Are you out of your mind? The only one of those that has the slightest prayer of working is private school.... and even that will only provide an education to those who can afford it.
Argue all you like, there is a fundamental truism in Education. Those who can do, those who can't teach. The reason is simple, teaching doesn't pay shit. The related catch 22, which is that if you pay teachers more you'll attract some decent teachers but a lot of people who are just looking for job security and a nice salary, is also pretty much inescapable. Again, argue all you want, at this stage it's about what you believe about human nature.
So moving on, if the basic problem is that teachers (as a whole, there are of course individual exceptions) are some of the least qualified people in their fields. We are confronted with the problem of how to get good teachers into the classroom while introducing a minimum number of disinterested individuals. Let's examine how the three methods you advocate do that.
Private Schools -- Have the option of paying more, but frequently don't. They do have the advantage of being more or less immune to the completely insane federal regulations (such as No Child Left Behind) and therefore able to operate within the bounds of reality, but will ultimately fail the American People because we need to educate more than just the children of the wealthy. Higher scores? Of course, most standardized test scores can be expressed as a function of socio-economic status
Home schools -- Again, a problem of who can get into it. Most American families require two incomes to survive, and that's not addressing those with only one parent. How can you home school these kids?
Community Schools -- Here you encounter many of the same problems as public schools (in terms of teacher pay and regulations). This isn't solving the problem, it's shifting it off onto a community with fewer resources less able to deal with the it.
So what can we do? Well a big part of the problem is funding. Michigan has boosted test scores through the roof by socializing their education across the state. No longer is the funding of a school tied to the taxes generated locally, rather all those taxes are thrown together and applied to all schools across the state. The result is the application of funds where they are needed the most.
Another part remains the ability to attract good teachers to bad areas. Wealthy school districts with well behaved kids and lots of resources will never have problems attracting teachers. Ask at your local college's education school... most of the applications go to the ritzy 'burbs. So how do you get teachers into the inner city? The rural backwoods areas? You pay them for it of course, and you pay them in the best way possible.... student loans. Granting temporary licensure to BA and BS holders to teach for three years is fairly easy to do in most states (No Child Left Behind will make it all but impossible). Let these young graduates teach the next generation, let them emerge from those disadvantaged schools debt free and able to enter the professional world with solid experiance and confidance. The forgiveness of tens of thousands in debt will draw graduates to these jobs like nothing else and will allow these underfunded schools some of the nations brightest minds, if only for a few years.
What we're doing now doesn't work. You're right, we need real change, but not the kind of change that only benefits the few. Public education must benefit all. Should we fail even a few, we have failed the community as a whole. Education is the silver bullet. Crime? Hunger? Even longevity is beneficially affected by education. We don't need "No Child Left Behind" or school vouchers, we need to actually leave no children behind, and we need to do it be strengthening the public schools.
As someone who's spent some time in Tokyo I can answer a number of your questions.
1 - The average height of a Japanese male is about 5'4" in contrast to the average western male at 5'10". This is largely due to the still conspicuous absence of dairy in the Japanese diet.
2 - Japanese really don't distinguish between "r" and "l". I'm not sure why this is, but they pronounce English as "Engrish" and Groceries as "Glocelies." It's not really a sterotype if its true.
3 - Japanese food looks like toes. To the average westerner Japanese food is frightening. Raw fish, strange vegetables in stews, unususal sea dwelling creatures prepared in such a way as to show off their oddities. Westerners are used to their food coming shrink wrapped and packaged in such a way as to be un-identifiable. We then cook it until it's burnt and let it wallow in sauces. The Japanese prefer foods to be easily identifiable as to where they came from. Hence it is common practice to serve, say, calamari (squid) whole and steamed. The Japanese also utilize more raw foods in their diet, ranging from fish to eggs.
