This forum has a fairly skewed opinion since we are all mostly tech geeks. We like to play multiplayer games. Unfortunately the "VAST" majority of gamers do not. only about 10% of Xbox owners ever redeem their free live subscription. The other 90% either can't or don't care for playing online. the pattern is similiar for the number of warcraft III players online ect... People just don't want to play other people that often.
So, if a scientific expert or, say, the pope says that ID is a-ok, it's ok?
What the pope says is irrelevant. What a scientific expert says is irrelevant, if the scientific communities says one ideas holds some merit then I might aquiece but you won't be able to convince that many people such a retarded idea could be valid. It defies even cursory review.
Emacs or Vi?
Experts don't disagree ont his one topic just as either Pro-emacs or pro-Vi sides will agree notepad is garbage. What biologists will disagree on in theories with near equal validity, ID isnt' one of them.
Now, it's highly possible that the judge is well-schooled in the sciences, but a couple of weeks in court isn't the way to solve any educational debate on curriculum - this might be something that's a bit easier to decide on, but IMO it sets a nasty precedent for how our educational system is modeled.
While this would hardly slip under the radar, it seems that a judge has the power to say, "Modern Calculus cannot be taught anymore in High School" with a similar argument from "experts". Now while both of these topics are pretty high-profile and would be challenged, what about a more obscure, but important topic?
Unfortunately and fortunately we live in a legalist state and many many such things already occur. In this one case it is right. It sets no precedent, the ciriculum is already aprtially set by the state (general term, like France not idaho) because the state controls the education system. This only sets the precedent that local authorities cannot alter the ciriculum to be counter to the federal consensus of what is science. You'll note that many US text books calls vietnam and the war of 1612 a draw when everybody else in the world saw both as a loss for the US. The state already uses primary public education as a propaganda tool. Your arguement simply is pointless because all of the worst things this ruling implies already has happened.
Once again, I'm not advocating ID as an alternative to the fairly well established theory of evolution. In fact, I'm not advocating it at all; I don't think it happened. At best it's a weak explanation for the appearance of life millions of years ago, and it still begs the question of the origins of the designer. I just don't think it's unconstitutional to acknolwedge that it may have happened, and I think the worst thing to come of it would be that someone grows up determined to find out what really happened.
It actually appears as you are trying to advocate ID but are too sheepish to do so out right, none of yrou arguements hold water. ID has no place except in religion and perhaps sociology, there onyl as part of the study of why people will hold ideas when logic denies them any ground to hold it.
I don't believe in ID. That said, I don't at all agree that it's unconstitutional, or even improper. Perhaps it *should* be (although I don't think so), but I don't see anything to substantiate the argument that such prohibitions currently exist. The two arguments in favor of separation are as follows: 1) The constitution prevents the establishment of religion in the First Amendment, and 2) Congress has no power except that which is explicitly granted to it, therefore it can neither support nor discourage religion.
However, in order to say that teaching ID is unconstitutional, the following criteria must be met:
1) ID is religion 2) Teaching religion as theory is supporting religion 3) The classroom is a federal matter
On the first point, ID might be a pillar of some religions, but I do not believe that it is paramount to religion. A religion is a construct (or divine law, if that's what you believe) which usually centers around a higher power, but not always. It is, at the heart of it, a set of principles, values, and beliefs about how one should live one's life, and possibly why. The theory of ID on its own makes no claim as to whom this being might be, what its motives were, or how we should regard it. It is the dichotomic (is that a word?) opposition of life arising by chance mingling of molecules. Either it happened by chance, or it didn't. Acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is not anti-science; rather it is the very foundation of science. To blindly follow any hypothesis or theory without regard to alternatives is the definition of bad science.
On the second point, sociology is science, and religion is part of sociology. Sociology is not hard science like chemistry or physics, but it's science nonetheless. Further, no science is an island, regardless of how much each branch may wish it were so. I do believe it's a slippery slope, but sheltering children from various ideas is the opposite of education. Acknowledging that religion exists is not at all the same as supporting it. Teaching politics is as much of a slippery slope, and maintaining an unbiased presentation (inasmuch as that is humanly possible) is obviously important. Because it is difficult does not mean it shouldn't be attempted.
