The violence & gore is why I think it's so important for kids to read. Most kids' books sidestep that kind of thing and present fairytale violence, whereas Lewis has Aslan castigate Peter for putting away his sword wet with blood, which will cause it to rust and stick in its scabbard. That's the sort of reading which is healthy IMHO.
Somehow disturbing to hear that US-American pupils are now practically prohibited from analysing and discussing those books under the guidance of a teacher.
They're not. Most foreigners don't realise it, but the US is a federation of states: compared to other nations, we have very few federal laws (IMHO, we have more than we should, and more than our Constitution allows, but that's just my opinion). Even if the parents of the city of Foo in Bar County, New York manage to ban a book from that city's school or public library, that means absolutely nothing whatsoever to the other 290 million of us.
This is an advantage of our system: one is remarkably free to choose where one lives, and groups are also able to experiment with the best way in which to live. It's legal to kill the dying in Oregon, but not here in Colorado. I don't like Oregon's law, and I've a nasty feeling that it has some unacceptable side-effects, but it doesn't affect me, and our law against such killing doesn't affect Oregonians.
Anyway, this was a review of attempts over a decade. How many succeeded, and for how long did they succeed?
Lastly, it's all a side-effect of having state education: if all education were private, parents could choose where to send their kids, and what education those kids would get.
Because if you're my age, you remember a very different time, a time when black people (I refuse to say "Afro-American") couldn't buy a break virtually anywhere.
That time's not today, though. In fact, one is very much more likely to get a break as a black than a white these days: take a look at the composition of the incoming freshman class at almost any college.
As an aside, you won't write 'Afro-American,' but will write 'people of colour'?
And if you (or anyone else reading this) are white, and you think there isn't still residual prejudice, and it doesn't still really suck to be black in America, then just ask your friendly New Jersey State Trooper why he didn't pull your lilly-white ass over for speeding, and why instead he stopped the black guy next to you who was doing the speed limit.
Perhaps because the Turnpike is a major drug corridor, and the couriers are almost entirely black, and thus when out trying to hunt down drug runners it's pointless stopping whites? Heck, I'm white and I've been stopped out West for what had to have been a drug search--out here the proportions are different. If you're looking for a one-legged man, stopping little old ladies is probably not the right way to go about it.
If we can get more women and people of color into positions of authority at the expense of a few disappointed white guys, I say it's a good thing, and it will continue to be a good thing until there's much more progress in that area than there's been to date.
Wow--one doesn't normally see such blatant racism outside of Mother Jones and the like. The best candidate for the job should always get it, period. When there is a tie among two or more, the selection should be random. No other criteria are fair.
ISTR that giraffes have a normal number of verterbra (I forget if all mammals have the exact same number, or about the same number); it's just that theirs are longer.
Over half the population is female. Do you honestly believe that in the history of that institution, Dr. Hockfield is really
the first and only qualified woman to emerge?
It's a known fact that while the mean of just about any general mental score (IQ, g, whatever) is virtually identical for men and women, the standard distributions are radically different: women tend to cluster around the mean, while the curve for men is flatter. To put it differently, there are more male knuckleheads and eggheads. Since selecting the president of an institution such as MIT is looking at the high tail of the curve, it's highly likely that there have been no qualified female candidates thus far.
In fact, I would not be surprised if the odds were less than 1 in 16 that there would be a qualified female candidate. However, I imagine that MIT's hiring process for the position is likely to be pretty fair, and that they would not overlook a better-qualified candidate for that position simply because he takes a leak standing up.
I am not so confident about other positions, or other institutions.
Let's change that rule, then: all candidates are scored; if a man and a woman score the same and are both acceptable, then the man will be offered the position. Would you find that non-discriminatory?
That rule is prejudiced against men, and for women. The fair thing to do in a case where two candidates score equally is to decide randomly.
I haven't heard much cursing in children movies, but it wouldn't be against the law.
It's not against the law to have cursing in kid's movies here, either. The ratings are assigned my the ratings association, and submitting a film for a rating is voluntary. However, most theatre owners are not likely to show an unrated film, and most are likely to enforce the advice the ratings board gives.
