I got bullied in school, I put up with for a long time then I finally realized, I could fight them. I thought for a long time I could not fight them because I could not win. That is simply untrue, bullies bully because there are no consequences for them. If you can make in unpleasant enough to get tangled up with you they will leave you alone. Do this once or twice and you will have a rep as around school as someone not to be F'd with.
So one day when they were doing their usual crap of shoving my into the lockers on their way down the hall I simply turned an drove my fist into the guy who did its eye socket as hard I as could. I kept fighting until the school admins broke it up. I was losing badly the entire time. My sole focus was not self preservation but rather causing as much damage as possible to the other guy. I wanted to make absolutely sure he'd look terrible and feel it for weeks, and I did.
Naturally we both got suspended.
You know what nobody picked on me after that because they all feared I would escalate things way outside what would be fun for them. People just need to learn to stand up for themselves. You might not be able to win but if you make it a Pyrrhic victory for the other guy that is good enough.
Right but my ISP sold me a 6Mbps connection, they never said there was cap and they never said there would be restrictions during prime time. If they can't deliver the performance their customers want and the prices they charge, they need to raise prices. There is a reason after all business class 10Mbps Ethernet hand off will run minimally $300 per month in the least expensive US markets. That is what it costs. If consumers want something better then best effort, where best effort is not very good at all, they are going to have pay. I have not problem with that!
I think the real issues consumers don't know what there are buying. Dick and Melissa don't know what QOS is, they mostly don't get latency or jitter concepts, they don't understand net neutrality at all, They kinda get caps, and they sorta understand bandwidth but only to the degree that more is better.
I think the solution is simple. Internet access should mean exactly that! If someone wants to sell something called Internet access, it should mean there is No filtering, No Fire walling (at the ISP level), defined QOS classes, where the ISP will accept tags coming from customer equipment. No preferential handling outside of the customers QOS tagging to any destination. No caps, No throttling, and the ISP should be required to be able to deliver at least 80% of bandwidth to the outside world worst case.
That way some people can market Internet access, and say things like your devices, VOIP, games, Netflix, etc will just work. Everyone else would have to offer online Services or Web gateway or whatever they'd like to call it; but that way Dick and Mellisa can choose real Internet access without having to know what questions to ask or needing to understand to much underlying technology.
It may well be that your local cable operator chooses not even offer Internet access in residential areas under these rules, you might only be able to get Online Services from them, so what! You can still pay for that T-carrier, or Ethernet hand off if you really want or need it. My guess enough consumers will want access to the *real* internet badly enough the corporations will find away to deliver it cheaply enough that they have some customers.
The problems is those responses is they have done nothing to stop this nation from slipping into total lawlessness. We have Presidents ordering the assassination of American Citizens, and invading countries will not congressional authorization. We have executive agencies like the FCC and EPA doing what amount to legislative actions, and we have Police doing essential whatever they want!
No I think at this point if a State actor tramples on your rights in anyway however small, you pretty much have a civic duty to raise as much cane and cause government as much grief as possible. Its the only thing that will slow them down.
Seems to be a mind is willing, but the flesh is weak situation with the droid devices. Certainly the permissions model makes lots of sense for the type of device, but the implementations are wanting.
Loss of citizenship (INA Â 349, 8 USC Â 1481) Section 349 of the INA [8 USC Â 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:
serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;
So no if someone from the US went to German after 1939 when they were in a state of hostilities with us they would no longer be a US Citizen!
That is been the other issue with the legal foundation for this entire war on terror thing and much of what is in the PATRIOT act as well.
Our Constitution mentions exactly ONE specific crime, Treason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Clearly the founders were concerned enough with people committing seditious acts against the state to address it in the founding document! They were also concerned enough about the accusation being abused to require a very high burden of proof, and make sure that was put into the document which is supposed to be superior to all other law. Finally they give Congress the power to set the punishment. I guess we all missed the resolution where Congress decided the punishment for Treason was death by drone strike!
Using all these other laws to prosecute an punish what really amounts to Treason if the accused are guilty rather than charging them with Treason seems to me to be an end run around the intent of our Founding Fathers on the matter of this type of crime.
