Politicians are only anti-train because voters are pro-car.
Politicians will still be a problem even if voters became pro-rail. The problem is that they see agencies like Amtrak as a pork program to be raided, and screw the national interest. Look at what DeLay is doing to NASA.
There should be an intelligently subsidized and managed rail system in the US. We dump a ton of taxes into our interstate highway system, and sure as heck, they aren't pay-as-you-go. If we give away billions of dollars to build and maintain highways, why not throw away money on the rail system?
Rails are more fuel efficent for moving freight than paying tons of money on an interstate highway system, and then have 16 wheelers burn all that diesel without significantly subsidizing the roadway. If the rails were more robust in operation, instead of truckers driving across the country, they could move freight from major rail stops, and cut down on the interstate driving. In NYC alone, getting a freight line into Long Island would significantly reduce the volume of trucks across the bridges & highways.
Back in the go-go '90's, there was so much air traffic, major airports like LaGuardia (LGA, NYC) basically had a hazardous airspace from all the planes (still does). High-speed rail would cut out the need for short commuter flights. Not that its such a problem now, and the airlines obvious don't like competition. But again, you burn way more fuel for flying (per pound), than you do for rail.
If you presume that petroleum based fuels will be in short supply, its in the national interest to have a more coherent transporation policy. Also, having a robust rail system give the U.S. redundant system in case one has to go down (i.e. 9/11, bomb threat on a bridge or tunnel).
The reason why this will not happen in the near future is threefold. 1) The stupidity (psychology) of the average American citizen (SUV driver). 2) Special interests such as the airlines and trucking industry, and 3) politicians.
Passenger rail could easily be cost effective. The problem is that Amtrak is a gov't agency, and Congress is loaded with parasites that insist on a rail stop in their district. So instead of stops based on customer usage and efficiency, you end up with rail lines making more stops than needed, so they can get the fiscal vote of support from the local congressman.
Ironically, the short term incompetence of this gov't makes this cluster f**k incredibly insigificant as a problem. There probably should be a slashdot poll on how many people drive SUVs.
It depends on the biological wiring. I did 2 years of CX running. The most miserable physical experience of my life. But anti-athlete would best describe me. And not once did I ever get that runner's high.
Because that firewall is the direct connection to the Internet. If it gets owned, there's very little to warn you that you have been cracked.
With two firewalls (& private networks) and stateful inspection of packets, it becomes significantly more difficult to penetrate the inner network machines. Trojan/bots will send out its traffic from the inside, but it won't get through the DMZ (unless it accounts for that, which makes it a fatter trojan). Scanning the internal network becomes significantly more difficult (especially with proxy servers in the DMZ). Finally with two firewalls, you can stick in a machine (in the DMZ) to log traffic and give you a warning if something looks suspicious. (I don't see a security payoff beyond 2 firewalls to the outside.)
You have two firewalls to connect to the outside. Since all traffic has to route through the firewalls, you set the outer firewall to route packets to the internal firewall, using a "private network" address (say 192.168.0.0). The internet firewall routes that traffic to all machines on your lan using another "private network address" (say 10.0.0.0). The beauty of this arrangement is that it becomes technically impossible to route traffic from the internal LAN to the Internet (because private network IPs get rejected on the internet) without subversion of BOTH firewalls. Make both firewalls boot from fixed media with the rules on the fixed media, and that's one hard to crack firewall. You may also be able to cutdown on browser hacks, using a proxy server outside of the inner firewall (but I'm not familiar with the specifics of that particular setup).
You would definitely want to segregate your servers from your user PCs, and that would require another firewall. That cuts down on a worms infecting your servers (and then infect everything), and internal cracking.
That's 3 firewalls right there. 4, if you count the proxy server in the DMZ network as a firewall. But for a home network? You have to be on drugs.
Consider someone waiting tables at an expensive restaurant. We are talking about several hundred dollars in a shift, which is pretty far from 'working poor'.
And they comprise what section of the industry? Sure as heck, since income tax is based on income, those servers that are making that kind of a "killing", still have to pay taxes. And even then, the only thing positive you can say is that 1% may make more than a taxi driver.
People who are poor are not in practice taxed much. Add up the child credit, earned income credit, and the basic deduction, and tax drops fast.
More rationalization. What if I don't have a dependent? Even worse, what if I did? The basic deduction is meaningless. Its just a scam built into the system to distract the payer into thinking they are paying less taxes, like whether to cover your bet on a craps table. The trick is not to be gambling in the first place.
There is no rational argument to be jacking down a server's income to below minimum wage. What makes food servers less worthy of salary than someone manning a register? Its counting on a tradition of tipping to subsidize a restaurant owner's operational costs. If one can't make enough money to ensure a roof over their head, food on the table, and living expenses (clothing, phone, and electricity), why should they even be taxed?
That really drives me up the wall. The idea that the IRS needs to extract taxes from someone who isn't even paid minimum wage. Rather than people who actually earn more money than they need for survival. The working poor shouldn't even be taxed.
You're a fool. Its not the beat cops that came up with that tactic. It was City Hall, federal gov't, and the Police Commissioner. The cops were just following their marching orders. Processing time was not the cops fault. It was an obvious plan to keep protesters away from the convention. Illegal, of course, but apparently the attention of City Hall.
The perjurers obviously need to be punished, but its the inevitable result when you're arresting a city block, rather than people "disturbing the peace", i.e. the protesters.
If you really want to stop those tactics, you have to send a message to City Hall, not the beat cop. I like Bloomberg's general management of the city, but I'm still voting against him come November.
Margerine IS better for you, my peptic ulcer IS triggered by stress and WTF is an optimal kid?
1) Margarine has a higher concentration of LDL cholesterol than butter. (Am I the only person who knows this???)
2) Most ulcers are caused by bacteria. The cure is antibiotics.
