http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District ...should be a good start as evidence that idiots have gotten themselves elected by idiots and forced their religion into school science curricula. Fortunately, in this case the courts, and eventually an election where more enlightened voters than idiots turned out, turned this around, but the battle continues. Here in Texas, the battle continues... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/education/24texas.html
That's right. Until early this year, there was a state law that requiredthat creationism (and yes, "intelligent design" is indeed just another term for this or that religion's version of how things came to be the way they are) be taught in our public schools. Don McLeroy, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3713 , has made it quite plain that he believes in the Biblical version of creation and that it should be given equal time in schools. Don is free to believe any idiotic "theory" that he wants, but to advocate pushing into public schools? Well, it's no wonder that we are losing ground when it comes to the teaching of science. Our priorities are seriously fucked up. That someone with such an agenda is allowed to waste the public's time and money with such distractions from the real business of education is a disgrace.
Uh..., so teaching it in grade school is OK then? Wake up, man. The idiots have had enough control of school boards, state boards of education, and legislators to make the teaching of "creation science" mandatory in many localities. If you don't see a problem with theocrats deliberately dumbing down our children, you are part of the problem.
If God (the moral agent) does not exist, then there is no concept of "wrong", right?
No. Wrong. Go back and retake Ethics 101 and learn that there are many, many ways to arrive at a more or less workable "moral code". And no, the "religious dogma as authority" path is seldom one that reaches the level of "workable", having almost invariably, a built-in "us versus them (who are less than us)" way of thinking.
... what does this mean for the famous "liberal media bias"? Will these systems have a variable that can be used to "adjust" this so-called bias? If so, who gets to set it?
You are going to need it. "...much responsibility and little true authority..." is a recipe for failure and scapegoating. As it is so often in business, so it is even more so in government, the PHB's (those with the real authority) don't grasp the issues and will make bad decisions, forcing you to deal with the consequences.
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.
From a perfectly rational perspective, allowing, for instance, ten violent criminals to go free probably does more overall harm to society than imprisoning one innocent man. That doesn't mean that it's OK, but it's better than the alternative. You can argue what the threshold should be. Maybe you really think that it would be better to release every imprisoned person in the world, because there are bound to be innocent people among them, but I don't think you'd get much support for that idea.
Spoken like someone who failed history-101 and civics-101 (or perhaps more accurately, and no less sadly, one who was never taught these things).
Once you "rationalize" that some (usually ill-defined) collective good outweighs an individual's civil rights, it is a steep and slippery slope. History is littered with examples where "rational" thinking such as yours led, in astonishingly short order, to the most horrific examples of human rights abuses.
Don't hire the government to force the people at Verizon to do things against their will -- unless the people at Verizon have truly defrauded you, personally, out of a significant amount of money. Because forcing people to do things against their will is (almost always) morally wrong.
Obviously, you missed the part about "the agreement" being intentionally and maliciously complex, to the point that it is indecipherable to the average customer. Said customer, having been assured by the friendly sales rep, "It just says [insert standard salesman bullshit rap here]", signs anyway, in the mistaken belief that he's dealing with a fair and honorable business.
There are laws against trying to cheat customers. Hiding your draconian terms in an indecipherable "agreement" is anything but fair and honest. It should be illegal.
You must be referring to a McD's that never went to frozen fries. Once upon a time, McD's fries were prepared fresh, from real potatoes, in the restaurant. Those were some good French fries. Now get off my lawn.
Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?
But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..
/Mikael
Not a dream world, my friend, just the real world where the two highlighted phrases above aren't mutually exclusive, as they are in most parts of East Texas. Don't get me wrong, there's corruption aplenty there too, but (yes, I am making a rather sweeping generalization) that neighborhood isn't exactly known for a high average IQ. In your dream (real) world, judges are typically very well educated and possessed of a keen sense of right and wrong. One or the other is clearly missing here.
Bravo, sir, for backing into the real issue here - who "owns" the infrastructure. Like all utilities which must be delivered over a physical infrastructure that must be built within a limited right-of-way, or delivered over a limited band of the radio spectrum, the operation of a broadband infrastructure is a "natural monopoly". As such it needs to be heavily regulated, or better yet, owned and operated by the people it serves. Open it up to all comers as a platform to deliver service, but take away the ridiculous telecom monopolies.
Look, I can't speak to world where there is not a telecom monopoly, but I can when it comes to electricity. I come from a part of the country where the electricity (usually) delivered by a public utility. Service there is exemplary. I could count on one hand the number of outages in a decade. I now live in a place where one for-profit company owns the wires and there is a pretend "free market" when it comes to choosing electrical companies, all of whom "deliver" over the same infrastructure. The service is universally shitty. Brown-outs, surges, and outright blackouts are common weekly occurrences. The physical infrastructure is a joke. Poorly maintained would be generous description of it. This condition will not change because there's not enough money in doing it right and more importantly, because there is no alternative.
