Sure. A wide-spread effect could be rather useful, and sometimes appropriate -- say, when an angry mob tries to storm an embassy, or so forth; in that case, everybody in the area is hostile *but* it'd still be overkill to, oh, break out the 40mm frags.
Likewise, if a wave of *possibly hostile* civvies is coming towards your position, in a battlezone where it's not unusual for "refugees" to actually be enemy infiltrators, this might be a "nicer" way of keeping 'em back.
There was really no existing market in minimalist text editors at the time. That's a lot different than looking at an existing competitor, perceiving a possible threat, and moving to undercut them.
All the other entities you mention have very strong competitors. In fact, many of AOL/TW, Disney, and GE's media properties compete with *each other*.
The studios aren't a cartel; they compete with each other, and with overseas operations as well; there are quite a few successful indie groups, some of whom actually make a good film every once in a while.
When was the last time you needed your washer to be compatible with your coworkers' dryers? Or your microwave needed to be chosen with, say, a Federal agency's requirements in mind?
Computers exchange data. A big issue is file format compatibility; given that many organizations and agencies have specific requirements (such as MS Word 6.doc files), there are just a few more concerns that with appliances...
It's better to be able to confront the truth rather than try to uselessly hide it. A child would be better off fully aware of the situation and how to recognize it and its implications -- for instance, to know that racial discrimination *does* happen, and how to intelligently judge when it might be occuring.
It might have been more interesting if she'd required two papers -- both pro and con -- from each student, and graded them seriously rather than based according to her political opinions.
My copy is roughly 20 miles from me at the moment, but if memory serves, they covered a LOT of variables including attempting to control for socioeconomic status, educational level and so forth. Also, a lot of the data was gleaned from national studies *not* done by them, but ones often used as standards in the field.
Get a copy and play with the numbers, perhaps. There's a lot of detail in the book -- more than necessary for somebody like me who's not a statistician.
Well, if you look around, and notice that not too many people agree with you that everything's sufficiently gone to pieces to try -- you're probably too early.
It'd basically take some *really* serious, blatantly wrong juju that would anger, oh, at a minimum, several millions.
It's up to the voters to vote 'em out. Although, one wonders whether any oath of offices they take -- and in particular, any phrases about upholding the Constitution (which is definitely in the Presidential oath) -- are legally binding w.r.t. perjury, but AFAIK nobody's _ever_ tried to nail a legislator on those grounds here.
As for tossing them out, it's not unusual for the constituents to *want* the unconstitutional laws.
Go read the US Code. Search for "Unorganized Militia", which has a legal definition. Most male Americans within a certain age range who aren't Organized Militia are Unorganized Militia.
You couldn't have chosen a worse example for your point than 1+1=2. After all, arithmetic is an artificial system based on symbols (such as numbers), with extremely specific semantic definitions. It's true by definition, much the same way that G\"{o}delian [in]completeness theory held even before G\"{o}del. Accept the defintions, and the theorems follow. Reject the definitions, and your views on their veracity are no more meaningful since you have now essentialy decided to read them as if they were in a different language, namely incorrectly.
I'm not positive that twins are treated the same. Don't parents often do things like dress them in identical outfits and such? And isn't their probably some less subtle pressure on them in that direction?
They could block, or at least flag, many searches -- it's their engine, after all. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many searches were either just a complete singer/band name ("Brittney Spears") or a song title ("Eve of Destruction". OK, so more likely something a bit more recent...).
It'd be easy to argue that a search for "N'Sync" very, very likely is, in fact, a search for "N'Sync" MP3s, and therefore should be blocked. If they periodically look at, say, the top 50 most popular searches, they might be able to accumulate a decent blacklist.
Probably because not that many people want to read a decent-sized book off a computer screen, or are willing to print 'em, whereas digital music tends to go to the same place regardless of source or medium: a set of speakers or headphones. No additional inconvenience is added.
Plus, many books are pretty cheap, especially mass-market paperbacks and used books -- at least for those people who don't mind "authors" who crank out basic, self-copying formulaic stories en masse.
Most likely, a lot of the people they're trying to catch aren't that swift, or that paranoid. So if they get this, they *will* be able to find more perps.
However, that's not to say that they should get it... investigation is part of their job, and citizens shouldn't casually toss away such useful protections as anonymity just to please law enforcement.
