Six digits would give you a max of 1,000,000 combinations (don't forget 000,000)
Re:Spelling? (you must be kidding)
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2
My work *isn't* perfect all the time. Then again, my title isn't EDITOR! The editors make mistake after mistake after mistake and I don't believe they are trying. A simple spell check program would go a long way to helping, but the editor's comments often fail to pass even that test. I am sorry you hate people that expect people with the title of editor to actually edit. Call me irrational.
Re:Spelling? (you must be kidding)
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2
...Then again, I am not the editor, am I? I expect editors to spell correctly, don't you? The fact I made a mistake may mean I am not a good editor. However, I don't think it is too much to ask that the professionals check their work for spelling and grammar mistakes. That is why they are the editors and not me:)
If I pay, can I be assured the editors will (god forbid) edit their work. Like, for example, spell checking, or grammar checking, or even both? Why would I pay for editors who can't edit properly?
"Or aluminum, which is the only proper spelling, of course"
Please, tell me, when did slashdot even give the slightest consideration to spelling? Does this means the editors will *gasp* spell check their witty comments, polls, and other writings? Oh please, tell me it ain't so!
Nope, sorry, but the way the RIAA has patented sound *includes* the lack of sound too. After all, a stream of all zeros XORed with the right one time pad could be a copyrighted song! The RIAA has therefore secured rights to all zeros, XOR, and one time pads.
I have no idea what that reply says. Note the question is worded in english. I can only guess at the language used in the reply or its meaning. I think it says "Yes." Why couldn't they just put "Yes" and make my life easier?
At my college Clemson University, this is an ongoing debate. The University is considering making the general education requirements more flexable so you can take courses more in line with your major. This is probably going to occur, but I oppose it.
I believe in the General Education requirements. Why? Because everyone that graduates from a University should have some basic skills that can help them regardless of their profession of choice. People wanting to go into non-computer related professions should still have a vauge idea of how to use a computer. People going into computer related fields should be able to appreciate literature. Everyone in every type of profession should be able to preform some of the same basic skills.
Not only does this allow any college graduate to be able to converse intelegently about any subject, but it allows people the ability to change jobs in the future without going back to school. Because prospective employers know that any college graduate has basic skills, there is potential for starting level jobs in fields unrelated to one's degree. Without general education requirements, none of this is possible.
We all should, upon graduating from college, know the basic facts about everything. Once we know the basics, we have the foundation to learn whatever our heart desires in the future. Without general education requirements, people graduating in a given field will know more about that field from the start, but the cost is the lack of the basic knowledge of other fields, which provides for a very narrow minded person.
Jon is wrong here. This is not a temporary fight. It never is. The Taliban has accused the United States of using a pretext to try to hurt Afghanistan or hunt down Bin Laden. I know passions are running very high in the US congress right now, and congress has all the pretext it needs to take away our rights. Not just for a little while, but forever.
millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking.
That is correct. The way Americans have been talking, they are ready to sign away the constitution. "Sure, search my email, scan my phone calls, whatever it takes" has been the rally cry of the people. The government doesn't have to try too hard to justify the removal of privileges. Don't you ready your own message board? In a different article (search is down), a representative in congress said "Once your rights are taken away, they are rarely given back. No one in Congress wants to seem soft on terrorism or soft on Crime." We are talking about amending surveillance rules, and they may never be amended back.
Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back.
Yep. See the above. Laws made in the heat of passion stay on the books. Law makers won't change the law for the appearance it makes. Try reading the article that was posted by CmdrTaco about the subject of liberties and the rush to have them taken away.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations?
The short answer is Yes, it is unreasonable. "Here is a good idea. Let's ban crypto. And screen cell calls. And read all email. And Faxes. What? You are against this? You must have something to hide!" I can see it now. Besides, if you implement the above, the bad guy can always use another system. The Bad guy will figure out a way to communication. Meanwhile, the good guy (you too Jon) will have all our private communications analyzed and recorded. (sarcasm) Sounds like a peachy system to me! (/sarcasm)
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences.
Damn, looks like you don't read slashdot after all. Most of us are FAR from happy about giving up our rights. Most of us hate to register (which is why every time there is a reg. required link in a slashdot story, someone always posts a way to get around it). You are really out of touch Jon if you think the people are happy about our losses of privacy and the sharing and selling of personal information.
. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Yea right! Even if they were self-expiring or needed to be reviewed, no one would ever dare vote against a proposal that "fights crime." They wouldn't have a job any more. Even if the law did go away, you are still talking about a couple of years of impeding MY and YOUR freedoms. I don't remember a suspension clause in the Constitution........