3) WTF is an optimal kid? For me, a relatively well behaved, rational child that knows right & wrong, and capable of self-education. Suboptimal would be have disciplinary problems, crime or drug habit, and non-constructive behaviors (like sitting in front of a computer game for hours every day.)
Yes I occasionally smacked them on the arse when they were little but somehow I managed not to beat them to a pulp.
I wouldn't be a fan of butt whipping. I don't think you can inflict enough real pain to get that deterrent effect. My dad used to slap me in the face. Don't need much force, stings like hell, and most important, immediately gets the kid's attention in an unpleasant way.
If you have to worry about beating them to a pulp, then that's a problem. Punishment shouldn't be conducted in a fit of anger. Punishment should be conducted in a very measured manner, to either get a pain/fear association to a bad activity, or to break down resistance behaviors. If the kid is constantly looking for negative reinforcement, it means you not giving them enough constructive attention.
I'm not a fan of non-parental corporal punishment. But I think its the parent's obligation to provide that punishment if the school contacts them for being a serious infractions. I think school's problem enforcing discipline today are the parents.
I forgot to bring up the most important point of that post. That exemplar of journalism called the Register then claims computers have made kids perform worse in school.
The reality is that kids accomplish less in school than in previous years is because American public schools are declining in educational quality, not that the kids are using computers. Public schools when I was growing up were already neglecting non-curicula specific training. There were articles in the late '80s and early '90s critical of public schools for the decreased critical thinking skills of its graduates. It was easier, more quantifiable, and discouraged independent thought (which improves control) by just making kids memorize more and call it education.
Bush Jr. then proceeds to contribute to this decline by mandating national testing for children and penalizing schools by witholding funding if they underperform on the test. The school systems are now forced to spend educational time on improving test performance, not critical thinking or teaching material not found on that test.
There's nothing to show that these effects are permanent, or that the results are relevant. IQ tests only prove who tends to score higher at IQ tests. When the brain has been focusing on the communication parts of their brain, and abstract juggling of issues presented by email, its not going to be focused sufficently to do well at solving IQ puzzles which require different type of mental function.
The problem is that Slashdot readers are morons. They read a title that says "Email causes IQ drop" and immediately presume email must be bad. I can use the same logic to say being a jock drops your IQ by 10 points. If you spend most of your time in athletic activity, and don't mentally exercise yourself in a manner that lends itself to improved performance in IQ tests, I'm sure you'll suffer a similar drop in IQ over time.
I find it a interesting study in terms of the questions it generates. But it doesn't mean much to me, other than if I want to do well on an IQ or SAT test, I should stay away from email or computer games for one day before the test.
The nature of addiction is the inability to curb the constant urge for self-gratification. Its not PHYSICAL addiction, but psychological addiction is just as debilitating and almost difficult to beat.
There is not much difference between snorting cocaine and shooting heroin to feel good, than watching TV or playing video games to get those same endorphins. (Or heavy physical activity, for that matter, but I never believed in runner's high.) The only difference with self-medication is that your brain is causing those drug effects to occur, and the body is self-regulating enough not to inflict permanent physical damage or cause severe physical withdrawal.
The problem is not merely "self-discipline". Its deeper. There is no reward for denying gratification if the long term goal doesn't provide satisfaction. I feel sorry for people that busted their ass to get an engineering degree in the '80's, only to find out afterwords society lied to them about job availability. I feel similarly about pre-meds back in the '80s. (I don't feel sorry for them now, because the writing is on the wall about how relatively crappy the medical profession has become.) The key thing is that society has been feeding everyone a line a bullsh*t about hard work and responsibility will allow you to achieve your happiness (see Fight Club). Don't get me wrong, those traits are required, you'll be better off financially, and you still may end up happy. But its been mythologized, and soon American society will be crashing into reality.
Midlife crisis occurs when people have plugged themselves into this life pattern because people told them they should live this way, only to realize at that point, it doesn't make them happy or feel fulfilled.
The problem is a crisis of faith, or purpose. You can't really beat that into people. Most people are pushed into adult behaviors by the desire to conform, or get ego gratification. Once those stop being motivators, there's not really any rationale to get a job better than station attendant if playing video games makes you adequately happy.
Sheesh. What in the hell happened to parents just saying "No" instead of treating kids like royalty?
People are raised to be perpetual children, and infantilized throughtout their life. Then they knock up their SO, and think that to be an adult, they have to posess a thing called a kid. Rather than realizing its how they raise their kid that determines whether they are adults.
Being a parent is not about gratification from the love of a child. If you need that, get a dog. Being a parent is not about being the child's pal. You are not their pal, you are their parent. Its your job to provide for them, to protect them, and to teach them everything a school cannot, which includes morality & discipline. Finally, comes the bull crap that you shouldn't smack them one when they're out of line, and all this touchy feely studies that claim corporal punishment is unnecessary. They're the same assholes that 40 years ago said homosexuality was a mental illness, that margarine was better for you than butter, and that ulcers were caused by lifestyle stress.
This society is screwed up. Some odd reason they think its more important to keep kids infantilized. What they really should do is reduce the age of adulthood to 16. And then push parents to raise their kids to be more responsible so they can act like adults at 16. Much like they do in Europe and the rest of the world.
Kids, in a non-screwed up family situation, spent their waking hours learning how to be like their providers. Its how they are programmed. They stop doing this once they become teenagers because their GENES tell them to get the hell out of the house, procreate, and make a living for themselves. They stop being cute so that parent get the clue to kick them out the house; you don't need to breast feed them anymore.
That is, when the TV isn't telling kids that being an adult is being a sexual being who buys lots of products and reality is that being goodlooking and conforming is the secret to success in life which always ends up with the happy ending.
Do I have a kid? Hell no, I realize what's involved. Why the heck would I want to inflict that kind of misery on myself? But sure as hell if I had a kid, I wouldn't be trying to be his favorite pal. Let him love mommy more; its not a competition, its about raising the optimal kid.
