"Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off. Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages."
While I am happy with the verdict in this case, your statement is off. Lori Drew was the adult in that situation - she was responsible.
My suggestion - pick items from the resume that grab you and probe them a bit on those, e.g. ask them about their oracle experience and what specifically they did. As you converse with them, you will bring their experiences to their mind. Then ask them the more specific questions.
Btw, I do agree that our universities do a lousy job training people these days. But I think a quick interview can be intimidating to a kid out of college, and there's no point rejecting someone just because they don't quite have experience under pressure. That's something you learn over time.
"...than having to present papers whenever you cross any political boundary inside the United States."
Where is that written? I don't recall that as part of the real id act. Note from the article:
"The new plan keeps elements of Real ID, such as requiring a digital photograph, signature and machine-readable features such as a bar code. States also will still need to verify applicants' identities and legal status by checking federal immigration, Social Security and State Department databases.
But it eliminates demands for new databases -- linked through a national data hub -- that would allow all states to store and cross-check such information, and a requirement that motor vehicle departments verify birth certificates with originating agencies, a bid to fight identity theft."
That latter part was what interested me. In maryland we have a huge problem with illegal immigrants - there were stories of people getting driver's licenses sharing a stated address with 800 other people. Then, having found the state with the weakest laws, the illegals can then pass themselves off as legal citizens anywhere in the US, abusing services without paying taxes.
Just to be clear, my only issue here is *illegal* immigration. I don't care one way or another about immigrants (my wife is an immigrant), but I do care about people paying their fair share. Beyond the money, there's a difference between a person who is simply using a system rather than participating in a system. The latter implies responsibility, which is an important component in life (IMO, of course).
We could say the same in reverse - people playing a game with the rules as written, following the design intent of the game and in no way exploiting, should not be subject to the word "griefer". It's a shame that maladjusted people who simply can not handle losing feel a need to badmouth others.
Oh for crying out loud, all games - sports, board games, computer games - involve real life to a degree. We put kids into sports (both team and individual competitions) in part to teach them how to handle real life emotions in a more controlled environment. Other games can serve the same purpose - the idea to split real life from game life, and learning to deal with the spillover (in either direction, as when real life feuds jump into games).
I would argue that you, by your description, are the one with a real problem in games ("But I am reluctant to play games that I cannot play by myself.") If you can't handle the split above, which the vast majority of school-age kids learn to do, I'm not sure how you can manage other areas of life which require you to surpress your ego to progress.
No need to be snide, it doesn't really accomplish anything.
What you are suggesting is mostly pie-in-the-sky. While I have seen it work in one niche area (the "reign" rpg), I believe it will simply not fly for big ticket items. Few people will pay first, and you will stifle the rate of artistic advancement as compared to now.
Furthermore, if you remove current protections then the most likely result will be precisely as I say - the artist will be commissioned (or hired outright) by rich people to produce a singular work of art, which will will then be the prize of the rich person. The artist will not be allowed to distribute it.
Unless you're going to force your viewpoint into contract law and forbid that form of contract. Then artists won't be able to make an honest living.
This was a movie about friendship. The entire point to the movie is that a group of friends are stronger together than apart. When they work apart they show flashes of brilliance, but overall achieve nothing. When they finally are brought together, in part by a wise old mentor, they are an unstoppable force that defeats a powerful enemy against all odds.
I believe that the emphasis on friendship and teamwork make this just as much a trek as any of the others. I do not believe that a trek show needs to take on a burning societal issue every episode.
"What do we think would have happened to the United States once all of Europe, Asia and Africa were under fascist regimes? And how well would they have fared, with no allies and the industrial might of a whole world poised against them?"
Foreign trade would have dropped. What do you think would have happened?
As far as industrial might goes, the US was the industrial might of the world at the time. I'm well aware of the production that the Germans, Russians, etc had, but the US was top dog by far and we didn't even really try hard.
Besides, your scenario is a farce. The japanese were already at their limits in China. Even if they had moved armies across the length and breadth of the country, they never, ever could have held it. China would win eventually.