4 - Five star hotels in tokyo w/ shower heads below 7 feet? More than you'd expect. Hotels in Tokyo are divided into two categories "western" hotels (typicaly themed), and Japanese hotels. Western hotels will genrealy conform to a theme park atmosphere ("wild west" or "hollywood" are both popular themes) and have a resort feel to them. Some more buisnesslike hotels may maintain western facilities without these gimics. In these hotels you will genrealy find showerheads above 7 feet. Japanese hotels don't do this. They will maintain traditional japanese facilities (beds 6 feet in length, traditional restrooms, etc). In such a place you're lucky if the shower head breaks 5 feet (I had to shower on my knees).
The film is designed to highlight the experiance of culture shock.
A lot. Of course, if you want to split hairs those weren't sold. They were given. The US has an appreciable portion of its nuclear arsonal in the hands of alies, on bases run by alies, and under the launch athority of alies. That was the entire point of the MLF (multilateral force)... and was implemented to a greater or lesser extent in the 1960s.
Then there's the nuclear capability of Israel.... can't imagine where that came from.
So the total is in the thousands of warheads. Any other questions?
Yes, spell check is my friend. I'm usually not motivated enough to use it on/.
My spelling is largely to blame on a neurological condition brought about by three years of intensive chemotherapy as a child. You're not being an ass about it... unlike some others who have chosen to remain unnamed.
Speaking as an alum, the peice of paper hanging on my wall carries with it the prestige and reputation of the University I attended. That prestige is derived from the quality of students that university graduates, and in my case, the broad knoledge base graduates demonstrate. That broad knoledge base is in large part a result of those Gen Ed Requirements you speak so poorly of.
When students cheat and dodge assignments, they diminish the intelectual level of graduates my University produces. They also diminish the moral character of the pool of graduates. In short, my degree is rendered less valuable by the actions of students years down the road who are too short signted to appreciate the benefits of an education.
I don't think it's right to force the students to submit their papers to an automated system to check for plagirism themselves, it just seems rude. I do think students should be required to submit electronic versions of their papers to professors at all times, and that the professors should be strongly encouraged to use electronic tests for plagerism.
So for example, the invention of the dual head hard drive predating the TiVo allows for the storing (recording) of one file in the background while reading another file from the disk?
Just because you're piping the output to a TV and taking the download from a coaxial cable doesn't change what you're doing.
Of course, given that DirecTV (EchoStar's major competition in the DBS market) has a relationship with TiVo, this raises some other interesting questions as well.
I don't think TiVo has a leg to stand on here. The fact of the matter is that there are dozens of instances of TiVos technology in other mediums (though not in the same box). There are also hundreds of other system out there that do the same thing. It might be worth noting that EchoStar isn't the only (invalid) patent infringer, nor have they been for some time.
That's the great part about having all your printer's brains in the ink cartridge. You can just swap out a new cartridge for an old one and send the old one back to the factory......
It does have DVI. It should also be available with the Dish Network "HD In a Box" promo when available. Currently that promo gives you a 34 or 40 inch HD TV with a 811 receiver (HD, no DVR, single tuner) for $999. Not a bad price, the TV is pretty sweet.
Much as I'd like to blame the evil companies for this one, we can't.
DVR is the heart and soul of the DBS industry. It's the only weapon they have to fight the higher bandwidth and better security the physical infrastructure cable uses can offer.
Neither Dish nor Direc wants to knuckle under to the broadcast flag, but it's the law and they can't exactly break it at will.
We'll see how this plays out, but the new regulations on this are a hammer blow to the integration of the DVR into the standard home theater. The entire satelite industry hinges on that integration.
Boycotting will only serve to benefit those you oppose.
The combination of literaly millions of factors that make the particular lump of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other trace elements you refer to "Will Smith" is infinitely complex.
Yet the one element you see making the decision, the only possible reason he'd be cast is because his skin is a few shades darker than yours.
It couldn't possibly be because he happens to be a fairly popular actor with a group of people who've probably never read Asimov's books.
It couldn't possibly be because he does have some talent as an actor.
It couldn't possibly be because he brings a big name to the screen.