In the example you cite, it's the computer store's fault, not the publisher's; IIRC, id Software has been good about rating its products at least since Doom, if not Wolfenstein and before. I don't know about Maxis, but if they do, the blame again lies with the sales clerks, and also with the kids.
IDSA probably wants to avoid a Lieberman- or Tipper- style regulatory scheme. As long as they enter into this agreement *voluntarily*, 'tho, and it's not codified into law, their shouldn't be any constitutional issues.
Word of mouth isn't prohibited, and it can't be -- without both serious constitutional revisions and reinterpretations... and besides, IDSA doesn't speak gamers, just the publishers.
Also, reviewer sites aren't providing paid ads -- well, the reputable ones that aren't *just* annoying excuses for sleazy banner ads; they're providing editorial content. I don't see them being covered by this, either. This also goes for many fan sites.
Both of these media are VERY useful for getting out a message. Read the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games hierarchy on USENET, for instance, and you'll see a LOT of traffic discussing games, even games that haven't come out yet (Black & White, for instance) and ancient games (SPWaW), and games that don't have huge marketing machines behind them (King of Dragon Pass, Space Empires IV for two examples).
It may hurt Gamecenter.com's business model, if they rely heavily on publishing company ads -- but it won't necessarily hurt gamers or game publishing.
It's probably time to replace the adminstrators, and quite possibly, the school board; that sort of overreacion demonstrates a lack of either judgement (to realize that what they're doing is overreacting) or spine (to stop pandering to the Nervous Nellie electorate).
Not to mention that firearms tend to be equalizers, since few people are as willing to die as they would be to absorb a punch or a swing from Granny's walking stick, regardless of how many friends/fellow thugs they have.
Without such, well, numbers and raw strength rule, even if all firearms *were* confiscated. In that case, well, gangs now have a huge advantage.
The problem is that usually the ZT policy implies broadness of crime in addition to severity of punishment. It's great for board members who need to assure panicky parents that yes, they are leaping everytime somebody says "Boo!".
ZT policies often treat a device as a weapon if it *could* be used as one, regardless if it would make sense to. For instance, were I a high school student, I doubt that many schools would appreciate my having a "Ranger"-model Victorinox knife in my pack (which, incidentally, is completely opaque -- another policy violation in some schools) -- despite the fact that I'd be STUPID to use it as a weapon, since it lacks a *locking* blade (and therefore the risk of slicing off my own fingers, should it be used as a weapon, would be unacceptably high). But many administrators would, no doubt, act regardless of that little detail; it's certainly a lot more menacing than a nail file.
Perhaps you're forgetting that you also generally need a criminal conviction to be jailed... One reason why there are more black males in prison, for instance, is that statistically, they commit a disproportionate share of the homicides (and, for what it's worth, are a similar disproportionate share of the victims) -- so you'd EXPECT that more would be in prison.
There's a big gap between going to trial and doing nothing.
If I were a virulent critic of the Federal Government, for instance -- and sometimes I am, but mostly due to perceived abuses and contradictions with its own laws; I'm not even *close* to being an anarchist; but if I were a regular agitator, I might not be put on trial, but would it be unreasonable for a file to be started on me? And if there seemed to be a strong potential for violence, there might easily be grounds for an _investigation_. That's a long ways off from a trial.
Likewise, authorities, once told, can use their judgement -- if any -- to decide whether to follow up and gather more information, or whatever action should be taken. For instance, if one student is stupid enough to show off, say, a Sig Sauer to a fellow student at school or even wave one around a bit, action should probably be swift and firm; if he merely makes a vague threat, perhaps more information is required.
A right to feel safe? People _aren't_ safe, and they should probably be aware of that; there is, frankly, *no* way to guarantee safety within a society and it should not be pretended that there IS such a way.
But beyond that, yes, authorities should use their critical thinking skills -- if they have any at all, which judging from the adoption of zero-tolerance policies, is by no means a given.
You could put up a separate web page, and put the URL (in plain text) in the message, if for some reason they NEED the HTML version. Surely a bit of cut-and-paste won't kill 'em. Then ask them to mail you back when they don't need the page anymore, unless you're planning to keep it online in case it's an FAQ.
