"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This letter is to inform you that the quote you have used has been ruled out of the historical record of our founding fathers. Continued usage of this quotation is subject to all applicable laws on Libel and fierce religious debates about the meaning of our country. Your immediate renounciation of the quotation is demanded under Bush Administration Statute Terror:5A and provisions for useage are provided under the USA PATRIOT ACT Section 2703. Your compliance is appreciated.
I often find myself in the same position and I have found that writing stuff on paper can often get things started and, though at a much slower writing pace, sometimes done more quickly if I am being easily distracted.
Another thing to do is, if you're using OSX, get the utility dockswitch and create a dock that only has microsoft word (not AIM, not your web browser, nothing else). Hope this helps.
The best bang for time and buck in the US is doing the Boston/New York/Philadelphia/Washington DC trip. Stay a few days in each city, take a tour, and go visit all the museums and attractions that you are interested in. I think the really big question is how much you plan to spend -- one decent option is to buy an Amtrak month US and Canada pass and train around to where you want to go. Flying cross-country can be a fairly big expenditure in a trip like the one you seem to be planning.
I was trying to go through this service to write to the president about the separation of church and state. It would have been a disagree, but the issue doesn't exist under this service. Does this mean that the administration has the right to just define a problem out of existance (or a bill of rights clause as the case may be). If the issue doesn't officially exist, I guess I can't complain though -- it's nice to know that the faith-based initiative that bush passed this morning was the only opinion possible on the subject.
I've got to agree with this -- I consider myself a borderline radical and stil want nothing to do with Chomsky. He's a psychologist for god sakes -- he's not a political scientist, is completely off the deep end by way of ideology, and really is not much farther from his expertise than he could possibly be.
As a supporter of the ACLU club which pushed the City of Claremont, CA to pass a bill that prevents the use of the Patriot Act clauses within the bounds of claremont (though not speaking in my capacity as a member of that group), my research found that local government is given the power to restrict the use of law enforcement as it sees fit.
National government cannot force local governments to act in accordance with any new policy like this, what national governement has done is to declare certain, formerly off-limits investigative measures to now be appropriate in certain cases.
By recreating the laws that the Patriot act is designed to circumvent at a local level, these efforts do put a true legal block on the searches. Though federal authorities may ignore the local statute, any objective court should be able to decide that the federal action is out of bounds and dismiss the case.
It's important to note that the right to rebut does not imply that someone will rebut. People generally only use rights of rebuttal when they feel wrongly or inappropriately portrayed by the media source / person they are responding to. I would actually argue that the European system is much better than ours because it discourages unjustified and wrongful criticism by allowing people to respond in the first place.
If Fox News, for instance, criticized you continuously, an American citizen would have to go to court and prove that the criticism is totally and completely unjustified. After that, another media source will need to report on the issue for anyone to know the truth.
A right to rebut means that that same media source must acknowledge my version of events as well even if they don't agree with it. This gives individuals more power and helps diversify the media messages. It also means that the news source knows that I can respond and will be less likely to attack me without justification.
Though my argument is more focused on the already existant media sources, Blogs probaby could be helped by a right of reply. I have been criticized on a journal for something it turns out that I didn't do. The ability to post a comment allowed me to explain that and prevent a large number of flamers about the posting, made in my name but not of my origin. If someone wants to respond, they always can. I might be crazy, but think this is actually a positive thing.
It's not that people hate the fact that we are better, it is that people in many nations of the world feel that they are not being given a chance to succeed. In the US, economic, political and social structures are oriented in such a way as to allow some level of success for those who work hard. In other countries this is not the case. Sure, we exacerbated things by arming the Taliban, but the Taliban did not just decide "oh well, the russians aren't fighting us, lets support enemies of another state." The discrepancy in the middle east is a political and social structure that does not allow for dissent. When forces like the market come to dominate many of these states, the market leaders, in this case the US, can often be portrayed as enemies. The more chances people in these countries have to join the global marketplace, instead of merely seeing others around the world get comparitively better-off, the less likely it becomes an individual arab, or anyone else for that matter, to decided that their life is a fair price to pay.
I'm not justifying the terrorism by any means, but we can only really combat terrorism by dealing with the underlying root of the problem of why ordianary people become terrorists.