Do you honestly belive that the only reason, the sole purpose of casting Will Smith for this roll, was the color of his skin? If that's the case, why not go out and cast some black kid fresh out of drama school? Clearly tallent doesn't matter.
It's not about racial issues. It's a casting call. No one thinks it's going to change the world. Get over yourself.
Uhhhh.... so he should move inland and purchase thousands of slaves, brutalize these people and eventualy act as a political force to start a rebellion against the government of the United States?
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just completely clueless. I'll assume it's the latter.
1.) LOTR is not set upon this earth. It is set in a world similar to ours in many ways. Nonetheless, the telltale absence of well... pretty much everything in LOTR except Humans would be an excelent indication that Tolkin intended his world to be seperate from ours in its history.
2.) The Gandalf/Eagle comment is almost below responding to, but here ya go. Three reasons, first because Mordor is infested with all kinds of creapy crawlies, some of them capable of flight (did you watch the 2nd movie?). This would hamper matters. Secondly, because Gandalf would be corrupted by the ring. Thirdly because this would remove one of the fundamental points of the book/movie. To paralell, why couldn't the Rebels simply carpet nuke the death star into scrap? What... they have light speed travel but no nuclear weapons?
You're basicly objecting to plot holes present in what is universaly reguarded as one of the greatest peices of literature created in the modern age. Perhaps you should lower your standards just a little.
This would probably require an pretty decent upgrade to a lot of mail servers... but...
Keep a hash value on the server of the last, say, 10,000 messages sent. If the message you're sending comes within a specific degree of tolerance of one of the backlog messages your message is tagged and held for human review. If the message is deamed to be spam appropriate legal steps are taken.
Obviously this would result is a shitload of work for mail admins at first (though most of it could be taken care of en masse). In the long run it might make a difference.
Hardware constraints are the real problem right now.
Yea.... but 25 years ago people were looking towards the future with hopes and dreams of what was to come. Those hopes and dreams catalized a wave of innovation and groundbreaking technical strides, making much of the technology we see today. Many of them were wrong about what was going to change, but none of them were wrong when they said that there would be changes.
Of course you can't know what the future will bring. Not specificly anyway. We can not it will bring new ideas, new technologies, and new hope for us all.
Except the UN hasn't been searching since we took the country. To paralell your statement.
Imagine I had, for practical reasons an unlimited amount of money to hide something in CA.
So it would take you X time to find it, while I'm still running CA and shooting at you.
After you've droped tons of high expolsives on on the citizens of California, ousted me from power (and elected an Austrian body builder?) and taken military possession of the state... how long would it take then? Probably a whole lot less time than X.
Bush can't declare war. That takes an act of Congress.
Saddam is one guy. He's about 3 cubic feet in volume and requires a supply of water and glucose (with trace elements) to be kept alive.
Weapons of Mass Destruction, at least in any useable form, are row after row after row of chemical/biological shells. Along with that comes storage and production facilities and other infrastructure. Volume of this material measures in the cubic kilometers (when taken as a whole).
Which one do -=you=- think is easier to hide. You assert that it's taken time X to find Saddam. I assert that time Y (the time it takes to find existing WMD and associated infrastructure) is at LEAST an order of magnitude less than X.
Seriously. One guys VS the chemical/biological/nuclear arsonal of one of the worlds most powerfull armies (I think Iraq ranked in the top 15 before 1991).
We're talking illegal here in the sence of against international law. Under US law Bush does have the right to commit troops for..... I think it's 90 days.... without congressional approval.
Illegal isn't really the right word here. There's really not a word for it. We're talking about declared v. undeclared war. Morals and ethics enter into it as well. Strange stuff.
No no no. While Stalin did have a huge number of Russians killed or sent to Siberia to count trees, the Ukranians who died as a result of the 5 year plans were economic casualties.
It worked like this. In a desperate attempt to get the USSR's industry up to the Western level Stalin went on an industrial kick. He burned uncountable amounts of "hard currency" (Soviet-speak for western currency) on western industrial machinery, equipment, and facilities. He needed more of this stuff than he could pay for though, so he set quotas for grain production. This grain was then sold abroad to generate more hard currency to pay for the machinery.
