"homeschooled children either come out academically great (and/or religiously brainwashed to hell, but i'll say no more about that aspect of it for the moment)"
Don't they have to meet the same standards as other students to get their diploma, though? If so, how are they any more/less brainwashed than others?
"but this is for a simple reason: the process is self-selective. those who are excited and passionate about home schooling do it, and thus no wonder their kids turn out better than average."
So what are you proposing? Forcing all students to do exactly the same thing in exactly the same classes with exactly the same expectations and no room for individual effort or personal accomplishment? Should "those who are excited and passionate about home schooling" be barred from doing it simply because of that?
We should continue mandating 12 years of incarceration with no due process? After all, most schools treat their student bodies as a prison population anyway...
And before anybody accuses me of setting up a straw man, please explain to me how the parent's post isn't against individual choice?
Didn't the Nazis feel they had a common blood-bond with the Austrians, must like the Sudetenland? From their point of view, Austria and Germany could very well be considered the same country...
No. See, Republicans and Democrats both hate gays, but they still want their votes anyway. So both parties are only passively anti-gay (i. e. they're too lazy).
"CNN Money is reporting that Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 for violating antitrust waiting period for stock purchases. The department alleged that Gates bought more than $50 million worth of stock in ICOS Corp."
So they fine him less than 2% of the value of the stock he purchased? Most states have a sales tax higher than that!
If you want to punish him, take away all of the stock he bought illegally, all $50 million of it. Done and done.
Does the US government also attempt to help circumvent other countries' internet censorship laws, such as, say, those of certain Western European countries? Or is it just the countries we're not quite married to (yet)?
"Freedom, or at least a free society does NOT mean the ability to do whatever you want."
Actually, yes, it does. Governments should only come into play when what someone wants gets into the way of what someone else wants.
"A free society is one where the people control the government in an indrect way."
That may be all well and good for you, but I am not a "people," I am a person. According to your rules the only way I can have any say in the way my government works is to try to find scores of people who think and feel just like I do. If I could do that I probably wouldn't be here on Slashdot posting this right now.
Instead, I have "people" telling me what I can and can't do because I am just a person and don't truly have a people of my own to boss others around with. This is called "tyranny of the majority," where the only 'free' people are those with numbers on their side.
"In your point of view, there would be NO free countries since they all tell you what you can and can't do, and levy some taxes."
And his point is invalidated how, exactly?
I have no qualms with taxes so long as they are spent on something I see a benefit from, even if it is only indirectly. But what's in it for me if I pay for somebody else's broadband? Worse yet, what if I'm "Born Again" and don't want to pay for what those lonely teenagers are using their broadband for? If the fruits of my labor are forcibly taken from me and used to do something offensive to me, how is that freedom? Where's the freedom to say "I want nothing to do with this?"
"This isn't up for debate,"
"Free speech" as in "free until I disagree with you?"
Re:Demanding bandwidth? -- Translation of the text
on
Swedish Pirate Demo
·
· Score: 1
"Note that in Scandinavia, '6' is pronounced 'sex'."
Tom & Jerry wasn't orginally intended for TV to begin with. Like the old WB cartoons, they were intended for movie theaters. When the creators of Tom & Jerry moved on to television (a couple of nobodys named Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera) they started making material they felt would do better by the FCC, hence the Flintstones.
And even then the Flintstones pushed some limits. Don't forget that Fred and Wilma were the first television couple to share a bed on screen.
"This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU."
Translation: It's not that we're ignoring it, it's that we're ignoring it.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government."
First off, taking this particular tack ignores a pesky little detail: So long as we still have the albatross of Selective Service about our necks all men of draft age are de jure militiamen. It's where the government's right of conscription comes from (we're not ordered to join the military, we were never really out of it).
(Also, in my opinion, this argument a bit of a cop-out by those who are a little too squeamish to actually discuss the philosophy of gun ownership, but that's besides the point right now.)
However, there's still the fact that at least half of the states in the Union (as well as Puerto Rico) right now still maintain their own militias to some degree. These "state guards" (generic term, not necessarily what your state calls them) are neither National Guard units nor are they "militia groups" made famous by folks like Timothy McViegh. They're sanctioned and maintained by the state legislatures, ultimately commanded by the state's governor and cannot be deployed outside of their state.
For various reasons most state guards have fairly constrained budgets and many members of these units have to buy their equipment with their own funds (including, say, weapons and body armor). So long as this remains true, wouldn't limitations on purchasing/owning such equipment placed on everybody in general affect state militias in particular?
"In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles."
First off, the availability of "small arms" to the indiginous population is a big factor in prolonging conflicts, even in today's world. This is one of the big justifications the UN uses in their anti-gun actions and has been shown true as recently as the siege of Fallujah.