The biggest problem in many of the countries that the United States is currently sanctioning is that (relative) poverty has driven people to hate the United States. Terrorism is a funtion of that very hatred of our economic superiority. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to address the economic discrepancies between our nation and theirs and help to allow countries and people that have gotten left behind to join the global community. By preventing US companies from hiring these people, job sites can exacerbate that discrepancy and become part of the problem instead of a possible solution.
Microsoft should name its next operating system "Enduring Freedom" and give it even fewer working features so that they can follow the governments example of restricting freedoms recklessly claiming it will prevent terrorism.
They could even make us fill in the words "under god" into the pledge of allegiance during login to prove that we are not terrorists ourselves or terrorist sympathizers.
Wow -- I remember the day my mother, a Professor, was pointed to Mosaic in 1993. I was looking at it with her, and predicted that the Web was doomed to failure because there was NOTHING there and no way to catalog anything. I told her it would die out to gopher b/c that was a so much better service at the time.
When you download Kazaa, you authorize the corporation to utilize any unused processor or disk space -- this doesn't seem that much more dangerous than all those Kazaa users out there. As a non-Kazaa subscriber, I think I will also skip on grub -- I paid for my computing space and power thank you, and I don't plan on just giving it away to all of these corporations looking to further themselves.
Almost no technology ever created has been purely beneficient (and those which we believe are often end up biting us later). For most of the technology we use, analysis finds that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of use (at least from the perspective of the user).
Huge developments are underway using much of the technology that we often fear. I worked for a while in a neural stem cell laboratory and learned firsthand the wonders that science can accomplish with "morally corruptive" materials. I still believe in stem cell research because I believe the benefit of saving millions of lives outweighs the value of the life-possibility of an aborted embryo.
When it comes to genetic engineering, again balances must be made. For your knife example, we can use a knife to eat or to commit genocide (see Rwanda), but as a society, we trust people to use knives responsibly. That kind of trust is key. Genetic engineering can be placed in the wrong hands and can cause diseases with the possibility of wiping out humanity.
Just like our posession of Nukes is OK and Iraq's remote possibility of getting them is suspect, we need to be sure that we can trust the motives of the geneticists and that things are carried out safely. Are genetic labs too dangerous to exist in society, definitely not! -- but they deserve our attention and we do have to be careful that we can trust the research going on not to produce some virulent challenge to humanity.
Having worked for 2 online education companies, including the former Electric Schoolhouse (which made it to the level of congressional discussions before it went the way of many of our former employers), I can promise you that more than ample quantities of interesting and educational sites do exist for children as young as 3 and 4 years of age. If you are looking to find these sites I suggest checking out museum home pages and links. One of Electric Schoolhouse's biggest accomplishments was the creation of a rating and search system for appropriate education- and fun-oriented kids sites. As you can probably see by visiting Electric Schoolhouse though, the resource collection no longer exists. Putting together such a service turned out not to be such a profitable venture in 1998 and 1999 when it was assembled. The entrepreneur and the money were both present, but without demand and use, the service could not sustain itself. From my understanding, the failure of eschoolhouse was the definitive end of attempts to create resource sets of this type. Marvin Weinberger, the man who dreamed electric schoolhouse, has moved on to other ventures like Electric Library (which owns dictionary.com I believe?) and Innovation Factory. I wish I could tell you that this idea just came before its time, and that, if someone created eschoolhouse today, we would see a wonderful success. The world of the internet has taught me that even today there is no market for the internet service which I would claim is the most needed of any.
Re:May as well be the first to say it
on
AOL Sues Spammers
·
· Score: 1
Just to point it out though, when you recieve junk mail, at least the corporations sending it to you are spending money for it. It costs them something (and you can just drop it in another mailbox and have it sent back to them too). Junk e-mail only costs the reciever and ISP. This means that there is really no significant disincentive towards spamming where real mail at least requires a cost-benefit analysis.
since were debating irrelevancies, who would win in a battle between Kirby and the KoolAid man? (this was the subject of a discussion between me and some friends a long time ago and I would like to open it up to/.). Remember, Kirby has ultimate sucking in and flying powers, but the KoolAid man can bust through brick walls without effort.