Or, since your org probably has a printer, keep some.ps /.pdf files around and direct the users to them. They can easily obtain a nicely formatted copy, which could be put in a binder, tray of fliers, or what not...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. A wide-spread effect could be rather useful, and sometimes appropriate -- say, when an angry mob tries to storm an embassy, or so forth; in that case, everybody in the area is hostile *but* it'd still be overkill to, oh, break out the 40mm frags.
Likewise, if a wave of *possibly hostile* civvies is coming towards your position, in a battlezone where it's not unusual for "refugees" to actually be enemy infiltrators, this might be a "nicer" way of keeping 'em back.
There was really no existing market in minimalist text editors at the time. That's a lot different than looking at an existing competitor, perceiving a possible threat, and moving to undercut them.
All the other entities you mention have very strong competitors. In fact, many of AOL/TW, Disney, and GE's media properties compete with *each other*.
The studios aren't a cartel; they compete with each other, and with overseas operations as well; there are quite a few successful indie groups, some of whom actually make a good film every once in a while.
When was the last time you needed your washer to be compatible with your coworkers' dryers? Or your microwave needed to be chosen with, say, a Federal agency's requirements in mind?
.doc files), there are just a few more concerns that with appliances...
Computers exchange data. A big issue is file format compatibility; given that many organizations and agencies have specific requirements (such as MS Word 6
It's better to be able to confront the truth rather than try to uselessly hide it. A child would be better off fully aware of the situation and how to recognize it and its implications -- for instance, to know that racial discrimination *does* happen, and how to intelligently judge when it might be occuring.
It might have been more interesting if she'd required two papers -- both pro and con -- from each student, and graded them seriously rather than based according to her political opinions.
My copy is roughly 20 miles from me at the moment, but if memory serves, they covered a LOT of variables including attempting to control for socioeconomic status, educational level and so forth. Also, a lot of the data was gleaned from national studies *not* done by them, but ones often used as standards in the field.
Get a copy and play with the numbers, perhaps. There's a lot of detail in the book -- more than necessary for somebody like me who's not a statistician.
Well, if you look around, and notice that not too many people agree with you that everything's sufficiently gone to pieces to try -- you're probably too early.
It'd basically take some *really* serious, blatantly wrong juju that would anger, oh, at a minimum, several millions.
It's up to the voters to vote 'em out. Although, one wonders whether any oath of offices they take -- and in particular, any phrases about upholding the Constitution (which is definitely in the Presidential oath) -- are legally binding w.r.t. perjury, but AFAIK nobody's _ever_ tried to nail a legislator on those grounds here.
As for tossing them out, it's not unusual for the constituents to *want* the unconstitutional laws.
Go read the US Code. Search for "Unorganized Militia", which has a legal definition. Most male Americans within a certain age range who aren't Organized Militia are Unorganized Militia.
You couldn't have chosen a worse example for your point than 1+1=2. After all, arithmetic is an artificial system based on symbols (such as numbers), with extremely specific semantic definitions. It's true by definition, much the same way that G\"{o}delian [in]completeness theory held even before G\"{o}del. Accept the defintions, and the theorems follow. Reject the definitions, and your views on their veracity are no more meaningful since you have now essentialy decided to read them as if they were in a different language, namely incorrectly.
I'm not positive that twins are treated the same. Don't parents often do things like dress them in identical outfits and such? And isn't their probably some less subtle pressure on them in that direction?
*shrug*
They could block, or at least flag, many searches -- it's their engine, after all. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that many searches were either just a complete singer/band name ("Brittney Spears") or a song title ("Eve of Destruction". OK, so more likely something a bit more recent...).
It'd be easy to argue that a search for "N'Sync" very, very likely is, in fact, a search for "N'Sync" MP3s, and therefore should be blocked. If they periodically look at, say, the top 50 most popular searches, they might be able to accumulate a decent blacklist.
Probably because not that many people want to read a decent-sized book off a computer screen, or are willing to print 'em, whereas digital music tends to go to the same place regardless of source or medium: a set of speakers or headphones. No additional inconvenience is added.
Plus, many books are pretty cheap, especially mass-market paperbacks and used books -- at least for those people who don't mind "authors" who crank out basic, self-copying formulaic stories en masse.
Most likely, a lot of the people they're trying to catch aren't that swift, or that paranoid. So if they get this, they *will* be able to find more perps.
However, that's not to say that they should get it... investigation is part of their job, and citizens shouldn't casually toss away such useful protections as anonymity just to please law enforcement.
