But even in the Nazi Germany example, we still don't need for the mathematician/scientist to have *altruistic* motives, we just need for him to know when his work is leading to nefarious consequences.
And again, upon realizing (in the instance where it is) that said person's work is leading to *potentially* nefarious consequences (upholding/extending Nazi Germany, developing the A-bomb), another decision/estimation has to be made: are the consequences of my work leading to necessarily nefarious consequences?
In the case of Nazi Germany, the answer would have had to have been, "yes."
In the case of developing the A-bomb, perhaps the answer is a bit more debatable -- especially if you accept the notion that the A-bomb saved lives. This rationale is almost one you have to accept *overall* for weapons development. Undoubtedly if the US's weapons proliferation had been at a slower rate than the USSR's, then we might be speaking Russian right now or at the very least communism might have spread extensively. Certainly, developing weapons that are used to halt the spread of communism would not be a nefarious exercise. Whereas perhaps developing weapons with the intent of spreading communism might have been.
What I'm saying is that I don't (emphatically don't!) want to see some litmus test executed on mathematicians whereby in order for their work to be supported, those mathematicians have to be claiming to (and prove?) that they are operating out of some altruistic motives and not because (a) the work merely interests them or (b) some other rationale.
To my mind, it's irrelevant if the mathematician hopes to save the world or merely hopes to do his job very well. What matters is the quality of work that individual does (and, to a lesser degree, the quantity).
I don't think this is necessarily an "ends-justifies-the-means" rationale because I'm saying the "means" shouldn't be defined as "the mathematician's inner feelings/strivings." The means are the methods the mathematician utilizes to arrive at his findings.
Now if the mathematician's methods themselves were sinister, then this could morph into an "does the ends justify the means" question.
A better counter example to what I brought up is: in Nazi Germany there were said to be many scientists and engineers who had very highly honed mathematical/scientific, etc. abilities. By each of these scientists/mathematicians/engineers separating from the ethics behind what their work was leading to, Nazi Germany was allowed to flourish.
This is the worst-case logical end of having a policy where, in general, we don't ask our mathematicians/scientists to have an emotional/personal/even political relationship to what they are doing. Because, of course, their work will provide advances and, certainly history has shown, those advances can have nefarious results.
So, in closing, this is why I think it's VERY important for students of math/science/etc. to have learned history and learned it well. To have taken an ethics course. To have pondered right and wrong in some formalized (or directed) manner. It's also why there's General Ed requirements even for degrees in math/science that ensure that the students are forced to engage some of these topics such that they develop a context for understanding the implications of their work.
There again, even understanding that one's work could have terrible consequences, as Einstein recognized re: the A-bomb, should NOT preclude that work from happening, though. The A-bomb may have saved millions more lives than it took (Japanese and American, alike) considering how the war would likely have waged on without its detonation.
But even this is *not* quite like the Nazi Germany example.
"the beauty of this is that it is absolutely useless to anybody"
You're screwin' up the causal relationships again.
Pure math isn't a thing of beauty because discoveries yielded by it may have no *immediate* practicable value; nor is it a thing of beauty because it may be sourced in something other than a desire to solve an immediate problem.
It's a thing of beauty because it has produced fascinating finds with respect to the relationships between various prime numbers and relatively prime numbers (Euler's Totient function). Modular exponentiation is fascinating--how this works with primes (i.e. 3^1 mod 7 = 3; 3^2 mod 7 = 2; 3^3 mod 7 = 6; 3^4 mod 7 = 4; 3^5 mod 7 = 5; 3^6 mod 7 = 1; 3^7 mod 7 = 3 and it all REPEATs) -- so is fast exponentiation, exponential inverses, modular inverses, Fermat's little theory etc.
That some of these finds combine to yield one-way (trapdoor) functions that can take advantage of the inability (for now!) to factor large numbers and provide a secure pub key system is a bonus of monumental importance. And one that was only just recently (past 30 years or so) realized.
