No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion), which means, eventually, no country
The US Constitution has a prohibition on funding an army for more than two years. ("Congress may tax...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" Article 1, Section 8.)
The Founders had no intention of there being a permanent central military, and indeed, there really wasn't one until the latter part of the 19th century (how they get around what is clearly a pretty clear prohibition is a bit mysterious to me.) Our system of national defense was always supposed to be through the independent state militians (however, that same section does allow for Congress to set up the rules for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" which implies a way of standardizing them for the time when they need to be combined into a federal army.)
A navy, on the other hand, was permitted to be permanent.
I might have been looking for self-congratulate, as that seems logical and part of the same rhythym. I might have also meant self-fellate, but I'm not sure if I was going that dirty.
You mean they aren't already doing this internally? If not... what the hell are they doing all day?
According to the article...
Universally, companies say they won't hire former virus writers, and they follow gentleman's agreements to share discovery of dangerous programs with each other
Which in my mind means that they are basically self-flaggelating each other. No particular surprise there, companies in other security industries have similar issues of arrogance regarding what they do, their processes and products.
It would imply to me that the industry will continue thinking of one mind, and the result are products that are all competitively mediocre in about the same way.
For the prosecutors and the police, the hard part becomes turning their way of thinking around and going "how can we prove this guy isn't guilty?"
Which they typically don't have to worry about. In the adversarial legal system, as used in the US, a guilty plea ends the controversy that the court was set to settle, and then the sentencing phase begins. (In a civil law legal system, the admission of guilt is an interesting fact, but doesn't end the case.)
However, in cases in which the death penalty is possible, a jury has to hear the case, so a jury might end up hearing this case.
Besides, I think that the county prosecutor is very interested in making sure that the right person is found, and is unlikely to take a guilty plea in this case.
The two sites take a different approach to things. I like to say that Facebook is better when you already have friends, and are using it to foster closer relationships. Myspace is better when you're trying to make friends.
I'm a bit more wary of Facebook though, it will sell your data to the highest bidder, whereas Myspace has a slightly higher regard for its users privacy.
I both agree and disagree with you. I agree because such a concept would be unwieldly for the reasons you mentioned, but would, nevertheless, offer an interesting check and balance.
Let's make a simpler solution...how about a law (easy enough to make at the state level) that requires the disclosure of the amount of times a lawmaker has voted for a bill which was later deemed unconstitutional...right on the ballot next to his name?
I'd like to add a personal idea to this (requiring that the amount of money spent on campaigning is added to the ballot as well) so that an incumbent's name on the ballot looks like:
For State Assembly, District 6
John Smith, Incumbent (Party) Campaign funds spent as of 11/1/0x--$1,095,457 Voted for unconstitional legislation--2 times since 2004
So we know that Diebold is capable of producing secure ATM systems
This is a claim, incidentally, that has been made many times, but not substantiated. The banking industry is surprisingly clueless when it comes to security issues, and I don't think it's a safe assumption that Diebold makes ATMs which are significantly more secure.
I suspect that ATMs simply haven't undergone the level of attention that voting machines have.
The only states where their people would feel they have something to gain would be those that are consistantly "too close to call".
As an Ohioan, I'd say that such a system would not be to my/our advantage. Ohio's electoral power comes not just from its size but its swing-state status. We have several times the power that we would have if our electoral votes were split in some way.
My one vote is equal to several California votes. Isn't that a great way of saying fuck you?
The more efficiencies that you put in the market the less you cycle the money
Taking that to an ad absurdum point would imply that we'd be best off with everyone being a middleman. Clearly, that's not the case.
Productivity gains allow for resources to be freed for other purposes. The person saving $50 per month because of efficiencies at the grocery store can now get a massage at their local massotherapist. For the money multiplier to go down when efficiencies become greater would require the assumption that the checkout person can't work another job (which is not necessarily right or wrong--the change from an industrial economy to a service based one has been very ugly for some people.)
The competing public and private electricity grids was not a feature of deregulation, but a result of progressive era (1900-1940) reforms which were a result of people not feeling comfortable with private companies making profits off of essential utilities. If I were to take a bet, the private companies put their grids in first, and then the city added their competing grid at a later point in time. (I might add that the city utility has been a money loser recently and that city taxpayers have bailed out semi-recently. Eliminating it has been discussed several times.)
