Let's just assume that a hack could easily get into the network and fully access the data in realtime and remotely. What advantage does this really provide? If someone wants to kidnap a child, all they have to do is wait for the right opportunity. RFID isn't going to help them. It's easy to spot rich people, especially when they travel.
When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person.
Did the people speaking to you say this to you? They're not out there to counter whatever myths other people have told you. They're there to register you to vote, and hopefully convince you to vote for their candidate. If you make it clear that you're not going to change your mind easily, they won't waste time on you. Did they prevent you from registering?
I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"
No offense, but duh. If you thought it was anything more, you were being quite naive. However, did these people actually prevent you from registering or withdraw their assistance after you mentioned you were independent?
Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.
We're going to fix this Firefox bug, and it doesn't matter if it wipes your preferences and breaks your extensions. Your loss for using beta software.
We're going to fix this IE bug and try to make sure it doesn't break existing installs.
I use Firefox, but haven't upgraded from 0.8. I got tired of having to reset my preferences and extensions with each update. I'll take the time to upgrade when it gets to 1.0.
I don't want to call you a liar, but this is absurd, beyond the pale.
So you're calling the GP a liar?;)
Anyway, I didn't go to MIT, but at Rutgers it is pretty easy to go through the CS cirriculum and not really know about pointers. C is lightly covered in only one core class, although I've heard that they reinstituted C for the OS class. My OS class was Java based. I still learned a lot, mind you, since we spent our time implementing memory managers, etc., instead of wasting time debugging C code that we didn't have a good grasp on.
Hi, welcome to reality. The Constitution is a changing document and it means whatever we (really, SCOTUS) want it to mean. What Madison or Jefferson or Hamilton or anyone else thought doesn't matter. It should be guidance for how we interpret the Constitution, but it simply cannot be a rule. You can't live in the 21st century using an 18th century framework.
I'm willing to bet it had more to do with the speaches at the RNC having to do with actual, important, and relevent issues. The DNC degenerated into a "yay, I served in Vietnam" pep rally.
This is the hallmark of someone who watched or read convention coverage but not the convention speeches themselves. Was there (too much of) an emphasis on Kerry's vietnam service? Yes. Was that all they talked about? Far from it. If the DNC was a '"yay, I served in Vietnam" pep rally', then the RNC was a "9/11 will happen again unless you vote for us" rally.
Not to mention the constant "I have a plan for the economy and Iraq but I can't tell you until after I am elected" comments.
Let me clear up some of your misconceptions. First, quotes are meant to indicate when you are using someone else's exact words. I'm fairly sure that Kerry never said that he had a plan for Iraq and the economy, but he couldn't tell us until elected. That sounds more like RNC spin on Kerry. Granted, Kerry hasn't outlined a clear Iraq plan.
And the strange "let's blame Bush for letting the assault weapon ban expire" tactic. Nevermind that it was a completely symbolic law that accomplished absolutely nothing, and never mind that Bush (as president) doesn't introduce legislation. Say, isn't introducing legislation the job of congressmen? And what is Kerry again? hmmmmm. I'm pretty sure he is a congressman but the guy never shows up for votes. Sheesh.
Yes, the President does not technically introduce legislation. However, one short phone call to Mr. DeLay, and you can bet that an Assault Weapons Ban re-up would have been introduced, and if Bush really, really wanted it, it would have been passed (Note: He didn't really want it, in case that wasn't obvious). When the President's party controls Congress, the President has the practical power to introduce legislation.
Kerry could have spent the time working on an Assault Weapons Ban re-up if he wanted to. Why didn't he? First, it would never pass. Two, he doesn't have the time to be working on legislation right now. Three, there are more important issues that the Senate should be addressing. As for missing votes, if you break through the RNC spin, you'll find that Kerry is no different from the average Senator. The frequently cited figures for missed votes only look back at the past year (when Kerry was campaigning, obviously) and included every vote in the Senate. It may sound correct to include every vote if you want to look at a voting pattern, but there are hundreds of little votes each day in the Senate. Nothing gets done without it being voted on. Furthermore, because of the way the Senate works, and because Democrats are in the minority, Kerry's vote means very little in the Senate. If he showed up to every vote, the outcomes would not have changed.