You can never know if a thing will be useful or not without understanding the essence of that thing; and there again "useful" is clearly a time-limited function... As one cannot perfectly predict future needs and future landscapes, one cannot perfectly determine at any one point of time whether current work in number theory will be with or without practical value. Though what's so wrong with discovery for discovery's sake! Isn't that part of the reason we are here?
Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.
If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world
I think the deduction you make is a false one.
Depends somewhat on how you define "the world" but certainly "the world" includes numbers.
I don't need my mathematicians to be secret altruists nor public ones; it's a no-op either way. If the mathematicians are engaged fully in the task of discovering connections between primes, patterns in primes, et al., whether they do so with magnanimous thoughts in mind is really beside the point. The point is what they discover. Or absent that the point is what they lay the groundwork for that will enable future discoveries.
You are dangerously close to making the same mistake that would have precluded centuries worth of number theory discovery that has laid the groundwork for at least one prominent public-key cryptography system, today.
Remember: you can't always know what something will be useful for until you understand that something. And understanding it and its vagaries and corollaries can take a long time, indeed.
Makes intuitive sense, too, with respect to how that disease operates. The idea floated in the piece was that the TMS machine supresses certain lines of thought.
Careful readers will recall a quote by John Nash regarding his approach to managing his disease without the aid of drugs, paraphrased: it's like a diet; you filter out bad thoughts or unproductive thoughts or otherwise "out-there" thoughts just as one trying to lose weight would avoid fatty foods -- would have avoided fatty foods pre-Atkins-revival... and vindication...
I only wonder *how* the effects could be sustained (in order to use the TMS for this purpose) when its effects were not said to have lasted beyond the writer's session. Also wonder what, if any, parallels there are b/n TMS & electro-shock therapy which, of course, used to really be used to treat a variety of mental illnesses and is still used occasionally as I understand.
I took a UCBerkeley extension course on-line but was only really comfortable doing so b/c most of the material was stuff I'd already worked with in some context before (the text was Tannenbaum's Computer Networks and at the time I took it, I was already working in this field and had quite a bit of practical experience as well as theoretical study in it -- I had to take the course for a cert there).
Anyway, I don't see anything inherently *wrong* with the model -- provided
you are someone who learns through reading or doing but at least you don't require someone to explain it to you
and secondly
the materials are high quality -- this is, of course, true for any learning endeavour: start out with subpar information and it all goes down from there
I do think it takes a lot of self motivation and discipline to do this well, though. It's also awfully easy to skate by -- theoretically, if it's not a programming course (or maybe even if it is) -- by *recognizing* the material w/o solidly *understanding* it. The difference b/n knowing it solid and having it be familiar is a vast gulf.
I liked the flexilibity that it gave me -- I completed the material in no time flat which was extraordinarily convenient.
You don't solve routine application problems by giving said apps monitor access in the kernel so why on earth would the populace willingly give over what amounts to overseer rights in the interest of "funding infrastructure" [where funding is the most routine problem that any and all governments face & continuously]?
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
Jeebus. They're fucking cars. Cars have no intrinsic or inherent value: goodness | evilness.
Besides, most of the ALLEGED *evil incarnate* facets of cars you list incur expenses on *those cars' owners* who -- last I checked weren't strong-armed into buying them... unless, ofcourse, they went to FastEddie's lot but that's a whole 'nother story.
Fucking net nannies!
I used to live in southwestern CO and not for a million bucks would I have given up my 4WD vehicle -- no matter how deep the crater on the dirt road up to the *at that time* isolated hiking path, no matter how slick the roads or how poor visilibity from Aspen to Crested Butte by way of Monarch Pass--IIRC--I could always count on my vehicle. We were tight, br-ah.
Why don't you guys have a bond issue every now and again -- say every 10 years -- to cover infrastructure costs... Cause that's what this is purportedly for, right? Bridges/roads/tunnels... That sorta thing. Well, you will need these things and it does seem there's a gap b/n what that gas tax brings in now and what it used to bring in to cover these costs and you can't really scrimp on infrastructure, so:
either the cuts come from somewhere else (where?)
or
you do one-time bond issues to help defray infrastructure costs say at 10 year intervals
I think this would be a pretty extraordinary use of a bond issue (they're usually used for one-time projects: the revamp of the Oakland Bay Bridge -- just being done now as post Loma-Prieta fixup (12+ years later!); or a conference center, that sorta thing) but seems it might do the trick -- it'd certainly buy the folks in gov't some time (not to mention it'd force them to project out the budget for infrastructure for the next 10 years and only spend that).
