Its still valid actually, even with that wording. There are more poor ppl than rich ppl. If a majority of smart people wind up rich then rich people are more likely to be smart. Thats not gonna happen. However, it is certainly not far fetched to say 1% of smart people will become rich (of course its fuzzy what constitutes smart and rich). And the ratio of rich to smart is greater than 100 : 1. So given these conditions the rich are still more likely to be smart.
First that Asians arent considered a minority when things like this come around. Asians score higher than whites on tests often. Wouldnt that mean they are orientated(no pun intended) towards people of Asian descent?
Its the poorer kids that do... well... poorer. There are several reasons IMHO. This is both due to genetics, ie rich people are most likely to be smart(at least nouveu rich, once its 3rd generation this quickly changes and they become very stupid in general). Second, poor children receive less mental stimulation, especially early on and in the classroom. Its also more likely for them to be in crime ridden neighborhoods where exceling in class could put them in mortal danger and isn't given much importance.
This certainly doesnt mean that rich kids will individually outscore poor kids, merely a trend. Its the nature of the test, not the test itself. Maybe if public schools were obsolete messes run into the ground by morons it wouldnt be so bad (residual low middle class public school frustration leaking in).
But you are wrong. Sellers of blank VCR tapes are not held accountable because movies are bootlegged. There is a legitimate legal use, which legalizes it even if a majority of people used it for copyright theft. Read the Betamax case. Its the same concept.
Linking does not cause anyone to go to the site, nor store it. Granted its "shady" but does not constitute a crime. Telling someone that a blow to the nose driving it into the brain can kill someone does not make you guilty of murder.
The law must be black and white or it will be abused by those with money. They can hire lobbyists and lawyers until they are exonerated because of gray areas while those without such resources are jailed.
Intent is impossible to judge without a shadow of a doubt.
At the very least it seems pretty early on. It seems to be in theory almost entirely. Without code examples (how would they be represented?) its very dificult to fully comprehend. Or maybe Im just too used to coding in the traditional way. This could be the biggest leap since Java (or assembler or C etc) or nothing but theory.
I'm one of these young people (19), in my first year of college. I took all honors courses in high school. My sister mostly takes college prep (one level down). Her classes have to memorize key words from a book or a formula or a chart but no understanding is demanded. You had to figure out why things occured, why the formula worked and what the chart implied, as well as the information at my level. Knowing that the assasination of some Archduke started WWI is less important than understanding the political climate that led to the war.
I got to college and my engineering course (EE) the kids hit the wall because it wasnt just memorization. You had to understand the whole thing. Random facts dont do anygood. Being able to adapt, being able to understand systems, being able to apply those facts, that is far more useful.
Also, if there is one thing the school systems of America (where I have experience in) it is not more rigid enforcement of conformity!
Actually, no. While there was no *definitive* winner to the War of 1812 (surrender or whatnot) anyone can see that the US was definitely not in the advantageous position. To the British Empire. Not Canada.
And that was after England started kidnapping US sailors and forcing them into service in their navy. That sounds alot like.... slavery?
However, you can only say that yourself exists (I think therefore I am). Everything could be a figment of your imagination or part of some deception. However, even yourself could in theory be a simulation. If all you are is an emulation of a person in some computer, do you exist? More convincing arguments can also be made, such as existance based on free will, etc. Even existance can be questioned, and thus can't be said to be a complete law. Its nitpicky but...
Re:misconceptions about the electoral college
on
Hemos The Iron Chef
·
· Score: 1
In theory.
In reality only one time has any members of the electoral college gone against popular vote(in 1960, IIRC it was kennedy vs nixon). And the President and the rest of the government receives its power from a mandate of the people. If most people want to give the Presidency to another canidate and the electors give it to another, than the system has failed, both in intention and traditional practice and it was soon cease to exist. Don't be surprised if next election there is no electors.
I am saying that the advantage from giving a larger tax cut to the poor guy than the rich guy outweigh the advantage from giving money to the rich guy to give to the poor guy. Maybe he doesnt need a loan if he gets a tax break. Taking loans out are often necessary for the poor, but they actually hurt their financial well being if they are not returned at a greater rate than the interest, adjusted for interest.
Did you notice my last paragraph? Just because a company makes more money doesnt mean its employees do. Look at wage growth compared to economic growth over the last 4 years.