We were in a state of declared war by Congress. We also have existing law on the books that says if you join a foreign military, you lose your citizen ship. So in your case that person would simply be an ememy solider, no legal problems killing him, or ethical problems either.
This is not that situation. We are not really at war, and this person was a citizen. Plenty of rulings up held the idea that due process does not always have to imply a trial in court, but it usually does have to afford the accused some opportunity to represent themselves and what ever the process is it must have been previously codified.
So a legal question here is if we have fugitive who is given an opportunity to turn his or herself in to face trial, but does not do so can our process be that we then hunt them down an execute them?
My guess is the lawyer folk at the DOJ and the Judicial folk in the courts won't want to tackle that question and well find ways to resolve this specific matter on some other technical grounds.
If that is what you wanted you have been able to get nighty builds for a long time, before that you could have done CVS snapshots and done your own build, (easily scripted).
Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.
As end user you could be mostly certain that whatever version you downloaded or were rolling into your system images, had received some level of community exposure and any major problems would be known.
It just a matter of time before something really embarrassing like cookies not working or other such obvious thing that would have been discovered quickly makes it into a major numbered Firefox release now. This is STUPID>
Right because nobody has ever successfully run software expecting specific hardware on other platforms, via emulation or abstaction/virtualization before. Its just inconceivable such a thing could have been implemented on what is basically a hand held computer with phone hardware strapped to the address bus.
Oh certainly Single Payer is the obvious choice, both sides new that when they let it get dropped from the law.
The Liberals who wanted there nation bankrupting wet dream knew the law as written will fail with out it.
The Conservatives wanting to keep the status quo figured this was the best way to get the entire thing struck as unconstitutional.
Notice how there is no separation clause in the law, its written so that its all enforce or none is, for a reason. The question is which side will win this little gambit. Which BTW was completely irresponsible!
Its bad policy that endangers peoples access to care, if a social justice type, its a wild government power grab if allowed to stand that destroys any concept of limited government going forward if you care about basic freedoms.
WE NEED THE TROW OUT ALL THE LEGISLATORS WHO WERE INCUMBENT WHEN THIS LAW WAS BEING NEGOTIATED. NOT ONE OF THEM IS FIT TO GOVERN, most on both sides should be executed for TREASON.
Ah but it says promote the GENERAL welfare, so if you have say the bottom 30% that get essential no care, and you raise costs or reduce access for or to care on the remaining 70% you have not promoted the GENERAL welfare but rather the specific welfare of a particular economic group.
We can argue separately about the social justice around that extra, but general, should apply to almost everyone and the vast vast majority of citizen in aggregate terms will be paying more or getting less as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
The forest Service would beg to differ with you. They actually have IIRC more miles of road under their management than another entity in the US, and they are very much Federal Roads. Just because you don't use them does not mean they don't exist.
Most of which are never contested in appeals court because the people who are charged with them usually are not in a position to obtained qualified legal help for appeals. When anyone who *would* likely be able to the charges get dropped, because the people who wrote those laws and enforce them are perfectly aware they are unconstitutional and don't let them get contested in court.
I am not a constitutional lawyer but It seems like you *could* require permits for assembly provided you never denied a permit as that would violate a groups right to assemble. I would go farther to state that my interpretation of the Constitution is that since the first amendment does not qualify the right to assemble in anyway there is no cause to deny such a permit in ANY circumstances.
G8 meeting that week, to damn bad the protesters want to assemble on 9th street and must be permitted to do so.
In other words the permit process would really just be more like a registry. Which might be nice because that would let the rest of who don't want to deal with it know to avoid the area, or possible show up and join in.
If you work in the support and maintenance or even business software development side of IT for only a few to maybe five years or so I doubt you will have a problem. As long you keep up with developments in the field of computer science and can have an intelligent discussion with an interviewer when the times comes you will do fine. The thing is you won't take that interview.
What will happen is you will start to build a career around IT. You will start to build a life around your career. That life will depend on your income. You will mostly likely have made some not insignificant advances over those years in IT, it will be hard to go back to CS where you'd be again looking at more entry level positions. Mostly likely you will decide not to do it, on your own.
