Actually, "very small man-made things" is indeed the definition of nanotechnology that's accepted by virtually all scientists and engineers who work in physics, chemistry, or electronics. Any material or structure that's conveniently measured on a scale of nanometers (billionths of a meter)is generally considered to fall under the umbrella of "nanotechnology". Machines that could be measured conveniently on that scale are still little more than fantasy.
" Also, many of these things have to do with degree."
Exactly. When I was in college I was paid to participate in a study on how sleep deprivation affects people's ability to analyze information, follow instructions, and work in groups. A big group of us stayed awake for 48 hours. We periodically had to take short written tests, perform fairly complex tasks by following someone else's directions, and work in groups to try to solve problems. We were later told that the study was funded by the military, who wanted information on how people's performance degraded at various tasks as they stayed awake longer and longer.
The people funding the study wanted to get an idea about how long an enlisted infantryman could go without sleep and still be effective relative to an officer, helicopter mechanic, paramedic, etc. Now, obviously if you summed the results of this study up as "Sleep deprivation decreases your capacity to solve problems, follow instructions, and work in groups" it would sound pointlessly obvious.
Don't forget, under U.S. law a company is required to defend its trademarks from use by other parties, or they can lose the trademark. That's usually the reason for trademark lawsuits like this that strike everyone as silly and mean-spirited.
-a good strong signal that won't drop calls
-a long battery life
-the ability to survive repeatedly being dropped onto a hard surface from a height of about 5 feet
-waterproofing might be nice
Maybe once I can get all that, I'll be interested in a phone that can deliver TV shows, play Beethoven ring tones, take grainy pictures, and allow me to play simply video games. Honestly, what do these companies think that people buy phones for?
Not at all. "Punitive damages" are quite common in civil suits. Punitive damages are fines that exceed the actual damage done to the victim, with the intent being to punish the offender and deter them (and others) from committing similar offenses in the future.
Say I own a company that sells dangerous products. They injure some of their users, so I have to pay $X/year in damages due to lawsuits. Now, if it would cost me more than $X/year to fix my product, it would be in my best interests to just continue injuring people and then paying them in court rather than making my product safe. Courts often award punitive damages in such situations, as an incentive for the defendant to stop doing whatever it is that they're getting sued for. The same logic applies here; if you only had to pay the actual cost of an illegally-downloaded song, there would be no incentive to ever legally purchase a song; at worst, I'll get caught and have to pay the price that I would have paid in a store anyway.
"If you want to demonstrate the meaning of tolerance to OSC, you should judge his books by their quality, not by his religious views. To do otherwise would be intolerant yourself."
You'll notice that the original poster wasn't complaining about the fact that Card is a conservative Christian, but rather about the way in which Card's books are often filled with thinly veiled propaganda for conservative Christianity in general and Mormonism in particular. This drags down the overall quality of his stories, and often ruins books that had the potential to be very interesting. Most people probably wouldn't care if Card wrote great books and also just happened to be a religious fundamentalist. Sadly, he doesn't seem to be able to write much without cramming it full of his personal ideological beliefs.
Your statements about the earth not being a closed system are correct. However, I have to nitpick your use of the term "complexity" when referring to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. This is a mistake that even educated people often make, and it's something of a pet peeve of mine.
People often have a vague idea that at low entropy things are complex, while at high entropy they are less complex, and they then extrapolate this into an assumption that a closed system couldn't spontaneously become more complex without violating the second law of thermodynamics. In actuality, entropy is not a measure of the "complexity" of a system and the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with how "complex" a system is. Most people, for example, would consider a microchip to be far more complex than an ice crystal - but the entropy of a microchip at room temperature would be much higher than the entropy of a low-temperature ice crystal of equivalent mass. In fact, the entropy of a microchip is probably higher than the entropy of a cold pile of silicon and copper crystals of equivalent mass. This means that from a thermodynamic perspective, it would not necessarily violate the 2nd law for a pile of silicon and copper crystals to spontaneously assemble themselves into a working microchip!
