It's like "assault weapons," or "narcotics." It's a political hobby-horse that politicians trot out to sway people to vote for their particular brand of theft and coercion.
The US is both. To call it simply "a democracy" or "a republic" completely misses the point that those are general categories which are sometimes almost entirely exclusive of what the US actually is in form and function.
Instead of protecting academic freedom, tenure more often than not stifles it (for college professors, since only those who toe the line get tenure) or is completely irrelevant in a system where academic freedom does not exist (pre-college schools) in the modern age.
That said, politically-motivated firings should be dealt with harshly, regardless of the political affiliations targeted. I'd be satisfied with complete loss of pension, benefits, and privilege of public employment for provable cases, myself. If it's not directly related to teaching performance, it's likely not a fire-able offense, no matter how much you dislike their politics or views. Have a problem with that? Go pay to put your kid through private school.
I played MtG from Legends until Weatherlight, and I haven't the slightest clue wtf TaoPhoenix is on about. Maybe the later editions vacuum out players' prefrontal cortex. -shrug-
The extra overhead to deal with multiple coverage policies based on the actuarial cut-off of 25 or the additional cost for one-size-fits-all policies for everyone is the reason those under 25 can't rent cars in the US. Not because they're not adults, but because it's a completely undeniable fact that, on average, they have poorer judgment and are less trustworthy with expensive machinery and the lives of others than those who are over the age of 25. Yes, the cut-off is arbitrary, but if you make a distinction you have to make it somewhere. It takes too much time, effort, and expense to determine on a case-by-case basis who is a moron and who is not.
US Presidents on both sides of the aisle turn their back on world leaders when they become inconvenient. Throwing people under the bus is necessary in US politics, especially it the highest levels. Hypocrisy and politics go hand-in-hand. It's made necessary because one typically needs to be ruthless to win in the partisan environment maintained in the US by people just like you. People who have a soul usually don't do well in end-game politics, at least not for long.
Fair enough. Pay and compensation are too frequently conflated when they are not necessarily the same thing, so it's good to have an explicit statement of what was meant.
It is context-specific, because it can denote any of 4 separate phrases. Only two of those phrases specifically refer to people. It usually means other people, but is perfectly acceptable in other lists.
The error message screenshot posted in the article was of an attempt to make a direct IP connection on a highly-numbered non-standard port.
The network is officially designed to be whitelist-only, which means any site not requested for approval will not be approved. There are a few simple things they could have done to prove that's not the case, but the only things they did were those that, on a reasonably secured network, would be guaranteed to be blocked almost without exception.
There may be an issue here, but this organization didn't make any common-sense efforts to actually prove it. They just muddied the waters and provided a lot of doubt as to the veracity of their claim of censorship.
Paycheck isn't everything. If it is, why are you working where you are? If it's not, is there a point to this other than the simple fact that the dollar value of your paycheck, compared to someone in the private sector, is less, without taking into account the value of the other job benefits that have kept you from looking for private sector employment?
It has always seemed suspect to me that, even with lower absolute value on paycheck alone, there isn't an exodus from government jobs when there are private sector openings (it's obvious any job is better than none when there aren't private sector openings) and yet there is such a big deal made about the comparison of paycheck dollars. Any attempt to compare anything other than paycheck dollars is typically met with enormous resistance. If the public sector is so bad, why do so many people take jobs there and then complain about the pay? Especially given that the education level is, on average, higher in the public sector. With that much education and experience, can one assume they could relatively easily get a comparable private sector job? In bad economic times, any job is good, and few can legitimize increased spending (public or private). In good economic times, that education and experience should get a person their pick of positions. So what gives? Why do you, with more education and experience, choose the job you are at, even at lower pay? Do you think you got a good deal or a raw deal? Are there things you expected that didn't turn out to be as good, and do you still think your choice is worth what you receive in comparison to comparable private sector work? Is your statement meant to imply more than it says, or is it intended to convey exactly what it says: You make less in direct pay but make up for it (in your opinion) in benefits not available to your roommate.
Though I suppose in the nation which could manufacture a scientific "controversy" about the risks of smoking or pollution, even symbolic mathematical proofs would be met with armchair-expert skepticism. Sigh.
That, unfortunately, is always going to be a problem. Many have tried, and all have failed. The only ways to realistically combat the problem are highly discriminatory and exceedingly un-democratic (at least those that have been used or proposed to date).