This was a great idea until the harvest in the Ukraine came up short.
Stalin ordered the Red Army into the Ukraine to confiscate the personal foodstuffs of the Ukrainian pessants. He also took from them the seed stock for the next year's crop. The result was a famine in the Ukraine. With Stalin unwilling to stop selling grain abroad there wasn't enough to feed the Ukrainians.
All totaled, some 30 million died during this period. Most of them were to illiterate and poorly informed to have a political opinion one way or another.
The War is illegal, not because the US invaded a soverign state on the justification that there was the possibility of a chance of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.
Further, your argument on WMD is excessively vapid. Just because we haven't found the WMD doesn't mean they don't exist. Therefore the war is not based on unfounded accusations and improperly motivated?
Great! So when Bush invades Madagasgar or possibly The Vatican City looking for Nuclear Weapons we'll say "well he hasn't found them yet, but they must be there?" At some point you have to break from the political claptrap the administration feeds you and start thinking for yourself.
When you've been in possession of a country for months at a time and you've had thousands of people to search it with the co-operation of most of the people in that country, how hard should it be to find anything? We're not gonna find WMD in Iraq. And if they turn up after all this time I'd be more inclined to go into tin-foil hat mode and accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence then I would belive that we were so incompitant as to be unable to locate them up to now.
That, and by all reports and estimates of Saddam's state of mind he'd have used those weapons if he'd had them when we marched on Baghdad.
The United States Supreme Court doesn't think so. The case United States v. Wong-Wing is explicit and clear in the idea that non-citizens are still protected by the US Constitution.
The Geneva Convention(s), apply only to POWs and other captives taken during a war. Incidently, the United States has failed to declare war, both on Iraq and on Afghanistan. Conseuently, it is anyone's guess as to weather or not Geneva applies. Further, the United States has used this technicality to justify the conditions at Gitmo (i.e. since Geneve doesn't apply we don't have to meet Geneva standards for prisioner treatment).
It's not a troll. It's humor you don't agree with. That's ok and you're entitled to your opinion.
Obviously not everyone who disagrees with Pres. Bush is getting tossed into Gitmo, and it would be both an extension of the point and a fundamental fallacy to say so.
Which is why it's funny to say so:)
At the same time, when you lock people up for an indeterminate amount of time, deny them the right to seek legal counsel, and hold all hearings pertaining to their "crime" in secret.... you risk looking like you're running a police state.
Is Gitmo full of political prisoners of the Bush Administration? Of course not. Are most of the people there terrorists and other dangerous folk? Probably. Are we all safer and more secure with those people behind bars (or barbed wire as the case may be)? Definitely.
But are there also some people there who were wrongly imprisoned, who didn't do anything, and who are being denied their Constitutionally Protected rights to trial by jury, legal advice, and habeas corpus? Almost certainly.
In my mind, that single fact (or if you prefer, possibility) counters every possible argument, every possible benefit, and every considerable merit for keeping prisoners in the Gitmo facility and trying their cases in secret. These people have a right to defend themselves in a court of law in full view of the public. If we take that away how can we really say we're fighting to defend freedom anymore? How can we really say we're championing anything other than oppression and totalitarian rule?
Let these cases stand on their own merit. If the government has proof than let it be seen. Too many American lives have been sacrificed on the alter of freedom, too many of our nation's sons have died to hoist the banner of liberty, too many fathers have been cut down fighting a war for justice to throw away the values we hold so dear at this moment of crisis.
I could have posted all that, but I was going for the +5 funny. You people have no since of humor:)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you out of your mind? The only one of those that has the slightest prayer of working is private school.... and even that will only provide an education to those who can afford it.
Argue all you like, there is a fundamental truism in Education. Those who can do, those who can't teach. The reason is simple, teaching doesn't pay shit. The related catch 22, which is that if you pay teachers more you'll attract some decent teachers but a lot of people who are just looking for job security and a nice salary, is also pretty much inescapable. Again, argue all you want, at this stage it's about what you believe about human nature.