Again, when it comes to utilities, free market = fail.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case. As to those who received and posted the documents for the world to see, unless they have a security clearance themselves (and have been appropriately briefed) I don't believe they are liable (obviously IANAL) so I don't see what exactly the congress-critters are asking for in this case.
I should think that would be obvious. It's just yet-another thing to bitch about for the party who had their asses handed to them by the electorate in the last two elections. Having failed when it comes to properly running the country, and having continued to put forth the same failed ideas (tax breaks for the wealthy, privatizing critical military and security functions, etc.) they are reduced to bitching and, wherever the can, obstructing the party that was elected to clean up their fucking mess.
Uh..., no.
Moore is a documentary film maker, one with an admitted agenda in everything he creates.
Gore is a politician. 'Nuff said there, I believe.
Your kneejerk response with those two names is interesting, though, if more than a bit tired. Listen to Rush Limbaugh (titular head of the Repblican party and noted anti-intellectual) much?
Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?
-Peter
Bullshit. This canard is wearing rather thin, don't you think? Academic research is somehow just as corrupt by the public funding it receives as so called "independent research firms" are by the funding they receive from private interests like the energy industry or big pharma?
For whatever reason, a lot of people act as if scientists don't have their own preconceived notions on how things should be, or are predisposed to a certain political agenda. The tag line is that scientists are only interested in the truth, as if scientists as a class are immune to any sort of corruption, and that consensus on an issue is the same thing as fact. Forget the fact that there's an incentive to support certain findings because that will lead to greater funding...
"humans" is shorter still, and doesn't miss the rest of the power-hungry assholes.
Sorry, but you'll have to go some to prove that there is another American political party of any consequence that has done anywhere near as much work as the Republicans when it comes to fostering the populist anti-intellectual movement. Go ahead. Try. We'll wait.
[crickets...]
Yeah, you want to guard against that. She knows all about computers 'cause she can see one from her porch. Then again, a direct hit is unlikely, because she'd have to, you know, "...do a whole buncha boring technical stuff just to get ready...", and quit before she ever got close.
The market is really hipster douchebags. They're competing with thick-framed square glasses and retro 1980s video game t-shirts. The music industry doesn't really figure into it.
While I'm sure that many, if not most, buyers of vinyl LP's are "hipster doucebags" (love that term, BTW), there really is a difference in the sound. Of course, only "audiophile snob douchebags" have the gear that will let them hear that difference to a degree that warrants the hassles (availability, cost, maintenance, etc.) associated with such an antique medium. Nevertheless, that difference can be breathtaking with the right material. Sadly, the audiophile snob market is so small that even with the addition of those hipster douchebags, the music industry is not going to change it's practice of churning out (mostly) mediocre recordings that have been turned into over-compressed sonic garbage.
[sigh...]
As has been observed already, the Fairness Doctrine applied (past tense, sadly) to broadcast media only, where the "freedom of the press" was artificially restricted by the governments' own granting of a limited number of broadcast licenses. The (quite cogent) argument being that this (government caused) restriction on the availability of the medium warranted the extraordinary step of insisting that "both sides" of an issue be given air time. In 1985, the FCC under Reagan, in a stroke of unparalleled irony, revoked most of the rules that made of the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that they "violated free speech". The net effect has been to grant a government-licensed monopoly on broadcast "speech" to an ever shrinking number giant media corporations.
Nice try.
seeing an "emergency" someone will step in with government money, more regulation, etc, and it just goes downhill from here.
Just... [exasperated gasp] fuck.
How do you Ronald Regan "all government is evil" fan-boys keep coming up with this stuff? I mean, where, exactly, is there any evidence to suggest that "the government" is going to step in and take over the role held by the free press? No, the article you cite is evidence of quite to opposite (that which you claim not to fear nearly as much), the inordinate influence of big media companies in shaping how, when, and where we get access to information. Sure, the government, having been bought and paid for by those interests, will have a role, but it is the electorate's stupidly steadfast refusal to recognize that their "representative government" has been sold to the highest bidder that is to blame, not "the government".
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.
Not quite...
Were those the only applications required, the notion would indeed be baseless, but...
