I can admit that the views seem a bit odd. It's more like I'm advocating making an open file format that works better for the individual app. The workings of our universities and the breakthroughs they make needs to be open to the world, but our app is getting US citizens educated.:-)
The blasted firewall here blocks it, I'll give it a peek when I get home.
I'd agree that getting them to stay here instead of leaving after they have the degree is preferable. And I'd LOVE it if the US students were academically superior every time.
We're not. Our high schools are failing, the primary education system in this country is in shambles. Like it or not, universities are the places where we have to catch up with the world. We really can't do that if our students can't get into them, can we?
I'm 100% opposed to affirmative action in universities because it doesn't take applicants based solely on merits, but I am more against a government program that doesn't put it's own citizens first.
I think the return on tax dollars has a greater impact if it enhances the lives of the taxpayers. Which is more valuable to the citizen: a degree from the university, or a job serving fries in the drive thru to an exchange student with a degree ?
There has been a lot of muddiness concerning "university" admission in the US. As regards undergraduate institutions ("college" in the US) there is only a tiny proportion of foreign students, and the vast percentage of these are at *private* institutions, not public universities.
I too have worked at a state university in the midwest. During our "diversity training" the HR people seemed to think it was a good thing that the grad schools was 35% asian and the undergrad schools were only about 10%. Since the state funding the scholl has an asian population of MAYBE 1%, I could not agree with their assessment that 35% was ideal. Shouldn't it reflect the breakdown of the population of the state, ideally?
I have worked in a US university and can state with assurance that since US schools (mine in particular) accept students with a horrific lack of preparation, I cannot believe that qualified US undergraduates are being turned away from State Schools when they apply.
I know many people (myself included) who were denied access because there were not enough open slots. I may have been "unprepared", but I made the Dean's List for my academics so I was not behind the curve. I had to go to a satellite campus my first year, however, because there were not enough open slots at the main campus.
What prevents qualified students from going to college is usually funding, and for that foreign students are generally ineligible (they must pay their own way, hence bringing needed money to the school)
Funding is a big issue here, but student loans do a decent job to get people through school, and the school still gets their money.
The job of a top research university, however, is *not* to crank out BA or BS students, but rather to train graduate students and produce solid research by supporting the professors (in part by supplying them with good graduate students).
Yes, US tax dollars go to State schools to support them so US students can obtain an education. But they also go to support the development of knowledge, which indirectly benefits the US citizens paying the taxes. These two goals do not need to compete given the tremendous range of educational institutions in the US.
The job of a state institution is to benefit the members of the state. A state university is there to ensure that the members of that state are competitive in the job market. Research is a great side benefit, but all the breakthroughs in the world are useless if the population is unemployed, don't you think?
I fail to see how my statement and my sig are related. Looking at your web address (I cannot reach the site from here), I'd say you're prejudiced against my comment before you even think about it.
If I was going to try to go to a government funded school in Korea, I'd certainly expect to only be admitted after all the Korean citizens who wanted to go were enrolled. Why should it be any different for Koreans coming here?
It doesn't matter how tilted the admission standards are. We have American citizens being turned away from universities that their tax dollars and the tax dollars of their families have helped to fund for YEARS. Yes, the foriegn students pay more, but that money is trivial compared to the long term tax dollars supporting the school.
Denying a citizen to give a spot to a guest student is just not logical. Now, if there are openings after all citizens have slots, then I have no problem filling those with exchange students.
I know you were trying to flamebait, but this is truly something I have believed for a long time. We have US citizens being denied admission to state run universities, and we are busy filling those slots up with foriegn exchange students instead.
It's not a matter of racism, it is the idea that government assisted programs (like state universities) should benefit the citizens of that government FIRST.
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 2
If we stopped eating meat, those animals would never be born at all.
Which is better, that life or no life at all?
This is starting to sound similar to a discussion on abortion...
If the tech worked well and was available, I'd buy it without any tax incentive at all, even if it cost me more. I just don't think it should be mandatory. At least we agree on that.
As far as the insulting tone you got out of my post (jackass and jock itch) those were both based on comments from your original post. Obviously you didn't read my posts, especially since I quoted your statements about those things right before I flamed you with them. Now, if you'd like to drop the B.S. and have a civil talk, we can do that. If you want to keep flaming, we can do that to.