Where do you live that has more than one power supplier?
Most of Columbus (Ohio). The two companies are American Electric Power (the main company) and the City of Columbus (a municipally owned power company.)
The two utilities do indeed maintain different grids. It's possible for a neighborhood to lose power and yet a few houses (and all the street lights) still have power.
I lived in an old house that was converted to 4 apartments...the landlord decided to move us from the AEP grid to the city of Columbus grid. I watched as they disconnected the house from one pole and connected it to another pole (it took all of 15 minutes.)
I'd comfortably bet that most security professionals have rejected this concept. "Something you are" is really just a slight variation of "something you have" and there isn't anything in particular that makes them any better to make it worth differentiating.
Something you know does have a slight variation called something you do (the way you walk, the way your brain waves are, the way you sign your signature.) It remains to be seen whether some of the less known versions of this will become useful.
Facebook is a private company that, so far as I know, does not sell the personal information of the people who visit the site.
The hell they don't...from Facebook's Terms:
"By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."
All of that implies to me that all the info you put up on Facebook is open game for them to sell to whomever. (Facebook's data is extremely valuable--since it is categorized so neatly by college/high school with good email addresses, which is why the guy who founded it thought it was worth $2 billion when Myspace sold for a paltry $500 million.)
A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sells it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.
Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it.) It'd really only take a law to change, and in today's political environment would be an easy sell to Congress.
Do you think it should be legal for one movie studio to copy a currently-in-theatres blockbuster that cost some other studio $100M to produce and market, and then to sell a trivially edited version to theatres at a fraction of the normal price?
Err, that example doesn't work for the context, but here's one that does.
A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sell it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.
Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights, and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it of course.)
If a studio chose to exercise its full copyrights (for instance, sell the regular R-rated version of the film for $20 and then sell an edited PG version for $30) then it would make sense that the studio would retain all the rights to distribute the film in whatever edit-level versions it chooses. (I made this scenario very specific...I think you can argue that the studio's rights are being violated if another company issues a PG version of the same film for $25, undercutting the studio's version by $5, thereby costing that studio and somehow infringint on their copyrights.)
What bothers me, and what I think is a problem with this case's extension of copyright law, is that the studio is declining to take advantage of its full copyrights and actually releasing the different version for which there is demand. That is an unnecessary barrier to innovation. I feel that if the studio doesn't realease lower level versions of their own films a few years after general release, then it relinquishes its "extended copyright" to do so. (Hmm...that's only take a law to change really.)
Why don't they? I think it's because Hollywood artistic types are as sanctimonious about their creations as the people in Utah are who are demanding edited versions of them.
What somebody needs to do is to devise a DVD player that can read a file delineating where the objectionable parts are on the particular DVD.
Actually, I believe that all DVD players can do this, as this feature was built right into the DVD spec (and as the spec was being developed/marketed, there was a general belief that this feature would become commonplace.)
The problem is not the players, its the content makers who decline to take advantage of it.
Don't be surprised if some new service displaces MySpace in a while.
I wouldn't be, but Myspace is very flexible. You can make it into whatever you want it to be, in the long run, there is little reason for anyone to reject it. (Otherwise whatever site that comes along to replace it would have to offer something for people to jump to (other than...it's not Myspace.)
Myspace does have the aggregate of users, but it's not hard for users to transition over--it's not like people have to buy both a VHS and a Beta VCR...if they want to have multiple profiles in multiple places, it's easy and free. In the end, I think Myspace is in good shape to be a long term phenomenon (like the iPod, which is crafty enough so that people have little reason to reject it.)
I believe Facebook is the site that's actually doomed (in its current version.) It's too inflexible, it's hierarchical filtering design is both its advantage and its main weakness (particularly in regards to privacy issues) and it has limited growth potential (since it requires users only with particular email addresses.) I figure it has to become more open like myspace to survive.
Time magazine (I believe this week) had an article saying that the state attorney generals were meeting about the social networking issues.