So moving on, if the basic problem is that teachers (as a whole, there are of course individual exceptions) are some of the least qualified people in their fields. We are confronted with the problem of how to get good teachers into the classroom while introducing a minimum number of disinterested individuals. Let's examine how the three methods you advocate do that.
Private Schools -- Have the option of paying more, but frequently don't. They do have the advantage of being more or less immune to the completely insane federal regulations (such as No Child Left Behind) and therefore able to operate within the bounds of reality, but will ultimately fail the American People because we need to educate more than just the children of the wealthy. Higher scores? Of course, most standardized test scores can be expressed as a function of socio-economic status
Home schools -- Again, a problem of who can get into it. Most American families require two incomes to survive, and that's not addressing those with only one parent. How can you home school these kids?
Community Schools -- Here you encounter many of the same problems as public schools (in terms of teacher pay and regulations). This isn't solving the problem, it's shifting it off onto a community with fewer resources less able to deal with the it.
So what can we do? Well a big part of the problem is funding. Michigan has boosted test scores through the roof by socializing their education across the state. No longer is the funding of a school tied to the taxes generated locally, rather all those taxes are thrown together and applied to all schools across the state. The result is the application of funds where they are needed the most.
Another part remains the ability to attract good teachers to bad areas. Wealthy school districts with well behaved kids and lots of resources will never have problems attracting teachers. Ask at your local college's education school... most of the applications go to the ritzy 'burbs. So how do you get teachers into the inner city? The rural backwoods areas? You pay them for it of course, and you pay them in the best way possible.... student loans. Granting temporary licensure to BA and BS holders to teach for three years is fairly easy to do in most states (No Child Left Behind will make it all but impossible). Let these young graduates teach the next generation, let them emerge from those disadvantaged schools debt free and able to enter the professional world with solid experiance and confidance. The forgiveness of tens of thousands in debt will draw graduates to these jobs like nothing else and will allow these underfunded schools some of the nations brightest minds, if only for a few years.
What we're doing now doesn't work. You're right, we need real change, but not the kind of change that only benefits the few. Public education must benefit all. Should we fail even a few, we have failed the community as a whole. Education is the silver bullet. Crime? Hunger? Even longevity is beneficially affected by education. We don't need "No Child Left Behind" or school vouchers, we need to actually leave no children behind, and we need to do it be strengthening the public schools.
As someone who's spent some time in Tokyo I can answer a number of your questions.
1 - The average height of a Japanese male is about 5'4" in contrast to the average western male at 5'10". This is largely due to the still conspicuous absence of dairy in the Japanese diet.
2 - Japanese really don't distinguish between "r" and "l". I'm not sure why this is, but they pronounce English as "Engrish" and Groceries as "Glocelies." It's not really a sterotype if its true.
3 - Japanese food looks like toes. To the average westerner Japanese food is frightening. Raw fish, strange vegetables in stews, unususal sea dwelling creatures prepared in such a way as to show off their oddities. Westerners are used to their food coming shrink wrapped and packaged in such a way as to be un-identifiable. We then cook it until it's burnt and let it wallow in sauces. The Japanese prefer foods to be easily identifiable as to where they came from. Hence it is common practice to serve, say, calamari (squid) whole and steamed. The Japanese also utilize more raw foods in their diet, ranging from fish to eggs.
4 - Five star hotels in tokyo w/ shower heads below 7 feet? More than you'd expect. Hotels in Tokyo are divided into two categories "western" hotels (typicaly themed), and Japanese hotels. Western hotels will genrealy conform to a theme park atmosphere ("wild west" or "hollywood" are both popular themes) and have a resort feel to them. Some more buisnesslike hotels may maintain western facilities without these gimics. In these hotels you will genrealy find showerheads above 7 feet. Japanese hotels don't do this. They will maintain traditional japanese facilities (beds 6 feet in length, traditional restrooms, etc). In such a place you're lucky if the shower head breaks 5 feet (I had to shower on my knees).
