I don't know about a fortune but there are political groups that pay people to post comments favorable to their candidate or causes in forums like slashdot and attempt to moderate unfavorable comments out. I would assume that posting AC would be a way to not link your user account to a specific platform so it is entirely possible someone made a fortune posting anonymous annoying comments on Slashdot.
Don't get too bent out of shape over it. People look for things to bash Reagan over- even when they cannot be assed enough to spell his name correctly.
I believe the bill Reagan signed as governor of California that lays this fraudulent foundation was the Lantermanâ"Petrisâ"Short (LPS) Act (1967). It was created by two democrats and one republican in which the purpose was to deal with the decline of residents in state run mental institutions due to the Community Mental Health Service Act (Short-Doyle Act) of 1957 created by two democrats. Both laws came about for the very reasons you mentioned. Their major flaw was in thinking that mentally ill patients would voluntarily take their medicine at the appropriate times and in the appropriate amounts while voluntarily showing up to clinics for treatment. Another critical flaw was in expecting federal funding and the outreach of mental health clinics to be more developed then they were at the time.
Bullshit. Most people, when you tell them that we are not in a democracy, will argue with you. And most educated people will argue that a republic is a "representative democracy", which is a bunch of self-contradictory bullshit. But they cling to it because of Cognitive Dissonance. Their self-image is wrapped up in our national image, and they want to believe our nation is the good guys and not the Evil Empire (still looking for those droids...) so they tell themselves that we have what we claim to be bringing to other countries: Democracy.
First, I did not say most people, I said "Most educated people". Second, what I described was exactly a representative democracy. Third, the founding documents require that states only have a republic form of government. Our federal government is divided into 3 parts each representing different aspects of the country. The senate represents the states, the house of representatives represent the people in the states, and the president represents the country as a whole. It is done this way so it can limit the tyranny of the masses (majority). It specifically allows the government to ignore the will of the people or some of the people in order to protect the freedoms, rights, and liberties of the people and to ensure the continued success of the country. James Madison argues this specifically in the federalist paper number 10 a little more clearly than Alexander Hamilton's attempt in Federalist number 9. There is nothing evil about it and it has always been the intent as shown by the US constitution and the federalist papers that made the case for it's adoption.
I hope that means you're arguing for full free education.
Why Free? People used to be able to work their way through college and actually pay for it. Those that can pay for it should be paying for it. Those that cannot should be looking how they can pay for it. The point wasn't that something should be given to someone, it is that the government is responsible for the costs and inability for most people to pay for their own education due to their half baked but good hearted attempts to extend education opportunities to people. If I had to purpose something, it would be that the government create's their own universities and fund parts of it so tuition could be affordable for every American. You know, kind of like it once was as little as 20 or so years ago. Have part of that funding be scholarships for under privileged and extremely low income people. Sort of like the state universities were originally set up. The idea would be to control the inflation of costs and make it accessible without making unlimited funding available and resulting in sky high tuition rates. What is the advantage of loans when you lose any earning advantage college would create by paying an extremely large loan back for most of your professional life? The only reason college is so expensive is because they can charge that amount due to the flood of money given by guaranteed loans.
That's a gross misrepresentation both of what free speech zones are, and how they are used. They are not used that way, and they were always intended to be abused.
Not at all. From the inception, free speech zones and protest zones or their equivilent was all about stopping protesters from interfering with other people's liberties. Colleges created them to stop war protesters from disrupting classes and blocking other students from participating in their education. The DNC used them to hide abortion protesters and stop them from disrupting their convention. They are still used to this day specifically to control access to activities the people being protested have the right to participate in.
Yes, both those rights have been infringed. How about people being put on the no-fly list for their speech? It has happened in the past, and that infringes both their right of free speech and their right of travel.
I hate to break it to you, but social mobility in the US is lower than anywhere else in the developed world. This means that, with very few exceptions, the reason you are a member of the 1% is because you were born into that class. Born into that class, so your parents could send you to private school, to after-school tutoring, or at least one of the few good public school systems. Born into that class, so your parents could pay most of your college costs, allowing you to start life free of crushing debt. Born into that class, so the people you know and the language you use let you fit into the culture at the top of business and corporate structures.
We'll hold up and laud the dozen or so people who do manage to pull themselves out of the gutter, but the opportunities available to the 99% pale in comparison with the smorgasbord of options presented to the 1% or the 0.1%
I'm not sure what your point is or how it is connected to mine. I didn't say study hard or something and you will be in that 1%, I said the government represents them too and whatever the government does to enable us with the ability to prosper will benefit them also- except that they will likely see more benefit from it because the 1% is capable of capitalizing on it better then most of us are.
Do you think that because the 1% is somehow born into the 1% or they were given something you weren't somehow makes them less worthy of being represented by the same government we are or that they do not deserve to enjoy the same possibilities to prosper that we do?
Please stop roleplaying someone stupid with your current game of presenting the incorrect suggestion that the greylisting time set on the recieving server doesn't matter.
Lol.. Even if the particular grey listing you are using allows you to set the interval between reconnection attempts, you do not need to do so for grey listing to work. 90% or better spam email sent will never reconnect after being dropped once. The legitimate SMTPs will reconnect in a couple minutes if it is legit and the email will be received then subjected to other spam filtering processes if present on the servers. There is no pretending involved other then maybe your supposed experience with it.
Peaceful American protesters in the 1960s *normally* didn't have to worry about heavily-armed forces showing up expressly to force them to leave, spraying them (even if they were sitting still) in the face with pepper spray, instigating fights, or seizing the cameras/phones of anyone (including journalists) they saw recording the incidents. The media also was still making an attempt back then to give accurate reports to the American public, and not using propaganda tactics to turn the public against the protesters by painting a wildly-inaccurate picture of who was protesting or what they believed in.
