Rush is an avid Apple Fanboy who frequently sings the praises of anything apply on his program. In fact, of you "friend him" on his face book account, you are signed up for some ipad or something giveaway contest Rush is hosting.
Not "should be kept in practice". Rather, "should be quietly modified rather than shouted down, as the shouting-down process itself does more harm than good". Think of it as a correlary to the way an adult's shocked reaction to a bit of bare breast in public can make a far deeper impression on a child who happens to be present than the initial stimulus; the point I'm making is that the act of publicly sanctioning the teacher for posing a hypothetical exercise is more dangerous than the exercise itself. That doesn't mean that I support the exercise being replicated and reproduced in the future.
That's a tad bit different of a stand then I gathers from out communications. I can see that position as valid but I think that some publicity needs to be made in order to stop another teacher from doing the same stupid crap.
And yes, that's a modification from my original stance -- but one I've made explicit in my last few posts on the subject, if you'd bothered to read them closely. Part of the point of debate, after all, is discovering areas in which one's views are subject to refinement.
No, you did not make it explicit. Not in the least with the previous impressions floating around. It wasn't until this post that is became clear and no amount of reading would have changed that.
Lol.. I know a bunch of bartenders and waiters who have a system too. You don't tip, you get crappy service. eventually you won't come back. If you do come back, they short your drink, spit in your food, or do some nasty things behind your back that you definitely do not want to know about.
Bottom line is, you treat them like crap, they will return the favor in kind.
On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in 'if you take care of your bartender, your bartender will take care of you". By tipping what probably amounts to one drink for every 2 or 4 drinks, I tend to get service faster then others, I'm singled out when they are slammed and everyone is hollering for something, and when they mess up a drink, I'm usually one of the ones they offer it to. And by mess up a drink, I mean something like making a Beam and coke instead of a jack and coke or cherry bomb instead of a grape bomb- the customer catches it before it gets to them so it's not like anyone else has drank from it.
That's actually illegal. The owner cannot threaten to do close down a business or actually close the business down on the condition of unionization. The best he can get by with is actually closing the shop down after it unionizes and cite something else as the reason. That reason has to be valid too.
A Union isn't necessarily the answer either. Some people tip, some do not. Some people tip too much, some tip not enough, the trick is getting a mix of users/customers in that the good make up for the bad and that having good wait staff can help a lot. I know waitresses making 40K or more a year and only claiming less then 20K because the rest is in tips. A good waiter/waitress in a high volume area that isn't run down with poverty or something like a restaurant that is only a buffet and they bring the drinks, can make 300-400 dollars a weekend in tips alone. If they make another $200 or more during the weekdays, that's about 26K a year on top of her regular salary. I know bartenders who make almost twice as much in tips but they are in really expensive bars.
Actually, 99.5% is a little high. Try something closer to 80%.
And yes, I'm speaking from the experience of cleaning systems where windows has Zero day vulnerabilities recently discussed here where simply going to an infected website was enough not to mention programs masquerading as legitimate installed programs because the legitimate programs draws it's window frames from IE and it's almost identical when it pops up saying "infection found, do you want to delete it". and lets not mention the recent network solutions app infections recently discussed here too.
We have a few sites that all web access is audited with log trails that even reveal what is types into word processors (the owners are anal about security and yes, working there is hell too). We tracked a few infections back to the ads served on some legitimate sites where the system was infected before the user had a chance at clicking anything. Of course our AV caught the infections but not before the winsock stack got hosed and we needed to reset it with the netsh command. And I stress again, this was with no user interaction other then going to a legitimate website for official work use as our tracking software showed. And this was also only a couple of weeks ago.
You think that's jumping through hoops? Clicking the ".." link twice and looking for the word "source" is "jumping through hoops"? On the same server where they host and distribute the binaries, the source is only a couple of directories away, in a directory called "source", at the same level as the architecture-specific binaries, and finding that is jumping through hoops? Just how clear do the instructions need to be for you?
I'm not sure what the dictionary says in your country, but in mine, the word Same is defined as equal in amount or value. When the requirement is to provide the same or equal in amount or value, then yes, having to look for the source, even if you have to click the parent directory, is not the same in the spirit or wording of the GPL. I know it's trivial to some, but we are talking about a legal document that has specific requirements.