Secondly, "today's world" started on 11 September 2001. In "today's world" there is an apparent increasing need for both "homeland security" defense as well more NG units being federalized and deployed abroad (even if Iraq weren't happening, there's still Afghanistan and, IIRC, lingering responsibilities in the Balkans). What does that leave states with, SWAT teams? If push came to shove, do they have what would be needed to down an errant airliner?
"Today's world," coincidentally, includes the mobilization of the New Jersey Naval Militia around Manhattan in the aftermath of 11 September.
If you truly believe that our current militia system is essentially archaic and you believe that they would need equipment more substantial than small arms and you truly support all of the Bill of Rights, where is your support for HR 2797, which would grant state militas access to some of the same equipment and resources currently available only to federal/NG units? After all, this is more in line with what you seem to believe the Second Amendment was intended for. I'd hate to see the ACLU accused of not following through with their on stated beliefs...
"Somewhere around first or second grade, kids go from learning equals fun to learning equals work."
It's fun for a little while, but then you learn that the state mandates that you do it whether you like it or not.
"In junior high and high school you'll hear a common rant - "Why do I have to learn this?"
The answer is invariably "Because we told you to." Whether there is an "acceptable" answer or not, the students have to do it anyway and by this time even the student knows it.
Come on, if the schools and the state that operates them were the least bit interested in the interest or the enjoyment of their students they wouldn't treat the student body like a prison population.
"The connection between real life and knowledge is broken very early on in our educational system."
Depends on how cynical you are. How many people enjoy their jobs as opposed to those who wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a paycheck involved? How many have to do what they do at work for no other reason than "Because we told you to?"
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they were called "Pintos."
Don't forget The Sound of Music, otherwise known as "No, really! We weren't collaborating!"
"homeschooled children either come out academically great (and/or religiously brainwashed to hell, but i'll say no more about that aspect of it for the moment)"
Don't they have to meet the same standards as other students to get their diploma, though? If so, how are they any more/less brainwashed than others?
"but this is for a simple reason: the process is self-selective. those who are excited and passionate about home schooling do it, and thus no wonder their kids turn out better than average."
So what are you proposing? Forcing all students to do exactly the same thing in exactly the same classes with exactly the same expectations and no room for individual effort or personal accomplishment? Should "those who are excited and passionate about home schooling" be barred from doing it simply because of that?
We should continue mandating 12 years of incarceration with no due process? After all, most schools treat their student bodies as a prison population anyway...
And before anybody accuses me of setting up a straw man, please explain to me how the parent's post isn't against individual choice?
"The fine... someone gets fined $800k or a million dollars... where does that money go?"
The center of the board, where it waits until Bill lands on the "Free Parking" space again.
Didn't the Nazis feel they had a common blood-bond with the Austrians, must like the Sudetenland? From their point of view, Austria and Germany could very well be considered the same country...
No. See, Republicans and Democrats both hate gays, but they still want their votes anyway. So both parties are only passively anti-gay (i. e. they're too lazy).
"television,"
That's that thing I have my GameCube plugged into, right?
"magazines,"
That's what I have the internet for. I don't see ads on the internet.
"radio stations,"
Sirius Hell, I'm not even sure there's payola involved there...
"newspapers,"
Google News
"taxi cabs
I own my own car.
"sporting events"
What, you mean there's something else I can do with my GameCube's display? You're talking about watching anime DVDs, right?
I keep on hearing about all these silly campaign ads Bush and Kerry keep on spending money on. I haven't seen or heard one yet!
"CNN Money is reporting that Bill Gates has been fined $800,000 for violating antitrust waiting period for stock purchases. The department alleged that Gates bought more than $50 million worth of stock in ICOS Corp."
So they fine him less than 2% of the value of the stock he purchased? Most states have a sales tax higher than that!
If you want to punish him, take away all of the stock he bought illegally, all $50 million of it. Done and done.
Does the US government also attempt to help circumvent other countries' internet censorship laws, such as, say, those of certain Western European countries? Or is it just the countries we're not quite married to (yet)?
"So, if I see a girl on the DDR, she's either a virgin or a slut? 50/50?"
Yeah, just like your left hand versus your right hand.
We don't like game sequels, we like good games.
We don't hate movie sequels, we hate bad movies.
When game sequels become nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we won't like them.
When movie sequels stop being nothing more than milking a cash-cow name, we'll like them.
How much money do these people get paid to give us this "enlightenment?"
So there's a Trans-Camaro out there that isn't sitting on cinder blocks? And the body panels aren't a mix of primer red and primer gray?
"Theres a mirror"
Aziz, light!
"Freedom, or at least a free society does NOT mean the ability to do whatever you want."
Actually, yes, it does. Governments should only come into play when what someone wants gets into the way of what someone else wants.
"A free society is one where the people control the government in an indrect way."
That may be all well and good for you, but I am not a "people," I am a person. According to your rules the only way I can have any say in the way my government works is to try to find scores of people who think and feel just like I do. If I could do that I probably wouldn't be here on Slashdot posting this right now.