You should revisit this a bit. The national guard was routinely called out to break up protests. the police routinely unleashed attack dogs on them, they used high pressure fire hoses and instead of spraying pepper spray, they lobbed military grade tear gas into crowds. Ever hear the song "4 dead in Ohio"? It's about the result of one of these attempts to break a protest up where the national guard shit and killed 4 students at Kent state University. Cameras were routinely broken and taken from journalists, about the only thing in this comment that is literally true would be the taking of the phones and the reporting.
Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for what my parents' generation managed, and even chose my college in part because of it. But the police back then knew that the media wasn't under government's thumb yet, so any brutal behavior would be accurately reported to the public and turn it in favor of the protesters much, much faster than happened.
Not really, the government just called the protesters hippies and commies, draft doggers, and drug crazed lunatics and the public generally accepted the abuse of them on those grounds. When they would go to arrest a protester, they would walk up to them and start beating them with a baton and force them to the ground while handcuffing them. This often happened after tear gas was used unsuccessfully to disperse crowds. People were maimed, injured and even killed in these protests and the public largely saw it as "they had it coming" for not following the cops directions. That is a difference between then and now. Another difference is they had a cohesive message. This message was to end a war, to treat people of color and women the same as white men. Ask a dozen OWS what their grievances was and you got a dozen different answers with most of them appearing ridiculous.
And nothing will ever change. You want to know why? I'll tell you anyways. It is because you haven't the slightest clue about what you are talking about. I will demonstrate this a bit for you.
It brought popular recognition to the idea that we don't have a democracy
Most educated people were never under the disillusion that we were a democracy. We are a republic that uses democracy as part of the process to select the people who "represent" all of us. That 1% is included and our representative's jobs are to help ensure we can make money and earn a living. That also includes the 1% who seem to be able to do it more and better then the rest of us. Anyways, what you see as the 1% running the country is smoke and mirrors exaggerated due to your inabilities. I have those same inabilities but I'm not under any illusion that something is owed to me that is being possessed by the 1%.
If you don't like the idea of owing $50,000 or $100,000 in non-dischargeable college loans, or paying twice as much for health care as they do anywhere else in the world and still going bankrupt
And both- that's right, both of these problems are exactly caused by government involvement. Medical costs started rising for the general population when the government created the HMOs and attempted to get out of paying for medicare coverage. College costs rise on a curve directly associated with the availability of loans, grants, and money to go to college. The problem in both cases is that the government half assed a solution that was just as bad as the disease given enough time.
or having the Republicans attack your Social Security retirement benefits
Well, the only thing here is the chained CPI for Cost Of Living Adjustments and wanting to privatize the social security. Of course Obama supported the Chained CPI for COLA because there is sound ideology behind it even if you do not agree with it. While it might be a cut in technical terms, it does help address a problem that will eventually become a crisis if nothing is done. It is also one of the least intrusive or damaging remedies on the table.
As for privatizing social security, you will earn a larger return on monies paid into social security if it was invested in relatively safe investments in the market. Some of these supposedly safe investments aren't actually safe any more seeing how large cities like Detroit are filing bankruptcy and will likely get out of needing to repay bond holders (which could still be retirement investments). But the reality is that until that happened, even with the stock market crash, no money would have been lost to retirees due to the types of investments the privatized social security would be eligible for. The major sticking point is that the US federal government is currently required to purchase US bonds with the excess funds collected and that creates a large slush fund for congress to spend without any concept of paying it back. For some, this disappearing is hailed as a good thing, for others, it is disaster because they would need to find other ways to waste money in congress. The Social Security trust fund currently owns better then 16% of US government debt in the form of bonds issues by the federal government. That is something like 2.7 trillion if IRCC. Of course US treasury notes or bonds would be a qualified investment under the privatization plans that had been discussed over the past decade or so. It Wouldn't change as much as people fear. The biggest problem would be that when people die, the money doesn't stay in the trust. But seeing how you mentioned benefits, you are likely only talking about the chained CPI which Obama supported too.
or shutting down government services with sequesters
I hate to break this to you, but closing of services rests on the white house. the sequester which was agreed to by the democrats only dictated a reduction in spending
Why? Why would you do that? What possible rationalisation could there be for writing the password down and keeping it with the encrypted data?
It's a pity there is no law against negligent custodianship of encrypted data, it might teach people to be more sensible.
You would not believe how common something like that is. In fact, most offices will have at least one if not more desks with most of the passwords to not only the computers but banking and other sites written down somewhere and placed within easy access to the user. Generally, they are taped to the side of one of the desk drawers (because sticky notes on the side of the monitor is so unsafe) or printed on a paper shoved under the desk mat.
The problem is that good passwords are hard to remember and unique passwords make it even more difficult when you use them once or twice in a blue moon. Another problem is that competence is not always a requirement for some jobs. At most sites I administrate, we have a master folder located in one of the CEO's offices in a locked file Cabinet or safe. We pick the top dog's offices because they are watched pretty well by other employees (to see if the boss is around) and usually locked then they are out of the office. I once found the master folder containing everyone's passwords to log into all the system, everyone's email, most of the password protected websites used for business (excluding the banking which is kept elsewhere for security reasons) and all the databases on location just sitting at the receptionist desk because the telephone guy needed information to log into the PBX. I guess whoever got the file out didn't think of just getting the information needed and copying it. Instead, they handed him the entire folder and when he left, he gave it to the receptionist on the way out who left it sitting one the desk for two or three days before asking someone what to do with it. That someone replied to ask me when she saw me next.