I will NOT support any measure to take away MY freedoms, even for a little while. If the CIA (or whomever) wants more power to spy over seas, I can support that. I will NOT support any measure that increases the government's ability to spy on Americans like myself. ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Sounds like pretty good words to remember at a time like this. What price are you willing to pay for freedom. I will protect the security of the United States, but I will NEVER agree to ANY SUSPENSION of FREEEDOM!
My original point was not flamebait, and I am sorry if you saw it that way. My comment "Schools are out for education and not for corporate interests" might be wrong, but it is still not flamebait.
I think you might want to keep the post graduate degree (I am assuming you are referring to graduating an accredited college) under raps if you are going to reply to people's arguments using insulting baby language rather then constructive argument.
I believe you can make a point through terseness and style rather then long argument. I have done impromptu and understand how to make a point more succinct. You did not accomplish that. All you did was resort to childish antics of saying "Nah-uh!" "Nah-uh" is certainly terse, but does not reflect the level of education you claim to have.
As for setting aside the rules, that is all well and good in its place, and I agree there are times for that, but I don't know where you got the impression it is ok to set aside the rules of politeness or respect.
Why does it NOT suprise me that this is coming out of Texas Christian University and not, say, MIT?
That has got to be one of the most bigoted things I have heard said on slashdot. What are you trying to imply? That all Christian universities are incappible of providing scientific research? Heaven forbid (pun intended) that Christian schools try to help the community by developing a solution to one of society's ills.
I appreciate the total lack of evidence that would either implicate most universities or my specific university. (Note: That was called Sarcasm. Repeat after me: Sarcasm)
I saw you are a Clemson student and were refering to a USC fan. I didn't see the orignial post when I replied to you before.
You may notice Mr. Chicken Fan has decided not to list his email address, while those from Clemson are listing their email address. I see Mr. Chicken Fan is a chicken fan unto the last!
Yes, I suppose it is possible that there is some secret slush fund that I am not privy to. I don't think it is likely, but I can't rule it out completely.
I suppose it is completely out of the question that Alumni and others just want to give the University free money?
The Burger King is part of Hendrix center and I know they are leasing the space. I don't think there is any special favors there.
As for Fluor-Daniel I can't say. I know the building. It is very nice from what I have seen, and I haven't seen it effect the studies there.
BTW, why are you replying as an AC? Don't you want to speak about Clemson in a more open way if you disagree with me? Email me (or call me, I am on the PH) if you like.
No on campus McDonalds here. That money is all legit. No advertsing or pushing of local (or national) buisnesses. Most of the money went to departments (where there is still no advertising done or anything like that). As I said in my other post, some school are corrupt, but not Clemson.
The only reward for donation I see is premium parking for football games (I unfortunatly have to move my car to accomidate these people) and naming rights (most buidlings are named after Clemson officials from the past, but I live in a unnammed dorm (its brand new), and I hear they are trying to sell the naming rights).
People give gifts to Clemson. Clemson has not sold itself out to corperate interests (I think Dow donated a research lab on campus last year, but we didn't even name the building after Dow), nor is it likely to do so. Some colleges, maybe, but at Clemson, it just isn't the case.
You may not feel sorry for my school, but I go here, and I know what is going on, and I am telling you that donations and gifts to this school are charitable.
I can understand where you are coming from, but in this case it isn't true. I sit on Student Government as have looked at the school's budget. Trust me; we arn't swimming in cash. We are very prudent with cash here and mis-spend little. The links I provided show we lost $20M, not an insignifigant amount. Tuition was low here to start with anyway, and it is still compartivly low.
There might be schools where you analysis might apply, but not here. I am bias as a student here, but I am a student paying tuition, so I hope I gain some credibility there.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a double major in both at Clemson University. Best of luck to you. I hope people like you and me can fight this kind of crap later.
Clemson University has already installed wireless in most parts of the campus and we will have full coverage next year. Here is a coverage list.
I just have to give you serious props here. That reply was excellent! I wish I could say I thought of it.
Sadly, your comment is rated as funny, and it is funny sadly because it is true. Great job!
Six digits would give you a max of 1,000,000 combinations (don't forget 000,000)
My work *isn't* perfect all the time. Then again, my title isn't EDITOR! The editors make mistake after mistake after mistake and I don't believe they are trying. A simple spell check program would go a long way to helping, but the editor's comments often fail to pass even that test. I am sorry you hate people that expect people with the title of editor to actually edit. Call me irrational.
