"I think the blame lies with him for pushing the development *AFTER* the technology was proven infeasible"
What proof? You can't mean a bunch of scientists arguing about whether it might work, can you? That's proof to you? How sad. Since there are scientists on both sides of the debate (as always) I can't see how their OPINIONS constitute any kind of evidence at all.
"Find a missile defense system that can find which truck on the freeway is carrying a nuke, and then destroy it, and maybe your argument would work."
What does that have to do with anything? Those threats aren't what this system is designed for. Do you really expect ONE system to do everything? You deal with those problems with a DIFFERENT system.
Please try to think before you post instead of regurgitating other's pointless ramblings. I can tell you're a slashbot, but it's not too late to use your reasoning abilities.
"e.g. SLBMs, low flying cruise missiles or trucks..."
Why would you expect it to defeat these threats? It wasn't designed to defeat them. You wouldn't expect a calculator to do the job of a blender would you? Well, maybe you would...
No. The constitution is a living document open to continuous interpretation. There are NO absolutes. The interpreters of the Constitution decide what's illegal, sorry, rail against it, but the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right. In fact you're completely wrong. Slavery was legal, then it was illegal. The Constitution didn't decide that, the court did. The Constitution is a guiding document, not dogma.
You, like so many others, misunderstand the reason for this technology. It may never work, but the more important point is that we can use it as a bargaining chip.
More precisely, the threat of the US having nukes while being protected against other countries nukes is terrifying to the other countries. It may not work now, but unless they give us what we want from them, we threaten to continue development until it does work.
Much more effective than actually using the thing, you see.
"very liberal with the free demos I give out for my software."
Which would be great, and would apply to music, if P2P was populated by DEMOS of music and software. It's populated by the real thing, which when downloaded could very easily cost the artist a sale. You might be fine with that, but it's arrogant to try to speak for all artists.
"I also don't pursue, nor am I upset about what some might call "warez" versions of my software."
Most likely because it's not worth it to you. There are probably far too few people in this category to matter. Again, why do you feel you can make this decision for everyone? What if I was in the same position, but wanted to vigorously defend my rights? How can you justify taking that away?
"Certainly when a law is in itself illegal (and many copyright laws go well beyond Congress's enumerated power to provide copyright to authors for a limited time), it's ethically ok to break it."
Agreed. However, the laws you speak of aren't illegal yet. Just disagreeing with them and insisting they are illegal isn't enough, you have to get the Supreme Court to agree with you. Until they do, you're wrong, and copyright law sticks. Now, as to the spirit of the law, you're probably right, but that's irrelevant.
As to what this means ethically, it means you are breaking the law (does best Beavis and Butthead impersonation). Justify it to yourself how you want, but the "illegal" laws you speak of ARE NOT illegal until declared to be. Seeking cover by claiming to be a dissident doesn't cut it.
No, I'm not forced to be in the union, and I'm not, but they negotiate for ALL teachers, non-union included. We have to ride the coattails of their deal, regardless of how much we disagree.
I believe this is similar to other unions, in that non union employees are still under the unions umbrella.
"your union is screwing you in so many ways it's not funny"
Not in the union. In fact, I hate them, which makes somewhat of an outsider.
"but you want the government to set your wage"
No, never said that. Never implied it, and since the concept is anathema to me, I can't understand how you came to that conclusion.
"Or am I misunderstanding your statement?"
Yes, I believe you were. My major point was that teaching is not an easy profession to get into, and there aren't a great deal of teachers to fill posts. Your area is not indicative, and I'm sure that if you expanded your search (outside of your county? or local school district? not sure how much you looked) you would find a VERY large shortage. In fact, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that your district isn't recruiting science and math teachers, as there are never enough.
The only area of education where your statements apply is PE, but then they aren't usually interested in being "teachers" in the first place.
Now, that you've amended your statement, it's more accurate. And frankly, I agree with the rest of your post.
"I buy it simply because it's so easy to be a teacher since the payrate is so low"
Not sure how one has to do with the other. More importantly, after my certification requirements, I have completed enough school and training to qualify for a Master's degree (easliy). I had to have a Bachelor's degree in a qualifying area (not just any degree, certain subjects only) just to get an interview. It's probably harder to get my job than yours.
Teachers are paid poorly because they are piad with tax money, and people are cheap. Please try to inform yourself before you (inadvertantly?) slam other's professions.
Sorry, but as a teacher, you're (half) wrong on this.
Let me explain. In my area the price of a house has recently reached the point that I cannot qualify for a mortgage because I make too little. I can't take a second job, because I take pride in my first one, and I'm pursuing my PhD. Time simply isn't there.
Now, I am a so-called "highly qualified" teacher (special certs) in a "critical needs" subject. The school I teach at is in an economically depressed area. If the school wants to keep me (and avoid hiring a most likely less qualified replacement) they will have to come up with some money. But they can't. The pay scale is standardized (fucking union) and raises are based on time taught. Acheivement, which in virtually every other job is rewarded by money, in this case is rewarded by...nothing. So, if I want a house, I can't continue teaching.
