Labelling all your enemies trolls is about as stupid as you can get
You're blaming me for using a tool that your lib/. friends abuse all the time. Those lib moderators literally comb the posts, looking for conservative comments, then go back and not only mark that comment a troll, but all travel to your user page and purposely troll down every comment you've made recently, no matter what the topic. So blaming me for calling you a troll is highly hypocritical considering you probably turned around a just modded my recent comments troll.
Stay inside your cubicles and be forwarned, the government hating trolls are at it again, and again, and again... and I'm certian there's more to come.
Probably the biggest single reason is the lack of available spectrum needed to support broadband wireless devices for public-safety radios.
That is finally about to change. The FCC has mandated that TV stations give up the 700MHz channels and that bandwidth be available for broadband public safety applications. Unfortunately, that switch wont occur until February 2009.
Plus, I would imagine that a large percentage of PS3 purchasers would just leave that HD cable in the box anyways, unused forever. So it would be a waste of money for Sony to put it in there. If HD was prevelant in nearly every household, then it would be another story, but since it isn't, there is no reason for them to package it. I agree with the parent, this is not news.
I've taught at the undergraduate & graduate levels before (C/C++/Data Structures, etc). Here's some simple simple ideas - base a portion of the grade on attendance - display some information just outside of the view of the podcast (ex: most cameras are stationary and don't cover the whole room) and make sure that info is on the exam - weekly quizes that force them to attend
you're getting paid to teach, not to babysit Provide them the information you think is necessary in whatever form, and allow them to determine how they will use it.
I have this same problem at work with co-workers and Lotus Notes too. They can see everything I put on my calendar by default, unless I purposely block stuff and make it unreadable to them.
As an aside, if you believe this war is a sham, and you believe that there is no global terrorist threat, then pay closer attention the next time Iranian "president" (A-mad-jihad or whatever his name is) goes on television and advocates the annihilation of a country, namely Israel.
/.ers do not care, because they believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Which of course is only a fantasy.
If you just mention the word "terrorist", you get a budget, a project to work on, and possibly a promotion.
So, from what I get, the summary of your post is : The reasoning behind government officials fighting terrorists is NOT America's safety and preservation, but instead it's so that they can stay in office, make more money, and get a promotion.
Terrorism is a crime like any other, only it is less dangerous. Why is it that so many people are horribly opposed to blanket invasions of privacy for daily occurence crimes like murder, rape, etc,
I'll keep it short because apparently posters on/. are annoyed by opposing viewpoints. This is a pointless argument (More people die from XYZ than from terrorism, so it's less dangerous). Murders is typically targeted at one indiviual. Rape it typically targetted at one individual. Terrorism is targetted at hundreds upon thousands of individuals.
What makes you think they're trying to kill you/us?
Right, so you're telling me that if you ask a terrorist what they would like to do to the United States, they're going to answer: Scare them? I highly doubt that. They're going to say: Obliterate it, flatten it, kill everybody in it.
If they really are trying to kill us, they're doing a horrible job (compared to statistics of all the other bizarre things that kill more people than terrorists)
Good comparison. So if more people die being bitten by sharks than by Serial Rapists, we should be able to just ignore the Serial Rapists and pay more attention to shark bites? Terrorists aren't killing enough people for us to care? So, basically what you're saying then is that if the terrorists strike more and kill more people more frequently, then we can start caring, but until them, it's stupid to pay any attention to then.
MODERATOR NOTE: Again, just trying to have a discussion, not trying to flame or anything. Thank you.
Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
Which the government mostly did, when Congress was Democratic.
I'm not sure I could trust a Democratic congress either though? Cynthia McKinney didn't believe she should be punished for scuffling with a police officer. William J. Jefferson didn't get punished for his "freezer" corruption. Patrick Kennedy also seemed to receive some special treatment during his crash.
It seems to me like both parties are corrupt, and you shouldn't argue that one can be trusted over another, because neither like to serve punishment towards their own members?