Uh, really? You think that telling someone where something is, e.g. writing a hyperlink, is the same thing as providing them with that thing yourself, e.g. by owning a computer which hosts and actually *distributes* it? By analogy, would you say that telling people the name of the street where the dope dealers hang out is the same thing as selling dope?
If you link to their download page and allow the user to select the download, it's the third party distributing it. But if you are linking directly to the binary (as the statement originally implies) and the link from your page starts the download directly, then _yes_you_are_distributing it. And yes, several court cases concerning copyright infringement have backed that statement up. Lime wire and the pirate bay are some of the larger ones.
To keep with the dope dealer scenario you laid out, the differences is that one is telling someone where the dope dealer is might be complicity to the dealing (if it can be proven the intent was to initiate the dealing but that's not what this particular part of the copyright is about) where linking directly to the file and starting the download is the same as saying wait here, I get your smack for you- even though the dealer is holding it. The first is on shaky grounds, but how can you argue the later isn't dealing too? I mean you might just be the middle man, but you are providing the dope.
No, the clause requires that both the binary and source be equivalently accessible from the same place - i.e. from the place where they actually are. Not necessarily from each and any link that happens to point to them, but from where the files really exist.
Let me spell this out a little clearer. IF you have a website and on that site, there is a download page. And if this download page has a link to a GPL'd binary file, for it to count as distributing both source and object code, there must also be a link to the source. Otherwise, you have to provide an offer valid for 3 years to anyone requesting the source or pass along the offer you received if your distribution qualifies. The link doesn't have to initiate both the binary and source downloads, there just has to be a link to both from the same page.
If it worked your way round, I could actually keep the binary and source files on completely different servers, provided I always maintained links to the binary and source files in pairs.
You also can "not" distribute the binary and source together and simply take the "make the source available for 3 years to anyone" option. The same place is only concerning files on a server when you are attempting to distribute the source and binary together to escape the 3 years requirement.
Please explain this process to me. Is it where you start to lose an argument then attempt to skirt around the issues by changing the rules of engagement and taking crap out of context?
The "innocent" descriptor explicitly mapped back to a defense of the argument that the assignment explicitly represented the hypothetical act as repugnant.
And you point is what? I simply stated that it doesn't matter what the terrorist think of their targets.
The "zero sum gain" discussion was arguing that it's only "zero sum game" if you think only in terms of crime rate, and that there's more to the world from that.
But there isn't more to the context of the point in which you originally made. You said "Let's say you were given a button that would make everyone within 2000 miles of you 5 IQ points smarter. If you would ignore that button because it would make better criminals" I said better criminals wouldn't matter because it would be a zero sum gain.
Actually, I said "Well, if there was an imaginary button that could do that, it would be a zero sum gain. You see, for each smarter criminal there will be smarter cops and we all know that criminals succeed only because cops are stupid." I'm not sure why you are attempting to inject other crap when the fear of smarter criminals would be negated by the smarter cops and all would be the same on it. But instead of you concentrating on the part of the comment about making people smarter being different then training children to commit felonies, you want to focus on one thing out of context for some reason. Perhaps it's because you know you have lost.
And while you keep insisting that I'm somehow claiming that this exercise offers benefits over "traditional teaching techniques", I have stated no such claim and do not rest my position on that premise.
Then please tell me why you keep insisting that an assignment that requires children to break the law by plotting the murders of groups of people in order to influence the political whims of the government is somehow legitimate when traditional teaching techniques does not require breaking laws or plotting to do so? I mean how can you claim that it is valid and should be kept in practice when traditional teaching techniques achieve the same goals without teaching children to be terrorists and run afoul of the law?
And, frankly, I've got more to do with my life than shouting back and forth with someone on the Internet -- debate is fun when both sides actually listen to what the other is saying, but that's clearly not happening here. Ta ta for now; may we meet on better terms in the future.
Well, feel free to bail out on this. Your right, it's clearly not happening here. However, I strongly suspect is isn't on my side.
It's kind of like the allegations of voter fraud when someone distributed leaflets in Cleavland Ohio claiming that democrats should vote on some day 2 days late for the election.