There is still a huge raft of Windows software that will not perform properly without admin rights. Until that is fixed, the problem will never be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
...should be a good start as evidence that idiots have gotten themselves elected by idiots and forced their religion into school science curricula. Fortunately, in this case the courts, and eventually an election where more enlightened voters than idiots turned out, turned this around, but the battle continues. Here in Texas, the battle continues...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/education/24texas.html
That's right. Until early this year, there was a state law that requiredthat creationism (and yes, "intelligent design" is indeed just another term for this or that religion's version of how things came to be the way they are) be taught in our public schools. Don McLeroy, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=3713 , has made it quite plain that he believes in the Biblical version of creation and that it should be given equal time in schools. Don is free to believe any idiotic "theory" that he wants, but to advocate pushing into public schools? Well, it's no wonder that we are losing ground when it comes to the teaching of science. Our priorities are seriously fucked up. That someone with such an agenda is allowed to waste the public's time and money with such distractions from the real business of education is a disgrace.
Sadly, your definition of "theory" and/or religion is broken. In the real world, the two have nothing in common.
Uh..., so teaching it in grade school is OK then? Wake up, man. The idiots have had enough control of school boards, state boards of education, and legislators to make the teaching of "creation science" mandatory in many localities. If you don't see a problem with theocrats deliberately dumbing down our children, you are part of the problem.
If God (the moral agent) does not exist, then there is no concept of "wrong", right?
No. Wrong. Go back and retake Ethics 101 and learn that there are many, many ways to arrive at a more or less workable "moral code". And no, the "religious dogma as authority" path is seldom one that reaches the level of "workable", having almost invariably, a built-in "us versus them (who are less than us)" way of thinking.
http://creationmuseum.org/
...and it has not been laughed out of existence. 'Nuff said.
... what does this mean for the famous "liberal media bias"? Will these systems have a variable that can be used to "adjust" this so-called bias? If so, who gets to set it?
"...female burrito..." :)
Let's see...
"...which hovered in the air in much the same way that bricks don't."
Nope. It's not just you.
...Ruby libraries change relatively quickly...
[shakes head]
Who is this 'Blackbetty' to whom you refer?
Classic rock, dude.
Who-oh-oa, Blackbetty...
You are going to need it. "...much responsibility and little true authority..." is a recipe for failure and scapegoating. As it is so often in business, so it is even more so in government, the PHB's (those with the real authority) don't grasp the issues and will make bad decisions, forcing you to deal with the consequences.
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.
From a perfectly rational perspective, allowing, for instance, ten violent criminals to go free probably does more overall harm to society than imprisoning one innocent man. That doesn't mean that it's OK, but it's better than the alternative. You can argue what the threshold should be. Maybe you really think that it would be better to release every imprisoned person in the world, because there are bound to be innocent people among them, but I don't think you'd get much support for that idea.
Spoken like someone who failed history-101 and civics-101 (or perhaps more accurately, and no less sadly, one who was never taught these things).
Once you "rationalize" that some (usually ill-defined) collective good outweighs an individual's civil rights, it is a steep and slippery slope. History is littered with examples where "rational" thinking such as yours led, in astonishingly short order, to the most horrific examples of human rights abuses.
Don't hire the government to force the people at Verizon to do things against their will -- unless the people at Verizon have truly defrauded you, personally, out of a significant amount of money. Because forcing people to do things against their will is (almost always) morally wrong.
Obviously, you missed the part about "the agreement" being intentionally and maliciously complex, to the point that it is indecipherable to the average customer. Said customer, having been assured by the friendly sales rep, "It just says [insert standard salesman bullshit rap here]", signs anyway, in the mistaken belief that he's dealing with a fair and honorable business.
There are laws against trying to cheat customers. Hiding your draconian terms in an indecipherable "agreement" is anything but fair and honest. It should be illegal.
You must be referring to a McD's that never went to frozen fries. Once upon a time, McD's fries were prepared fresh, from real potatoes, in the restaurant. Those were some good French fries.
Now get off my lawn.
Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?
But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..
/Mikael
Not a dream world, my friend, just the real world where the two highlighted phrases above aren't mutually exclusive, as they are in most parts of East Texas. Don't get me wrong, there's corruption aplenty there too, but (yes, I am making a rather sweeping generalization) that neighborhood isn't exactly known for a high average IQ. In your dream (real) world, judges are typically very well educated and possessed of a keen sense of right and wrong. One or the other is clearly missing here.
Bravo, sir, for backing into the real issue here - who "owns" the infrastructure. Like all utilities which must be delivered over a physical infrastructure that must be built within a limited right-of-way, or delivered over a limited band of the radio spectrum, the operation of a broadband infrastructure is a "natural monopoly". As such it needs to be heavily regulated, or better yet, owned and operated by the people it serves. Open it up to all comers as a platform to deliver service, but take away the ridiculous telecom monopolies.