If anyone is responsible, it should be the taxpayers at large and not a specific racial group.
But such financial judgements could only be administered on a local level, since I am not aware of a strategy that could get a civil action against the federal gov't. Also, instead of a federal spread of culpability, its would have to be limited to states with documentable acts of overt discrmination. Its not the taxpayers at large that would have to pay a financial judgement, its the taxpayers of a municipality across the south that would have to pay.
You think restitution would lead to civil war?
If large enough to bankrupt municipalities, that would be spread across the south. There would be hideous financial chaos. That is always trouble.
Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group.
That statement is ridiculous and untrue. Maybe you should read it again. That line of reasoning could be used to support genocide.
Pre-60's discrimination, impacted specifically non-white minorities. If this current version sets the equivalent of loose quotas based on population, you can argue that some individuals will be losers, but you can't establish that one ethnic/racial group will be favored over another, only that by ratio of population they are equivalent. It does hit the concept of the "fittest" individuals at "examination" time not being selected, but that doesn't impact racially, only individually. Since I haven't suggested people who fail to get placement in jobs or university should be executed, I fail to see where it supports genocide.
Skin color and race should be completely transparent. Affirmative action violates this ideal.
It wasn't before the federal civil rights acts. Where is the restitution?
I don't see such a method as being a fatal blow to the U.S. economic system as you do.
Well, its going to be near impossible to resolve specific acts of discrimination actionable by tort against one set of individuals against a set of other individuals. The only target of legislation will have to be at townships, cities, and POSSIBLY state gov'ts. You can't prosecute a gov't group for following the law, but at the Federal level, you can argue that basic human rights were being denied by unequal application of the law (14th amendment). You can then proceed to argue the law was unequal, because in many districts blacks weren't permitted to vote, or there was a conspiracy to deny the vote. In which case, those gov't might not be able hide behind local law for their acts. The key is not to find a specific act to convict the local gov't, only present a conspiracy to inflict financial or physical harm to a class action group, and then RICO trebles the damages. The beauty of this approach is that it does not require a specific instrument, you just have to show a conspiracy was involved, and RICO makes it hurt. Now all these local gov't would be stuck not being able to pay for anything except court awarded damages. It'll collapse loser towns across the entire south.
But, IANAL. There may be some form of judicial brake that would make it impossible to conduct cases in this manner, and I'm sure the judicial system would conspire to never allow this to occur. But ultimately, there are still two problems. 1) Judicial awards do not fix the problem; basically that 250+ years of slavery and segregation has robbed a whole population of people of the wealth and position and relegates them to near permanent poverty status for generations. It just means that an identifiable group of individuals get a cash award, and the racist white people conducted a wise strategy to secure wealth & power at the expense of another racial group. I think its
Naive is so inadequate. Utterly clueless doesn't adequately cover that statement.
Devoid of comprehension of the demanding nature of microkernel communication based software construction, or basic project management methodology. Technical, and yet not overly insulting.
Marriage is a dual institution - Church and State.
Actually, I think of any such pairing as a legal contract (hetero or otherwise). Its "marriage" that I consider a religious sacrement.
I don't think your problem is that a license can be given to homosexuals
I think its an inviolate obligation of gov't not to apply laws differently based on religious dogma. If you make laws affecting inheritance, child custody, guardianship, divorce, etc. which affects a hetero couple, then gov't must provide those same legal mechanisms to a same sex couple. Otherwise, it is gov't institutionalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation. You cannot have a "just", secular gov't without doing this.
I think your problem is your Biblical Interpretation is not Law
Do you have the slightest comprehension of Constitutional concept of separation of church & state? If the gov't conducts a ceremony considered to be of religious significance, it is violating that concept of separation. Gov't should be in the "civil union" business, not bestowing religious sacrements (marriage).
But you live in the country whose gov't conducted racist policy. If you say the gov't is to be charged, you're still liable for it, as a taxpayer.
I'm suggesting that if people want restitution, they need to go to the source. If someone robs you, you need to go after that someone, not his family or his race.
Well, local laws were in the books, and all that would need to be done is produce a witness, and you have grounds to sue the local gov't. That can also apply to where the state gov't has conducted discrimination against the citizenry. So basically, you have no problem with enforcing the law, even it it could cause another civil war in this country.
I know this sentence is out of context, but you're condoning discrimination here.
No, as I said, as a citizen of the U.S., I am still liable for legal decisions against the localities where I live. Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group. Its a plea bargain deal.
Your example of taxpayers footing the bill on a case by case basis would at least be a solution that doesn't perpetuate injustice as a method of remedying previous injustice.
Its one damaging to the country. So basically, you're against discrimination when it impacts your racial group, specifically your least intellectually qualified individuals. And you don't care if the United States can function after such legal judgements are rendered. Which makes you the ultimate selfish individual.
Or are you saying non-religious heterosexuals can't get married either?
Any non-religious couple should be able to have a civil union. Only God can imbue sanctity into a union between two people. That makes marriage is a religious ceremony, and thus the purview of a religous institution. Gov't is not a religious institution; it should not be performing marriages.
*I* am a white person. *I* did not steal from black people. *I* am not a thief.
But you are a citizen of the United States, and the state gov'ts were directly complicit in crimes against minorities. Your father has responsibility in the institutional discrimination perpetrated by his gov't, whether by action or inaction. Are you suggesting gov't has no responsibility in the discrimination they institutionalized? Or that you are not a U.S. citizen? The classic response of the residents near Buchenwald was that "I didn't push Jews into the ovens. Why are you blaming me?" Were they right?
Therefore, if they try to extract restitution from me, then yes, they are theives!
There were Germans after WWII that felt the same way towards reparations to the Jews. Where they right? Funny, I feel the same way about restitution, given that I'm not white or black.