The film is designed to highlight the experiance of culture shock.
Excelent point. I see no reason why these people should be sent to prision where they'll eat, sleep, and watch TV on my dime.
No, there are much better options.
1.) Community service -- 1 hour per message
2.) Ban from all computing resources -- 1 day per message
3.) Fine -- $1 per message
That should do it.
A lot. Of course, if you want to split hairs those weren't sold. They were given. The US has an appreciable portion of its nuclear arsonal in the hands of alies, on bases run by alies, and under the launch athority of alies. That was the entire point of the MLF (multilateral force)... and was implemented to a greater or lesser extent in the 1960s.
Then there's the nuclear capability of Israel.... can't imagine where that came from.
So the total is in the thousands of warheads. Any other questions?
Yes, spell check is my friend. I'm usually not motivated enough to use it on /.
My spelling is largely to blame on a neurological condition brought about by three years of intensive chemotherapy as a child. You're not being an ass about it... unlike some others who have chosen to remain unnamed.
Speaking as an alum, the peice of paper hanging on my wall carries with it the prestige and reputation of the University I attended. That prestige is derived from the quality of students that university graduates, and in my case, the broad knoledge base graduates demonstrate. That broad knoledge base is in large part a result of those Gen Ed Requirements you speak so poorly of.
When students cheat and dodge assignments, they diminish the intelectual level of graduates my University produces. They also diminish the moral character of the pool of graduates. In short, my degree is rendered less valuable by the actions of students years down the road who are too short signted to appreciate the benefits of an education.
I don't think it's right to force the students to submit their papers to an automated system to check for plagirism themselves, it just seems rude. I do think students should be required to submit electronic versions of their papers to professors at all times, and that the professors should be strongly encouraged to use electronic tests for plagerism.
So for example, the invention of the dual head hard drive predating the TiVo allows for the storing (recording) of one file in the background while reading another file from the disk?
Just because you're piping the output to a TV and taking the download from a coaxial cable doesn't change what you're doing.
Of course, given that DirecTV (EchoStar's major competition in the DBS market) has a relationship with TiVo, this raises some other interesting questions as well.
I don't think TiVo has a leg to stand on here. The fact of the matter is that there are dozens of instances of TiVos technology in other mediums (though not in the same box). There are also hundreds of other system out there that do the same thing. It might be worth noting that EchoStar isn't the only (invalid) patent infringer, nor have they been for some time.
That's the great part about having all your printer's brains in the ink cartridge. You can just swap out a new cartridge for an old one and send the old one back to the factory......
Or not.....
It does have DVI. It should also be available with the Dish Network "HD In a Box" promo when available. Currently that promo gives you a 34 or 40 inch HD TV with a 811 receiver (HD, no DVR, single tuner) for $999. Not a bad price, the TV is pretty sweet.
Much as I'd like to blame the evil companies for this one, we can't.
DVR is the heart and soul of the DBS industry. It's the only weapon they have to fight the higher bandwidth and better security the physical infrastructure cable uses can offer.
Neither Dish nor Direc wants to knuckle under to the broadcast flag, but it's the law and they can't exactly break it at will.
We'll see how this plays out, but the new regulations on this are a hammer blow to the integration of the DVR into the standard home theater. The entire satelite industry hinges on that integration.
Boycotting will only serve to benefit those you oppose.
This is crazed.
The combination of literaly millions of factors that make the particular lump of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other trace elements you refer to "Will Smith" is infinitely complex.
Yet the one element you see making the decision, the only possible reason he'd be cast is because his skin is a few shades darker than yours.
It couldn't possibly be because he happens to be a fairly popular actor with a group of people who've probably never read Asimov's books.
It couldn't possibly be because he does have some talent as an actor.
It couldn't possibly be because he brings a big name to the screen.