What does it matter if the rest of the world has abolished capital punishment? If the rest of the world abolished jail time, would that make prison 'cruel and unusual'?
Somehow I find it darkly amusing for someone who supports the life of a murderous child rapist, or of a man who hacks a couple to death in their beds, or of a man who kills his wife and children, to claim any sort of moral high ground. Sentencing serves several purposes: discouraging the individual from committing another crime; discouraging members of society at large from committing the crime; serving the sense of justice; and, last but not least, punishment. Death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes. Deal.
And what wrong with executing slow folks? So long as they're not excessively slow, of course: executing an idiot or moron would be wrong, but executing someone with an IQ of 92 is hardly a problem.
There are sections of forest in France which nobody's allowed to enter because of unexploded artillery shells from *World War I*.
And there are other sections where one is allowed, but must keep one's eyes open. I was in the Ardennes and very nearly stepped on a Great War mortar shell lying in the middle of the forest.
France: the only nation in the world where the timber mills have metal detectors.
The only thing NASA has had any luck with recently is unmanned probes. Thier manned projects seem to all be of the "inspire schoolchildren" variety.
And only schoolchildren (and those of the same intellectual maturity) are inspired anymore. Hell, even van Allen is arguing against manned space exploration these days!
We should devote our efforts to the oceans. Three quarters of the globe we've not even begun to exploit properly. Sure, it'll be tough. Sure, we'll need to exterminate the large and dangerous sea animals in order to make the oceans safe for man (just as we did with the large and dangerous land animals: seen any aurochs recently?). Sure, we'll need to develop good pressure-vessel technology. We can do all these things, and for a lot less money than space exploration.
The oceans are chock-full of life. We can farm it, we can eat it. The oceans are chock-full of unmined ores and minerals. We can use them. The oceans are chock-full of unexplored beauties. We can appreciate.
Space, meanwhile, is an over-expensive, mostly-empty waste of money.
Yes, someday we'll be able to make orbit cheaply. Someday we might be able to travel to the asteroid belt and back cheaply enough to make the journey worth it. And maybe someday some physicist will figure out how to travel to the stars in less than many, many, many lifetimes. That day's not now. Today is the day we can choose between the attainable and that which is yet out of our grasp.
A very good point. It's kind of like a free market: every actor acts selfishly and for his own best benefit, and yet somehow that results in everyone being better off. This is as opposed to other systems (first-come, first-served, rationing, i.e. socialism) in which a few actors acting in their best benefit can screw everyone.
Likewise with software. Acting in my best interest within the family of GPLed software, everyone is helped; acting in my best interest with other licenses, others may be helped or screwed over, depending on the circumstances.
The GPL creates a free market within which all actors benefit. That's a Good Thing.
They didn't just attempt to subjugate Spain: they conquered it almost entirely; it was in 732 that Charles Martel (father of Charlemagne) stopped the Mohammedan invasion at Poitiers. From that day, the slow process of reconquest (the reconquista, carried out by the reconquistadors) then went on for more than seven hundred years; it wasn't until 1492 (recognise that year?) that the last Moor was finally expelled from Spain.
This goes a way towards explaining the conquistadors, BTW: the Spaniards had spent seven centuries in a brutal war in which they became identified by their martial skill and their faith. Seven centuries of battle against the Mohammedans can make anyone a bit of a zealot. So, having reconquered Iberia, they set about conquering the New World.
That doesn't excuse the evil they did, but it does explain it in part. And they did perform some amazing feats: Pizarro conquering several million Peruvians with less than 200 men, IIRC, is impressive by any reckoning. Those centuries of warfare did teach them a thing or two about fighting.
It amazes me to no end that someone with such a strong belief, in any religion, can be so dismissive of other religions.
In God's Name, why? If I believe X, I cannot simultaneously believe Y. If I believe the earth is round, I cannot believe that it is flat. If I believe that Jesus Christ was God and the Son of God, I cannot consider him a blasphemer. To believe something is to dismiss those things which are its negation.
Why should a ticket even carry a name? When I go to the theatre, my ticket hasn't a name on it. A few years back, airline tickets had an optional form on the reverse which permitted one to identify oneself if one wishes (additionally, most folks already do travel with ID).