...Then again, I am not the editor, am I? I expect editors to spell correctly, don't you? The fact I made a mistake may mean I am not a good editor. However, I don't think it is too much to ask that the professionals check their work for spelling and grammar mistakes. That is why they are the editors and not me
First, it is said:
"I don't like it any more then many of you, so if you log in, there is an option to disable it."
Then:
"nobody is forcing us to make these changes: The navbar. The new ad formats. The subscription system. I could just say 'No' to changes like these"
If you COULD have said no, and you HATED the changes, why did you say YES?
* Stories can be rated higher then +5
* Users can gain more then 50 karma
If I pay, can I be assured the editors will (god forbid) edit their work. Like, for example, spell checking, or grammar checking, or even both? Why would I pay for editors who can't edit properly?
The slashdot editor said...
"Or aluminum, which is the only proper spelling, of course"
Please, tell me, when did slashdot even give the slightest consideration to spelling? Does this means the editors will *gasp* spell check their witty comments, polls, and other writings? Oh please, tell me it ain't so!
Just wondering why this OS isn't open source anymore...
Nope, sorry, but the way the RIAA has patented sound *includes* the lack of sound too. After all, a stream of all zeros XORed with the right one time pad could be a copyrighted song! The RIAA has therefore secured rights to all zeros, XOR, and one time pads.
I have no idea what that reply says. Note the question is worded in english. I can only guess at the language used in the reply or its meaning. I think it says "Yes." Why couldn't they just put "Yes" and make my life easier?
At my college Clemson University, this is an ongoing debate. The University is considering making the general education requirements more flexable so you can take courses more in line with your major. This is probably going to occur, but I oppose it.
I believe in the General Education requirements. Why? Because everyone that graduates from a University should have some basic skills that can help them regardless of their profession of choice. People wanting to go into non-computer related professions should still have a vauge idea of how to use a computer. People going into computer related fields should be able to appreciate literature. Everyone in every type of profession should be able to preform some of the same basic skills.
Not only does this allow any college graduate to be able to converse intelegently about any subject, but it allows people the ability to change jobs in the future without going back to school. Because prospective employers know that any college graduate has basic skills, there is potential for starting level jobs in fields unrelated to one's degree. Without general education requirements, none of this is possible.
We all should, upon graduating from college, know the basic facts about everything. Once we know the basics, we have the foundation to learn whatever our heart desires in the future. Without general education requirements, people graduating in a given field will know more about that field from the start, but the cost is the lack of the basic knowledge of other fields, which provides for a very narrow minded person.
millions more are in danger of losing certain rights because of the new wiretapping and surveillance authority the Justice Department is seeking.
That is correct. The way Americans have been talking, they are ready to sign away the constitution. "Sure, search my email, scan my phone calls, whatever it takes" has been the rally cry of the people. The government doesn't have to try too hard to justify the removal of privileges. Don't you ready your own message board? In a different article (search is down), a representative in congress said "Once your rights are taken away, they are rarely given back. No one in Congress wants to seem soft on terrorism or soft on Crime." We are talking about amending surveillance rules, and they may never be amended back.
Many people worry that once these powers are granted, they will never be given back.
Yep. See the above. Laws made in the heat of passion stay on the books. Law makers won't change the law for the appearance it makes. Try reading the article that was posted by CmdrTaco about the subject of liberties and the rush to have them taken away.
These terrorists are technologically skilled, government authorities say. They use the Net to e-mail one another, and to send encrypted files, sometimes online, at other times via Zip disks or other media. They move money online, make plans there, thus avoiding possible interception by traditional intelligence monitors listening to phone and cell calls. Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations?
The short answer is Yes, it is unreasonable. "Here is a good idea. Let's ban crypto. And screen cell calls. And read all email. And Faxes. What? You are against this? You must have something to hide!" I can see it now. Besides, if you implement the above, the bad guy can always use another system. The Bad guy will figure out a way to communication. Meanwhile, the good guy (you too Jon) will have all our private communications analyzed and recorded. (sarcasm) Sounds like a peachy system to me! (/sarcasm)
Many of us have already happily and willingly surrendered some privacy to Napster, Amazon, gaming sites, EZ-Pass toll systems, online retailers and other Web tracking services which have lists of our shopping, reading, entertainment habits and preferences.
Damn, looks like you don't read slashdot after all. Most of us are FAR from happy about giving up our rights. Most of us hate to register (which is why every time there is a reg. required link in a slashdot story, someone always posts a way to get around it). You are really out of touch Jon if you think the people are happy about our losses of privacy and the sharing and selling of personal information.
. Any new laws to fight this new kind of war ought to be temporary, and self-expiring, perhaps subject to annual review.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Yea right! Even if they were self-expiring or needed to be reviewed, no one would ever dare vote against a proposal that "fights crime." They wouldn't have a job any more. Even if the law did go away, you are still talking about a couple of years of impeding MY and YOUR freedoms. I don't remember a suspension clause in the Constitution........