It's a mistake to think that the second law or entropy has anything to do with "complexity" in the way that we normally use the term.
"Seeing as sex offenders have an insanely high rate of committing such crimes again, yes it does help keep society safe."
Where do you get your information about sex offender recidivism rates? Many people seem to take it for granted that sex offenders have very high recidivism rates, but it seems to be one of those things that people just repeat back and forth to each other without actually bothering to ever check if it's true. A simple google for "sex offender recidivism rates" brings up numerous studies indicating that the recidivism rate is only around 10-20%. That's hardly an "insanely high" rate, especially when you consider that recidivism rates for other crimes like robbery are often as high as 40-50%.
This data would be especially great for identity thieves because since they're all Ameritade customers, they're all guaranteed to be reasonably wealthy. In most of the other high-profile data loss stories that we've seen recently, the data was presumably from a relatively wide cross-section of the population. In this case, however, a potential thief is guaranteed that most everyone he has data on will have a good credit rating and significant financial assets. The last time I looked into Ameritrade, you needed at least $5000 to open a basic account. People who can afford to blow that sort of money playing around with day-trading are probably the sorts of people whose identity you would want to steal.
As others have already pointed out, while a purely extemporaneous lecture would not be automatically protected under federal copyright law, the instructor's note that he used in the lecture probably would be, assuming they're reasonably specific. It's the same principle that allows you to have a copyright on a publicly performed play; the actions and speech themselves aren't copyrighted, but the script on which they are based is copyrighted.
However, there's another element that should be considered. Most states have something called "common copyright law" that grants copyright protection to things that have an element of creativity and commercial value, but haven't yet been fixed in a permanent media. So even though federal copyright protection wouldn't automatically kick in, state copyright law could still prevent you from recording and distributing an instructor's lecture.
Something does not become "public domain" simply because it's presented in public for free. A movie studio could have a free screening of a new movie that was open to anyone, or an author could read his book to a public audience for free and it wouldn't change the copyright status.
" A movie, book, song, etc., is a creative work of value to be sold. Lectures are public domain just like free and open speech in a public arena. BTW - This comment is Copyright (c) 2005 lbm."
Please do a little basic research before you go spouting off as if you knew what you were talking about. Facts can't be copyrighted - but presentations of facts are copyrighted. A professor's lecture is considered a unique, creative presentation of facts, and is therefore copyrighted just like a book that the professor might write about the same subject would be copyrighted, or that a TV documentary on the subject would be copyrighted. You don't violate copyright law by taking notes on the facts presented in a lecture, but you would be violating copyright law if you recorded and redistributed the professor's actual lecture, because then you would be recording his actual presentation rather than merely the facts that he was trying to convey.
As to your assertion that lectures become public domain simply because they are performed in public, that's nonsense. I could present a copyrighted play, movie, or book "in a public arena" and it wouldn't change the copyrighted status one bit.
Most people can read text much faster than they can speak, or comfortably listen to speech. Reading text will probably be the fastest, most efficient way to acquire information from the internet for some time. Just think about it, it probably took you 7 or 8 seconds to read this post - try reading it out loud and see how much longer it takes you.
"I pay for my 911 service, and so does everyone who uses a landline or a cell phone. Vonage wants access to this system, but they don't want to pay for it."
To be precise, it's Vontage CUSTOMERS who want access to 911 without paying for it. Part of the appeal of VOIP is that you don't have to pay $10-$15/ month in miscellaneous telephone taxes on it.
"Simple fact of the matter is, it's pretty damn easy to tell where packets are coming from, especially a system like this. In the event of an emergency they should have some kind of failsafe that tells the operators where the packets were originating from. It would honestly not be that hard to do between Vonnage and the users.
"
This is just absurd. It's relatively easy to trace packets back to the ISP, but there's no way to know the physical location from which the customer is accessing their account. Why do you think that the RIAA and MPAA are always having to get subpoenas to force ISPs to give up the identity of file sharers, even though they know the IP address?
