Well, he wants to cut those departments, so obviously he wants absolutely nothing in them done anywhere else, Federally or not.
Or maybe that's just the fear-mongering that is the product of any proposed change. If you're throwing out the bathwater, you must be planning to throw the baby out as well. I mean, you didn't explicitly state you wouldn't be throwing the baby out, so it should immediately be assumed you're evil and are planning exactly that.
The Dept. of the Interior is probably the single most corrupt department in existence. They've "misappropriated" Native trust funds for over a century, and the tribes affected have had to settle for a fraction of the amount that can be proven to have been mismanaged. If they actually fought for all they'd lost, the Federal government would simply ignore them because it approaches half a trillion dollars.
The wholesale abuse of the mineral, timber, and grazing leases on public lands can also be blamed directly on the Dept. of the Interior.
Yes, pretty much everyone arguing for less Federal control is well aware of that. The argument that the Federal government should not be doing something is not the same as saying no government entity should do it. However, many opposed to less Federal control seem to have no problem conflating the two (some intentionally, some not) and using it as a straw man argument to show the "idiocy" of those they disagree with.
It could be that the delusion of believing the Dept. of Education is effectual has actually diluted education to the point that the above (likely public-schooled) person does not know the difference.
How has the Dept. of Education fundamentally changed the quality of education in the US for the better? The larger the bureaucracy, the more it relies on standardization. Standardization has not brought the lowest-performing up, because there are greater impacts from culture, circumstance, motivation, or personal choice. It does, however, serve as a hurdle for those who wish to pursue goals that are not well-served by standardized models and testing. In effect, the best case scenario provided by a Federal department controlling all education is to restrain the top performers while being completely unable to deal with the myriad reasons why the bottom performers are unable to raise their performance levels.
To Federalists, the States may as well not exist as entities that can provide essential services.
If there is an argument saying the Federal government should not do something, it is taken to mean that the person does not believe it should be done at all, by any government, ever.
Few people are willing to actually have a rational discussion that isn't based on emotion, straw man arguments, or other forms of intellectual dishonesty.
Health risks increase with time. The longer you pay in, the higher risk you are. You won't get better coverage, and your costs will increase continually once you pass the age at which your fixed rate (if you had one) ceases to be in effect.
There's plenty of that built into the process of growing up without having another instance forced on you just to make sure you've dealt with it.
Humans develop social skills just fine without being shoved into artificial situations for no better reason than to "build character," which is no more and no less than what you're advocating. Unfortunately,/. is just like many other places in needing that pointed out.
Anyway, to satisfy you, I suppose I could modify my statement to "there are multiple activities other than sports where your child will hate you for putting them there; pick one they are sure to struggle in so they can gain 'character.'"
He never actually said a single cable for multiple boxes. The implication was one cable per box, since he was replying to a statement about a single box and a single cable.
Depending on the usage, it's relatively easy with an IP KVM. You can even move USB to the remote location if you're within range to use a traditional KVM with USB transport.
My house, alone, probably has a couple dozen devices with a USB port. Most people I know have at least 3 or 4 such devices, if they're relatively uninterested in technology.
I would doubt it's an overestimation, and if it is, it's probably not by much.
Screw the socialization aspects to high school, he'll do quite well without them.
I would amend that to "he'll likely do better without them. Socialization in primary educational years is extremely different from the norm of socialization throughout much of human history. It is a deviation to throw together large numbers of people in a very narrow age category, with little interaction from anyone outside that age category aside from "authority" figures. That sort of uniformity narrows expectations and isolates kids from integration into diverse social structures, contrary to what many proponents claim.
Socialization with a broad range of age groups leads to people being far more adjusted and adaptable. Granted, universities are still a relatively narrow age group, but it is certainly far superior to the extremely skewed socialization that occurs in primary education. I'd take a turn of the century (the one before last, that is) one-room schoolhouse over the methods used today in a heartbeat.
No, it doesn't necessarily. There are many other social options than team sports, and finding one that a child is comfortable is much more important than forcing him into a situation that may well make things worse.
Just a note: that came off a bit more snarky than I had intended, upon re-reading it.
I think the main thrust of the statements above is that laws and the Constitution have been frequently re-interpreted to ascribe meaning as to how the words are now understood in common parlance, rather than how they were understood when written. Much like Latin in modern scientific usage, the ways words are used now may bear little or no resemblance to how they were used 100, 250, or 1,000 years ago. Ascribing modern, literal wordings to things written hundreds of years ago is like reading Shakespeare using a modern dictionary to determine intent. It just doesn't work out very well.
