Sigh. A "coup" is an act of "insurgency". If you're a citizen of country X and you overthrow the legitimate government of country X then you are an insurgent. My objection is to the bastardized usage of the word in the media to refer to militia men try to eject an occupying force in their country.
Just for the record, I think mother's have a right to kill their babies. Infanticide is an ancient right of mothers and the modern obsession with interfering with parental duties is offensive.
Not quite. The Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. They simply went home.
No.. they were standing ready.. by executive order they were disbanded.
..and exactly what would you have had the US forces do and to what level of force would have had them use? There wasn't enough forces available to protect all of that property.
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. Seriously, the majority of people now work in jobs that didn't even exist when they went to school. Think about that.
You're talking about the insurgency in the 70's that put Saddam in power right?
Let's get this straight: In 2003 there was an invasion of Iraq by US forces (oh, and a smattering of allies, woo!) Since then there has been an occupation of Iraq by those same forces. One of the first actions of the occupying force was to disband the Iraqi army. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were told to go home. Their pay severed. For a while they tried to get jobs but, due to the widely publicized incompetence of the occupying forces, there was no jobs to be had. The looting and destruction of both private and public property was tolerated and ignored by the occupying forces. National treasures that had been preserved over millennia were destroyed. Seeing that their country was being systematically reduced to rubble they formed a militia and began fighting to remove the occupying force.
This is not insurgency. If someone invaded your country, fired the government, fired the military and replaced it with nothing you'd rise up and try to eject them too. If you didn't, you'd hardly be a patriot.
The filter is to enforce existing classification rules. The dude I was talking to, not you, said that exactly what the filter would be blocking wasn't well defined. It is. He just doesn't know because he gets all his information from the media instead of just reading the freakin' legislation. Most of the media get their information from, get this, the media, they don't read the legislation either. Some people, apparently, feel that reading legislation is something only lawyers can do.
My parents allowed me to leave school immediately and I finished my education as a home schooled student, went to a university CS department at 15 and eventually to the University of Chicago for grad school.
I know I'm ignorant, but I just don't understand how physicists managed to get from the Manhattan project to here. Yes, the Manhattan project showed that if you put great minds together they can achieve great things.. but that was in war time.. and for weapons development. How did the lab coats manage to convince the bean counters that the same thing was possible in peace time.. and for pure science no less? And how come it's always physics physics physics? And mostly, telescopes? If someone goes to the NSF and asks for billions to build a really big computer to do AI research on, the NSF tells them to go talk to IBM. Where's the IBM of telescopes? Even when it comes to rockets the big contractors are not expected to wear the cost of development (cost-plus contracts being an abomination, but at least it gets shit done), but if you wanna do basic science in compsci on decent hardware, you have to go work for a corp research lab.
Paul McCartney was one of the biggest proponents of that attempt to get retroactive copyright extension of sound recordings a few years back. Maybe he's changed his attitude towards copyright since then.. or maybe he's just interested in making a buck (or a bob) any way he can.
Gee thanks. In school, did you do the other kids homework for them too?
If an envelope is dropped on the ground saying "private and confidential", you don't have the right to read it, whether or not you personally agree.
Quite simply, this is false.
What about child pornography, where the child is raped in front of the camera?
And completely unable to make an argument from first principles, you jump to the hot button issue. Think of the children!!!
These exceptions open up the concept of censorship. If we have no right to view certain materials, surely we could be allowed to use some enforcement? Ignoring the multiple problems with censorship for now, the theoretical concept of blocking materials that a vast majority of people have deemed to be harmful if kept in the public eye doesn't seem too bad.
There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.
Repeating yourself and declaring your opinion to be correct does not an argument make. Why do you think censorship is "useful"? What are these "good reasons" you have for censorship? I believe that no-one has a right to decide what I can and cannot read. Convince me otherwise.
The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.
I will say it one last time. You have clearly not read the national classification legislation. Otherwise you wouldn't be consistently making incorrect statements. Stop being ignorant, go read it, or shut the fuck up. I don't think this is unfair. You don't know what you're talking about, and you have the means to educate yourself, but you choose not to.
Restriction of material is by definition censorship.
I agree.
Censorship is not inherently bad.
I disagree. Would you care to make an argument? I really am interested in hearing it. You have an open platform. Please, let us know why you think censorship is not inherently bad.
