As I replied to whom you did, there's are horrible parents out there. The original truancy laws were written to protect kids from being sent to work at age 8 while depriving them of their free public education.
Independent study is a great idea...for those of us who have some degree of independence and drive. The kid in the article clearly does not.
And the parents are failing in their responsibility to have their kids attend school -- we put laws in place for this as original the parents were sending their kids to work at 8 years old in cotton mills.
The kids and parents DO have a choice according to TFA: wear a tracker or go to kiddie jail. We give this same choice to adults sometimes.
While it is big brother-esque, it's certainly no worse in that vein than being put in prison -- which is what's being done to all of them now.
...that kids guilty of nothing other than spending their own free time as they see fit
So if my 3 year old wants to eat ice cream all day, I suppose that's all right too?
I'm sorry, but as long as someone is being fed, clothed, housed, and raised by someone else, they ought to have some responsibilities to give back. As kids, we go to school so we'll be better off than our parents...or at least be able to afford kids ourselves. There are very few career paths that don't require HS any more.
After they leave their parent's house, let them smoke, hitch-hike, and die in Alaska for all I care;)
I recall a year ago or so borrow a Quadro 1300 from work (my video card bit the dust), and Civ4 and other games just sucked...until I force-installed the GeForce rather the the Quadro drivers for Windows.
Not only was it playable now, I could turn the resolution all the way up;)
Could just be a difference in the age of the drivers though. Quadro drivers are typically much more conservative performance-wise than GeForce ones and thus release changes much more slowly.
None of those are good ideas! While some are steps in the right direction, every one goes way too far even to what most would consider reasonable.
While books/music/etc still should probably have a lower copyright, I saw Roger Waters last night performing stuff he wrote for a band called Pink Floyd. I'm personally fine with his continuing to sell copies of his own work. Maybe life of the author + 10 years, renewable every 10 years?
As for software copyrights, 5 years is just silly. By now Windows XP would be in public domain. Nintendo also loves making quality games (Mario Kart/Smash Bros) at the beginning of a console's existence and then continuing to sell it rather than making a crappy sequel (cough Halo cough) just to sell more copies. Square also likes to resell its games, porting them to new consoles. If games are art, why can't they be copyrighted as such?
Out of print works go directly into the public domain Makes some sense...but printers usually do one printing and then wait to see if those sell. It can take a year or more for demand to accumulate enough to warrant printing a novel again.
No copyright can be held by a corporation. All copyrights are held by the works author or authors But what if a corporation made the work? I can't think of a single animated movie that wasn't.
Anyone caught abusing copyright like the record companies do and like Blizzard is doing here loses all copyrights they hold, and may not hold copyright for another five years You've got to be kidding.... No one would ever bring a copyright lawsuit ever for fear of losing everything. Unless you gave them all to your dog (since corps can't hold copyrights), and then that bitch brought them to court.
Certainly the way that new OS X features have made it onto the iPhone first suggest to me that if there are two separate pipes, Apple has figured a way to span them much better than Microsoft ever did with Windows CE.
Safari? Mail? All of these are common to both OSes. Oh. And if you're a hacker, it's possible to access the built-in bash shell.
such as having an OS that "could not operate" without an applications program (Explorer) installed I'm fairly certain he was being sarcastic -- but in all seriousness if a company takes a position from a legal standpoint, it forces them not to go in that direction for it would undermine their argument. In other words, if MS were to remove IE from Windows, it would undermine their anti-trust argument.
Without meaning to offend, you clearly are completely ignorant on the entire death spiral that led to Vista, grossly evident in the quote above. I fixed your mis-spelling;)
Since she gave her [correct] answer [to the Monty Hall Problem], Ms. vos Savant estimates she has received 10,000 letters, the great majority disagreeing with her. The most vehement criticism has come from mathematicians and scientists, who have alternated between gloating at her ("You are the goat!") and lamenting the nation's innumeracy.
Since some math PhDs got it wrong too, isn't it a bit disingenuous to claim its the psychologists are the issue as the article title states?
By now, most everyone is reviled by some attempt by George Lucas to destr^H^H^H develop his Star Wars franchise. But at least it was Lucas's to make and to break, as it were. Bolle has the distinct role of the parasite who takes on a piece of property for the sole purpose of making the worst possible film out of it.
If he wants to make his own terrible video or own terrible moving using only his ideas, I'd say more power to him.