Its called Taxonomy. Its how we sort things, first in to broad categories than into more specific sub categories. Organism is not very specific, animal and plant are more specific, mammal is still more specific than that.
So yes, auto industry is not very specific, but is inclusive of both your local mechanic and the mechanical engineer designing engines. This is a useful classification by the way as there are broad trends and events that will impact both, that would not have an immediate or determinable impact on say a healthcare worker. Then you can subdivide the industry more, in to say automotive maintenance, and automotive design. That will separate your mechanic and your engineer.
Which in itself is another social - stress-or. Everybody has "close" friends and every on in a social group can usually tell who each others best friends are. You are kinda in a person's top three and they are almost always in yours or you are not.
Its always pretty clear and there is really no way to conceal it. Its tolerated we all understand we can't all be each others best friends. Beyond that I think its really rather impolite to rank and classify your "friends". I think I generally have a pretty thick skin but I certainly would not feel good about X effectively making a public announcement that I mean less to him or her than Y. I would not want to make such an announcement about X or Y myself.
The EPA and DEA do way more harm to this nation than good. I think its a basic question of morality. There is no way its right to force Asthma patients to inhale chemicals they don't need and might be harmful to them especially, in the name of preventing morons from voluntarily consuming chemicals that they know will destroy their body.
If people want to do meth *great* let them, and lets let them die off too while were at it. I say we get rid of the DEA entirely. Run some PSA, and reasonably frequency, with honest facts about the actual dangers of the various illicit drugs out there. We decriminalize the use and possession of ALL illicit drugs. If normal police officer, FBI, or ATF agent in the course of their other duties sees a dealer arrest the son of bitch. We can then lock'em up and throw away the key, as deterrent. But lets run no specific anti drug operations. Then we pass a law that says emergency rooms and physicians DO NOT have to treat any patient suffering from illegal drug use, even if they are at immediate risk of death.
We will save the nation billions. The problem of hard drugs will solve it self. The drug gangs will be deprived of the money that has built them, and we can quit ruin peoples lives because they happened to be found with an ounce of weed when they were 17.
Well, I don't see what would be *wrong* about using interactive python as your shell, if you like it. I think the point though is a good shell and solid set know how with it, makes complex things simple.
I should not need big heavy script interpreter to apply the same transform to names of files for instance. Even operations like find all the members of group A and group B and add them to group C, are simple enough that I would hope to be able to express that in a single line or two of shell code.
you only have one vote, but that's probably more votes than you have with AT&T or Comcast
Actually for lots of people that is probably not true. I can go buy practically as many votes at AT&T as I want. Its called common stock. I bet I can get more proportional representation there afford-ably than I get in the federal government.
Also if I don't like ATT&T's rules I can go elsewhere, while I might not like those choices either, and they may be few, I at least have other choices.
I will take corporate overlords over dear old Uncle Sam any time.
You are absoultly right about everything you said there. The problem is not capitalism. There has been no-capitalism in this country since shortly after the 20th century began, certainly capitalism was dead by 1930. What we got then and has been getting worse until now is cronyism, which is actually allot like feudalism with a slightly reduced focus on familial ties, and until the recent advent of entities like Black Water, private armies.
Ron Paul is the only capitalist left in Washington, not even Rand Paul is real capitalist. The Tea party folks (who I still think are better than the alternatives) are very confused about what capitalism is themselves, and continue to damage its reputation.
The cost has risen sharply because the market has been interfered with. Few lenders would be willing to offer payment deffer-ed loans to new high school grades with no collateral to go to college at least not at a rate of interest they could pay. Except they are willing because government offers loan guarantees and has made it almost impossible to default on student loan debts.
Naturally with all that borrowed money in the market colleges were going to grab it. You charge what the market will support. The other thing this money did was make it possible for many to go to school who never could have at least not right out high school. That sounds good on the surface but it means that employers might as well seek only degree'd candidates because there are enough out there to fill positions, even ones that don't really require a college degree. After all having earned such a degree still does offer a bit of screening, as a hiring manger why would not take advantage.