On the third point, Congress only has powers which are granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers are granted to the state, or the individual. As far as I know, States are in charge of their own curriculum. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress is expressly prohibited from making any laws regarding religion, which would mean that such powers are relegated to the states by default. While it's not (to my knowledge) legal for any state to promote or discourage religion, such restrictions would logically be enacted on a state-by-state basis in their own constitutions. That, however, does not make it unconstitutional.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't particularly like the idea of teaching ID, but when I try to think about it objectively, I just can't reconcile its prohibition.
1- ID is in support of a particular religion namely abrahamic ones as it is not very compatable with any others.
2- Teaching ID woudl undermine biology without any tangable benifit except to make teaching a certain set of religions easier and thus is supportign religion.
3- I have no idea about this since I am canadian and our schools are provincial.
Just to establish my cred, ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in school.
Now, having said that, I want to issue a cautionary note to my liberal friends. Let's take a sober approach toward this, shall we?: Having a federal judge deciding what is and is not science, and thus what should and should not be taught in school, is really a terrible state of affairs.
If the government didn't have a near-monopoly on education, this wouldn't be an issue, of course. But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.
- AJ
Having a judge with expert advice say it is not science is better then having a school board full of religious people proclaim it is. I would prefer the former to the later although Ideally I woudl accept the words of an actual scientist. However their words fall on deaf ears.
Thanks you! I live on the Gulf Coast and every time there is a storm that get close, the news agencies send hundreds of reporters to the area. Not only do they get in the way but they wish bad things on us in order to get a good report. If the storm happens to go in a different direction or degrade, you can watch as the reporters get dissappointed because there's not going to be as much destruction. Not only that but their exaggerated stories cause runs on fuel, food and building materials before the storm. I've noticed that the past several storms have not appeared to be as bad as they were reported on the news. Thanks again for bringing up this point. -JM
The general rule of thumb is to assume all the things you see on TV and read in the newspaper is second hand bullshit put out by the most shallo and oppotunistic shells of humanity that every lived. Of all of the news stories in the local media that I have ever been a part off, not one was even close to the truth. Friends who were university students were reported as gand members, actuall criminal associates being described as harmless bystandards, Quotes from my union being taken out of context or simply mis quoted ect.. Objective jounalism is a myth and has never occured in the history of man. The basics of the stories are there btu you must realize it's mostly spin.
Re:Has the world really turned to such devices?
on
How Xbox Happened
·
· Score: 1
it seems to me that while usage of such "information devices" has increased significantly over the past few years, they haven't really replaced the PC so much as complimented it. It seems that now the PC is still the hub of our information activities, but when we cannot or do not want to use the pc, we use such information devices. However, it seems we are always either syncing data with the computer or connecting to it. Gates was wrong that they would supplant instead of compliment the PC.
For my generation the PC has replaced the TV. Microsoft has it pegged wrong. They banked on the other way around.
It looks like the BBC consistently gets way more queries than CNN. This might explain the world's perception of the U.S. commence flame war...
If any Americans thinks CNN/Fox news is a credible news source, then it goes to explain the Americans view on the world more. The BBC is often fiarly moderate and fair in international reporting while the later two shill for the state. BBC shills for the state too but the state i the UK. IT's reporting on the US and the rest of the wrold tends to be moderate and fair compared to other public networks.
On the PS3 we can only speculate, but it save to assume that it performs in the same league as the 360. The only thing I have seen is that their launch titles are more innovative and/or look more attractive to me. But sony doesn't understand or breathe online gaming as MS does...
Actually, few consumers understand or breathe online gaming. IT has always been a niche thing becuase people don't liek getting their ass kicked by some person 3000 miles away.
I quite frankly think that Wikipedia is the best example yet of how truth and fact cannot be decided by majority opinions. I'm sure that 99% of Wikipedia's information is at least trivially true, but I'll be blunt, in the most important scale for judging any information source; trust, I think Wikipedia can never stand up to various authorative sources and experts.
Thats a valid arguement with all major encyclopedias, the information is at best superficially true with a lot of depth missing and thus a encyclopedia is a good startign point but a useless athoratative source much like wikipedia. Wikipedia is just more prone to be tampered with in contentious issues an more prone to group think due to the democratic nature of it's information. By the same token Standard encyclopedias are more prone to be less deep due to the limited staff sizes and also less up to date and less aware of any contention.
GW has to do that to take the edge off if his actions. I don't think it reflects his true beliefs. You have to consider that there are more muslims in the US then jews (by a little bit). Although he has won some of the jewish vote for coming down hard on the iraqis and the palestenians and refusing to critisize israel he has lost all the muslim vote. He is just trying to convince a tiny percentage of the muslims to vote for him.
