It seems that having no launch vehicle for *any* period of time represents a significant strategic vulnerability. China's military build-up may simply be a superpower coming into its own, as it were, but it may also be a prelude to the standard imperialist actions of a superpower--proxy wars and actual wars taken in what the nation in question believes are its best interests. If the military buildup is a precursor to a possible military solution to the Taiwanese issue, a move against US Satellites would seem like an obvious part of the first strike. (As the US would almost certainly be sharing satellite intel with Taiwan.) Whether that move is an overt move or couched in a rhetorical apology/excuse, having no satellite coverage of the region for any period of time would be a major strategic failing, one that couldn't be rectified without a usable launch vehicle.
(Of course, every part of the previous paragraph is a simplfication.)
Aside from the fact that it's (maybe) more accurate, and it's (probably) a little easier to fool, having such a thing for identification doesn't seem that different from fingerprinting.
for identification being the operative words.
Law enforcement wants it because it makes it easier for them to do their jobs--that's their agenda, I understand that. I don't like it from a civil liberties standpoint. New York has been expanding the list of crimes that DNA samples are taken for, just as they've been expanding the number of crimes that count towards the sex offender registry. Well, okay--the latter is done at least in part for political reasons as opposed to law enforcement reasons. Although it's also done to cover the sorts of crimes that the registry is, theoretically, designed to protect against.
The thing that really bothers me about this, though, is the invasion of medical privacy. Of course you lose a lot of rights if you're arrested--but if you're not found guilty, why should you have your medical expectations for your entire life suddenly in the government hands? Eye color? Ethnicity? Tendency to be gay? longevity? Chance of developing prostate cancer? It's one thing if they're keeping enough data to differentiate your DNA from someone else's, on average. It's another if they're keeping enough to select your DNA out of a million people's DNA. And it's something else entirely if they keep a complete sample. Hell, they could clone you. Disturbing thought, eh?
Heinlein had Luna City set up as a penal colony, originally. However, given the massive growth in the number of laws we have and the fact that almost everyone breaks the law doing something... (talked on a cell phone in a car? Let the batteries run out in your smoke detector? Bumped into someone on the subway? Ooops--assault!) well, it might just be easier to send the innocent people to the moon.
Also, can we send up a bovine creature capable of jumping?
From Wikipedia: New York City has an estimated gross city product of $457.3 billion(2006), larger than the GDP of Switzerland ($377 billion). If it were a country, the city's economy would be 17th largest in the world, and at $56,000 per person, New York would have the second highest per capita GDP in the world after Luxembourg.
Translation: there are a lot of things that might make economic sense in NY that don't make sense anywhere else in the world. I don't mind a few cameras to make the city safer, though I'd like rules on the lifetime of stored footage. Eighteen months, unless the footage is in use for an in-the-works legal action/investigation and there's a court order to hold it, maybe?
Of course, I *also* wouldn't mind if NYC took a bit of the money and paid down the national debt. (I'm not sure about the city's own budget.) Our national debt is ridiculous, and is going to bite us someplace rather tender eventually if we don't take care of it.
> The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.
You know there's something wrong with the world when Global Thermonuclear War isn't sexy enough anymore. Especially since, given the recent increase in nuclear-capable and approaching-nuclear-capable countries, the likelihood of nuclear war (albeit on a smaller than Wargames scale) is increasing.
The technique used in the paper breaks prisoners into two groups: about 20% of them are tagged as likely to engage in misconduct, and about 80% of them are tagged as unlikely. Then about 20 people from each group (representing 10% of the misconduct group, but only 2.5% of the unlikely group) wind up doing something especially bad-guy-like in the next two years. So it's much better than flipping a coin, which would put 500 people in each group, and would be more inaccurate and more expensive. (Because higher security for 500 people is more expensive than higher security for 200 people.)
Of course, it kind of sucks for the 180 people who aren't going to do something bad-guy-like who are stuck in the misconduct pool. But that number gets winnowed as technique gets better, which is what this research is about.
Three blind mice, three blind mice, See how they run, see how they run, They all ran after the lab tech's wife, were given new sight with one gene splice, saw her and ran for the rest of their life. The three spliced mice.
---------------- (No offense to the lab tech's wives out there. =))
On our ballot, we need to select US Senate and House reps, State Senate and Assembly reps, Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General, Family Court Judge, and... was it Superior Court Justices?