There again if the bond measure (usually on a ballot) failed then the responsibility of figuring out *just where the fuck* this money is going to come from falls back onto government -- and maybe they can cut the school lunch programs (egregiously abused, or so I hear)... Or cut the GD school budgets -- more is spent on education per pupil (I think 40% more) than was spent 20 years ago -- controlling for inflation -- yet students are dumber still!!! Boggles..
1. According to its spokesperson, Empower America has no official position on gambling.
Presumably Bennett is not responsible for living up to the virtues espoused by colleagues, fellow directors in EA, for example, such as Kemp, right? That would strike this cat as Orwellian were you to make the argument that he is.
2. Bennett made one statement on gambling before this brouhaha near as I can tell:
"
I'm against state expansion of gambling, state advertising encouraging people to gamble and gambling as a way to make a living. But adults on their own time..."
Above statement explicitly indicates Bennett's support for individual choice in the matter of gambling as long as such behavior is not utilized as one's means of generating an income. As Bennett himself does not (did not) make a living gambling, he does not appear to be in a state of contradiction to said comments. And in fact since there is no EA official statement on gambling, it is presumed that Bennett is held to the standard of any previous comments he made: doing the math on that, he's no hypocrite there.
1. Bennett is strictly speaking *not* a hypocrite on this issue--he expressly never spoke out against gambling; not to mention that none of what was recently rehashed (thanks to, I believe, Josh Marshall) was *news*--it had already been out, at least since '96.
2. Was Bennett personally engaged in some self delusion by being so strictly NOT a hypocrite in the sense of never speaking out against gambling though speaking out against many other moral ills? Perhaps.
3. What I think is funniest about this is that folks are surprised (shocked!) to learn that someone is not all that person is cracked up to be--perhaps same people are a bit relieved. I frankly think anybody stupid enough to buy Miss VT's claptrap should be sued.
I'm being literal girl and I know it's bugging the shit out of you, but here's the def for hypocrite: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess
Bennett never professed any beliefs against gambling. EmpowerAmerica (especially Bill's buddy Kemp) spoke against expanding legal gambling (not against gambling itself) and said that an "addiction" to gambling was problematic--would you describe an activity that you engaged in 5 times a year something to which you were addicted? What about an activity that you intend (and likely will) quit cold turkey? Doesn't sound like an "addiction" to me. It's not like he was on the 5pm shuttle to Vegas every Saturday.
Just as you don't hate Bennett, I have no particular love for him; but I do think it's *strictly* incorrect to call him a hypocrite on this issue since he so fastidiously avoided speaking on it yet so voluminously spoke on so many others -- where his non-mention of gambling could have been construed as implicit support for moderate engagement in it.
OK, so do you think anybody should be able to post anything about anybody else?
What about what I cited earlier: the notion of posting names/addys/locations of abortion providers on anti-abortion sites?
The info is all true so it can be there, right?
Or it can't b/c posting that info carries some measure of probability that folks will be induced to act in a certain way in response to that info and the way in which folks might be induced to act (as has been historically demonstrated, though not that often) carries some change of causing harm to the person(s) whose information is being posted?
My idea for a useful website: a national publicly-accessible and free database that allows the user to query on name any suit filed by any individual. As such prospective employers can ascertain prior to hiring Billy whether or not Billy has a sue-happy history.
Costs covered via advertising (esp. PI firms etc.). It'd be a boon.
Agreed, though it is ofcourse said that nobody went broke (or dry, as the case may be for ol' Tuck) by underestimating the intelligence of the 'murican public.
So how is this any different than proscribing harassment?