"
VOIP should be able to do this. Normal telcos are required to have 911 connectivity and they don't ask the user (in the case of cell phones) where the hell they are when they call in, it just gets routed properly.
"
That's because the phone company already knows the physical location that corresponds to the phone line or cell tower that you're using. Since, you know, they had to physically go there to install it...
Your demand that Vontage should be forced to "just get it to work" is unreasonable for two reasons. First, it's fundamentally impossible for Vontage to connect you to your local 911 service without requiring you to set it up because there's no way for them to know where you are. This sort of phone works over an internet connection. Unless you tell them your physical location, you're just an IP address to them, and there is no technology in existence that allows someone to trace the physical location of someone based on their IP address. The only way to do it is to compile a database of locations that are tied to IP address, which is why you have to tell Vontage where you are when you set up your 911 account.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that Vontage should necessarily be forced to provide "traditional" 911 service simply because people have become accustomed to having it. Vontage provides the service that they provide; it's up to you whether or not to purchase it. If having normal 911 access is absolutely essential to you, then don't buy Vontage's service. It's not as if anyone is forcing you to use it - they certainly don't have a monopoly on telephone service. So long as alternatives are available (ie, the company isn't a monopoly) and the company is upfront about what they're selling, businesses should be free to provide (or not provide) any service that they want.
I have lived for years in the bible belt, and I can honestly say that I don't think I have ever met a self-identified fundamentalist who didn't wish to use legislation to impose their beliefs on others. I have never, so far as I know, met a fundamentalist who didn't think that gay sex, abortion, pornography, etc. should be outlawed. I have never once heard a fundamentalist say "Well, I don't think that homosexuality is a good thing, but what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms isn't my business." I have never heard a fundamentalist say "I don't approve of strip clubs, so I don't visit them - but I wouldn't presume to tell other people what they can or can't do for entertainment." Of course it's a generalization to say that all fundamentalists think this way, but based on my rather extensive (but admittedly unscientific) sampling, fundis who respect other people's rights to self-determination are a very tiny minority.
I have several close family members who teach in middle and elementary school, and they've been saying this for years. Their main complaint about computers in the classroom is that educational software seems far more concerned with making learning fun than with making effective use of a student's limited time in the classroom. Of course, computer learning programs are great for the lazy teachers - they can just dump their students in from of the computers and enjoy their coffee while the students "learn".
"Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? "
A lot of people have already responded that there is no prejudice against fundamentalist christians in the U.S., and that a fundi is far more likely to be pandered to than discriminated against. In general, I agree with all that. However, it is also true that there's a large contingent of liberals in the U.S. who will shamelessly bash fundamentalists, yet wouldn't dream of making fun of blacks, gays, or jews. Why is that?
The main difference between fundis and other minority groups seems to be that fundis don't just want to be tolerated - they want to control everything and everyone around them. Gay people for the most part just want to be left alone. They don't try to make laws forcing others to be gay. Blacks, for the most part, just want to be treated equally. It's perfectly all right with black people if you don't give a damn about black culture, so long as you give them fair consideration when they apply for a job. Jews have their own distinct religious beliefs and code of ethics, but they aren't interested in forcing it on people. They're happy to tell you about their beliefs if you ask, but they respect the fact that most people aren't jewish and don't have any particular interest in (for example) only eating kosher food.
Fundis, unlike these other "persecuted" groups, aren't content with merely being tolerated. They seem to be driven by a desire to make everyone, everywhere, just like them - whether people like it or not. For example, fundis think that nudity is bad, so they make an active effort through legislation to prevent anyone from being able to buy pornography. Jews don't try to make it illegal for anyone to eat beef with milk. Gays don't try to outlaw heterosexuality. Blacks don't try to make it mandatory for everyone to celebrate Kwanzaa. But fundis happily try to force people to comply with their belief system through laws, or any other social pressure available to them.