1% of the population of the US pays 33% of the taxes. It also has 99% of the money.
>This is the reason why an abortion is legal only >during the first few weeks (and it would be >really impracticable after).
What? Abortion is legal until the baby is completely out of the mother(in the US). A state (IIRC it was Kansas) attempted to make 'partial-birth' abortions illegal recently but the Supreme Court struct it down. A partial-birth abortion delievers the upperbody of the baby and then uses a vaccumcleaner like device to suck the baby's brain out through its soft spot. Abortions are legal and happen in the second and third trimester, after a spine, a heart, and a brain all exist.
Very few people think that in case of the mother's health in serious danger, or in the first week or two that an abortion is a large ethical crime. However, in case of financial problems, inconvenience, or IMO even if the baby is a product of rape an abortion should not carried out. There is always ADOPTION and the baby should not be punished for "sins of the father."
Im a freshman in college so high school is still fresh in my mind. Jr. High was alot like this.
However, my High School had a very smart core of nerds. Over a dozen in the top % of the SAT out of 500 and half of the 500 were vocational students.The football team and basketball team sucked. Our Academic Decathlon team won the National Championship for medium schools. The traditional jocks got to do what they wanted but not harass us. (Soccer team, which mostly were in our honors classes was different, they were state champs and up until we were jrs could do what they wanted to us). Then we "seized power".
There was a new and competant principal our sophamore year. So of course another district (we were mostly poor) offered more money and we got stuck with a true moron. But he didnt show until late Oct so there was some chaos. We'd be the messengers and we actually got some policies changed by using our pull with teachers and things. By the time the principal got there, we were a power to ourselves. We couldnt cancel school and we couldnt protect everyone from some of the stupid rules, but we could ignore them. One particularly dumb Spanish teacher was fired because several of us stood up and walked out. Several young English student teachers and substitutes were given full time jobs because we put in a good word(one was fired and rehired after we protested).
And everyone knew this. They knew that if they pissed off the nerds 1) the teachers and administration would come down on them 2( we would fight back phyiscally, which their mediocre athletic ability made our superior numbers even more intimidating 3) we'd fight back subtly. One football player our junior year gave one of our nerd leaders a black eye when he slammed him into a locker. He was expelled for the year along with several of his friends when we let the administration know they had pot in their lockers(stupid for bringing it to school in the first place).
And when nerds and punks and freaks and drama geeks arent picked on, "normal" kids stop worshiping the popular kids( Well, at least somewhat.).
It is possible to have a nerdocracy in high school.
There is a problem with this "trickle down" theory. The money in the bank is loaned to the poor guy. He doesnt gain any money this way. In fact he loses money from interest. The dealer takes a profit so the 'poor' employees get little in comparison.
And even as the economy skyrockets, with the exception of techies, coders and the like, salaries have not gone up. So the money supply isnt fixed but it still just grows in the pockets of the rich.
At my old school (Im a freshman in college now) the ironic thing was the kids who wore the DARE shirts the most were those who did the most drugs. An art student even bought one for like $5 off one and displayed it alone, cig burns and all.
The problem is that these students, despite what test scores say, arent stupid. While a few naive ones might buy the DARE stuff, most take it with a few lbs of salt. They (we) have other avenues of information, from word of mouth to the Internet. When other info conflicts with DARE....DARE is dismissed(and this is ignoring the whole reverse-psychology angle). Which is too bad because while drug use in moderation might not be all that bad, teenagers rarely if ever use drugs of any kind responsibly. Teenagers dont sit around a table sipping bear in conversation, but rather chug beer to look cool and get wasted. Marijuana might not be medically addictive, but once teens start smoking, it as often as not becomes their primary activity, even ignoring the greater chance of doing harder stuff.
I don't have a solution really. People often assume because DARE and similar programs are all propaganda, and dismiss all studies in which (illegal, not tobacco or alchohol) drug use is harmful. For instance, at both my college and old high school there are groups that are pro-pot anti-tobacco. They complain about tobaccos cancer causing chemicals and think ppl should smoke marijuana. Yet pot is 33 times more carcigenic. My generation may be the best at it (lots of practice) but even our bullshit screen isnt perfect.