Some argue that the Russians really won the war. I think it's close to that, but I think American and British contributions tend to be undervalued in that calculation. Whatever, the point is you're sweeping aside the Russians without a second thought.
The best the Axis could hope for was surrender and a top-dog status in their respective spheres. They had nothing like the resources it would have taken to conquer the world.
I'll add one more thing - the French and British thinking was fine and goes hand-in-hand with what I was saying. Quite frankly, they were late in their commitment, but again that's a long argument with two strong sides.
While I agree the GP needs to be a bit more respectful, you go to far yourself.
"...while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square..."
I believe the excuse is "nobody declared war on us", which is a damn good one. The more I read about history, the more I believe that a major issue we have in the US is taking sides in wars that do not involve us. We should let other people fight the wars and have the bravery it takes to sit them out. If that means more disengagement from the world to prevent being dragged-in, so much the better.
Yes, that means we sit idly by while the Germans put up concentration camps. Yes, that means watching the slaughter occur in various places in Africa. Yes, that means...you get the picture.
The only wars we should get involved in are defense of our borders, or defense of allied borders, and we should be very, very picky about who we call "ally".
You talk about government as if it is one thing. The reality is that much of what you site is the responsibility of state and local governments, and what many of us resent is the intrusion of the federal government into those areas.
I have no problem with a federal government spending money on a military - that's their role. How much money? That's a worthy debate. But nobody has ever made a good case for federal government spending on local roads, consistant education across the land, etc.
"Why do you feel the absolute need to "grind levels" and "get to the end game content"?"
Because killing 20 fishmen because Marduk the mercilous says it's the only way he'll stop his horde from rampaging feels about the same as kill 20 pigmen because Glinda the swell says she needs pig bladders to mix the potion that will save the village.
Both are just meaningless bits of text. You can kill the 20, or not, and nothing in the world will change.
However, there is some fun in gaining new abilities. That way you can more creatively kill the 20 duckmen...or was it pigs...whatever. But at least you got more buttons to push, whatever the text says.
So let's turn this around. Why not give all of us the buttons to push at start. Then those of you who enjoy reading mindless walls of text can go ahead and enjoy it. You can even refrain from pushing individual buttons until you feel you've earned them through that amazing storyline that you so enjoy. Why are you so determined to force those of us looking for greater tactical challenge to slog our way through walls of text first?
Why are we planning for a future that we can't possibly forsee? Think of where technology was 100 years ago...how are we going to project even 100 years into the future?
There's no point. Just pick what's best/cheapest/safest/whatever for the next 100 years (ish), and move on. Right now, that's nuclear.
1) Paying for devices? A mix of capitalism and govt-sponsored welfare for the holdouts, similar to what's happened recently with digital tv (though hopefully learning lessons along the way).
2) The ones outside of the $COUNTRY don't have to care. The point is that I can block those who don't comply. If necessary, entire countries can be blocked until they setup similar laws. All these things to be worked out, not simply stated by fiat (I'd like to see that diplomacy stuff that we seem to have forgotten here in the US).
3) You are right that a company can't ignore "out of area" as easily. They have to make a business decision in these cases. But I prefer the decision to be available to them if they wish to make it.
I agree with your premise, but I don't think it's terribly complicated. We need two laws:
1. All communication protocols must have an identity field. This may be left blank, which signifies "anonymous". 2. Lying in the identity field is a federal crime (not misdemeaner, crime).
That's it. With those, the market can easily construct devices (programs, whatever) to allow consumers to control spam to their heart's content.
Note that, just as an example, you can already ignore most of your "out of area" phone calls.
"Well, that isn't totally fair. If Hamas vanished, there is a decent argument that Israel would continue to expand into Palestine."
Really? I'd love to hear that far-fetched argument.
"IMHO, all sides in the middle east are in the wrong."
Classic weak response. There must be a middle-of-the-road, balanced, position between the two extremes, and all we have to do is find this mystical utopian alignment and all will be right with the world.