In any event, you're lucky if a voter knows much of anything about the federal candidates & Governor. Additionally, most people know only a little bit about state government--or at least about the actors in it. When it comes to court justices, it's insane that you vote them in: the average voter knows nothing about the people running, except for what they learn on the ballot: party affiliation and (based on the name) ethnicity.
Then you've got the political realities, on top of that: how effective someone's going to be representing you depends a lot on what committee assignments they get, and you don't know that when you're voting.
I don't think it's unrealistic to have a public moderately educated about the politics of our country--I just think that it's not done. Instead we get heavy spin from everyone involved, including the news media, and little realistic talk of who's going to be effective at getting what done, and why. Oh, and there's been a sickening amount of negative campaigning this year.
I don't know--I haven't studied the matter. But my thoughts at the time were about top-tier schools, and I thought I'd generalize a little to "good schools."
Secondary education in many areas in the states is pretty terrible, too. The horror stories I've heard from Hawaii, Philly and New York are... well, terrible. And that's the fault of schools, parents, administrations, teachers, and the children themselves. It's a collective failure; even though some people try to change it.
As to the high school/University shock, it goes a lot of ways, but what you say is certainly true to a degree. There's little as frustrating as when you find professors at college who expect you to regurgitate information or their personal opinions, rather than to analyze or study legitimately or research.
Actually, I think his complaint was about students who didn't have an original idea. (Although I suppose it was worded ambiguously.) If you're analyzing a text and come up with an idea on your own, that's fine; but if you come up with the same idea by reading an article about the text, you should cite the article. That's fair.
A school's honor code may be very different from a nation's copyright laws. (As they should be.) Ideally, if you come up with an idea in conversation with a few friends around a coffee table, and they contribute meaningfully to the genesis of the idea, you'll cite, thank them, or credit them in the finished product. But from a copyright status, while you can copyright the form of an idea, you can't usually copyright the idea itself--which is why you can write a new horror novel, or a new formulaic fantasy or soap opera. It's also why you can write any work about history. The copyright of the people who wrote the books you used to research (and even if you had primary sources, you almost certainly got information from copyrighted materials as well,) doesn't apply to your work, even if you're conveying the same information.
142 out of 12,000, some of which aren't really a problem, and that's numbers generated by a critic?
Yes, it's a problem, but that's actually not a bad score at all. You probably get more plagiarism than that on college papers at good schools. How many of these articles cite what they "plagiarize," even if they don't put it in quotes? Also, to make it legal plagiarizing, all you have to do is re-write each paragraph in your own words.
I see 1.18% of articles as potentially having text lifted from somewhere else as a serious issue for the maintainers of Wikipedia, sure. But I don't think it has a major negative impact on its reliability, or on the quantity or quality of information contained within it. And reliable information is what I care about when I go to wikipedia. If it worked only by having mass exerpts of other sites, I'd call it "GOOGLE," and I'd still use it.
There are plenty of nerds in biology. CompSci and Engineering nerds aren't the only sort. (Even if Slashdot does tend to be that-sort-of-nerd-centric.)
IANAL, but traditionally one drops a case if one is payed off, if one is likely to lose, or if one might lose and it's a bad test case for the issue. (The last applies if you're more concerned with the system than with one or two particular clients.) In this case, might the case have been dropped because of the possibility of it raising the "right to privacy" question before the supreme court? With the current court, such a question opens the door wide on abortion--there's no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, and Roe v. Wade depends heavily on it. This may simply be far from the ideal court (or case) with which to revisit the question of that implicit right.
So maybe they did the math. Lose the right to privacy en masse or gain a little bit o' facism.
Fair enough. A subset, then. Postmodernism also translates things into abstractions that have as little relation to reality as possible, then does critical analyses that pretend to be meaningful but aren't. =)
First, postmodern means something different in different disciplines. In Literature and Film, it tends to be about breaking things apart into lots of little pieces and then doing critical analyses that pretend to be meaningful but aren't. (Actually, I think we're getting to a post-post-modern phase, where the tools of post-modernity are being used in a non-post-modern way. Garden State was a good example of this--it felt very post-modern, but it wasn't really post-modern.)