It said that age verfication was a top priority for them and that the Connecticut AG said something like "if we could put someone on the moon, we can surely age verify users."
Just to show the collective brains of the people running the panic-show, they entertained using social security number verification for age verification purposes (the Time article said that the problem with that was the large quantity of non-US users, and that apparently nixed the idea.)
Nevertheless, requiring SSNs to open a Myspace or Xanga account would be a disaster on biblical grounds. Though I have a lot more faith in 14 year olds than the average person, I think having them interact with their SSN at all and needing to take responsibility for it would be problematic...not to mention, SSNs of minors is a phishers dream come true--just think about how many emails you'll get from "myspace" and "xanga" saying you need to verify your age to keep your account, so log in here and enter in your SSN and DOB.
Facebook is the only social networking site where your profile = your e-mail address
It's Facebook's main advantage (sorting people into nifty hierarchies) but I suspect it'll bring Facebook down (this KSU situation is just a beginning.)
Facebook made sense as a little website for Harvard, but aggregating this much information on people all sorted by college email address I just can't see working out in the long run (privacy issues, school identity issues, etc.)
Facebook will likely have to adopt Myspace's openness/non-hierarchy to survive.
On that note, I've been wondering why anyone hasn't designed a Facebook "proxy." To use, you give Facebook your facebook username/password, and the proxy accumulates usernames and passwords of people from other colleges, so that you could see anybody's full profile using the proxy (assuming that someone gave up their username and password, which I think is a pretty good assumption, given that by giving up your own you get the rest of the network available.) As long as there are enough usernames/passwords in the proxy kitty, the traffic on any one username won't seem excessive.
Well not exactly the reverse, but how about using a series of lenses to warm up the northern hemisphere during winter? Them equator types probably wouldn't mind missing a bit of heat during December and we Ohioans could use an extra 20 degrees 3-4 months of the year.
A certain amount of the flora and fauna of the north depends on low temperatures, as I've understood it, and there are repercussions in that regards. On the other hand, it's a relatively easy sell environmentally--a 20 degree increase in temperature for the Northern United States (during winter) would reduce the resources used to heat homes and offices significantly--thereby reducing the accompanying pollution.
Because the main "advantage" of facebook is also its main disadvantage. Since the profile is automatically associated with your college email address, the facebook profile becomes an extension of your "college identity" and what you present on there is more or less irrevocably associated with the college you go to (there are now ways around this, but circumventing this basically makes having a facebook profile meaningless.)
Will KSU care what their student athletes put on Myspace? Maybe...but since its alot easier for the student to not associate their college with their Myspace profile, a careful student may have no problems with Myspace at all.
At the age of 14 it is really hard for most kids to really understand the consequences of a sexual relationship.
According to this article by the age of 15 about 25% of people will have had sex. (It's the nifty table down the page a bit.)
Whether they're ready for it or not doesn't seem to matter if 1 out of 4 of em are doing it.
In my mind it becomes difficult to say why a 14 year old should only be making bad choices with other 14 year olds, or would they be better of with people of other age ranges.
I'm surpised someone can get a +4 by making broad generalizations like this.
You're telling me. Nothing frustrates me more about the slashdot system than the fact that clever and innovative posts that I've made get no moderation up or down because they're too far into/embedded in the thread, whereas a rather average post gets +3 (I've got karma to automatically get +2) because it was made almost immediately after the story was posted.
There is a place for fairer moderation of the thread by randomizing the order of the parent threads.
If parent was talking about Linux, the post would be a troll!
Since I was the parent, and I feel that other posts to you have defended me better than I could defend myself (particularly because I considered the post a rather average regurgitation of a book of the moment/stereotype--which you will note I did warn about) I'm simply going to respond by giggling.
Slashdot Mirror
No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion), which means, eventually, no country
The US Constitution has a prohibition on funding an army for more than two years. ("Congress may tax...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;" Article 1, Section 8.)
The Founders had no intention of there being a permanent central military, and indeed, there really wasn't one until the latter part of the 19th century (how they get around what is clearly a pretty clear prohibition is a bit mysterious to me.) Our system of national defense was always supposed to be through the independent state militians (however, that same section does allow for Congress to set up the rules for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" which implies a way of standardizing them for the time when they need to be combined into a federal army.)
