The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, three hundred years ago, and formed the foundation of US copyright law, with some sections used verbatim. This Statute stipulated copyright terms of 14 years, renewable for a second 14 if the author was still alive. Within this broader context, it seems clear that the concept of a limited copyright term meant "limited" in terms of something within a human scale, and, importantly, bounded by the life of the original author. Instead, what we have now is a de facto unlimited copyright term, with copyrights held not by the original author, but rather by faceless and essentially immortal corporations.
Bringing up 5000 years as a "limited" copyright term, while pedantically correct, is completely irrelevant within this context of copyright on a human scale. And, within this context, Disney (among many others) has egregiously overstepped any morally or historically defensible bounds.
I don't suppose you could explain your post a bit better? Reading it over, I get a lot of opinion, but nothing informative to work with...:(
You can easily protects your network. It's even easier then IPv4 and NATs
Okay; how? Purely firewall settings? I have zero IPv6 experience, but have read around a little bit.
The fact that he claims it's impossible to 'end up on the internet by accident' using IPv4 should be setting off alarm bells.
Well, private addresses (192.168.x.x, etc) are by definition private; how would an external computer initiate a connection to a machine inside a NATted subnet, without the router providing port forwarding? This is not rhetorical; I am interested in the answer.
Meanwhile, IPv6 addresses are, from what I've read, mostly designed to be globally unique and thus globally routable, which I think is what PRMan was describing in his post. With such addresses, you'd have to explicitly configure your router/firewall to lock down local machines, no? Or is there some mechanism enabled by default to prevent local IPv6 machines from being accessed from outside the local network? Again, I'm not asking rhetorically.
NAT sometimes gets unique addresses (if DHCPed), offering additional privacy.
Not sure what you mean by this -- the internet-facing NAT router should ostensibly get an address unique to its ISP, ideally unique globally, but so would an IPv6 machine... which makes me think you mean something different?
NAT firewalls allow you to make ports visible on the internet, so that's not really a negative in practice.
Port-mapping, yes. But what if you want, say, two HTTP servers behind the NAT, and don't want users to have to know which port to specify? Some time back I had the bright idea of seeing if DNS included any port info -- make one name resolve to my.ip:port1, and the other to my.ip:port2, but no such luck (at least with what I was able to find). This is a serious question, so if you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
With NAT, because the address ranges are completely different (and non-routeable by default), it is impossible to accidentally end up on the internet. With IPv6, one wrong unnoticed setting and you're there.
Companies don't track IP address too much, because there are too many users behind them at large companies. That would change in a heartbeat if every machine was individually identifiable through the firewall.
IPv6 is typically slower on every machine that I have tried it on. I don't know why this is, but turning it off always results in a speed increase. This will probably change as time goes on and they find bugs and refactor algorithms.
Personally, I see lots of negatives and no positives. And maybe I'm not alone, because there seems to be a great reluctance to switching over.
These are all very useful insights that hadn't occurred to me, and I bet you're right about these issues impeding adoption.
However, I can think of one positive, although it's a bit of a corner case. My router itself is behind my landlord's NAT, leaving me with zero access to my own subnet from outside:
Internet -- Landlord's NAT -- My NAT router -- My machines
Is there any way you know of by which I could access my machines from elsewhere on the net? Ideally, this would not include any dedicated server elsewhere maintaining some sort of tunnel to my machines.
I'm curious, and clearly ignorant as I'm confused about what the difference is between NATting and simply setting up a firewall properly. In both cases, machines you don't want exposed are safely tucked away and isolated. If you had globally unique IPs for every machine (presumably IPv6), you would at least have the easy option to open an external connection to any machine; with NAT, that option is missing.
Thus, in my no-doubt naïve understanding, NAT entails no unique benefits, but does entail unique limitations. So what am I missing? I'm honestly curious and hoping for a cogent argument explaining why NAT is better than a proper firewall.
To be fair, research papers and bibliographies are totally fucking useless for 99% of careers. I really don't understand the purpose of requiring them for anything other than a purely academic career.
