If the program works properly, it doesn't matter. All that would happen when a student 'tweaked' their essay is that they'd have made their essay better. And they'd deserve a higher grade for it. The fact that the program provides a set of guidelines for what makes a good essay is reasonable.
The only way an unworthy essay can gain is if the guidelines that the program runs off of are worthless. In which case he shouldn't be using it.
The only cause for concern is the quality/validity of the program.
He's wrong, but the equation still holds. The reason is that a woman actually equates to spending twice as much money as you would usually spend over a given period of time.
Integrate (2*money dt) to get woman. Or, since time = money just integrate (2*money*dm) to get money^2 + c.
money^2 + c = woman
The constant c is always zero, because nothing is constant with a woman;), leaving
woman = money^2
So the formula still holds. Even if you're a math nazi.
Just because it's not based on morality doesn't necessarily make it a bad law... You have to be careful. If you went through and identified every law that existed for logistical or bureaucratic reasons (as opposed to moral ones), do you think you'd come up empty handed? To determine the quality of a law, you have to look at the quality of reasons for which it was put in place.
He doesn't have to win the issue of morality: all he has to do is show that the law is worthwhile. The law can be worthwhile for a number of different reasons. The problem is the contradiction in saying that it's not a moral issue, while running sappy morality based ads and harping about 'theft' and 'piracy', both of which have moral implications.
It *is* illegal to watch DVDs on an unlicensed player, because it's illegal. That's not circular reasoning, that's just stating the obvious! It speaks nothing of the reasons for it's illegality.
Circular reasoning would be to say, "It's morally wrong because it's illegal. It's illegal because it's morally wrong."
Excuse me? Computers cannot kill or injure people? Only cars can?
This is a distinction that can no longer be made, especially as cars are starting to become computer controlled.;)
In addition there are only so many ways that a car can kill or injure you: there are far more ways that computer failure/insecurity can negatively impact your life, even to the point of death.
You can't try and limit the realm of computer software to the home PC or to the workstation: both OSS and MS extend far beyond these. If you want to use software in a *serious* capacity (which, um, well, I'm afraid people do) regulation can and does have a place in software development. As software controls more and more things in our lives, this regulation will become more and more important. Maybe it will come in the form of self regulation: people not using insecure/inferior software. Regulation it remains.
To try and say that computers have no influence to kill/injure people and that buggy/insecure software is of no consequence, is a n inadequate reflection of software use in the world today.
"What is sad is that most useful email addresses @google.com will be swallowed up within ten minutes of the service going live, so you'll be back to charlie055539833 or cooldude1975 as your userid there too."
Sign me up!
I don't even want to think about how much spam bob@hotmail.com gets...
I think you're missing the point here. You're only looking at a 'first past the post' system, or a 50% + 1 system, neither of which constitute true democracy.
To limit "true democracy" to a system where the largest homogenous section of the population get exactly what they want, to the detriment of all others, is erroneous.
Dictators/Aristocrats/Imperialists have been using the argument that the public are too stupid to rule for centuries. Fortunately the very basis of a *right* is that you don't have to deserve it. Given the apathy of many Americans, they most certainly do *not* deserve the right to vote. Still it's their right (and duty).
If the US wasn't an apathetic culture of excess, and there was actually some motivation to vote(*real* dictatorship, censorship, etc.) , I think that something a lot closer to a true democracy could be very feasible and very successful.
That is exactly the case in Canada. It is *not* a copyright infringement, or illegal, to make a copy for *personal* use of any musical album. I think this situation(in Canada) is fairly reasonable and acceptable.
People pay the government (in Canada and the US)all the time for services they never use. It's a way of life. If this media levy is the biggest concern to be found, people really aren't looking hard enough. Grab a copy of the budget and start searching for some real injustices!
Lie flat on your back, and (very) gently place a large iron anvil on your chest. Once the anvil is resting on your chest, have someone strike it with a large hammer. The inertia of the anvil at rest will absorb the blow and you will feel no effects from even a very heavy blow.
That is if you like having an anvil on your chest...I've seen this done, but I'm not sure if you have to hold your breath or keep your chest expanded(likely). Very neat though, as it seems certain to the viewer that the person under the anvil must be crushed by the hammer blow.
Give me a real argument against the CDBTPA
on
Fritz's Hit List
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It strikes me that most of the arguments against the CDBTPA I see posted on/. are purely logistical in nature. They run along the lines of, "If this is passed, such and such(billy bass) would be illegal, now wouldn't that be stupid." or, "If you implement this in devices, it will have these bad consequences(can't film kids in front of coke machine, etc)."