It's great that you're voting against Bush. It's not great that you've let yourself become a tool of the RNC by spreading their false memes.
Don't know how it is down there, but around here (NJ), the towns do not (or cannot, I don't know which) hire enough police. What this means is that they have to take the police officers they have and work them on 60-80 hour weeks. This of course means overtime pay, which is very costly. Police officers in some towns start around 40-50k salary, but it works out to ~55-60k with overtime. Experienced officers routinely make 100k with overtime.
It is incredibly difficult to find truly capable, hard-working people who not only understand what they are doing, but are willing to suck up and just get the damn job done...for what you're willing to pay them.
It's not always the employees that are the problem. Supply and demand works both ways.
Be good at what you do. Be very, very good. In fact, be the very best. Make sure that what you do is something that people need. Then, find people who need very good people for what you do, and let them know that 1) they need you, and 2) they can have you. And then, continue to be good at what you do. It will pay and pay big.
So what if I'm good at what I do and my employer needs me every day. That's not going to magically make a McDonald's cashier position 'pay big'.
Last time I checked, the Constitution mentioned the federal government providing a national defense, but didn't say anything about the feds taking care of education.
..."provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
It all depends on what your definition of 'general welfare' is.
2) There needs to be legislation or a constitution amendment that prevents the two major parties from passing laws that prevent new parties from starting or gaining access to the ballot. Indiana for example requires you get 3% in every election. As soon as a party falls below that as the Green's did in 2002 they are disbanded by the tyranny of the state and have to petition to get on the ballot and win 3 percent again to be recognized as a party. It is blatantly undemocratic and not something you would think could happen in this nation which is a supposed pillar of Democracy.
It's great that you've identified the problem, but you provide no solution. It's simply not practical to have little or no barriers to get on the ballot. Look what happened with the California recall ballot. Not only did we have a press that was more interested in covering the fringe candidates than the people with an actual chance of winning, but the ballot was huge! IIRC, it was 8 pages (I don't live in CA and did not vote in the recall).
Simply put, there has to be some balance between 2 parties and 2,000 parties. If a party truly has support, they shouldn't have a problem collecting a certain amount of legal and verifiable signatures. What that number should be is up to debate. (Yes there is a privacy issue there. Anyone with a better idea is free to post).
Yawners. Spare me the paranoia. If they started using EZPass for enforcement, there would be a revolt. In NJ, they specifically said it would never be used for enforcement, for one. Furthermore, a large portion of the populace speeds on the highway, so it would be a hugely unpopular move politically. Finally, there's a logical hole in your argument. You can't speed in congestion. Citing congestion as a justification to use EZPass for speed enforcement is silly. It's just not gonna happen.
Went to Montreal back in June using I 90. No US checkpoint on leaving the country. Canadian officials stop and ask for ID and a few questions. On the way back, US officials stop you, ask a few questions and ask for ID, and then about 30 miles down the road, there is a 2nd inspection. They did not ask any questions or request ID at the 2nd checkpoint.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
A lot of peoples'. While Federal taxes may have gone down, the States responded to lower Federal funding by jacking up sales taxes, property taxes, luxury/vice taxes, and other government fees. For most families, these increases far outweighed the couple hundred bucks they got from Bush.
IIRC the T2 dvd was originally pressed as one DVD-18, but that was later changed to 2 DVD-9s because some players couldn't handle the DVD-18 (I'm not exactly sure why they couldn't since it's spec..)
The point is that a landlord is within their rights to forbid certain physical artefacts from being taken on their property, whether it's a helicopter, a piece of networking equipment or a motor vehicle with writing on the side.
And the question is, should that be within their rights?
but I recognise that a university is within its rights to not allow certain things to be kept on campus.
As do I, to a point. 'Certain things' should not mean 'any thing'. Owning property does not make you god on that property if you are going to have other people paying to live there. The law is clear on this.
As others have undoubtedly already said (because they type faster than I) - if they're living in University-owned apartments or dormitories, then the University can do what it wants.