Do you honestly belive that the only reason, the sole purpose of casting Will Smith for this roll, was the color of his skin? If that's the case, why not go out and cast some black kid fresh out of drama school? Clearly tallent doesn't matter.
It's not about racial issues. It's a casting call. No one thinks it's going to change the world. Get over yourself.
Uhhhh.... so he should move inland and purchase thousands of slaves, brutalize these people and eventualy act as a political force to start a rebellion against the government of the United States?
I'm not seeing that working out for him....
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just completely clueless. I'll assume it's the latter.
1.) LOTR is not set upon this earth. It is set in a world similar to ours in many ways. Nonetheless, the telltale absence of well... pretty much everything in LOTR except Humans would be an excelent indication that Tolkin intended his world to be seperate from ours in its history.
2.) The Gandalf/Eagle comment is almost below responding to, but here ya go. Three reasons, first because Mordor is infested with all kinds of creapy crawlies, some of them capable of flight (did you watch the 2nd movie?). This would hamper matters. Secondly, because Gandalf would be corrupted by the ring. Thirdly because this would remove one of the fundamental points of the book/movie. To paralell, why couldn't the Rebels simply carpet nuke the death star into scrap? What... they have light speed travel but no nuclear weapons?
You're basicly objecting to plot holes present in what is universaly reguarded as one of the greatest peices of literature created in the modern age. Perhaps you should lower your standards just a little.
This would probably require an pretty decent upgrade to a lot of mail servers... but...
Keep a hash value on the server of the last, say, 10,000 messages sent. If the message you're sending comes within a specific degree of tolerance of one of the backlog messages your message is tagged and held for human review. If the message is deamed to be spam appropriate legal steps are taken.
Obviously this would result is a shitload of work for mail admins at first (though most of it could be taken care of en masse). In the long run it might make a difference.
Hardware constraints are the real problem right now.
Yea.... but 25 years ago people were looking towards the future with hopes and dreams of what was to come. Those hopes and dreams catalized a wave of innovation and groundbreaking technical strides, making much of the technology we see today. Many of them were wrong about what was going to change, but none of them were wrong when they said that there would be changes.
Of course you can't know what the future will bring. Not specificly anyway. We can not it will bring new ideas, new technologies, and new hope for us all.
Except the UN hasn't been searching since we took the country. To paralell your statement.
Imagine I had, for practical reasons an unlimited amount of money to hide something in CA.
So it would take you X time to find it, while I'm still running CA and shooting at you.
After you've droped tons of high expolsives on on the citizens of California, ousted me from power (and elected an Austrian body builder?) and taken military possession of the state... how long would it take then? Probably a whole lot less time than X.
Mobile labs? You mean these mobile labs?
Sorry... no WMD there. Try again?
Bush can't declare war. That takes an act of Congress.
Saddam is one guy. He's about 3 cubic feet in volume and requires a supply of water and glucose (with trace elements) to be kept alive.
Weapons of Mass Destruction, at least in any useable form, are row after row after row of chemical/biological shells. Along with that comes storage and production facilities and other infrastructure. Volume of this material measures in the cubic kilometers (when taken as a whole).
Which one do -=you=- think is easier to hide. You assert that it's taken time X to find Saddam. I assert that time Y (the time it takes to find existing WMD and associated infrastructure) is at LEAST an order of magnitude less than X.
Seriously. One guys VS the chemical/biological/nuclear arsonal of one of the worlds most powerfull armies (I think Iraq ranked in the top 15 before 1991).
We're talking illegal here in the sence of against international law. Under US law Bush does have the right to commit troops for..... I think it's 90 days.... without congressional approval.
Illegal isn't really the right word here. There's really not a word for it. We're talking about declared v. undeclared war. Morals and ethics enter into it as well. Strange stuff.
No no no. While Stalin did have a huge number of Russians killed or sent to Siberia to count trees, the Ukranians who died as a result of the 5 year plans were economic casualties.
