could make its own rules regardless of what the Constitution says. The Constitution applies to what the government can do, not to what private individuals/institutions can do.
HOWEVER, when the government tells a private institution that it can or cannot take a certain course of action (in this case, a course of action sparked by a student comment) then that, by definition, is fascism. (I'm talking in general terms here... commerce clause, general welfare clause, etc., yadda, whatever). Yes I would like to see speech protected not just from government interference but also from private interference as well. But doing so swings the pendulum from "protecting the rights of the individual" to "infringing on the rights of individuals" In this case, the individuals being damaged are the ones in charge of the school.
I'm not making this post just to pick nits or be contrary. It's important that we understand that we can be so zealous in the protection of our liberties that we end up damaging the liberties of someone else. The school (and your employer, and every other private institution) should be free do whatever it wants for whatever reason, even if we don't particularly like what they do. The answer to the situation rests in the marketplace: Don't go to the school that punishes students unfairly... don't patronize institutions that discriminate, etc.
As for this specific case, I'm not familiar enough with the law to tell whether the student's posts (and suggested course of action against the guard) were illegal. I'm guessing they are not, but that is just a guess. What the student said was stupid, and stupidity should be punished (or else it continues unchecked), but if no law or official School Code of Conduct was broken then I probably would not vote to have him expelled or even suspended. I would, however, demand an apology and a promise to refrain from future conspiracies against employees. I would also inform the parents and let them decide on the real punishment. If the law was broken, then expell him and let the authorities handle the situaion. If the violation was only against the Code of Conduct, then whatever punishment (if any) listed in said code should be applied, lest the school find itself in a legal tangle when it does try to enforce the code against someone else. The Code is considered a contract and should be treated as such. So now the matter becomes one of facts: Was the law and/or Code of Conduct broken?
I block what annoys me and what is easy to block without affecting legitimate browsing. Thus I don't block Flash ads because some of the sites I frequent contain Flash content or navigational elements. I do block popups because they are the web equivalent of an unruly, screaming child jumping up and down in front of me in a movie theater. Not only do I not block Google and similar context ads but I actually look at them to see if there is anything relevant I may want to investigate. I consider them a part of the web page that I'm visiting.
Whatever the ulterior motive this guy has for asking, he can come away with one simple theory concerning ad-blocking: Relevant, non-intrusive ads are less likely to be blocked. Yes, some people hate even those; and yes, as ad-blocking becomes easier, more and more people will opt out of the whole commercial aspect of the web. But you can't please everyone.
War of the Worlds already HAS been remade... Remember "Independence Day" with Will Smith? Substitute 'biological virus' for 'computer virus' in that movie and you have "War of the Friggin Worlds." And regardless of whether you liked ID4 or thought it sucked moose dung, I seriously doubt that any REAL remake of WotW will be much better.
And that is exactly why I'm surprised that Microsoft is apparently against this. Surely they are smart enough to know how much more money they could make with that approach. Espescially if they took full advantage of it and created modules that did the same thing yet catered to different needs... thus allowing users to either create a robust OS that was stable and secure (for power users) or one that was just colorful and user-friendly (for kids or losers).
But then, robust and secure might actually BE impossible for Microsoft.
I would have gone for the ISDN option, but my local phone company had some ridiculous restrictions on usage. I don't remember the exact details, but once I used over a certain number of minutes per line, I would have ended up paying a lot of extra money.... and the limit was so low that I would use it all in two weeks. Once I had that explained to me I INSTANTLY opted for the next-worst option: Starband. The moral of this post: Check your usage restrictions before any money leaves your pocket!
...and that's about it. I can't get Cable OR DSL where I live, so my only remaining choices were ISDN (yeah, right), satellite, or a second phone line.
