Almost all children should be able to master those
Mastering them would include having a full, deep understanding of why it all works. That means no nonsense like mindlessly memorizing formulas or proof, and it means more than just being able to use them to solve problems.
I'm not entirely sure almost all children are capable of that.
They take things literally and assume books and adults tell them the truth most of the time.
I certainly assumed no such thing when I was a young child. I didn't assume that movies, fantasy books, video games, etc. told me the truth. Not at any age.
Perhaps I am the exception to some ill-defined rule, but I really haven't noticed such a thing.
Obama didn't go around drumming up support for an offensive war that killed hundred of thousands.
Maybe not on the same scale, but he sure does love bombing other countries and wants to send a few thousands troops. They're all warmongering scumbags.
A) because you're not banned from saying or wearing such things. It's just that companies are essentially required by law to provide a safe and respectable work space.
Bullshit. If by law, bosses have to fire you or stop you from wearing certain shirts, then that *is* a free speech issue.
B) obscenity is not protected public speech.
Bullshit. The first amendment makes *no* such distinction. The courts were absolutely 100% wrong here. Too often, the courts ignore the constitution in order to satisfy their personal agenda: To give the government powers the constitution does not grant it.
Anyone who is even remotely intelligent should be 100% opposed to "obscenity" bans. They're unconstitutional, utterly subjective, and infringe upon one of our most fundamental and basic rights: freedom of speech. Don't cite obscenity bans as if they're okay; they are anything but. But hey, when your speech or speech that you like is decided to be "obscene" based on completely subjective tests, don't go crying to the ACLU or similar organizations; you brought it on yourself.
Invalid comparison. There's no real way to combine your efforts when it comes to voting (except to vote for the same people, I guess). You can combine your efforts to create a coherent message, however.
And for the 50th time, where the fuck does the constitution even make such a distinction? Why would it even be desirable to not have free speech just because you worked in a group? Sounds like an authoritarian nightmare to me.
Some will doubtless agree with the corporation, and will speak in its favor.
Ignorant nonsense. If the courts said that the first amendment gave the government the power to assassinate any citizen for any reason, they'd be completely incorrect. In fact, the Supreme Court has overruled its past decisions before. The notion that they're always right is nothing more than illogical nonsense.
And here: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs." -Thomas Jefferson
The courts can and have been wrong, and they'll be wrong again in the future. It's ultimately up to us to fix any mess the government makes.
So now you're going to condemn the news media for having the audacity to report what's going on in Syria?
I condemn them for supporting an authoritarian, warmongering agenda. If they merely stopped at reporting the facts, there would be little problem. Instead, they endeavor to make people panic and support another war.
This from the person who professes to care about civil liberties?
Strange. I don't recall saying that the government should silence anyone. It's very strange indeed that you keep bringing up this point.
I dunno, it looks like there were 58 senators looking to limit surveillance
This bill did not do that, and in fact extended the Unpatriotic Act. Unconstitutional mass surveillance would have continued as usual.
The true colors of The One Party is shown if you just look at all the people who voted for the Unpatriotic Act the first time around, when it was easy to take advantage of the ignorant general public's emotions: Nearly everyone, regardless of party. They will do anything to maintain power, and do not care one bit about our fundamental liberties or the constitution. Any time they look like they care, it's just a ploy for more votes. In this case, the bill was just ineffectual and had some nasty things in it, so voting for it isn't a vote for freedom.
You're really quite hilarious, do you know that? You ceaselessly whine about civil liberties, without actually understanding how they work in the United States
I understand full well that the US government and the courts often ignore the constitution. I am saying it is wrong.
You are the one who has problems separating statements of morality and statements about how things are; that's not my issue.
and then you compound that by whining about the emotional imagery that has been shown to the American people by the free press
To have a right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it. I hope you at least understand that much.
What's your best suggestion for counteracting this horrible manipulation of our body politic?
Unfortunately, there is no way to stop warmongering media pundits and their friends in government. You have to tackle this problem with education and teach people about basic logic, emotional manipulation, etc. so they can hopefully resist it. Also, teaching probability and statistics might help a bit, since the number of people dying to ISIS will seem small in comparison to just about everything else.