Are you suggesting gov't should individually identify survivors of institutionalized racism prior to 1960, set a cash award, and then make all taxpayers responsible for funding it? Is that fairer or more reasonable to you? How about just letting those class action suits decide what is fair? And who gives a damn if an entire region of the country goes into economic chaos?
On the other hand, if restitution consists of not getting into a university slot because you could beat out a black guy, but not the lowest accepted white guy, is society really keeping you white guys down as a racial group? Is that an insurmountable disadvantage? If so, then how can you claim black guys can overcome the same disadvantage? And why should anyone care, when in your pure grade driven meritocracy, the asian guy is going to get your spot anyway (statistically speaking)?
1. Regardless of any disadvantage, people of all races are currently able to overcome.
True, but you ignore the fact that the reason black people are statistically disadvantaged to white people is the policy of discrimination perpetrated by the gov't. If you do not introduce a means to address that disparity, any discriminated people will stay statistically disadvantaged, statistically speaking. I don't see why society is required to favor a privileged class by defending its current status obtained by illgotten means.
If you argue that advancement by meritocracy is the best way to resolve the situation, I have no problem with that. When you take statistically poorer black people, and deny them statistical representation in institutions of higher learning, because they can't afford it or came from inferior funded education systems and the gov't will not address the circumstances of their past discrimination, aren't you still being a white racist by trying to maintain the status quo? If not, how can you claim your race isn't enforcing discrimination against minorities by denying them access to higher learning based on ancestor wealth? Is it not discrimination if you merely deny that its discrimination?
2. TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT. This is the point that is being ignored here. Discriminating against me or anyone else based solely on their race/skin color is simply unjust! End of story.
Ignoring discrimination perpetrated by gov't in the past is unjust too! End of story. How do you propose they be redressed?
And just a quick question: what about asian folks? Do they have a part in this? Are they responsible for any of this? When I was graduating from high school, it was well known that one of the local universities were applying affirmative action, making it more difficult for asians to get into engineering because there were "too many". Do you think this is fair?
In an ideal world, no. But we don't live in an ideal world. As a pragmatist, I see college important because of the connections they will make, not so much that the educa
Right, so why are gays so hung up on "marriage" instead of equivalent rights?
Well, if it was possiable to get equal rights in any other way, then it probably wouldn't be the issue it is. Separate but equal has been tried, and it failed pretty miserably.
In one instance it appears to have failed (racial discrimination). So it has to fail miserably when civil union and marriage is defined the same (or nearly the same)?
But you're right that the word does convey legitimacy. It is a loaded word, that is why the issue is so hot.
The word "marriage" does not convey legitimacy to a union between two adults. In fact, that is the whole problem. The reason why the issue is so heated, is because of religious nimrods seem to think if a secular gov't conveys legitimacy to a homosexual union, then its an act by gov't against God. The homosexuals think because they have "rights", they have the right to compel gov't to bestow a religious sacrement.
The answer is that marriage is a religious sacrement, and gov't has no business to imbue a religious status upon any couple. It violates the concept of separation of state and church.
Unfortunately, the gov't conveys legal amenities based upon marital status. To apply legal privileges to a heterosexual couple and not to a homosexual couple is apparent discrimination (in the 21 century Western civilization).
The answer is for gov't to get out of the religious business. What they should do is recognise "civil unions" between all couples and leave the "marriage ceremonies" to their respective institutions of worship.
I for one, will not drop dead if they call the hetero unions marriages, and the homosexual unions "civil unions". The only issue I see here is that gov't treats both unions equally under the eyes of the law. If gay/lesbians want to try to legislate the word "marriage" to their unions, so be it. But in a culture where they are threatened by physical violence and murder over their sexual status, suffer discrimination in the workplace, and had a President antithetical to their interests elected because of this issue, they really should smarten up and pick their fights more carefully.
The prices you pay for land, goods and infrastructure have all been subsidized by theft from black Americans.
Everybody has the same access to said land, goods and infrastructure, black or white.
Black people don't have that same access to land or goods. You need money to get access to those lands and goods. It was taken from them by the racist, discriminatory, conspiracy and complicity of white citizens.
On the flip side, I would argue that black immigrants aren't entitled to a cut, and that I, as a northern non-white, have even less culpability than you do.
As for profiting from stolen goods, I will concede that point only to offer that everyone gets the same benefit from said stolen goods. That is to say, blacks have equal access to reaping the benefits of any stolen goods and are just as guilty of using those stolen goods!
So when white people steal from black people, white people are theives. But when the victim tries to extract restitution for that theft, they are theives. Ah, that "white" logic, its so confusing to me. No wonder so many of them think they were morally right to invade Iraq.
My point overall is, mileage my vary slightly, but blacks my age have profited just about as much as *I* have from the slavery instituted over a century and half ago.
Lesse. Black people your age, who could not benefit from an inheritance of the same monetary value as a white person, profitted from slavery because they still start out economically poorer than the average white person, less likely to get financing to a top notch institution, but have a slight advantage to lower paying gov't jobs, and have the same "opportunity" as a white person, as long as they're willing to lose a limb or their life; while the average white kid can still exploit "opportunity" without losing a life or limb, because his ancestors exploited the black man. Yup, more of that "white" sense of fairness.
Justice, any definition in use by the courts, recognizes that regardless of your knowledge, you are responsible for recieving stolen goods, caveat emptor. In fact, this principle extends back to common law and cannon law, so I'd say the morality here is pretty well established.
Look, it's not fair that our generation has to deal with this, we didn't commit the theft. But that does not release us from our responsibility when we have also profited from it.
Unfortunately, I am more cynical. (Being a Northerner, I have a problem believing "God Almighty" would be a Southerner.;) ) But I'm glad these nimrods don't actually call the shots. I don't think they have a clue what federal class action civil suits against local gov'ts with RICO statutes would do to their towns. Or the cost of justice denied. It would make the Civil War look like a picnic. I'm not big on the idea that direct restitution is a requirement, but some people should learn to appreciate half assed justice.