Look, I can't speak to world where there is not a telecom monopoly, but I can when it comes to electricity. I come from a part of the country where the electricity (usually) delivered by a public utility. Service there is exemplary. I could count on one hand the number of outages in a decade. I now live in a place where one for-profit company owns the wires and there is a pretend "free market" when it comes to choosing electrical companies, all of whom "deliver" over the same infrastructure. The service is universally shitty. Brown-outs, surges, and outright blackouts are common weekly occurrences. The physical infrastructure is a joke. Poorly maintained would be generous description of it. This condition will not change because there's not enough money in doing it right and more importantly, because there is no alternative.
Again, when it comes to utilities, free market = fail.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case. As to those who received and posted the documents for the world to see, unless they have a security clearance themselves (and have been appropriately briefed) I don't believe they are liable (obviously IANAL) so I don't see what exactly the congress-critters are asking for in this case.
I should think that would be obvious. It's just yet-another thing to bitch about for the party who had their asses handed to them by the electorate in the last two elections. Having failed when it comes to properly running the country, and having continued to put forth the same failed ideas (tax breaks for the wealthy, privatizing critical military and security functions, etc.) they are reduced to bitching and, wherever the can, obstructing the party that was elected to clean up their fucking mess.
Uh..., no.
Moore is a documentary film maker, one with an admitted agenda in everything he creates.
Gore is a politician. 'Nuff said there, I believe.
Your kneejerk response with those two names is interesting, though, if more than a bit tired. Listen to Rush Limbaugh (titular head of the Repblican party and noted anti-intellectual) much?
Who could have possibly predicted that accepting hundreds of billions of dollars from governments over the last couple of decades could have somehow politicized Science?
-Peter
Bullshit. This canard is wearing rather thin, don't you think? Academic research is somehow just as corrupt by the public funding it receives as so called "independent research firms" are by the funding they receive from private interests like the energy industry or big pharma?
Please...
For whatever reason, a lot of people act as if scientists don't have their own preconceived notions on how things should be, or are predisposed to a certain political agenda. The tag line is that scientists are only interested in the truth, as if scientists as a class are immune to any sort of corruption, and that consensus on an issue is the same thing as fact. Forget the fact that there's an incentive to support certain findings because that will lead to greater funding...
[citation needed]
"humans" is shorter still, and doesn't miss the rest of the power-hungry assholes.
Sorry, but you'll have to go some to prove that there is another American political party of any consequence that has done anywhere near as much work as the Republicans when it comes to fostering the populist anti-intellectual movement. Go ahead. Try. We'll wait.
[crickets...]
Yeah, you want to guard against that. She knows all about computers 'cause she can see one from her porch.
Then again, a direct hit is unlikely, because she'd have to, you know, "...do a whole buncha boring technical stuff just to get ready...", and quit before she ever got close.
The market is really hipster douchebags. They're competing with thick-framed square glasses and retro 1980s video game t-shirts. The music industry doesn't really figure into it.
While I'm sure that many, if not most, buyers of vinyl LP's are "hipster doucebags" (love that term, BTW), there really is a difference in the sound. Of course, only "audiophile snob douchebags" have the gear that will let them hear that difference to a degree that warrants the hassles (availability, cost, maintenance, etc.) associated with such an antique medium. Nevertheless, that difference can be breathtaking with the right material. Sadly, the audiophile snob market is so small that even with the addition of those hipster douchebags, the music industry is not going to change it's practice of churning out (mostly) mediocre recordings that have been turned into over-compressed sonic garbage.
[sigh...]
As has been observed already, the Fairness Doctrine applied (past tense, sadly) to broadcast media only, where the "freedom of the press" was artificially restricted by the governments' own granting of a limited number of broadcast licenses. The (quite cogent) argument being that this (government caused) restriction on the availability of the medium warranted the extraordinary step of insisting that "both sides" of an issue be given air time. In 1985, the FCC under Reagan, in a stroke of unparalleled irony, revoked most of the rules that made of the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that they "violated free speech". The net effect has been to grant a government-licensed monopoly on broadcast "speech" to an ever shrinking number giant media corporations.
Nice try.
seeing an "emergency" someone will step in with government money, more regulation, etc, and it just goes downhill from here.
Just... [exasperated gasp] fuck. How do you Ronald Regan "all government is evil" fan-boys keep coming up with this stuff? I mean, where, exactly, is there any evidence to suggest that "the government" is going to step in and take over the role held by the free press? No, the article you cite is evidence of quite to opposite (that which you claim not to fear nearly as much), the inordinate influence of big media companies in shaping how, when, and where we get access to information. Sure, the government, having been bought and paid for by those interests, will have a role, but it is the electorate's stupidly steadfast refusal to recognize that their "representative government" has been sold to the highest bidder that is to blame, not "the government".
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.
Not quite...
Were those the only applications required, the notion would indeed be baseless, but...
There is still a huge raft of Windows software that will not perform properly without admin rights. Until that is fixed, the problem will never be solved.