But there are more rich jews then rich muslims due almost pruely to the recent nature of the muslim immigration.
Was he beaten in the name of religion, or beaten in the name of being actively antagonistic to his assailants? Yeah, the former group is large, but the latter is far larger and not noteworthy.
"Big fat faces?" He had a high school outlook on the whole matter and he got a high school response.
NEither woudl be satisfactory reasons to injure someone. If someone called me big and fat I'd laugh it off. If I took that as an offence that I'd be dumber then a sack of creationists.
One of his emails talked about how he couldn't wait to teach this course to throw his position against ID in "their big fat face." Okay, if you profess (ahemm) to be a professor and you can't muster up any more intelligent way to communicate than that I submitt you have no business teaching at a university. Kindergarten? Maybe.
Clever ways to insult people is one mark of intelligence, a PHD is a supurior one. Some people may be intelligent but simple while others decietful but stupid. The professor seems to fall into the later catagory.
You're very right. And I've always wondered why Christians are so intent on getting ID taught. It very clearly contradicts the Bible. And if you're willing to accept that the Bible isn't literal truth, then what the hell is the problem with thinking God made the laws of physics, hit the on-switch, and sends a Jesus or two every once in a while? You don't need gaps in the fossil record for that.
It's very difficult to teach your kids that yoru bible i literally true when their teacher tells them it's different. Literalists are on of the more frightening types of people around because they can rationalize anythign and to them their rationalization is iron clad.
The difference is termininology - muslim extremists, christian fundamentalists.. in fact there's little difference - both prepared to kill for their beliefs.
The reocord of athiest extremism is no better - The Jacobins, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II - all were/are murderers.
Athiesm taken to its logical conclusion has no respect in the dignity of humnanity. Those of faith believe that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'. Atheism says that 'inalienable rights' don't exist.
Look up history, tell me when rights stopped any massacres. I am a christian and think "rights" are nice ideals but their imaginary.
Hu? Its known that MS plans to include HD-DVD in the future, an it WON'T be incompatible with existing DVDs. Heck my DVD player now can play CDs DVD DVD-DL etc. As long as the disc sizes are the same all future CD sized disk will be backcompatible, at worst you have to add a second laser at best simply different software.
Splitting up your market between core and deluze is already bad, then splitting it up futher with HD-DVD/DVD spells death You know why Atari died? Partially because of shit liek that splitting their market.
But, mental health professionals who support the diagnosis of Internet addiction say, a majority of obsessive users are online to further addictions to gambling or pornography or have become much more dependent on those vices because of their prevalence on the Internet.
Yeah, basically they're saying, give me more money. A party with a vested interest to convince us that we're mentally ill has a bit less credibility with that recommentdation.
With all the recent uproar surrounding this issue, I have to wonder why the cell providers aren't required to do this?
I am a Vonage subscriber. It was stated quite clearly from day on, and I am an early adopter, that 911 is handled differently and that I had to keep my physical address information updated on the Vonage dashboard to help ensure timely response by emergency services. I have yet had the need to test this though.
However, my cell phone provider never said anything, at least not clearly, and the one time I had to call 911, I went through a whole little dance giving my physical address to the operator and then wait to be transfered to a local 911 response center.
So, what's the difference?
With a cell the operator can call your provider and get yoru location through triangulation through cell towers, but the process takes a little time so it's often easier to ask for your physical address.
Shouldn't the uncooperative companies be fined/sued? After all, they were supposed to cooperate and they didn't.
Vonage: Hi, I want to steal all your customers from you and corrupt your business model, can you please help us enable 911 services on our phones. The government didn't say if you had to or not, please.. pretty please?
How about we use the same money to save whats left of our planet? AFAIK, we have at least a few intelligent lifeforms here.
This arguement is counter productive we already spend resources int hat direction. The amoutn we actually spend on space exploration and science is minicule compared to other ventures such as the military.
Slashdot Mirror
This forum has a fairly skewed opinion since we are all mostly tech geeks. We like to play multiplayer games. Unfortunately the "VAST" majority of gamers do not. only about 10% of Xbox owners ever redeem their free live subscription. The other 90% either can't or don't care for playing online. the pattern is similiar for the number of warcraft III players online ect... People just don't want to play other people that often.
So, if a scientific expert or, say, the pope says that ID is a-ok, it's ok?