So what is adequate recompensation for 100+ years of slavery? Or 100+ years of government discrimination of a race?
For 100 years, white southern landowners enslaved and brutalized black people. They became wealthy from that discrimination. It was done under the aegis of law. Does that mean the government of the United States has no culpability?
For 100 years after that, the white southern population in power ignored murders committed by white people against black people, kept them out of professional or well paying jobs, and made sure the education of black children was inferior to white children.
Unlike slavery, the perpetrators are still alive and could be held accountable. Are you suggesting Black people should put local gov'ts under civil suit and bankrupt them for their previous illegal discrimination?
For 100+ years, white people enslaved black people. But when it comes to restitution, you say "tough luck".
But when the violation of law only occurred 50 years ago, and the perpetrators are still alive, you say "tough luck".
But now when the federal gov't tried to conduct some form of restitution to the minority population for crimes perpetrated by local gov'ts, you say, "that's not fair". You have an odd sense of fairness.
The parent poster you condescend to is not a child. He's just talking to an immoral person who thinks if he can rationalize what is legal and fair, then he is taking the mature position.
No, the better analogy would be, "I have the right to own a gun, and I have the right to shoot McVoy and then shoot Torvalds because he's McVoy's junkie. Screw the fact that using proprietary software is not life threatening, and that taking out the lead linux maintainer will not get the kernel out sooner."
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians will still be a problem even if voters became pro-rail. The problem is that they see agencies like Amtrak as a pork program to be raided, and screw the national interest. Look at what DeLay is doing to NASA.
There should be an intelligently subsidized and managed rail system in the US. We dump a ton of taxes into our interstate highway system, and sure as heck, they aren't pay-as-you-go. If we give away billions of dollars to build and maintain highways, why not throw away money on the rail system?
Rails are more fuel efficent for moving freight than paying tons of money on an interstate highway system, and then have 16 wheelers burn all that diesel without significantly subsidizing the roadway. If the rails were more robust in operation, instead of truckers driving across the country, they could move freight from major rail stops, and cut down on the interstate driving. In NYC alone, getting a freight line into Long Island would significantly reduce the volume of trucks across the bridges & highways.
Back in the go-go '90's, there was so much air traffic, major airports like LaGuardia (LGA, NYC) basically had a hazardous airspace from all the planes (still does). High-speed rail would cut out the need for short commuter flights. Not that its such a problem now, and the airlines obvious don't like competition. But again, you burn way more fuel for flying (per pound), than you do for rail.
If you presume that petroleum based fuels will be in short supply, its in the national interest to have a more coherent transporation policy. Also, having a robust rail system give the U.S. redundant system in case one has to go down (i.e. 9/11, bomb threat on a bridge or tunnel).
The reason why this will not happen in the near future is threefold. 1) The stupidity (psychology) of the average American citizen (SUV driver). 2) Special interests such as the airlines and trucking industry, and 3) politicians.
Passenger rail could easily be cost effective. The problem is that Amtrak is a gov't agency, and Congress is loaded with parasites that insist on a rail stop in their district. So instead of stops based on customer usage and efficiency, you end up with rail lines making more stops than needed, so they can get the fiscal vote of support from the local congressman.
Ironically, the short term incompetence of this gov't makes this cluster f**k incredibly insigificant as a problem. There probably should be a slashdot poll on how many people drive SUVs.
It depends on the biological wiring. I did 2 years of CX running. The most miserable physical experience of my life. But anti-athlete would best describe me. And not once did I ever get that runner's high.
Because that firewall is the direct connection to the Internet. If it gets owned, there's very little to warn you that you have been cracked.
With two firewalls (& private networks) and stateful inspection of packets, it becomes significantly more difficult to penetrate the inner network machines. Trojan/bots will send out its traffic from the inside, but it won't get through the DMZ (unless it accounts for that, which makes it a fatter trojan). Scanning the internal network becomes significantly more difficult (especially with proxy servers in the DMZ). Finally with two firewalls, you can stick in a machine (in the DMZ) to log traffic and give you a warning if something looks suspicious. (I don't see a security payoff beyond 2 firewalls to the outside.)
Its perfectly reasonable for a business network.
You have two firewalls to connect to the outside. Since all traffic has to route through the firewalls, you set the outer firewall to route packets to the internal firewall, using a "private network" address (say 192.168.0.0). The internet firewall routes that traffic to all machines on your lan using another "private network address" (say 10.0.0.0). The beauty of this arrangement is that it becomes technically impossible to route traffic from the internal LAN to the Internet (because private network IPs get rejected on the internet) without subversion of BOTH firewalls. Make both firewalls boot from fixed media with the rules on the fixed media, and that's one hard to crack firewall. You may also be able to cutdown on browser hacks, using a proxy server outside of the inner firewall (but I'm not familiar with the specifics of that particular setup).
You would definitely want to segregate your servers from your user PCs, and that would require another firewall. That cuts down on a worms infecting your servers (and then infect everything), and internal cracking.
That's 3 firewalls right there. 4, if you count the proxy server in the DMZ network as a firewall. But for a home network? You have to be on drugs.
And they comprise what section of the industry? Sure as heck, since income tax is based on income, those servers that are making that kind of a "killing", still have to pay taxes. And even then, the only thing positive you can say is that 1% may make more than a taxi driver.
More rationalization. What if I don't have a dependent? Even worse, what if I did? The basic deduction is meaningless. Its just a scam built into the system to distract the payer into thinking they are paying less taxes, like whether to cover your bet on a craps table. The trick is not to be gambling in the first place.