Anyone intelligent enough that should have a legitimate interest will not fall for the tricks. Some people will and it gives more idiots a chance to complain. Of course there is always the Streisand effect and the possibility that the changes were made just to create or manufacture a controversy and promote then event. Chances are, it was some kid somewhere playing games and not even realizing how it would be taken in this context.
Now, if someone was really attempting to confuse people, they wouldn't have moved the location to the same general area where mistakes will only cause delays. Instead, they would have changed the Lincoln memorial location to the Lincoln monument location where a mistake would cost the entire event.
Zero sum gain?! Only if the only people who exist in the world are cops and criminals. Some of us in a world that's big enough, and interesting enough, and safe enough that we can care a lot more about science, and engineering, and art, and industry, and all the other things in the world that aren't crime.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. If you apply the same increase in metrics towards an attack and defense, you will have the same outcome. Criminals are the attack, cops are the defense, giving them both a 10 point increase means they are still the same in battle. That is what the point of the button was isn't it? Not using it because it would make criminals more smart? Well, it would make the cops more smart too and it would be a zero sum gain.
Getting back towards the topic, though, thinking about security can be fun -- it's a game of edge cases just like law or programming or chess, and making it a taboo subject for any law-abiding person to think about makes the world not only less safe but also intellectually poorer. It's the same mindset that took away the chemistry sets that gave us a generation of chemists, the same mindset that would hamstring today's inventors to prevent them from building a device that might possibly be used for (horror!) copyright infringement.
No one is making it taboo for any law abiding person. The taboo is about forcing children to do it as part of their grades in a state sponsored institution of education. This is not to mention that the act of conspiring to commit a terrorist attack is a felony already in most jurisdictions (regardless of being a school assignment or not), but they are being instructed to plan several other felonies (acquiring chemical or biological WMDs, planing the murder of innocent civilians, using violence against the government and society) in order to do something that in a democracy, speech and the exchange of ideas have traditionally been more effective.
didn't say it's more suitable than "traditional ways" of teaching logistical skills. I said that banning that kind of exercise is actively harmful, in excess of the harm done by allowing it. Quietly suggest to the teacher that she develop a more tasteful lesson plan next year, perhaps -- perhaps a series of essays analyzing Corey Doctorow's Little Brother, if she wants to keep with the edgy public safety theme (presuming that they're an honors-level class and parental consent is forthcoming) -- but making a public lesson to the children that they aren't considered able to handle hypothetical exercises and need to make a habit of disengaging their brains and going immediately into flag-waving mode whenever the T word is mentioned lest they be considered un-Australian... that's a far worse lesson than the one it replaces.
I'm sorry, I simply cannot conceive of any benefit that committing felonies or the planning of felonies as part of a grade would serve that isn't better served by traditional teaching techniques- even the ones you mentioned. And no, this isn't flag waiving rhetoric, it's about common sense. If the kids came together on their own and thought this through, it would be different, if they were studying someone else' attempts whether failed or successful, it would be different, but this is instructing the children in avenue they are forced to attend by law as well as social-economical pressures to attack the very same government that provides it's own charter.
Only to the extent that GTA4 teaches them the skills they need (much less confers the intent) to hijack cars, or to the extent that an encyclopedia article on nuclear weapons will create students who build them in their basements. The claim that hypothetical exercises -- particularly ones which emphasize the repugnance of the act[1] -- will somehow produce real-life criminals is fear-mongering bullshit and nothing more.
I really thought you were talking about "use", not "distribution". Or the actual act of linking (i.e. linking bits of compiled code yourself), not the distribution of linked binaries.
Apologies for misunderstanding you.
I can see now how the wording is a little confusing. I will try better to avoid that next time.
I was trying to point out that for >99.9% of commercial software that exists, whatever license or permissions you get with it, as far as I can tell, is "less free" than the GPL. This includes commercial redistributable libraries and frameworks, as most of these will not give you the freedom to modify the libraries.
Here is the big issue. If we were to keep comparing apples to apples instead of apples to trucks or something, then we would ignore the End User License Agreements that come with most close source software altogether and only look at the distribution licenses. This is because the GPL is only a distribution license, not an EULA. Even the anti Tivoisation clauses in the GPLv3 do not kick in until the device is being distributed in a way that copyright would preclude without a license. So in theory, until such time that you decide to distribute such device, you are free to make as many tivos as you want.