Why should anyone be forced to carry papers to travel? The next step is to confiscate someone's papers so that he cannot travel.
What's the stereotypical German railway station scene in a WWII film? There are the guards asking for people's papers; there are the guards patrolling with dogs. Well, when I flew a month ago I was forced to show ID, and there were dogs patrolling the aeroport.
My great uncle died on Iwo Jima to keep this country free; my brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather have all served in wartime to keep this country free. Millions of other brave men have done the same. So why the hell is it getting less free every year?
Not that I fault either major party more than the other: they are both to blame, because they are run by the populace, and the vast majority of the electorate are sheep who are willing to trade all their liberty for the temporary illusion of safety.
There are plenty of times throughout history where something in widespread use was later found to be more dangerous than it was worth. Asbestos and DDT come to mind.
Bad examples. Asbestos isn't really all that bad for anyone who's not an asbestos worker (in other words, just leaving it where it was would have made more sense than costly removal). DDT cut malaria deaths in some countries from millions to tens, all in exchange for the possibility of the deaths of a few birds: banning its use has caused more fatalities than the Holocaust, and possibly more than all of the Second World War.
Unions opposed child labout because they didn't like the competition...
Read "Strike!," "Which Side are you on?" and "Rivethead"---learn something about history, and stop repeating the Pravda-esque ideology of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the
Republican and Democratic parties.
Amusing you say that, when unions and their supporters were funded by the same folks that funded Pravda.
Unions had a purpose once (putting an end to things like the company town), but their place is not in IT. Monolithic unions can be just as bad as monolithic corporate hierarchies.
Who cares? Why shouldn't organs go to those who can best afford them? In a truly free market, he with the most money is he who has contributed the most to society, after all: why not allow competition by the highest bidder?
That said, organ doantion is disgusting: it's the same as cannibalism.
If we are supose to have equality in jobs/voting/freedom, why does my girlfriend have lower car insurance then me at the same age for the same car? Why do my rates go down if I get married? Its a legal right to inequaltiy.
Because you're a greater risk. The company gives her better rates because she's a better risk. Young, single men are dangerous; middle-aged married women are not; old folks are, but the AARP probably lobbies against charging them a fair rate.
What annoys me is that many insurance companies call one a smoker if one has smoked even once in the last year. By that criterion, every one of my good friends is a smoker--and yet, none of them actually is.
Trade restrictions; massively increased funding for education & labour; massive prescription drug benefit; created a whole new cabinet-level department; signed an unconstitutional campaign finance bill; and worse. Jonah Goldberg goes into far more detail.
And Iraq? We'll never know why our dear Mr. Bush wanted it so bad.
I think that I accept the stated reasons: that it was a near-imminent threat to stability in the region, and that if we had allowed it to become an imminent threat (like North Korea), we'd be unable to do anything about it (like North Korea). It has been pointed out that if we can properly subdue Iraq and Afghanistan, then we will have gone a long way towards sorting out the Middle East and pacifying the region. So long as tyrants and thugs run the place, it'll be a breeding ground for strife--but make it a modern, peaceful society and maybe we'll get somewhere.
And the conflict there has served to keep malcontents from starting conflict here, which hasn't hurt domestic security too much. In other words, prospective terrorists can either travel here to kill Americans, or can stay home and do it just as easily. Cynical, but I sometimes wonder if that wasn't part of the reasoning.
I must have read this over a dozen times: you want no funding for education?
No--I want no federal funding for education. I'm a big-time federalist: the idea of one education policy being set in Washington, even were it my personal favourite, scares the hell out of me.
A) our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly unilateral--it's not called a coalition for nothing. B) if the US needs to do something, and no-one is willing to join us, then yes I'm in favour of being unilateral. I'm a Coloradan first; an American second and a citizen of the world third. Why should Cuba, Libya or France be allowed a veto on our actions?
Religion mixed up with politics
Guess you didn't watch much of the flag-waving, we-love-God Democratic convention, then. Why shouldn't someone's conscience be involved in his politics? In fact, it has to be--no one on the left or right acts against his conscience. I've not noticed Bush being noticeably different from Clinton, his father, Reagan or Carter in that regard.