So we have destroyed all opportunities for non-grads to have any shot at a decent wage. Beyond that we are spending societies resources educating in many cases the wrong people. A lender might offer a student loan to someone who had a solid work history and good credit, so they could go back to school. That probably describes someone who would be likely to succeed in school and do something productive with the education.
College would cost a whole lot less too, if all that cheap money was not floating around for the taking schools would have to find a way to charge less or they'd have no demand, and shortly after there would be no school. Public schools might be seeing inflated costs due to funding cuts and what not, I have no doubt that is a component, but that does nothing to explain why private school tuition has also risen in great excess of inflation and other services.
I disagree, that information IS and asset and creditors in order of seniority should have an absolute right to extract as much value in a bankruptcy up to what they lent as possible. This is a pretty fundamental concept of credit and private property which are more basic to our society that even the notion of privacy. That is why what the Obama administration did with Chrysler was such an atrocity.
They take away here is consumers need to learn the lesson that information is an asset. They need to be less willing to give it up and learn to demand much more in return if they decide to do so. Perhaps after they get burned a few times with things like this they will actually vote with their wallets and choose to do business with those who don't attempt to uniquely identify them and their transactions, and don't run face recognition on the surveillance video from the parking lot.
Actually no its not, I am looking at a fresh install of Slackware 13.37 on VM right now. There is certainly some stuff there about my harddisk cache being assumed to be write through and the fact that my file systems were mounted; but nothing says "error", except
kernel: [51032.320044] usb 5-1: device not accepting address 9, error -71
Which I seems to have happened shortly after I tried to pass through a USB mouse to the VM, and given udev did not seem to do anything, I think that its probably um an actual error.
Windows on the other hand has tons events it logs as well, which I think good, its often very useful. Some have non-threatening grey question marks by them and "information" written in the column, others say "Warning" and have a yellow triangle, which give one a bit more cause for concern, and then there are these ones with the red X of which there many, even on a fairly fresh Win7 install, most of them I understand and have decided to ignore but I can see how someone who does not know much about Windows or the other software they might have on there system would be worried.
Slashdot Mirror
I got bullied in school, I put up with for a long time then I finally realized, I could fight them. I thought for a long time I could not fight them because I could not win. That is simply untrue, bullies bully because there are no consequences for them. If you can make in unpleasant enough to get tangled up with you they will leave you alone. Do this once or twice and you will have a rep as around school as someone not to be F'd with.
So one day when they were doing their usual crap of shoving my into the lockers on their way down the hall I simply turned an drove my fist into the guy who did its eye socket as hard I as could. I kept fighting until the school admins broke it up. I was losing badly the entire time. My sole focus was not self preservation but rather causing as much damage as possible to the other guy. I wanted to make absolutely sure he'd look terrible and feel it for weeks, and I did.
Naturally we both got suspended.
You know what nobody picked on me after that because they all feared I would escalate things way outside what would be fun for them. People just need to learn to stand up for themselves. You might not be able to win but if you make it a Pyrrhic victory for the other guy that is good enough.
Right but my ISP sold me a 6Mbps connection, they never said there was cap and they never said there would be restrictions during prime time. If they can't deliver the performance their customers want and the prices they charge, they need to raise prices. There is a reason after all business class 10Mbps Ethernet hand off will run minimally $300 per month in the least expensive US markets. That is what it costs. If consumers want something better then best effort, where best effort is not very good at all, they are going to have pay. I have not problem with that!
I think the real issues consumers don't know what there are buying. Dick and Melissa don't know what QOS is, they mostly don't get latency or jitter concepts, they don't understand net neutrality at all, They kinda get caps, and they sorta understand bandwidth but only to the degree that more is better.
I think the solution is simple. Internet access should mean exactly that! If someone wants to sell something called Internet access, it should mean there is No filtering, No Fire walling (at the ISP level), defined QOS classes, where the ISP will accept tags coming from customer equipment. No preferential handling outside of the customers QOS tagging to any destination. No caps, No throttling, and the ISP should be required to be able to deliver at least 80% of bandwidth to the outside world worst case.