To put it simply, many people don't respect fundis because fundis don't seem to respect anyone else's right to make their own decisions. Unlike other groups, fundis are an active threat to everyone's freedom.
The thing is, in many of these situations the network owner wants anyone and everyone to be able to use their internet connection without any hassle. These sorts of unsecured networks are practically mandatory for coffee shops and the like that cater to young people, especially college students. They want customers to be able to bring their laptops along so that they can read email, work on homework, etc. while they drink their $4.75 coffee and eat their $3.50 muffin.
My knowledge of computer science is limited to a single C++ programming course that I took in college, so I'm well aware that I don't understand the mysterious intricacies of how the internet and web browsers work.
The being said, I'm puzzled as to why it's so difficult to design a secure browser. You type in a URL - the browser goes there and gets a web page - and then it displays it. Where do all these security vulnerabilities come from? I mean, can't browsers be coded to only read and write files from the cache, so as to prevent web pages from installing crap on people's computers? How is all this even possible?
Actually, 'irony' is defined as "difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is".
For example, it is indeed ironic that the New York Times is running a story about how a particular business model probably isn't viable, yet uses that very same business model themselves.
Here's another example: someone who posts a self-important message on slashdot correcting a misuse of the term "ironic," when in fact they are the one who is failing to recognize a legitimate case of irony.
"According to many libertarians, social programs are bad."
More precisely, a libertarian would say that government exists to protect our individual rights, and that the government should not be able to trample someone's individual rights in the name of the "greater good". Libertarians believe that a person's right to not have their private property confiscated trumps someone else's right to most of the things that social programs provide. Most libertarians would agree that it would be a "good" thing for a rich person to donate to a scholarship program so that poor people could go to college - however, libertarians do not believe that the government should be able to force people to be beneficent.
"A liberal says "Hey, John A, we're going to take a little more of your millions of dollars and make sure that Jack A and John C's kids get some food and can make it to college". Why? Not just because we feel bad (and, really, making a law just because you feel bad for someone is pretty pathetic, so if that were the only reason, I wouldn't be a liberal either). It's because we know that having 6 kids go to college and become engineers or doctors or lawyers is going to be more beneficial to society, as a whole, than having 6 kids who pack groceries at the local supermarket."
I don't think anyone, including libertarians, would argue with you about it being better for society as a whole to have more highly trained, educated professionals. Libertarianism is about the belief that you shouldn't be able to use "it's for the greater good" as an excuse for ignoring individual rights. Of course it's for the greater good to take money from your hypothetical "John A" and use it to send poor people to college. Heck, if John A has retired on his wealth and is no longer a productive worker, why not just kill him and use all of his considerable assets for bettering society? After all, that would be beneficial to society as a whole - which is the same justification that we used for confiscating a fraction of his money.
That's the fundamental difference between liberals and libertarians; liberals want to strike a balance between individual rights and the good of society as a whole, while libertarians believe that the good of society as a whole should never be used as an excuse for depriving someone of individual rights.
I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but in general a news outlet can't be held responsible for liable for simply reporting factually incorrect information. In order for a liable accusation to hold up in court, you have to show that the news outlet irresponsibly reported inaccurate information. If the police hold a press conference and announce that Bob Smith has been arrested for killing his wife, then a news outlet could not be accused of liable for reporting that fact. On the other hand, they could be held responsible for liable if they received an anonymous tip scrawled on the back of a napkin saying that Bob Smith killed his wife, and then proceeded to report it as fact.
I don't know why you seem to think it should matter whether or not they had a vendetta against this guy when they reported the story. If I'm injured by a faulty product, the manufacturer is responsible even if they didn't intentionally design the product to hurt. Similarly, a news outlet that irresponsibly reports inaccurate information should be held accountable for damages that result from their irresponsible actions. You don't get a free pass to harm others just because the harm wasn't malliciouly inflicted.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, "very small man-made things" is indeed the definition of nanotechnology that's accepted by virtually all scientists and engineers who work in physics, chemistry, or electronics. Any material or structure that's conveniently measured on a scale of nanometers (billionths of a meter)is generally considered to fall under the umbrella of "nanotechnology". Machines that could be measured conveniently on that scale are still little more than fantasy.