Slashdot Mirror
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This letter is to inform you that the quote you have used has been ruled out of the historical record of our founding fathers. Continued usage of this quotation is subject to all applicable laws on Libel and fierce religious debates about the meaning of our country. Your immediate renounciation of the quotation is demanded under Bush Administration Statute Terror:5A and provisions for useage are provided under the USA PATRIOT ACT Section 2703. Your compliance is appreciated.
I often find myself in the same position and I have found that writing stuff on paper can often get things started and, though at a much slower writing pace, sometimes done more quickly if I am being easily distracted.
Another thing to do is, if you're using OSX, get the utility dockswitch and create a dock that only has microsoft word (not AIM, not your web browser, nothing else). Hope this helps.
The best bang for time and buck in the US is doing the Boston/New York/Philadelphia/Washington DC trip. Stay a few days in each city, take a tour, and go visit all the museums and attractions that you are interested in. I think the really big question is how much you plan to spend -- one decent option is to buy an Amtrak month US and Canada pass and train around to where you want to go. Flying cross-country can be a fairly big expenditure in a trip like the one you seem to be planning.
I was trying to go through this service to write to the president about the separation of church and state. It would have been a disagree, but the issue doesn't exist under this service. Does this mean that the administration has the right to just define a problem out of existance (or a bill of rights clause as the case may be). If the issue doesn't officially exist, I guess I can't complain though -- it's nice to know that the faith-based initiative that bush passed this morning was the only opinion possible on the subject.
I've got to agree with this -- I consider myself a borderline radical and stil want nothing to do with Chomsky. He's a psychologist for god sakes -- he's not a political scientist, is completely off the deep end by way of ideology, and really is not much farther from his expertise than he could possibly be.
As a supporter of the ACLU club which pushed the City of Claremont, CA to pass a bill that prevents the use of the Patriot Act clauses within the bounds of claremont (though not speaking in my capacity as a member of that group), my research found that local government is given the power to restrict the use of law enforcement as it sees fit.
National government cannot force local governments to act in accordance with any new policy like this, what national governement has done is to declare certain, formerly off-limits investigative measures to now be appropriate in certain cases.
By recreating the laws that the Patriot act is designed to circumvent at a local level, these efforts do put a true legal block on the searches. Though federal authorities may ignore the local statute, any objective court should be able to decide that the federal action is out of bounds and dismiss the case.
It's important to note that the right to rebut does not imply that someone will rebut. People generally only use rights of rebuttal when they feel wrongly or inappropriately portrayed by the media source / person they are responding to. I would actually argue that the European system is much better than ours because it discourages unjustified and wrongful criticism by allowing people to respond in the first place. If Fox News, for instance, criticized you continuously, an American citizen would have to go to court and prove that the criticism is totally and completely unjustified. After that, another media source will need to report on the issue for anyone to know the truth. A right to rebut means that that same media source must acknowledge my version of events as well even if they don't agree with it. This gives individuals more power and helps diversify the media messages. It also means that the news source knows that I can respond and will be less likely to attack me without justification. Though my argument is more focused on the already existant media sources, Blogs probaby could be helped by a right of reply. I have been criticized on a journal for something it turns out that I didn't do. The ability to post a comment allowed me to explain that and prevent a large number of flamers about the posting, made in my name but not of my origin. If someone wants to respond, they always can. I might be crazy, but think this is actually a positive thing.
It's not that people hate the fact that we are better, it is that people in many nations of the world feel that they are not being given a chance to succeed. In the US, economic, political and social structures are oriented in such a way as to allow some level of success for those who work hard. In other countries this is not the case. Sure, we exacerbated things by arming the Taliban, but the Taliban did not just decide "oh well, the russians aren't fighting us, lets support enemies of another state." The discrepancy in the middle east is a political and social structure that does not allow for dissent. When forces like the market come to dominate many of these states, the market leaders, in this case the US, can often be portrayed as enemies. The more chances people in these countries have to join the global marketplace, instead of merely seeing others around the world get comparitively better-off, the less likely it becomes an individual arab, or anyone else for that matter, to decided that their life is a fair price to pay.
I'm not justifying the terrorism by any means, but we can only really combat terrorism by dealing with the underlying root of the problem of why ordianary people become terrorists.