Huh? It's not his policy. The classification legislation has been on the books since the freakin' 70s dude. I really don't think it is too much to ask that people read it before commenting on policy that is just enforcing it. People should be reading the legislation and calling for its reversal. But, apparently, censorship is ok... fucking hell.
The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.
Again.. if you read the legislation, you will find that it does apply. I declare that you don't know what you're talking about.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school?
Sigh. What does restricting the material children are taught in schools have anything to do with the wanton censorship of adults. Do you have any actual opinions or are you just trolling?
I'm getting bored of saying it. The purpose of the filter is to shield people from material they don't want to see. The reason why the filter isn't "optional" is because the government's belief is that no reasonable person should want to turn it off. As such, people who "get around" the filter are of no concern to the government.
Uh huh. I think the companies that are complaining about the quality of grads are just expecting a certain unrealistic baseline. For example, they expect every applicant to know how to code.. and how to use revision control. I say this is unrealistic because this is all vocational training. Colleges should be teaching fundamentals, like data structures and algorithmic complexity.. and on-the-job training can take care of the vocational stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. A "coup" is an act of "insurgency". If you're a citizen of country X and you overthrow the legitimate government of country X then you are an insurgent. My objection is to the bastardized usage of the word in the media to refer to militia men try to eject an occupying force in their country.
Yeah, here I was thinking it would have the opposite effect.
Just for the record, I think mother's have a right to kill their babies. Infanticide is an ancient right of mothers and the modern obsession with interfering with parental duties is offensive.
Hehe, you really don't know what you're talking about.
I love Slashdot.
http://www.thefabricator.com/FabStories/FabStories_Article.cfm?ID=2045
Goes into significant detail of why SpaceX is really revolutionizing the launch business.
Not quite. The Iraqi army effectively disbanded itself. They simply went home.
No.. they were standing ready.. by executive order they were disbanded.
..and exactly what would you have had the US forces do and to what level of force would have had them use? There wasn't enough forces available to protect all of that property.
Gee, I fucking wonder why?!!
Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. Seriously, the majority of people now work in jobs that didn't even exist when they went to school. Think about that.
You're talking about the insurgency in the 70's that put Saddam in power right?
Let's get this straight: In 2003 there was an invasion of Iraq by US forces (oh, and a smattering of allies, woo!) Since then there has been an occupation of Iraq by those same forces. One of the first actions of the occupying force was to disband the Iraqi army. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were told to go home. Their pay severed. For a while they tried to get jobs but, due to the widely publicized incompetence of the occupying forces, there was no jobs to be had. The looting and destruction of both private and public property was tolerated and ignored by the occupying forces. National treasures that had been preserved over millennia were destroyed. Seeing that their country was being systematically reduced to rubble they formed a militia and began fighting to remove the occupying force.
This is not insurgency. If someone invaded your country, fired the government, fired the military and replaced it with nothing you'd rise up and try to eject them too. If you didn't, you'd hardly be a patriot.
The filter is to enforce existing classification rules. The dude I was talking to, not you, said that exactly what the filter would be blocking wasn't well defined. It is. He just doesn't know because he gets all his information from the media instead of just reading the freakin' legislation. Most of the media get their information from, get this, the media, they don't read the legislation either. Some people, apparently, feel that reading legislation is something only lawyers can do.
So, then, we need to teach Linux in schools because one in one-thousand students might once apply for a job as a Linux admin?
That's a speciality.
When I went to school, they said the same thing about typing.
My parents allowed me to leave school immediately and I finished my education as a home schooled student, went to a university CS department at 15 and eventually to the University of Chicago for grad school.
And then you killed your wife?
I know I'm ignorant, but I just don't understand how physicists managed to get from the Manhattan project to here. Yes, the Manhattan project showed that if you put great minds together they can achieve great things.. but that was in war time.. and for weapons development. How did the lab coats manage to convince the bean counters that the same thing was possible in peace time.. and for pure science no less? And how come it's always physics physics physics? And mostly, telescopes? If someone goes to the NSF and asks for billions to build a really big computer to do AI research on, the NSF tells them to go talk to IBM. Where's the IBM of telescopes? Even when it comes to rockets the big contractors are not expected to wear the cost of development (cost-plus contracts being an abomination, but at least it gets shit done), but if you wanna do basic science in compsci on decent hardware, you have to go work for a corp research lab.
