This is exactly the same problem as kids being much more likely to be molested by good old Uncle Joe than by some stranger who peed in a park 10 years ago. It's a completely irrational fear of some outside boogieman because we are unable to accept that the people we know and trust are capable of such things.
As Stanley Milgram and Philip Zombardo have demonstrated, yes, there's a very good chance they (and most of the rest of us) are capable of doing horrible things.
That last sentence is definitely not completely right. Women go through all sorts of uncertainty, pressure, competition, stress, heartbreak, and rejection as well. If you don't know that, you either need to get to know some women who trust you enough to talk about those sorts of issues with you, or (more likely for the average/.er) read what they post on social networking sites.
A huge percentage of women also go through some serious body issues at some point in their life, because popular culture is constantly telling them that they are valuable insomuch as they are young and attractive. That means that women who don't conform to popular standards of beauty will often feel worthless, and women who do meet those standards when they are 25 are constantly worried about the fact that they're aren't going to be seen as attractive when they're 65.
The answer to your question: The Berne Convention, which affixes copyright on anything written down anywhere. Really. This comment is copywritten by yours truly thanks to that rule and that fun text at the bottom of the page, and as such if I were wealthy and a complete jerk I could sue someone for infringement if someone decided to plagiarize me.
So now it's becoming increasingly common to suppress the publication of a bad contract via copyright rather than via an non-disclosure clause. Among other things, asserting copyright gives the plaintiff all the DMCA suppression capabilities that a contract violation does not.
When you start with two extremely broad generalizations, your conclusions aren't going to be very good.
1. The New York Times has more liberal views than conservative ones, that's true. But I'm not going to stand here and call, say, Ross Douthat or David Brooks liberals. It was the home of William Safire as well. So to say "the New York Times is full of liberals" isn't a complete picture. If anything, the most consistent stance I've seen from the Times is staunch support of Israel regardless of what they did.
2. "Liberals" generally don't see government control as the solution to absolutely everything, just issues related to business and economics. Liberal groups tend to oppose laws that impose undue restrictions on personal behavior, and have worked with libertarian groups on issues like drug laws, sex laws, and in particular opposing the Patriot Act.
And lastly, your statement that they want governments "controlling what you can search" is simply not what the op / ed says. It says that they want the government controlling your search results, which isn't the same thing. You can search on "Natalie Portman", "hot grits", or "petrified" all you want, you just might not get the results you wanted from Google. My actual reading of this is that the NYTimes editorial board was thoroughly misled by their technology staff and has no clue what they're talking about, but at least state their opinion correctly.
Here's a possible solution: An open-source project (possibly LGPL'd) with the end result being a database and code that can be called with an address and price, and returns the tax rate and who's supposed to get paid for that tax. It would be a PITA, but this is exactly the sort of thing a FOSS project can provide: it's a problem that everyone has, but the gains of solving it collectively far outweigh any competitive advantage that might exist.
And given that my company, with a crew of about 50 developers, could figure it out for several states, I'm thinking it would be hard but not that hard.
When I read Roger Sessions described as a "noted author and expert on complexity", my first reaction was [citation needed]. Particularly since this 'noted' expert didn't even merit a Wikipedia article (the article for "Roger Sessions" is for a very talented early 20th century musical composer).
And it's not because authors of IT and CS books aren't meeting Wikipedia's notability rules, since lots of others are: e.g. Tanenbaum, the Gang of Four, Larry Wall, Guido, etc.
Why isn't the TSA strip searching Muslim males? That's easy: 1. They couldn't identify which men are Muslim or not. It's not like there's a big sign written on each Muslim saying "I am a Muslim" (and if there were, a reasonably smart terrorist wouldn't wear it when they went to bomb a plane).
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, Islam included. Treating members of a particular faith as second-class citizens would definitely violate that. And yes, there are Muslims citizens of the US, some of them currently serving the country in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are more loyal to the US and what it stands for than you are.
