And for the Europeans who feel our 'policies on alcohol are bizarre': let's remember - to participate in student athletics in Minnesota, EVERY student must sign a pledge to entirely abstain from alcohol or tobacco as a student athlete, and (as I recall, it was 20 years ago I was in EPHS) even to avoid being PRESENT at such activities. Excuse me? I'm a parent of elementary school kids in MN. I'm not saying these kids in Eden Prairie weren't idiots, and if my kids are ever at a one of these parties I'll string them up myself. All the same, this agreement goes too far. I will be in the office of the high school chewing out the administration if they ever try to make my kids sign something like this or exclude them from sports that my taxes pay for over this.
My wife and I don't drink or smoke and never really have aside from the occasional toast at a wedding or a new year sparty. Still this is too draconian. What about communion at church? They can't even be present? They can see their uncle when he has a lit cigarette? I couldn't allow them to toast at new years?
Each new years my folks use to let me and my brothers have a sip of wine and made us eat sour kraut for luck. It was a tradition. (I haven't eaten kraut since. My luck has been fine.) My wife is Italian enough that we eat spaghetti with the secret family meatball recipe at Christmas. Her family makes all sort of other Italian dishes and also finds a glass of wine to be obligatory. The school would tell me my kids can't go to the Christmas dinner at Great Grandma's? That would be another impact that the school has no right to impose.
Perhaps I need to start having words with the school now, before my kids reach high school. And if they confirm this and are not flexible to my wishes for my children, then my lawyer will have to start having words with someone.
I think I've answered one like this before. I don't know about attempted Physics, but I'm pretty sure they've given Prizes for attempted Peace in the Middle East and attempted Peace with the IRA. As far as this guy goes, if he set the 'clock' on a type of 'time bomb', then I think it's safe to say he did it. His part was done and it was just a waiting game. It's kind of like pushig the lever down on the toaster. I may not have toast yet, but I'm not going to have to do anything more to have toast. It's not like there is anything more I need to do to prove I'm going to make toast.
So, because I know how a car works, I get to deny that the auto-maker made it? Just because you figured out how something works and 'put it in the science basket' doesn't mean it had to come out of 'god basket'. I think your basket metaphor is a poor model for genuine reasoning about the existence of gods.
So what are you saying? We should all get one free murder? Ooh! Ooh! Who should I kill? If I only get one, I got to make it good. Or wait instead of murder, what about theft? Can I rob a bank for a few million dollars if I only do it once? I mean, once I've got the money, I'm not going to need to do it again. I'll be set. Sound cool? I think you may be over looking some of what the justice system is for.
When I open documents, they usually are doc files, but I have never save a document with open office in any format other than it's own default. I may export to html, pdf, ps or something like that so other can read it, but I've never gone to doc or any other document format. Frankly, I don't trust that compatibility enough.
Dear Microsoft, When used incorrectly and in direct conflict of something that you are promoting, DRM sucks! By making the usage of your software a hassle, you risk further pushing more users of your applications to other solutions.
I still question this. What do they risk? Yet another article about how MS is hosing the customers? What does that mean? They had abysmal stability for the longest time and no one really stopped using the OS. They were a punch line when it came to security, yet business kept using them. They used DRM in the file system in ways that prevents you from recovering your hard drive if the computer breaks. The list anti-competitive behavior to long to mention, the forced upgrades, the computers that won't boot if you upgrade too much hardware...
What makes this guy think that anyone will stop using MS over this? How is this any more inconvenient? Is this guy going to do anything more than write an article asking MS to stop? Is he going to start using a different solution? If not him, then who? Why does he think anyone else will?
After all, studies show that most studies are wrong.
Clever.
The fact is, good science is hard work. In fact, it is damn hard work, requiring not only a supremely keen intellect but a very high tolerance for tedium, great attention to detail, and usually a...
It shouldn't, but this makes me laugh. And does "Free Software" = "you didn't pay for it?"
This really is the first time it struck me how pointless the whole "Let's replace Free Software with a less ambiguous term" movement was. I agreed with it at the time. Free Software seemed too ambiguous. Open Source just made sense. Now I see it as just another lexicon game like the ones I've criticized others for. Well, ya live and learn.
It's not just the words people don't understand. Some folks are really just blind to the value of Open Source or Free Software.
You wouldn't happen to be one of the ones who complains about parents that "spy" on their kids or have some control over what their kids watch are you? Just wondering.