Taxcuts for the rich
Tax cuts for everyone. Or did you mean the reduction in the double-taxation of dividends? Which helped the majority of the citizenry, now that > 50% own stock...
Letting women die because of pregnancy complications (aka screw abortion)
That's a straw man: I am unaware of anyone who would forbid abortion to save the mother's life. In that case the choice is between killing mother and child through inaction or killing the child through action. OTOH, there are plenty who argue that 'because carrying the kid to term would make me unhappy' is hardly a life-threatening condition.
Let's face it: Bush is a plain idiot.
He got better grades than Gore...
I'm no fan of Bush: he's more socialist than Clinton, and has increased funding to departments he should have eliminated (Education & Labour); I'm not terribly fond of all his policies; but he's certain not the Antichrist Moore-ites think him. He was a great governor of Texas, and has done a good job with the US.
Slashdot Mirror
The violence & gore is why I think it's so important for kids to read. Most kids' books sidestep that kind of thing and present fairytale violence, whereas Lewis has Aslan castigate Peter for putting away his sword wet with blood, which will cause it to rust and stick in its scabbard. That's the sort of reading which is healthy IMHO.
They're not. Most foreigners don't realise it, but the US is a federation of states: compared to other nations, we have very few federal laws (IMHO, we have more than we should, and more than our Constitution allows, but that's just my opinion). Even if the parents of the city of Foo in Bar County, New York manage to ban a book from that city's school or public library, that means absolutely nothing whatsoever to the other 290 million of us.
This is an advantage of our system: one is remarkably free to choose where one lives, and groups are also able to experiment with the best way in which to live. It's legal to kill the dying in Oregon, but not here in Colorado. I don't like Oregon's law, and I've a nasty feeling that it has some unacceptable side-effects, but it doesn't affect me, and our law against such killing doesn't affect Oregonians.
Anyway, this was a review of attempts over a decade. How many succeeded, and for how long did they succeed?
Lastly, it's all a side-effect of having state education: if all education were private, parents could choose where to send their kids, and what education those kids would get.
That time's not today, though. In fact, one is very much more likely to get a break as a black than a white these days: take a look at the composition of the incoming freshman class at almost any college.
As an aside, you won't write 'Afro-American,' but will write 'people of colour'?
And if you (or anyone else reading this) are white, and you think there isn't still residual prejudice, and it doesn't still really suck to be black in America, then just ask your friendly New Jersey State Trooper why he didn't pull your lilly-white ass over for speeding, and why instead he stopped the black guy next to you who was doing the speed limit.
Perhaps because the Turnpike is a major drug corridor, and the couriers are almost entirely black, and thus when out trying to hunt down drug runners it's pointless stopping whites? Heck, I'm white and I've been stopped out West for what had to have been a drug search--out here the proportions are different. If you're looking for a one-legged man, stopping little old ladies is probably not the right way to go about it.
If we can get more women and people of color into positions of authority at the expense of a few disappointed white guys, I say it's a good thing, and it will continue to be a good thing until there's much more progress in that area than there's been to date.
Wow--one doesn't normally see such blatant racism outside of Mother Jones and the like. The best candidate for the job should always get it, period. When there is a tie among two or more, the selection should be random. No other criteria are fair.
ISTR that giraffes have a normal number of verterbra (I forget if all mammals have the exact same number, or about the same number); it's just that theirs are longer.
It's a known fact that while the mean of just about any general mental score (IQ, g, whatever) is virtually identical for men and women, the standard distributions are radically different: women tend to cluster around the mean, while the curve for men is flatter. To put it differently, there are more male knuckleheads and eggheads. Since selecting the president of an institution such as MIT is looking at the high tail of the curve, it's highly likely that there have been no qualified female candidates thus far.
In fact, I would not be surprised if the odds were less than 1 in 16 that there would be a qualified female candidate. However, I imagine that MIT's hiring process for the position is likely to be pretty fair, and that they would not overlook a better-qualified candidate for that position simply because he takes a leak standing up.
I am not so confident about other positions, or other institutions.