This is exactly whats wrong. The question is not why shouldnt the government be able to do it, but why should it be able. The people's can do what they will unless prohibited by law and the government can only do what the law says they can. Yet, today most people think its the other way arond.
And what would happen if you tried to map every house in the world? Even with satalites and all other tools of modern technology by the time you finished, many of the houses would be different or gone and new ones would be there.
And this company doesnt just claim to map houses but their purpose and what is inside and where the nails came from. And the Internet mutates much faster than architecture. So yes, the claim is ridiculous.
The argument put forth in the article seems fairly weak. State to state differences have become less and less relevant. People of New York City have more in common with people of Chicago then with people of rural Upstate New York. He also seems to have a common flaw of 'group thinking' that I notice often among modern sociak theorists. States are imaginary. They are simply a area of land in which people live. They have internal governments, however this shouldnt affect the electorial process. Some proposing that Blacks and Whites and Asians (etc.) get their own electors that are winner take all would be laughed out of Washington. States aren't much different, with the growing irrevelancy of geographic location acting as the divider. Democracy isnt supposed to be about groups but about individual choice.
Gee, maybe its because electronics are based in binary? Binary is just as valid for unit measure as base 10 and in computing is much simpler. Don't speak if you have no idea about what you are talking about
It seems to me that Universities wouldn't be liable for what travels over its networks. In the US, its my understanding that ISPs can't be held responsible for the uses that its customers put their bandwidth to. Why would a university be any different? Most charge a fee for ethernet hookup, thus becoming at the bare minimum a de facto ISP.
But then IANAL. Could someone who is shed some light?
The problem with the Moodey article was 1)it was ill-informed & 2) it was clearly just for hits. Not many people are going to come to/. for CmdrTacos political views, unless they were here already.
Taco and everyone else posts their opinions from time to time. Usually, its on their opinion on a brand of Linux or the implications of a new bill or why a new space satellite is cool. Just because this opinion is about a presidential candidate doesn't mean its inappropriate. This site used to be more technically focused on OS and Linux, but now it more accurately matches "News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters."
There is no such thing as unopinionated news. Even the decision on what to post is opinionated. Thats just the way it is.
And when a software company abuses a monopoly, ie Microsoft, they become hated and people find alternatives. BSD basically was made as a copy of UNIX that cost way to much. The same to a lesser extent is true of Linux. AT&T tried to shut down the BSD project ('92 I think?) because it provided an alternative(it used the "trade secrets" technique).
Artists don't need the RIAA to get paid. In fact, they barely get paid under the big music companies (about as much as a teacher, much less than a programmer, when their companies make ~3-6 profit on each CD).
Well what about that CD you sorta want? You might like 1 or 2 songs but don't want to pay for the whole CD, because you'd rather eat that day.
Plus if it was a reasonably common CD and you are a college student, you don't need Napster to get the mp3. Just ask someone for a copy and burn a copy or rip some mp3s. Or go on the school network and see if anyone is sharing it. Napster is not the only source.
Personally I have bought 3 CDs this month and probably ~25 of the ~50 CDs I have bought since this time last year because of Napster or mp3.com. Probably more like 35 or 40 if you count the music that music from Napster led me to. That seems like an increase in sales to me.
1 - Actually, radio stations are usually paid more indirectly by the RIAA's co.s (through middlemen) to play their songs then they pay the companies. It is legal to make copies off the radio and the record companies get part of every blank cassette and CD sale (so even nonmusic discs get the RIAA $).
2- Its not really irrelevant. Its economics. If a consumer is given an unrealistic price they will attempt to find an alternative source. MP3s are inferior replacement goods compared to CDs that don't cost money, but do require bandwidth, time, and the risk of being caught pirating. If CDs social cost was less than the mp3s social cost, then people would buy CDs more. In the US, 98% of what is bought is a luxury item, from your clothes (it doesn't need a catchy slogan or brand name) to your computer to your furniture to your Operating System.
The RIAA's member companies holds a monopoly on music just as much as Microsoft ever did on the OS market. They've committed illegal acts to maintain it (forcing retailers to have higher prices, ect.) and rob the artists themselves blind. Just as people migrated to Linux in part because of overly high price, people find an alternative here. During Prohibition, people went to illegal means to drink because they couldn't get this luxury good legally. Getting something illegally raises the social cost, however, if the alternative is buying a CD for $20, instead of for bandwidth and time, most will choose the latter.