The biggest problem in many of the countries that the United States is currently sanctioning is that (relative) poverty has driven people to hate the United States. Terrorism is a funtion of that very hatred of our economic superiority. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to address the economic discrepancies between our nation and theirs and help to allow countries and people that have gotten left behind to join the global community. By preventing US companies from hiring these people, job sites can exacerbate that discrepancy and become part of the problem instead of a possible solution.
Microsoft should name its next operating system "Enduring Freedom" and give it even fewer working features so that they can follow the governments example of restricting freedoms recklessly claiming it will prevent terrorism.
They could even make us fill in the words "under god" into the pledge of allegiance during login to prove that we are not terrorists ourselves or terrorist sympathizers.
That Will Stop Them!!!
Wow -- I remember the day my mother, a Professor, was pointed to Mosaic in 1993. I was looking at it with her, and predicted that the Web was doomed to failure because there was NOTHING there and no way to catalog anything. I told her it would die out to gopher b/c that was a so much better service at the time.
Boy has history proven me wrong!
When you download Kazaa, you authorize the corporation to utilize any unused processor or disk space -- this doesn't seem that much more dangerous than all those Kazaa users out there. As a non-Kazaa subscriber, I think I will also skip on grub -- I paid for my computing space and power thank you, and I don't plan on just giving it away to all of these corporations looking to further themselves.
Almost no technology ever created has been purely beneficient (and those which we believe are often end up biting us later). For most of the technology we use, analysis finds that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of use (at least from the perspective of the user). Huge developments are underway using much of the technology that we often fear. I worked for a while in a neural stem cell laboratory and learned firsthand the wonders that science can accomplish with "morally corruptive" materials. I still believe in stem cell research because I believe the benefit of saving millions of lives outweighs the value of the life-possibility of an aborted embryo. When it comes to genetic engineering, again balances must be made. For your knife example, we can use a knife to eat or to commit genocide (see Rwanda), but as a society, we trust people to use knives responsibly. That kind of trust is key. Genetic engineering can be placed in the wrong hands and can cause diseases with the possibility of wiping out humanity. Just like our posession of Nukes is OK and Iraq's remote possibility of getting them is suspect, we need to be sure that we can trust the motives of the geneticists and that things are carried out safely. Are genetic labs too dangerous to exist in society, definitely not! -- but they deserve our attention and we do have to be careful that we can trust the research going on not to produce some virulent challenge to humanity.
Having worked for 2 online education companies, including the former Electric Schoolhouse (which made it to the level of congressional discussions before it went the way of many of our former employers), I can promise you that more than ample quantities of interesting and educational sites do exist for children as young as 3 and 4 years of age. If you are looking to find these sites I suggest checking out museum home pages and links. One of Electric Schoolhouse's biggest accomplishments was the creation of a rating and search system for appropriate education- and fun-oriented kids sites. As you can probably see by visiting Electric Schoolhouse though, the resource collection no longer exists. Putting together such a service turned out not to be such a profitable venture in 1998 and 1999 when it was assembled. The entrepreneur and the money were both present, but without demand and use, the service could not sustain itself. From my understanding, the failure of eschoolhouse was the definitive end of attempts to create resource sets of this type. Marvin Weinberger, the man who dreamed electric schoolhouse, has moved on to other ventures like Electric Library (which owns dictionary.com I believe?) and Innovation Factory. I wish I could tell you that this idea just came before its time, and that, if someone created eschoolhouse today, we would see a wonderful success. The world of the internet has taught me that even today there is no market for the internet service which I would claim is the most needed of any.
Just to point it out though, when you recieve junk mail, at least the corporations sending it to you are spending money for it. It costs them something (and you can just drop it in another mailbox and have it sent back to them too). Junk e-mail only costs the reciever and ISP. This means that there is really no significant disincentive towards spamming where real mail at least requires a cost-benefit analysis.
since were debating irrelevancies, who would win in a battle between Kirby and the KoolAid man? (this was the subject of a discussion between me and some friends a long time ago and I would like to open it up to /.). Remember, Kirby has ultimate sucking in and flying powers, but the KoolAid man can bust through brick walls without effort.