It doesn't matter if it is encrypted data, or whatever. If the person hasn't been trained to understand the concept of security or the purpose of keeping the information private/secrete/secure, they will likely do something extremely stupid with the passwords sooner or later.
What did OWS achieve? Is or was that achievement compatible to the achievements of the 60's and 70's in the US?
I know there were other political activism periods in other countries but I'm not intently familiar with them. So let's see, in the 1960's, we saw the activism pass civil rights legislation (regardless of if you agree with it, was pretty significant) and in the 1970's, we saw protests that changed how parties selected presidential candidates, we saw the ending of the Vietnam war largely because of political activism, we saw some bad changes too like free speech zones being created to contain the Vietnam war protesters on college campuses that were instituted at political conventions in the 1980's by the democratic nations convention (DNC).
I must be missing something here because I do not see the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests achieving anything other then turning some parks into a camp ground for a while and irritating the locals to the point they sent the police in to remove them. Even if we look at other recent political activism, we find them largely ineffective for the most part. Abortion activist, whether pro choice or pro life seem to irritate people more then anything. Laws regarding abortions are passed by the same people who supported them for years. Gun rights and gun bashers in modern times are about the same, the largely liberal states seem perfectly fine with taking your gun rights while the more conservative states seem to be perfectly fine with encouraging you to carry loaded weapons (concealed carry laws). About the only political movement that has been largely successful is the gay marriage and they fought their battles in the schools training little kids to be tolerant and accepting of them and in the courts instead of political activism on the streets (I guess they notices the "We're here and queer and in your face" approach was hurting them more then helping). Perhaps the old activism isn't people setting out complaining but in finding compassionate judges willing to construe the constitution in your favor and politicians willing to ignore the will of the people who pass laws by referendum and refuse to defend them in courts.
The best I can find is a notation in the terms of service for the sign up page that directs to coursea.
They seem to lay claim to all the content for all the courses offered and do not allow any reproduction outside of personal use connected with taking the courses.
No state did that. IIRC there was a bill long ago in the Indiana state legislature years ago (1800's) that would have done so but it wasn't ever voted on. In 1961, the the novel a stranger in a strange land commented on a fictional law in Tennessee doing so but it was all fiction.
You are probably thinking of one of the email satires that spread back in the 90's when New Mexico was trying to supplant evolution with creationism.
Yes, used greylisting for a couple of days and now am well aware of an inherent flaw that could cost the people who use it their jobs. Consider how it works and then consider that people at the top of organisations like to think of email as a nearly instant communications system and really don't like it when that last minute tender they've been working on all night gets delayed for half an hour (as is typical, or several hours with insane greylisting settings I've seen used) just because the person they sent it to has never had email from them before. It's a nice idea from an IT perspective but from a business perspective it sucks dog balls
The default resend interval on most mail systems is between 2 and 15 minutes that I know of. If you are using it, it doesn't impact anyone you are sending to. If who you are sending it to is using it, it is their problem not yours.
I'm also surprised by the comment of " never had email from them before". First, are you confusing grey listing with white listing and a challenge response? Second, I'm not sure I would be sending something I worked on all night to someone I never communicated with before by email. It might be possible that the specific person is a different person, but the email should work domain wide (if I emailed your secretary I should be able to email you without the grey listing).
It stops them long enough for it to be a problem in enough cases that I kept getting a lot of "why doesn't X have my email yet" phone calls when greylisting first became popular. I then ran it myself for a while to see what was going on and to see where some of those who were using it were applying frankly insane settings, and how even less tight settings were problematic on occasion.
If grey listing stops the email from being received for hours, there is something wrong with the server sending it. Most default times are minutes. I'm not sure I know of a scenario that would require specific minute by minute communications that wouldn't warrant a phone call or something more instantaneous. Even without grey listing, the emails can be delayed for several minutes. Most email clients do not update more then every couple minutes anyways.
The longest I have seen an email delayed from grey listing is about 5 minutes. Anyways, I'm not sure we are talking about the same things. Grey listing simply drops the first connection attempt by a server not in a white list and requires the smtp server to retry at their set interval. There aren't a whole lot of setting you can do besides specifically allowing domains or servers and specifically denying them. The person sending the email might have their servers jacked around but that is their problem, not yours. If a route goes down somehow and the communication is interrupted, it will retry the communications anyways- this is no different except it's on purpose.
Sometimes it's better to look at entire systems to resolve problems instead of a tightly focused technical only approach. If you guys are going to call yourselves "engineers" you should act like them and consider entire systems instead of single bolts or what the manual tells you to do. Cute tricks that fuck around with communication policy shouldn't be used unless you can take the consequences of changing communication policy. If it's going to put your boss on the carpet in front of the CEO you have a duty to your boss of explaining to them why you are doing it.
I'm not convinced we are talking about the same things here. Like I said, the longest I have seen an email delayed is about 5 minutes. I say about because the log measures seconds between connection attempts when I check them and I have never seen them go over 300-350 seconds unless something was wrong with the route (traceroute fails to complete).
The article summery says it is open source. Perhaps the author knows something about it or maybe they just assumed wrongly like you pointed out. If it is open source, I would say it is news worthy.
I think the big deal is "open source". Any other person, school, tutor, or whatever can grab the source and adapt it to what they need. IF they improve it and release it, it can be improved on again and again. This might make it more useful then existing programs available.