Instead, I have "people" telling me what I can and can't do because I am just a person and don't truly have a people of my own to boss others around with. This is called "tyranny of the majority," where the only 'free' people are those with numbers on their side.
"In your point of view, there would be NO free countries since they all tell you what you can and can't do, and levy some taxes."
And his point is invalidated how, exactly?
I have no qualms with taxes so long as they are spent on something I see a benefit from, even if it is only indirectly. But what's in it for me if I pay for somebody else's broadband? Worse yet, what if I'm "Born Again" and don't want to pay for what those lonely teenagers are using their broadband for? If the fruits of my labor are forcibly taken from me and used to do something offensive to me, how is that freedom? Where's the freedom to say "I want nothing to do with this?"
"This isn't up for debate,"
"Free speech" as in "free until I disagree with you?"
"Note that in Scandinavia, '6' is pronounced 'sex'."
Hi. My family and I are looking for 'sex.'
"Disney would just buy a 10,000,000 year copyright on everything they could get their hands on."
Don't they already effectively have that as it is?
A moose once bit my sister...
"Do all of the New York women talk in unison"
Yes, because the get-up is just that fucked up...
... that Diebold will now attempt to sue the state of California for one reason or another.
"The BBC nearly banned Tom & Jerry!"
Tom & Jerry wasn't orginally intended for TV to begin with. Like the old WB cartoons, they were intended for movie theaters. When the creators of Tom & Jerry moved on to television (a couple of nobodys named Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera) they started making material they felt would do better by the FCC, hence the Flintstones.
And even then the Flintstones pushed some limits. Don't forget that Fred and Wilma were the first television couple to share a bed on screen.
I thought Ashcroft was a Hell demon...
"that nifty gorilla-banana-chunking program?"
Real men play Scorched Earth: The Mother of All (Artillery) Games!
"This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU."
Translation: It's not that we're ignoring it, it's that we're ignoring it.
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government."
First off, taking this particular tack ignores a pesky little detail: So long as we still have the albatross of Selective Service about our necks all men of draft age are de jure militiamen. It's where the government's right of conscription comes from (we're not ordered to join the military, we were never really out of it).
(Also, in my opinion, this argument a bit of a cop-out by those who are a little too squeamish to actually discuss the philosophy of gun ownership, but that's besides the point right now.)
However, there's still the fact that at least half of the states in the Union (as well as Puerto Rico) right now still maintain their own militias to some degree. These "state guards" (generic term, not necessarily what your state calls them) are neither National Guard units nor are they "militia groups" made famous by folks like Timothy McViegh. They're sanctioned and maintained by the state legislatures, ultimately commanded by the state's governor and cannot be deployed outside of their state.
For various reasons most state guards have fairly constrained budgets and many members of these units have to buy their equipment with their own funds (including, say, weapons and body armor). So long as this remains true, wouldn't limitations on purchasing/owning such equipment placed on everybody in general affect state militias in particular?
"In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles."
First off, the availability of "small arms" to the indiginous population is a big factor in prolonging conflicts, even in today's world. This is one of the big justifications the UN uses in their anti-gun actions and has been shown true as recently as the siege of Fallujah.
Secondly, "today's world" started on 11 September 2001. In "today's world" there is an apparent increasing need for both "homeland security" defense as well more NG units being federalized and deployed abroad (even if Iraq weren't happening, there's still Afghanistan and, IIRC, lingering responsibilities in the Balkans). What does that leave states with, SWAT teams? If push came to shove, do they have what would be needed to down an errant airliner?
"Today's world," coincidentally, includes the mobilization of the New Jersey Naval Militia around Manhattan in the aftermath of 11 September.
If you truly believe that our current militia system is essentially archaic and you believe that they would need equipment more substantial than small arms and you truly support all of the Bill of Rights, where is your support for HR 2797, which would grant state militas access to some of the same equipment and resources currently available only to federal/NG units? After all, this is more in line with what you seem to believe the Second Amendment was intended for. I'd hate to see the ACLU accused of not following through with their on stated beliefs...
"will arrive "almost certainly within 20 years."
So will this be before or after viable fusion reactors?
"Somewhere around first or second grade, kids go from learning equals fun to learning equals work."
It's fun for a little while, but then you learn that the state mandates that you do it whether you like it or not.
"In junior high and high school you'll hear a common rant - "Why do I have to learn this?"
The answer is invariably "Because we told you to." Whether there is an "acceptable" answer or not, the students have to do it anyway and by this time even the student knows it.
Come on, if the schools and the state that operates them were the least bit interested in the interest or the enjoyment of their students they wouldn't treat the student body like a prison population.
"The connection between real life and knowledge is broken very early on in our educational system."
Depends on how cynical you are. How many people enjoy their jobs as opposed to those who wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a paycheck involved? How many have to do what they do at work for no other reason than "Because we told you to?"