Since when did owning a piece of property make you God over anyone on that property? It simply isn't the case. Try being a landlord for a while and you'll quickly find that you can't just do what you want. For instance, in areas with rent control, the landlord does not have the right to arbitrarily increase rent in between terms.
The college has a perfect right to restrict the use of those devices on their property.
So maybe they do. Does that mean they are right to restrict those devices? This issue isn't as black and white as you and the other bots make it out to be. The true question is not whether the university has the right to ban such devices, but whether a landlord should have the right to ban such devices. Contrary to what is being said here, a landlord does not have absolute control over their property. There are many laws restricting what landlords can do. For instance, my landlord cannot raise the rent by more than a fixed percentage each term.
There's no problem here, other than a whiny Slashdot editor.
Wrong! The problem here is the slashbot thinking of "It's the rule, shutup and follow it." Do you realize that if your mentality was widespread 250 years ago, this country wouldn't exist?
Just because something is a rule doesn't make it right. What ever happened to standing up and saying "This is wrong!" Does the university have the legal right to do this? Probably. Does that mean they should do it? No.
no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot.
You mean there's a public safety aspect to installing APs? Like my AP could crash and take out a building? Or an AP requires a large amount of open space to operate safely? Or... do you see how the comparison is stupid yet?
Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different
Umm, it's a lot different. Oil is a hazardous substance. Oil is a probable carcinogen. An oil spill on your property could impact your ability to sell the property in the future, or worse, open you up to fines and cleanup costs. Environmental law is based around the owner of the property. They are ultimately responsible for what goes on at the site.
Does a wireless AP introduce any of these problems? Saying you can't use a wireless AP is like saying you can't use a cordless phone. It's fucking stupid and wrong. A university should know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's just assume that a hack could easily get into the network and fully access the data in realtime and remotely. What advantage does this really provide? If someone wants to kidnap a child, all they have to do is wait for the right opportunity. RFID isn't going to help them. It's easy to spot rich people, especially when they travel.
When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person.
Did the people speaking to you say this to you? They're not out there to counter whatever myths other people have told you. They're there to register you to vote, and hopefully convince you to vote for their candidate. If you make it clear that you're not going to change your mind easily, they won't waste time on you. Did they prevent you from registering?
I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"
No offense, but duh. If you thought it was anything more, you were being quite naive. However, did these people actually prevent you from registering or withdraw their assistance after you mentioned you were independent?
Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.
The irony of that speaks for itself.
And here's the additional difference:
We're going to fix this Firefox bug, and it doesn't matter if it wipes your preferences and breaks your extensions. Your loss for using beta software.
We're going to fix this IE bug and try to make sure it doesn't break existing installs.
I use Firefox, but haven't upgraded from 0.8. I got tired of having to reset my preferences and extensions with each update. I'll take the time to upgrade when it gets to 1.0.
I don't want to call you a liar, but this is absurd, beyond the pale.
;)
So you're calling the GP a liar?
Anyway, I didn't go to MIT, but at Rutgers it is pretty easy to go through the CS cirriculum and not really know about pointers. C is lightly covered in only one core class, although I've heard that they reinstituted C for the OS class. My OS class was Java based. I still learned a lot, mind you, since we spent our time implementing memory managers, etc., instead of wasting time debugging C code that we didn't have a good grasp on.
Hi, welcome to reality. The Constitution is a changing document and it means whatever we (really, SCOTUS) want it to mean. What Madison or Jefferson or Hamilton or anyone else thought doesn't matter. It should be guidance for how we interpret the Constitution, but it simply cannot be a rule. You can't live in the 21st century using an 18th century framework.
I'm willing to bet it had more to do with the speaches at the RNC having to do with actual, important, and relevent issues. The DNC degenerated into a "yay, I served in Vietnam" pep rally.
This is the hallmark of someone who watched or read convention coverage but not the convention speeches themselves. Was there (too much of) an emphasis on Kerry's vietnam service? Yes. Was that all they talked about? Far from it. If the DNC was a '"yay, I served in Vietnam" pep rally', then the RNC was a "9/11 will happen again unless you vote for us" rally.
Not to mention the constant "I have a plan for the economy and Iraq but I can't tell you until after I am elected" comments.