So when we narrow our field down to apples and apples license comparisons, we find that much of them have different requirements which some of them being less free and other being more free. When you are paying for the right to distribute something, you end up getting a lot more freedoms when you pay a lot more. If we do not narrow the license options or comparisons down, we might as well be comparing the GPL to your drivers license. I think your confusion, if it still exists, is within the overly broad use of licenses and what they actually pertain to. we need to concentrate on the aspects of the license, not the subject they contain.
No, you mentioned "some distro". I had to pick one to test, so I picked Debian because I that's the distro I happen to use. *shrug*Well, that's my poor grammar causing difficulties again. That should have been some distros as in multiple distributions. I have not tested ever distro out there, but I have ran across a few that did do this, at least at one time.
Because the minimal install is specifically for people who want to download as little as possible. That's what "minimal" means. If you want a minimal install, you are almost certainly not interested in the source.
well, the GPL doesn't really say you must include the source in these way if you think your customers want it. It doesn't provide an exception saying that if they don't want it, you do not have to give anything. I know you were able to jump through hoops and find the source, but that lacks the entire same location argument that equates downloads to distributing with the source so the keeping it available for 3 years requirement kicks in.
Hmmm....interesting. Are you saying that if I link to someone else's file server, which hosts GPL'd binary and corresponding source packages, then if I link to just the binary, then someone is in violation of the GPL? Me, because I only linked to the binary, even though I'm not redistributing? Or how about the server owner, even though he's hosting both files as required?
Well, no. The GPL license allows you to pass the offer along that was given to you if you did not change the software. That is essentially what you are doing by linking to someone else' site. You just have to somehow make that obvious to the people you are distributing to. and yes, if they are going through you and clicking your link that takes them directly to the binary, you are technically distributing it. Now if you added a script that changes the make file to link to another library then compiles and installs it, you will need t
You're hardly one to talk about rationality. Let's look at all the completely unfounded attacks just in the immediately preceding post:
Lets see, Of the three things you listed, I will simply generalize about, you fist insisted this was a valid assignment for children because it did certain things, I made the comment that there are other ways to achieve that same goal without having children plan the felony murder of innocent civilians. You remain insisting this is a valid assignment because it does what every other lesson on history eventually does but somehow, you insist that planning a terrorist act is valid in doing what can be done otherwise.
I don't think anything is unfounded at all. I also don't consider paraphrasing the obvious stand from the position you are actively taking is an attack. If you think it is, maybe you should take another look at your position.
Right -- it's a planning exercise. Now, let's think about some of the things you need to do to successfully complete such an exercise:
So you created a list of things to do, what's to stop them from doing it? Or better yet, what to stop them from getting someone who is more capable or doing it from doing it?
* Logistical planning and analysis -- materials, equipment, timing. These skills are needed for anything in life, from managing business operations to planning a party. * Contingency planning -- anticipating likely impediments and planning around them. Contingency planning is, again, necessary for any kind of business or personal preparedness -- for events ranging from job loss to flooding to being prepared to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity. * Model and argue the thought process of others -- necessary to argue the political effectiveness of the attack you've selected.
And as I said before, this has been competently dealt with in ways other then planning the mass murder of innocent civilians not even remotely involved in the quip. So why is planning a terrorist attack more suitable then traditional ways of teaching the same exact things? Oh yes, please go back and review what you think is screwed up with my statements.
Note that I'm not selling this as a way to learn history; I'm selling it as a way to learn planning. I'm not saying that it's the best possible exercise to be used for this purpose, but I am saying that making a huge controversy over its selection does more harm than good by teaching children that some subjects are immoral to target for analysis.
And I'm saying that you are full of crap. This teaches nothing that cannot be learned in another way without having to resort to the planning of a terrorist attack. It doesn't matter if there are somewhat legitimate goals to it, what matters is that it's inappropriate for the target audience and there is better ways to achieve the same goal. I have never argued that planning the mass killing of innocent civilians in order to forces political opinions with violence instead of speech and idea was not a good way to develop planning skills, I claimed that there were better ways that didn't involve felony acts.