In the example you cite, it's the computer store's fault, not the publisher's; IIRC, id Software has been good about rating its products at least since Doom, if not Wolfenstein and before. I don't know about Maxis, but if they do, the blame again lies with the sales clerks, and also with the kids.
IDSA probably wants to avoid a Lieberman- or Tipper- style regulatory scheme. As long as they enter into this agreement *voluntarily*, 'tho, and it's not codified into law, their shouldn't be any constitutional issues.
Word of mouth isn't prohibited, and it can't be -- without both serious constitutional revisions and reinterpretations... and besides, IDSA doesn't speak gamers, just the publishers.
Also, reviewer sites aren't providing paid ads -- well, the reputable ones that aren't *just* annoying excuses for sleazy banner ads; they're providing editorial content. I don't see them being covered by this, either. This also goes for many fan sites.
Both of these media are VERY useful for getting out a message. Read the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games hierarchy on USENET, for instance, and you'll see a LOT of traffic discussing games, even games that haven't come out yet (Black & White, for instance) and ancient games (SPWaW), and games that don't have huge marketing machines behind them (King of Dragon Pass, Space Empires IV for two examples).
It may hurt Gamecenter.com's business model, if they rely heavily on publishing company ads -- but it won't necessarily hurt gamers or game publishing.
It's probably time to replace the adminstrators, and quite possibly, the school board; that sort of overreacion demonstrates a lack of either judgement (to realize that what they're doing is overreacting) or spine (to stop pandering to the Nervous Nellie electorate).
Not to mention that firearms tend to be equalizers, since few people are as willing to die as they would be to absorb a punch or a swing from Granny's walking stick, regardless of how many friends/fellow thugs they have.
Without such, well, numbers and raw strength rule, even if all firearms *were* confiscated. In that case, well, gangs now have a huge advantage.
The problem is that usually the ZT policy implies broadness of crime in addition to severity of punishment. It's great for board members who need to assure panicky parents that yes, they are leaping everytime somebody says "Boo!".
ZT policies often treat a device as a weapon if it *could* be used as one, regardless if it would make sense to. For instance, were I a high school student, I doubt that many schools would appreciate my having a "Ranger"-model Victorinox knife in my pack (which, incidentally, is completely opaque -- another policy violation in some schools) -- despite the fact that I'd be STUPID to use it as a weapon, since it lacks a *locking* blade (and therefore the risk of slicing off my own fingers, should it be used as a weapon, would be unacceptably high). But many administrators would, no doubt, act regardless of that little detail; it's certainly a lot more menacing than a nail file.
Perhaps you're forgetting that you also generally need a criminal conviction to be jailed... One reason why there are more black males in prison, for instance, is that statistically, they commit a disproportionate share of the homicides (and, for what it's worth, are a similar disproportionate share of the victims) -- so you'd EXPECT that more would be in prison.
There's a big gap between going to trial and doing nothing.
If I were a virulent critic of the Federal Government, for instance -- and sometimes I am, but mostly due to perceived abuses and contradictions with its own laws; I'm not even *close* to being an anarchist; but if I were a regular agitator, I might not be put on trial, but would it be unreasonable for a file to be started on me? And if there seemed to be a strong potential for violence, there might easily be grounds for an _investigation_. That's a long ways off from a trial.
Likewise, authorities, once told, can use their judgement -- if any -- to decide whether to follow up and gather more information, or whatever action should be taken. For instance, if one student is stupid enough to show off, say, a Sig Sauer to a fellow student at school or even wave one around a bit, action should probably be swift and firm; if he merely makes a vague threat, perhaps more information is required.
A right to feel safe? People _aren't_ safe, and they should probably be aware of that; there is, frankly, *no* way to guarantee safety within a society and it should not be pretended that there IS such a way.
But beyond that, yes, authorities should use their critical thinking skills -- if they have any at all, which judging from the adoption of zero-tolerance policies, is by no means a given.
You could put up a separate web page, and put the URL (in plain text) in the message, if for some reason they NEED the HTML version. Surely a bit of cut-and-paste won't kill 'em. Then ask them to mail you back when they don't need the page anymore, unless you're planning to keep it online in case it's an FAQ.
.ps / .pdf files around and direct the users to them. They can easily obtain a nicely formatted copy, which could be put in a binder, tray of fliers, or what not...
Or, since your org probably has a printer, keep some