You sound intelligent - I'm assuming that you're arguing hypotheticals, rather than actually being in favour of such an action by the US military on the US public?
There's some people who are opposed to distributing condoms to kids in public schools because they ought not to be having sex. There's another subset that's opposed to the sex part, realizes it's an unrealistic expectation for everyone.
So you're quite right. I'm generally opposed to the views of the military, but if they are going to speak, tis better to speak with a blog than a sword -- in all cases. And the case where they don't speak at all is simply unrealistic.
From another POV, how is a blog representing the military any different (or more harmful) than when Colin Powell or David Petraeus goes on Meet the Press?
I meant in my original comment Gandhi advocated propaganda as the ideal means of getting one's point across as opposed to other means -- he specifically imagined wars between countries being fought via propaganda. Militarys -- especially in a totalitarian state -- have tended to use force at home as well as abroad to get their point across. So to protest a military getting its point across domestically via propaganda is a bit disingenuous -- it IS in fact the ideal method of doing so.
Since you've seemed to misunderstand my point -- none of your arguments actually oppose it -- I'll restate it more simply in your "bullet point style". 1. Any kind of organization or person wants to have its point of view heard (individuals, branches of government, the military, etc). There exists advocacy organizations for judges, teachers, etc. or more drastically, have its paradigm enforced upon society. 2. Among the various means of expressing oneself, propaganda is the least bad option. I cited imprisonment as another means by which military orgs have chosen to let their POV be known and enforced. (Since you invoke Goering's famous testimony before the Nuremberg trials, I feel compelled to mention that concentration camps and fear were the means by which the German citizenry was kept in check -- their propaganda machine was so poor that all resistance (e.g. the White Rose) had to be crushed for it to be effective.)
Once again, I'm talking about using solely propaganda IN PLACE OF the bludgeon of the totalitarian state as the least bad means of an organization having its opinion expressed. And yes, to an earlier poster, Gandhi was talking about warfare itself between states, but I see nothing in his ideology except that propaganda should always be used in place of force.
All organizations want to express their opinions and traditionally the world's military orgs have sought such expression through coercive means. Adopting the means used by other groups (such as professional law associations) seems a step forward rather than a step backward.
While we think propaganda is bad, the alternative is almost always worse. Gandhi never thought we'd rid ourselves of conflict, but instead envisioned wars in his utopia being fought by "propaganda armies". In the same way, would we prefer the army to use propaganda on its own citizens to convince us of its message or perhaps we would prefer being thrown in a secret prison for descent? Also, would anyone really have a problem with this if said bloggers were clearly labeled rather than astro-turfing?
I would assume that, evolutionarily speaking, one strong criterion for a perspective mate is finding a partner to provide offspring with different genetic material. Since I assume facial characteristics are a result of genes, I'd assume that different people would find people attractive differently based on their own set of genes. To use a never-before-used analogy, finding the "best" woman is like finding the "best" wine for a given meal -- it all depends on what you're eating.
Out of curiosity, where/what industry do you work in? (I'd guess Houston. I'm assuming you're in Texas as well from your name and dropping Schlumberger and Oil and Gas -- not too common to say Boston or something)
While the scientific method allows us to make sense of phenomenon in the world, spirituality allows us to place said events in context. Science can tell you "You're dying of cancer" but isn't going to help you at all with the sorrow, grief, and anxiety that will no doubt induce. And we all take everything that happens to us to the office, whether we realize it or not.
In other words, while the metaphysical aspects of spirituality are almost inherently untestable (e.g. is there a God, what did my dream mean last night) their validity is both helpful and testable in that it yields positive experiences and enables one to deal with perceived negative experiences. I would also argue that unless motivated by greed the reason for being a scientist in the first place probably has a spiritual origin (and since science isn't a hugely lucrative field, I'd venture to say those in the greed category are nearly non-existent.)
(All of this is more or less paraphrased from the pioneering psychologist William James (1842-1910) so I'm sorry if this is all old hat)
I was standing in the 500 strong mob when the caucuses were supposed to open in Houston, but hadn't opened yet. They didn't open for 5 hours. The one thing I do know is the ratio didn't exactly change much, since from the beginning we were separated into groups depending on whom we were voting for. While waiting for the caucus to begin in the small public library, I asked a black woman in her 30's about her 7 year old pigtailed child sleeping in her lap: "She learning about democracy?"