Wow. So you really buy that whole "terrorists under the beds" nonsense. I guess someone has to.
I suppose you think there's an insurgency in Iraq too.
Come on man. Feel free to buy the FLAC and convert it to your preferred format. It's lossless compression, you can't ask for more.
Paul McCartney was one of the biggest proponents of that attempt to get retroactive copyright extension of sound recordings a few years back. Maybe he's changed his attitude towards copyright since then.. or maybe he's just interested in making a buck (or a bob) any way he can.
"imperative" and "object-oriented" are orthogonal concepts.
Gee thanks. In school, did you do the other kids homework for them too?
If an envelope is dropped on the ground saying "private and confidential", you don't have the right to read it, whether or not you personally agree.
Quite simply, this is false.
What about child pornography, where the child is raped in front of the camera?
And completely unable to make an argument from first principles, you jump to the hot button issue. Think of the children!!!
These exceptions open up the concept of censorship. If we have no right to view certain materials, surely we could be allowed to use some enforcement? Ignoring the multiple problems with censorship for now, the theoretical concept of blocking materials that a vast majority of people have deemed to be harmful if kept in the public eye doesn't seem too bad.
And they say the slippery slope is a fallacy.
I've read all your comments. You have said:
There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem. In this case, as is usually the case for censorship, it is the MINORITY that decides what the majority is allowed to see. My issue is when this minority is allowed to censor what they like, and the majority cannot intervene in anyway.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school? I'm not saying that it should be used as a magic bullet. As I've previously stated, it's the IMPLEMENTATION of censorship that is more often than not the issue.
Censorship is not good or evil, it is a device by which we control what can bee seen. It is used everyday. It is when control over censorship is handed to a minority with an agenda that it becomes a problem. This is the problem we face with Conroy's filtering plan.
Repeating yourself and declaring your opinion to be correct does not an argument make. Why do you think censorship is "useful"? What are these "good reasons" you have for censorship? I believe that no-one has a right to decide what I can and cannot read. Convince me otherwise.
The national classification system defines "illegal" content. It still does not define Conroy's "unwanted" content.
I will say it one last time. You have clearly not read the national classification legislation. Otherwise you wouldn't be consistently making incorrect statements. Stop being ignorant, go read it, or shut the fuck up. I don't think this is unfair. You don't know what you're talking about, and you have the means to educate yourself, but you choose not to.
Restriction of material is by definition censorship.
I agree.
Censorship is not inherently bad.
I disagree. Would you care to make an argument? I really am interested in hearing it. You have an open platform. Please, let us know why you think censorship is not inherently bad.
Huh? It's not his policy. The classification legislation has been on the books since the freakin' 70s dude. I really don't think it is too much to ask that people read it before commenting on policy that is just enforcing it. People should be reading the legislation and calling for its reversal. But, apparently, censorship is ok... fucking hell.
The national classification system does not apply to the Internet. It is designed for print and broadcast media. To attempt to apply it to the Internet is naÃve and foolhardy.
Again.. if you read the legislation, you will find that it does apply. I declare that you don't know what you're talking about.
At some levels, censorship is useful. Do you want you 12yo child to be taught the Dirty Sanchez in school?
Sigh. What does restricting the material children are taught in schools have anything to do with the wanton censorship of adults. Do you have any actual opinions or are you just trolling?
Yes, because Conroy thinks the question is as stupid as I do. There's a national classification system. Go read it.
There are some very good reasons for Censorship. The implementation of censorship is usually the problem.
Really? You honestly believe this? Please, do explain.
It is defined, you're just too fucking lazy to read the legislation.
If you're not against censorship in principle then don't go complaining when the majority decides what you're not allowed to see.
I'm getting bored of saying it. The purpose of the filter is to shield people from material they don't want to see. The reason why the filter isn't "optional" is because the government's belief is that no reasonable person should want to turn it off. As such, people who "get around" the filter are of no concern to the government.
Uh huh. I think the companies that are complaining about the quality of grads are just expecting a certain unrealistic baseline. For example, they expect every applicant to know how to code.. and how to use revision control. I say this is unrealistic because this is all vocational training. Colleges should be teaching fundamentals, like data structures and algorithmic complexity.. and on-the-job training can take care of the vocational stuff.