My experience is that Starband rocks at web pages and sucks at almost everything else. Download speeds are awesome. Upload speeds are disappointing, but better than phone. Web-surfing isn't quite as fast as I expected, but it IS fast. Images on web-pages constantly refuse to load, but only when my firewall is running, so I'm assuming that the problem is with the firewall and not Starband. I don't game, so I can't address that issue.
I have heard that there are bandwidth restrictions/monitoring. Look into it if you consistantly do more than just web-surf. But then, you should look into that with ANY service you consider (that's how I discovered that ISDN is a cruel joke...).
And when it rains heavily... go find a book to read. But then, if there is a heavy storm in the area, should you be on the computer anyway?
Ebooks suck... but only if you fell for the marketing hype. The concept of an 'ebook' is valid, useful and potentially lucrative, but unfortunately the 'popular' media got a hold of it and made people think that ebooks were the greatest thing since fire... that they were to print books what CD's were to cassette tapes.
They were wrong. Shame on them... and shame on everyone who actually BELIEVED their ridiculous con-job. They're SUPPOSED to be harder on the eyes... they're on a COMPUTER SCREEN for God's sake! Who in their right mind would expect them to be better than print!? People who don't think and who swallow everything the media feeds them, that's who. This marketing hype has people expecting things that just won't happen. People are disappointed, and thus articles like this one get written.
The technology simply doesn't exist for ebooks to replace print, but that doesn't mean that ebooks are a dud. Ebooks are just another format for data with benefits and drawbacks vs. other formats for the same data. It's like computer images... comparing ebooks to print is like comparing a mid-quality JPEG with a high-quality Bitmap. With JPEG you accept lesser quality in exchange for smaller file size. With an ebook, you accept inconvenience and lesser quality in exchange for... what? What do you get in return? You are SUPPOSED to get a lower price, but that isn't happening because the media kept pushing the "CD vs. cassette" analogy that just doesn't apply. Retailers priced and marketed their ebooks according to the wrong set of assumptions, and thus those products don't move. Then they came out with special over-priced ebook readers that were a good 10 years ahead of the screen technology needed to make them viable...
or even tolerable!
Ebooks should have been marketed as an ultra-low cost format so folks could get CHEAP books that they can either read on a screen or print out on their own paper. Instead, they were marketed and priced as being equivalent or even superior to print books. That's a ludicrous lie, and THAT'S why the market is tanking.
A better way to look at it is with Hardback vs. Paperback books. With paperbacks, you pay a lower price for the same words... but in a different package. You get a package that is smaller and more portable... but with smaller print and less sturdy construction. Now add ANOTHER format: Ebooks. You get those SAME words in a less-portable, less readable, (depending on your hardware) format... a format that you would expect to pay a whole lot less for. For this reason, ebooks should be priced MUCH less than hardbacks and considerably less than paperbacks. How much less? You tell me... ?
Really... I'm a writer and I want to know how much the market will tolerate. How
much would YOU pay for your favorite writer's new work in ebook form, if the hardback was around $20.00? How much for that computer manual that you want/need if it was in ebook vs. a $60.00 softcover?
Slashdot Mirror
There rarely are rational thinking people in the room.
Rational people would have very little need for government at all.
There really is a "slippery slope" in human psychology, but it goes by terms such as "cognitive inertia" and "confirmation bias". Once people get an idea stuck in their heads, they tend to go with it (to their deaths, at times) even when all logic points the other directions.
Yes, it does.
I am not a chemist or biologist, but my understanding is that sunlight starts (or facilitates) a chemical process that produces Vitamin D. Without sunlight, that reaction does not happen.
But what if I AM a sociopath?
There's a lot of discussion here about private property and rights, and those are certainly relevant issues. But the more important issue of common sense is hardly being addressed.
All (okay, most) rights aside, the reason you shouldn't trespass on someone's property has as much to do with your own safety as it does with rights. When someone reacts violently to your unannounced and unexpected presence on their land, whether they had the right to do so is completely irrelevant to you... because you're f'ing dead.
