Dang, I was going to register my displeasure by ebaying my Slashdot account for the three-digit e-peen. But I guess if they don't show the digits I shouldn't bother now.
Actually, if that reasoning were to apply elsewhere, Monstanto might actually have to take responsibility for infecting neighboring non-GMO fields with its seed. I agree with one of the posters below... the people with cancer would somehow end up owing the company money.
I think I'll start a kickstarter fund to set up a colony on Mars, away from all this lunacy.
I came here to say just this, and you beat me to most of it.
But! If we're doing away with all the subjects that make us feel bad, the logical conclusion (not that we understand logic any longer) is that only one course remains that everybody can agree on: sex education! And, since we have nothing else going on at school because it makes us feel dumb, sex ed will be taken to great new heights! Imagine the possibilities!
I have it on very good authority that the "F.U.C.K" name was intentional. It was developed by the guy sitting 5 feet behind me. Well, one of them, at least.
The invisible wizard of Islam is, historically, the invisible wizard of Abraham: the invisible wizards of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are, as a matter of fact, one and the same.
I'm dissappointed in Slashdot. One would expect that over here people would see the value of having access to the source of the software that keeps you alive.
100% agree. It seems most of the other posters on this story saw the word "Lawyer" and went temporarily stupid. Slashdotters emit blood curdling screams when they can't get open access to video codecs, but are indifferent when medical device vendors don't share code that literally keeps people alive. To those of you want to keep this code secret, I hope your electric spleen shocks you toasty brown someday.
Thanks for pointing that out. Download count is not really important for tenure cases but it does help gauge interest. I might just have to point my own paper PDF links to ACM now to start tracking that.
By this logic, people who do not drive should not pay taxes for road repair, or that people who don't have kids shouldn't pay taxes for K12 schools, or that people who have replaced their original bodies with titanium robot hulls shouldn't pay taxes that fund the NIH. Of course we would have problems if this is how it worked. Minus the robot people, who I just made up.
You are right that a person might not directly take advantage of a state university that is paid for in part by their taxes. So to that degree, they're not directly getting what they are paying for. But their taxes help educate others in their state. Presumably it is more economically and culturally advantageous to have an educated population than not. But it is hard to quantify those benefits (because people value things differently), which is partly why we have the argument in the first place.
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
Reading the injunction (here) it seems the original law does indeed prohibit parent/child association, and the court agrees with you that it is ridiculous. On page 2:
[the law states] "No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non-work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or or former student."
...
... Even if a complete ban on certain forms of communication between certain individuals could be construed as content neutral and only a reasonable restriction on "time, place and manner," the breadth of the prohibition is staggering. The Court finds at based upon the evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing, social networking is extensively used by educators. It is often primary, if not sole manner, of communications between the Plaintiffs and their students. Examination of the statute indicates that it would prohibit all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. It clearly prohibits communication between family members and their teacher parents using these types of sites. The Court finds that the statute would have a chilling effect on speech.
Slashdot was one of my biggest nerd influences during my formative years. Thanks for making the site, and cultivating the community that makes it continue to be (usually) great. I wish you luck in whatever you end up doing.
I don't see the relationship between the summary and what you said about it. Taco didn't write it, and timothy (who posted it) only copied in what the submitter wrote. You are implying that slashdot is defending the looters. I just don't see it.
Inciting violence isn't just a bad idea, it's illegal. Those people could probably be nailed for conspiracy to commit violence as well, since they were communicating and coordinating how/when to do it. There was nothing in the summary that supported the looters or rioters...
Which is REALLY a bigger threat to us, the military power of any foreign adversary, or a highly contagious disease that knows no borders?
The military of an adversary using (or losing control of) highly contagious diseases within our borders. Lets just hope the rogue militant wing of Blackwater doesn't develop the zombiepox.
I'm not sure what interaction benefit the 'click to open parent' gives. If you click a link on an already visible post, it may or may not follow the link. Or it might do some silly un-collapsing thing.
I think it would be interesting to understand why SpaceX has been able to steadily chug along, and compare that with NASA's recent progress. It could be that SpaceX isn't bound to the political restrictions and other nonsense that prevent NASA from being the beacon of light. I have several friends-of-friends who work at SpaceX, and these are absolutely brilliant people. Presumably these same people could have worked at JPL or something, but since they actually want to put their fancy rocket science know-how to use they went to work for SpaceX, since they are producing inspired results. I imagine it would be hard to find anybody working at SpaceX who isn't brilliant and hard-working. There's a finite supply of top-shelf talent in this area, and my guess is they mostly work for Elon Musk. This is a similar formula that put a man on the moon back in the 60s, though the names and incentives were different.
I predict success. They'll put a man and a woman (we're in the future, and this is how the future rolls) on Mars within 20 years. I'm also skeptical of the 10~15 year goal, but it is better to set absurdly aggressive goals that inspire people to talk about it than it is to be conservative and be ignored. They've proven they can do amazing things already.
I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway? Probably some leftist liberal trying to assert his homosexual agenda on the rest of us.