At the moment, it's absolutely pathetic how little effort it takes to turn most Americans into warmongers.
Please link to the comment where I claimed to be anti-war or admit that you're putting words in my mouth.
Unrealistic answer: Invading other countries to play world police will fix the problem. Idealistic answer: Government thugs shouldn't be using emotional propaganda to manipulate Americans into supporting yet another war in the middle east that will accomplish a whole lot of nothing except to waste our money.
So basically, they're saying "the land of the free and the home of the brave" should sacrifice our fundamental liberties and allow the government to ignore the constitution to keep us safe. Why don't they just move to North Korea? It has everything they want.
So your complaint is that the current guy hasn't catered to your pet issues?
The constitution is not a pet issue. Fundamental liberties are not a pet issue. You'd think in a country that claims to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you wouldn't have people belittling those who are concerned that the government is ignoring the constitution and the principles this country is supposed to stand for.
But no. Apparently, freedom is just a "pet issue" in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Who would've known?
Just don't try and claim with a straight face that there's no difference between the two major parties. There are significant differences on issues large and small.
Bullshit. The differences are minuscule and they benefit from the fact that people generally only pay attention to hot button topics.
Don't vote for him or his party if that's how you feel.
I certainly didn't.
That might have something to do with the American citizens that keep getting their heads cut off.
So show people some emotional imagery to manipulate them into supporting world police nonsense, and you're good to go, despite the fact that you claimed to be anti-war? Bullshit. People die all over the world, but the minute a few people the general public cares about are killed, then suddenly it's time for warmongering.
It's amazing. I'm *actually* anti-war, and I can't stand the absolute hypocrisy of self-proclaimed anti-war activists suddenly supporting war because of appeals to emotions. You're too easily manipulated. Let's just fight in the middle east for the 1000th time; I'm sure it'll work out this time.
Nothing is taken, but privacy is violated. This obviously does not apply to, say, a copyrighted game, since that information is not private (as in privacy). There's an obvious difference.
Oh, wait... you mean it can harm them in other ways, like loss of market for the product
There is no loss in such a case, as you can't lose something you never had and was never yours (you can't claim to own other people's purchasing decisions) to begin with. These children had privacy.
It's not "think of the children." It's "think of these people's privacy." Just because the issue happens to impact children does not mean that there isn't a legitimate problem, you ignorant fool.
Um, I didn't say anything about proving my point. It's an illustration, an attempt to shortcut a fairly long explanation.
Didn't really help. Values have little to do with needs. It's possible to value something more than your life.
And then you say that people should care about what you care about, not giving an explanation why.
I would think that people would care about freedom, especially in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Apparently that's rather unreasonable. But then, shouldn't we stop pretending to care about freedom?
The obvious thing you're missing, is that the rights of the individuals within the groups were never infringed.
Except that they were. By infringing upon the group's free speech rights, you infringe upon the free speech rights of the individuals. Your view seems to be that if you work in a group, the government has unlimited power to infringe upon that group's rights. The constitution allows no such thing. And since working in groups is beneficial and can be practically required to get anything done, I think I'll pass on your authoritarian bullshit.
So no, I think I'll take a government with limited powers; powers spelled out by the constitution.
Gamemaker is the only solution. Every True Programmer uses Gamemaker. Why aren't you using Gamemaker? Gamemaker is the best. Nothing's better than Gamemaker. With Gamemaker, nothing is impossible. Without Gamemaker, you are nothing; a mere husk unfit to exist. Return. Return, I say!
Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdoooooooooooooooooooom!
Individuals can work in groups, and yet individuals working in groups someone lose their rights just because they're not working as individuals? How authoritarian of you.
You can still exercise your rights outside of the collective.
Where does the US constitution say you lose your free speech rights if you work in a group?
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all children should be able to master those
Mastering them would include having a full, deep understanding of why it all works. That means no nonsense like mindlessly memorizing formulas or proof, and it means more than just being able to use them to solve problems.
I'm not entirely sure almost all children are capable of that.
They take things literally and assume books and adults tell them the truth most of the time.
I certainly assumed no such thing when I was a young child. I didn't assume that movies, fantasy books, video games, etc. told me the truth. Not at any age.
Perhaps I am the exception to some ill-defined rule, but I really haven't noticed such a thing.