Not very familiar with the US Congress, are you? It's pretty standard operating procedure to make proclamations about a law's intent, when the actual wording can be directly opposed to the publicized intent.
I get by just fine on less than $15,000, so yes, financial difficulties usually are the result of actual choices, rather than circumstances beyond one's control.
Only ones I have immediately available, but it works flawlessly on:
Opera 11.51 IE 8.0.6001 x86 and x64 Chrome 2.0.164 Firefox 3.0.7 Chromium 16.0.896
The only inconsistent browser was Firefox 7.0, though going to the user page and clicking the link worked every time. I've never expected much from x.0 Firefox releases, though, so that one doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Some people use the terms interchangeably (it's becoming more, rather than less, common). I apparently misunderstood your intent when you used it in response to my original statement, which was clearly about rights in general.
Yeah, and now we've swung to the other end where most politicians (conservative and liberal) believe government is the solution to everything. The only real difference is that the liberals are open about it, while conservatives try to pass off their schemes to increase government as being "limited government" measures.
I didn't say the two parties were identical. I said their general treatment of rights is. The difference is in which rights they tend to support. Even then, it's only a tendency. They'll sacrifice those if it's going to cost them an election.
As for the civil rights specifically dealt with in the Civil Rights Act, the support of Southern Democrats is noticeably absent. That's because it was in their political best interest to oppose them, which most did. It's not about principles, it's about politics. Both sides are fucked up. The difference in behavior depends on which way the political wind is blowing in their constituency.
It's alright to admit the group you support has problems, but that you value the areas they don't more than you believe the problems are a detriment. To claim a given political group doesn't have weak points and problem areas is pretty naive.
Both sides, with few exceptions, only support civil rights when they can claim victimization. Even then it's just a subset of rights that is politically convenient.
They can most certainly read the body language of their handlers, which was the implied point. The handler reacts, consciously or unconsciously, to the visual cue. The dog then reacts to the handler's non-visual cues: sound, breathing, body tension, whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, he wants to cut those departments, so obviously he wants absolutely nothing in them done anywhere else, Federally or not.
Or maybe that's just the fear-mongering that is the product of any proposed change. If you're throwing out the bathwater, you must be planning to throw the baby out as well. I mean, you didn't explicitly state you wouldn't be throwing the baby out, so it should immediately be assumed you're evil and are planning exactly that.
So it goes with partisan US politics.
The Dept. of the Interior is probably the single most corrupt department in existence. They've "misappropriated" Native trust funds for over a century, and the tribes affected have had to settle for a fraction of the amount that can be proven to have been mismanaged. If they actually fought for all they'd lost, the Federal government would simply ignore them because it approaches half a trillion dollars.
The wholesale abuse of the mineral, timber, and grazing leases on public lands can also be blamed directly on the Dept. of the Interior.
Yes, pretty much everyone arguing for less Federal control is well aware of that. The argument that the Federal government should not be doing something is not the same as saying no government entity should do it. However, many opposed to less Federal control seem to have no problem conflating the two (some intentionally, some not) and using it as a straw man argument to show the "idiocy" of those they disagree with.
It could be that the delusion of believing the Dept. of Education is effectual has actually diluted education to the point that the above (likely public-schooled) person does not know the difference.
How has the Dept. of Education fundamentally changed the quality of education in the US for the better? The larger the bureaucracy, the more it relies on standardization. Standardization has not brought the lowest-performing up, because there are greater impacts from culture, circumstance, motivation, or personal choice. It does, however, serve as a hurdle for those who wish to pursue goals that are not well-served by standardized models and testing. In effect, the best case scenario provided by a Federal department controlling all education is to restrain the top performers while being completely unable to deal with the myriad reasons why the bottom performers are unable to raise their performance levels.
To Federalists, the States may as well not exist as entities that can provide essential services.
If there is an argument saying the Federal government should not do something, it is taken to mean that the person does not believe it should be done at all, by any government, ever.
Few people are willing to actually have a rational discussion that isn't based on emotion, straw man arguments, or other forms of intellectual dishonesty.
It's turtles all the way down.
Pointing weaponry of any kind at Creationism is a waste of time.
Not if we nuke them from orbit.
Health risks increase with time. The longer you pay in, the higher risk you are. You won't get better coverage, and your costs will increase continually once you pass the age at which your fixed rate (if you had one) ceases to be in effect.
This will do nothing to lower costs.
There's plenty of that built into the process of growing up without having another instance forced on you just to make sure you've dealt with it.
Humans develop social skills just fine without being shoved into artificial situations for no better reason than to "build character," which is no more and no less than what you're advocating. Unfortunately, /. is just like many other places in needing that pointed out.