I've yet to see a really good argument that attacks the basis for the CDBTPA, rather than just saying why it won't work. And yet I get the impression that even if it was implemented in a non-intrusive, practical manner,./ers still wouldn't like it.
So why not argue against the ideals behind the bill? Rather than just saying it's a bad bill?
Or, if the actual ideas behind the the CDBTPA are sound, why not try to find a good way to implement it?
This is by far the most impressive mod I've seen:well implemented and professional. But I can't help thinking:
What's this costing? Custom case, components, etc, etc? Not just $$$ but time as well. Looking nice is one thing, but wouldn't you rather just run a Walmart Mandrake box for a fraction of the cost?
On Wednesday, he hammered home a new definition: "software to connect information, people, systems and services."
Before.NET was released, no-one knew what it was. After its release, we still didn't know. Maybe I'm just stupid...But what kind of software connects information? This definition is all-encompassing, vague, and one of the more impressive examples of burble that I've seen. I guess MS just doesn't want us to *ever* know what they're doing.
Most of the posts I've read on this and similar stories go something like "I set up a Mandrake/SuSe box running KDE 3.0 for them and it looks just they're used to. They can surf the web with mozilla and do e-mail with Kmail. They love OpenOffice.org and they can do all the things that they did with Windows." Don't get me wrong. It's possible to set up a Linux box that is user friendly and has GUIs that hide all the scary geek stuff beneath. It's as soon as something goes wrong that Moms don't like Linux.
When something goes wrong with Windows, it's nothing out of the ordinary. People are used to that. Hey, Moms are cozy and comfortable with that. They know what to do, just reboot. If it's serious they call in the/.er of the family. But when something goes wrong with Linux, that's when it's scary.
I like linux. I'm still new to it, and I find tons of problems when I try to do something I don't know how to. I have to RTM and the Howto and the Readme before I finally learn how to go about it, and then there are all the unexpected problems along the way. For me it's a challenge that I'm often happy to tackle. For a Mom, when they try to do something and they can't, or they create a problem or something just goes wrong, it isn't a challenge. It's a problem and it makes them wish for something familiar.
Before you run a simple test, think about what you are going to do if the test is positive. Then think about what you will do if the result is negative. If they are the same, don't do the test.
Do yourself a favor and think about it. Scary stuff this may be, but how is it news?? Enlighten me.
Slashdot Mirror
But *true* elitists use linux from scratch, anyway.
If the program works properly, it doesn't matter. All that would happen when a student 'tweaked' their essay is that they'd have made their essay better. And they'd deserve a higher grade for it. The fact that the program provides a set of guidelines for what makes a good essay is reasonable.
The only way an unworthy essay can gain is if the guidelines that the program runs off of are worthless. In which case he shouldn't be using it.
The only cause for concern is the quality/validity of the program.
That's not the half of it...
:p
What % of the world population will live for the next 100 years anyway, to enjoy the full 1 in 455 chance?
I don't care about the chance of global catastrophe over the next 100 years, I care about what might happen in *my* lifespan.
NO, I don't have kids!
... Now that's a story I'd read!
Integrate (2*money dt) to get woman. Or, since time = money just integrate (2*money*dm) to get money^2 + c.
money^2 + c = woman
The constant c is always zero, because nothing is constant with a woman
woman = money^2
So the formula still holds. Even if you're a math nazi.
Spoken like a true demon customer!
He doesn't have to win the issue of morality: all he has to do is show that the law is worthwhile. The law can be worthwhile for a number of different reasons. The problem is the contradiction in saying that it's not a moral issue, while running sappy morality based ads and harping about 'theft' and 'piracy', both of which have moral implications.
It *is* illegal to watch DVDs on an unlicensed player, because it's illegal. That's not circular reasoning, that's just stating the obvious! It speaks nothing of the reasons for it's illegality.
Circular reasoning would be to say, "It's morally wrong because it's illegal. It's illegal because it's morally wrong."
Excuse me? Computers cannot kill or injure people? Only cars can?
;)
This is a distinction that can no longer be made, especially as cars are starting to become computer controlled.
In addition there are only so many ways that a car can kill or injure you: there are far more ways that computer failure/insecurity can negatively impact your life, even to the point of death.
You can't try and limit the realm of computer software to the home PC or to the workstation: both OSS and MS extend far beyond these. If you want to use software in a *serious* capacity (which, um, well, I'm afraid people do) regulation can and does have a place in software development. As software controls more and more things in our lives, this regulation will become more and more important. Maybe it will come in the form of self regulation: people not using insecure/inferior software. Regulation it remains.