It worked like this. In a desperate attempt to get the USSR's industry up to the Western level Stalin went on an industrial kick. He burned uncountable amounts of "hard currency" (Soviet-speak for western currency) on western industrial machinery, equipment, and facilities. He needed more of this stuff than he could pay for though, so he set quotas for grain production. This grain was then sold abroad to generate more hard currency to pay for the machinery.
This was a great idea until the harvest in the Ukraine came up short.
Stalin ordered the Red Army into the Ukraine to confiscate the personal foodstuffs of the Ukrainian pessants. He also took from them the seed stock for the next year's crop. The result was a famine in the Ukraine. With Stalin unwilling to stop selling grain abroad there wasn't enough to feed the Ukrainians.
All totaled, some 30 million died during this period. Most of them were to illiterate and poorly informed to have a political opinion one way or another.
What are you talking about?
The War is illegal, not because the US invaded a soverign state on the justification that there was the possibility of a chance of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.
Further, your argument on WMD is excessively vapid. Just because we haven't found the WMD doesn't mean they don't exist. Therefore the war is not based on unfounded accusations and improperly motivated?
Great! So when Bush invades Madagasgar or possibly The Vatican City looking for Nuclear Weapons we'll say "well he hasn't found them yet, but they must be there?" At some point you have to break from the political claptrap the administration feeds you and start thinking for yourself.
When you've been in possession of a country for months at a time and you've had thousands of people to search it with the co-operation of most of the people in that country, how hard should it be to find anything? We're not gonna find WMD in Iraq. And if they turn up after all this time I'd be more inclined to go into tin-foil hat mode and accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence then I would belive that we were so incompitant as to be unable to locate them up to now.
That, and by all reports and estimates of Saddam's state of mind he'd have used those weapons if he'd had them when we marched on Baghdad.
The United States Supreme Court doesn't think so. The case United States v. Wong-Wing is explicit and clear in the idea that non-citizens are still protected by the US Constitution.
The Geneva Convention(s), apply only to POWs and other captives taken during a war. Incidently, the United States has failed to declare war, both on Iraq and on Afghanistan. Conseuently, it is anyone's guess as to weather or not Geneva applies. Further, the United States has used this technicality to justify the conditions at Gitmo (i.e. since Geneve doesn't apply we don't have to meet Geneva standards for prisioner treatment).
It's not a troll. It's humor you don't agree with. That's ok and you're entitled to your opinion.
:)
:)
Obviously not everyone who disagrees with Pres. Bush is getting tossed into Gitmo, and it would be both an extension of the point and a fundamental fallacy to say so.
Which is why it's funny to say so
At the same time, when you lock people up for an indeterminate amount of time, deny them the right to seek legal counsel, and hold all hearings pertaining to their "crime" in secret.... you risk looking like you're running a police state.
Is Gitmo full of political prisoners of the Bush Administration? Of course not. Are most of the people there terrorists and other dangerous folk? Probably. Are we all safer and more secure with those people behind bars (or barbed wire as the case may be)? Definitely.
But are there also some people there who were wrongly imprisoned, who didn't do anything, and who are being denied their Constitutionally Protected rights to trial by jury, legal advice, and habeas corpus? Almost certainly.
In my mind, that single fact (or if you prefer, possibility) counters every possible argument, every possible benefit, and every considerable merit for keeping prisoners in the Gitmo facility and trying their cases in secret. These people have a right to defend themselves in a court of law in full view of the public. If we take that away how can we really say we're fighting to defend freedom anymore? How can we really say we're championing anything other than oppression and totalitarian rule?
Let these cases stand on their own merit. If the government has proof than let it be seen. Too many American lives have been sacrificed on the alter of freedom, too many of our nation's sons have died to hoist the banner of liberty, too many fathers have been cut down fighting a war for justice to throw away the values we hold so dear at this moment of crisis.
I could have posted all that, but I was going for the +5 funny. You people have no since of humor
Well I'm not really commiting a crime in the USA.
See... I'm just "disagreeing with the administration"
Not "disagreeing with the administration while being Muslim/Arabic."
One of those will get you a ticket to Cuba.
There's a difference.