These online and free courses, do any of them apply to credits earned towards a degree or are they mostly an opportunity to learn something new or relearn (refresh) something you already should know?
I can see where just knowing a little more about certain subjects can enormously help people. Even when they should already know it but forget because they haven't used it for so long. For instance, I was trying to figure out how much sand I needed to cover a base for my patio and had to actually look up a formula instead of being able to remember what was needed to figure it out on my own (sand in my area is sold by the ton, not square or cubic foot). Another time, I was attempting to figure out how large of a square pipe (tube) I would need to match the flow of volume a round pipe on an exhaust stack would have and had to once again spend time looking up the formulas. I already had square tube on hand so I was looking at saving some cash.
I imagine that people use this type of information every day in their jobs and someone fresh out of school would probably be able to figure it out on their own in a few minutes. But for someone who is 17, would any of them apply to credits for college or just be a tool to give them a leg up for when they go?
I second grey listing and using spamhause filter lists.
It is well worth it. I had a 30 user environment receiving about 100 to 300 spam emails a day per user go to approximately 10 a piece making it through. Then when I activated the spam filtering it went to about 10 a week for about 1/3 of the users. The biggest problem is third party user machines being compromised and the spam being sent through their internet's email servers (grey listing doesn't stop legitimate servers and most big ISP's don't make it on the spamhaus lists). Usually this contains a virus attached to it and the antivirus on the mail server catches it.
PS.. the reason the spam was so high is because they sign up for all sorts of crap from their work computers and use their work email almost as a personal email. The partner's don't mind as long as their work is getting done. The biggest offenders were the partners (read owners) themselves.
You have the anti-gun crowd freaking out at the thought of a gun in the US. Kids are getting suspended and expelled from school for pointing fingers like they were gun and in one case, eating toast or a pop tart in a way that the food ended up looking like a gun before it could be finished being eaten. Armed guards on Airplanes probably freaks them out even more then the concept of someone blowing a hole in the side of the plane or hijacking it and crashing into a skyscraper. I don't think it is about it being cheap at all. Just irrational paranoia.
He probably means charged. Often when someone is charged with a serious crime (felony) they are limited from traveling too far away without the courts permission. I think what he was alluding to was that if you are charged with a crime in an open court (not some secrete court that no one of ordinary means ever knows about until someone leaks information), he sees a case to limit your ability to travel. Outside of that (or a conviction i presume because it is the conclusion of being charged), no limits should ever be placed on the ability for someone to travel by any means by the government.
There is nothing anti-science about the thread either. maybe you failed to explain yourself properly and I just don't get it. But the comment is spot on whether you are talking about the tongue in cheek comment about climate scientist never having ulterior agendas or the Romanian government not funding science.
So, you agree that copyright protection should only extend to the first purchase? Because that's the last time the original creator profits originally. After that, the original creator no longer has any interest, because he sold it.
Copyright is a legal monopoly created by law to empower the creators of copyrightable content. It's value extends to the duration of that legal monopoly not the first sale of it. The sale price or profit the creator receives is entirely conditional on the duration of the copyright left to the work. The creator's interest in the copyrighted works extend to the entire duration of the copyright because it largely predicates the value of it.
It sounds like you're advocating for eternal copyright. There has never been eternal copyright, because from the very beginning, they knew it was counter-productive.
I do not know how to be more clear, I already said I think the duration of copyright is entirely too long and even advocated it being shortened.
I think your beliefs on copyright are still evolving, judging from the many contradictory points you make. One minute, there should be no limit, then there might be a limit.
I think you might be confused. I advocate shortening the duration of the copyright term, not removing it thus removing the value of it. If you write a novel and have no means to publish it, you will not be able to profit nearly the same if the copyright disappears as soon as I purchase it and publish it in a collection of works compared to having the copyright intact when I publish it.
If you believe it might be prudent to shorten the span, why is that? The more you think about the "why" the more you'll start to see why copyright has extended well beyond its original intent or any benefit to society.
I do not disagree much with this statement. What I disagree with is the concept of thinking that the copyright should disappear if the content was sold to someone who could make use of it or put it into public consumption.
See what I mean? Now you're getting there. You admit that progress requires works to be out of copyright, or, more directly, that copyright is a hindrance to progress. That's progress.
lol.. I do not ever think I have said anything suggesting otherwise. But I believe attacking the duration of the term not the ownership of it is the way to fix the problem.
MarsOne isn't trying to put people on mars for $6 billion. They are trying to determine what is needed and develop the tech to be transported and survive on mars for $6 billion.
I listened to a radio interview a while ago with them. They were clear that the $6 billion wouldn't be putting people on the planet. They were also clear that they were going to be asking for more money in the future too.
Perhaps you know something I don't or their statements are ambiguous enough that you took them differently then I did.
If the US currently said to any world government, join us as another one of our states, and allow us to manage you, although you keep certain laws and policies in place, thereby strengthening the fabric of government that might be fragile, they could then also help continue to mine that counrtie's (or new state's) resources whatever they might be. They would both profit as the new state would have less hardships with such polices that could just be adopting, and the US would become even stronger, but we are fracturing smaller and smaller, but to what end?
Until relatively recently, the US did say that. This was the entire propagation of the states. The federal government never originally had this all encompassing rule over the states as it seems to be trying to push now. This is also why the states in the US are called states and are political subdivisions under the federal government and a State in other parts of the world are largely considered countries themselves.
By the way, by no means do I think the US is the only country that could do this, as any country with a level of excellence could be considered as a viable source to "GROW" the united one world nation!.