Are we a member of the ban-violent-media bandwagon too? If you think high school kids can't distinguish between reality and hypothetical or fantasy situations, we'd better not be letting them watch violent movies either.
What the hell does violent media have to do with this? Vioolent media is others being presented not you doing as this assignment is. There is a distinct difference here and you know it.
If you decide to make a concerted effort towards getting a nation of genius-level lockmakers, you're going to end up enabling a thief or two over the course of the process as a matter of course. On the other hand, that thief's much-more-numerous opposition will be si
No, only if you *redistribute* that code. You can take GPL'd code, and link it with any code you like, no matter what license, for your own use. It's only when you redistribute GPL'd code to another user that you have to give them the same freedoms the GPL gave you.
Well, seeing how the GPL doesn't apply unless you are distributing the code, I assumed it was given that all this talk was about distributing the code.
In case you are wondering what I mean here, the GPL doesn't even start to go into effect for use, it's not a EULA or anything you have to agree to in order to get the code or use it.
But most commercial software does not even have one of these licenses. Try getting a license for Windows that allows you do distribute copies you've made. Or Photoshop. Or any other commercial app. (Note - not pass on existing copies, which you can also do with GPL'd software, but distribute new copies) Or even if talking about libraries or frameworks (a very small subset of commercial software) try getting a license for a commercial library that allows you to redistribute modified versions at all.
I don't see how, comparing like with like, that for any reasonable definition of "free", the GPL is "less free" than 99.9% of commercial software licenses.
Well, the GPL doens't apply to getting copies or using them so I'm not sure how you are equating them to end use license agreements in good faith. If Microsoft will not issue a distribution license for windows or photoshop, then it's pointless to bring it up because their licenses simply do not exist and cannot apply. What does exist is situation where you can get a license to distribute the code/product and the licenses do apply. MS has a few distribution licenses that do not require you to distribute source or offer it to anyone, Other companies do as well. But let's make sure we are in perspective, the EULA you click through without reading isn't a license to distribute the product, it's a license to obtain and use the product, it's certainly not on the same level as the GPL seeing how it doesn't apply to any of that.
Go to the Debian homepage, click "CD ISO Images", and then select any "download" option other than the "download a minimal bootable CD image". Hey, look at that. Right there, with the links to the binaries for each architecture, there's a link labelled "source". I wonder what that does.:-)
Did I mention debian specifically? I don't think so but I do find it interesting that you specifically proved my point. Why was it that you didn't want me to select minimal install? It's because it doesn't follow the GPL in listing the source. The GPLv2 says
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
The GPLv3 says
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
More mature, certainly. More capable... much of that comes from experiences, and people like you would shelter kids so much they never have any.
Actually, much more capable. Typically, the frontal cortex of the brain isn't fully developed until a person is about 20-22 years of age. As we know, this is also the part of the brain that deals with processing reasoning and consequences. so while you are right in that experiences will make them more capable too, someone who is an adult will be more capable then a child.
Also, there is absolutely no sheltering here. I have no in any way said we should shelter the kids. There are numerous other ways to invoke the same thought without causing the kids to plan a felony.
I can't believe this even needs to be stated: The purpose of childhood is to prepare one for adulthood. One doesn't need to learn the specific skills one will use as an adult, but certainly the general modes of thought. If you want your nation to be known for genius-level lockmakers, you don't forbid its children from playing with lockpicks; much the contrary, you encourage them. Remember the study to the effect that genius-level skill in anything requires about 10,000 hours of practice, and that those hours almost always start in childhood?
Evidently, your childhood sucked. This assignment will not prepare them for adulthood any better then other assignments could/would and it wouldn't run the risks of the children who are not advanced enough taking it the wrong way. It's reckless, irresponsible, and down right ignorant to claim otherwise. Besides, there is absolutely nothing indicating the children will have learned anything useful in life from this. The assignment was to develop ways to kill people for political purposes and examine how much of an impact their actions would make.
But lets take your statement and play with it a little. "If you want your nation to be known for genius-level terrorists, you don't forbid its children from playing with terrorism tactics; much the contrary, you encourage them. Remember the study to the effect that genius-level skill in anything requires about 10,000 hours of practice, and that those hours almost always start in childhood?" what exactly is your goal again?