" Also, many of these things have to do with degree."
Exactly. When I was in college I was paid to participate in a study on how sleep deprivation affects people's ability to analyze information, follow instructions, and work in groups. A big group of us stayed awake for 48 hours. We periodically had to take short written tests, perform fairly complex tasks by following someone else's directions, and work in groups to try to solve problems. We were later told that the study was funded by the military, who wanted information on how people's performance degraded at various tasks as they stayed awake longer and longer.
The people funding the study wanted to get an idea about how long an enlisted infantryman could go without sleep and still be effective relative to an officer, helicopter mechanic, paramedic, etc. Now, obviously if you summed the results of this study up as "Sleep deprivation decreases your capacity to solve problems, follow instructions, and work in groups" it would sound pointlessly obvious.
Don't forget, under U.S. law a company is required to defend its trademarks from use by other parties, or they can lose the trademark. That's usually the reason for trademark lawsuits like this that strike everyone as silly and mean-spirited.
-a good strong signal that won't drop calls
-a long battery life
-the ability to survive repeatedly being dropped onto a hard surface from a height of about 5 feet
-waterproofing might be nice
Maybe once I can get all that, I'll be interested in a phone that can deliver TV shows, play Beethoven ring tones, take grainy pictures, and allow me to play simply video games. Honestly, what do these companies think that people buy phones for?
Not at all. "Punitive damages" are quite common in civil suits. Punitive damages are fines that exceed the actual damage done to the victim, with the intent being to punish the offender and deter them (and others) from committing similar offenses in the future.
Say I own a company that sells dangerous products. They injure some of their users, so I have to pay $X/year in damages due to lawsuits. Now, if it would cost me more than $X/year to fix my product, it would be in my best interests to just continue injuring people and then paying them in court rather than making my product safe. Courts often award punitive damages in such situations, as an incentive for the defendant to stop doing whatever it is that they're getting sued for. The same logic applies here; if you only had to pay the actual cost of an illegally-downloaded song, there would be no incentive to ever legally purchase a song; at worst, I'll get caught and have to pay the price that I would have paid in a store anyway.
"If you want to demonstrate the meaning of tolerance to OSC, you should judge his books by their quality, not by his religious views. To do otherwise would be intolerant yourself."
You'll notice that the original poster wasn't complaining about the fact that Card is a conservative Christian, but rather about the way in which Card's books are often filled with thinly veiled propaganda for conservative Christianity in general and Mormonism in particular. This drags down the overall quality of his stories, and often ruins books that had the potential to be very interesting. Most people probably wouldn't care if Card wrote great books and also just happened to be a religious fundamentalist. Sadly, he doesn't seem to be able to write much without cramming it full of his personal ideological beliefs.
Your statements about the earth not being a closed system are correct. However, I have to nitpick your use of the term "complexity" when referring to entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. This is a mistake that even educated people often make, and it's something of a pet peeve of mine.
People often have a vague idea that at low entropy things are complex, while at high entropy they are less complex, and they then extrapolate this into an assumption that a closed system couldn't spontaneously become more complex without violating the second law of thermodynamics. In actuality, entropy is not a measure of the "complexity" of a system and the second law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with how "complex" a system is. Most people, for example, would consider a microchip to be far more complex than an ice crystal - but the entropy of a microchip at room temperature would be much higher than the entropy of a low-temperature ice crystal of equivalent mass. In fact, the entropy of a microchip is probably higher than the entropy of a cold pile of silicon and copper crystals of equivalent mass. This means that from a thermodynamic perspective, it would not necessarily violate the 2nd law for a pile of silicon and copper crystals to spontaneously assemble themselves into a working microchip!