So your logic is that if we can't stop all murders, why bother to try to stop some of them?
I think the point is that people should stop being warmongering scumbags playing world police.
Obama didn't go around drumming up support for an offensive war that killed hundred of thousands.
Maybe not on the same scale, but he sure does love bombing other countries and wants to send a few thousands troops. They're all warmongering scumbags.
A) because you're not banned from saying or wearing such things. It's just that companies are essentially required by law to provide a safe and respectable work space.
Bullshit. If by law, bosses have to fire you or stop you from wearing certain shirts, then that *is* a free speech issue.
B) obscenity is not protected public speech.
Bullshit. The first amendment makes *no* such distinction. The courts were absolutely 100% wrong here. Too often, the courts ignore the constitution in order to satisfy their personal agenda: To give the government powers the constitution does not grant it.
Anyone who is even remotely intelligent should be 100% opposed to "obscenity" bans. They're unconstitutional, utterly subjective, and infringe upon one of our most fundamental and basic rights: freedom of speech. Don't cite obscenity bans as if they're okay; they are anything but. But hey, when your speech or speech that you like is decided to be "obscene" based on completely subjective tests, don't go crying to the ACLU or similar organizations; you brought it on yourself.
Individuals can vote. Corporations can't.
Invalid comparison. There's no real way to combine your efforts when it comes to voting (except to vote for the same people, I guess). You can combine your efforts to create a coherent message, however.
And for the 50th time, where the fuck does the constitution even make such a distinction? Why would it even be desirable to not have free speech just because you worked in a group? Sounds like an authoritarian nightmare to me.
Some will doubtless agree with the corporation, and will speak in its favor.
Then what, exactly, are you proposing?
Man, these people are idiots. Why didn't they just use MyCleanPC?
and can only come from a somebody who was educated by his American parents at home.
I assure you, most public and private schools do a good job of indoctrinating people and churning out mindless worker drones.
It's PBS dude.
You're the one trying to limit the discussion to PBS. I am not.
Ignorant nonsense. If the courts said that the first amendment gave the government the power to assassinate any citizen for any reason, they'd be completely incorrect. In fact, the Supreme Court has overruled its past decisions before. The notion that they're always right is nothing more than illogical nonsense.
And here: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs." -Thomas Jefferson
The courts can and have been wrong, and they'll be wrong again in the future. It's ultimately up to us to fix any mess the government makes.
All I can say is, if you honestly think that all the media in general did was unemotionally report the facts, you're an incurable fool.
So now you're going to condemn the news media for having the audacity to report what's going on in Syria?
I condemn them for supporting an authoritarian, warmongering agenda. If they merely stopped at reporting the facts, there would be little problem. Instead, they endeavor to make people panic and support another war.
This from the person who professes to care about civil liberties?
Strange. I don't recall saying that the government should silence anyone. It's very strange indeed that you keep bringing up this point.
I dunno, it looks like there were 58 senators looking to limit surveillance
This bill did not do that, and in fact extended the Unpatriotic Act. Unconstitutional mass surveillance would have continued as usual.
The true colors of The One Party is shown if you just look at all the people who voted for the Unpatriotic Act the first time around, when it was easy to take advantage of the ignorant general public's emotions: Nearly everyone, regardless of party. They will do anything to maintain power, and do not care one bit about our fundamental liberties or the constitution. Any time they look like they care, it's just a ploy for more votes. In this case, the bill was just ineffectual and had some nasty things in it, so voting for it isn't a vote for freedom.
You're really quite hilarious, do you know that? You ceaselessly whine about civil liberties, without actually understanding how they work in the United States
I understand full well that the US government and the courts often ignore the constitution. I am saying it is wrong.
You are the one who has problems separating statements of morality and statements about how things are; that's not my issue.
and then you compound that by whining about the emotional imagery that has been shown to the American people by the free press
To have a right to do something is not the same as being right in doing it. I hope you at least understand that much.
What's your best suggestion for counteracting this horrible manipulation of our body politic?
Unfortunately, there is no way to stop warmongering media pundits and their friends in government. You have to tackle this problem with education and teach people about basic logic, emotional manipulation, etc. so they can hopefully resist it. Also, teaching probability and statistics might help a bit, since the number of people dying to ISIS will seem small in comparison to just about everything else.