- A requestor (government official, etc.) submits a request for a query on a specific database. - The group gathering this data must be completely unbiased, preferably a group of people outsourced from another country - This outside group is allowed to modify the requestors query as to remove any prejudice from it. - Each person submitting their data must first be given an opt out choice as to be exluded from the data mining. - Each record must be accumulated, counted, and summarized by 2 people, of different races, in order to assure impartiality - Once a final list of supspected guilty records is created, any person on that list that is frequently stereotyped should also be removed. - The final list of guilty records should be written in permanent ink and returned to the requestor, in order to ensure the records are not modified.
All these surveillence programs would be acceptable if we could trust the government not to abuse them
Legit Question for Parent: If the Republican party loses the house, senate, and presidency, then will you be able to "trust the government"? Or is there something else that would also need to occur? Or do you believe you can ever trust the government? Thank you.
I really have no qualms with this unless the government decides to start going after law-abiding students
I agree. There is a group out there trying to kill us. We have to catch them, and in order to do so we need to be able to query our own data. Why is it that so many people whine about this? They are implying that if we just back off, leave everything as it was, stop seeking terrorists, and stop fighting them, that the terrorists will just go away. This is a fantasy that will never happen, therefore we need to be on the offensive, and this is a valid way to do so.
MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not moderate this down just because of the viewpoints contained within. Instead read it or don't, like it or don't, respond or don't. I don't moderate your posts down just becasue I don't agree with you. Please do the same.
I don't want one party. But when we become as divided as we are today, and we seem to be splitting further and further apart, there comes a time when we have to re-unite on at least some issues. Otherwise we're going to loose site of what it means to be an American, and what it means to belong to our beloved country, because we'll be too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
And your beliefs are in that 5%. Thanks for playing. We have a nice parting gift.
I have a theory./.ers want to give the minority the majority rule because they themselves feel like they're the minority. I totally agree that we have to listen to the minority, because they may have a valid point, and may change our minds. But I do not agree or understand those you are hell bent on believing and taking for granted everything that the minority says. Newsflash! The minority is not always correct, and many times you should listen to the majority instead.
Please don't try and simplify politics with things like this
It's divisive people like you that keep splitting this country further and further apart. As for your other statements above, I'm quite positive everybody, even Bush is for the broad statement of reducing the national deficit. I am not talking about what's going on now and what the government is doing. I'm just saying we all would agree that reducing the defecit is a good thing. And I'm quite positive in a similar argument that everybody is for religion. Don't look at what Bush and his drones are doing, look at what we all want. We want to be able to practice our religion, whether it's Christina, Muslim, Athiest, whatever. I'm looking to simplify and looking to find things we agree on, because otherwise we'll never agree on anything, and this country will split apart into 2 bitter enemies (like it's already doing). You certainly have to agree that the 2 sides are never going to get anything accomplished if we continue down the road we're on.
Again, you jump out and look for ways to divide us. For each statement above, it's meant to be simple and broad and collectively I guarantee that 90% or more of the US population agrees with the above statements. From there I would propose devling deeper into each topic in order to determine what we still agree on within the subtopic. Remember too, that the majority should rule, especially when it's overwhelming majority. Just because 5% of the population thinks drunk driving is safe, doesn't me we should make it legal. Similar arguments for everything else.
You make a good point, but like I said, you don't want to try to split us apart into 2 parties right away again. So, we need to look for the next logical step, go down as far as we can with the parts we agree upon instead of immediately pointing out the parts we disagree on. Rough Example:
We're all for teaching science in the classroom. - YES
We're all for teaching everything in any science textbook excluding Evolution and the beginning of earth related topics. - YES
We're all for teaching Evolution excluding the topic of human evolution. - YES
We're all for teaching Evolution of humans as long as it's notated as a theory. - WELL, UMMMMM
See, at least with a progression of "agreedable" statements above, we at least formed a nice platform of what we can agree on, and so we have something to work with. If we just jump to the last question, then we get such a bitter divide, and it gets quite frustrating.
Before the flame wars begin (I heard the word Dawrin, it's gonna start soon), let's try to put together a list of things that Libs & Conservatives all agree on. I know this list exists, and I think it's bigger than you'd expect.
We're all for teaching science in the classroom.
We're all for legal immigration.
We're all for stopping illegal immigration.
We're all for reducing our dependance on foreign oil.
We're all against any form of terrorism.
We're all for protecting and preserving the environment.
We're all for reducing the deficit.
We're all for educating our children.
We're all for freedom of religion.