I don't really mind the National Geographic thing. It's because I can pretty much know ahead of time and can decide based on that. I can block the channel or even just tell them "you can't watch that" and it works. My kids know they can't watch Pokiemon. (Actually, we had them dodging Barney from an early age. We're probably evil for that, but my wife and I hate him.) On the other hand, my son has recently discovered football and has picked a 'favorite' team. I'm ok with that as long as it is football and not strip tease. I'm not that afraid of the breast thing aside from the fact that it (*again*) lowers the standard. That and I as a parent wasn't able to decide about my kids seeing it, because I would not have had warning and I'd have had every reason to assume it wouldn't happen. Now, that no longer the case. Halftime show is now a place for celebs to go exibitionist on us.
I liked it better when there were common, family safe standards on the base channels and you had to choose to get the channels that didn't comply with those standards. If you bought the movie channel, you knew you were getting the R movies, or whatever. Now the basic cable package comes with AMC where the kids can watch Chris Reeves as a priest with nude women and 1980 high school students in the mid-west gibbing the Russan invaders with portable rockets if we (the partents) aren't going out of our way to stop it.
As far as letting my "kids watch grown men beat the crap out of each other" goes, it's a game, with rules. Actually its a game they can see live in town. Now I wouldn't let them watch a street fight, but I believe sports ought to be treated as something different (assuming they are sport and not just theater(*cough* WWF *cough*) and that they aren't these things that are basicly just street fights (*cough* idunnothename maybe ultimate fighting *cough*)). It's like differentiating between a doctor giving a vaccine or shot and a junky shooting up. I'd be concerned if my kids couldn't make that kind of differentiation.
I don't intend to argue whether it more important to protect kids for sex before they are old enough to understand the responsibility that come with it or if it is more important to not let them see people play sports for fear they might discover that people can break. Ultimately, it's my choice and 'round here, for the kids football is socially exceptable. The gentlemen's club is not.
...If I were concerned about scarring the minds of small children - i'd make sure the TV filtered out content labelled TV-MA....
So, you'd trust kids with the vchip. What was the Janet Jackson Super Bowl strip tease rated? I saw else where that Jack Bower's torture scenes are good for teenagers. I don't trust the vchip any more than I trust internet filters.
Things like this from folks without kids along with the people who call me a facist when I spy on my kids and a bad/lazy parent when I don't that really bugs me. I can understand that the FCC needs to set a standard before they bust someone for not meeting it, but that's no a reason to not have standards. If you can't enjoy TV without obscenities then get HBO.
It still comes down to, its their country, no one is losing their life over it. Well, if people do start losing their lives of it, you can be sure you won't find out via text message. Fortunately we can count on the free press over in Iran.
I don't know if I'd call foul, but according to the article, the default configuration that they test gzip with was 'gzip -5 -v' but according to http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/manual/gzip.html and every other version of the gzip manual I've read, the default compression level is -6. This will make gzip's default setting appear to compress less and run faster than the real default settings. This is incorrect.
Kids have other references. If they want to look anything on wiki-pedia they can do it from home with their parents approval. Given that Wiki-pedia covers just about everything, including many topics that some don't consider appropriate for their kids, it seems reasonable to me. Also given that they can go there on an election day and find the page for one of the candidates with a picture of a middle finger an a caption saying it's the candidate and his family, I don't consider it that valuable a reference for K-12 topics. Most other encyclopedias aren't annotated with flame wars.
I hear all the time that if I don't want my kids exposed something at a given age then it is up to me to limit what their (TV, internet, etc) access should be and that I shouldn't impose it on others. How do I do it if the schools or other institutions usurp my authority and enable my kids to circumvent my wishes? If I tell them no myspace and they do it at a friend's, I can at least ground them from then on. If they do it at school, I have no recourse. I can't reasonable say "no more school for you."
I've seen arguments here asking what about the rights of the kids. In many respects, I as a parent am responsible for determining my kids rights. Until they are 18 year old most of these rights are still called privileges. I'm especially responsible if they get out of line, so I want to have the ultimate say in what my kids privileges are.
If the schools block a website, then it's my say if my kids get to use it from home. I'm ok with that. I'm not really that uptight about them going to wiki-pedia right now (my oldest is only 6) but if it's entirely my responsibility to monitor what my watch, what my kids buy, what my kids hear and what they do on the net when they are still a tender age then I prefer that I be the one granting the access and that the schools not offer my kids the ability around my authority.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
hmm
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...
ok. He wasn't in the military. Indictment before being "held to answer". I think I got it.
...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...
No double jeopardy. Got it.
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
This is it, isn't it? You're asked as question. You answer honestly. If doing so would cause you to be a witness against yourself, you take the fifth and shut up, right? I guess we'll see if it's in the later clauses.
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
So, conviction before penalties. Nice idea.
...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
What's yours is yours. This isn't socialism. Got it.