That way some people can market Internet access, and say things like your devices, VOIP, games, Netflix, etc will just work. Everyone else would have to offer online Services or Web gateway or whatever they'd like to call it; but that way Dick and Mellisa can choose real Internet access without having to know what questions to ask or needing to understand to much underlying technology.
It may well be that your local cable operator chooses not even offer Internet access in residential areas under these rules, you might only be able to get Online Services from them, so what! You can still pay for that T-carrier, or Ethernet hand off if you really want or need it. My guess enough consumers will want access to the *real* internet badly enough the corporations will find away to deliver it cheaply enough that they have some customers.
The problems is those responses is they have done nothing to stop this nation from slipping into total lawlessness. We have Presidents ordering the assassination of American Citizens, and invading countries will not congressional authorization. We have executive agencies like the FCC and EPA doing what amount to legislative actions, and we have Police doing essential whatever they want!
No I think at this point if a State actor tramples on your rights in anyway however small, you pretty much have a civic duty to raise as much cane and cause government as much grief as possible. Its the only thing that will slow them down.
Seems to be a mind is willing, but the flesh is weak situation with the droid devices. Certainly the permissions model makes lots of sense for the type of device, but the implementations are wanting.
Loss of citizenship (INA Â 349, 8 USC Â 1481)
Section 349 of the INA [8 USC Â 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:
serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;
So no if someone from the US went to German after 1939 when they were in a state of hostilities with us they would no longer be a US Citizen!
That is been the other issue with the legal foundation for this entire war on terror thing and much of what is in the PATRIOT act as well.
Our Constitution mentions exactly ONE specific crime, Treason.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Clearly the founders were concerned enough with people committing seditious acts against the state to address it in the founding document! They were also concerned enough about the accusation being abused to require a very high burden of proof, and make sure that was put into the document which is supposed to be superior to all other law. Finally they give Congress the power to set the punishment. I guess we all missed the resolution where Congress decided the punishment for Treason was death by drone strike!
Using all these other laws to prosecute an punish what really amounts to Treason if the accused are guilty rather than charging them with Treason seems to me to be an end run around the intent of our Founding Fathers on the matter of this type of crime.
We were in a state of declared war by Congress. We also have existing law on the books that says if you join a foreign military, you lose your citizen ship. So in your case that person would simply be an ememy solider, no legal problems killing him, or ethical problems either.
This is not that situation. We are not really at war, and this person was a citizen. Plenty of rulings up held the idea that due process does not always have to imply a trial in court, but it usually does have to afford the accused some opportunity to represent themselves and what ever the process is it must have been previously codified.
So a legal question here is if we have fugitive who is given an opportunity to turn his or herself in to face trial, but does not do so can our process be that we then hunt them down an execute them?
My guess is the lawyer folk at the DOJ and the Judicial folk in the courts won't want to tackle that question and well find ways to resolve this specific matter on some other technical grounds.
wait they are not?
If that is what you wanted you have been able to get nighty builds for a long time, before that you could have done CVS snapshots and done your own build, (easily scripted).
Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.
As end user you could be mostly certain that whatever version you downloaded or were rolling into your system images, had received some level of community exposure and any major problems would be known.
It just a matter of time before something really embarrassing like cookies not working or other such obvious thing that would have been discovered quickly makes it into a major numbered Firefox release now. This is STUPID>
Right because nobody has ever successfully run software expecting specific hardware on other platforms, via emulation or abstaction/virtualization before. Its just inconceivable such a thing could have been implemented on what is basically a hand held computer with phone hardware strapped to the address bus.
Oh certainly Single Payer is the obvious choice, both sides new that when they let it get dropped from the law.
The Liberals who wanted there nation bankrupting wet dream knew the law as written will fail with out it.
The Conservatives wanting to keep the status quo figured this was the best way to get the entire thing struck as unconstitutional.
Notice how there is no separation clause in the law, its written so that its all enforce or none is, for a reason. The question is which side will win this little gambit. Which BTW was completely irresponsible!
Its bad policy that endangers peoples access to care, if a social justice type, its a wild government power grab if allowed to stand that destroys any concept of limited government going forward if you care about basic freedoms.