I live less than 0.5 miles from the Hummer plant. They were never anything special to me growing up because of it, and it seems like everyone in this town has one. I'd like to have a decommissioned military model, though (sans guns).
Oh, and the H2 Hummer is the ugliest thing I've had the misfortune of laying eyes on. Thinking back on it makes me want to stab out my mind's eye.
americans buy guns for a false sense of security just like they willingly give up their rights...
Neither help fix the problem and only create more problems in reality.
So you are advocating giving up yet ANOTHER right for a flase sense of security?
If your gun can't pass a simple safety test, maybe you shouldn't be manufacturing guns
I'm willing to bet that those "simple safety tests" are not safety tests at all. They're more like an legislated way for the People's Republik of Kalifornia to disarm it's citizens. I have a HP-22 by Phoenix Arms. That weapon failed to pass California's "simple safety tests", but mine has somehow managed to function flawlessly for thousands of rounds without EVER going off accidentally. It's one of the safest guns I own, having no less than 3 (!) distinct safeties on it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be condoncending, I just love debates and get carried away.... I was just running from post to post with too many ideas in my head.
No worries, I do the same thing pretty regularly too. I've posted about a dozen times in this thread today.:-) Besides, it's only Slashdot.
I can't imagine they would release a product that was messed up by sweating hands, but there's been dumber things out there.
I'm remembering the whole airbag fiasco, where the government pushed mandatory airbags through before they were ready. What a mess that turned out to be. People would have happily bought the technology when it was ready, look at all the unrequired airbags on the market now. Some cars have 6 or more airbags. (Volvo?)
I'm just showing my enthusiasm for the idea (when the tech is reliable).
When the tech is reliable, I think a lot of gun owners will be interested in it. If it was 100%, I'd pay extra for it on my next weapon. But if it's not, I don't want it. The government should have let market forces dictate the uptake of this new technology instead of legislating it.
Sounds like fingerprinting to me. Maybe measuring capacitance? I'm not sure, but I'm hard pressed to think of a sensor in the grip that would not be thrown off by any of the conditions I mentioned. But what the hell do I know, I'm just an engineer.:-)
Your reasoning for the exception makes no sense whatsoever. What does the safety on an officers weapon have to do with them prosecuting anyone else?
Safeties are market driven, the reliability and safety of a handgun are factors in the purchase.
If I had the option of getting this safety, I'd probably buy it if it worked properly. Reread that part. "I'd probably buy it if it worked properly."
There is no reason to mandate these safeties, the market forces will make them a reality when they are effective. Remember when airbags were mandated before they were ready, and people didn't have the option because it was required? We are headed for the same fiasco.
Also, the ring thing wouldn't work for me. I cannot wear any kind of jewelry, even a watch. Am I to be denied the ability to posess a reliable weapon because of a minor skin condition?
Oh yeah. I shot myself in the head, died, and I'm writing this to you from beyond the grave. Do you have any fucking idea how tough it was to get TCP/IP working in the afterlife?
Obviously you didn't shoot yourself. There are two options here. Either 1) you were smart enough to know better and need to admit that it is possible for a kid to not play with a gun, or 2) you weren't around any guns growing up and have ZERO experience on the subject at hand, in which case you should sit down and shut up. Which one is it?
Do you have some sort of special jackass gene that makes you think you're witty, or something? I'm sure you've never done anything stupid in your life. Furthermore, I'm sure everyone who is important to you is just as fucking brilliant and perfect as you are. Well, that's just great.
You're the jackass who assumed that everyone else is totally unable to survive childhood, pressing the point that kids need this law for their protection. You didn't need it, so they must be inferior to you. Don't pawn your jackass shortcomings off on me. I'm the one saying that kids are smart, not inferior.
I'd love to say something like: Okay, you're so sure, I'm glad for you. Take a nice loaded gun, keep it in an easy to reach drawer, unlocked and loaded. Tell your five year old child to not touch it. Make sure he knows it's there!
I personally believe in securing my firearms when they are not in my reach. On my hip, on my headboard, or locked up securely. However, you can't just tell a child a gun is bad and toss it in a drawer. Take the kid shooting, show him how it works and why it's not a toy. If nothing else, the NOISE will dissuade him (or her) from playing with it before they can respect it. I fail to see how yet another law to replace sensible parenting can POSSIBLY be a good thing.