Wait? Did I miss something? I see no proof or pudding. Why couldn't he have taken the fifth over perjuring himself? Did I get the wrong Fifth Amendment?
Slashdot Mirror
I expect my child to not have to make such a foolish promise.
My wife and I don't drink or smoke and never really have aside from the occasional toast at a wedding or a new year sparty. Still this is too draconian. What about communion at church? They can't even be present? They can see their uncle when he has a lit cigarette? I couldn't allow them to toast at new years?
Each new years my folks use to let me and my brothers have a sip of wine and made us eat sour kraut for luck. It was a tradition. (I haven't eaten kraut since. My luck has been fine.) My wife is Italian enough that we eat spaghetti with the secret family meatball recipe at Christmas. Her family makes all sort of other Italian dishes and also finds a glass of wine to be obligatory. The school would tell me my kids can't go to the Christmas dinner at Great Grandma's? That would be another impact that the school has no right to impose.
Perhaps I need to start having words with the school now, before my kids reach high school. And if they confirm this and are not flexible to my wishes for my children, then my lawyer will have to start having words with someone.
I think I've answered one like this before. I don't know about attempted Physics, but I'm pretty sure they've given Prizes for attempted Peace in the Middle East and attempted Peace with the IRA. As far as this guy goes, if he set the 'clock' on a type of 'time bomb', then I think it's safe to say he did it. His part was done and it was just a waiting game. It's kind of like pushig the lever down on the toaster. I may not have toast yet, but I'm not going to have to do anything more to have toast. It's not like there is anything more I need to do to prove I'm going to make toast.
So, because I know how a car works, I get to deny that the auto-maker made it? Just because you figured out how something works and 'put it in the science basket' doesn't mean it had to come out of 'god basket'. I think your basket metaphor is a poor model for genuine reasoning about the existence of gods.
There are no gaps. It's dark matter all the way down.
You are either growing frustrated or you are having a heart attack. Shall I notify the administrator?
Then Geek Squad will decide the election.
Nah. It will get delayed by the time_t overflow.
Notes has that availability chart too. If there's a patent then IBM has a license. (And they might.)
So what are you saying? We should all get one free murder? Ooh! Ooh! Who should I kill? If I only get one, I got to make it good. Or wait instead of murder, what about theft? Can I rob a bank for a few million dollars if I only do it once? I mean, once I've got the money, I'm not going to need to do it again. I'll be set. Sound cool? I think you may be over looking some of what the justice system is for.
When I open documents, they usually are doc files, but I have never save a document with open office in any format other than it's own default. I may export to html, pdf, ps or something like that so other can read it, but I've never gone to doc or any other document format. Frankly, I don't trust that compatibility enough.
Ya, right. Give them a second and they'll take a mile!
I still question this. What do they risk? Yet another article about how MS is hosing the customers? What does that mean? They had abysmal stability for the longest time and no one really stopped using the OS. They were a punch line when it came to security, yet business kept using them. They used DRM in the file system in ways that prevents you from recovering your hard drive if the computer breaks. The list anti-competitive behavior to long to mention, the forced upgrades, the computers that won't boot if you upgrade too much hardware...
What makes this guy think that anyone will stop using MS over this? How is this any more inconvenient? Is this guy going to do anything more than write an article asking MS to stop? Is he going to start using a different solution? If not him, then who? Why does he think anyone else will?
Clever.
The fact is, good science is hard work. In fact, it is damn hard work, requiring not only a supremely keen intellect but a very high tolerance for tedium, great attention to detail, and usually a...
blah blah blah. Need exec summary w/ bullet points pls. thx.Does Linus like him? More than Ingo?
I could have sworn people have been award prizes for attempted peace in the middle east or attempted peace with the IRA.
It shouldn't, but this makes me laugh. And does "Free Software" = "you didn't pay for it?"
This really is the first time it struck me how pointless the whole "Let's replace Free Software with a less ambiguous term" movement was. I agreed with it at the time. Free Software seemed too ambiguous. Open Source just made sense. Now I see it as just another lexicon game like the ones I've criticized others for. Well, ya live and learn.
It's not just the words people don't understand. Some folks are really just blind to the value of Open Source or Free Software.
You wouldn't happen to be one of the ones who complains about parents that "spy" on their kids or have some control over what their kids watch are you? Just wondering.