We're all against any form of illegal drug usage.
We're all against child pornagraphy.
....
My one request: Stop looking for reasons for their to be 2 parties, and start looking for reasons for there to be 1 party. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
Labelling all your enemies trolls is about as stupid as you can get
/. friends abuse all the time. Those lib moderators literally comb the posts, looking for conservative comments, then go back and not only mark that comment a troll, but all travel to your user page and purposely troll down every comment you've made recently, no matter what the topic. So blaming me for calling you a troll is highly hypocritical considering you probably turned around a just modded my recent comments troll.
You're blaming me for using a tool that your lib
Stay inside your cubicles and be forwarned, the government hating trolls are at it again, and again, and again ... and I'm certian there's more to come.
Probably the biggest single reason is the lack of available spectrum needed to support broadband wireless devices for public-safety radios.
That is finally about to change. The FCC has mandated that TV stations give up the 700MHz channels and that bandwidth be available for broadband public safety applications. Unfortunately, that switch wont occur until February 2009.
Your solution is here
Plus, I would imagine that a large percentage of PS3 purchasers would just leave that HD cable in the box anyways, unused forever. So it would be a waste of money for Sony to put it in there. If HD was prevelant in nearly every household, then it would be another story, but since it isn't, there is no reason for them to package it. I agree with the parent, this is not news.
I've taught at the undergraduate & graduate levels before (C/C++/Data Structures, etc). Here's some simple simple ideas
- base a portion of the grade on attendance
- display some information just outside of the view of the podcast (ex: most cameras are stationary and don't cover the whole room) and make sure that info is on the exam
- weekly quizes that force them to attend
you're getting paid to teach, not to babysit
Provide them the information you think is necessary in whatever form, and allow them to determine how they will use it.
I have this same problem at work with co-workers and Lotus Notes too. They can see everything I put on my calendar by default, unless I purposely block stuff and make it unreadable to them.
As an aside, if you believe this war is a sham, and you believe that there is no global terrorist threat, then pay closer attention the next time Iranian "president" (A-mad-jihad or whatever his name is) goes on television and advocates the annihilation of a country, namely Israel.
/.ers do not care, because they believe that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Which of course is only a fantasy.
I agree with the parent.
If you just mention the word "terrorist", you get a budget, a project to work on, and possibly a promotion.
So, from what I get, the summary of your post is : The reasoning behind government officials fighting terrorists is NOT America's safety and preservation, but instead it's so that they can stay in office, make more money, and get a promotion.
Terrorism is a crime like any other, only it is less dangerous. Why is it that so many people are horribly opposed to blanket invasions of privacy for daily occurence crimes like murder, rape, etc,
/. are annoyed by opposing viewpoints. This is a pointless argument (More people die from XYZ than from terrorism, so it's less dangerous). Murders is typically targeted at one indiviual. Rape it typically targetted at one individual. Terrorism is targetted at hundreds upon thousands of individuals.
I'll keep it short because apparently posters on
What makes you think they're trying to kill you/us?
Right, so you're telling me that if you ask a terrorist what they would like to do to the United States, they're going to answer: Scare them? I highly doubt that. They're going to say: Obliterate it, flatten it, kill everybody in it.
If they really are trying to kill us, they're doing a horrible job (compared to statistics of all the other bizarre things that kill more people than terrorists)
Good comparison. So if more people die being bitten by sharks than by Serial Rapists, we should be able to just ignore the Serial Rapists and pay more attention to shark bites? Terrorists aren't killing enough people for us to care? So, basically what you're saying then is that if the terrorists strike more and kill more people more frequently, then we can start caring, but until them, it's stupid to pay any attention to then.
MODERATOR NOTE: Again, just trying to have a discussion, not trying to flame or anything. Thank you.
Real Congressional oversight. Real punishment for violators. Real institutional processes for keeping data within the scope of only the required transaction. Real trustworthy government processes that make "security" both use and protect data.
Which the government mostly did, when Congress was Democratic.
I'm not sure I could trust a Democratic congress either though?
Cynthia McKinney didn't believe she should be punished for scuffling with a police officer.
William J. Jefferson didn't get punished for his "freezer" corruption.
Patrick Kennedy also seemed to receive some special treatment during his crash.