Paying more qualified, highly successful teachers is necessary to promote other teachers to follow suit. By paying a standard rate, the shitty teachers are insulated against poor performance, and have little incentive to pursue advanced certifications.
"supply and demand: teacher supply is high, so wages are low"
Bullshit. Check any job board in any school district, and you'll find teaching vacancies year round. You are wrong here.
"These are related because there is a low barrier of entry to be a teacher"
Again bullshit. As a first year teacher, I had to have a degree in a qualifying profession (not just any degree, only certain subjects), 300 hours of ESOL classes, 9 additional hours of college credit, 60 hours of ESE classes, 60 inservice points (1 point per hour) from additional classes, etc. To say "there is a low barrier of entry to be a teacher" shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
Reading the rest of your post it becomes clear you're just trolling, but in the future try not to comment on things you have no understanding of.
What you don't seem to understand is that what you described happens (sort of). Using your analogy, the short legged people would literally take the gene from the long legged people then grow longer legs on the spot. This process does occur, and is not the same your example.
Why do people always assume you dont understand their argument? I knew what you were saying, you were just wrong and didn't know it.
Well since those three things are happening (and a weak dollar is good for the Florida economy), but there's no draft happening, I see a very real difference.
Leave intelligent discourse to the rest of us. Maybe you should go play your xbox.
Wait, wait, wait, What does that have to do with anything? I'm a registered Democrat, but in my opinion, Democrats are WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too left lately. I never bothered to change my party affiliation, and generally don't ally myself with Democrats.
More importantly, if this guy wanted to start a story about this, what better way to establish you're not a partisan wacko than to register Republican. I would do the same thing if I were this guy.
"Sending somebody else's son or daughter to fight for what you believe it is about as socialist as it gets."
I thought it was a volunteer army. How did they get forced to join a volunteer army?
Moron
Slashdot Mirror
"I think the blame lies with him for pushing the development *AFTER* the technology was proven infeasible"
What proof? You can't mean a bunch of scientists arguing about whether it might work, can you? That's proof to you? How sad. Since there are scientists on both sides of the debate (as always) I can't see how their OPINIONS constitute any kind of evidence at all.
"popular myth among talk radio wonks"
Don't forget Gorbachev. He is the one who credited Reagan with outspending the USSR, and defeating communism.
Of course, what would the LEADER OF THE USSR know about it. The right-wing conspiracy got him too I guess.
"I dont ever remember missiles advancing any societies along"
Wernher von Braun, the moon, does any of this ring a bell?
Oh wait it was the 60's, no wonder you don't remember.
"Find a missile defense system that can find which truck on the freeway is carrying a nuke, and then destroy it, and maybe your argument would work."
What does that have to do with anything? Those threats aren't what this system is designed for. Do you really expect ONE system to do everything? You deal with those problems with a DIFFERENT system.
Please try to think before you post instead of regurgitating other's pointless ramblings. I can tell you're a slashbot, but it's not too late to use your reasoning abilities.
"e.g. SLBMs, low flying cruise missiles or trucks..."
Why would you expect it to defeat these threats? It wasn't designed to defeat them. You wouldn't expect a calculator to do the job of a blender would you? Well, maybe you would...
"No, a law is unconstitutional..."
No. The constitution is a living document open to continuous interpretation. There are NO absolutes. The interpreters of the Constitution decide what's illegal, sorry, rail against it, but the fact that you disagree doesn't make you right. In fact you're completely wrong. Slavery was legal, then it was illegal. The Constitution didn't decide that, the court did. The Constitution is a guiding document, not dogma.
You, like so many others, misunderstand the reason for this technology. It may never work, but the more important point is that we can use it as a bargaining chip.
More precisely, the threat of the US having nukes while being protected against other countries nukes is terrifying to the other countries. It may not work now, but unless they give us what we want from them, we threaten to continue development until it does work.
Much more effective than actually using the thing, you see.
"very liberal with the free demos I give out for my software."
Which would be great, and would apply to music, if P2P was populated by DEMOS of music and software. It's populated by the real thing, which when downloaded could very easily cost the artist a sale. You might be fine with that, but it's arrogant to try to speak for all artists.
"I also don't pursue, nor am I upset about what some might call "warez" versions of my software."
Most likely because it's not worth it to you. There are probably far too few people in this category to matter. Again, why do you feel you can make this decision for everyone? What if I was in the same position, but wanted to vigorously defend my rights? How can you justify taking that away?
And you'll notice I'm not AC
"Certainly when a law is in itself illegal (and many copyright laws go well beyond Congress's enumerated power to provide copyright to authors for a limited time), it's ethically ok to break it."
Agreed. However, the laws you speak of aren't illegal yet. Just disagreeing with them and insisting they are illegal isn't enough, you have to get the Supreme Court to agree with you. Until they do, you're wrong, and copyright law sticks. Now, as to the spirit of the law, you're probably right, but that's irrelevant.
As to what this means ethically, it means you are breaking the law (does best Beavis and Butthead impersonation). Justify it to yourself how you want, but the "illegal" laws you speak of ARE NOT illegal until declared to be. Seeking cover by claiming to be a dissident doesn't cut it.