I dunno, but knowing how to write and knowing how to vet sources both seem like important all-around skills to me... (Though, admittedly, simply writing research papers with bibliographies alone is not enough, as it requires decent teachers willing and able to go through the whole process and explain the importance of each step.)
I'm honestly curious. I've never heard a cogent argument about why single-payer insurance would be worse than what we already have. And having lived in a few other countries, I find it notable that places that have single-payer insurance tend to have much more functional healthcare systems -- cheaper, with better service.
Anyway, it sounds from your post like you're of the view that single-payer insurance is not a good thing. If that is your view, why? What do you see as bad about a single-payer insurance system? I ask out of honest curiosity.
The prototype is what you sell to the first few suckers^Wcustomers to get them hooked^Wexcited, and then the beta is generally the first service pack. See, the first service pack is essentially the second release -- hence "beta" for "second".
Or something. That certainly seems to be the MO for the vendors we deal with for much of our internal processing software here.:-P
Somebody please mod the parent post up. Second source (i.e. backup) is a fundamental part of proper risk management, something that the corporate world has largely fallen away from in certain aspects of IT.
<pure_speculation>Makes me wonder if the surge in MBAs over the past few decades has anything to do with this.</pure_speculation>
Sure, people are people is a simplification, because to some extent it has to be. That said, I've lived in numerous places around the world, and visited a fair few more, and while I agree that folks are to some extent the product of where they grow up, I see quite a bit of commonality -- probably because the bare-bones basics are the same for most human animals (excluding the outliers you mention). Then again, that might just be my perspective.
About Canada, the divide with Quebec -- how much of that do you view as purely linguistic, and how much is cultural? Or is that even quantifiable?
About the EU and world government, what do you mean by "obvious" and "goal" -- obvious to whom, and whose goal?
Okay, that clears some things up, thanks for the response. I don't think folks in the Americas were all that, so there's one point of confusion. "Noble Savage" nothing; I don't think they were particularly noble or particularly savage; people are people, warts and all, is my personal view.
Speaking of people as people, though, and to come back to the initial point in TFA about ballots in multiple languages, are you of the opinion that everyone in a single polity must speak the same language to be granted suffrage? Reading your posts in this thread (the OP thread), it sounds like this is your stance. If so, what is your view of such polities as the EU, or Canada itself, where the voting public speaks multiple languages, but where any single member might only speak one? Do you view these polities as mistakes, experiments, something else?
That's just as bad. Just because you shift the target from one person to an entire population doesn't mean that you get to ignore the fact that NONE of the people you're calling "hypocritical" were alive during the entirety of the timespan on which you're commenting.
I could have explicated better, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase -- we have 1) European immigrants who overwhelmed local Native populations. I do not address whether or not these European people were hypocrites. Then we have 2) folks, nowadays, in the US, who are the anglophone descendants of these Europeans and who both a) glorify their ancestors' actions, and b) complain that the incoming and already-local-but-growing Latino populations won't learn English. These are the people that I claim are behaving hypocritically, due to the combination of points a) and b).
Honestly, I don't feel like checking, because it's irrelevant anyway. Show me a time when they let the white man cast a vote with them, and we'll talk.
You stated, "since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted". I replied that the Salish and Iroquois did indeed have a concept of liberal democracy, which is nothing but relevant and refutes your point. You then calling my point irrelevant sounds a lot like trying to justify your own intellectual laziness. Meanwhile, whether or not these tribes allowed white folk to participate in their governance is itself irrelevant to the core point addressed here, unless you wish to start a separate discussion. Commit many logical fallacies?
lol. Now I know you're trolling:) Yeah, the American Indians, who lived on this continent for almost 15,000 years yet were unable to achieve the technological level of Egypt circa 2,000 BC, were REEEEALLLY close to the people who built globe-traversing ships, steam engines, gunpowder, telescopes, a system for determining your position anywhere on the planet, and science-based medicine. Honestly. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Obvious troll is obvious.