Can't Miss VT make the case that his comments constitute harassment? What about the arg that his comments constitute a threat to her "privacy" -- and though there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution, the same has been manufactured most notably in the Roe v. Wade case a few of you might have heard of.
PS: these two so want to tumble back together in bed.. let 'em have each other and be done w/it!
Pretty sure that the Bush admin just filed a brief supporting the requirement that anti-abortion websites remove any references & personal information to abortion providers
beauty queens are so boring...
not to mention so beholden to anyone who mighta caught a bare-chested pic of them from ages, say, about 12 and up....
their entire currency relies upon a manufactured (most likely) image of purity or born-again purity as the case may be...
In any event, this seems fair to me... After all you can't use a corporate image w/o getting copyright permission (else you're subject to infringement)... So why should it be any different for us...
Though I do wonder what implications, if any, this has for websites like Dr. Norman Matloff's that list proponents and opponents (of L1, H-1 visa programs in this case). Even though that's negative advertising in a sense versus what Tucker is trying to do here -- which is appropriate his ex's image positively (and who can blame him! Everyone knows women score men by the women those men date) -- which I'd describe as "positive advertising."
On second though, being a strict constructionist, perhaps Max outta be able to speak his peace! er.. piece as the case may be...
Moving this position from being an advisory position to the president to being a position w/in the HDS is the *right* thing to do.
The HDS (Homeland Security Department) is already set up to handle infrastructure threats w.r.t. transportation so, IMO, it makes sense for them to leverage that experience -- though granted not specifically applicable -- to other potential threat sources.
It certainly makes a heap more sense for this position to be w/in an organization focused on naming then mitigating (if not eliminating!) security threats of *all stripes* than to be linked to the president -- where it's lacking a driving, focused authority to steer its actions and inform its decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
But even in the Nazi Germany example, we still don't need for the mathematician/scientist to have *altruistic* motives, we just need for him to know when his work is leading to nefarious consequences.
And again, upon realizing (in the instance where it is) that said person's work is leading to *potentially* nefarious consequences (upholding/extending Nazi Germany, developing the A-bomb), another decision/estimation has to be made: are the consequences of my work leading to necessarily nefarious consequences?
In the case of Nazi Germany, the answer would have had to have been, "yes."
In the case of developing the A-bomb, perhaps the answer is a bit more debatable -- especially if you accept the notion that the A-bomb saved lives. This rationale is almost one you have to accept *overall* for weapons development. Undoubtedly if the US's weapons proliferation had been at a slower rate than the USSR's, then we might be speaking Russian right now or at the very least communism might have spread extensively. Certainly, developing weapons that are used to halt the spread of communism would not be a nefarious exercise. Whereas perhaps developing weapons with the intent of spreading communism might have been.
That's not really what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that I don't (emphatically don't!) want to see some litmus test executed on mathematicians whereby in order for their work to be supported, those mathematicians have to be claiming to (and prove?) that they are operating out of some altruistic motives and not because (a) the work merely interests them or (b) some other rationale.
To my mind, it's irrelevant if the mathematician hopes to save the world or merely hopes to do his job very well. What matters is the quality of work that individual does (and, to a lesser degree, the quantity).
I don't think this is necessarily an "ends-justifies-the-means" rationale because I'm saying the "means" shouldn't be defined as "the mathematician's inner feelings/strivings." The means are the methods the mathematician utilizes to arrive at his findings.
Now if the mathematician's methods themselves were sinister, then this could morph into an "does the ends justify the means" question.
A better counter example to what I brought up is: in Nazi Germany there were said to be many scientists and engineers who had very highly honed mathematical/scientific, etc. abilities. By each of these scientists/mathematicians/engineers separating from the ethics behind what their work was leading to, Nazi Germany was allowed to flourish.
This is the worst-case logical end of having a policy where, in general, we don't ask our mathematicians/scientists to have an emotional/personal/even political relationship to what they are doing. Because, of course, their work will provide advances and, certainly history has shown, those advances can have nefarious results.