Let's try another point of view.
a) In any war-like situation, all sides do things that any of us would consider "wrong". So sure, it's easy to cop-out and say both sides are wrong, but it's still a cop-out.
b) The Israelis gave land back to the egyptians for peace. They now cooperate with the Egyptians to the extent they can. So there's plenty of evidence that they will deal for real peace.
c) Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. I'm not talking about word-games and so on, I'm talking reality. Hamas is fundamentaly against a Jewish state in the region.
The stupid part is that to win, all the palestinians need to do is to commit to peace in the same way that Gandhi did: completely. They would need to teach peace in their schools, and practice peace on the streets. Anybody who violated the peace would be given up on the spot. This doesn't mean the would be pushovers, they would simply use every other means they could to the fullest, taking the high road even when sometimes the low road appears to be entirely justified.
If the palestinians did that, they couldn't lose. Once a few years go by no hard-line government could win in Israel (remember, the current one is just barely in charge as it is). Eventually Israel would be forced to recognize more and more fundamental rights. It would simply be a question of time.
It's not the copying of the bits that's an issue, it's the development time. People who copy the bits rather than pay for them choose to disrespect that development time.
Cheap college loans are the reason college prices have exploded over the years, as well as a large part of why college educations have become more and more worthless in practice.
Everything government touches it screws up. Remember this.
"third, not american military leadership has prevented the nazis, the russians have. americans preferred to sit on their collective arses until it was sure that russians would win the war and then they went in to steal the laurels."
a) Hitler declared war on the US, not vice-versa. b) FDR was aiding the allies before the official declaration of war. At a minimum, he was stretching the limits of his office to do so. c) Stalingrad was won long after the US entrance into the war, indeed after the Allied invasion of N. Africa. d) war is not a game. The US gained absolutely nothing from joining the war - indeed, even after the war the US went on to toss money around the world to help people out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that I approve of the US running around playing policeman. A strong part of me thinks it would have been best for the US if we had stayed completely out of WWI and WWII (in Europe, that is), along with all the follow-on nonsense we've seen through the years (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc). But your characterization of the US entry into WWII is certainly beyond-the-pale.
"My experiences at the 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union are that most (9/10) of the scientists I met agree with the IPCC report on abrupt climate change."
Which just means that the majority of people who showed up (or were invited) are the type of people who hold this view. It doesn't mean the meeting is representative of anything.
Ignoring that - as you said, science is about evidence - all you've done in your discussion is correlated data that hints at possible man-made involvement. Certainly enough to form a hypothesis.
What I find interesting is that every time I try to follow-up on the testing for this, I'm met with "...this computer model clearly shows..." When I try to investigate the model, I find out it is proprietary, as is the precise data that was used. In other words, it is impossible to reproduce the claims in another laboratory, because the method is hidden.
At that point my adult-skeptic sense kicks in. I've seen luddites before, or just people who have some desperate need to join a cause that shows how bad we all are. I have no idea why this phenomenon exists, but I've seen it all my life. The entire "climate change" movement smells of this. Strong assurances that *something* is wrong, clear direction on massive sacrifices that we need to make, and very vague predictions as to what will happen if we don't make'em.
Count me as one of those skeptics who refuses to do anything beyond funding some research. Quite frankly I think much of the research is a waste, but if it keeps the "woe-is-us" kiddies busy, perhaps there is some value there.
Slashdot Mirror
The premise is faulty. Open highway driving is far safer than inner-city rush hour traffic.
You need to consider the conditions, not just the distance.
-Jeff
"Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off. Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages."
While I am happy with the verdict in this case, your statement is off. Lori Drew was the adult in that situation - she was responsible.
-Jeff
"throw them a few hookers"
You have taken slashdot callousness to a whole new level. Congrats.
-Jeff
My suggestion - pick items from the resume that grab you and probe them a bit on those, e.g. ask them about their oracle experience and what specifically they did. As you converse with them, you will bring their experiences to their mind. Then ask them the more specific questions.
Btw, I do agree that our universities do a lousy job training people these days. But I think a quick interview can be intimidating to a kid out of college, and there's no point rejecting someone just because they don't quite have experience under pressure. That's something you learn over time.
-Jeff
"...than having to present papers whenever you cross any political boundary inside the United States."