Let's change that rule, then: all candidates are scored; if a man and a woman score the same and are both acceptable, then the man will be offered the position. Would you find that non-discriminatory?
That rule is prejudiced against men, and for women. The fair thing to do in a case where two candidates score equally is to decide randomly.
It's not against the law to have cursing in kid's movies here, either. The ratings are assigned my the ratings association, and submitting a film for a rating is voluntary. However, most theatre owners are not likely to show an unrated film, and most are likely to enforce the advice the ratings board gives.
There is no law, though, which enforces this.
Somehow I find it darkly amusing for someone who supports the life of a murderous child rapist, or of a man who hacks a couple to death in their beds, or of a man who kills his wife and children, to claim any sort of moral high ground. Sentencing serves several purposes: discouraging the individual from committing another crime; discouraging members of society at large from committing the crime; serving the sense of justice; and, last but not least, punishment. Death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes. Deal.
And what wrong with executing slow folks? So long as they're not excessively slow, of course: executing an idiot or moron would be wrong, but executing someone with an IQ of 92 is hardly a problem.
Bluecurve is very attractive, and I find Ion to be extremely pleasant to work in, far better than any OS X or Windows offers.
Ummm...have you ever read any of Graham's work? He doesn't advocate C over Java: he advocates Lisps over everything. He's quite convincing, actually.
And there are other sections where one is allowed, but must keep one's eyes open. I was in the Ardennes and very nearly stepped on a Great War mortar shell lying in the middle of the forest.
France: the only nation in the world where the timber mills have metal detectors.
And only schoolchildren (and those of the same intellectual maturity) are inspired anymore. Hell, even van Allen is arguing against manned space exploration these days!
We should devote our efforts to the oceans. Three quarters of the globe we've not even begun to exploit properly. Sure, it'll be tough. Sure, we'll need to exterminate the large and dangerous sea animals in order to make the oceans safe for man (just as we did with the large and dangerous land animals: seen any aurochs recently?). Sure, we'll need to develop good pressure-vessel technology. We can do all these things, and for a lot less money than space exploration.
The oceans are chock-full of life. We can farm it, we can eat it. The oceans are chock-full of unmined ores and minerals. We can use them. The oceans are chock-full of unexplored beauties. We can appreciate.
Space, meanwhile, is an over-expensive, mostly-empty waste of money.
Yes, someday we'll be able to make orbit cheaply. Someday we might be able to travel to the asteroid belt and back cheaply enough to make the journey worth it. And maybe someday some physicist will figure out how to travel to the stars in less than many, many, many lifetimes. That day's not now. Today is the day we can choose between the attainable and that which is yet out of our grasp.
The ocean is the future.
Likewise with software. Acting in my best interest within the family of GPLed software, everyone is helped; acting in my best interest with other licenses, others may be helped or screwed over, depending on the circumstances.
The GPL creates a free market within which all actors benefit. That's a Good Thing.
By thy high UID and constant illogical comments, I figure that th'art either an astroturfer or a troll. Regardless and as noted above *plonk*.
This goes a way towards explaining the conquistadors, BTW: the Spaniards had spent seven centuries in a brutal war in which they became identified by their martial skill and their faith. Seven centuries of battle against the Mohammedans can make anyone a bit of a zealot. So, having reconquered Iberia, they set about conquering the New World.
That doesn't excuse the evil they did, but it does explain it in part. And they did perform some amazing feats: Pizarro conquering several million Peruvians with less than 200 men, IIRC, is impressive by any reckoning. Those centuries of warfare did teach them a thing or two about fighting.
In God's Name, why? If I believe X, I cannot simultaneously believe Y. If I believe the earth is round, I cannot believe that it is flat. If I believe that Jesus Christ was God and the Son of God, I cannot consider him a blasphemer. To believe something is to dismiss those things which are its negation.
Why should anyone be forced to carry papers to travel? The next step is to confiscate someone's papers so that he cannot travel.
What's the stereotypical German railway station scene in a WWII film? There are the guards asking for people's papers; there are the guards patrolling with dogs. Well, when I flew a month ago I was forced to show ID, and there were dogs patrolling the aeroport.