There is no rational argument to be jacking down a server's income to below minimum wage. What makes food servers less worthy of salary than someone manning a register? Its counting on a tradition of tipping to subsidize a restaurant owner's operational costs. If one can't make enough money to ensure a roof over their head, food on the table, and living expenses (clothing, phone, and electricity), why should they even be taxed?
That really drives me up the wall. The idea that the IRS needs to extract taxes from someone who isn't even paid minimum wage. Rather than people who actually earn more money than they need for survival. The working poor shouldn't even be taxed.
You're a fool. Its not the beat cops that came up with that tactic. It was City Hall, federal gov't, and the Police Commissioner. The cops were just following their marching orders. Processing time was not the cops fault. It was an obvious plan to keep protesters away from the convention. Illegal, of course, but apparently the attention of City Hall.
The perjurers obviously need to be punished, but its the inevitable result when you're arresting a city block, rather than people "disturbing the peace", i.e. the protesters.
If you really want to stop those tactics, you have to send a message to City Hall, not the beat cop. I like Bloomberg's general management of the city, but I'm still voting against him come November.
1) Margarine has a higher concentration of LDL cholesterol than butter. (Am I the only person who knows this???)
2) Most ulcers are caused by bacteria. The cure is antibiotics.
3) WTF is an optimal kid? For me, a relatively well behaved, rational child that knows right & wrong, and capable of self-education. Suboptimal would be have disciplinary problems, crime or drug habit, and non-constructive behaviors (like sitting in front of a computer game for hours every day.)
I wouldn't be a fan of butt whipping. I don't think you can inflict enough real pain to get that deterrent effect. My dad used to slap me in the face. Don't need much force, stings like hell, and most important, immediately gets the kid's attention in an unpleasant way.
If you have to worry about beating them to a pulp, then that's a problem. Punishment shouldn't be conducted in a fit of anger. Punishment should be conducted in a very measured manner, to either get a pain/fear association to a bad activity, or to break down resistance behaviors. If the kid is constantly looking for negative reinforcement, it means you not giving them enough constructive attention.
I'm not a fan of non-parental corporal punishment. But I think its the parent's obligation to provide that punishment if the school contacts them for being a serious infractions. I think school's problem enforcing discipline today are the parents.
Geeks really need to address the mental disability that hinders their ability to procreate.
I forgot to bring up the most important point of that post. That exemplar of journalism called the Register then claims computers have made kids perform worse in school.
The reality is that kids accomplish less in school than in previous years is because American public schools are declining in educational quality, not that the kids are using computers. Public schools when I was growing up were already neglecting non-curicula specific training. There were articles in the late '80s and early '90s critical of public schools for the decreased critical thinking skills of its graduates. It was easier, more quantifiable, and discouraged independent thought (which improves control) by just making kids memorize more and call it education.
Bush Jr. then proceeds to contribute to this decline by mandating national testing for children and penalizing schools by witholding funding if they underperform on the test. The school systems are now forced to spend educational time on improving test performance, not critical thinking or teaching material not found on that test.
There's nothing to show that these effects are permanent, or that the results are relevant. IQ tests only prove who tends to score higher at IQ tests. When the brain has been focusing on the communication parts of their brain, and abstract juggling of issues presented by email, its not going to be focused sufficently to do well at solving IQ puzzles which require different type of mental function. The problem is that Slashdot readers are morons. They read a title that says "Email causes IQ drop" and immediately presume email must be bad. I can use the same logic to say being a jock drops your IQ by 10 points. If you spend most of your time in athletic activity, and don't mentally exercise yourself in a manner that lends itself to improved performance in IQ tests, I'm sure you'll suffer a similar drop in IQ over time. I find it a interesting study in terms of the questions it generates. But it doesn't mean much to me, other than if I want to do well on an IQ or SAT test, I should stay away from email or computer games for one day before the test.
The nature of addiction is the inability to curb the constant urge for self-gratification. Its not PHYSICAL addiction, but psychological addiction is just as debilitating and almost difficult to beat.
There is not much difference between snorting cocaine and shooting heroin to feel good, than watching TV or playing video games to get those same endorphins. (Or heavy physical activity, for that matter, but I never believed in runner's high.) The only difference with self-medication is that your brain is causing those drug effects to occur, and the body is self-regulating enough not to inflict permanent physical damage or cause severe physical withdrawal.
The problem is not merely "self-discipline". Its deeper. There is no reward for denying gratification if the long term goal doesn't provide satisfaction. I feel sorry for people that busted their ass to get an engineering degree in the '80's, only to find out afterwords society lied to them about job availability. I feel similarly about pre-meds back in the '80s. (I don't feel sorry for them now, because the writing is on the wall about how relatively crappy the medical profession has become.) The key thing is that society has been feeding everyone a line a bullsh*t about hard work and responsibility will allow you to achieve your happiness (see Fight Club). Don't get me wrong, those traits are required, you'll be better off financially, and you still may end up happy. But its been mythologized, and soon American society will be crashing into reality.
Midlife crisis occurs when people have plugged themselves into this life pattern because people told them they should live this way, only to realize at that point, it doesn't make them happy or feel fulfilled.
The problem is a crisis of faith, or purpose. You can't really beat that into people. Most people are pushed into adult behaviors by the desire to conform, or get ego gratification. Once those stop being motivators, there's not really any rationale to get a job better than station attendant if playing video games makes you adequately happy.
People are raised to be perpetual children, and infantilized throughtout their life. Then they knock up their SO, and think that to be an adult, they have to posess a thing called a kid. Rather than realizing its how they raise their kid that determines whether they are adults.
Being a parent is not about gratification from the love of a child. If you need that, get a dog. Being a parent is not about being the child's pal. You are not their pal, you are their parent. Its your job to provide for them, to protect them, and to teach them everything a school cannot, which includes morality & discipline. Finally, comes the bull crap that you shouldn't smack them one when they're out of line, and all this touchy feely studies that claim corporal punishment is unnecessary. They're the same assholes that 40 years ago said homosexuality was a mental illness, that margarine was better for you than butter, and that ulcers were caused by lifestyle stress.