At that point, rights are just a matter for the lawyers and your next of kin to argue over. Even if your side "wins", you're still dead as a direct result of your decision to barge into private property unannounced.
Rights don't make you bulletproof. Common sense goes a lot further than rights do in keeping you alive.
Unfortunately WE don't have the authority or ability to do either in a free enterprise society. Unless, of course, you mean the government... in which case you're no longer talking about free enterprise. You're talking about Fascism.
Do you really think the Democrats would be better?
Take some time, think about it, and give yourself a totally honest answer. DO you think it would be better? Your answer is your own, but mine is a big fat "No".
We'd have different types of tyranny for an ostensibly different reason, but you'd still have blanket restrictions of freedoms and wholesale government monitoring of your activities. Only it would be "for the children," which is somehow supposed to make everything all right. It doesn't. The Democrats are more fascist (yes, I know what the word means) and inept than the Republicans will ever be.
So you want to vote for one evil just to put the brakes on another evil? Your choice, your vote. But you still end up with evil. A different evil, yes... but not quite as different as you think and hope.
And who's to say that the Libertarians (capital "L") will be any better? We don't know. We DO know that, at their core, they hold to a philosophy of government that is vastly different than the R's or the D's, a philosophy that a lot of people would agree with if the actually knew what it was. My personal opinion is that the Libertarians would be better for this country to the extent that they remain libertarian (small "L") and can resist corruption.
As for the flippant comment about the Democrats doing something "crazy" like make sure the children have healthcare:
I don't want the children to have healthcare if it has to be paid for by non-voluntary contributions out of my wallet. The same goes for old people and drugs, and poor people and food. If you want to help people, let's get together and do it outside the realm of government so that people aren't forced to participate against their will. But I suppose I'm just one of those crazy extremists. Ummm... actually, I am.
First off, yes I do recognize the parent post as a parody, and yes I do have a sense of humor. I found it somewhat amusing... but misleading in its intent.
I am a conservative libertarian. I subscribe heavily to libertarian thought and philosophies... and while I can't speak for the Libertarian Party (with whom I disagree on several issues), I CAN say that your parody of what libertarians stand for is way off base. So in the interests of people who don't know much about libertarians and might be confused:
Libertarians are not corporate whores. We believe in personal responsibility, which also extends to the level of corporate responsibility. The collection of personal information without my knowledge is a breech of trust, though not necessarily illegal. It's commonly accepted that the collection and controlled distribution of personal information is necessary to facilitate the modern marketplace. Whether this is the actual case or not is up for debate (I'd vote no), but a lot of people think it is, and so the marketplace proceeds as if it were true. Yes, you have the choice not to give out any personal information... if you want to live in a cave. These days you can't even rent a movie without handing over some information that will eventually be used to market crap to you. Such is life until we decide to change it. Like it or not, that is the marketplace as it stands today, and none of it is illegal unless that information is collected by force or fraud (which it IS in some cases). According to libertarian philosophy, the government has the right to protect the marketplace from force, fraud, or other criminal activities. I consider the mishandling of personal information to be a gross negligence that is well within the government's field of concern and that should be punished by law even if it does not cause me harm. No, the government doesn't necessarily need to regulate anything (and I would be against such regulation on principle)... the courts just need to put the hammer down when somebody pulls a Choicepoint. Put it down hard... not just a slap on the wrist. Some of these companies shouldn't even exist right now. That is the opinion of a real, conservative libertarian. Not quite how it was parodied, eh?
Now that I've said that, watch the Libertarian Party come out and say something stupid...
These days, I do most of my 'reading' via audiobook, espescially fiction. With programs like Audible.com, listening to a book is more convienient than reading it on paper OR via ebook. How so? Because I can 'read' and drive at the same time. Because I can 'read' and walk or do other exercises. As someone brought up before, these are the overwhelming reasons for me to switch to audio. Are there similar reasons for ebooks? No. Yes, there are a few things to be gained from ebooks, but the advantages have yet to reach a critical mass where enough people will go "AHA! Ebooks are better!" Right now, ebooks are just 'a little better for some things'. Not good enough.