No, really. Don't do that. You're practically daring bad shit to happen. And I don't care that it's *your* kid, and will probably be just as snotty and self-centered as you, I'd still rather have him be alive.
I'd never take the advice of anyone who is so firmly convinced that kids cannot be taught, no worries there. And you are still the guy who came out preaching how dumb kids are, so those "snotty and self-centered" comments seem to reflect you more than me. Again, don't blame me for your issues.
Yes, I know I'm being trolled. Whatever. The fact that you can get modded insightful saying that kids always listen to their parents, and never do anything dangerous burns my nuts. I'm sure you don't smoke, drink, or do any drugs, right sport? Certainly not as a kid, either.
Yes, that's it, a non-AC trolled you. Nope, buddy, not a troll. Sorry! I never said kids always listen to their parents. I said that kids can be taught, and implied that you need to watch them closely until they learn. Please consult your physician on any itching burning feelings you may have on your groin, I don't want to know.:P I don't smoke, drive drunk, drink to excess, or do drugs, that is correct. Lo and behold, that's exactly what my parents taught me. Sport.
I was completely with you right up until you brought up the Trent Lott fiasco.
It would be interesting, though, to see what the racial breakdown is for triggermen in shootings. Anyone got that statistic, or is it illegal to monitor that one? (d@mn PC bullcr@p)
Personally, I'm always armed when legally allowed: i.e. not in a court of law or civic building, nor in a school. However, I carry concealed, so the person inclined to use it on me would have to know I have it first. By the time they see it, it will be too late.
discounting other possibilities, like suicidal tendencies, or somesuch
Next thing they'll legislate is a gun that gives you a brief interview of 5 minutes or so to analyze your mental state before it will let you fire it! You read it here first, folks!
Around here, more people own firearms than pools. His point is valid. I think that in my state almost 1 out of 20 people has a carry permit. That means 1 in 10 males is armed, and about 1 in 6 who are of legal age. I know I do not see 1 pool for every 10 houses.
It's also funny, with 10% of the males armed you see such a low incidence of trouble here. In fact, I've seen a few articles where an armed citizen stopped a robbery, for example:
Rarely do I see anything but gang related shootings in the paper though. And kids seem to be taught firearm safety here, since we have a high percentage of hunters (I'm not one of them).
Things must be a lot different in Jersey, because I don't see many problems HERE.
How is the technology supposed to work? Fingerprinting? What if you grab the weapon just a little bit different than normal? What if the stress of a life or death situation causes your palms to sweat and you are unrecognizable to the gun?
You're dead. The tool that you had available to protect yourself was just rendered worthless, not by a violent criminal but by a dipshit politician. I'm sure the criminal will capitalize on the situation though.
And before you say the tech is better than that, they are allowing exemptions for police officer weaponry. If the crap works correctly,
_why_do_they_need_this_exception_? After all, police officers are fairly likely to get shot by their own weapon also, IIRC. And what about the cop's kids? Do they know not to play with guns?
In summary, this is one ill-conceived piece of shite legislation: and they KNOW it.
You might have been too stupid to follow simple "don't touch" directions, but that doesn't mean everyone else is that dumb. I certainly had no trouble with it.
How did your parents get you to stop playing in the street? Do you still stick metal objects in power outlets?
Properly parented kids are smarter than you think.
Slashdot Mirror
The blasted firewall here blocks it, I'll give it a peek when I get home.
I honestly don't remember it at all.
We're not. Our high schools are failing, the primary education system in this country is in shambles. Like it or not, universities are the places where we have to catch up with the world. We really can't do that if our students can't get into them, can we?
I'm 100% opposed to affirmative action in universities because it doesn't take applicants based solely on merits, but I am more against a government program that doesn't put it's own citizens first.
I think the return on tax dollars has a greater impact if it enhances the lives of the taxpayers. Which is more valuable to the citizen: a degree from the university, or a job serving fries in the drive thru to an exchange student with a degree ?
We need to benefit the citizens first.
I too have worked at a state university in the midwest. During our "diversity training" the HR people seemed to think it was a good thing that the grad schools was 35% asian and the undergrad schools were only about 10%. Since the state funding the scholl has an asian population of MAYBE 1%, I could not agree with their assessment that 35% was ideal. Shouldn't it reflect the breakdown of the population of the state, ideally?
I have worked in a US university and can state with assurance that since US schools (mine in particular) accept students with a horrific lack of preparation, I cannot believe that qualified US undergraduates are being turned away from State Schools when they apply.