Jackass is a jackass. Name calling is name calling. I would posit that the more obvious troller here is you, I'm afraid. 1492 is not the age of GPS and steam engines. Even assuming you mean navigation as opposed to GPS, the Polynesians managed the vast Pacific for thousands of years prior to 1492, while Europeans couldn't manage the Atlantic with any certainty. The earliest known useful steam engine isn't documented until sometime in the late 1500s - early 1600s. I'll grant you medicine to an extent, though it's worth pointing out that just about every culture known throughout history, and many in prehistory, has exhibited some form of empiric knowledge of medical treatment, while many folks in Europe and the US as recently as the 1800s thought bathing was dangerously unhealthy (and some would argue that this is still the case in some places, c.f. Parisian bathing habits).
Besides which, you again put words in my mouth. I did not state that tech in the Americas was on par with European abilities. Quoting myself, I said European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. Not the same as what you seem to think I said. Spanish and English firearms, for instance, were much more useful for their psychological effects than for any capabilities as weapons. From page 64 of 1491:
Even for a crack shot, a seventeenth-century gun had fewer advantages over a longbow than may be supposed. Colonists in Jamestown taunted the Powhatan in 1607 with a target they believed impervious to an arrow shot. To the colonists' dismay, an Indian sank an arrow into it a foot deep, "which was strange, being that a Pis
That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic.
No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.
Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted.
You might want to double-check your history on this one. The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.
Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.
Sounds suspiciously like a description of Europe. I fail to see why this history should be construed as somehow disqualifying the descendants of these people from speaking their own languages while engaging in participatory government.
So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?
I'm not sure anymore if you're trolling, or simply so emotionally invested in your point of view that conversation isn't really an option. For one, read up on history; European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. If it weren't for all the diseases the relatively dirty Europeans brought with them, history would have proceeded very differently. And again, the political situation in the Americas wasn't so very different from the political situation anywhere else on the globe: some empires, some smaller states, some fragmentary city-states, some nomads, shifting alliances, wars every few years.
I do not espouse regression. Nothing in my previous posts expresses any such regressionist view. I do espouse people not being conquering bellicose aggressors simply because they can. You either misunderstand me, or are deliberately putting words in my mouth. If your basic philosophy is that might makes right, that's fine, just please let me know so we can stop talking past each other.
As for your response about language and voting, why must everyone speak the same language? The Navajo can communicate well enough with the rest of the country via their own representatives and interpreters. Demanding that they all learn English or be disenfranchised is unreasonable, to put it lightly. Must every European citizen speak English to vote on EU matters?
Cheers,
(PS: Not sure how, but my previous post got unintentionally marked AC; reposting under my proper username.)
Yes, because the Navajo tribe founded the US, wrote it's constitution, and set out it's laws. Except for Ben Franklin, of course. He was Cree.
No, it's more that you argue on the one hand that only English speakers should be allowed to vote, and on the other, that people should learn the language of the country they're in. Europeans didn't do a great job adapting to the local customs, preferring instead to overwhelm them; now that Latino culture appears to be doing the same thing to some extent, the anglophone descendants of these Europeans cry foul, which stinks of hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the Navajo have been here much longer; I see no ethical reason to disenfranchise monolingual members of the tribe simply because they haven't deigned to learn the language of yet another invader.
Diné bizaad doo nilh bééhózingo biniina, doo yánílhti' da.
(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)
And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies. Though written and not spoken, some choice examples (emphasis mine): Obama: Commander and Theif, Respect Are Country, Remember Descent the Highest Form of Patriotic, Politicians Are Like Dipers, Obama Lier In Chief...
Examples like these make me think that an awful lot of people protesting at Tea Party rallies would be disqualified by your criterion. Mind you, I'm not saying one way or the other whether you support the Tea Party -- I'm simply trying to point out that, even if we decide that English is the national language (which, at the moment, it is not in any official de jure capacity), many supposed native speakers do not seem to speak / write / understand the language all that well.