Also consider this - Another organization offers media for free. You keep the work for a preset amount of time with a tiny fee for late return. The maker is paid once, and then it is used by dozens. Its called a library. Books, videos, newspapers, magazines and yes CDs are all available at libraries for free. However, thats not stealing....thats borrowing.
The two most important issues with Napster, IMHO, that are rarely mentioned are:
1 - Napster doesn't really do anything new. You can request a song at most radio stations and tape it, or get a copy from a friend. Napster is just over the Internet.
2 - People wouldn't bother using Napster if CDs were more reasonably priced. Local and indie band CDs that I buy are usually ~$5. RIAA type CDs are 15-20, usually 17 around my area. They could easily sell these CDs for 10 even after promo, videos, production and failed artists even if they paid artists a reasonable amount (most get about the same as a teacher) and still make a big profit. At 15-20, there is often 300% return per CD even factoring the rest of the costs, including failed artists
Slashdot Mirror
Its still valid actually, even with that wording. There are more poor ppl than rich ppl. If a majority of smart people wind up rich then rich people are more likely to be smart. Thats not gonna happen. However, it is certainly not far fetched to say 1% of smart people will become rich (of course its fuzzy what constitutes smart and rich). And the ratio of rich to smart is greater than 100 : 1. So given these conditions the rich are still more likely to be smart.
First that Asians arent considered a minority when things like this come around. Asians score higher than whites on tests often. Wouldnt that mean they are orientated(no pun intended) towards people of Asian descent?
Its the poorer kids that do
This certainly doesnt mean that rich kids will individually outscore poor kids, merely a trend. Its the nature of the test, not the test itself. Maybe if public schools were obsolete messes run into the ground by morons it wouldnt be so bad (residual low middle class public school frustration leaking in).
But you are wrong. Sellers of blank VCR tapes are not held accountable because movies are bootlegged. There is a legitimate legal use, which legalizes it even if a majority of people used it for copyright theft. Read the Betamax case. Its the same concept.
Linking does not cause anyone to go to the site, nor store it. Granted its "shady" but does not constitute a crime. Telling someone that a blow to the nose driving it into the brain can kill someone does not make you guilty of murder.
The law must be black and white or it will be abused by those with money. They can hire lobbyists and lawyers until they are exonerated because of gray areas while those without such resources are jailed.
Intent is impossible to judge without a shadow of a doubt.
At the very least it seems pretty early on. It seems to be in theory almost entirely. Without code examples (how would they be represented?) its very dificult to fully comprehend. Or maybe Im just too used to coding in the traditional way. This could be the biggest leap since Java (or assembler or C etc) or nothing but theory.
Heh no matter how unrelated the situation, the Nazis always come up
I'm one of these young people (19), in my first year of college. I took all honors courses in high school. My sister mostly takes college prep (one level down). Her classes have to memorize key words from a book or a formula or a chart but no understanding is demanded. You had to figure out why things occured, why the formula worked and what the chart implied, as well as the information at my level. Knowing that the assasination of some Archduke started WWI is less important than understanding the political climate that led to the war.
I got to college and my engineering course (EE) the kids hit the wall because it wasnt just memorization. You had to understand the whole thing. Random facts dont do anygood. Being able to adapt, being able to understand systems, being able to apply those facts, that is far more useful.
Also, if there is one thing the school systems of America (where I have experience in) it is not more rigid enforcement of conformity!
And that was after England started kidnapping US sailors and forcing them into service in their navy. That sounds alot like.... slavery?
Look a little closer, its still distorted.
However, you can only say that yourself exists (I think therefore I am). Everything could be a figment of your imagination or part of some deception. However, even yourself could in theory be a simulation. If all you are is an emulation of a person in some computer, do you exist? More convincing arguments can also be made, such as existance based on free will, etc. Even existance can be questioned, and thus can't be said to be a complete law. Its nitpicky but...
In reality only one time has any members of the electoral college gone against popular vote(in 1960, IIRC it was kennedy vs nixon). And the President and the rest of the government receives its power from a mandate of the people. If most people want to give the Presidency to another canidate and the electors give it to another, than the system has failed, both in intention and traditional practice and it was soon cease to exist. Don't be surprised if next election there is no electors.