I know many people (myself included) who were denied access because there were not enough open slots. I may have been "unprepared", but I made the Dean's List for my academics so I was not behind the curve. I had to go to a satellite campus my first year, however, because there were not enough open slots at the main campus.
What prevents qualified students from going to college is usually funding, and for that foreign students are generally ineligible (they must pay their own way, hence bringing needed money to the school)
Funding is a big issue here, but student loans do a decent job to get people through school, and the school still gets their money.
The job of a top research university, however, is *not* to crank out BA or BS students, but rather to train graduate students and produce solid research by supporting the professors (in part by supplying them with good graduate students).
Yes, US tax dollars go to State schools to support them so US students can obtain an education. But they also go to support the development of knowledge, which indirectly benefits the US citizens paying the taxes. These two goals do not need to compete given the tremendous range of educational institutions in the US.
The job of a state institution is to benefit the members of the state. A state university is there to ensure that the members of that state are competitive in the job market. Research is a great side benefit, but all the breakthroughs in the world are useless if the population is unemployed, don't you think?
If I was going to try to go to a government funded school in Korea, I'd certainly expect to only be admitted after all the Korean citizens who wanted to go were enrolled. Why should it be any different for Koreans coming here?
Denying a citizen to give a spot to a guest student is just not logical. Now, if there are openings after all citizens have slots, then I have no problem filling those with exchange students.
It's not a matter of racism, it is the idea that government assisted programs (like state universities) should benefit the citizens of that government FIRST.
Which is better, that life or no life at all?
This is starting to sound similar to a discussion on abortion...
Damn, I meant "we can do that too". Should have used the preview button...
As far as the insulting tone you got out of my post (jackass and jock itch) those were both based on comments from your original post. Obviously you didn't read my posts, especially since I quoted your statements about those things right before I flamed you with them. Now, if you'd like to drop the B.S. and have a civil talk, we can do that. If you want to keep flaming, we can do that to.
Your choice. :-)
Oh, and the H2 Hummer is the ugliest thing I've had the misfortune of laying eyes on. Thinking back on it makes me want to stab out my mind's eye.
I'd like to see it hit the shelves too, but I'd prefer the choice to buy it or not stayed in my hands, not the governments claws.
So you are advocating giving up yet ANOTHER right for a flase sense of security?
No, thanks. I'll keep my rights. ALL of them.
Then why bother with the legislation in the first place?
I'm willing to bet that those "simple safety tests" are not safety tests at all. They're more like an legislated way for the People's Republik of Kalifornia to disarm it's citizens. I have a HP-22 by Phoenix Arms. That weapon failed to pass California's "simple safety tests", but mine has somehow managed to function flawlessly for thousands of rounds without EVER going off accidentally. It's one of the safest guns I own, having no less than 3 (!) distinct safeties on it.
California just uses their "tests" as an excuse.
No worries, I do the same thing pretty regularly too. I've posted about a dozen times in this thread today. :-) Besides, it's only Slashdot.
I can't imagine they would release a product that was messed up by sweating hands, but there's been dumber things out there.
I'm remembering the whole airbag fiasco, where the government pushed mandatory airbags through before they were ready. What a mess that turned out to be. People would have happily bought the technology when it was ready, look at all the unrequired airbags on the market now. Some cars have 6 or more airbags. (Volvo?)
I'm just showing my enthusiasm for the idea (when the tech is reliable).
When the tech is reliable, I think a lot of gun owners will be interested in it. If it was 100%, I'd pay extra for it on my next weapon. But if it's not, I don't want it. The government should have let market forces dictate the uptake of this new technology instead of legislating it.
sensors on the pistol grip to identify a user
Sounds like fingerprinting to me. Maybe measuring capacitance? I'm not sure, but I'm hard pressed to think of a sensor in the grip that would not be thrown off by any of the conditions I mentioned. But what the hell do I know, I'm just an engineer. :-)
Your reasoning for the exception makes no sense whatsoever. What does the safety on an officers weapon have to do with them prosecuting anyone else?
If I had the option of getting this safety, I'd probably buy it if it worked properly. Reread that part. "I'd probably buy it if it worked properly."
There is no reason to mandate these safeties, the market forces will make them a reality when they are effective. Remember when airbags were mandated before they were ready, and people didn't have the option because it was required? We are headed for the same fiasco.