WE NEED THE TROW OUT ALL THE LEGISLATORS WHO WERE INCUMBENT WHEN THIS LAW WAS BEING NEGOTIATED. NOT ONE OF THEM IS FIT TO GOVERN, most on both sides should be executed for TREASON.
Ah but it says promote the GENERAL welfare, so if you have say the bottom 30% that get essential no care, and you raise costs or reduce access for or to care on the remaining 70% you have not promoted the GENERAL welfare but rather the specific welfare of a particular economic group.
We can argue separately about the social justice around that extra, but general, should apply to almost everyone and the vast vast majority of citizen in aggregate terms will be paying more or getting less as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
The forest Service would beg to differ with you. They actually have IIRC more miles of road under their management than another entity in the US, and they are very much Federal Roads. Just because you don't use them does not mean they don't exist.
Most of which are never contested in appeals court because the people who are charged with them usually are not in a position to obtained qualified legal help for appeals. When anyone who *would* likely be able to the charges get dropped, because the people who wrote those laws and enforce them are perfectly aware they are unconstitutional and don't let them get contested in court.
I am not a constitutional lawyer but It seems like you *could* require permits for assembly provided you never denied a permit as that would violate a groups right to assemble. I would go farther to state that my interpretation of the Constitution is that since the first amendment does not qualify the right to assemble in anyway there is no cause to deny such a permit in ANY circumstances.
G8 meeting that week, to damn bad the protesters want to assemble on 9th street and must be permitted to do so.
In other words the permit process would really just be more like a registry. Which might be nice because that would let the rest of who don't want to deal with it know to avoid the area, or possible show up and join in.
If you work in the support and maintenance or even business software development side of IT for only a few to maybe five years or so I doubt you will have a problem. As long you keep up with developments in the field of computer science and can have an intelligent discussion with an interviewer when the times comes you will do fine. The thing is you won't take that interview.
What will happen is you will start to build a career around IT. You will start to build a life around your career. That life will depend on your income. You will mostly likely have made some not insignificant advances over those years in IT, it will be hard to go back to CS where you'd be again looking at more entry level positions. Mostly likely you will decide not to do it, on your own.
Its called Taxonomy. Its how we sort things, first in to broad categories than into more specific sub categories. Organism is not very specific, animal and plant are more specific, mammal is still more specific than that.
So yes, auto industry is not very specific, but is inclusive of both your local mechanic and the mechanical engineer designing engines. This is a useful classification by the way as there are broad trends and events that will impact both, that would not have an immediate or determinable impact on say a healthcare worker. Then you can subdivide the industry more, in to say automotive maintenance, and automotive design. That will separate your mechanic and your engineer.
Which in itself is another social - stress-or. Everybody has "close" friends and every on in a social group can usually tell who each others best friends are. You are kinda in a person's top three and they are almost always in yours or you are not.
Its always pretty clear and there is really no way to conceal it. Its tolerated we all understand we can't all be each others best friends. Beyond that I think its really rather impolite to rank and classify your "friends". I think I generally have a pretty thick skin but I certainly would not feel good about X effectively making a public announcement that I mean less to him or her than Y. I would not want to make such an announcement about X or Y myself.
The EPA and DEA do way more harm to this nation than good. I think its a basic question of morality. There is no way its right to force Asthma patients to inhale chemicals they don't need and might be harmful to them especially, in the name of preventing morons from voluntarily consuming chemicals that they know will destroy their body.
If people want to do meth *great* let them, and lets let them die off too while were at it. I say we get rid of the DEA entirely. Run some PSA, and reasonably frequency, with honest facts about the actual dangers of the various illicit drugs out there. We decriminalize the use and possession of ALL illicit drugs. If normal police officer, FBI, or ATF agent in the course of their other duties sees a dealer arrest the son of bitch. We can then lock'em up and throw away the key, as deterrent. But lets run no specific anti drug operations. Then we pass a law that says emergency rooms and physicians DO NOT have to treat any patient suffering from illegal drug use, even if they are at immediate risk of death.
We will save the nation billions. The problem of hard drugs will solve it self. The drug gangs will be deprived of the money that has built them, and we can quit ruin peoples lives because they happened to be found with an ounce of weed when they were 17.