3. At least 99.9% of Muslim men aren't terrorists. You're arguing for strip searching about 800 million people in order to find a few thousand people. Your odds are only slightly better than strip searching the 99.99% of Christian men who aren't terrorists to find the 0.01% who are (e.g. Tim McVeigh or members of the Real IRA).
So,just from that, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration (and their supporters) really just didn't care.
Oh, they cared. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, as National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice ok'd the use of waterboarding on a per-prisoner basis. Dick Cheney was involved in meetings about exactly what methods would be used.
It's not that the top brass didn't care: They did care, and approved of it.
This very problem was written about (at great length) by some guy named Karl Marx. Basically, his point was that the capital owners will always pay their employees less than they're worth to the capitalist, because that creates profits.
I'm reminded of the method of quality assurance used by the Romans: After putting in the capstone of an arch, the engineer responsible for creating that arch was required to stand under it while the wooden scaffolding was removed.
Is this Stephen Colbert's "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" territory? Or are we instead talking about some important area of the news that isn't being covered by anybody? Or is it that you (or people you agree with) have dug up dirt on somebody important and the biased reporting world won't cover the story? I'm very confused at this point as to exactly what behavior you're referring to.
The kind of coverage I'm talking about is seen in local newspapers every day. It reads something like this: "John Smith was convicted of first degree burglary in Podunk Superior Court, and sentenced to 12 months in prison. Merchandise from the home of Mr and Mrs Jones which had been recovered from Smith's apartment were returned to them, including a prized 1956 recording of Charlie Parker." The story in question was probably submitted by the courtroom reporter who has nothing more interesting to cover that day, and has the choice between reporting on John Smith's burglary case or reporting on nothing at all.
You can make some measure of efficiency but if you really want that, you can start by getting rid of everyone that lives off benefits first.
Are you proposing that we slaughter everyone over 70 years old? Or that losing one's job when you don't have sufficient savings should be a death sentence? I mean, I've come across social Darwinists in my day, but even they don't propose actively killing off those who are falling to the bottom of the heap.
In addition to your very useful rebuttal, there should also be the very obvious point that the OP is probably contributing to his government department operating more efficiently, thus reducing the government's need to forcibly take money. This is an improvement, yes?
The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind. They aren't the most in-depth or interesting reads, but if you're looking for just-the-facts reporting they are usually pretty good. Basically, the wire services will tell you what happened. Period. End of story. They won't tell you much if anything about why it happened, how it happened, who will benefit from it happening, who didn't want it to happen, and so on, but if all you want to know is what happened, they're a pretty good place to start.
The trouble is, if you're looking for all the stuff the wire reports leave out, the people who are most willing to talk to a reporter about that issue are those with an axe to grind about it. If they're academics, then their careers are staked on particular sets of theories, so any answer they give will ensure that the universe changes to conform to their theory. If they're a think tank or non-profit, they will attempt to match the views of their donors. If they're a politician or one of his aides, then they're going to be going with whatever will improve their chances of reelection. If they're a business, they'll go with whatever will make them the most cash. And so on.
Actually, if you follow the link, you'll see that one of the issues discussed as part of the Supreme Court case was precisely that: In Texas, the same acts which were illegal if performed by homosexual couples were legal if performed by heterosexual couples.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the same problem as kids being much more likely to be molested by good old Uncle Joe than by some stranger who peed in a park 10 years ago. It's a completely irrational fear of some outside boogieman because we are unable to accept that the people we know and trust are capable of such things.
As Stanley Milgram and Philip Zombardo have demonstrated, yes, there's a very good chance they (and most of the rest of us) are capable of doing horrible things.
That last sentence is definitely not completely right. Women go through all sorts of uncertainty, pressure, competition, stress, heartbreak, and rejection as well. If you don't know that, you either need to get to know some women who trust you enough to talk about those sorts of issues with you, or (more likely for the average /.er) read what they post on social networking sites.