Also, the ring thing wouldn't work for me. I cannot wear any kind of jewelry, even a watch. Am I to be denied the ability to posess a reliable weapon because of a minor skin condition?
Obviously you didn't shoot yourself. There are two options here. Either 1) you were smart enough to know better and need to admit that it is possible for a kid to not play with a gun, or 2) you weren't around any guns growing up and have ZERO experience on the subject at hand, in which case you should sit down and shut up. Which one is it?
Do you have some sort of special jackass gene that makes you think you're witty, or something? I'm sure you've never done anything stupid in your life. Furthermore, I'm sure everyone who is important to you is just as fucking brilliant and perfect as you are. Well, that's just great.
You're the jackass who assumed that everyone else is totally unable to survive childhood, pressing the point that kids need this law for their protection. You didn't need it, so they must be inferior to you. Don't pawn your jackass shortcomings off on me. I'm the one saying that kids are smart, not inferior.
I'd love to say something like: Okay, you're so sure, I'm glad for you. Take a nice loaded gun, keep it in an easy to reach drawer, unlocked and loaded. Tell your five year old child to not touch it. Make sure he knows it's there!
I personally believe in securing my firearms when they are not in my reach. On my hip, on my headboard, or locked up securely. However, you can't just tell a child a gun is bad and toss it in a drawer. Take the kid shooting, show him how it works and why it's not a toy. If nothing else, the NOISE will dissuade him (or her) from playing with it before they can respect it. I fail to see how yet another law to replace sensible parenting can POSSIBLY be a good thing.
No, really. Don't do that. You're practically daring bad shit to happen. And I don't care that it's *your* kid, and will probably be just as snotty and self-centered as you, I'd still rather have him be alive.
I'd never take the advice of anyone who is so firmly convinced that kids cannot be taught, no worries there. And you are still the guy who came out preaching how dumb kids are, so those "snotty and self-centered" comments seem to reflect you more than me. Again, don't blame me for your issues.
Yes, I know I'm being trolled. Whatever. The fact that you can get modded insightful saying that kids always listen to their parents, and never do anything dangerous burns my nuts. I'm sure you don't smoke, drink, or do any drugs, right sport? Certainly not as a kid, either.
Yes, that's it, a non-AC trolled you. Nope, buddy, not a troll. Sorry! I never said kids always listen to their parents. I said that kids can be taught, and implied that you need to watch them closely until they learn. Please consult your physician on any itching burning feelings you may have on your groin, I don't want to know. :P I don't smoke, drive drunk, drink to excess, or do drugs, that is correct. Lo and behold, that's exactly what my parents taught me. Sport.
It would be interesting, though, to see what the racial breakdown is for triggermen in shootings. Anyone got that statistic, or is it illegal to monitor that one? (d@mn PC bullcr@p)
discounting other possibilities, like suicidal tendencies, or somesuch
Next thing they'll legislate is a gun that gives you a brief interview of 5 minutes or so to analyze your mental state before it will let you fire it! You read it here first, folks!
It's also funny, with 10% of the males armed you see such a low incidence of trouble here. In fact, I've seen a few articles where an armed citizen stopped a robbery, for example:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/ 2002/11/04/local.20021104-sbt-MARS-A1-Gun_toting_c iti_en.sto
Rarely do I see anything but gang related shootings in the paper though. And kids seem to be taught firearm safety here, since we have a high percentage of hunters (I'm not one of them).
Things must be a lot different in Jersey, because I don't see many problems HERE.
Except for the idiots who passed this law.
You're dead. The tool that you had available to protect yourself was just rendered worthless, not by a violent criminal but by a dipshit politician. I'm sure the criminal will capitalize on the situation though.
And before you say the tech is better than that, they are allowing exemptions for police officer weaponry. If the crap works correctly, _why_do_they_need_this_exception_? After all, police officers are fairly likely to get shot by their own weapon also, IIRC. And what about the cop's kids? Do they know not to play with guns?
In summary, this is one ill-conceived piece of shite legislation: and they KNOW it.
Give Darwinism a chance? ;-)
You might have been too stupid to follow simple "don't touch" directions, but that doesn't mean everyone else is that dumb. I certainly had no trouble with it.
How did your parents get you to stop playing in the street? Do you still stick metal objects in power outlets?
Properly parented kids are smarter than you think.