What the pope says is irrelevant. What a scientific expert says is irrelevant, if the scientific communities says one ideas holds some merit then I might aquiece but you won't be able to convince that many people such a retarded idea could be valid. It defies even cursory review.
Emacs or Vi?
Experts don't disagree ont his one topic just as either Pro-emacs or pro-Vi sides will agree notepad is garbage. What biologists will disagree on in theories with near equal validity, ID isnt' one of them.
Now, it's highly possible that the judge is well-schooled in the sciences, but a couple of weeks in court isn't the way to solve any educational debate on curriculum - this might be something that's a bit easier to decide on, but IMO it sets a nasty precedent for how our educational system is modeled.
While this would hardly slip under the radar, it seems that a judge has the power to say, "Modern Calculus cannot be taught anymore in High School" with a similar argument from "experts". Now while both of these topics are pretty high-profile and would be challenged, what about a more obscure, but important topic?
Unfortunately and fortunately we live in a legalist state and many many such things already occur. In this one case it is right. It sets no precedent, the ciriculum is already aprtially set by the state (general term, like France not idaho) because the state controls the education system. This only sets the precedent that local authorities cannot alter the ciriculum to be counter to the federal consensus of what is science. You'll note that many US text books calls vietnam and the war of 1612 a draw when everybody else in the world saw both as a loss for the US. The state already uses primary public education as a propaganda tool. Your arguement simply is pointless because all of the worst things this ruling implies already has happened.
Once again, I'm not advocating ID as an alternative to the fairly well established theory of evolution. In fact, I'm not advocating it at all; I don't think it happened. At best it's a weak explanation for the appearance of life millions of years ago, and it still begs the question of the origins of the designer. I just don't think it's unconstitutional to acknolwedge that it may have happened, and I think the worst thing to come of it would be that someone grows up determined to find out what really happened.
It actually appears as you are trying to advocate ID but are too sheepish to do so out right, none of yrou arguements hold water. ID has no place except in religion and perhaps sociology, there onyl as part of the study of why people will hold ideas when logic denies them any ground to hold it.
i I agree, and to start the ball rolling:
I don't believe in ID. That said, I don't at all agree that it's unconstitutional, or even improper. Perhaps it *should* be (although I don't think so), but I don't see anything to substantiate the argument that such prohibitions currently exist. The two arguments in favor of separation are as follows: 1) The constitution prevents the establishment of religion in the First Amendment, and 2) Congress has no power except that which is explicitly granted to it, therefore it can neither support nor discourage religion.
However, in order to say that teaching ID is unconstitutional, the following criteria must be met:
1) ID is religion
2) Teaching religion as theory is supporting religion
3) The classroom is a federal matter
On the first point, ID might be a pillar of some religions, but I do not believe that it is paramount to religion. A religion is a construct (or divine law, if that's what you believe) which usually centers around a higher power, but not always. It is, at the heart of it, a set of principles, values, and beliefs about how one should live one's life, and possibly why. The theory of ID on its own makes no claim as to whom this being might be, what its motives were, or how we should regard it. It is the dichotomic (is that a word?) opposition of life arising by chance mingling of molecules. Either it happened by chance, or it didn't. Acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is not anti-science; rather it is the very foundation of science. To blindly follow any hypothesis or theory without regard to alternatives is the definition of bad science.
On the second point, sociology is science, and religion is part of sociology. Sociology is not hard science like chemistry or physics, but it's science nonetheless. Further, no science is an island, regardless of how much each branch may wish it were so. I do believe it's a slippery slope, but sheltering children from various ideas is the opposite of education. Acknowledging that religion exists is not at all the same as supporting it. Teaching politics is as much of a slippery slope, and maintaining an unbiased presentation (inasmuch as that is humanly possible) is obviously important. Because it is difficult does not mean it shouldn't be attempted.
On the third point, Congress only has powers which are granted to it by the Constitution. All other powers are granted to the state, or the individual. As far as I know, States are in charge of their own curriculum. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress is expressly prohibited from making any laws regarding religion, which would mean that such powers are relegated to the states by default. While it's not (to my knowledge) legal for any state to promote or discourage religion, such restrictions would logically be enacted on a state-by-state basis in their own constitutions. That, however, does not make it unconstitutional.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't particularly like the idea of teaching ID, but when I try to think about it objectively, I just can't reconcile its prohibition.