I don't really mind the National Geographic thing. It's because I can pretty much know ahead of time and can decide based on that. I can block the channel or even just tell them "you can't watch that" and it works. My kids know they can't watch Pokiemon. (Actually, we had them dodging Barney from an early age. We're probably evil for that, but my wife and I hate him.) On the other hand, my son has recently discovered football and has picked a 'favorite' team. I'm ok with that as long as it is football and not strip tease. I'm not that afraid of the breast thing aside from the fact that it (*again*) lowers the standard. That and I as a parent wasn't able to decide about my kids seeing it, because I would not have had warning and I'd have had every reason to assume it wouldn't happen. Now, that no longer the case. Halftime show is now a place for celebs to go exibitionist on us.
I liked it better when there were common, family safe standards on the base channels and you had to choose to get the channels that didn't comply with those standards. If you bought the movie channel, you knew you were getting the R movies, or whatever. Now the basic cable package comes with AMC where the kids can watch Chris Reeves as a priest with nude women and 1980 high school students in the mid-west gibbing the Russan invaders with portable rockets if we (the partents) aren't going out of our way to stop it.
As far as letting my "kids watch grown men beat the crap out of each other" goes, it's a game, with rules. Actually its a game they can see live in town. Now I wouldn't let them watch a street fight, but I believe sports ought to be treated as something different (assuming they are sport and not just theater(*cough* WWF *cough*) and that they aren't these things that are basicly just street fights (*cough* idunnothename maybe ultimate fighting *cough*)). It's like differentiating between a doctor giving a vaccine or shot and a junky shooting up. I'd be concerned if my kids couldn't make that kind of differentiation.
I don't intend to argue whether it more important to protect kids for sex before they are old enough to understand the responsibility that come with it or if it is more important to not let them see people play sports for fear they might discover that people can break. Ultimately, it's my choice and 'round here, for the kids football is socially exceptable. The gentlemen's club is not.
...If I were concerned about scarring the minds of small children - i'd make sure the TV filtered out content labelled TV-MA.So, you'd trust kids with the vchip. What was the Janet Jackson Super Bowl strip tease rated? I saw else where that Jack Bower's torture scenes are good for teenagers. I don't trust the vchip any more than I trust internet filters.
Things like this from folks without kids along with the people who call me a facist when I spy on my kids and a bad/lazy parent when I don't that really bugs me. I can understand that the FCC needs to set a standard before they bust someone for not meeting it, but that's no a reason to not have standards. If you can't enjoy TV without obscenities then get HBO.
Ya, really. An H-bomb would be a lot more affective.
*ducks*...*and covers*
I don't know if I'd call foul, but according to the article, the default configuration that they test gzip with was 'gzip -5 -v' but according to http://www.gnu.org/software/gzip/manual/gzip.html and every other version of the gzip manual I've read, the default compression level is -6. This will make gzip's default setting appear to compress less and run faster than the real default settings. This is incorrect.
Kids have other references. If they want to look anything on wiki-pedia they can do it from home with their parents approval. Given that Wiki-pedia covers just about everything, including many topics that some don't consider appropriate for their kids, it seems reasonable to me. Also given that they can go there on an election day and find the page for one of the candidates with a picture of a middle finger an a caption saying it's the candidate and his family, I don't consider it that valuable a reference for K-12 topics. Most other encyclopedias aren't annotated with flame wars.
I hear all the time that if I don't want my kids exposed something at a given age then it is up to me to limit what their (TV, internet, etc) access should be and that I shouldn't impose it on others. How do I do it if the schools or other institutions usurp my authority and enable my kids to circumvent my wishes? If I tell them no myspace and they do it at a friend's, I can at least ground them from then on. If they do it at school, I have no recourse. I can't reasonable say "no more school for you."
I've seen arguments here asking what about the rights of the kids. In many respects, I as a parent am responsible for determining my kids rights. Until they are 18 year old most of these rights are still called privileges. I'm especially responsible if they get out of line, so I want to have the ultimate say in what my kids privileges are.
If the schools block a website, then it's my say if my kids get to use it from home. I'm ok with that. I'm not really that uptight about them going to wiki-pedia right now (my oldest is only 6) but if it's entirely my responsibility to monitor what my watch, what my kids buy, what my kids hear and what they do on the net when they are still a tender age then I prefer that I be the one granting the access and that the schools not offer my kids the ability around my authority.
hmm
ok. He wasn't in the military. Indictment before being "held to answer". I think I got it.
No double jeopardy. Got it.
This is it, isn't it? You're asked as question. You answer honestly. If doing so would cause you to be a witness against yourself, you take the fifth and shut up, right? I guess we'll see if it's in the later clauses.
So, conviction before penalties. Nice idea.
What's yours is yours. This isn't socialism. Got it.
Wait? Did I miss something? I see no proof or pudding. Why couldn't he have taken the fifth over perjuring himself? Did I get the wrong Fifth Amendment?