Let me clear up some of your misconceptions. First, quotes are meant to indicate when you are using someone else's exact words. I'm fairly sure that Kerry never said that he had a plan for Iraq and the economy, but he couldn't tell us until elected. That sounds more like RNC spin on Kerry. Granted, Kerry hasn't outlined a clear Iraq plan.
And the strange "let's blame Bush for letting the assault weapon ban expire" tactic. Nevermind that it was a completely symbolic law that accomplished absolutely nothing, and never mind that Bush (as president) doesn't introduce legislation. Say, isn't introducing legislation the job of congressmen? And what is Kerry again? hmmmmm. I'm pretty sure he is a congressman but the guy never shows up for votes. Sheesh.
Yes, the President does not technically introduce legislation. However, one short phone call to Mr. DeLay, and you can bet that an Assault Weapons Ban re-up would have been introduced, and if Bush really, really wanted it, it would have been passed (Note: He didn't really want it, in case that wasn't obvious). When the President's party controls Congress, the President has the practical power to introduce legislation.
Kerry could have spent the time working on an Assault Weapons Ban re-up if he wanted to. Why didn't he? First, it would never pass. Two, he doesn't have the time to be working on legislation right now. Three, there are more important issues that the Senate should be addressing. As for missing votes, if you break through the RNC spin, you'll find that Kerry is no different from the average Senator. The frequently cited figures for missed votes only look back at the past year (when Kerry was campaigning, obviously) and included every vote in the Senate. It may sound correct to include every vote if you want to look at a voting pattern, but there are hundreds of little votes each day in the Senate. Nothing gets done without it being voted on. Furthermore, because of the way the Senate works, and because Democrats are in the minority, Kerry's vote means very little in the Senate. If he showed up to every vote, the outcomes would not have changed.
It's great that you're voting against Bush. It's not great that you've let yourself become a tool of the RNC by spreading their false memes.
Re: Police
Don't know how it is down there, but around here (NJ), the towns do not (or cannot, I don't know which) hire enough police. What this means is that they have to take the police officers they have and work them on 60-80 hour weeks. This of course means overtime pay, which is very costly. Police officers in some towns start around 40-50k salary, but it works out to ~55-60k with overtime. Experienced officers routinely make 100k with overtime.
It is incredibly difficult to find truly capable, hard-working people who not only understand what they are doing, but are willing to suck up and just get the damn job done. ..for what you're willing to pay them.
It's not always the employees that are the problem. Supply and demand works both ways.
Be good at what you do. Be very, very good. In fact, be the very best. Make sure that what you do is something that people need. Then, find people who need very good people for what you do, and let them know that 1) they need you, and 2) they can have you. And then, continue to be good at what you do. It will pay and pay big.
So what if I'm good at what I do and my employer needs me every day. That's not going to magically make a McDonald's cashier position 'pay big'.
It all depends on what your definition of 'general welfare' is.
2) There needs to be legislation or a constitution amendment that prevents the two major parties from passing laws that prevent new parties from starting or gaining access to the ballot. Indiana for example requires you get 3% in every election. As soon as a party falls below that as the Green's did in 2002 they are disbanded by the tyranny of the state and have to petition to get on the ballot and win 3 percent again to be recognized as a party. It is blatantly undemocratic and not something you would think could happen in this nation which is a supposed pillar of Democracy.
It's great that you've identified the problem, but you provide no solution. It's simply not practical to have little or no barriers to get on the ballot. Look what happened with the California recall ballot. Not only did we have a press that was more interested in covering the fringe candidates than the people with an actual chance of winning, but the ballot was huge! IIRC, it was 8 pages (I don't live in CA and did not vote in the recall).
Simply put, there has to be some balance between 2 parties and 2,000 parties. If a party truly has support, they shouldn't have a problem collecting a certain amount of legal and verifiable signatures. What that number should be is up to debate. (Yes there is a privacy issue there. Anyone with a better idea is free to post).