Obviously some books can't translate well into audio. Text that contain graphics, charts, code fragments, or which must be highlighted or marked-up to be useful don't make the transfer. They don't make the transfer to ebook for pretty much the exact same reasons.
Taking audiobooks out of the equation for a moment, here, in specifics, is why I don't make the total switch to ebooks:
Although e-readers can hold dozens or hundreds of books, the number of words on a page is still (usually) less than with a typical physical book. My eyes and 'reading style' are accustomed to reading a certain amount of text before I have to take some action like turn a page. With a PDA, I'm reading two paragraphs before I have to put my brain on 'pause' for a second to 'flip the page'. Yes, this is a really minor nitpick, but when people say that ebook readers just don't "feel right"... this is what they're talking about.
I don't do a lot of reading in odd places... like the toilet or the bathtub. Yes I DO take a book or a magazine with me on occasion, but the time I spend in there isn't worth investing in some new technology.. . espescially when, once I get out of the bathroom, I'll want to switch back to a physical book.
Screen size and quality. 'Nuff said.
And that's pretty much it. But, as stated before, the REAL reason ebooks haven't taken off isn't because of any list of disadvantages, but because the list of advantages isn't long enough yet. What have you got so far? Portability? The ability to take thousands of books with you on vacation? I don't really need either, so NOW what do they have to offer?...
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Unless you are self-employed, a tech-addict, or someone else who's constant connectivity is self-mandated. If it is mandated by by your employer, then the off switch is really a "reprimand me" button. Don't believe me? Whatever 'it' is, leave 'it' off and see what happens.
As for whether connectivity hinders or enhances your productivity, it really depends your job and the tasks/responsibilities thereof. I was constantly connected at my last job. It helped somethings... like being able to respond to emergencies (both real ones and management-defined ones) and being able to reach co-workers to ask questions or offer/recieve assistance. But it hurt a lot of other areas, like being able to finish a task or talk to a customer without interruption. Luckily my boss allowed us to use the 'off' switch. Yours may not. I found that in order to get any actual work done, I had to turn the instant-link radio off, shut down email, and forward the phone to voicemail... effectively cutting off my precious connectivity. But I could only do this rarely because 'people needed to reach me'. In the end, it was basically a wash. An incredibly annoying wash. Even when its a definite benefit, it's still annoying.
In my personal life, being constantly connected is more of a blessing... but its a one-way connection. When either of the phones ring, I let voicemail catch it unless it is my wife or I am expecting a call. My 'goal' is get people out of the notion that they can pick up a phone and interrupt me whenever they feel like it. My phones are for my convienience... not anyone else's. Most people have gotten the hint that if they need to reach me then the best way to do it is to send me an email or leave me a message. If they need to reach me NOW, RIGHT NOW DAMMIT, then most of them are out of luck. I don't do 'now, right now dammit'. Those closest to me can email my blackberry for a rapid response... once I've decided whether one is necessary. I think this is the way its supposed to work, even at work. Unfortunately we lack the power to do it anywhere other than our private lives. And by 'it' I mean the philosophy that the end user... the reciever of the message/phone call... should be in the position to determine whether it interrupts them or not. The default mode of instant-connectivity takes that decision out of our hands and puts it in the hands of technology, but... at least personally... we can take that power back. Unless you are self-employed, a tech-addict, or someone else who's constant connectivity is self-mandated. If it is mandated by your employer, then the off switch is really a "reprimand me" button. Don't believe me? Whatever 'it' is, leave 'it' off and see what happens.