"Elsewhere in the world, people walk for a day and stand in line for hours just to have a chance to vote. We're just spoiled. No one ever said change was easy" she replied.
Our ethnically and age diverse precinct (559) went 19-2 for Obama and the other precinct meeting in our library (620) went 25-7 Obama. The judge who was supposed to officiate the caucus is still MIA.
I think the thing that separates geekiness from mere education or intelligence is the pursuit of the interest beyond the mere realm of the professional -- I don't just use computers when I'm at work, and it sounds like your wife is involved in the arts beyond the workplace as well. I think it's this strident pursuit of an academic interest for its own sake rather than for its fruits makes one a geek.
'sides the art geeks have conventions too. Ever hear of burning man;)?
A girl I'm currently seeing met her ex-fiance online and we met at a Tori Amos concert -- she'd made an out loud comment about how the guitarist was creating both melody and harmony by looping what he'd just played. She'd gone by herself, since while both geeky, her then fiance always had a horrible time at any remotely social event, and really, she likes nothing more than moshing to a psychobilly band or seeing Tori.
My personal experiences have been similar -- a lot of people I meet online are nice enough, but outside of their computers, they feel paralyzed in social situations and seemingly have no desire to overcome that fear -- even in the most accepting crowds.
I would think given that most people on online dating sites are male, you'd actually have pretty good luck -- especially since so many are nerds.
But that's just me. Having used them myself, I honestly wish people would just talked to one another in real life more -- I feel like we've gotten to the to point where we go to the supermarket to buy food, blockbuster to get entertainment, and online to find dating and friends. The last vestige will become a service, and something will be lost, the idea that one can talk to someone random and establish a friendship or relationship with someone -- because we're out of the proper idiom and mindset.
Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that since it's over 12 billion light years away, it probably doesn't exist anymore. We are in fact looking at ancient history. It could have developed "intelligent" life and they in turn, could've blown it and themselves up in some sort of "ideological" dispute.
And in a few billion years, we'll get to watch it "live".
Slashdot Mirror
As I replied to whom you did, there's are horrible parents out there. The original truancy laws were written to protect kids from being sent to work at age 8 while depriving them of their free public education.
Independent study is a great idea...for those of us who have some degree of independence and drive. The kid in the article clearly does not.
And the parents are failing in their responsibility to have their kids attend school -- we put laws in place for this as original the parents were sending their kids to work at 8 years old in cotton mills.
The kids and parents DO have a choice according to TFA: wear a tracker or go to kiddie jail. We give this same choice to adults sometimes.
While it is big brother-esque, it's certainly no worse in that vein than being put in prison -- which is what's being done to all of them now.
...that kids guilty of nothing other than spending their own free time as they see fit
So if my 3 year old wants to eat ice cream all day, I suppose that's all right too?
I'm sorry, but as long as someone is being fed, clothed, housed, and raised by someone else, they ought to have some responsibilities to give back. As kids, we go to school so we'll be better off than our parents...or at least be able to afford kids ourselves. There are very few career paths that don't require HS any more.
After they leave their parent's house, let them smoke, hitch-hike, and die in Alaska for all I care;)
I recall a year ago or so borrow a Quadro 1300 from work (my video card bit the dust), and Civ4 and other games just sucked...until I force-installed the GeForce rather the the Quadro drivers for Windows.
Not only was it playable now, I could turn the resolution all the way up;)
Could just be a difference in the age of the drivers though. Quadro drivers are typically much more conservative performance-wise than GeForce ones and thus release changes much more slowly.
None of those are good ideas! While some are steps in the right direction, every one goes way too far even to what most would consider reasonable.
While books/music/etc still should probably have a lower copyright, I saw Roger Waters last night performing stuff he wrote for a band called Pink Floyd. I'm personally fine with his continuing to sell copies of his own work. Maybe life of the author + 10 years, renewable every 10 years?
As for software copyrights, 5 years is just silly. By now Windows XP would be in public domain. Nintendo also loves making quality games (Mario Kart/Smash Bros) at the beginning of a console's existence and then continuing to sell it rather than making a crappy sequel (cough Halo cough) just to sell more copies. Square also likes to resell its games, porting them to new consoles. If games are art, why can't they be copyrighted as such?
Out of print works go directly into the public domain
Makes some sense...but printers usually do one printing and then wait to see if those sell. It can take a year or more for demand to accumulate enough to warrant printing a novel again.