Abuses are legion under both open and secret balloting regimes.
Personally, I'd like a hybrid, semi-secret ballot system. You have a ballot confirmation number, which you can choose to record secretly or not. If subject to intimidation, simply look through random confirmation numbers to find a ballot that fits how you should have voted (according to the intimidator), and show them that if necessary. As long as there is a reasonably well-protected paper trail (there's the flaw), most voters would have no trouble checking up on their votes in large numbers.
This is the US. People would then piss and moan that they had to give up time off, or that it was unfair to service workers who vote predominantly Democratic (whether that's true or not is not relevant to my point), or some such nonsense. It does not matter when the vote is held, people will still complain. If there is not a sufficient conflict, one will be fabricated.
I think using an electronic hand-held device while driving is screwed up in most cases, but that said, yes, it does matter where the data was heading. Smart phones transmit data frequently during times the user is not actively interacting with the phone. If the case revolves around timing and who was doing what, it may end up being easy to tell what the timeline was. On the other hand, it may turn out to be incredibly hard to determine what the exact timeline was.
So, not only does your logic not necessarily follow, you have an ad hominem thrown in that's based on faulty logic. A winnar is you.
Well, we have laws impairing the obligation of contracts and those that result in the forfeiture of estate through conviction, so it's only a matter of time before the rest of the section is ignored as well.
There are powerful interests behind many different taxes. Some are populist, some are protectionist, some are for other reasons. It's not always (or even usually) the most efficient system that wins out. There are a lot of outside influences that don't necessarily care how a system works; they want it to work to their own ends.
Rent a mailbox in Oregon (or other favorable state), charter a corporation, get a phone + plan in the corporation's name. As long as you're routinely on the home network (not siphoning their profits to competitors via roaming agreements), they won't care. Bundle other location-dependent services like vehicle registration and insurance. Contract with a local registered agent as the corporation's location. With care, it'll cost a lot less in taxes. It's beneficial if you want change, no matter which change you want, since it creates more burden on the tax system by removing support from it. With enough people removing themselves from high-tax jurisdictions, the low-tax jurisdictions will be forced to change or the high-tax ones will break under the strain. Either is a win, depending on what team you root for.
They should have been using Denon's patented technology that determines if the magnet is being used to further criminal charges against the hard drive's owners. When such a device detects a magnetic field to sort it from the trash it is hiding in, the patented directional arrows cause the electrons in a field otherwise too weak to wipe the platter to cluster close together and wipe the drive clean of incriminating data.
Have it installed on your drives now for the bargain price of $499,000,000 per unit.
Yes, lots of people ignore obvious warning signs. That doesn't change the fact that the act of marriage frequently flips the "psycho" switch into the "on" position for many people, no matter how long you've known the sane alterego beforehand.
Nobody's saying to live perfectly (at least nobody worth listening to). Having the common sense to maintain discretion regarding stupid things you've done is an evolutionary survival skill though. Those who don't have it will suffer, regardless of who thinks they do or do not deserve it.
It is social Darwinism at work, and like most natural laws is immune to anyone's concept of "morality." It is not good or bad, it simply is.
People who wish to be indiscreet will live with the consequences of that indiscretion should it be available for the finding and someone comes looking, for whatever reason. There are consequences for actions, even if those consequences are not "deserved." You walk into a cannibal tribe's village, you may well end up being eaten, even if you didn't "deserve" it. There are lots of examples of bad things happening to people who had a moment of stupidity. "Deserved?" No. Foreseeable consequences? Yes, frequently.
Conflating "deserved" with "expected" is a bad thing. There are far-reaching consequences of creating a more-or-less permanent record of your life that can be referenced at future times. We're in a learning phase where society as a whole gets to figure out the pitfalls of what they record about themselves. Technology is a double-edged sword, and those things tend to cut the unwary the deepest. When you're talking about specific individuals, it's bad. When you're talking about the advancement of the species as a whole, it's good.
Slashdot Mirror
The question was if the creator of Trumpet Winsock would make money, right now, by putting up a donation link. He has. The poster is wrong.
The question was not about you, nor was it about making a living with shareware.
It's like "assault weapons," or "narcotics." It's a political hobby-horse that politicians trot out to sway people to vote for their particular brand of theft and coercion.