In case the reference is lost to some of you, here's what the parent is talking about. The pinko usually given credit for popularizing the phrase "military-industrial" complex is none other than the former five-star general in charge of the allied European theater of WW2 and later a Republican President of the United States. You may call him Ike... and he knew something about the military and its supporting industrial base.
Admittedly, the phrase is bandied about really loosely (some may say liberally) so it has unfortunately been diluted by misuse.
34 here. My 3rd grade class had some sort of birthday party going, and they had rolled in one of those antique TV sets from the library, and we were watching the launch live. Ever since then my birthday has been a little subdued.
I do think he was absolutely responsible, because he expertly manipulated people to kill for him. I think the Manson case represents an extreme end of the spectrum of a fairly murky and slippery moral dilemma. On the other end you have talking heads and some (erstwhile) politicians that are manipulating people to hate, appealing to people's animal instincts of fear, and that could lead to similarly horrible outcomes. The question is, at what point (if any) is it morally incumbent for us to say "these are things you can't say" because a lunatic will act on the rhetoric?
Charles Manson was convicted of several murders because he incited others to kill. He wasn't physically there when the murders took place, yet he is generally accepted as being the dominant factor in those murders. He was convicted for conspiracy and had joint responsibility for the murders. This is a really fuzzy area, because Manson manipulated people who did the killing but was convicted as though he was the one with the knife. So whatever Manson said to manipulate the Family appears to have crossed the line from protected free speech to an illegal incitement to violence. Fuzzy fuzzy.
I haven't seen anybody explicitly make the Manson connection, but it seems that the vibe is in the air.
I think the GP was talking about home schooled idiots, but it seems you're talking about home schooled intelligent and well-adjusted people. Two totally different things.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang, I was going to register my displeasure by ebaying my Slashdot account for the three-digit e-peen. But I guess if they don't show the digits I shouldn't bother now.
Actually, if that reasoning were to apply elsewhere, Monstanto might actually have to take responsibility for infecting neighboring non-GMO fields with its seed. I agree with one of the posters below... the people with cancer would somehow end up owing the company money.
I think I'll start a kickstarter fund to set up a colony on Mars, away from all this lunacy.
I came here to say just this, and you beat me to most of it.
But! If we're doing away with all the subjects that make us feel bad, the logical conclusion (not that we understand logic any longer) is that only one course remains that everybody can agree on: sex education! And, since we have nothing else going on at school because it makes us feel dumb, sex ed will be taken to great new heights! Imagine the possibilities!
Informative grammar Nerd crushes grammar Nazi like a grape, win-win!
zomg +5 pwned
It probably was.
I have it on very good authority that the "F.U.C.K" name was intentional. It was developed by the guy sitting 5 feet behind me. Well, one of them, at least.
The invisible wizard of Islam is, historically, the invisible wizard of Abraham: the invisible wizards of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are, as a matter of fact, one and the same.
Wizard needs a sense of perspective - badly!
I'm dissappointed in Slashdot. One would expect that over here people would see the value of having access to the source of the software that keeps you alive.
100% agree. It seems most of the other posters on this story saw the word "Lawyer" and went temporarily stupid. Slashdotters emit blood curdling screams when they can't get open access to video codecs, but are indifferent when medical device vendors don't share code that literally keeps people alive. To those of you want to keep this code secret, I hope your electric spleen shocks you toasty brown someday.
Thanks for pointing that out. Download count is not really important for tenure cases but it does help gauge interest. I might just have to point my own paper PDF links to ACM now to start tracking that.
By this logic, people who do not drive should not pay taxes for road repair, or that people who don't have kids shouldn't pay taxes for K12 schools, or that people who have replaced their original bodies with titanium robot hulls shouldn't pay taxes that fund the NIH. Of course we would have problems if this is how it worked. Minus the robot people, who I just made up.
You are right that a person might not directly take advantage of a state university that is paid for in part by their taxes. So to that degree, they're not directly getting what they are paying for. But their taxes help educate others in their state. Presumably it is more economically and culturally advantageous to have an educated population than not. But it is hard to quantify those benefits (because people value things differently), which is partly why we have the argument in the first place.
Does it actually state that anywhere? Because that has to be the most ridiculous part of the law.
Reading the injunction (here) it seems the original law does indeed prohibit parent/child association, and the court agrees with you that it is ridiculous. On page 2:
[the law states] "No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a non-work-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or or former student."
...
... Even if a complete ban on certain forms of communication between certain individuals could be construed as content neutral and only a reasonable restriction on "time, place and manner," the breadth of the prohibition is staggering. The Court finds at based upon the evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing, social networking is extensively used by educators. It is often primary, if not sole manner, of communications between the Plaintiffs and their students. Examination of the statute indicates that it would prohibit all teachers from using any non-work-related social networking sites which allow exclusive access with current and former students. It clearly prohibits communication between family members and their teacher parents using these types of sites. The Court finds that the statute would have a chilling effect on speech.
So yeah, redonkulous.