A navy, on the other hand, was permitted to be permanent.
I stand corrected.
I might have been looking for self-congratulate, as that seems logical and part of the same rhythym. I might have also meant self-fellate, but I'm not sure if I was going that dirty.
Oh heck, I probably was.
You mean they aren't already doing this internally? If not... what the hell are they doing all day?
According to the article...
Universally, companies say they won't hire former virus writers, and they follow gentleman's agreements to share discovery of dangerous programs with each other
Which in my mind means that they are basically self-flaggelating each other. No particular surprise there, companies in other security industries have similar issues of arrogance regarding what they do, their processes and products.
It would imply to me that the industry will continue thinking of one mind, and the result are products that are all competitively mediocre in about the same way.
For the prosecutors and the police, the hard part becomes turning their way of thinking around and going "how can we prove this guy isn't guilty?"
Which they typically don't have to worry about. In the adversarial legal system, as used in the US, a guilty plea ends the controversy that the court was set to settle, and then the sentencing phase begins. (In a civil law legal system, the admission of guilt is an interesting fact, but doesn't end the case.)
However, in cases in which the death penalty is possible, a jury has to hear the case, so a jury might end up hearing this case.
Besides, I think that the county prosecutor is very interested in making sure that the right person is found, and is unlikely to take a guilty plea in this case.
The two sites take a different approach to things. I like to say that Facebook is better when you already have friends, and are using it to foster closer relationships. Myspace is better when you're trying to make friends.
I'm a bit more wary of Facebook though, it will sell your data to the highest bidder, whereas Myspace has a slightly higher regard for its users privacy.
I'm Spanish and I don't know why you're saying it's common to type words in caps in my language.
It might be a generational thing. My latin-american mother defaults to caps all the time, and I had to convince her that it's bad style in English.
I both agree and disagree with you. I agree because such a concept would be unwieldly for the reasons you mentioned, but would, nevertheless, offer an interesting check and balance.
Let's make a simpler solution...how about a law (easy enough to make at the state level) that requires the disclosure of the amount of times a lawmaker has voted for a bill which was later deemed unconstitutional...right on the ballot next to his name?
I'd like to add a personal idea to this (requiring that the amount of money spent on campaigning is added to the ballot as well) so that an incumbent's name on the ballot looks like:
For State Assembly, District 6
John Smith, Incumbent (Party)
Campaign funds spent as of 11/1/0x--$1,095,457
Voted for unconstitional legislation--2 times since 2004
So we know that Diebold is capable of producing secure ATM systems
This is a claim, incidentally, that has been made many times, but not substantiated. The banking industry is surprisingly clueless when it comes to security issues, and I don't think it's a safe assumption that Diebold makes ATMs which are significantly more secure.
I suspect that ATMs simply haven't undergone the level of attention that voting machines have.
The only states where their people would feel they have something to gain would be those that are consistantly "too close to call".
As an Ohioan, I'd say that such a system would not be to my/our advantage. Ohio's electoral power comes not just from its size but its swing-state status. We have several times the power that we would have if our electoral votes were split in some way.
My one vote is equal to several California votes. Isn't that a great way of saying fuck you?
The more efficiencies that you put in the market the less you cycle the money
Taking that to an ad absurdum point would imply that we'd be best off with everyone being a middleman. Clearly, that's not the case.
Productivity gains allow for resources to be freed for other purposes. The person saving $50 per month because of efficiencies at the grocery store can now get a massage at their local massotherapist. For the money multiplier to go down when efficiencies become greater would require the assumption that the checkout person can't work another job (which is not necessarily right or wrong--the change from an industrial economy to a service based one has been very ugly for some people.)
The competing public and private electricity grids was not a feature of deregulation, but a result of progressive era (1900-1940) reforms which were a result of people not feeling comfortable with private companies making profits off of essential utilities. If I were to take a bet, the private companies put their grids in first, and then the city added their competing grid at a later point in time. (I might add that the city utility has been a money loser recently and that city taxpayers have bailed out semi-recently. Eliminating it has been discussed several times.)
Where do you live that has more than one power supplier?