The US is both. To call it simply "a democracy" or "a republic" completely misses the point that those are general categories which are sometimes almost entirely exclusive of what the US actually is in form and function.
Instead of protecting academic freedom, tenure more often than not stifles it (for college professors, since only those who toe the line get tenure) or is completely irrelevant in a system where academic freedom does not exist (pre-college schools) in the modern age.
That said, politically-motivated firings should be dealt with harshly, regardless of the political affiliations targeted. I'd be satisfied with complete loss of pension, benefits, and privilege of public employment for provable cases, myself. If it's not directly related to teaching performance, it's likely not a fire-able offense, no matter how much you dislike their politics or views. Have a problem with that? Go pay to put your kid through private school.
You'd be wrong, given the response in the article.
I played MtG from Legends until Weatherlight, and I haven't the slightest clue wtf TaoPhoenix is on about. Maybe the later editions vacuum out players' prefrontal cortex. -shrug-
Yes, and the reasons should be obvious to anyone paying even a second's worth of attention to the underlying circumstances.
Do you really need it spelled out for you?
The extra overhead to deal with multiple coverage policies based on the actuarial cut-off of 25 or the additional cost for one-size-fits-all policies for everyone is the reason those under 25 can't rent cars in the US. Not because they're not adults, but because it's a completely undeniable fact that, on average, they have poorer judgment and are less trustworthy with expensive machinery and the lives of others than those who are over the age of 25. Yes, the cut-off is arbitrary, but if you make a distinction you have to make it somewhere. It takes too much time, effort, and expense to determine on a case-by-case basis who is a moron and who is not.
Doh. If I'd actually looked at what story this was when I sat back down I wouldn't have replied to something so off-topic.
Apologies to everyone else. >.
Disclaimer: Not an Obama apologist.
US Presidents on both sides of the aisle turn their back on world leaders when they become inconvenient. Throwing people under the bus is necessary in US politics, especially it the highest levels. Hypocrisy and politics go hand-in-hand. It's made necessary because one typically needs to be ruthless to win in the partisan environment maintained in the US by people just like you. People who have a soul usually don't do well in end-game politics, at least not for long.
Fair enough. Pay and compensation are too frequently conflated when they are not necessarily the same thing, so it's good to have an explicit statement of what was meant.
It is context-specific, because it can denote any of 4 separate phrases. Only two of those phrases specifically refer to people. It usually means other people, but is perfectly acceptable in other lists.
Public libraries probably aren't a good example, since they can "ban" books by simply not purchasing copies of them.
Many libraries have committees that are not bound by requests to purchase by patrons.
The error message screenshot posted in the article was of an attempt to make a direct IP connection on a highly-numbered non-standard port.
The network is officially designed to be whitelist-only, which means any site not requested for approval will not be approved. There are a few simple things they could have done to prove that's not the case, but the only things they did were those that, on a reasonably secured network, would be guaranteed to be blocked almost without exception.
There may be an issue here, but this organization didn't make any common-sense efforts to actually prove it. They just muddied the waters and provided a lot of doubt as to the veracity of their claim of censorship.
Paycheck isn't everything. If it is, why are you working where you are? If it's not, is there a point to this other than the simple fact that the dollar value of your paycheck, compared to someone in the private sector, is less, without taking into account the value of the other job benefits that have kept you from looking for private sector employment?
It has always seemed suspect to me that, even with lower absolute value on paycheck alone, there isn't an exodus from government jobs when there are private sector openings (it's obvious any job is better than none when there aren't private sector openings) and yet there is such a big deal made about the comparison of paycheck dollars. Any attempt to compare anything other than paycheck dollars is typically met with enormous resistance. If the public sector is so bad, why do so many people take jobs there and then complain about the pay? Especially given that the education level is, on average, higher in the public sector. With that much education and experience, can one assume they could relatively easily get a comparable private sector job? In bad economic times, any job is good, and few can legitimize increased spending (public or private). In good economic times, that education and experience should get a person their pick of positions. So what gives? Why do you, with more education and experience, choose the job you are at, even at lower pay? Do you think you got a good deal or a raw deal? Are there things you expected that didn't turn out to be as good, and do you still think your choice is worth what you receive in comparison to comparable private sector work? Is your statement meant to imply more than it says, or is it intended to convey exactly what it says: You make less in direct pay but make up for it (in your opinion) in benefits not available to your roommate.