So, in closing, this is why I think it's VERY important for students of math/science/etc. to have learned history and learned it well. To have taken an ethics course. To have pondered right and wrong in some formalized (or directed) manner. It's also why there's General Ed requirements even for degrees in math/science that ensure that the students are forced to engage some of these topics such that they develop a context for understanding the implications of their work.
There again, even understanding that one's work could have terrible consequences, as Einstein recognized re: the A-bomb, should NOT preclude that work from happening, though. The A-bomb may have saved millions more lives than it took (Japanese and American, alike) considering how the war would likely have waged on without its detonation.
But even this is *not* quite like the Nazi Germany example.
"the beauty of this is that it is absolutely useless to anybody"
You're screwin' up the causal relationships again.
Pure math isn't a thing of beauty because discoveries yielded by it may have no *immediate* practicable value; nor is it a thing of beauty because it may be sourced in something other than a desire to solve an immediate problem.
It's a thing of beauty because it has produced fascinating finds with respect to the relationships between various prime numbers and relatively prime numbers (Euler's Totient function). Modular exponentiation is fascinating--how this works with primes (i.e. 3^1 mod 7 = 3; 3^2 mod 7 = 2; 3^3 mod 7 = 6; 3^4 mod 7 = 4; 3^5 mod 7 = 5; 3^6 mod 7 = 1; 3^7 mod 7 = 3 and it all REPEATs) -- so is fast exponentiation, exponential inverses, modular inverses, Fermat's little theory etc.
That some of these finds combine to yield one-way (trapdoor) functions that can take advantage of the inability (for now!) to factor large numbers and provide a secure pub key system is a bonus of monumental importance. And one that was only just recently (past 30 years or so) realized.
You can never know if a thing will be useful or not without understanding the essence of that thing; and there again "useful" is clearly a time-limited function... As one cannot perfectly predict future needs and future landscapes, one cannot perfectly determine at any one point of time whether current work in number theory will be with or without practical value. Though what's so wrong with discovery for discovery's sake! Isn't that part of the reason we are here?
Most mathematicians say they are in it for the math itself, for the delirious quest for patterns, the thrill of the detective chase and the lure of beautiful answers.
If mathematicans aren't really interested in helping understand the world
I think the deduction you make is a false one.
Depends somewhat on how you define "the world" but certainly "the world" includes numbers.
I don't need my mathematicians to be secret altruists nor public ones; it's a no-op either way. If the mathematicians are engaged fully in the task of discovering connections between primes, patterns in primes, et al., whether they do so with magnanimous thoughts in mind is really beside the point. The point is what they discover. Or absent that the point is what they lay the groundwork for that will enable future discoveries.
You are dangerously close to making the same mistake that would have precluded centuries worth of number theory discovery that has laid the groundwork for at least one prominent public-key cryptography system, today.
Remember: you can't always know what something will be useful for until you understand that something. And understanding it and its vagaries and corollaries can take a long time, indeed.
schizophrenia
Makes intuitive sense, too, with respect to how that disease operates. The idea floated in the piece was that the TMS machine supresses certain lines of thought.
Careful readers will recall a quote by John Nash regarding his approach to managing his disease without the aid of drugs, paraphrased: it's like a diet; you filter out bad thoughts or unproductive thoughts or otherwise "out-there" thoughts just as one trying to lose weight would avoid fatty foods -- would have avoided fatty foods pre-Atkins-revival... and vindication...
I only wonder *how* the effects could be sustained (in order to use the TMS for this purpose) when its effects were not said to have lasted beyond the writer's session. Also wonder what, if any, parallels there are b/n TMS & electro-shock therapy which, of course, used to really be used to treat a variety of mental illnesses and is still used occasionally as I understand.
Anyway, I don't see anything inherently *wrong* with the model -- provided
- you are someone who learns through reading or doing but at least you don't require someone to explain it to you
and secondly- the materials are high quality -- this is, of course, true for any learning endeavour: start out with subpar information and it all goes down from there
I do think it takes a lot of self motivation and discipline to do this well, though. It's also awfully easy to skate by -- theoretically, if it's not a programming course (or maybe even if it is) -- by *recognizing* the material w/o solidly *understanding* it. The difference b/n knowing it solid and having it be familiar is a vast gulf.I liked the flexilibity that it gave me -- I completed the material in no time flat which was extraordinarily convenient.