This society is screwed up. Some odd reason they think its more important to keep kids infantilized. What they really should do is reduce the age of adulthood to 16. And then push parents to raise their kids to be more responsible so they can act like adults at 16. Much like they do in Europe and the rest of the world.
Kids, in a non-screwed up family situation, spent their waking hours learning how to be like their providers. Its how they are programmed. They stop doing this once they become teenagers because their GENES tell them to get the hell out of the house, procreate, and make a living for themselves. They stop being cute so that parent get the clue to kick them out the house; you don't need to breast feed them anymore.
That is, when the TV isn't telling kids that being an adult is being a sexual being who buys lots of products and reality is that being goodlooking and conforming is the secret to success in life which always ends up with the happy ending.
Do I have a kid? Hell no, I realize what's involved. Why the heck would I want to inflict that kind of misery on myself? But sure as hell if I had a kid, I wouldn't be trying to be his favorite pal. Let him love mommy more; its not a competition, its about raising the optimal kid.
But such financial judgements could only be administered on a local level, since I am not aware of a strategy that could get a civil action against the federal gov't. Also, instead of a federal spread of culpability, its would have to be limited to states with documentable acts of overt discrmination. Its not the taxpayers at large that would have to pay a financial judgement, its the taxpayers of a municipality across the south that would have to pay.
If large enough to bankrupt municipalities, that would be spread across the south. There would be hideous financial chaos. That is always trouble.
Pre-60's discrimination, impacted specifically non-white minorities. If this current version sets the equivalent of loose quotas based on population, you can argue that some individuals will be losers, but you can't establish that one ethnic/racial group will be favored over another, only that by ratio of population they are equivalent. It does hit the concept of the "fittest" individuals at "examination" time not being selected, but that doesn't impact racially, only individually. Since I haven't suggested people who fail to get placement in jobs or university should be executed, I fail to see where it supports genocide.
It wasn't before the federal civil rights acts. Where is the restitution?
Well, its going to be near impossible to resolve specific acts of discrimination actionable by tort against one set of individuals against a set of other individuals. The only target of legislation will have to be at townships, cities, and POSSIBLY state gov'ts. You can't prosecute a gov't group for following the law, but at the Federal level, you can argue that basic human rights were being denied by unequal application of the law (14th amendment). You can then proceed to argue the law was unequal, because in many districts blacks weren't permitted to vote, or there was a conspiracy to deny the vote. In which case, those gov't might not be able hide behind local law for their acts. The key is not to find a specific act to convict the local gov't, only present a conspiracy to inflict financial or physical harm to a class action group, and then RICO trebles the damages. The beauty of this approach is that it does not require a specific instrument, you just have to show a conspiracy was involved, and RICO makes it hurt. Now all these local gov't would be stuck not being able to pay for anything except court awarded damages. It'll collapse loser towns across the entire south.
But, IANAL. There may be some form of judicial brake that would make it impossible to conduct cases in this manner, and I'm sure the judicial system would conspire to never allow this to occur. But ultimately, there are still two problems. 1) Judicial awards do not fix the problem; basically that 250+ years of slavery and segregation has robbed a whole population of people of the wealth and position and relegates them to near permanent poverty status for generations. It just means that an identifiable group of individuals get a cash award, and the racist white people conducted a wise strategy to secure wealth & power at the expense of another racial group. I think its
Naive is so inadequate. Utterly clueless doesn't adequately cover that statement.
Devoid of comprehension of the demanding nature of microkernel communication based software construction, or basic project management methodology. Technical, and yet not overly insulting.
Actually, I think of any such pairing as a legal contract (hetero or otherwise). Its "marriage" that I consider a religious sacrement.
I think its an inviolate obligation of gov't not to apply laws differently based on religious dogma. If you make laws affecting inheritance, child custody, guardianship, divorce, etc. which affects a hetero couple, then gov't must provide those same legal mechanisms to a same sex couple. Otherwise, it is gov't institutionalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation. You cannot have a "just", secular gov't without doing this.
Do you have the slightest comprehension of Constitutional concept of separation of church & state? If the gov't conducts a ceremony considered to be of religious significance, it is violating that concept of separation. Gov't should be in the "civil union" business, not bestowing religious sacrements (marriage).
But you live in the country whose gov't conducted racist policy. If you say the gov't is to be charged, you're still liable for it, as a taxpayer.
Well, local laws were in the books, and all that would need to be done is produce a witness, and you have grounds to sue the local gov't. That can also apply to where the state gov't has conducted discrimination against the citizenry. So basically, you have no problem with enforcing the law, even it it could cause another civil war in this country.
No, as I said, as a citizen of the U.S., I am still liable for legal decisions against the localities where I live. Its not discrimination if it redresses previous wrongs, and done in a manner that negatively impacts an entire racial group. Its a plea bargain deal.
Its one damaging to the country. So basically, you're against discrimination when it impacts your racial group, specifically your least intellectually qualified individuals. And you don't care if the United States can function after such legal judgements are rendered. Which makes you the ultimate selfish individual.
Any non-religious couple should be able to have a civil union. Only God can imbue sanctity into a union between two people. That makes marriage is a religious ceremony, and thus the purview of a religous institution. Gov't is not a religious institution; it should not be performing marriages.
But you are a citizen of the United States, and the state gov'ts were directly complicit in crimes against minorities. Your father has responsibility in the institutional discrimination perpetrated by his gov't, whether by action or inaction. Are you suggesting gov't has no responsibility in the discrimination they institutionalized? Or that you are not a U.S. citizen? The classic response of the residents near Buchenwald was that "I didn't push Jews into the ovens. Why are you blaming me?" Were they right?