Though I suppose in the nation which could manufacture a scientific "controversy" about the risks of smoking or pollution, even symbolic mathematical proofs would be met with armchair-expert skepticism. Sigh.
That, unfortunately, is always going to be a problem. Many have tried, and all have failed. The only ways to realistically combat the problem are highly discriminatory and exceedingly un-democratic (at least those that have been used or proposed to date).
Abuses are legion under both open and secret balloting regimes.
Personally, I'd like a hybrid, semi-secret ballot system. You have a ballot confirmation number, which you can choose to record secretly or not. If subject to intimidation, simply look through random confirmation numbers to find a ballot that fits how you should have voted (according to the intimidator), and show them that if necessary. As long as there is a reasonably well-protected paper trail (there's the flaw), most voters would have no trouble checking up on their votes in large numbers.
This is the US. People would then piss and moan that they had to give up time off, or that it was unfair to service workers who vote predominantly Democratic (whether that's true or not is not relevant to my point), or some such nonsense. It does not matter when the vote is held, people will still complain. If there is not a sufficient conflict, one will be fabricated.
I think using an electronic hand-held device while driving is screwed up in most cases, but that said, yes, it does matter where the data was heading. Smart phones transmit data frequently during times the user is not actively interacting with the phone. If the case revolves around timing and who was doing what, it may end up being easy to tell what the timeline was. On the other hand, it may turn out to be incredibly hard to determine what the exact timeline was.
So, not only does your logic not necessarily follow, you have an ad hominem thrown in that's based on faulty logic. A winnar is you.
Well, we have laws impairing the obligation of contracts and those that result in the forfeiture of estate through conviction, so it's only a matter of time before the rest of the section is ignored as well.
There are powerful interests behind many different taxes. Some are populist, some are protectionist, some are for other reasons. It's not always (or even usually) the most efficient system that wins out. There are a lot of outside influences that don't necessarily care how a system works; they want it to work to their own ends.
Rent a mailbox in Oregon (or other favorable state), charter a corporation, get a phone + plan in the corporation's name. As long as you're routinely on the home network (not siphoning their profits to competitors via roaming agreements), they won't care. Bundle other location-dependent services like vehicle registration and insurance. Contract with a local registered agent as the corporation's location. With care, it'll cost a lot less in taxes. It's beneficial if you want change, no matter which change you want, since it creates more burden on the tax system by removing support from it. With enough people removing themselves from high-tax jurisdictions, the low-tax jurisdictions will be forced to change or the high-tax ones will break under the strain. Either is a win, depending on what team you root for.
They should have been using Denon's patented technology that determines if the magnet is being used to further criminal charges against the hard drive's owners. When such a device detects a magnetic field to sort it from the trash it is hiding in, the patented directional arrows cause the electrons in a field otherwise too weak to wipe the platter to cluster close together and wipe the drive clean of incriminating data.
Have it installed on your drives now for the bargain price of $499,000,000 per unit.
Yes, lots of people ignore obvious warning signs. That doesn't change the fact that the act of marriage frequently flips the "psycho" switch into the "on" position for many people, no matter how long you've known the sane alterego beforehand.
Aside from corporate OEMs, there are system builders who didn't stop using dynamic paging in Windows 10+ years ago?
Nobody's saying to live perfectly (at least nobody worth listening to). Having the common sense to maintain discretion regarding stupid things you've done is an evolutionary survival skill though. Those who don't have it will suffer, regardless of who thinks they do or do not deserve it.
It is social Darwinism at work, and like most natural laws is immune to anyone's concept of "morality." It is not good or bad, it simply is.
People who wish to be indiscreet will live with the consequences of that indiscretion should it be available for the finding and someone comes looking, for whatever reason. There are consequences for actions, even if those consequences are not "deserved." You walk into a cannibal tribe's village, you may well end up being eaten, even if you didn't "deserve" it. There are lots of examples of bad things happening to people who had a moment of stupidity. "Deserved?" No. Foreseeable consequences? Yes, frequently.
Conflating "deserved" with "expected" is a bad thing. There are far-reaching consequences of creating a more-or-less permanent record of your life that can be referenced at future times. We're in a learning phase where society as a whole gets to figure out the pitfalls of what they record about themselves. Technology is a double-edged sword, and those things tend to cut the unwary the deepest. When you're talking about specific individuals, it's bad. When you're talking about the advancement of the species as a whole, it's good.