Did you notice my last paragraph? Just because a company makes more money doesnt mean its employees do. Look at wage growth compared to economic growth over the last 4 years.
1% of the population of the US pays 33% of the taxes. It also has 99% of the money.
>during the first few weeks (and it would be
>really impracticable after).
What? Abortion is legal until the baby is completely out of the mother(in the US). A state (IIRC it was Kansas) attempted to make 'partial-birth' abortions illegal recently but the Supreme Court struct it down. A partial-birth abortion delievers the upperbody of the baby and then uses a vaccumcleaner like device to suck the baby's brain out through its soft spot. Abortions are legal and happen in the second and third trimester, after a spine, a heart, and a brain all exist.
Very few people think that in case of the mother's health in serious danger, or in the first week or two that an abortion is a large ethical crime. However, in case of financial problems, inconvenience, or IMO even if the baby is a product of rape an abortion should not carried out. There is always ADOPTION and the baby should not be punished for "sins of the father."
Im a freshman in college so high school is still fresh in my mind. Jr. High was alot like this.
However, my High School had a very smart core of nerds. Over a dozen in the top % of the SAT out of 500 and half of the 500 were vocational students.The football team and basketball team sucked. Our Academic Decathlon team won the National Championship for medium schools. The traditional jocks got to do what they wanted but not harass us. (Soccer team, which mostly were in our honors classes was different, they were state champs and up until we were jrs could do what they wanted to us). Then we "seized power".
There was a new and competant principal our sophamore year. So of course another district (we were mostly poor) offered more money and we got stuck with a true moron. But he didnt show until late Oct so there was some chaos. We'd be the messengers and we actually got some policies changed by using our pull with teachers and things. By the time the principal got there, we were a power to ourselves. We couldnt cancel school and we couldnt protect everyone from some of the stupid rules, but we could ignore them. One particularly dumb Spanish teacher was fired because several of us stood up and walked out. Several young English student teachers and substitutes were given full time jobs because we put in a good word(one was fired and rehired after we protested).
And everyone knew this. They knew that if they pissed off the nerds 1) the teachers and administration would come down on them 2( we would fight back phyiscally, which their mediocre athletic ability made our superior numbers even more intimidating 3) we'd fight back subtly. One football player our junior year gave one of our nerd leaders a black eye when he slammed him into a locker. He was expelled for the year along with several of his friends when we let the administration know they had pot in their lockers(stupid for bringing it to school in the first place).
And when nerds and punks and freaks and drama geeks arent picked on, "normal" kids stop worshiping the popular kids( Well, at least somewhat.).
It is possible to have a nerdocracy in high school.
And even as the economy skyrockets, with the exception of techies, coders and the like, salaries have not gone up. So the money supply isnt fixed but it still just grows in the pockets of the rich.
The problem is that these students, despite what test scores say, arent stupid. While a few naive ones might buy the DARE stuff, most take it with a few lbs of salt. They (we) have other avenues of information, from word of mouth to the Internet. When other info conflicts with DARE....DARE is dismissed(and this is ignoring the whole reverse-psychology angle). Which is too bad because while drug use in moderation might not be all that bad, teenagers rarely if ever use drugs of any kind responsibly. Teenagers dont sit around a table sipping bear in conversation, but rather chug beer to look cool and get wasted. Marijuana might not be medically addictive, but once teens start smoking, it as often as not becomes their primary activity, even ignoring the greater chance of doing harder stuff.
I don't have a solution really. People often assume because DARE and similar programs are all propaganda, and dismiss all studies in which (illegal, not tobacco or alchohol) drug use is harmful. For instance, at both my college and old high school there are groups that are pro-pot anti-tobacco. They complain about tobaccos cancer causing chemicals and think ppl should smoke marijuana. Yet pot is 33 times more carcigenic. My generation may be the best at it (lots of practice) but even our bullshit screen isnt perfect.
This is exactly whats wrong. The question is not why shouldnt the government be able to do it, but why should it be able. The people's can do what they will unless prohibited by law and the government can only do what the law says they can. Yet, today most people think its the other way arond.