Incidentally it is entirely possible for other countries or states or even territories to become states in the United States of America still to this day. Palestine could actually petition to become a US state for instance. Of course they would have to meet whatever rules congress currently has in place first and guarantee a republic form of government and uphold other provisions in the US constitution but it is entirely possible. Other countries could too. Egypt for instance could decide to become the 52nd state of the US and have most of their sovereignty in tact.
Most foreign nations and territories with an incline of sovereignty do not have the inclination to remove their sovereignty or surrender portions of it voluntarily. This makes it highly unlikely anything like that would happen without colonization or losing a war first. But technically, if their population and ruling government were so inclined, any other country could very well become a US state.
I'm not sure I saw anything that was anti-science in this. Not funding science is not anti-science, it is putting monies to use in other ways.
Are you anti-McDonad's when you decide to eat at home or another restaurant? How about when you purchase school supplies for your kids instead of getting them a happy meal?
This everything is anti-science if it doesn't follow a line you approve of has to go. There are priorities that people sometimes have to put in front of others.
And how many times removed does it have to get before we've exceeded the bounds of copyright's original purpose?
It can be removed as many times as necessary for the original creator to profit originally.
If I am the guy who bought the rights from the guy who bought the rights from the guy...times ten...then should I expect the same protections as the creator and his original benefactor? Not if the original intent was to protect and encourage the creator. Remember, the point was to make it so that a creator could get paid, not to make sure the creator got the highest possible price.
If selling or the ability to sell the copyrighted content 2 million times within the same time span the original creator would enjoy the copyrighted legal monopoly on it is creating the value for the creator's original sale, then it is valid. Lets look at it this way, If I sell you a used car that has about 10 years of usable life left in it, would you be willing to pay me more money then a similar car that only has 2 years usable life left? Ok, now how about you keeping the car for 10 years, but everyone else can drive it after you own it for 2 years. Or even more depressing, how about if you can only sell a car 3 times before it cannot be sold any more.
Don't get into the tangible property argument because it's the same principle. What you are likely having an issue with is the duration of copyright being virtually perpetual within a single lifetime. I have an issue with that also. But lets not get confused- if the duration of a copyright was 20 years, what difference would it make if the copyright changed ownership 200,000 times during that 20 years? Ok, now what is at 40 years? It would make absolutely no difference- you wouldn't be able to use my copyrighted materials during that more reasonable time whether I kept it to myself or sold it to someone who sold it to someone else who sold it to yet someone else.
Now I can see a scenario where it might be prudent to shorten the lifespan of a copyright duration if the original owner/creator sells it. I see no reason to limit how many times it can be sold though. But I would rather see copyright duration shortened across the board so one generation can improve upon the previous and the previous generation can more easily work the later generation's mediocre crapola into masterpieces.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about a fortune but there are political groups that pay people to post comments favorable to their candidate or causes in forums like slashdot and attempt to moderate unfavorable comments out. I would assume that posting AC would be a way to not link your user account to a specific platform so it is entirely possible someone made a fortune posting anonymous annoying comments on Slashdot.
Don't get too bent out of shape over it. People look for things to bash Reagan over- even when they cannot be assed enough to spell his name correctly.
I believe the bill Reagan signed as governor of California that lays this fraudulent foundation was the Lantermanâ"Petrisâ"Short (LPS) Act (1967). It was created by two democrats and one republican in which the purpose was to deal with the decline of residents in state run mental institutions due to the Community Mental Health Service Act (Short-Doyle Act) of 1957 created by two democrats. Both laws came about for the very reasons you mentioned. Their major flaw was in thinking that mentally ill patients would voluntarily take their medicine at the appropriate times and in the appropriate amounts while voluntarily showing up to clinics for treatment. Another critical flaw was in expecting federal funding and the outreach of mental health clinics to be more developed then they were at the time.
First, I did not say most people, I said "Most educated people". Second, what I described was exactly a representative democracy. Third, the founding documents require that states only have a republic form of government. Our federal government is divided into 3 parts each representing different aspects of the country. The senate represents the states, the house of representatives represent the people in the states, and the president represents the country as a whole. It is done this way so it can limit the tyranny of the masses (majority). It specifically allows the government to ignore the will of the people or some of the people in order to protect the freedoms, rights, and liberties of the people and to ensure the continued success of the country. James Madison argues this specifically in the federalist paper number 10 a little more clearly than Alexander Hamilton's attempt in Federalist number 9. There is nothing evil about it and it has always been the intent as shown by the US constitution and the federalist papers that made the case for it's adoption.
Why Free? People used to be able to work their way through college and actually pay for it. Those that can pay for it should be paying for it. Those that cannot should be looking how they can pay for it. The point wasn't that something should be given to someone, it is that the government is responsible for the costs and inability for most people to pay for their own education due to their half baked but good hearted attempts to extend education opportunities to people. If I had to purpose something, it would be that the government create's their own universities and fund parts of it so tuition could be affordable for every American. You know, kind of like it once was as little as 20 or so years ago. Have part of that funding be scholarships for under privileged and extremely low income people. Sort of like the state universities were originally set up. The idea would be to control the inflation of costs and make it accessible without making unlimited funding available and resulting in sky high tuition rates. What is the advantage of loans when you lose any earning advantage college would create by paying an extremely large loan back for most of your professional life? The only reason college is so expensive is because they can charge that amount due to the flood of money given by guaranteed loans.
Not at all. From the inception, free speech zones and protest zones or their equivilent was all about stopping protesters from interfering with other people's liberties. Colleges created them to stop war protesters from disrupting classes and blocking other students from participating in their education. The DNC used them to hide abortion protesters and stop them from disrupting their convention. They are still used to this day specifically to control access to activities the people being protested have the right to participate in.