Key School / Escuela Key, in Arlington VA, teaches a bilingual curriculum. According to the blurb linked here, it sounds like both English and Spanish are given equal weight.
I'm sure with some digging I could find at least a private school that teaches all classes not in English. They may be rare, but I'm reasonably sure they exist.
And your comment assumes that everyone goes to school -- my wife is a teacher, and has taught public school in CA, and is painfully aware that there are families for whom school simply isn't on the agenda, since earning enough money just to pay rent and eat is a much more pressing concern.
So why on earth should merely combining the words "embedded", "Linux", "wireless" and "router" make something patentable?
Ah, but now that you have combined these words, you are infringing on my copyright to the phrase "embedded Linux wireless router"! I demand reparations for this flagrant misappropriation of my intellectual property!
(Sure, I'm being silly, but I'm also trying to point out the inherent ridiculousness of these attempts at "owning" ideas.)
Cheers, thanks. The main issue is that the blog really made a hash of the explanation with sensationalist claptrap:
amazing properties of graphene now include the ability to create mass
... which is utter hokum. Further down the page, there are a couple breakdowns of the paper itself, which make it clear that what they're doing is what you say -- constraining the physics of a potential experiment to simplify the mathematics involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The Statute of Anne was passed in 1710, three hundred years ago, and formed the foundation of US copyright law, with some sections used verbatim. This Statute stipulated copyright terms of 14 years, renewable for a second 14 if the author was still alive. Within this broader context, it seems clear that the concept of a limited copyright term meant "limited" in terms of something within a human scale, and, importantly, bounded by the life of the original author. Instead, what we have now is a de facto unlimited copyright term, with copyrights held not by the original author, but rather by faceless and essentially immortal corporations.
Bringing up 5000 years as a "limited" copyright term, while pedantically correct, is completely irrelevant within this context of copyright on a human scale. And, within this context, Disney (among many others) has egregiously overstepped any morally or historically defensible bounds.
Cheers,
I don't suppose you could explain your post a bit better? Reading it over, I get a lot of opinion, but nothing informative to work with... :(
You can easily protects your network. It's even easier then IPv4 and NATs
Okay; how? Purely firewall settings? I have zero IPv6 experience, but have read around a little bit.
The fact that he claims it's impossible to 'end up on the internet by accident' using IPv4 should be setting off alarm bells.
Well, private addresses (192.168.x.x, etc) are by definition private; how would an external computer initiate a connection to a machine inside a NATted subnet, without the router providing port forwarding? This is not rhetorical; I am interested in the answer.
Meanwhile, IPv6 addresses are, from what I've read, mostly designed to be globally unique and thus globally routable, which I think is what PRMan was describing in his post. With such addresses, you'd have to explicitly configure your router/firewall to lock down local machines, no? Or is there some mechanism enabled by default to prevent local IPv6 machines from being accessed from outside the local network? Again, I'm not asking rhetorically.
(I did find that apparently IPv6 includes explicitly private address blocks [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network#Private_IPv6_addresses] -- perhaps this is what you were meaning?)
Cheers,
I appreciate the reply. Some follow-up questions:
Not sure what you mean by this -- the internet-facing NAT router should ostensibly get an address unique to its ISP, ideally unique globally, but so would an IPv6 machine... which makes me think you mean something different?
Port-mapping, yes. But what if you want, say, two HTTP servers behind the NAT, and don't want users to have to know which port to specify? Some time back I had the bright idea of seeing if DNS included any port info -- make one name resolve to my.ip:port1, and the other to my.ip:port2, but no such luck (at least with what I was able to find). This is a serious question, so if you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
Personally, I see lots of negatives and no positives. And maybe I'm not alone, because there seems to be a great reluctance to switching over.
These are all very useful insights that hadn't occurred to me, and I bet you're right about these issues impeding adoption.
However, I can think of one positive, although it's a bit of a corner case. My router itself is behind my landlord's NAT, leaving me with zero access to my own subnet from outside:
Is there any way you know of by which I could access my machines from elsewhere on the net? Ideally, this would not include any dedicated server elsewhere maintaining some sort of tunnel to my machines.