No copyright can be held by a corporation. All copyrights are held by the works author or authors
But what if a corporation made the work? I can't think of a single animated movie that wasn't.
Anyone caught abusing copyright like the record companies do and like Blizzard is doing here loses all copyrights they hold, and may not hold copyright for another five years
You've got to be kidding....
No one would ever bring a copyright lawsuit ever for fear of losing everything. Unless you gave them all to your dog (since corps can't hold copyrights), and then that bitch brought them to court.
I'm aware of no country in the industrialized world that turns away someone dying from a car accident simply because they have no means to pay.
Hospitals are supposed to have moral and ethical obligations higher than $.
Burying bodies in unmarked graves in the wilderness? Doesn't the mafia have some kind of patent on this technology?
Exactly;)
(I 3 xkcd! --factorial)
Certainly the way that new OS X features have made it onto the iPhone first suggest to me that if there are two separate pipes, Apple has figured a way to span them much better than Microsoft ever did with Windows CE.
Safari? Mail? All of these are common to both OSes. Oh. And if you're a hacker, it's possible to access the built-in bash shell.
such as having an OS that "could not operate" without an applications program (Explorer) installed
I'm fairly certain he was being sarcastic -- but in all seriousness if a company takes a position from a legal standpoint, it forces them not to go in that direction for it would undermine their argument. In other words, if MS were to remove IE from Windows, it would undermine their anti-trust argument.
Without meaning to offend, you clearly are completely ignorant on the entire death spiral that led to Vista, grossly evident in the quote above.
I fixed your mis-spelling;)
From an older article by the same author article:
Since she gave her [correct] answer [to the Monty Hall Problem], Ms. vos Savant estimates she has received 10,000 letters, the great majority disagreeing with her. The most vehement criticism has come from mathematicians and scientists, who have alternated between gloating at her ("You are the goat!") and lamenting the nation's innumeracy.
Since some math PhDs got it wrong too, isn't it a bit disingenuous to claim its the psychologists are the issue as the article title states?
By now, most everyone is reviled by some attempt by George Lucas to destr^H^H^H develop his Star Wars franchise. But at least it was Lucas's to make and to break, as it were. Bolle has the distinct role of the parasite who takes on a piece of property for the sole purpose of making the worst possible film out of it.
If he wants to make his own terrible video or own terrible moving using only his ideas, I'd say more power to him.
You sound intelligent - I'm assuming that you're arguing hypotheticals, rather than actually being in favour of such an action by the US military on the US public?
There's some people who are opposed to distributing condoms to kids in public schools because they ought not to be having sex. There's another subset that's opposed to the sex part, realizes it's an unrealistic expectation for everyone.
So you're quite right. I'm generally opposed to the views of the military, but if they are going to speak, tis better to speak with a blog than a sword -- in all cases. And the case where they don't speak at all is simply unrealistic.
From another POV, how is a blog representing the military any different (or more harmful) than when Colin Powell or David Petraeus goes on Meet the Press?
We're both correct;)
I meant in my original comment Gandhi advocated propaganda as the ideal means of getting one's point across as opposed to other means -- he specifically imagined wars between countries being fought via propaganda. Militarys -- especially in a totalitarian state -- have tended to use force at home as well as abroad to get their point across. So to protest a military getting its point across domestically via propaganda is a bit disingenuous -- it IS in fact the ideal method of doing so.
Since you've seemed to misunderstand my point -- none of your arguments actually oppose it -- I'll restate it more simply in your "bullet point style".
1. Any kind of organization or person wants to have its point of view heard (individuals, branches of government, the military, etc). There exists advocacy organizations for judges, teachers, etc. or more drastically, have its paradigm enforced upon society.
2. Among the various means of expressing oneself, propaganda is the least bad option. I cited imprisonment as another means by which military orgs have chosen to let their POV be known and enforced. (Since you invoke Goering's famous testimony before the Nuremberg trials, I feel compelled to mention that concentration camps and fear were the means by which the German citizenry was kept in check -- their propaganda machine was so poor that all resistance (e.g. the White Rose) had to be crushed for it to be effective.)
Once again, I'm talking about using solely propaganda IN PLACE OF the bludgeon of the totalitarian state as the least bad means of an organization having its opinion expressed. And yes, to an earlier poster, Gandhi was talking about warfare itself between states, but I see nothing in his ideology except that propaganda should always be used in place of force.