Most of Columbus (Ohio). The two companies are American Electric Power (the main company) and the City of Columbus (a municipally owned power company.)
The two utilities do indeed maintain different grids. It's possible for a neighborhood to lose power and yet a few houses (and all the street lights) still have power.
I lived in an old house that was converted to 4 apartments...the landlord decided to move us from the AEP grid to the city of Columbus grid. I watched as they disconnected the house from one pole and connected it to another pole (it took all of 15 minutes.)
There are three ways to authenticate yourself:
I'd comfortably bet that most security professionals have rejected this concept. "Something you are" is really just a slight variation of "something you have" and there isn't anything in particular that makes them any better to make it worth differentiating.
Something you know does have a slight variation called something you do (the way you walk, the way your brain waves are, the way you sign your signature.) It remains to be seen whether some of the less known versions of this will become useful.
Facebook is a private company that, so far as I know, does not sell the personal information of the people who visit the site.
The hell they don't...from Facebook's Terms:
"By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing."
All of that implies to me that all the info you put up on Facebook is open game for them to sell to whomever. (Facebook's data is extremely valuable--since it is categorized so neatly by college/high school with good email addresses, which is why the guy who founded it thought it was worth $2 billion when Myspace sold for a paltry $500 million.)
Myspace has a slightly friendly terms of service.
A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sells it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.
Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it.) It'd really only take a law to change, and in today's political environment would be an easy sell to Congress.
Do you think it should be legal for one movie studio to copy a currently-in-theatres blockbuster that cost some other studio $100M to produce and market, and then to sell a trivially edited version to theatres at a fraction of the normal price?
Err, that example doesn't work for the context, but here's one that does.
A studio sells a normal R-rated version of a film for $20 on DVD. It decides to sell a censored PG version for $30 (it's a niche market, people are willing to pay more for the censored version.)
An outfit in Utah comes along, buys a copy of the $20 R-rated version, edits it to PG level, and sell it for $25.
The studio is out $5, and it's an easy to argue copyright violation.
Now my issue is that the studios are not taking advantage of their full copyrights, and issuing the PG version. I feel that if they don't after a few years, they should relinquish those rights and let the company in Utah innovate appropriately (by buying the $20 DVD and then editing it of course.)
So how is this harming film companies?
I've been at an awful loss to explain that.
If a studio chose to exercise its full copyrights (for instance, sell the regular R-rated version of the film for $20 and then sell an edited PG version for $30) then it would make sense that the studio would retain all the rights to distribute the film in whatever edit-level versions it chooses. (I made this scenario very specific...I think you can argue that the studio's rights are being violated if another company issues a PG version of the same film for $25, undercutting the studio's version by $5, thereby costing that studio and somehow infringint on their copyrights.)
What bothers me, and what I think is a problem with this case's extension of copyright law, is that the studio is declining to take advantage of its full copyrights and actually releasing the different version for which there is demand. That is an unnecessary barrier to innovation. I feel that if the studio doesn't realease lower level versions of their own films a few years after general release, then it relinquishes its "extended copyright" to do so. (Hmm...that's only take a law to change really.)
Why don't they? I think it's because Hollywood artistic types are as sanctimonious about their creations as the people in Utah are who are demanding edited versions of them.
What somebody needs to do is to devise a DVD player that can read a file delineating where the objectionable parts are on the particular DVD.
Actually, I believe that all DVD players can do this, as this feature was built right into the DVD spec (and as the spec was being developed/marketed, there was a general belief that this feature would become commonplace.)
The problem is not the players, its the content makers who decline to take advantage of it.
Don't be surprised if some new service displaces MySpace in a while.
I wouldn't be, but Myspace is very flexible. You can make it into whatever you want it to be, in the long run, there is little reason for anyone to reject it. (Otherwise whatever site that comes along to replace it would have to offer something for people to jump to (other than...it's not Myspace.)
Myspace does have the aggregate of users, but it's not hard for users to transition over--it's not like people have to buy both a VHS and a Beta VCR...if they want to have multiple profiles in multiple places, it's easy and free. In the end, I think Myspace is in good shape to be a long term phenomenon (like the iPod, which is crafty enough so that people have little reason to reject it.)