Cheers,
I'm curious, and clearly ignorant as I'm confused about what the difference is between NATting and simply setting up a firewall properly. In both cases, machines you don't want exposed are safely tucked away and isolated. If you had globally unique IPs for every machine (presumably IPv6), you would at least have the easy option to open an external connection to any machine; with NAT, that option is missing.
Thus, in my no-doubt naïve understanding, NAT entails no unique benefits, but does entail unique limitations. So what am I missing? I'm honestly curious and hoping for a cogent argument explaining why NAT is better than a proper firewall.
Cheers,
To be fair, research papers and bibliographies are totally fucking useless for 99% of careers. I really don't understand the purpose of requiring them for anything other than a purely academic career.
I dunno, but knowing how to write and knowing how to vet sources both seem like important all-around skills to me... (Though, admittedly, simply writing research papers with bibliographies alone is not enough, as it requires decent teachers willing and able to go through the whole process and explain the importance of each step.)
Cheers,
I'm honestly curious. I've never heard a cogent argument about why single-payer insurance would be worse than what we already have. And having lived in a few other countries, I find it notable that places that have single-payer insurance tend to have much more functional healthcare systems -- cheaper, with better service.
Anyway, it sounds from your post like you're of the view that single-payer insurance is not a good thing. If that is your view, why? What do you see as bad about a single-payer insurance system? I ask out of honest curiosity.
Cheers,
The prototype is what you sell to the first few suckers^Wcustomers to get them hooked^Wexcited, and then the beta is generally the first service pack. See, the first service pack is essentially the second release -- hence "beta" for "second".
Or something. That certainly seems to be the MO for the vendors we deal with for much of our internal processing software here. :-P
Cheers,
Why, sir, I've doppled many floobs in my day. Just what is your post meant to imply???
Dyspeptically yours,
Cheers,
If ever Nelson's derision were appropriate, this is certainly such a case.
Talk about foot shooting and petard hoisting, and we can now point to IE6 as the archetypical example.
Cheers,
Somebody please mod the parent post up. Second source (i.e. backup) is a fundamental part of proper risk management, something that the corporate world has largely fallen away from in certain aspects of IT.
<pure_speculation>Makes me wonder if the surge in MBAs over the past few decades has anything to do with this.</pure_speculation>
Cheers,
Sure, people are people is a simplification, because to some extent it has to be. That said, I've lived in numerous places around the world, and visited a fair few more, and while I agree that folks are to some extent the product of where they grow up, I see quite a bit of commonality -- probably because the bare-bones basics are the same for most human animals (excluding the outliers you mention). Then again, that might just be my perspective.
About Canada, the divide with Quebec -- how much of that do you view as purely linguistic, and how much is cultural? Or is that even quantifiable?
About the EU and world government, what do you mean by "obvious" and "goal" -- obvious to whom, and whose goal?
Cheers,
Okay, that clears some things up, thanks for the response. I don't think folks in the Americas were all that, so there's one point of confusion. "Noble Savage" nothing; I don't think they were particularly noble or particularly savage; people are people, warts and all, is my personal view.
Speaking of people as people, though, and to come back to the initial point in TFA about ballots in multiple languages, are you of the opinion that everyone in a single polity must speak the same language to be granted suffrage? Reading your posts in this thread (the OP thread), it sounds like this is your stance. If so, what is your view of such polities as the EU, or Canada itself, where the voting public speaks multiple languages, but where any single member might only speak one? Do you view these polities as mistakes, experiments, something else?
Cheers,
Something at the end of your post here makes me want to ask -- what do you think my "little fantasy" is? I'm honestly curious.
Cheers,
That's just as bad. Just because you shift the target from one person to an entire population doesn't mean that you get to ignore the fact that NONE of the people you're calling "hypocritical" were alive during the entirety of the timespan on which you're commenting.