Where is that written? I don't recall that as part of the real id act. Note from the article:
"The new plan keeps elements of Real ID, such as requiring a digital photograph, signature and machine-readable features such as a bar code. States also will still need to verify applicants' identities and legal status by checking federal immigration, Social Security and State Department databases.
But it eliminates demands for new databases -- linked through a national data hub -- that would allow all states to store and cross-check such information, and a requirement that motor vehicle departments verify birth certificates with originating agencies, a bid to fight identity theft."
That latter part was what interested me. In maryland we have a huge problem with illegal immigrants - there were stories of people getting driver's licenses sharing a stated address with 800 other people. Then, having found the state with the weakest laws, the illegals can then pass themselves off as legal citizens anywhere in the US, abusing services without paying taxes.
Just to be clear, my only issue here is *illegal* immigration. I don't care one way or another about immigrants (my wife is an immigrant), but I do care about people paying their fair share. Beyond the money, there's a difference between a person who is simply using a system rather than participating in a system. The latter implies responsibility, which is an important component in life (IMO, of course).
-Jeff
We could say the same in reverse - people playing a game with the rules as written, following the design intent of the game and in no way exploiting, should not be subject to the word "griefer". It's a shame that maladjusted people who simply can not handle losing feel a need to badmouth others.
-Jeff
Oh for crying out loud, all games - sports, board games, computer games - involve real life to a degree. We put kids into sports (both team and individual competitions) in part to teach them how to handle real life emotions in a more controlled environment. Other games can serve the same purpose - the idea to split real life from game life, and learning to deal with the spillover (in either direction, as when real life feuds jump into games).
I would argue that you, by your description, are the one with a real problem in games ("But I am reluctant to play games that I cannot play by myself.") If you can't handle the split above, which the vast majority of school-age kids learn to do, I'm not sure how you can manage other areas of life which require you to surpress your ego to progress.
-Jeff
No need to be snide, it doesn't really accomplish anything.
What you are suggesting is mostly pie-in-the-sky. While I have seen it work in one niche area (the "reign" rpg), I believe it will simply not fly for big ticket items. Few people will pay first, and you will stifle the rate of artistic advancement as compared to now.
Furthermore, if you remove current protections then the most likely result will be precisely as I say - the artist will be commissioned (or hired outright) by rich people to produce a singular work of art, which will will then be the prize of the rich person. The artist will not be allowed to distribute it.
Unless you're going to force your viewpoint into contract law and forbid that form of contract. Then artists won't be able to make an honest living.
-Jeff
1. Artist finds people who want content made.
2. Artist makes content in exchange for money.
3. Profit!
4. Artist gives away copies of content.
Great. So now we go back to a system where rich people commmision pieces of art and horde it for themselves as a status object.
Nice plan there.
-Jeff
"Excuse me sir, are you perhaps here for a drubbing? Or would you prefer me to repectfully keep my distance while you engage the npcs as you will."
Sorta kills the entire spontaneity thing, doesn't it?
-Jeff
This was a movie about friendship. The entire point to the movie is that a group of friends are stronger together than
apart. When they work apart they show flashes of brilliance, but overall achieve nothing. When they finally are brought together, in part by a wise old mentor, they are an unstoppable force that defeats a powerful enemy against all odds.
I believe that the emphasis on friendship and teamwork make this just as much a trek as any of the others. I do not believe that a trek show needs to take on a burning societal issue every episode.
-Jeff
"What do we think would have happened to the United States once all of Europe, Asia and Africa were under fascist regimes? And how well would they have fared, with no allies and the industrial might of a whole world poised against them?"
Foreign trade would have dropped. What do you think would have happened?
As far as industrial might goes, the US was the industrial might of the world at the time. I'm well aware of the production that the Germans, Russians, etc had, but the US was top dog by far and we didn't even really try hard.
Besides, your scenario is a farce. The japanese were already at their limits in China. Even if they had moved armies across the length and breadth of the country, they never, ever could have held it. China would win eventually.
Some argue that the Russians really won the war. I think it's close to that, but I think American and British contributions tend to be undervalued in that calculation. Whatever, the point is you're sweeping aside the Russians without a second thought.