My great uncle died on Iwo Jima to keep this country free; my brother, father, grandfather and great-grandfather have all served in wartime to keep this country free. Millions of other brave men have done the same. So why the hell is it getting less free every year?
Not that I fault either major party more than the other: they are both to blame, because they are run by the populace, and the vast majority of the electorate are sheep who are willing to trade all their liberty for the temporary illusion of safety.
Bad examples. Asbestos isn't really all that bad for anyone who's not an asbestos worker (in other words, just leaving it where it was would have made more sense than costly removal). DDT cut malaria deaths in some countries from millions to tens, all in exchange for the possibility of the deaths of a few birds: banning its use has caused more fatalities than the Holocaust, and possibly more than all of the Second World War.
Read "Strike!," "Which Side are you on?" and "Rivethead"---learn something about history, and stop repeating the Pravda-esque ideology of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the Republican and Democratic parties.
Amusing you say that, when unions and their supporters were funded by the same folks that funded Pravda.
Unions had a purpose once (putting an end to things like the company town), but their place is not in IT. Monolithic unions can be just as bad as monolithic corporate hierarchies.
Well, at the moment 'growing organs' means letting humans grow so long, then killing them. That's hardly the moral high ground...
That said, organ doantion is disgusting: it's the same as cannibalism.
Because you're a greater risk. The company gives her better rates because she's a better risk. Young, single men are dangerous; middle-aged married women are not; old folks are, but the AARP probably lobbies against charging them a fair rate.
What annoys me is that many insurance companies call one a smoker if one has smoked even once in the last year. By that criterion, every one of my good friends is a smoker--and yet, none of them actually is.
Trade restrictions; massively increased funding for education & labour; massive prescription drug benefit; created a whole new cabinet-level department; signed an unconstitutional campaign finance bill; and worse. Jonah Goldberg goes into far more detail.
I think that I accept the stated reasons: that it was a near-imminent threat to stability in the region, and that if we had allowed it to become an imminent threat (like North Korea), we'd be unable to do anything about it (like North Korea). It has been pointed out that if we can properly subdue Iraq and Afghanistan, then we will have gone a long way towards sorting out the Middle East and pacifying the region. So long as tyrants and thugs run the place, it'll be a breeding ground for strife--but make it a modern, peaceful society and maybe we'll get somewhere.
And the conflict there has served to keep malcontents from starting conflict here, which hasn't hurt domestic security too much. In other words, prospective terrorists can either travel here to kill Americans, or can stay home and do it just as easily. Cynical, but I sometimes wonder if that wasn't part of the reasoning.
I must have read this over a dozen times: you want no funding for education?
No--I want no federal funding for education. I'm a big-time federalist: the idea of one education policy being set in Washington, even were it my personal favourite, scares the hell out of me.
A) our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly unilateral--it's not called a coalition for nothing. B) if the US needs to do something, and no-one is willing to join us, then yes I'm in favour of being unilateral. I'm a Coloradan first; an American second and a citizen of the world third. Why should Cuba, Libya or France be allowed a veto on our actions?
Religion mixed up with politics
Guess you didn't watch much of the flag-waving, we-love-God Democratic convention, then. Why shouldn't someone's conscience be involved in his politics? In fact, it has to be--no one on the left or right acts against his conscience. I've not noticed Bush being noticeably different from Clinton, his father, Reagan or Carter in that regard.
Taxcuts for the rich
Tax cuts for everyone. Or did you mean the reduction in the double-taxation of dividends? Which helped the majority of the citizenry, now that > 50% own stock...
Letting women die because of pregnancy complications (aka screw abortion)
That's a straw man: I am unaware of anyone who would forbid abortion to save the mother's life. In that case the choice is between killing mother and child through inaction or killing the child through action. OTOH, there are plenty who argue that 'because carrying the kid to term would make me unhappy' is hardly a life-threatening condition.
Let's face it: Bush is a plain idiot.
He got better grades than Gore...
I'm no fan of Bush: he's more socialist than Clinton, and has increased funding to departments he should have eliminated (Education & Labour); I'm not terribly fond of all his policies; but he's certain not the Antichrist Moore-ites think him. He was a great governor of Texas, and has done a good job with the US.