At the moment, it's absolutely pathetic how little effort it takes to turn most Americans into warmongers.
Please link to the comment where I claimed to be anti-war or admit that you're putting words in my mouth.
Not "you" as in you specifically.
Unrealistic answer: Invading other countries to play world police will fix the problem.
Idealistic answer: Government thugs shouldn't be using emotional propaganda to manipulate Americans into supporting yet another war in the middle east that will accomplish a whole lot of nothing except to waste our money.
So basically, they're saying "the land of the free and the home of the brave" should sacrifice our fundamental liberties and allow the government to ignore the constitution to keep us safe. Why don't they just move to North Korea? It has everything they want.
So your complaint is that the current guy hasn't catered to your pet issues?
The constitution is not a pet issue. Fundamental liberties are not a pet issue. You'd think in a country that claims to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you wouldn't have people belittling those who are concerned that the government is ignoring the constitution and the principles this country is supposed to stand for.
But no. Apparently, freedom is just a "pet issue" in "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Who would've known?
Just don't try and claim with a straight face that there's no difference between the two major parties. There are significant differences on issues large and small.
Bullshit. The differences are minuscule and they benefit from the fact that people generally only pay attention to hot button topics.
Don't vote for him or his party if that's how you feel.
I certainly didn't.
That might have something to do with the American citizens that keep getting their heads cut off.
So show people some emotional imagery to manipulate them into supporting world police nonsense, and you're good to go, despite the fact that you claimed to be anti-war? Bullshit. People die all over the world, but the minute a few people the general public cares about are killed, then suddenly it's time for warmongering.
It's amazing. I'm *actually* anti-war, and I can't stand the absolute hypocrisy of self-proclaimed anti-war activists suddenly supporting war because of appeals to emotions. You're too easily manipulated. Let's just fight in the middle east for the 1000th time; I'm sure it'll work out this time.
However, data that is private can be stolen
Only if the device it's stored on is stolen. Someone sending the data around can violate people's privacy; that doesn't mean the data was stolen.
Nothing is taken, but privacy is violated. This obviously does not apply to, say, a copyrighted game, since that information is not private (as in privacy). There's an obvious difference.
Oh, wait... you mean it can harm them in other ways, like loss of market for the product
There is no loss in such a case, as you can't lose something you never had and was never yours (you can't claim to own other people's purchasing decisions) to begin with. These children had privacy.
It's not "think of the children." It's "think of these people's privacy." Just because the issue happens to impact children does not mean that there isn't a legitimate problem, you ignorant fool.
Um, I didn't say anything about proving my point. It's an illustration, an attempt to shortcut a fairly long explanation.
Didn't really help. Values have little to do with needs. It's possible to value something more than your life.
And then you say that people should care about what you care about, not giving an explanation why.
I would think that people would care about freedom, especially in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Apparently that's rather unreasonable. But then, shouldn't we stop pretending to care about freedom?
The obvious thing you're missing, is that the rights of the individuals within the groups were never infringed.
Except that they were. By infringing upon the group's free speech rights, you infringe upon the free speech rights of the individuals. Your view seems to be that if you work in a group, the government has unlimited power to infringe upon that group's rights. The constitution allows no such thing. And since working in groups is beneficial and can be practically required to get anything done, I think I'll pass on your authoritarian bullshit.
So no, I think I'll take a government with limited powers; powers spelled out by the constitution.
Gamemaker is the only solution. Every True Programmer uses Gamemaker. Why aren't you using Gamemaker? Gamemaker is the best. Nothing's better than Gamemaker. With Gamemaker, nothing is impossible. Without Gamemaker, you are nothing; a mere husk unfit to exist. Return. Return, I say!
Return, return, return, return, return to Gamemakerdoooooooooooooooooooom!
Someone who just tries to get a brief idea of who someone is might just glance over it and get the wrong idea.
Then whose fault is that, for believing something without actual evidence?
Individuals can work in groups, and yet individuals working in groups someone lose their rights just because they're not working as individuals? How authoritarian of you.
You can still exercise your rights outside of the collective.
Where does the US constitution say you lose your free speech rights if you work in a group?