Restrictions on violent video games would be a deterrent to making them.
Right. I think this happened with drugs. NOT.
No maximum rating.
No regulations.
Let the parents handle it.
If they fail, it's on them.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving liquor and car keys to teenage boys."
You don't solve routine application problems by giving said apps monitor access in the kernel so why on earth would the populace willingly give over what amounts to overseer rights in the interest of "funding infrastructure" [where funding is the most routine problem that any and all governments face & continuously]?
Those who give up their power willingly deserve none.
SUVs are MORE evil than you think.
Jeebus. They're fucking cars. Cars have no intrinsic or inherent value: goodness | evilness.
Besides, most of the ALLEGED *evil incarnate* facets of cars you list incur expenses on *those cars' owners* who -- last I checked weren't strong-armed into buying them... unless, ofcourse, they went to FastEddie's lot but that's a whole 'nother story.
Fucking net nannies!
I used to live in southwestern CO and not for a million bucks would I have given up my 4WD vehicle -- no matter how deep the crater on the dirt road up to the *at that time* isolated hiking path, no matter how slick the roads or how poor visilibity from Aspen to Crested Butte by way of Monarch Pass--IIRC--I could always count on my vehicle. We were tight, br-ah.
- either the cuts come from somewhere else (where?)
or- you do one-time bond issues to help defray infrastructure costs say at 10 year intervals
I think this would be a pretty extraordinary use of a bond issue (they're usually used for one-time projects: the revamp of the Oakland Bay Bridge -- just being done now as post Loma-Prieta fixup (12+ years later!); or a conference center, that sorta thing) but seems it might do the trick -- it'd certainly buy the folks in gov't some time (not to mention it'd force them to project out the budget for infrastructure for the next 10 years and only spend that).There again if the bond measure (usually on a ballot) failed then the responsibility of figuring out *just where the fuck* this money is going to come from falls back onto government -- and maybe they can cut the school lunch programs (egregiously abused, or so I hear)... Or cut the GD school budgets -- more is spent on education per pupil (I think 40% more) than was spent 20 years ago -- controlling for inflation -- yet students are dumber still!!! Boggles..
Hi... can you please e-mail me...
1. According to its spokesperson, Empower America has no official position on gambling.
Presumably Bennett is not responsible for living up to the virtues espoused by colleagues, fellow directors in EA, for example, such as Kemp, right? That would strike this cat as Orwellian were you to make the argument that he is.
2. Bennett made one statement on gambling before this brouhaha near as I can tell:
Above statement explicitly indicates Bennett's support for individual choice in the matter of gambling as long as such behavior is not utilized as one's means of generating an income. As Bennett himself does not (did not) make a living gambling, he does not appear to be in a state of contradiction to said comments. And in fact since there is no EA official statement on gambling, it is presumed that Bennett is held to the standard of any previous comments he made: doing the math on that, he's no hypocrite there.
1. Bennett is strictly speaking *not* a hypocrite on this issue--he expressly never spoke out against gambling; not to mention that none of what was recently rehashed (thanks to, I believe, Josh Marshall) was *news*--it had already been out, at least since '96.
2. Was Bennett personally engaged in some self delusion by being so strictly NOT a hypocrite in the sense of never speaking out against gambling though speaking out against many other moral ills? Perhaps.
3. What I think is funniest about this is that folks are surprised (shocked!) to learn that someone is not all that person is cracked up to be--perhaps same people are a bit relieved. I frankly think anybody stupid enough to buy Miss VT's claptrap should be sued.
I'm being literal girl and I know it's bugging the shit out of you, but here's the def for hypocrite: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess
Bennett never professed any beliefs against gambling. EmpowerAmerica (especially Bill's buddy Kemp) spoke against expanding legal gambling (not against gambling itself) and said that an "addiction" to gambling was problematic--would you describe an activity that you engaged in 5 times a year something to which you were addicted? What about an activity that you intend (and likely will) quit cold turkey? Doesn't sound like an "addiction" to me. It's not like he was on the 5pm shuttle to Vegas every Saturday.