As for whether connectivity hinders or enhances your productivity, it really depends your job and the tasks/responsibilities thereof. I was constantly connected at my last job. It helped some things... like being able to respond to emergencies (both real ones and management-defined ones) and being able to reach co-workers to ask questions or offer/receive assistance. But it hurt a lot of other areas, like being able to finish a task or talk to a customer without interruption. I found that in order to get any actual work done, I had to turn the instant-link radio off, shut down email, and forward the phone to voicemail... effectively cutting off my precious connectivity. But I could only do this rarely because 'people needed to reach me'. In the end, it was basically a wash. An incredibly annoying wash. Even when its a definite benefit, it's still annoying.
In my personal life, being constantly connected is more of a blessing... but its a one-way connection. When either of the phones ring, I let voicemail catch it unless it is my wife or I am expecting a call. My 'goal' is get people out of the notion that they can pick up a phone and interrupt me whenever they feel like it. My phones are for my convenience... not anyone else's. Most people have gotten th
I am not a lawyer, but I am a libertarian.
When the government tells you what you can and cannot say, that is a violation of free speech. But the government wasn't involved in this case... a fact that almost everyone here seems to understand by now. The school involved was a private institution, and could make its own rules regardless of what the Constitution says. The Constitution applies to what the government can do, not to what private individuals/institutions can do.
HOWEVER, when the government tells a private institution that it can or cannot take a certain course of action (in this case, a course of action sparked by a student comment) then that, by definition, is fascism. (I'm talking in general terms here... commerce clause, general welfare clause, etc., yadda, whatever). Yes I would like to see speech protected not just from government interference but also from private interference as well. But doing so swings the pendulum from "protecting the rights of the individual" to "infringing on the rights of individuals" In this case, the individuals being damaged are the ones in charge of the school.
I'm not making this post just to pick nits or be contrary. It's important that we understand that we can be so zealous in the protection of our liberties that we end up damaging the liberties of someone else. The school (and your employer, and every other private institution) should be free do whatever it wants for whatever reason, even if we don't particularly like what they do. The answer to the situation rests in the marketplace: Don't go to the school that punishes students unfairly... don't patronize institutions that discriminate, etc.
As for this specific case, I'm not familiar enough with the law to tell whether the student's posts (and suggested course of action against the guard) were illegal. I'm guessing they are not, but that is just a guess. What the student said was stupid, and stupidity should be punished (or else it continues unchecked), but if no law or official School Code of Conduct was broken then I probably would not vote to have him expelled or even suspended. I would, however, demand an apology and a promise to refrain from future conspiracies against employees. I would also inform the parents and let them decide on the real punishment. If the law was broken, then expell him and let the authorities handle the situaion. If the violation was only against the Code of Conduct, then whatever punishment (if any) listed in said code should be applied, lest the school find itself in a legal tangle when it does try to enforce the code against someone else. The Code is considered a contract and should be treated as such. So now the matter becomes one of facts: Was the law and/or Code of Conduct broken?
I block what annoys me and what is easy to block without affecting legitimate browsing. Thus I don't block Flash ads because some of the sites I frequent contain Flash content or navigational elements. I do block popups because they are the web equivalent of an unruly, screaming child jumping up and down in front of me in a movie theater. Not only do I not block Google and similar context ads but I actually look at them to see if there is anything relevant I may want to investigate. I consider them a part of the web page that I'm visiting.
Whatever the ulterior motive this guy has for asking, he can come away with one simple theory concerning ad-blocking: Relevant, non-intrusive ads are less likely to be blocked. Yes, some people hate even those; and yes, as ad-blocking becomes easier, more and more people will opt out of the whole commercial aspect of the web. But you can't please everyone.
You'd better hurry and patent that idea before someb-
DAMN, too late!
War of the Worlds already HAS been remade... Remember "Independence Day" with Will Smith? Substitute 'biological virus' for 'computer virus' in that movie and you have "War of the Friggin Worlds."
And regardless of whether you liked ID4 or thought it sucked moose dung, I seriously doubt that any REAL remake of WotW will be much better.