It seems to me like both parties are corrupt, and you shouldn't argue that one can be trusted over another, because neither like to serve punishment towards their own members?
It was disappointed in the article format. Here's the Printer Friendly version
...but how would Slashdot investigate terrorism?
- A requestor (government official, etc.) submits a request for a query on a specific database.
- The group gathering this data must be completely unbiased, preferably a group of people outsourced from another country
- This outside group is allowed to modify the requestors query as to remove any prejudice from it.
- Each person submitting their data must first be given an opt out choice as to be exluded from the data mining.
- Each record must be accumulated, counted, and summarized by 2 people, of different races, in order to assure impartiality
- Once a final list of supspected guilty records is created, any person on that list that is frequently stereotyped should also be removed.
- The final list of guilty records should be written in permanent ink and returned to the requestor, in order to ensure the records are not modified.
All these surveillence programs would be acceptable if we could trust the government not to abuse them
Legit Question for Parent: If the Republican party loses the house, senate, and presidency, then will you be able to "trust the government"? Or is there something else that would also need to occur? Or do you believe you can ever trust the government? Thank you.
I really have no qualms with this unless the government decides to start going after law-abiding students
I agree. There is a group out there trying to kill us. We have to catch them, and in order to do so we need to be able to query our own data. Why is it that so many people whine about this? They are implying that if we just back off, leave everything as it was, stop seeking terrorists, and stop fighting them, that the terrorists will just go away. This is a fantasy that will never happen, therefore we need to be on the offensive, and this is a valid way to do so.
MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not moderate this down just because of the viewpoints contained within. Instead read it or don't, like it or don't, respond or don't. I don't moderate your posts down just becasue I don't agree with you. Please do the same.
many uses other than what everyone assumes it is good for, namely movie piracy.
- Game Demos
- Software updates / upgrades
- Free / Legal Videos
I don't want one party. But when we become as divided as we are today, and we seem to be splitting further and further apart, there comes a time when we have to re-unite on at least some issues. Otherwise we're going to loose site of what it means to be an American, and what it means to belong to our beloved country, because we'll be too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
And your beliefs are in that 5%. Thanks for playing. We have a nice parting gift.
/.ers want to give the minority the majority rule because they themselves feel like they're the minority. I totally agree that we have to listen to the minority, because they may have a valid point, and may change our minds. But I do not agree or understand those you are hell bent on believing and taking for granted everything that the minority says. Newsflash! The minority is not always correct, and many times you should listen to the majority instead.
I have a theory.
Please don't try and simplify politics with things like this
It's divisive people like you that keep splitting this country further and further apart. As for your other statements above, I'm quite positive everybody, even Bush is for the broad statement of reducing the national deficit. I am not talking about what's going on now and what the government is doing. I'm just saying we all would agree that reducing the defecit is a good thing. And I'm quite positive in a similar argument that everybody is for religion. Don't look at what Bush and his drones are doing, look at what we all want. We want to be able to practice our religion, whether it's Christina, Muslim, Athiest, whatever. I'm looking to simplify and looking to find things we agree on, because otherwise we'll never agree on anything, and this country will split apart into 2 bitter enemies (like it's already doing). You certainly have to agree that the 2 sides are never going to get anything accomplished if we continue down the road we're on.
Again, you jump out and look for ways to divide us. For each statement above, it's meant to be simple and broad and collectively I guarantee that 90% or more of the US population agrees with the above statements. From there I would propose devling deeper into each topic in order to determine what we still agree on within the subtopic. Remember too, that the majority should rule, especially when it's overwhelming majority. Just because 5% of the population thinks drunk driving is safe, doesn't me we should make it legal. Similar arguments for everything else.
You make a good point, but like I said, you don't want to try to split us apart into 2 parties right away again. So, we need to look for the next logical step, go down as far as we can with the parts we agree upon instead of immediately pointing out the parts we disagree on.
Rough Example:
See, at least with a progression of "agreedable" statements above, we at least formed a nice platform of what we can agree on, and so we have something to work with. If we just jump to the last question, then we get such a bitter divide, and it gets quite frustrating.
My one request: Stop looking for reasons for their to be 2 parties, and start looking for reasons for there to be 1 party. Thank you.