All organizations want to express their opinions and traditionally the world's military orgs have sought such expression through coercive means. Adopting the means used by other groups (such as professional law associations) seems a step forward rather than a step backward.
While we think propaganda is bad, the alternative is almost always worse. Gandhi never thought we'd rid ourselves of conflict, but instead envisioned wars in his utopia being fought by "propaganda armies". In the same way, would we prefer the army to use propaganda on its own citizens to convince us of its message or perhaps we would prefer being thrown in a secret prison for descent? Also, would anyone really have a problem with this if said bloggers were clearly labeled rather than astro-turfing?
I would assume that, evolutionarily speaking, one strong criterion for a perspective mate is finding a partner to provide offspring with different genetic material. Since I assume facial characteristics are a result of genes, I'd assume that different people would find people attractive differently based on their own set of genes. To use a never-before-used analogy, finding the "best" woman is like finding the "best" wine for a given meal -- it all depends on what you're eating.
Out of curiosity, where/what industry do you work in? (I'd guess Houston. I'm assuming you're in Texas as well from your name and dropping Schlumberger and Oil and Gas -- not too common to say Boston or something)
While the scientific method allows us to make sense of phenomenon in the world, spirituality allows us to place said events in context. Science can tell you "You're dying of cancer" but isn't going to help you at all with the sorrow, grief, and anxiety that will no doubt induce. And we all take everything that happens to us to the office, whether we realize it or not.
In other words, while the metaphysical aspects of spirituality are almost inherently untestable (e.g. is there a God, what did my dream mean last night) their validity is both helpful and testable in that it yields positive experiences and enables one to deal with perceived negative experiences. I would also argue that unless motivated by greed the reason for being a scientist in the first place probably has a spiritual origin (and since science isn't a hugely lucrative field, I'd venture to say those in the greed category are nearly non-existent.)
(All of this is more or less paraphrased from the pioneering psychologist William James (1842-1910) so I'm sorry if this is all old hat)
I was standing in the 500 strong mob when the caucuses were supposed to open in Houston, but hadn't opened yet. They didn't open for 5 hours. The one thing I do know is the ratio didn't exactly change much, since from the beginning we were separated into groups depending on whom we were voting for. While waiting for the caucus to begin in the small public library, I asked a black woman in her 30's about her 7 year old pigtailed child sleeping in her lap: "She learning about democracy?"
"Elsewhere in the world, people walk for a day and stand in line for hours just to have a chance to vote. We're just spoiled. No one ever said change was easy" she replied.
Our ethnically and age diverse precinct (559) went 19-2 for Obama and the other precinct meeting in our library (620) went 25-7 Obama. The judge who was supposed to officiate the caucus is still MIA.
Off to work for a fortune 500....
I think the thing that separates geekiness from mere education or intelligence is the pursuit of the interest beyond the mere realm of the professional -- I don't just use computers when I'm at work, and it sounds like your wife is involved in the arts beyond the workplace as well. I think it's this strident pursuit of an academic interest for its own sake rather than for its fruits makes one a geek.
'sides the art geeks have conventions too. Ever hear of burning man;)?
A girl I'm currently seeing met her ex-fiance online and we met at a Tori Amos concert -- she'd made an out loud comment about how the guitarist was creating both melody and harmony by looping what he'd just played. She'd gone by herself, since while both geeky, her then fiance always had a horrible time at any remotely social event, and really, she likes nothing more than moshing to a psychobilly band or seeing Tori.
My personal experiences have been similar -- a lot of people I meet online are nice enough, but outside of their computers, they feel paralyzed in social situations and seemingly have no desire to overcome that fear -- even in the most accepting crowds.
I would think given that most people on online dating sites are male, you'd actually have pretty good luck -- especially since so many are nerds.
But that's just me. Having used them myself, I honestly wish people would just talked to one another in real life more -- I feel like we've gotten to the to point where we go to the supermarket to buy food, blockbuster to get entertainment, and online to find dating and friends. The last vestige will become a service, and something will be lost, the idea that one can talk to someone random and establish a friendship or relationship with someone -- because we're out of the proper idiom and mindset.
May I humbly submit you're a tech geek and she's an art geek, but you're both nerds;)
I'm addicted to food!
Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that since it's over 12 billion light years away, it probably doesn't exist anymore. We are in fact looking at ancient history. It could have developed "intelligent" life and they in turn, could've blown it and themselves up in some sort of "ideological" dispute.
And in a few billion years, we'll get to watch it "live".