I could have explicated better, I'll give you that. Allow me to rephrase -- we have 1) European immigrants who overwhelmed local Native populations. I do not address whether or not these European people were hypocrites. Then we have 2) folks, nowadays, in the US, who are the anglophone descendants of these Europeans and who both a) glorify their ancestors' actions, and b) complain that the incoming and already-local-but-growing Latino populations won't learn English. These are the people that I claim are behaving hypocritically, due to the combination of points a) and b).
Honestly, I don't feel like checking, because it's irrelevant anyway. Show me a time when they let the white man cast a vote with them, and we'll talk.
You stated, "since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted". I replied that the Salish and Iroquois did indeed have a concept of liberal democracy, which is nothing but relevant and refutes your point. You then calling my point irrelevant sounds a lot like trying to justify your own intellectual laziness. Meanwhile, whether or not these tribes allowed white folk to participate in their governance is itself irrelevant to the core point addressed here, unless you wish to start a separate discussion. Commit many logical fallacies?
lol. Now I know you're trolling :) Yeah, the American Indians, who lived on this continent for almost 15,000 years yet were unable to achieve the technological level of Egypt circa 2,000 BC, were REEEEALLLY close to the people who built globe-traversing ships, steam engines, gunpowder, telescopes, a system for determining your position anywhere on the planet, and science-based medicine. Honestly. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. Obvious troll is obvious.
Jackass is a jackass. Name calling is name calling. I would posit that the more obvious troller here is you, I'm afraid. 1492 is not the age of GPS and steam engines. Even assuming you mean navigation as opposed to GPS, the Polynesians managed the vast Pacific for thousands of years prior to 1492, while Europeans couldn't manage the Atlantic with any certainty. The earliest known useful steam engine isn't documented until sometime in the late 1500s - early 1600s. I'll grant you medicine to an extent, though it's worth pointing out that just about every culture known throughout history, and many in prehistory, has exhibited some form of empiric knowledge of medical treatment, while many folks in Europe and the US as recently as the 1800s thought bathing was dangerously unhealthy (and some would argue that this is still the case in some places, c.f. Parisian bathing habits).
Besides which, you again put words in my mouth. I did not state that tech in the Americas was on par with European abilities. Quoting myself, I said European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. Not the same as what you seem to think I said. Spanish and English firearms, for instance, were much more useful for their psychological effects than for any capabilities as weapons. From page 64 of 1491:
Even for a crack shot, a seventeenth-century gun had fewer advantages over a longbow than may be supposed. Colonists in Jamestown taunted the Powhatan in 1607 with a target they believed impervious to an arrow shot. To the colonists' dismay, an Indian sank an arrow into it a foot deep, "which was strange, being that a Pis
That is, in a word, "idiotic". If you're going to call me a hypocrite because of something someone did a couple hundred years ago, you're clearly a couple sandwiches short of a full picnic.
No, I'm not calling you a hypocrite, unless that's a mantle you desire. What I'm calling hypocritical is the situation of anglophones in the US, descendants of folks who very actively and aggressively quelled any other language, complaining about folks not speaking English in reference to the growing Latino population, who at least are being less actively oppressive about their choice of language.
Nor is there any comparison between the two situations, since we're talking about voting in a liberal democracy - a concept with which the American Indians were completely unacquainted.
You might want to double-check your history on this one. The Salish people and the Iroquois Confederation both come to mind as at least partial refutations of this hypothesis.
Not to mention that they also had multiple languages, dozens of different competing tribes, tribal warfare on a semi-regular basis, and nothing even approaching an actual nation.
Sounds suspiciously like a description of Europe. I fail to see why this history should be construed as somehow disqualifying the descendants of these people from speaking their own languages while engaging in participatory government.
So what is it, exactly, that you think the settlers should have done? Cast off all modern tools and clothing, thrown on a pair of moccasins and a loincloth, learned the language of whichever tribe happened to be dominant in their area, and joined them in killing other Indians? Wonderful idea. Why progress when we can regress, right?