I'm not sure what your point is or how it is connected to mine. I didn't say study hard or something and you will be in that 1%, I said the government represents them too and whatever the government does to enable us with the ability to prosper will benefit them also- except that they will likely see more benefit from it because the 1% is capable of capitalizing on it better then most of us are.
Do you think that because the 1% is somehow born into the 1% or they were given something you weren't somehow makes them less worthy of being represented by the same government we are or that they do not deserve to enjoy the same possibilities to prosper that we do?
Lol.. Even if the particular grey listing you are using allows you to set the interval between reconnection attempts, you do not need to do so for grey listing to work. 90% or better spam email sent will never reconnect after being dropped once. The legitimate SMTPs will reconnect in a couple minutes if it is legit and the email will be received then subjected to other spam filtering processes if present on the servers. There is no pretending involved other then maybe your supposed experience with it.
http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/
You should revisit this a bit. The national guard was routinely called out to break up protests. the police routinely unleashed attack dogs on them, they used high pressure fire hoses and instead of spraying pepper spray, they lobbed military grade tear gas into crowds. Ever hear the song "4 dead in Ohio"? It's about the result of one of these attempts to break a protest up where the national guard shit and killed 4 students at Kent state University. Cameras were routinely broken and taken from journalists, about the only thing in this comment that is literally true would be the taking of the phones and the reporting.
Not really, the government just called the protesters hippies and commies, draft doggers, and drug crazed lunatics and the public generally accepted the abuse of them on those grounds. When they would go to arrest a protester, they would walk up to them and start beating them with a baton and force them to the ground while handcuffing them. This often happened after tear gas was used unsuccessfully to disperse crowds. People were maimed, injured and even killed in these protests and the public largely saw it as "they had it coming" for not following the cops directions. That is a difference between then and now. Another difference is they had a cohesive message. This message was to end a war, to treat people of color and women the same as white men. Ask a dozen OWS what their grievances was and you got a dozen different answers with most of them appearing ridiculous.
And nothing will ever change. You want to know why? I'll tell you anyways. It is because you haven't the slightest clue about what you are talking about. I will demonstrate this a bit for you.
Most educated people were never under the disillusion that we were a democracy. We are a republic that uses democracy as part of the process to select the people who "represent" all of us. That 1% is included and our representative's jobs are to help ensure we can make money and earn a living. That also includes the 1% who seem to be able to do it more and better then the rest of us. Anyways, what you see as the 1% running the country is smoke and mirrors exaggerated due to your inabilities. I have those same inabilities but I'm not under any illusion that something is owed to me that is being possessed by the 1%.
And both- that's right, both of these problems are exactly caused by government involvement. Medical costs started rising for the general population when the government created the HMOs and attempted to get out of paying for medicare coverage. College costs rise on a curve directly associated with the availability of loans, grants, and money to go to college. The problem in both cases is that the government half assed a solution that was just as bad as the disease given enough time.
Well, the only thing here is the chained CPI for Cost Of Living Adjustments and wanting to privatize the social security. Of course Obama supported the Chained CPI for COLA because there is sound ideology behind it even if you do not agree with it. While it might be a cut in technical terms, it does help address a problem that will eventually become a crisis if nothing is done. It is also one of the least intrusive or damaging remedies on the table.
As for privatizing social security, you will earn a larger return on monies paid into social security if it was invested in relatively safe investments in the market. Some of these supposedly safe investments aren't actually safe any more seeing how large cities like Detroit are filing bankruptcy and will likely get out of needing to repay bond holders (which could still be retirement investments). But the reality is that until that happened, even with the stock market crash, no money would have been lost to retirees due to the types of investments the privatized social security would be eligible for. The major sticking point is that the US federal government is currently required to purchase US bonds with the excess funds collected and that creates a large slush fund for congress to spend without any concept of paying it back. For some, this disappearing is hailed as a good thing, for others, it is disaster because they would need to find other ways to waste money in congress. The Social Security trust fund currently owns better then 16% of US government debt in the form of bonds issues by the federal government. That is something like 2.7 trillion if IRCC. Of course US treasury notes or bonds would be a qualified investment under the privatization plans that had been discussed over the past decade or so. It Wouldn't change as much as people fear. The biggest problem would be that when people die, the money doesn't stay in the trust. But seeing how you mentioned benefits, you are likely only talking about the chained CPI which Obama supported too.
I hate to break this to you, but closing of services rests on the white house. the sequester which was agreed to by the democrats only dictated a reduction in spending
You would not believe how common something like that is. In fact, most offices will have at least one if not more desks with most of the passwords to not only the computers but banking and other sites written down somewhere and placed within easy access to the user. Generally, they are taped to the side of one of the desk drawers (because sticky notes on the side of the monitor is so unsafe) or printed on a paper shoved under the desk mat.
The problem is that good passwords are hard to remember and unique passwords make it even more difficult when you use them once or twice in a blue moon. Another problem is that competence is not always a requirement for some jobs. At most sites I administrate, we have a master folder located in one of the CEO's offices in a locked file Cabinet or safe. We pick the top dog's offices because they are watched pretty well by other employees (to see if the boss is around) and usually locked then they are out of the office. I once found the master folder containing everyone's passwords to log into all the system, everyone's email, most of the password protected websites used for business (excluding the banking which is kept elsewhere for security reasons) and all the databases on location just sitting at the receptionist desk because the telephone guy needed information to log into the PBX. I guess whoever got the file out didn't think of just getting the information needed and copying it. Instead, they handed him the entire folder and when he left, he gave it to the receptionist on the way out who left it sitting one the desk for two or three days before asking someone what to do with it. That someone replied to ask me when she saw me next.