Second, the article exerpt (I didn't read the RTFA) says "Web 2.0 is slowing down, possibly a sign of it's reaching maturity. The boom is over!" Using bigger and more annoying words. I'm sorry, but the use of bigger and more annoying words makes me immediately think it's really stupid--not because of the presence of big words, but because of the ratio of syllables to content.
Third, Web 2.0 was more about integration and user-generated content than it was about... hmmm... well, okay, `integration of user-generated content' could take a hint of a stab at claiming to be something postmodern--but honestly, the content is too uniform to be postmodern. Ten million kids whining about their school day...
Hey, that does sound kind of postmodern. But they have to do it at the same time, wearing glaring colors. And maybe there should be a tuba?
I wonder if I can post that thought in a journal? I'll need to add more words... and colors. But they'll give me a Ph.D. Hmm...
It's an activity patch or some-such, not an actual merit badge. The difference? It doesn't mean anything in terms of advancement, it's just a patch. Sure, some people will do it anyway, since it's easy. Some troops might run programs in it, either because it's a boy scout program that's relatively easy to put together and fun to do (A movie studio, remember?), or because they actually believe what it's teaching. But it's not a merit badge. It doesn't go on the merit badge sash (not that scouts wear those much,) and it doesn't count towards Eagle, or any other rank.
The distinction may sound trivial on slashdot, but it's nontrivial within the organization. Even among merit badges, some are easy and some are hard. Some are more respected than others. An activity patch for knowing what copyright infringement is? It's not even going to register on the status board. Maybe some kids will get to see a movie studio, but that's okay.
As to all the comments about Boy Scouts not being what it used to be--that's true, in some ways. A lot of things have changed, in Boy Scouts and in American culture. That's not all bad. Some is, and some isn't. The thing that influences the program most is the quality, not only of the youths who become leaders in the program, but of the adult volunteers that make it happen and show them how to lead. Two troops in the same town, with members of the same socioeconomic background, can be as different as night and day because they have different leaders. Don't sit on your rear and say what a bad program it is--fix it. A good troop can change the lives of a lot of boys, in a good way.
Of course there are politics, and there have been major disagreements about what values the Boy Scouts should be instilling. They argue that there is a God--whatever name you may call him by--and that it is immoral to embrace a gay lifestyle. Every scout takes an oath to do his duty "to God and his country," and promises to keep himself "morally straight." Maybe you agree with the policies and maybe you don't, but as an organization, the Boy Scouts of America has the right to say "this is what we want to teach." They're not preaching hate--but they are saying that they believe some things are wrong. They don't ask you if you're gay, ever--but if you come out as gay, in some councils at least, you're out of the organization. They have their beliefs, and they stick to them. I don't like some of those beliefs, but I believe they have the right to stick to them.
There are other organizations that are smaller, that are more inclusive, as an alternative. It's an imperfect world. Not everyone is tolerant. The Boy Scouts aren't tolerant of open gays, and a lot of others are intolerant towards the Boy Scouts because of that intolerance. Intolerance breeds intolerance. But we still each should have the right the choose what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong. That the BSA does a lot of good doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their intolerance, but it does seem to increase the relative depth of the hypocracy of the BSA's critics.
I remember talking with a friend of mine. We were part of a much larger group of college friends who had "camped" out in a cabin in the woods one night, singing late into the night whatever random songs we all knew and telling ghost stories (Sam McGee) and the like. And my friend was glad because of how much he enjoyed the experience and yet sad because he didn't expect he'd ever have one like it again. In part, I think, because he wasn't an overly woodsy type, but also because he was gay. Now most boy scouts can't sing half so well as that group (one or three of us excluded,) but still, much of the night was beautiful. It is a terrible crime that they should deny him that experience. There's no two ways about that. (One could move the agency if one wished; but at best it is shared.)
But if we were intolerant of their intolerance... where does it end? It is possible for men of good conscience to disagree, ev
Slashdot Mirror
*discovers rockets are the standard US satellite launch vehicle of choice*
Oops. Silly me. The parent (Also by me) is based on mistaken assumptions. Ignore it. Sorry.