A huge percentage of women also go through some serious body issues at some point in their life, because popular culture is constantly telling them that they are valuable insomuch as they are young and attractive. That means that women who don't conform to popular standards of beauty will often feel worthless, and women who do meet those standards when they are 25 are constantly worried about the fact that they're aren't going to be seen as attractive when they're 65.
Correct, sorry about that. As far as your comment, you're absolutely right that it should, but under current US law it doesn't.
The answer to your question: The Berne Convention, which affixes copyright on anything written down anywhere. Really. This comment is copywritten by yours truly thanks to that rule and that fun text at the bottom of the page, and as such if I were wealthy and a complete jerk I could sue someone for infringement if someone decided to plagiarize me.
So now it's becoming increasingly common to suppress the publication of a bad contract via copyright rather than via an non-disclosure clause. Among other things, asserting copyright gives the plaintiff all the DMCA suppression capabilities that a contract violation does not.
When you start with two extremely broad generalizations, your conclusions aren't going to be very good.
1. The New York Times has more liberal views than conservative ones, that's true. But I'm not going to stand here and call, say, Ross Douthat or David Brooks liberals. It was the home of William Safire as well. So to say "the New York Times is full of liberals" isn't a complete picture. If anything, the most consistent stance I've seen from the Times is staunch support of Israel regardless of what they did.
2. "Liberals" generally don't see government control as the solution to absolutely everything, just issues related to business and economics. Liberal groups tend to oppose laws that impose undue restrictions on personal behavior, and have worked with libertarian groups on issues like drug laws, sex laws, and in particular opposing the Patriot Act.
And lastly, your statement that they want governments "controlling what you can search" is simply not what the op / ed says. It says that they want the government controlling your search results, which isn't the same thing. You can search on "Natalie Portman", "hot grits", or "petrified" all you want, you just might not get the results you wanted from Google. My actual reading of this is that the NYTimes editorial board was thoroughly misled by their technology staff and has no clue what they're talking about, but at least state their opinion correctly.
I've got to concentrate ... concentrate ... concentrate ... ... concentrate ... concentrate ... ... hello ... hello ... ... echo ... echo ... ... Mota .. Mota ...
I've got to concentrate
Hello
echo
Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon, Manny Mota
You're obviously kidding there.
Really? I wonder where you HURD that.
I hope Tove planned a big party for him, if it's the 40th.
Here's a possible solution: An open-source project (possibly LGPL'd) with the end result being a database and code that can be called with an address and price, and returns the tax rate and who's supposed to get paid for that tax. It would be a PITA, but this is exactly the sort of thing a FOSS project can provide: it's a problem that everyone has, but the gains of solving it collectively far outweigh any competitive advantage that might exist.
And given that my company, with a crew of about 50 developers, could figure it out for several states, I'm thinking it would be hard but not that hard.
When I read Roger Sessions described as a "noted author and expert on complexity", my first reaction was [citation needed]. Particularly since this 'noted' expert didn't even merit a Wikipedia article (the article for "Roger Sessions" is for a very talented early 20th century musical composer).
And it's not because authors of IT and CS books aren't meeting Wikipedia's notability rules, since lots of others are: e.g. Tanenbaum, the Gang of Four, Larry Wall, Guido, etc.
No, but the 4th definitely would.
Why isn't the TSA strip searching Muslim males? That's easy:
1. They couldn't identify which men are Muslim or not. It's not like there's a big sign written on each Muslim saying "I am a Muslim" (and if there were, a reasonably smart terrorist wouldn't wear it when they went to bomb a plane).
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, Islam included. Treating members of a particular faith as second-class citizens would definitely violate that. And yes, there are Muslims citizens of the US, some of them currently serving the country in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are more loyal to the US and what it stands for than you are.