It doesn't matter if it is encrypted data, or whatever. If the person hasn't been trained to understand the concept of security or the purpose of keeping the information private/secrete/secure, they will likely do something extremely stupid with the passwords sooner or later.
What did OWS achieve? Is or was that achievement compatible to the achievements of the 60's and 70's in the US?
I know there were other political activism periods in other countries but I'm not intently familiar with them. So let's see, in the 1960's, we saw the activism pass civil rights legislation (regardless of if you agree with it, was pretty significant) and in the 1970's, we saw protests that changed how parties selected presidential candidates, we saw the ending of the Vietnam war largely because of political activism, we saw some bad changes too like free speech zones being created to contain the Vietnam war protesters on college campuses that were instituted at political conventions in the 1980's by the democratic nations convention (DNC).
I must be missing something here because I do not see the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests achieving anything other then turning some parks into a camp ground for a while and irritating the locals to the point they sent the police in to remove them. Even if we look at other recent political activism, we find them largely ineffective for the most part. Abortion activist, whether pro choice or pro life seem to irritate people more then anything. Laws regarding abortions are passed by the same people who supported them for years. Gun rights and gun bashers in modern times are about the same, the largely liberal states seem perfectly fine with taking your gun rights while the more conservative states seem to be perfectly fine with encouraging you to carry loaded weapons (concealed carry laws). About the only political movement that has been largely successful is the gay marriage and they fought their battles in the schools training little kids to be tolerant and accepting of them and in the courts instead of political activism on the streets (I guess they notices the "We're here and queer and in your face" approach was hurting them more then helping). Perhaps the old activism isn't people setting out complaining but in finding compassionate judges willing to construe the constitution in your favor and politicians willing to ignore the will of the people who pass laws by referendum and refuse to defend them in courts.
The best I can find is a notation in the terms of service for the sign up page that directs to coursea.
They seem to lay claim to all the content for all the courses offered and do not allow any reproduction outside of personal use connected with taking the courses.
No state did that. IIRC there was a bill long ago in the Indiana state legislature years ago (1800's) that would have done so but it wasn't ever voted on. In 1961, the the novel a stranger in a strange land commented on a fictional law in Tennessee doing so but it was all fiction.
You are probably thinking of one of the email satires that spread back in the 90's when New Mexico was trying to supplant evolution with creationism.
The default resend interval on most mail systems is between 2 and 15 minutes that I know of. If you are using it, it doesn't impact anyone you are sending to. If who you are sending it to is using it, it is their problem not yours.
I'm also surprised by the comment of " never had email from them before". First, are you confusing grey listing with white listing and a challenge response? Second, I'm not sure I would be sending something I worked on all night to someone I never communicated with before by email. It might be possible that the specific person is a different person, but the email should work domain wide (if I emailed your secretary I should be able to email you without the grey listing).
If grey listing stops the email from being received for hours, there is something wrong with the server sending it. Most default times are minutes. I'm not sure I know of a scenario that would require specific minute by minute communications that wouldn't warrant a phone call or something more instantaneous. Even without grey listing, the emails can be delayed for several minutes. Most email clients do not update more then every couple minutes anyways.
The longest I have seen an email delayed from grey listing is about 5 minutes. Anyways, I'm not sure we are talking about the same things. Grey listing simply drops the first connection attempt by a server not in a white list and requires the smtp server to retry at their set interval. There aren't a whole lot of setting you can do besides specifically allowing domains or servers and specifically denying them. The person sending the email might have their servers jacked around but that is their problem, not yours. If a route goes down somehow and the communication is interrupted, it will retry the communications anyways- this is no different except it's on purpose.
I'm not convinced we are talking about the same things here. Like I said, the longest I have seen an email delayed is about 5 minutes. I say about because the log measures seconds between connection attempts when I check them and I have never seen them go over 300-350 seconds unless something was wrong with the route (traceroute fails to complete).
The article summery says it is open source. Perhaps the author knows something about it or maybe they just assumed wrongly like you pointed out. If it is open source, I would say it is news worthy.
I think the big deal is "open source". Any other person, school, tutor, or whatever can grab the source and adapt it to what they need. IF they improve it and release it, it can be improved on again and again. This might make it more useful then existing programs available.
These online and free courses, do any of them apply to credits earned towards a degree or are they mostly an opportunity to learn something new or relearn (refresh) something you already should know?
I can see where just knowing a little more about certain subjects can enormously help people. Even when they should already know it but forget because they haven't used it for so long. For instance, I was trying to figure out how much sand I needed to cover a base for my patio and had to actually look up a formula instead of being able to remember what was needed to figure it out on my own (sand in my area is sold by the ton, not square or cubic foot). Another time, I was attempting to figure out how large of a square pipe (tube) I would need to match the flow of volume a round pipe on an exhaust stack would have and had to once again spend time looking up the formulas. I already had square tube on hand so I was looking at saving some cash.
I imagine that people use this type of information every day in their jobs and someone fresh out of school would probably be able to figure it out on their own in a few minutes. But for someone who is 17, would any of them apply to credits for college or just be a tool to give them a leg up for when they go?
I second grey listing and using spamhause filter lists.
It is well worth it. I had a 30 user environment receiving about 100 to 300 spam emails a day per user go to approximately 10 a piece making it through. Then when I activated the spam filtering it went to about 10 a week for about 1/3 of the users. The biggest problem is third party user machines being compromised and the spam being sent through their internet's email servers (grey listing doesn't stop legitimate servers and most big ISP's don't make it on the spamhaus lists). Usually this contains a virus attached to it and the antivirus on the mail server catches it.