And that is exactly why I'm surprised that Microsoft is apparently against this. Surely they are smart enough to know how much more money they could make with that approach. Espescially if they took full advantage of it and created modules that did the same thing yet catered to different needs... thus allowing users to either create a robust OS that was stable and secure (for power users) or one that was just colorful and user-friendly (for kids or losers).
But then, robust and secure might actually BE impossible for Microsoft.
I would have gone for the ISDN option, but my local phone company had some ridiculous restrictions on usage. I don't remember the exact details, but once I used over a certain number of minutes per line, I would have ended up paying a lot of extra money.... and the limit was so low that I would use it all in two weeks. Once I had that explained to me I INSTANTLY opted for the next-worst option: Starband. The moral of this post: Check your usage restrictions before any money leaves your pocket!
...and that's about it. I can't get Cable OR DSL where I live, so my only remaining choices were ISDN (yeah, right), satellite, or a second phone line.
My experience is that Starband rocks at web pages and sucks at almost everything else. Download speeds are awesome. Upload speeds are disappointing, but better than phone. Web-surfing isn't quite as fast as I expected, but it IS fast. Images on web-pages constantly refuse to load, but only when my firewall is running, so I'm assuming that the problem is with the firewall and not Starband. I don't game, so I can't address that issue.
I have heard that there are bandwidth restrictions/monitoring. Look into it if you consistantly do more than just web-surf. But then, you should look into that with ANY service you consider (that's how I discovered that ISDN is a cruel joke...).
And when it rains heavily... go find a book to read. But then, if there is a heavy storm in the area, should you be on the computer anyway?
Laws are the "hack" solution. Strong encryption is the real solution.
And armed insurrection is an even stronger one.
Now come and get me.
They were wrong. Shame on them... and shame on everyone who actually BELIEVED their ridiculous con-job. They're SUPPOSED to be harder on the eyes... they're on a COMPUTER SCREEN for God's sake! Who in their right mind would expect them to be better than print!? People who don't think and who swallow everything the media feeds them, that's who. This marketing hype has people expecting things that just won't happen. People are disappointed, and thus articles like this one get written.
The technology simply doesn't exist for ebooks to replace print, but that doesn't mean that ebooks are a dud. Ebooks are just another format for data with benefits and drawbacks vs. other formats for the same data. It's like computer images... comparing ebooks to print is like comparing a mid-quality JPEG with a high-quality Bitmap. With JPEG you accept lesser quality in exchange for smaller file size. With an ebook, you accept inconvenience and lesser quality in exchange for... what? What do you get in return? You are SUPPOSED to get a lower price, but that isn't happening because the media kept pushing the "CD vs. cassette" analogy that just doesn't apply. Retailers priced and marketed their ebooks according to the wrong set of assumptions, and thus those products don't move. Then they came out with special over-priced ebook readers that were a good 10 years ahead of the screen technology needed to make them viable... or even tolerable!
Ebooks should have been marketed as an ultra-low cost format so folks could get CHEAP books that they can either read on a screen or print out on their own paper. Instead, they were marketed and priced as being equivalent or even superior to print books. That's a ludicrous lie, and THAT'S why the market is tanking.
A better way to look at it is with Hardback vs. Paperback books. With paperbacks, you pay a lower price for the same words... but in a different package. You get a package that is smaller and more portable... but with smaller print and less sturdy construction. Now add ANOTHER format: Ebooks. You get those SAME words in a less-portable, less readable, (depending on your hardware) format... a format that you would expect to pay a whole lot less for. For this reason, ebooks should be priced MUCH less than hardbacks and considerably less than paperbacks. How much less? You tell me... ? Really... I'm a writer and I want to know how much the market will tolerate. How much would YOU pay for your favorite writer's new work in ebook form, if the hardback was around $20.00? How much for that computer manual that you want/need if it was in ebook vs. a $60.00 softcover?
Just my two cents.
DARK ICON
http://www.darkicon.com
http://www.infinitemultimedia.com