Anyway, to satisfy you, I suppose I could modify my statement to "there are multiple activities other than sports where your child will hate you for putting them there; pick one they are sure to struggle in so they can gain 'character.'"
He never actually said a single cable for multiple boxes. The implication was one cable per box, since he was replying to a statement about a single box and a single cable.
Depending on the usage, it's relatively easy with an IP KVM. You can even move USB to the remote location if you're within range to use a traditional KVM with USB transport.
There are lots of hopelessly optimistic people on /. with lower UIDs. :)
Note, I'm not one of them.
My house, alone, probably has a couple dozen devices with a USB port. Most people I know have at least 3 or 4 such devices, if they're relatively uninterested in technology.
I would doubt it's an overestimation, and if it is, it's probably not by much.
Screw the socialization aspects to high school, he'll do quite well without them.
I would amend that to "he'll likely do better without them. Socialization in primary educational years is extremely different from the norm of socialization throughout much of human history. It is a deviation to throw together large numbers of people in a very narrow age category, with little interaction from anyone outside that age category aside from "authority" figures. That sort of uniformity narrows expectations and isolates kids from integration into diverse social structures, contrary to what many proponents claim.
Socialization with a broad range of age groups leads to people being far more adjusted and adaptable. Granted, universities are still a relatively narrow age group, but it is certainly far superior to the extremely skewed socialization that occurs in primary education. I'd take a turn of the century (the one before last, that is) one-room schoolhouse over the methods used today in a heartbeat.
No, but it forces you to be social.
No, it doesn't necessarily. There are many other social options than team sports, and finding one that a child is comfortable is much more important than forcing him into a situation that may well make things worse.
Just a note: that came off a bit more snarky than I had intended, upon re-reading it.
I think the main thrust of the statements above is that laws and the Constitution have been frequently re-interpreted to ascribe meaning as to how the words are now understood in common parlance, rather than how they were understood when written. Much like Latin in modern scientific usage, the ways words are used now may bear little or no resemblance to how they were used 100, 250, or 1,000 years ago. Ascribing modern, literal wordings to things written hundreds of years ago is like reading Shakespeare using a modern dictionary to determine intent. It just doesn't work out very well.
Not very familiar with the US Congress, are you? It's pretty standard operating procedure to make proclamations about a law's intent, when the actual wording can be directly opposed to the publicized intent.
It's a description of automated drop shipping. Oh wait, it's novel because they added "in an application."
You mean, like the eBay application on my Blackberry? Or the application Amazon puts out that allows 3rd-party purchasing?
I get by just fine on less than $15,000, so yes, financial difficulties usually are the result of actual choices, rather than circumstances beyond one's control.
some of it starts getting paged asynchronously during idle time
Battery impact while idle was the point, I believe. Nobody was talking about paging being a good thing while loading programs.
Only ones I have immediately available, but it works flawlessly on:
Opera 11.51
IE 8.0.6001 x86 and x64
Chrome 2.0.164
Firefox 3.0.7
Chromium 16.0.896
The only inconsistent browser was Firefox 7.0, though going to the user page and clicking the link worked every time. I've never expected much from x.0 Firefox releases, though, so that one doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
What versions of these browsers don't work?
Some people use the terms interchangeably (it's becoming more, rather than less, common). I apparently misunderstood your intent when you used it in response to my original statement, which was clearly about rights in general.
Yeah, and now we've swung to the other end where most politicians (conservative and liberal) believe government is the solution to everything. The only real difference is that the liberals are open about it, while conservatives try to pass off their schemes to increase government as being "limited government" measures.
I didn't say the two parties were identical. I said their general treatment of rights is. The difference is in which rights they tend to support. Even then, it's only a tendency. They'll sacrifice those if it's going to cost them an election.
As for the civil rights specifically dealt with in the Civil Rights Act, the support of Southern Democrats is noticeably absent. That's because it was in their political best interest to oppose them, which most did. It's not about principles, it's about politics. Both sides are fucked up. The difference in behavior depends on which way the political wind is blowing in their constituency.
It's alright to admit the group you support has problems, but that you value the areas they don't more than you believe the problems are a detriment. To claim a given political group doesn't have weak points and problem areas is pretty naive.
Both sides, with few exceptions, only support civil rights when they can claim victimization. Even then it's just a subset of rights that is politically convenient.
They can most certainly read the body language of their handlers, which was the implied point. The handler reacts, consciously or unconsciously, to the visual cue. The dog then reacts to the handler's non-visual cues: sound, breathing, body tension, whatever.