PS.. the reason the spam was so high is because they sign up for all sorts of crap from their work computers and use their work email almost as a personal email. The partner's don't mind as long as their work is getting done. The biggest offenders were the partners (read owners) themselves.
You have the anti-gun crowd freaking out at the thought of a gun in the US. Kids are getting suspended and expelled from school for pointing fingers like they were gun and in one case, eating toast or a pop tart in a way that the food ended up looking like a gun before it could be finished being eaten. Armed guards on Airplanes probably freaks them out even more then the concept of someone blowing a hole in the side of the plane or hijacking it and crashing into a skyscraper. I don't think it is about it being cheap at all. Just irrational paranoia.
He probably means charged. Often when someone is charged with a serious crime (felony) they are limited from traveling too far away without the courts permission. I think what he was alluding to was that if you are charged with a crime in an open court (not some secrete court that no one of ordinary means ever knows about until someone leaks information), he sees a case to limit your ability to travel. Outside of that (or a conviction i presume because it is the conclusion of being charged), no limits should ever be placed on the ability for someone to travel by any means by the government.
There is nothing anti-science about the thread either. maybe you failed to explain yourself properly and I just don't get it. But the comment is spot on whether you are talking about the tongue in cheek comment about climate scientist never having ulterior agendas or the Romanian government not funding science.
Copyright is a legal monopoly created by law to empower the creators of copyrightable content. It's value extends to the duration of that legal monopoly not the first sale of it. The sale price or profit the creator receives is entirely conditional on the duration of the copyright left to the work. The creator's interest in the copyrighted works extend to the entire duration of the copyright because it largely predicates the value of it.
I do not know how to be more clear, I already said I think the duration of copyright is entirely too long and even advocated it being shortened.
I think you might be confused. I advocate shortening the duration of the copyright term, not removing it thus removing the value of it. If you write a novel and have no means to publish it, you will not be able to profit nearly the same if the copyright disappears as soon as I purchase it and publish it in a collection of works compared to having the copyright intact when I publish it.
I do not disagree much with this statement. What I disagree with is the concept of thinking that the copyright should disappear if the content was sold to someone who could make use of it or put it into public consumption.
lol.. I do not ever think I have said anything suggesting otherwise. But I believe attacking the duration of the term not the ownership of it is the way to fix the problem.
MarsOne isn't trying to put people on mars for $6 billion. They are trying to determine what is needed and develop the tech to be transported and survive on mars for $6 billion.
I listened to a radio interview a while ago with them. They were clear that the $6 billion wouldn't be putting people on the planet. They were also clear that they were going to be asking for more money in the future too.
Perhaps you know something I don't or their statements are ambiguous enough that you took them differently then I did.
Until relatively recently, the US did say that. This was the entire propagation of the states. The federal government never originally had this all encompassing rule over the states as it seems to be trying to push now. This is also why the states in the US are called states and are political subdivisions under the federal government and a State in other parts of the world are largely considered countries themselves.
Incidentally it is entirely possible for other countries or states or even territories to become states in the United States of America still to this day. Palestine could actually petition to become a US state for instance. Of course they would have to meet whatever rules congress currently has in place first and guarantee a republic form of government and uphold other provisions in the US constitution but it is entirely possible. Other countries could too. Egypt for instance could decide to become the 52nd state of the US and have most of their sovereignty in tact.
Most foreign nations and territories with an incline of sovereignty do not have the inclination to remove their sovereignty or surrender portions of it voluntarily. This makes it highly unlikely anything like that would happen without colonization or losing a war first. But technically, if their population and ruling government were so inclined, any other country could very well become a US state.
I'm not sure I saw anything that was anti-science in this. Not funding science is not anti-science, it is putting monies to use in other ways.
Are you anti-McDonad's when you decide to eat at home or another restaurant? How about when you purchase school supplies for your kids instead of getting them a happy meal?
This everything is anti-science if it doesn't follow a line you approve of has to go. There are priorities that people sometimes have to put in front of others.
Wow, still blaming Bush for everything. When will people grow up.
It can be removed as many times as necessary for the original creator to profit originally.
If selling or the ability to sell the copyrighted content 2 million times within the same time span the original creator would enjoy the copyrighted legal monopoly on it is creating the value for the creator's original sale, then it is valid. Lets look at it this way, If I sell you a used car that has about 10 years of usable life left in it, would you be willing to pay me more money then a similar car that only has 2 years usable life left? Ok, now how about you keeping the car for 10 years, but everyone else can drive it after you own it for 2 years. Or even more depressing, how about if you can only sell a car 3 times before it cannot be sold any more.
Don't get into the tangible property argument because it's the same principle. What you are likely having an issue with is the duration of copyright being virtually perpetual within a single lifetime. I have an issue with that also. But lets not get confused- if the duration of a copyright was 20 years, what difference would it make if the copyright changed ownership 200,000 times during that 20 years? Ok, now what is at 40 years? It would make absolutely no difference- you wouldn't be able to use my copyrighted materials during that more reasonable time whether I kept it to myself or sold it to someone who sold it to someone else who sold it to yet someone else.
Now I can see a scenario where it might be prudent to shorten the lifespan of a copyright duration if the original owner/creator sells it. I see no reason to limit how many times it can be sold though. But I would rather see copyright duration shortened across the board so one generation can improve upon the previous and the previous generation can more easily work the later generation's mediocre crapola into masterpieces.