3. At least 99.9% of Muslim men aren't terrorists. You're arguing for strip searching about 800 million people in order to find a few thousand people. Your odds are only slightly better than strip searching the 99.99% of Christian men who aren't terrorists to find the 0.01% who are (e.g. Tim McVeigh or members of the Real IRA).
So,just from that, it's pretty clear that the Bush administration (and their supporters) really just didn't care.
Oh, they cared. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, as National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice ok'd the use of waterboarding on a per-prisoner basis. Dick Cheney was involved in meetings about exactly what methods would be used.
It's not that the top brass didn't care: They did care, and approved of it.
Well, here's another, but just zis guy, y'know:
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson
This very problem was written about (at great length) by some guy named Karl Marx. Basically, his point was that the capital owners will always pay their employees less than they're worth to the capitalist, because that creates profits.
I'm reminded of the method of quality assurance used by the Romans: After putting in the capstone of an arch, the engineer responsible for creating that arch was required to stand under it while the wooden scaffolding was removed.
Facts themselves are biased.
Is this Stephen Colbert's "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" territory? Or are we instead talking about some important area of the news that isn't being covered by anybody? Or is it that you (or people you agree with) have dug up dirt on somebody important and the biased reporting world won't cover the story? I'm very confused at this point as to exactly what behavior you're referring to.
The kind of coverage I'm talking about is seen in local newspapers every day. It reads something like this:
"John Smith was convicted of first degree burglary in Podunk Superior Court, and sentenced to 12 months in prison. Merchandise from the home of Mr and Mrs Jones which had been recovered from Smith's apartment were returned to them, including a prized 1956 recording of Charlie Parker."
The story in question was probably submitted by the courtroom reporter who has nothing more interesting to cover that day, and has the choice between reporting on John Smith's burglary case or reporting on nothing at all.
You can make some measure of efficiency but if you really want that, you can start by getting rid of everyone that lives off benefits first.
Are you proposing that we slaughter everyone over 70 years old? Or that losing one's job when you don't have sufficient savings should be a death sentence? I mean, I've come across social Darwinists in my day, but even they don't propose actively killing off those who are falling to the bottom of the heap.
In addition to your very useful rebuttal, there should also be the very obvious point that the OP is probably contributing to his government department operating more efficiently, thus reducing the government's need to forcibly take money. This is an improvement, yes?
The AP and Reuters are pretty unbiased, mostly because they tend to omit anything that would involve opinion of any kind. They aren't the most in-depth or interesting reads, but if you're looking for just-the-facts reporting they are usually pretty good. Basically, the wire services will tell you what happened. Period. End of story. They won't tell you much if anything about why it happened, how it happened, who will benefit from it happening, who didn't want it to happen, and so on, but if all you want to know is what happened, they're a pretty good place to start.
The trouble is, if you're looking for all the stuff the wire reports leave out, the people who are most willing to talk to a reporter about that issue are those with an axe to grind about it. If they're academics, then their careers are staked on particular sets of theories, so any answer they give will ensure that the universe changes to conform to their theory. If they're a think tank or non-profit, they will attempt to match the views of their donors. If they're a politician or one of his aides, then they're going to be going with whatever will improve their chances of reelection. If they're a business, they'll go with whatever will make them the most cash. And so on.
Umm, no, that's the wrong variable. I went with 10 because 10 years have about 10 times the lameness as the average year in that decade.
Actually, if you follow the link, you'll see that one of the issues discussed as part of the Supreme Court case was precisely that: In Texas, the same acts which were illegal if performed by homosexual couples were legal if performed by heterosexual couples.
And if you need an idea of exactly how expensive and time-consuming rebuilding a coastal city is, I suggest you pay a visit to New Orleans.
A risk of Pacific island nations ending up underwater? Not a serious problem. But threaten my coffee supply and I'll take to the streets!
Something might be a bit off on the priorities there.
I don't know any law in the US that states that it is illegal to be homosexual.
It essentially was until 2003 in a lot of places.