Well, I don't see what would be *wrong* about using interactive python as your shell, if you like it. I think the point though is a good shell and solid set know how with it, makes complex things simple.
I should not need big heavy script interpreter to apply the same transform to names of files for instance. Even operations like find all the members of group A and group B and add them to group C, are simple enough that I would hope to be able to express that in a single line or two of shell code.
you only have one vote, but that's probably more votes than you have with AT&T or Comcast
Actually for lots of people that is probably not true. I can go buy practically as many votes at AT&T as I want. Its called common stock. I bet I can get more proportional representation there afford-ably than I get in the federal government.
Also if I don't like ATT&T's rules I can go elsewhere, while I might not like those choices either, and they may be few, I at least have other choices.
I will take corporate overlords over dear old Uncle Sam any time.
You are absoultly right about everything you said there. The problem is not capitalism. There has been no-capitalism in this country since shortly after the 20th century began, certainly capitalism was dead by 1930. What we got then and has been getting worse until now is cronyism, which is actually allot like feudalism with a slightly reduced focus on familial ties, and until the recent advent of entities like Black Water, private armies.
Ron Paul is the only capitalist left in Washington, not even Rand Paul is real capitalist. The Tea party folks (who I still think are better than the alternatives) are very confused about what capitalism is themselves, and continue to damage its reputation.
The cost has risen sharply because the market has been interfered with. Few lenders would be willing to offer payment deffer-ed loans to new high school grades with no collateral to go to college at least not at a rate of interest they could pay. Except they are willing because government offers loan guarantees and has made it almost impossible to default on student loan debts.
Naturally with all that borrowed money in the market colleges were going to grab it. You charge what the market will support. The other thing this money did was make it possible for many to go to school who never could have at least not right out high school. That sounds good on the surface but it means that employers might as well seek only degree'd candidates because there are enough out there to fill positions, even ones that don't really require a college degree. After all having earned such a degree still does offer a bit of screening, as a hiring manger why would not take advantage.
So we have destroyed all opportunities for non-grads to have any shot at a decent wage. Beyond that we are spending societies resources educating in many cases the wrong people. A lender might offer a student loan to someone who had a solid work history and good credit, so they could go back to school. That probably describes someone who would be likely to succeed in school and do something productive with the education.
College would cost a whole lot less too, if all that cheap money was not floating around for the taking schools would have to find a way to charge less or they'd have no demand, and shortly after there would be no school. Public schools might be seeing inflated costs due to funding cuts and what not, I have no doubt that is a component, but that does nothing to explain why private school tuition has also risen in great excess of inflation and other services.
I disagree, that information IS and asset and creditors in order of seniority should have an absolute right to extract as much value in a bankruptcy up to what they lent as possible. This is a pretty fundamental concept of credit and private property which are more basic to our society that even the notion of privacy. That is why what the Obama administration did with Chrysler was such an atrocity.
They take away here is consumers need to learn the lesson that information is an asset. They need to be less willing to give it up and learn to demand much more in return if they decide to do so. Perhaps after they get burned a few times with things like this they will actually vote with their wallets and choose to do business with those who don't attempt to uniquely identify them and their transactions, and don't run face recognition on the surveillance video from the parking lot.
Actually no its not, I am looking at a fresh install of Slackware 13.37 on VM right now. There is certainly some stuff there about my harddisk cache being assumed to be write through and the fact that my file systems were mounted; but nothing says "error", except
kernel: [51032.320044] usb 5-1: device not accepting address 9, error -71
Which I seems to have happened shortly after I tried to pass through a USB mouse to the VM, and given udev did not seem to do anything, I think that its probably um an actual error.
Windows on the other hand has tons events it logs as well, which I think good, its often very useful. Some have non-threatening grey question marks by them and "information" written in the column, others say "Warning" and have a yellow triangle, which give one a bit more cause for concern, and then there are these ones with the red X of which there many, even on a fairly fresh Win7 install, most of them I understand and have decided to ignore but I can see how someone who does not know much about Windows or the other software they might have on there system would be worried.