There were Germans after WWII that felt the same way towards reparations to the Jews. Where they right? Funny, I feel the same way about restitution, given that I'm not white or black. Are you suggesting gov't should individually identify survivors of institutionalized racism prior to 1960, set a cash award, and then make all taxpayers responsible for funding it? Is that fairer or more reasonable to you? How about just letting those class action suits decide what is fair? And who gives a damn if an entire region of the country goes into economic chaos?
On the other hand, if restitution consists of not getting into a university slot because you could beat out a black guy, but not the lowest accepted white guy, is society really keeping you white guys down as a racial group? Is that an insurmountable disadvantage? If so, then how can you claim black guys can overcome the same disadvantage? And why should anyone care, when in your pure grade driven meritocracy, the asian guy is going to get your spot anyway (statistically speaking)?
True, but you ignore the fact that the reason black people are statistically disadvantaged to white people is the policy of discrimination perpetrated by the gov't. If you do not introduce a means to address that disparity, any discriminated people will stay statistically disadvantaged, statistically speaking. I don't see why society is required to favor a privileged class by defending its current status obtained by illgotten means.
If you argue that advancement by meritocracy is the best way to resolve the situation, I have no problem with that. When you take statistically poorer black people, and deny them statistical representation in institutions of higher learning, because they can't afford it or came from inferior funded education systems and the gov't will not address the circumstances of their past discrimination, aren't you still being a white racist by trying to maintain the status quo? If not, how can you claim your race isn't enforcing discrimination against minorities by denying them access to higher learning based on ancestor wealth? Is it not discrimination if you merely deny that its discrimination?
Ignoring discrimination perpetrated by gov't in the past is unjust too! End of story. How do you propose they be redressed?
In an ideal world, no. But we don't live in an ideal world. As a pragmatist, I see college important because of the connections they will make, not so much that the educa
In one instance it appears to have failed (racial discrimination). So it has to fail miserably when civil union and marriage is defined the same (or nearly the same)?
The word "marriage" does not convey legitimacy to a union between two adults. In fact, that is the whole problem. The reason why the issue is so heated, is because of religious nimrods seem to think if a secular gov't conveys legitimacy to a homosexual union, then its an act by gov't against God. The homosexuals think because they have "rights", they have the right to compel gov't to bestow a religious sacrement.
The answer is that marriage is a religious sacrement, and gov't has no business to imbue a religious status upon any couple. It violates the concept of separation of state and church.
Unfortunately, the gov't conveys legal amenities based upon marital status. To apply legal privileges to a heterosexual couple and not to a homosexual couple is apparent discrimination (in the 21 century Western civilization).
The answer is for gov't to get out of the religious business. What they should do is recognise "civil unions" between all couples and leave the "marriage ceremonies" to their respective institutions of worship.
I for one, will not drop dead if they call the hetero unions marriages, and the homosexual unions "civil unions". The only issue I see here is that gov't treats both unions equally under the eyes of the law. If gay/lesbians want to try to legislate the word "marriage" to their unions, so be it. But in a culture where they are threatened by physical violence and murder over their sexual status, suffer discrimination in the workplace, and had a President antithetical to their interests elected because of this issue, they really should smarten up and pick their fights more carefully.
Black people don't have that same access to land or goods. You need money to get access to those lands and goods. It was taken from them by the racist, discriminatory, conspiracy and complicity of white citizens.
On the flip side, I would argue that black immigrants aren't entitled to a cut, and that I, as a northern non-white, have even less culpability than you do.
So when white people steal from black people, white people are theives. But when the victim tries to extract restitution for that theft, they are theives. Ah, that "white" logic, its so confusing to me. No wonder so many of them think they were morally right to invade Iraq.
Lesse. Black people your age, who could not benefit from an inheritance of the same monetary value as a white person, profitted from slavery because they still start out economically poorer than the average white person, less likely to get financing to a top notch institution, but have a slight advantage to lower paying gov't jobs, and have the same "opportunity" as a white person, as long as they're willing to lose a limb or their life; while the average white kid can still exploit "opportunity" without losing a life or limb, because his ancestors exploited the black man. Yup, more of that "white" sense of fairness.
Unfortunately, I am more cynical. (Being a Northerner, I have a problem believing "God Almighty" would be a Southerner. ;) ) But I'm glad these nimrods don't actually call the shots. I don't think they have a clue what federal class action civil suits against local gov'ts with RICO statutes would do to their towns. Or the cost of justice denied. It would make the Civil War look like a picnic. I'm not big on the idea that direct restitution is a requirement, but some people should learn to appreciate half assed justice.
So what is adequate recompensation for 100+ years of slavery? Or 100+ years of government discrimination of a race?
For 100 years, white southern landowners enslaved and brutalized black people. They became wealthy from that discrimination. It was done under the aegis of law. Does that mean the government of the United States has no culpability?
For 100 years after that, the white southern population in power ignored murders committed by white people against black people, kept them out of professional or well paying jobs, and made sure the education of black children was inferior to white children.
Unlike slavery, the perpetrators are still alive and could be held accountable. Are you suggesting Black people should put local gov'ts under civil suit and bankrupt them for their previous illegal discrimination?
For 100+ years, white people enslaved black people. But when it comes to restitution, you say "tough luck".
But when the violation of law only occurred 50 years ago, and the perpetrators are still alive, you say "tough luck".
But now when the federal gov't tried to conduct some form of restitution to the minority population for crimes perpetrated by local gov'ts, you say, "that's not fair". You have an odd sense of fairness.
The parent poster you condescend to is not a child. He's just talking to an immoral person who thinks if he can rationalize what is legal and fair, then he is taking the mature position.
No, the better analogy would be, "I have the right to own a gun, and I have the right to shoot McVoy and then shoot Torvalds because he's McVoy's junkie. Screw the fact that using proprietary software is not life threatening, and that taking out the lead linux maintainer will not get the kernel out sooner."