It's a mistake to think that the second law or entropy has anything to do with "complexity" in the way that we normally use the term.
"Seeing as sex offenders have an insanely high rate of committing such crimes again, yes it does help keep society safe."
Where do you get your information about sex offender recidivism rates? Many people seem to take it for granted that sex offenders have very high recidivism rates, but it seems to be one of those things that people just repeat back and forth to each other without actually bothering to ever check if it's true. A simple google for "sex offender recidivism rates" brings up numerous studies indicating that the recidivism rate is only around 10-20%. That's hardly an "insanely high" rate, especially when you consider that recidivism rates for other crimes like robbery are often as high as 40-50%.
This data would be especially great for identity thieves because since they're all Ameritade customers, they're all guaranteed to be reasonably wealthy. In most of the other high-profile data loss stories that we've seen recently, the data was presumably from a relatively wide cross-section of the population. In this case, however, a potential thief is guaranteed that most everyone he has data on will have a good credit rating and significant financial assets. The last time I looked into Ameritrade, you needed at least $5000 to open a basic account. People who can afford to blow that sort of money playing around with day-trading are probably the sorts of people whose identity you would want to steal.
As others have already pointed out, while a purely extemporaneous lecture would not be automatically protected under federal copyright law, the instructor's note that he used in the lecture probably would be, assuming they're reasonably specific. It's the same principle that allows you to have a copyright on a publicly performed play; the actions and speech themselves aren't copyrighted, but the script on which they are based is copyrighted.
However, there's another element that should be considered. Most states have something called "common copyright law" that grants copyright protection to things that have an element of creativity and commercial value, but haven't yet been fixed in a permanent media. So even though federal copyright protection wouldn't automatically kick in, state copyright law could still prevent you from recording and distributing an instructor's lecture.
Something does not become "public domain" simply because it's presented in public for free. A movie studio could have a free screening of a new movie that was open to anyone, or an author could read his book to a public audience for free and it wouldn't change the copyright status.
" A movie, book, song, etc., is a creative work of value to be sold. Lectures are public domain just like free and open speech in a public arena. BTW - This comment is Copyright (c) 2005 lbm."
Please do a little basic research before you go spouting off as if you knew what you were talking about. Facts can't be copyrighted - but presentations of facts are copyrighted. A professor's lecture is considered a unique, creative presentation of facts, and is therefore copyrighted just like a book that the professor might write about the same subject would be copyrighted, or that a TV documentary on the subject would be copyrighted. You don't violate copyright law by taking notes on the facts presented in a lecture, but you would be violating copyright law if you recorded and redistributed the professor's actual lecture, because then you would be recording his actual presentation rather than merely the facts that he was trying to convey.
As to your assertion that lectures become public domain simply because they are performed in public, that's nonsense. I could present a copyrighted play, movie, or book "in a public arena" and it wouldn't change the copyrighted status one bit.
Most people can read text much faster than they can speak, or comfortably listen to speech. Reading text will probably be the fastest, most efficient way to acquire information from the internet for some time. Just think about it, it probably took you 7 or 8 seconds to read this post - try reading it out loud and see how much longer it takes you.
"I pay for my 911 service, and so does everyone who uses a landline or a cell phone. Vonage wants access to this system, but they don't want to pay for it."
To be precise, it's Vontage CUSTOMERS who want access to 911 without paying for it. Part of the appeal of VOIP is that you don't have to pay $10-$15/ month in miscellaneous telephone taxes on it.
"Simple fact of the matter is, it's pretty damn easy to tell where packets are coming from, especially a system like this. In the event of an emergency they should have some kind of failsafe that tells the operators where the packets were originating from. It would honestly not be that hard to do between Vonnage and the users. "
This is just absurd. It's relatively easy to trace packets back to the ISP, but there's no way to know the physical location from which the customer is accessing their account. Why do you think that the RIAA and MPAA are always having to get subpoenas to force ISPs to give up the identity of file sharers, even though they know the IP address?