Yawners. Spare me the paranoia. If they started using EZPass for enforcement, there would be a revolt. In NJ, they specifically said it would never be used for enforcement, for one. Furthermore, a large portion of the populace speeds on the highway, so it would be a hugely unpopular move politically. Finally, there's a logical hole in your argument. You can't speed in congestion. Citing congestion as a justification to use EZPass for speed enforcement is silly. It's just not gonna happen.
some insane notion that someone doesn't have the right to run for President if they're not a Democrat or a Republican
Please provide a link or other cite to anyone who has espoused this idea.
We go through this everytime we talk about bugs in programs. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean the bug doesn't exist.
Mods: It's not informative to say "I've never seen that bug!"
Yes I've been getting popups from Slashdot.. at first I thought I got some spyware somehow.. IE 6 (work)
Went to Montreal back in June using I 90. No US checkpoint on leaving the country. Canadian officials stop and ask for ID and a few questions. On the way back, US officials stop you, ask a few questions and ask for ID, and then about 30 miles down the road, there is a 2nd inspection. They did not ask any questions or request ID at the 2nd checkpoint.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
A lot of peoples'. While Federal taxes may have gone down, the States responded to lower Federal funding by jacking up sales taxes, property taxes, luxury/vice taxes, and other government fees. For most families, these increases far outweighed the couple hundred bucks they got from Bush.
EZpass where they track where you are and send you tickets for speeding based on your average speed between booths
What state do they do this in? I've never heard of it happening and have been using EZ-Pass (and speeding) since it debuted in the NYC/NJ area.
Ralph Nader is not a Green, nor is he the Green Party candidate.
IIRC the T2 dvd was originally pressed as one DVD-18, but that was later changed to 2 DVD-9s because some players couldn't handle the DVD-18 (I'm not exactly sure why they couldn't since it's spec..)
The point is that a landlord is within their rights to forbid certain physical artefacts from being taken on their property, whether it's a helicopter, a piece of networking equipment or a motor vehicle with writing on the side.
And the question is, should that be within their rights?
but I recognise that a university is within its rights to not allow certain things to be kept on campus.
As do I, to a point. 'Certain things' should not mean 'any thing'. Owning property does not make you god on that property if you are going to have other people paying to live there. The law is clear on this.
As others have undoubtedly already said (because they type faster than I) - if they're living in University-owned apartments or dormitories, then the University can do what it wants.
Since when did owning a piece of property make you God over anyone on that property? It simply isn't the case. Try being a landlord for a while and you'll quickly find that you can't just do what you want. For instance, in areas with rent control, the landlord does not have the right to arbitrarily increase rent in between terms.
The college has a perfect right to restrict the use of those devices on their property.
So maybe they do. Does that mean they are right to restrict those devices? This issue isn't as black and white as you and the other bots make it out to be. The true question is not whether the university has the right to ban such devices, but whether a landlord should have the right to ban such devices. Contrary to what is being said here, a landlord does not have absolute control over their property. There are many laws restricting what landlords can do. For instance, my landlord cannot raise the rent by more than a fixed percentage each term.
It's not being "sheep" - it's realizing that they have the right to make those rules... so your choices are probably - accept or leave.
Just because they can, does it make it right? Just because they can, does it mean you have to simply accept it or leave?
It's not wrong or illegal to question authority.
There's no problem here, other than a whiny Slashdot editor.
Wrong! The problem here is the slashbot thinking of "It's the rule, shutup and follow it." Do you realize that if your mentality was widespread 250 years ago, this country wouldn't exist?
Just because something is a rule doesn't make it right. What ever happened to standing up and saying "This is wrong!" Does the university have the legal right to do this? Probably. Does that mean they should do it? No.
no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot.
You mean there's a public safety aspect to installing APs? Like my AP could crash and take out a building? Or an AP requires a large amount of open space to operate safely? Or... do you see how the comparison is stupid yet?
Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different
Umm, it's a lot different. Oil is a hazardous substance. Oil is a probable carcinogen. An oil spill on your property could impact your ability to sell the property in the future, or worse, open you up to fines and cleanup costs. Environmental law is based around the owner of the property. They are ultimately responsible for what goes on at the site.
Does a wireless AP introduce any of these problems? Saying you can't use a wireless AP is like saying you can't use a cordless phone. It's fucking stupid and wrong. A university should know better.