Slashdot was one of my biggest nerd influences during my formative years. Thanks for making the site, and cultivating the community that makes it continue to be (usually) great. I wish you luck in whatever you end up doing.
This would be a perfect opportunity for people to pressure their state legislators to do something reasonable.
I don't see the relationship between the summary and what you said about it. Taco didn't write it, and timothy (who posted it) only copied in what the submitter wrote. You are implying that slashdot is defending the looters. I just don't see it.
Inciting violence isn't just a bad idea, it's illegal. Those people could probably be nailed for conspiracy to commit violence as well, since they were communicating and coordinating how/when to do it. There was nothing in the summary that supported the looters or rioters...
Which is REALLY a bigger threat to us, the military power of any foreign adversary, or a highly contagious disease that knows no borders?
The military of an adversary using (or losing control of) highly contagious diseases within our borders. Lets just hope the rogue militant wing of Blackwater doesn't develop the zombiepox.
+1
I'm not sure what interaction benefit the 'click to open parent' gives. If you click a link on an already visible post, it may or may not follow the link. Or it might do some silly un-collapsing thing.
Jean Ward has a compilation of historical references of pen computing. If you're interested in a overview of the past ~100 years of pen computing, check it out.
I think it would be interesting to understand why SpaceX has been able to steadily chug along, and compare that with NASA's recent progress. It could be that SpaceX isn't bound to the political restrictions and other nonsense that prevent NASA from being the beacon of light. I have several friends-of-friends who work at SpaceX, and these are absolutely brilliant people. Presumably these same people could have worked at JPL or something, but since they actually want to put their fancy rocket science know-how to use they went to work for SpaceX, since they are producing inspired results. I imagine it would be hard to find anybody working at SpaceX who isn't brilliant and hard-working. There's a finite supply of top-shelf talent in this area, and my guess is they mostly work for Elon Musk. This is a similar formula that put a man on the moon back in the 60s, though the names and incentives were different.
I predict success. They'll put a man and a woman (we're in the future, and this is how the future rolls) on Mars within 20 years. I'm also skeptical of the 10~15 year goal, but it is better to set absurdly aggressive goals that inspire people to talk about it than it is to be conservative and be ignored. They've proven they can do amazing things already.
You had me until "military-industrial complex"
I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway? Probably some leftist liberal trying to assert his homosexual agenda on the rest of us.
In case the reference is lost to some of you, here's what the parent is talking about. The pinko usually given credit for popularizing the phrase "military-industrial" complex is none other than the former five-star general in charge of the allied European theater of WW2 and later a Republican President of the United States. You may call him Ike... and he knew something about the military and its supporting industrial base.
Admittedly, the phrase is bandied about really loosely (some may say liberally) so it has unfortunately been diluted by misuse.
I am the electrono-priest. Please, describe your problems. Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.
Forgive me father, for I have sinned.
Tell me something about your family.
They aren't talking to me anymore.
Why do you say they are not talking to you anymore?
Just what I said. They don't speak with me.
What makes you believe that?
Empirical evidence?
Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
What plans are you talking about? I didn't mention plans.
I don't understand.
That makes two of us.
Is it because makes two of us that you came to me?
Hey you're the priest. Who should I go to, Steve Jobs?
Earlier you said makes two of us?
You heard correctly.
Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
Tautologically speaking, I suppose my life is the reason I'm going
through anything at all.
How do you reconcile the people you hang around with?
I pay them. Can we get to the bit about my sins please?
You mentioned that makes two of us?
Father are you brain damaged?
You seem to dwell on your family.
Who is that back there?
I'll ask the questions, if you don't mind!
Ezra is that you? Oh for Christ's sake.
Lets keep it going. My e-peen needs attention.
34 here. My 3rd grade class had some sort of birthday party going, and they had rolled in one of those antique TV sets from the library, and we were watching the launch live. Ever since then my birthday has been a little subdued.
I do think he was absolutely responsible, because he expertly manipulated people to kill for him. I think the Manson case represents an extreme end of the spectrum of a fairly murky and slippery moral dilemma. On the other end you have talking heads and some (erstwhile) politicians that are manipulating people to hate, appealing to people's animal instincts of fear, and that could lead to similarly horrible outcomes. The question is, at what point (if any) is it morally incumbent for us to say "these are things you can't say" because a lunatic will act on the rhetoric?
Charles Manson was convicted of several murders because he incited others to kill. He wasn't physically there when the murders took place, yet he is generally accepted as being the dominant factor in those murders. He was convicted for conspiracy and had joint responsibility for the murders. This is a really fuzzy area, because Manson manipulated people who did the killing but was convicted as though he was the one with the knife. So whatever Manson said to manipulate the Family appears to have crossed the line from protected free speech to an illegal incitement to violence. Fuzzy fuzzy.
I haven't seen anybody explicitly make the Manson connection, but it seems that the vibe is in the air.
I think the GP was talking about home schooled idiots, but it seems you're talking about home schooled intelligent and well-adjusted people. Two totally different things.