No wonder it sucks
Listen, I read your post, and frankly, you're just regurgitating the same things you said in your previous post.
I DID work in the private sector, as a Certified Associate Behavior Analyst, before I chose to get out of working with autistic students.
As for my certs and training, I stand by my statement. I'm nearly done with my PhD, so I do know from whence I speak.
As for the rest of your post, more anecdotal evidence that really isn't true. Tell all the stories you want, I've been through it, I know the truth.
Why do you assume you know more about it than I do? How long have you been teaching?
No, I'm not forced to be in the union, and I'm not, but they negotiate for ALL teachers, non-union included. We have to ride the coattails of their deal, regardless of how much we disagree.
I believe this is similar to other unions, in that non union employees are still under the unions umbrella.
"your union is screwing you in so many ways it's not funny"
Not in the union. In fact, I hate them, which makes somewhat of an outsider.
"but you want the government to set your wage"
No, never said that. Never implied it, and since the concept is anathema to me, I can't understand how you came to that conclusion.
"Or am I misunderstanding your statement?"
Yes, I believe you were. My major point was that teaching is not an easy profession to get into, and there aren't a great deal of teachers to fill posts. Your area is not indicative, and I'm sure that if you expanded your search (outside of your county? or local school district? not sure how much you looked) you would find a VERY large shortage. In fact, I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that your district isn't recruiting science and math teachers, as there are never enough.
The only area of education where your statements apply is PE, but then they aren't usually interested in being "teachers" in the first place.
Now, that you've amended your statement, it's more accurate. And frankly, I agree with the rest of your post.
"I buy it simply because it's so easy to be a teacher since the payrate is so low"
Not sure how one has to do with the other. More importantly, after my certification requirements, I have completed enough school and training to qualify for a Master's degree (easliy). I had to have a Bachelor's degree in a qualifying area (not just any degree, certain subjects only) just to get an interview. It's probably harder to get my job than yours.
Teachers are paid poorly because they are piad with tax money, and people are cheap. Please try to inform yourself before you (inadvertantly?) slam other's professions.
"Money isn't the answer"
Sorry, but as a teacher, you're (half) wrong on this.
Let me explain. In my area the price of a house has recently reached the point that I cannot qualify for a mortgage because I make too little. I can't take a second job, because I take pride in my first one, and I'm pursuing my PhD. Time simply isn't there.
Now, I am a so-called "highly qualified" teacher (special certs) in a "critical needs" subject. The school I teach at is in an economically depressed area. If the school wants to keep me (and avoid hiring a most likely less qualified replacement) they will have to come up with some money. But they can't. The pay scale is standardized (fucking union) and raises are based on time taught. Acheivement, which in virtually every other job is rewarded by money, in this case is rewarded by...nothing. So, if I want a house, I can't continue teaching.
Paying more qualified, highly successful teachers is necessary to promote other teachers to follow suit. By paying a standard rate, the shitty teachers are insulated against poor performance, and have little incentive to pursue advanced certifications.
"supply and demand: teacher supply is high, so wages are low"
Bullshit. Check any job board in any school district, and you'll find teaching vacancies year round. You are wrong here.
"These are related because there is a low barrier of entry to be a teacher"
Again bullshit. As a first year teacher, I had to have a degree in a qualifying profession (not just any degree, only certain subjects), 300 hours of ESOL classes, 9 additional hours of college credit, 60 hours of ESE classes, 60 inservice points (1 point per hour) from additional classes, etc. To say "there is a low barrier of entry to be a teacher" shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
Reading the rest of your post it becomes clear you're just trolling, but in the future try not to comment on things you have no understanding of.
What you don't seem to understand is that what you described happens (sort of). Using your analogy, the short legged people would literally take the gene from the long legged people then grow longer legs on the spot. This process does occur, and is not the same your example.
Why do people always assume you dont understand their argument? I knew what you were saying, you were just wrong and didn't know it.
Well since those three things are happening (and a weak dollar is good for the Florida economy), but there's no draft happening, I see a very real difference.
Leave intelligent discourse to the rest of us. Maybe you should go play your xbox.
Oh, don't be a jackass, there's no draft coming. And besides, I'm not eligible, so I wouldn't care if there was.
Glad you got it :) Five bucks says I get flamed for it...
Wait, wait, wait, What does that have to do with anything? I'm a registered Democrat, but in my opinion, Democrats are WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too left lately. I never bothered to change my party affiliation, and generally don't ally myself with Democrats.
More importantly, if this guy wanted to start a story about this, what better way to establish you're not a partisan wacko than to register Republican. I would do the same thing if I were this guy.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that a group touting the need for security in voting can't even take care of their own security?
As many others have said, select is only for 2 player. Single player, no select.
Why do people always feel the need to correct other people? I hate people like that.
"Sending somebody else's son or daughter to fight for what you believe it is about as socialist as it gets." I thought it was a volunteer army. How did they get forced to join a volunteer army? Moron
"egregarious"
WTF? What is involved in "egregarious" vote tampering?