It seems that having no launch vehicle for *any* period of time represents a significant strategic vulnerability. China's military build-up may simply be a superpower coming into its own, as it were, but it may also be a prelude to the standard imperialist actions of a superpower--proxy wars and actual wars taken in what the nation in question believes are its best interests. If the military buildup is a precursor to a possible military solution to the Taiwanese issue, a move against US Satellites would seem like an obvious part of the first strike. (As the US would almost certainly be sharing satellite intel with Taiwan.) Whether that move is an overt move or couched in a rhetorical apology/excuse, having no satellite coverage of the region for any period of time would be a major strategic failing, one that couldn't be rectified without a usable launch vehicle.
(Of course, every part of the previous paragraph is a simplfication.)
Aside from the fact that it's (maybe) more accurate, and it's (probably) a little easier to fool, having such a thing for identification doesn't seem that different from fingerprinting.
for identification being the operative words.
Law enforcement wants it because it makes it easier for them to do their jobs--that's their agenda, I understand that. I don't like it from a civil liberties standpoint. New York has been expanding the list of crimes that DNA samples are taken for, just as they've been expanding the number of crimes that count towards the sex offender registry. Well, okay--the latter is done at least in part for political reasons as opposed to law enforcement reasons. Although it's also done to cover the sorts of crimes that the registry is, theoretically, designed to protect against.
The thing that really bothers me about this, though, is the invasion of medical privacy. Of course you lose a lot of rights if you're arrested--but if you're not found guilty, why should you have your medical expectations for your entire life suddenly in the government hands? Eye color? Ethnicity? Tendency to be gay? longevity? Chance of developing prostate cancer? It's one thing if they're keeping enough data to differentiate your DNA from someone else's, on average. It's another if they're keeping enough to select your DNA out of a million people's DNA. And it's something else entirely if they keep a complete sample. Hell, they could clone you. Disturbing thought, eh?
Heinlein had Luna City set up as a penal colony, originally. However, given the massive growth in the number of laws we have and the fact that almost everyone breaks the law doing something... (talked on a cell phone in a car? Let the batteries run out in your smoke detector? Bumped into someone on the subway? Ooops--assault!) well, it might just be easier to send the innocent people to the moon. Also, can we send up a bovine creature capable of jumping?
From Wikipedia: New York City has an estimated gross city product of $457.3 billion(2006), larger than the GDP of Switzerland ($377 billion). If it were a country, the city's economy would be 17th largest in the world, and at $56,000 per person, New York would have the second highest per capita GDP in the world after Luxembourg.
Translation: there are a lot of things that might make economic sense in NY that don't make sense anywhere else in the world. I don't mind a few cameras to make the city safer, though I'd like rules on the lifetime of stored footage. Eighteen months, unless the footage is in use for an in-the-works legal action/investigation and there's a court order to hold it, maybe?
Of course, I *also* wouldn't mind if NYC took a bit of the money and paid down the national debt. (I'm not sure about the city's own budget.) Our national debt is ridiculous, and is going to bite us someplace rather tender eventually if we don't take care of it.
A metaphor that enables users to share files! I always thought we needed similes for that. How foolish of me.
> The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.
You know there's something wrong with the world when Global Thermonuclear War isn't sexy enough anymore. Especially since, given the recent increase in nuclear-capable and approaching-nuclear-capable countries, the likelihood of nuclear war (albeit on a smaller than Wargames scale) is increasing.
> There are about 20.6 million sole proprietorships and general partnerships in the U.S...
As if millions of small businesses owners suddenly cried out for their lawyers.
The technique used in the paper breaks prisoners into two groups: about 20% of them are tagged as likely to engage in misconduct, and about 80% of them are tagged as unlikely. Then about 20 people from each group (representing 10% of the misconduct group, but only 2.5% of the unlikely group) wind up doing something especially bad-guy-like in the next two years. So it's much better than flipping a coin, which would put 500 people in each group, and would be more inaccurate and more expensive. (Because higher security for 500 people is more expensive than higher security for 200 people.)
Of course, it kind of sucks for the 180 people who aren't going to do something bad-guy-like who are stuck in the misconduct pool. But that number gets winnowed as technique gets better, which is what this research is about.
Three blind mice, three blind mice,
See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the lab tech's wife,
were given new sight with one gene splice,
saw her and ran for the rest of their life.
The three spliced mice.
----------------
(No offense to the lab tech's wives out there. =))
On our ballot, we need to select US Senate and House reps, State Senate and Assembly reps, Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General, Family Court Judge, and... was it Superior Court Justices?