The best the Axis could hope for was surrender and a top-dog status in their respective spheres. They had nothing like the resources it would have taken to conquer the world.
I'll add one more thing - the French and British thinking was fine and goes hand-in-hand with what I was saying. Quite frankly, they were late in their commitment, but again that's a long argument with two strong sides.
-Jeff
While I agree the GP needs to be a bit more respectful, you go to far yourself.
"...while the Yanks made excuses and sat around eating ice cream in Times Square..."
I believe the excuse is "nobody declared war on us", which is a damn good one. The more I read about history, the more I believe that a major issue we have in the US is taking sides in wars that do not involve us. We should let other people fight the wars and have the bravery it takes to sit them out. If that means more disengagement from the world to prevent being dragged-in, so much the better.
Yes, that means we sit idly by while the Germans put up concentration camps. Yes, that means watching the slaughter occur in various places in Africa. Yes, that means...you get the picture.
The only wars we should get involved in are defense of our borders, or defense of allied borders, and we should be very, very picky about who we call "ally".
-Jeff
You talk about government as if it is one thing. The reality is that much of what you site is the responsibility of state and local governments, and what many of us resent is the intrusion of the federal government into those areas.
I have no problem with a federal government spending money on a military - that's their role. How much money? That's a worthy debate. But nobody has ever made a good case for federal government spending on local roads, consistant education across the land, etc.
-Jeff
"Why do you feel the absolute need to "grind levels" and "get to the end game content"?"
Because killing 20 fishmen because Marduk the mercilous says it's the only way he'll stop his horde from rampaging feels about the same as kill 20 pigmen because Glinda the swell says she needs pig bladders to mix the potion that will save the village.
Both are just meaningless bits of text. You can kill the 20, or not, and nothing in the world will change.
However, there is some fun in gaining new abilities. That way you can more creatively kill the 20 duckmen...or was it pigs...whatever. But at least you got more buttons to push, whatever the text says.
So let's turn this around. Why not give all of us the buttons to push at start. Then those of you who enjoy reading mindless walls of text can go ahead and enjoy it. You can even refrain from pushing individual buttons until you feel you've earned them through that amazing storyline that you so enjoy. Why are you so determined to force those of us looking for greater tactical challenge to slog our way through walls of text first?
-Jeff
"Ask any economist and they'll tell you that wars are not only not inevitable, but there is no rational explanation for them at all,.."
This is utopian/socialist thinking, not real thinking.
If you want something, eliminating the person who has that something is a valid approach to getting it (outside of morals/ethics, of course).
-Jeff
Why are we planning for a future that we can't possibly forsee? Think of where technology was 100 years ago...how are we going to project even 100 years into the future?
There's no point. Just pick what's best/cheapest/safest/whatever for the next 100 years (ish), and move on. Right now, that's nuclear.
-Jeff
1) Paying for devices? A mix of capitalism and govt-sponsored welfare for the holdouts, similar to what's happened recently with digital tv (though hopefully learning lessons along the way).
2) The ones outside of the $COUNTRY don't have to care. The point is that I can block those who don't comply. If necessary, entire countries can be blocked until they setup similar laws. All these things to be worked out, not simply stated by fiat (I'd like to see that diplomacy stuff that we seem to have forgotten here in the US).
3) You are right that a company can't ignore "out of area" as easily. They have to make a business decision in these cases. But I prefer the decision to be available to them if they wish to make it.
I agree with your premise, but I don't think it's terribly complicated. We need two laws:
1. All communication protocols must have an identity field. This may be left blank, which signifies "anonymous".
2. Lying in the identity field is a federal crime (not misdemeaner, crime).
That's it. With those, the market can easily construct devices (programs, whatever) to allow consumers to control spam to their heart's content.
Note that, just as an example, you can already ignore most of your "out of area" phone calls.
-Jeff
"Well, that isn't totally fair. If Hamas vanished, there is a decent argument that Israel would continue to expand into Palestine."
Really? I'd love to hear that far-fetched argument.