" VOIP should be able to do this. Normal telcos are required to have 911 connectivity and they don't ask the user (in the case of cell phones) where the hell they are when they call in, it just gets routed properly. "
That's because the phone company already knows the physical location that corresponds to the phone line or cell tower that you're using. Since, you know, they had to physically go there to install it...
Your demand that Vontage should be forced to "just get it to work" is unreasonable for two reasons. First, it's fundamentally impossible for Vontage to connect you to your local 911 service without requiring you to set it up because there's no way for them to know where you are. This sort of phone works over an internet connection. Unless you tell them your physical location, you're just an IP address to them, and there is no technology in existence that allows someone to trace the physical location of someone based on their IP address. The only way to do it is to compile a database of locations that are tied to IP address, which is why you have to tell Vontage where you are when you set up your 911 account.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that Vontage should necessarily be forced to provide "traditional" 911 service simply because people have become accustomed to having it. Vontage provides the service that they provide; it's up to you whether or not to purchase it. If having normal 911 access is absolutely essential to you, then don't buy Vontage's service. It's not as if anyone is forcing you to use it - they certainly don't have a monopoly on telephone service. So long as alternatives are available (ie, the company isn't a monopoly) and the company is upfront about what they're selling, businesses should be free to provide (or not provide) any service that they want.
I have lived for years in the bible belt, and I can honestly say that I don't think I have ever met a self-identified fundamentalist who didn't wish to use legislation to impose their beliefs on others. I have never, so far as I know, met a fundamentalist who didn't think that gay sex, abortion, pornography, etc. should be outlawed. I have never once heard a fundamentalist say "Well, I don't think that homosexuality is a good thing, but what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms isn't my business." I have never heard a fundamentalist say "I don't approve of strip clubs, so I don't visit them - but I wouldn't presume to tell other people what they can or can't do for entertainment." Of course it's a generalization to say that all fundamentalists think this way, but based on my rather extensive (but admittedly unscientific) sampling, fundis who respect other people's rights to self-determination are a very tiny minority.
I have several close family members who teach in middle and elementary school, and they've been saying this for years. Their main complaint about computers in the classroom is that educational software seems far more concerned with making learning fun than with making effective use of a student's limited time in the classroom. Of course, computer learning programs are great for the lazy teachers - they can just dump their students in from of the computers and enjoy their coffee while the students "learn".
"Why is it that prejudice against Christians is the last remaining acceptable prejudice? "
A lot of people have already responded that there is no prejudice against fundamentalist christians in the U.S., and that a fundi is far more likely to be pandered to than discriminated against. In general, I agree with all that. However, it is also true that there's a large contingent of liberals in the U.S. who will shamelessly bash fundamentalists, yet wouldn't dream of making fun of blacks, gays, or jews. Why is that?
The main difference between fundis and other minority groups seems to be that fundis don't just want to be tolerated - they want to control everything and everyone around them. Gay people for the most part just want to be left alone. They don't try to make laws forcing others to be gay. Blacks, for the most part, just want to be treated equally. It's perfectly all right with black people if you don't give a damn about black culture, so long as you give them fair consideration when they apply for a job. Jews have their own distinct religious beliefs and code of ethics, but they aren't interested in forcing it on people. They're happy to tell you about their beliefs if you ask, but they respect the fact that most people aren't jewish and don't have any particular interest in (for example) only eating kosher food.
Fundis, unlike these other "persecuted" groups, aren't content with merely being tolerated. They seem to be driven by a desire to make everyone, everywhere, just like them - whether people like it or not. For example, fundis think that nudity is bad, so they make an active effort through legislation to prevent anyone from being able to buy pornography. Jews don't try to make it illegal for anyone to eat beef with milk. Gays don't try to outlaw heterosexuality. Blacks don't try to make it mandatory for everyone to celebrate Kwanzaa. But fundis happily try to force people to comply with their belief system through laws, or any other social pressure available to them.