I will NOT support any measure to take away MY freedoms, even for a little while. If the CIA (or whomever) wants more power to spy over seas, I can support that. I will NOT support any measure that increases the government's ability to spy on Americans like myself. ABSOLUTLY NOT!!!
Sounds like pretty good words to remember at a time like this. What price are you willing to pay for freedom. I will protect the security of the United States, but I will NEVER agree to ANY SUSPENSION of FREEEDOM!
My original point was not flamebait, and I am sorry if you saw it that way. My comment "Schools are out for education and not for corporate interests" might be wrong, but it is still not flamebait.
I think you might want to keep the post graduate degree (I am assuming you are referring to graduating an accredited college) under raps if you are going to reply to people's arguments using insulting baby language rather then constructive argument.
I believe you can make a point through terseness and style rather then long argument. I have done impromptu and understand how to make a point more succinct. You did not accomplish that. All you did was resort to childish antics of saying "Nah-uh!" "Nah-uh" is certainly terse, but does not reflect the level of education you claim to have.
As for setting aside the rules, that is all well and good in its place, and I agree there are times for that, but I don't know where you got the impression it is ok to set aside the rules of politeness or respect.
Why does it NOT suprise me that this is coming out of Texas Christian University and not, say, MIT?
That has got to be one of the most bigoted things I have heard said on slashdot. What are you trying to imply? That all Christian universities are incappible of providing scientific research? Heaven forbid (pun intended) that Christian schools try to help the community by developing a solution to one of society's ills.
Rogerborg said: Aw, poow wittle sowdier, is oo aww tiwed of the nasty, mean peopwe not bewieving oo?
At least with my university education, I have learned vague concepts like:
*Writing in English
*Writing in complete sentences
*Spelling and Grammar
It's pretty pathetic when you have to resort to an Circumstantial Ad Hominem, Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacies(yet another thing my university taught me) to attempt to make a point.
I appreciate the total lack of evidence that would either implicate most universities or my specific university. (Note: That was called Sarcasm. Repeat after me: Sarcasm)
a single coffee can have adverse effects on your arteries and heart.
Whew. That was close. Glad I switched to espresso!
Never mind...
I saw you are a Clemson student and were refering to a USC fan. I didn't see the orignial post when I replied to you before.
You may notice Mr. Chicken Fan has decided not to list his email address, while those from Clemson are listing their email address. I see Mr. Chicken Fan is a chicken fan unto the last!
Go Tigers!
*Sigh*
Yes, I suppose it is possible that there is some secret slush fund that I am not privy to. I don't think it is likely, but I can't rule it out completely.
I suppose it is completely out of the question that Alumni and others just want to give the University free money?
UM...
Clemson is the Tigers...
I believe you are thinking of the University of South Carolina, who are the gamecocks.
USC != Clemson
The Burger King is part of Hendrix center and I know they are leasing the space. I don't think there is any special favors there.
As for Fluor-Daniel I can't say. I know the building. It is very nice from what I have seen, and I haven't seen it effect the studies there.
BTW, why are you replying as an AC? Don't you want to speak about Clemson in a more open way if you disagree with me? Email me (or call me, I am on the PH) if you like.
No on campus McDonalds here. That money is all legit. No advertsing or pushing of local (or national) buisnesses. Most of the money went to departments (where there is still no advertising done or anything like that). As I said in my other post, some school are corrupt, but not Clemson.
The only reward for donation I see is premium parking for football games (I unfortunatly have to move my car to accomidate these people) and naming rights (most buidlings are named after Clemson officials from the past, but I live in a unnammed dorm (its brand new), and I hear they are trying to sell the naming rights).
People give gifts to Clemson. Clemson has not sold itself out to corperate interests (I think Dow donated a research lab on campus last year, but we didn't even name the building after Dow), nor is it likely to do so. Some colleges, maybe, but at Clemson, it just isn't the case.
You may not feel sorry for my school, but I go here, and I know what is going on, and I am telling you that donations and gifts to this school are charitable.
I can understand where you are coming from, but in this case it isn't true. I sit on Student Government as have looked at the school's budget. Trust me; we arn't swimming in cash. We are very prudent with cash here and mis-spend little. The links I provided show we lost $20M, not an insignifigant amount. Tuition was low here to start with anyway, and it is still compartivly low.
There might be schools where you analysis might apply, but not here. I am bias as a student here, but I am a student paying tuition, so I hope I gain some credibility there.