In any event, you're lucky if a voter knows much of anything about the federal candidates & Governor. Additionally, most people know only a little bit about state government--or at least about the actors in it. When it comes to court justices, it's insane that you vote them in: the average voter knows nothing about the people running, except for what they learn on the ballot: party affiliation and (based on the name) ethnicity.
Then you've got the political realities, on top of that: how effective someone's going to be representing you depends a lot on what committee assignments they get, and you don't know that when you're voting.
I don't think it's unrealistic to have a public moderately educated about the politics of our country--I just think that it's not done. Instead we get heavy spin from everyone involved, including the news media, and little realistic talk of who's going to be effective at getting what done, and why. Oh, and there's been a sickening amount of negative campaigning this year.
I don't know--I haven't studied the matter. But my thoughts at the time were about top-tier schools, and I thought I'd generalize a little to "good schools."
Secondary education in many areas in the states is pretty terrible, too. The horror stories I've heard from Hawaii, Philly and New York are... well, terrible. And that's the fault of schools, parents, administrations, teachers, and the children themselves. It's a collective failure; even though some people try to change it.
As to the high school/University shock, it goes a lot of ways, but what you say is certainly true to a degree. There's little as frustrating as when you find professors at college who expect you to regurgitate information or their personal opinions, rather than to analyze or study legitimately or research.
Actually, I think his complaint was about students who didn't have an original idea. (Although I suppose it was worded ambiguously.) If you're analyzing a text and come up with an idea on your own, that's fine; but if you come up with the same idea by reading an article about the text, you should cite the article. That's fair.
Legal != ethical.
A school's honor code may be very different from a nation's copyright laws. (As they should be.) Ideally, if you come up with an idea in conversation with a few friends around a coffee table, and they contribute meaningfully to the genesis of the idea, you'll cite, thank them, or credit them in the finished product. But from a copyright status, while you can copyright the form of an idea, you can't usually copyright the idea itself--which is why you can write a new horror novel, or a new formulaic fantasy or soap opera. It's also why you can write any work about history. The copyright of the people who wrote the books you used to research (and even if you had primary sources, you almost certainly got information from copyrighted materials as well,) doesn't apply to your work, even if you're conveying the same information.
142 out of 12,000, some of which aren't really a problem, and that's numbers generated by a critic?
Yes, it's a problem, but that's actually not a bad score at all. You probably get more plagiarism than that on college papers at good schools. How many of these articles cite what they "plagiarize," even if they don't put it in quotes? Also, to make it legal plagiarizing, all you have to do is re-write each paragraph in your own words.
I see 1.18% of articles as potentially having text lifted from somewhere else as a serious issue for the maintainers of Wikipedia, sure. But I don't think it has a major negative impact on its reliability, or on the quantity or quality of information contained within it. And reliable information is what I care about when I go to wikipedia. If it worked only by having mass exerpts of other sites, I'd call it "GOOGLE," and I'd still use it.
10 December 1948.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
There are plenty of nerds in biology. CompSci and Engineering nerds aren't the only sort. (Even if Slashdot does tend to be that-sort-of-nerd-centric.)
Many inheritable diseases are part of our genome, too.
So are recessive traits that might express themselves in our children.
So are many inactive things that aren't usually expressed. Think of it as legacy code that would never be called by a sane programmer.
Exactly.
(One is Tiananmen Square from google.com, the other is Tiananmen Square from google.cn.)
Slashdot calls BS.
IANAL, but traditionally one drops a case if one is payed off, if one is likely to lose, or if one might lose and it's a bad test case for the issue. (The last applies if you're more concerned with the system than with one or two particular clients.) In this case, might the case have been dropped because of the possibility of it raising the "right to privacy" question before the supreme court? With the current court, such a question opens the door wide on abortion--there's no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, and Roe v. Wade depends heavily on it. This may simply be far from the ideal court (or case) with which to revisit the question of that implicit right.
So maybe they did the math. Lose the right to privacy en masse or gain a little bit o' facism.
> Look at me! I'm an epistomologist!
Really? How do we know that?
Fair enough. A subset, then. Postmodernism also translates things into abstractions that have as little relation to reality as possible, then does critical analyses that pretend to be meaningful but aren't. =)
Perhaps I'm not being entirely fair. Even so... well, here's a fun look at it from a Software Engineering perspective.
Oh, ridiculous.