1- ID is in support of a particular religion namely abrahamic ones as it is not very compatable with any others.
2- Teaching ID woudl undermine biology without any tangable benifit except to make teaching a certain set of religions easier and thus is supportign religion.
3- I have no idea about this since I am canadian and our schools are provincial.
Just to establish my cred, ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in school.
Now, having said that, I want to issue a cautionary note to my liberal friends. Let's take a sober approach toward this, shall we?: Having a federal judge deciding what is and is not science, and thus what should and should not be taught in school, is really a terrible state of affairs.
If the government didn't have a near-monopoly on education, this wouldn't be an issue, of course. But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.
- AJ
Having a judge with expert advice say it is not science is better then having a school board full of religious people proclaim it is. I would prefer the former to the later although Ideally I woudl accept the words of an actual scientist. However their words fall on deaf ears.
How about the fact that the entire civilization on most of those planets always seems to consist of a single small town?
Or how about having every alien planet look like British Colombia, more sepcifically within 100 miles of vancouver. Wow the universe is homogenius.
Thanks you! I live on the Gulf Coast and every time there is a storm that get close, the news agencies send hundreds of reporters to the area. Not only do they get in the way but they wish bad things on us in order to get a good report. If the storm happens to go in a different direction or degrade, you can watch as the reporters get dissappointed because there's not going to be as much destruction. Not only that but their exaggerated stories cause runs on fuel, food and building materials before the storm. I've noticed that the past several storms have not appeared to be as bad as they were reported on the news. Thanks again for bringing up this point. -JM
The general rule of thumb is to assume all the things you see on TV and read in the newspaper is second hand bullshit put out by the most shallo and oppotunistic shells of humanity that every lived. Of all of the news stories in the local media that I have ever been a part off, not one was even close to the truth. Friends who were university students were reported as gand members, actuall criminal associates being described as harmless bystandards, Quotes from my union being taken out of context or simply mis quoted ect.. Objective jounalism is a myth and has never occured in the history of man. The basics of the stories are there btu you must realize it's mostly spin.
it seems to me that while usage of such "information devices" has increased significantly over the past few years, they haven't really replaced the PC so much as complimented it. It seems that now the PC is still the hub of our information activities, but when we cannot or do not want to use the pc, we use such information devices. However, it seems we are always either syncing data with the computer or connecting to it. Gates was wrong that they would supplant instead of compliment the PC.
For my generation the PC has replaced the TV. Microsoft has it pegged wrong. They banked on the other way around.
All (ok, 99% of) the displayed charts have a 0 dip around April time (just around the time of the popes death)
:)
Did anyone else notice this and wonder just what happened at the data centre that day?
Catholics aroudn the world stopped masterbating to porn on that day. Leading to a huge drop in internet usage
It looks like the BBC consistently gets way more queries than CNN. This might explain the world's perception of the U.S.
commence flame war...
If any Americans thinks CNN/Fox news is a credible news source, then it goes to explain the Americans view on the world more. The BBC is often fiarly moderate and fair in international reporting while the later two shill for the state. BBC shills for the state too but the state i the UK. IT's reporting on the US and the rest of the wrold tends to be moderate and fair compared to other public networks.
"Small company invents something that is vaguely like something we read in a sci-fi book and posted it on slashdot to recieve free press!"
Apart from the fact that Sony is the rootkit/spyware company, and it is a risk to let their products anywhere near your house?
Apart fromt he 3 people who bought the shitty CD's, no one else cared.
On the PS3 we can only speculate, but it save to assume that it performs in the same league as the 360. The only thing I have seen is that their launch titles are more innovative and/or look more attractive to me. But sony doesn't understand or breathe online gaming as MS does...
Actually, few consumers understand or breathe online gaming. IT has always been a niche thing becuase people don't liek getting their ass kicked by some person 3000 miles away.
I quite frankly think that Wikipedia is the best example yet of how truth and fact cannot be decided by majority opinions. I'm sure that 99% of Wikipedia's information is at least trivially true, but I'll be blunt, in the most important scale for judging any information source; trust, I think Wikipedia can never stand up to various authorative sources and experts.
Thats a valid arguement with all major encyclopedias, the information is at best superficially true with a lot of depth missing and thus a encyclopedia is a good startign point but a useless athoratative source much like wikipedia. Wikipedia is just more prone to be tampered with in contentious issues an more prone to group think due to the democratic nature of it's information. By the same token Standard encyclopedias are more prone to be less deep due to the limited staff sizes and also less up to date and less aware of any contention.