Just as you don't hate Bennett, I have no particular love for him; but I do think it's *strictly* incorrect to call him a hypocrite on this issue since he so fastidiously avoided speaking on it yet so voluminously spoke on so many others -- where his non-mention of gambling could have been construed as implicit support for moderate engagement in it.
OK, so do you think anybody should be able to post anything about anybody else?
What about what I cited earlier: the notion of posting names/addys/locations of abortion providers on anti-abortion sites?
The info is all true so it can be there, right?
Or it can't b/c posting that info carries some measure of probability that folks will be induced to act in a certain way in response to that info and the way in which folks might be induced to act (as has been historically demonstrated, though not that often) carries some change of causing harm to the person(s) whose information is being posted?
He's come out against ... gambling ...
Just looking for a citation on this please... I'll save you the googling, there isn't one.
The Internet is caveat emptor writ large.
And thus it ought remain.
My idea for a useful website: a national publicly-accessible and free database that allows the user to query on name any suit filed by any individual. As such prospective employers can ascertain prior to hiring Billy whether or not Billy has a sue-happy history.
Costs covered via advertising (esp. PI firms etc.). It'd be a boon.
He's come out against porn, gambling, abortion, homosexuals, etc.
Wrongo! But for overreaching, you'd have been in
Agreed, though it is ofcourse said that nobody went broke (or dry, as the case may be for ol' Tuck) by underestimating the intelligence of the 'murican public.
More frightening to learn is that apparently there is a Pageant magazine just waiting for any and all future JonBenets...... ugh
So how is this any different than proscribing harassment?
Can't Miss VT make the case that his comments constitute harassment? What about the arg that his comments constitute a threat to her "privacy" -- and though there is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution, the same has been manufactured most notably in the Roe v. Wade case a few of you might have heard of.
PS: these two so want to tumble back together in bed.. let 'em have each other and be done w/it!
Pretty sure that the Bush admin just filed a brief supporting the requirement that anti-abortion websites remove any references & personal information to abortion providers
beauty queens are so boring...
not to mention so beholden to anyone who mighta caught a bare-chested pic of them from ages, say, about 12 and up....
their entire currency relies upon a manufactured (most likely) image of purity or born-again purity as the case may be...
In any event, this seems fair to me... After all you can't use a corporate image w/o getting copyright permission (else you're subject to infringement)... So why should it be any different for us...
Though I do wonder what implications, if any, this has for websites like Dr. Norman Matloff's that list proponents and opponents (of L1, H-1 visa programs in this case). Even though that's negative advertising in a sense versus what Tucker is trying to do here -- which is appropriate his ex's image positively (and who can blame him! Everyone knows women score men by the women those men date) -- which I'd describe as "positive advertising."
On second though, being a strict constructionist, perhaps Max outta be able to speak his peace! er.. piece as the case may be...
Jeez... You fellas need to get out more...
She has a nice body but she's not all that attractive.
Ahh, it's the anything-with-tits crowd...
It's supposed to make him think.
Few are the men that think with their own heads and feel with their own hearts. -- Albert Einstein
- The Fountainhead
by Ayn Rand, of course, then onto- Atlas Shrugged
...There are few better favors you can do yourself before entering the working world in earnest than to have a nice philosophical framework.
Good luck!
Moving this position from being an advisory position to the president to being a position w/in the HDS is the *right* thing to do.
The HDS (Homeland Security Department) is already set up to handle infrastructure threats w.r.t. transportation so, IMO, it makes sense for them to leverage that experience -- though granted not specifically applicable -- to other potential threat sources.
It certainly makes a heap more sense for this position to be w/in an organization focused on naming then mitigating (if not eliminating!) security threats of *all stripes* than to be linked to the president -- where it's lacking a driving, focused authority to steer its actions and inform its decisions.