To put it simply, many people don't respect fundis because fundis don't seem to respect anyone else's right to make their own decisions. Unlike other groups, fundis are an active threat to everyone's freedom.
The thing is, in many of these situations the network owner wants anyone and everyone to be able to use their internet connection without any hassle. These sorts of unsecured networks are practically mandatory for coffee shops and the like that cater to young people, especially college students. They want customers to be able to bring their laptops along so that they can read email, work on homework, etc. while they drink their $4.75 coffee and eat their $3.50 muffin.
My knowledge of computer science is limited to a single C++ programming course that I took in college, so I'm well aware that I don't understand the mysterious intricacies of how the internet and web browsers work.
The being said, I'm puzzled as to why it's so difficult to design a secure browser. You type in a URL - the browser goes there and gets a web page - and then it displays it. Where do all these security vulnerabilities come from? I mean, can't browsers be coded to only read and write files from the cache, so as to prevent web pages from installing crap on people's computers? How is all this even possible?
Actually, 'irony' is defined as "difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is".
For example, it is indeed ironic that the New York Times is running a story about how a particular business model probably isn't viable, yet uses that very same business model themselves.
Here's another example: someone who posts a self-important message on slashdot correcting a misuse of the term "ironic," when in fact they are the one who is failing to recognize a legitimate case of irony.
"According to many libertarians, social programs are bad."
More precisely, a libertarian would say that government exists to protect our individual rights, and that the government should not be able to trample someone's individual rights in the name of the "greater good". Libertarians believe that a person's right to not have their private property confiscated trumps someone else's right to most of the things that social programs provide. Most libertarians would agree that it would be a "good" thing for a rich person to donate to a scholarship program so that poor people could go to college - however, libertarians do not believe that the government should be able to force people to be beneficent.
"A liberal says "Hey, John A, we're going to take a little more of your millions of dollars and make sure that Jack A and John C's kids get some food and can make it to college". Why? Not just because we feel bad (and, really, making a law just because you feel bad for someone is pretty pathetic, so if that were the only reason, I wouldn't be a liberal either). It's because we know that having 6 kids go to college and become engineers or doctors or lawyers is going to be more beneficial to society, as a whole, than having 6 kids who pack groceries at the local supermarket."
I don't think anyone, including libertarians, would argue with you about it being better for society as a whole to have more highly trained, educated professionals. Libertarianism is about the belief that you shouldn't be able to use "it's for the greater good" as an excuse for ignoring individual rights. Of course it's for the greater good to take money from your hypothetical "John A" and use it to send poor people to college. Heck, if John A has retired on his wealth and is no longer a productive worker, why not just kill him and use all of his considerable assets for bettering society? After all, that would be beneficial to society as a whole - which is the same justification that we used for confiscating a fraction of his money.
That's the fundamental difference between liberals and libertarians; liberals want to strike a balance between individual rights and the good of society as a whole, while libertarians believe that the good of society as a whole should never be used as an excuse for depriving someone of individual rights.
I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but in general a news outlet can't be held responsible for liable for simply reporting factually incorrect information. In order for a liable accusation to hold up in court, you have to show that the news outlet irresponsibly reported inaccurate information. If the police hold a press conference and announce that Bob Smith has been arrested for killing his wife, then a news outlet could not be accused of liable for reporting that fact. On the other hand, they could be held responsible for liable if they received an anonymous tip scrawled on the back of a napkin saying that Bob Smith killed his wife, and then proceeded to report it as fact.
I don't know why you seem to think it should matter whether or not they had a vendetta against this guy when they reported the story. If I'm injured by a faulty product, the manufacturer is responsible even if they didn't intentionally design the product to hurt. Similarly, a news outlet that irresponsibly reports inaccurate information should be held accountable for damages that result from their irresponsible actions. You don't get a free pass to harm others just because the harm wasn't malliciouly inflicted.