I'm not sure anymore if you're trolling, or simply so emotionally invested in your point of view that conversation isn't really an option. For one, read up on history; European tech was perhaps not quite as far ahead of the tech in the Americas as you seem to think. If it weren't for all the diseases the relatively dirty Europeans brought with them, history would have proceeded very differently. And again, the political situation in the Americas wasn't so very different from the political situation anywhere else on the globe: some empires, some smaller states, some fragmentary city-states, some nomads, shifting alliances, wars every few years.
I do not espouse regression. Nothing in my previous posts expresses any such regressionist view. I do espouse people not being conquering bellicose aggressors simply because they can. You either misunderstand me, or are deliberately putting words in my mouth. If your basic philosophy is that might makes right, that's fine, just please let me know so we can stop talking past each other.
As for your response about language and voting, why must everyone speak the same language? The Navajo can communicate well enough with the rest of the country via their own representatives and interpreters. Demanding that they all learn English or be disenfranchised is unreasonable, to put it lightly. Must every European citizen speak English to vote on EU matters?
Cheers,
(PS: Not sure how, but my previous post got unintentionally marked AC; reposting under my proper username.)
Yes, because the Navajo tribe founded the US, wrote it's constitution, and set out it's laws. Except for Ben Franklin, of course. He was Cree.
No, it's more that you argue on the one hand that only English speakers should be allowed to vote, and on the other, that people should learn the language of the country they're in. Europeans didn't do a great job adapting to the local customs, preferring instead to overwhelm them; now that Latino culture appears to be doing the same thing to some extent, the anglophone descendants of these Europeans cry foul, which stinks of hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the Navajo have been here much longer; I see no ethical reason to disenfranchise monolingual members of the tribe simply because they haven't deigned to learn the language of yet another invader.
T’áá ákódígo,
And the answer is none. None more white.
Apologies all around. ;-)
Cheers,
The answer is "3", right?
( ducks )
Cheers,
Diné bizaad doo nilh bééhózingo biniina, doo yánílhti' da.
(You do not speak Navajo, so you should not talk.)
And on the flip side, I give you various signs at Teabag rallies. Though written and not spoken, some choice examples (emphasis mine): Obama: Commander and Theif , Respect Are Country, Remember Descent the Highest Form of Patriotic, Politicians Are Like Dipers , Obama Lier In Chief...
Examples like these make me think that an awful lot of people protesting at Tea Party rallies would be disqualified by your criterion. Mind you, I'm not saying one way or the other whether you support the Tea Party -- I'm simply trying to point out that, even if we decide that English is the national language (which, at the moment, it is not in any official de jure capacity), many supposed native speakers do not seem to speak / write / understand the language all that well.
Cheers,
Key School / Escuela Key, in Arlington VA, teaches a bilingual curriculum. According to the blurb linked here, it sounds like both English and Spanish are given equal weight.
I'm sure with some digging I could find at least a private school that teaches all classes not in English. They may be rare, but I'm reasonably sure they exist.
And your comment assumes that everyone goes to school -- my wife is a teacher, and has taught public school in CA, and is painfully aware that there are families for whom school simply isn't on the agenda, since earning enough money just to pay rent and eat is a much more pressing concern.
Cheers,
Thus the resistance at the high end, and embracing at the lower end.
Almost sounds like electronics.
Cheers,
So why on earth should merely combining the words "embedded", "Linux", "wireless" and "router" make something patentable?
Ah, but now that you have combined these words, you are infringing on my copyright to the phrase "embedded Linux wireless router"! I demand reparations for this flagrant misappropriation of my intellectual property!
(Sure, I'm being silly, but I'm also trying to point out the inherent ridiculousness of these attempts at "owning" ideas.)
Cheers,
Cheers, thanks. The main issue is that the blog really made a hash of the explanation with sensationalist claptrap:
... which is utter hokum. Further down the page, there are a couple breakdowns of the paper itself, which make it clear that what they're doing is what you say -- constraining the physics of a potential experiment to simplify the mathematics involved.
Cheers,
Unbiggening? Ensmalling? Belittling?
;)