First, postmodern means something different in different disciplines. In Literature and Film, it tends to be about breaking things apart into lots of little pieces and then doing critical analyses that pretend to be meaningful but aren't. (Actually, I think we're getting to a post-post-modern phase, where the tools of post-modernity are being used in a non-post-modern way. Garden State was a good example of this--it felt very post-modern, but it wasn't really post-modern.)
Second, the article exerpt (I didn't read the RTFA) says "Web 2.0 is slowing down, possibly a sign of it's reaching maturity. The boom is over!" Using bigger and more annoying words. I'm sorry, but the use of bigger and more annoying words makes me immediately think it's really stupid--not because of the presence of big words, but because of the ratio of syllables to content.
Third, Web 2.0 was more about integration and user-generated content than it was about... hmmm... well, okay, `integration of user-generated content' could take a hint of a stab at claiming to be something postmodern--but honestly, the content is too uniform to be postmodern. Ten million kids whining about their school day...
Hey, that does sound kind of postmodern. But they have to do it at the same time, wearing glaring colors. And maybe there should be a tuba?
I wonder if I can post that thought in a journal? I'll need to add more words... and colors. But they'll give me a Ph.D. Hmm...
An evil journal...
It's an activity patch or some-such, not an actual merit badge. The difference? It doesn't mean anything in terms of advancement, it's just a patch. Sure, some people will do it anyway, since it's easy. Some troops might run programs in it, either because it's a boy scout program that's relatively easy to put together and fun to do (A movie studio, remember?), or because they actually believe what it's teaching. But it's not a merit badge. It doesn't go on the merit badge sash (not that scouts wear those much,) and it doesn't count towards Eagle, or any other rank.
The distinction may sound trivial on slashdot, but it's nontrivial within the organization. Even among merit badges, some are easy and some are hard. Some are more respected than others. An activity patch for knowing what copyright infringement is? It's not even going to register on the status board. Maybe some kids will get to see a movie studio, but that's okay.
As to all the comments about Boy Scouts not being what it used to be--that's true, in some ways. A lot of things have changed, in Boy Scouts and in American culture. That's not all bad. Some is, and some isn't. The thing that influences the program most is the quality, not only of the youths who become leaders in the program, but of the adult volunteers that make it happen and show them how to lead. Two troops in the same town, with members of the same socioeconomic background, can be as different as night and day because they have different leaders. Don't sit on your rear and say what a bad program it is--fix it. A good troop can change the lives of a lot of boys, in a good way.
Of course there are politics, and there have been major disagreements about what values the Boy Scouts should be instilling. They argue that there is a God--whatever name you may call him by--and that it is immoral to embrace a gay lifestyle. Every scout takes an oath to do his duty "to God and his country," and promises to keep himself "morally straight." Maybe you agree with the policies and maybe you don't, but as an organization, the Boy Scouts of America has the right to say "this is what we want to teach." They're not preaching hate--but they are saying that they believe some things are wrong. They don't ask you if you're gay, ever--but if you come out as gay, in some councils at least, you're out of the organization. They have their beliefs, and they stick to them. I don't like some of those beliefs, but I believe they have the right to stick to them.
There are other organizations that are smaller, that are more inclusive, as an alternative. It's an imperfect world. Not everyone is tolerant. The Boy Scouts aren't tolerant of open gays, and a lot of others are intolerant towards the Boy Scouts because of that intolerance. Intolerance breeds intolerance. But we still each should have the right the choose what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong. That the BSA does a lot of good doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their intolerance, but it does seem to increase the relative depth of the hypocracy of the BSA's critics.
I remember talking with a friend of mine. We were part of a much larger group of college friends who had "camped" out in a cabin in the woods one night, singing late into the night whatever random songs we all knew and telling ghost stories (Sam McGee) and the like. And my friend was glad because of how much he enjoyed the experience and yet sad because he didn't expect he'd ever have one like it again. In part, I think, because he wasn't an overly woodsy type, but also because he was gay. Now most boy scouts can't sing half so well as that group (one or three of us excluded,) but still, much of the night was beautiful. It is a terrible crime that they should deny him that experience. There's no two ways about that. (One could move the agency if one wished; but at best it is shared.)
But if we were intolerant of their intolerance... where does it end? It is possible for men of good conscience to disagree, ev
A third of the intelligence agencies in the world are trying to develop the same idea...