"IMHO, all sides in the middle east are in the wrong."
Classic weak response. There must be a middle-of-the-road, balanced, position between the two extremes, and all we have to do is find this mystical utopian alignment and all will be right with the world.
Let's try another point of view.
a) In any war-like situation, all sides do things that any of us would consider "wrong". So sure, it's easy to cop-out and say both sides are wrong, but it's still a cop-out.
b) The Israelis gave land back to the egyptians for peace. They now cooperate with the Egyptians to the extent they can. So there's plenty of evidence that they will deal for real peace.
c) Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist. I'm not talking about word-games and so on, I'm talking reality. Hamas is fundamentaly against a Jewish state in the region.
The stupid part is that to win, all the palestinians need to do is to commit to peace in the same way that Gandhi did: completely. They would need to teach peace in their schools, and practice peace on the streets. Anybody who violated the peace would be given up on the spot. This doesn't mean the would be pushovers, they would simply use every other means they could to the fullest, taking the high road even when sometimes the low road appears to be entirely justified.
If the palestinians did that, they couldn't lose. Once a few years go by no hard-line government could win in Israel (remember, the current one is just barely in charge as it is). Eventually Israel would be forced to recognize more and more fundamental rights. It would simply be a question of time.
"...because there is an unlimited supply."
It's not the copying of the bits that's an issue, it's the development time. People who copy the bits rather than pay for them choose to disrespect that development time.
Cheap college loans are the reason college prices have exploded over the years, as well as a large part of why college educations have become more and more worthless in practice.
Everything government touches it screws up. Remember this.
-Jeff
"I was a very successfull high security hauler and trader who had his market taken away by superships he could afford to buy, but could not fly."
So rather than adapt and find new markets, you quit. Your choice, but blaming the entire game design is highly extreme.
Note that after a long hiatus I am looking forward to re-joining eve just so I can start trading, as I see a market for industrial traders.
For those reading, industrial ships haul a lot, freighters haul a gigantic amount. Freighters are slow.
-Jeff
"third, not american military leadership has prevented the nazis, the russians have. americans preferred to sit on their collective arses until it was sure that russians would win the war and then they went in to steal the laurels."
a) Hitler declared war on the US, not vice-versa.
b) FDR was aiding the allies before the official declaration of war. At a minimum, he was stretching the limits of his office to do so.
c) Stalingrad was won long after the US entrance into the war, indeed after the Allied invasion of N. Africa.
d) war is not a game. The US gained absolutely nothing from joining the war - indeed, even after the war the US went on to toss money around the world to help people out.
I'm not suggesting for one moment that I approve of the US running around playing policeman. A strong part of me thinks it would have been best for the US if we had stayed completely out of WWI and WWII (in Europe, that is), along with all the follow-on nonsense we've seen through the years (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc). But your characterization of the US entry into WWII is certainly beyond-the-pale.
-Jeff
"My experiences at the 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union are that most (9/10) of the scientists I met agree with the IPCC report on abrupt climate change."
Which just means that the majority of people who showed up (or were invited) are the type of people who hold this view. It doesn't mean the meeting is representative of anything.
Ignoring that - as you said, science is about evidence - all you've done in your discussion is correlated data that hints at possible man-made involvement. Certainly enough to form a hypothesis.
What I find interesting is that every time I try to follow-up on the testing for this, I'm met with "...this computer model clearly shows..." When I try to investigate the model, I find out it is proprietary, as is the precise data that was used. In other words, it is impossible to reproduce the claims in another laboratory, because the method is hidden.
At that point my adult-skeptic sense kicks in. I've seen luddites before, or just people who have some desperate need to join a cause that shows how bad we all are. I have no idea why this phenomenon exists, but I've seen it all my life. The entire "climate change" movement smells of this. Strong assurances that *something* is wrong, clear direction on massive sacrifices that we need to make, and very vague predictions as to what will happen if we don't make'em.
Count me as one of those skeptics who refuses to do anything beyond funding some research. Quite frankly I think much of the research is a waste, but if it keeps the "woe-is-us" kiddies busy, perhaps there is some value there.
-Jeff