And this company doesnt just claim to map houses but their purpose and what is inside and where the nails came from. And the Internet mutates much faster than architecture. So yes, the claim is ridiculous.
The argument put forth in the article seems fairly weak. State to state differences have become less and less relevant. People of New York City have more in common with people of Chicago then with people of rural Upstate New York. He also seems to have a common flaw of 'group thinking' that I notice often among modern sociak theorists. States are imaginary. They are simply a area of land in which people live. They have internal governments, however this shouldnt affect the electorial process. Some proposing that Blacks and Whites and Asians (etc.) get their own electors that are winner take all would be laughed out of Washington. States aren't much different, with the growing irrevelancy of geographic location acting as the divider. Democracy isnt supposed to be about groups but about individual choice.
Gee, maybe its because electronics are based in binary? Binary is just as valid for unit measure as base 10 and in computing is much simpler. Don't speak if you have no idea about what you are talking about
But then IANAL. Could someone who is shed some light?
Taco and everyone else posts their opinions from time to time. Usually, its on their opinion on a brand of Linux or the implications of a new bill or why a new space satellite is cool. Just because this opinion is about a presidential candidate doesn't mean its inappropriate. This site used to be more technically focused on OS and Linux, but now it more accurately matches "News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters."
There is no such thing as unopinionated news. Even the decision on what to post is opinionated. Thats just the way it is.
Fat Wreck Chords just signed LTJ, and Mojo has the Pilfers and RBF
And when a software company abuses a monopoly, ie Microsoft, they become hated and people find alternatives. BSD basically was made as a copy of UNIX that cost way to much. The same to a lesser extent is true of Linux. AT&T tried to shut down the BSD project ('92 I think?) because it provided an alternative(it used the "trade secrets" technique).
Artists don't need the RIAA to get paid. In fact, they barely get paid under the big music companies (about as much as a teacher, much less than a programmer, when their companies make ~3-6 profit on each CD).
Well what about that CD you sorta want? You might like 1 or 2 songs but don't want to pay for the whole CD, because you'd rather eat that day.
Plus if it was a reasonably common CD and you are a college student, you don't need Napster to get the mp3. Just ask someone for a copy and burn a copy or rip some mp3s. Or go on the school network and see if anyone is sharing it. Napster is not the only source.
Personally I have bought 3 CDs this month and probably ~25 of the ~50 CDs I have bought since this time last year because of Napster or mp3.com. Probably more like 35 or 40 if you count the music that music from Napster led me to. That seems like an increase in sales to me.
2- Its not really irrelevant. Its economics. If a consumer is given an unrealistic price they will attempt to find an alternative source. MP3s are inferior replacement goods compared to CDs that don't cost money, but do require bandwidth, time, and the risk of being caught pirating. If CDs social cost was less than the mp3s social cost, then people would buy CDs more. In the US, 98% of what is bought is a luxury item, from your clothes (it doesn't need a catchy slogan or brand name) to your computer to your furniture to your Operating System.
The RIAA's member companies holds a monopoly on music just as much as Microsoft ever did on the OS market. They've committed illegal acts to maintain it (forcing retailers to have higher prices, ect.) and rob the artists themselves blind. Just as people migrated to Linux in part because of overly high price, people find an alternative here.
During Prohibition, people went to illegal means to drink because they couldn't get this luxury good legally. Getting something illegally raises the social cost, however, if the alternative is buying a CD for $20, instead of for bandwidth and time, most will choose the latter.
Also consider this - Another organization offers media for free. You keep the work for a preset amount of time with a tiny fee for late return. The maker is paid once, and then it is used by dozens. Its called a library. Books, videos, newspapers, magazines and yes CDs are all available at libraries for free. However, thats not stealing....thats borrowing.
1 - Napster doesn't really do anything new. You can request a song at most radio stations and tape it, or get a copy from a friend. Napster is just over the Internet.
2 - People wouldn't bother using Napster if CDs were more reasonably priced. Local and indie band CDs that I buy are usually ~$5. RIAA type CDs are 15-20, usually 17 around my area. They could easily sell these CDs for 10 even after promo, videos, production and failed artists even if they paid artists a reasonable amount (most get about the same as a teacher) and still make a big profit. At 15-20, there is often 300% return per CD even factoring the rest of the costs, including failed artists