I believe Facebook is the site that's actually doomed (in its current version.) It's too inflexible, it's hierarchical filtering design is both its advantage and its main weakness (particularly in regards to privacy issues) and it has limited growth potential (since it requires users only with particular email addresses.) I figure it has to become more open like myspace to survive.
Time magazine (I believe this week) had an article saying that the state attorney generals were meeting about the social networking issues.
It said that age verfication was a top priority for them and that the Connecticut AG said something like "if we could put someone on the moon, we can surely age verify users."
Just to show the collective brains of the people running the panic-show, they entertained using social security number verification for age verification purposes (the Time article said that the problem with that was the large quantity of non-US users, and that apparently nixed the idea.)
Nevertheless, requiring SSNs to open a Myspace or Xanga account would be a disaster on biblical grounds. Though I have a lot more faith in 14 year olds than the average person, I think having them interact with their SSN at all and needing to take responsibility for it would be problematic...not to mention, SSNs of minors is a phishers dream come true--just think about how many emails you'll get from "myspace" and "xanga" saying you need to verify your age to keep your account, so log in here and enter in your SSN and DOB.
Facebook is the only social networking site where your profile = your e-mail address
It's Facebook's main advantage (sorting people into nifty hierarchies) but I suspect it'll bring Facebook down (this KSU situation is just a beginning.)
Facebook made sense as a little website for Harvard, but aggregating this much information on people all sorted by college email address I just can't see working out in the long run (privacy issues, school identity issues, etc.)
Facebook will likely have to adopt Myspace's openness/non-hierarchy to survive.
On that note, I've been wondering why anyone hasn't designed a Facebook "proxy." To use, you give Facebook your facebook username/password, and the proxy accumulates usernames and passwords of people from other colleges, so that you could see anybody's full profile using the proxy (assuming that someone gave up their username and password, which I think is a pretty good assumption, given that by giving up your own you get the rest of the network available.) As long as there are enough usernames/passwords in the proxy kitty, the traffic on any one username won't seem excessive.
Well not exactly the reverse, but how about using a series of lenses to warm up the northern hemisphere during winter? Them equator types probably wouldn't mind missing a bit of heat during December and we Ohioans could use an extra 20 degrees 3-4 months of the year.
A certain amount of the flora and fauna of the north depends on low temperatures, as I've understood it, and there are repercussions in that regards. On the other hand, it's a relatively easy sell environmentally--a 20 degree increase in temperature for the Northern United States (during winter) would reduce the resources used to heat homes and offices significantly--thereby reducing the accompanying pollution.
Why Facebook and not Myspace?
Because the main "advantage" of facebook is also its main disadvantage. Since the profile is automatically associated with your college email address, the facebook profile becomes an extension of your "college identity" and what you present on there is more or less irrevocably associated with the college you go to (there are now ways around this, but circumventing this basically makes having a facebook profile meaningless.)
Will KSU care what their student athletes put on Myspace? Maybe...but since its alot easier for the student to not associate their college with their Myspace profile, a careful student may have no problems with Myspace at all.
At the age of 14 it is really hard for most kids to really understand the consequences of a sexual relationship.
According to this article by the age of 15 about 25% of people will have had sex. (It's the nifty table down the page a bit.)
Whether they're ready for it or not doesn't seem to matter if 1 out of 4 of em are doing it.
In my mind it becomes difficult to say why a 14 year old should only be making bad choices with other 14 year olds, or would they be better of with people of other age ranges.
I'm surpised someone can get a +4 by making broad generalizations like this.
You're telling me. Nothing frustrates me more about the slashdot system than the fact that clever and innovative posts that I've made get no moderation up or down because they're too far into/embedded in the thread, whereas a rather average post gets +3 (I've got karma to automatically get +2) because it was made almost immediately after the story was posted.
There is a place for fairer moderation of the thread by randomizing the order of the parent threads.
If parent was talking about Linux, the post would be a troll!
Since I was the parent, and I feel that other posts to you have defended me better than I could defend myself (particularly because I considered the post a rather average regurgitation of a book of the moment/stereotype--which you will note I did warn about) I'm simply going to respond by giggling.
*giggles*