To try and say that computers have no influence to kill/injure people and that buggy/insecure software is of no consequence, is a n inadequate reflection of software use in the world today.
"What is sad is that most useful email addresses @google.com will be swallowed up within ten minutes of the service going live, so you'll be back to charlie055539833 or cooldude1975 as your userid there too."
Sign me up!
I don't even want to think about how much spam bob@hotmail.com gets...
I think you're missing the point here. You're only looking at a 'first past the post' system, or a 50% + 1 system, neither of which constitute true democracy.
To limit "true democracy" to a system where the largest homogenous section of the population get exactly what they want, to the detriment of all others, is erroneous.
Dictators/Aristocrats/Imperialists have been using the argument that the public are too stupid to rule for centuries. Fortunately the very basis of a *right* is that you don't have to deserve it. Given the apathy of many Americans, they most certainly do *not* deserve the right to vote. Still it's their right (and duty).
If the US wasn't an apathetic culture of excess, and there was actually some motivation to vote(*real* dictatorship, censorship, etc.) , I think that something a lot closer to a true democracy could be very feasible and very successful.
People pay the government (in Canada and the US)all the time for services they never use. It's a way of life. If this media levy is the biggest concern to be found, people really aren't looking hard enough. Grab a copy of the budget and start searching for some real injustices!
The only real difference in heath issues between the two is that you sit far closer to a computer(putting aside keyboard issues for now).
We don't need more studies, we need some Common Sense!!!
For shame! Comparing Linus to the /. editors!
That is if you like having an anvil on your chest...I've seen this done, but I'm not sure if you have to hold your breath or keep your chest expanded(likely). Very neat though, as it seems certain to the viewer that the person under the anvil must be crushed by the hammer blow.
I bet the Darwin awards have already written up his exploits and are now just waiting....
The user. Windows OR Unix.
It strikes me that most of the arguments against the CDBTPA I see posted on /. are purely logistical in nature. They run along the lines of, "If this is passed, such and such(billy bass) would be illegal, now wouldn't that be stupid." or, "If you implement this in devices, it will have these bad consequences(can't film kids in front of coke machine, etc)."
./ers still wouldn't like it.
I've yet to see a really good argument that attacks the basis for the CDBTPA, rather than just saying why it won't work. And yet I get the impression that even if it was implemented in a non-intrusive, practical manner,
So why not argue against the ideals behind the bill? Rather than just saying it's a bad bill?
Or, if the actual ideas behind the the CDBTPA are sound, why not try to find a good way to implement it?
What's this costing? Custom case, components, etc, etc? Not just $$$ but time as well. Looking nice is one thing, but wouldn't you rather just run a Walmart Mandrake box for a fraction of the cost?
Before .NET was released, no-one knew what it was. After its release, we still didn't know. Maybe I'm just stupid...But what kind of software connects information? This definition is all-encompassing, vague, and one of the more impressive examples of burble that I've seen. I guess MS just doesn't want us to *ever* know what they're doing.
Sponsored by the Darwin Awards...
Most of the posts I've read on this and similar stories go something like "I set up a Mandrake/SuSe box running KDE 3.0 for them and it looks just they're used to. They can surf the web with mozilla and do e-mail with Kmail. They love OpenOffice.org and they can do all the things that they did with Windows." Don't get me wrong. It's possible to set up a Linux box that is user friendly and has GUIs that hide all the scary geek stuff beneath. It's as soon as something goes wrong that Moms don't like Linux.
When something goes wrong with Windows, it's nothing out of the ordinary. People are used to that. Hey, Moms are cozy and comfortable with that. They know what to do, just reboot. If it's serious they call in the /.er of the family. But when something goes wrong with Linux, that's when it's scary.
I like linux. I'm still new to it, and I find tons of problems when I try to do something I don't know how to. I have to RTM and the Howto and the Readme before I finally learn how to go about it, and then there are all the unexpected problems along the way. For me it's a challenge that I'm often happy to tackle. For a Mom, when they try to do something and they can't, or they create a problem or something just goes wrong, it isn't a challenge. It's a problem and it makes them wish for something familiar.
Yes, but you didn't write the book/article on it... A sad but all too real truth.
Do yourself a favor and think about it. Scary stuff this may be, but how is it news?? Enlighten me.
I though all /.ers were security and privacy freaks.....
Right Here