"Frankly Scarlet I don't give a damn... But get some nike air masters and I just might".
GW has to do that to take the edge off if his actions. I don't think it reflects his true beliefs. You have to consider that there are more muslims in the US then jews (by a little bit). Although he has won some of the jewish vote for coming down hard on the iraqis and the palestenians and refusing to critisize israel he has lost all the muslim vote. He is just trying to convince a tiny percentage of the muslims to vote for him.
But there are more rich jews then rich muslims due almost pruely to the recent nature of the muslim immigration.
Was he beaten in the name of religion, or beaten in the name of being actively antagonistic to his assailants? Yeah, the former group is large, but the latter is far larger and not noteworthy.
"Big fat faces?" He had a high school outlook on the whole matter and he got a high school response.
NEither woudl be satisfactory reasons to injure someone. If someone called me big and fat I'd laugh it off. If I took that as an offence that I'd be dumber then a sack of creationists.
One of his emails talked about how he couldn't wait to teach this course to throw his position against ID in "their big fat face." Okay, if you profess (ahemm) to be a professor and you can't muster up any more intelligent way to communicate than that I submitt you have no business teaching at a university. Kindergarten? Maybe.
Clever ways to insult people is one mark of intelligence, a PHD is a supurior one. Some people may be intelligent but simple while others decietful but stupid. The professor seems to fall into the later catagory.
You're very right. And I've always wondered why Christians are so intent on getting ID taught. It very clearly contradicts the Bible. And if you're willing to accept that the Bible isn't literal truth, then what the hell is the problem with thinking God made the laws of physics, hit the on-switch, and sends a Jesus or two every once in a while? You don't need gaps in the fossil record for that.
It's very difficult to teach your kids that yoru bible i literally true when their teacher tells them it's different. Literalists are on of the more frightening types of people around because they can rationalize anythign and to them their rationalization is iron clad.
The difference is termininology - muslim extremists, christian fundamentalists.. in fact there's little difference - both prepared to kill for their beliefs.
The reocord of athiest extremism is no better - The Jacobins, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong II - all were/are murderers.
Athiesm taken to its logical conclusion has no respect in the dignity of humnanity. Those of faith believe that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'. Atheism says that 'inalienable rights' don't exist.
Look up history, tell me when rights stopped any massacres. I am a christian and think "rights" are nice ideals but their imaginary.
Hu? Its known that MS plans to include HD-DVD in the future, an it WON'T be incompatible with existing DVDs. Heck my DVD player now can play CDs DVD DVD-DL etc. As long as the disc sizes are the same all future CD sized disk will be backcompatible, at worst you have to add a second laser at best simply different software.
Splitting up your market between core and deluze is already bad, then splitting it up futher with HD-DVD/DVD spells death You know why Atari died? Partially because of shit liek that splitting their market.
But, mental health professionals who support the diagnosis of Internet addiction say, a majority of obsessive users are online to further addictions to gambling or pornography or have become much more dependent on those vices because of their prevalence on the Internet.
Yeah, basically they're saying, give me more money. A party with a vested interest to convince us that we're mentally ill has a bit less credibility with that recommentdation.
With all the recent uproar surrounding this issue, I have to wonder why the cell providers aren't required to do this?
I am a Vonage subscriber. It was stated quite clearly from day on, and I am an early adopter, that 911 is handled differently and that I had to keep my physical address information updated on the Vonage dashboard to help ensure timely response by emergency services. I have yet had the need to test this though.
However, my cell phone provider never said anything, at least not clearly, and the one time I had to call 911, I went through a whole little dance giving my physical address to the operator and then wait to be transfered to a local 911 response center.
So, what's the difference?
With a cell the operator can call your provider and get yoru location through triangulation through cell towers, but the process takes a little time so it's often easier to ask for your physical address.
Shouldn't the uncooperative companies be fined/sued? After all, they were supposed to cooperate and they didn't.
Vonage: Hi, I want to steal all your customers from you and corrupt your business model, can you please help us enable 911 services on our phones. The government didn't say if you had to or not, please.. pretty please?
No thanks.
How about we use the same money to save whats left of our planet? AFAIK, we have at least a few intelligent lifeforms here.
This arguement is counter productive we already spend resources int hat direction. The amoutn we actually spend on space exploration and science is minicule compared to other ventures such as the military.