Further, what this particular controvercy teaches children is that anything remotely uncomfortable shouldn't even be thought about or considered at all. I can hardly think of a better way to produce a populace susceptible to "but-the-TERRORISTS-will-get-you!" political scaremongering than teaching them early that the only moral thing to do is to turn off their brains when the subject comes up.
Yes, one sided thinking and your side is the only one that is right, right? I mean it's not like they can't read about/study other terrorist attacks (fictional or real) and analyze them without assuming the roles of terrorist and planning a felony, picking the people to murder based on how likely it would be to influence their agenda is there. It's as if the way others have learned throughout history is completely unacceptable in your view or something.
Oh well, like I said, it sounds like your childhood sucked in preparing you for the real world.
When did I ever say kids could do no wrong? I didn't say that. If I made any assertion that wasn't spelled out in black and white, it's that kids (in the age range we're talking about here) are smarter than most people give them credit for, when they're given the chance and pushed to be. I stand by that assertion.
It's that some, but certainly not all kids (in the age range we're talking about here) are smarter than most people give them credit for, when they're given the chance and pushed to be. but there is still no guarantee they are ready for assuming the roles of terrorists, picking victims, deciding how to kill them, and evaluating the
Um, (L)GPL allows for any use/modification/extension. Those are freedoms 0 and 1.
The only restrictions the (L)GPL places on works licensed under it are when it comes to redistribution of the code - you have to give the person you redistribute someone else's GPL'd code to the same freedoms that you got when you received it.
Well, there are more restrictions then that. There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code, how it can be used and so on. It's not like Lgpl code can link to GPL code and Mycode licenses software at the same time.
Really? Last I checked, the licences for commercial software usually do not allow you to redistribute copies of the code at all, in any form (binary or source, oh, and good luck with getting the source), under any circumstances.
Im think he is talking about the license to distribute the software and not the EULA you click through without reading just to use the program. It would most likely need to be this way because the GPL or LGPL doesn't even apply to use, only distribution of the covered works. So perhaps this is a contextual thing revolving around semantics or something.
Yes, but you're allowed to include, in the amount you charge people for the binary version, costs to cover providing them with the source in the future, which you'll then have whether or not they ever ask for the source. Or you could always ship the source alongside the binaries.
Well, this is sort of a stickler here as most Linux distributions don't even fully comply with the source code clauses in the GPL. You see, if you offer the binary for download, you need to offer the source on the same server in just as conspicuous of a way. Try finding an ISO with all the source on it on some Distro's download page. Hell, just try to find the source code to the updates the package manager automagically installs when you set it to update. And if you do find them, then find the updates to the 4 year old OS version that they discontinued 2 years ago. The GPL says 3 years after the last offering, most distros move them aside or remove them from public access altogether to make room for the new projects.
Of course that last pet peeve has nothing to do with closed (non-free) verses open (free) licenses, It's just a burden that the GPL's place on the source code distribution that seems like not even some of the major distributions comply with the letter of the GPL.
I don't think he said commercial licenses are more free, he said they can be more free. Look into his statements about typically small companies and see if you can see it too.
Do you expect people to suddenly develop hypothetical thinking capabilities (or, no less important, the ability to perform objective analysis on ideas they may consider uncomfortable) out of nowhere at age 18?
Lol.. I expect them to be more capable at age 18. Obviously, I said adults so I'm not just talking about someone over an age, I'm talking about someone who acts like and is an adult- not a juvenile over the age of 18.
I didn't say that I understood it to be anything other than an assignment "to work out the logistics of running an attack". Doing so would involve contingency planning -- meaning working out not only which attacks would be effective, but what countermeasures might need to be defeated. Thinking about how to defeat countermeasures makes someone able to build better countermeasures by its very nature; you don't design a lock without first learning how to pick them, and you can't learn to pick a lock without knowing something about its design.
And children are employed in counter intelligence and counter terrorism task forces why? I mean why are the children designing the lock in the first place?
Even selecting a target involves critical thinking -- being able to put yourself in the shoes of those you want to influence. Do you go for a target with flashiness and political impact, or maximal body count? What's the actual end goal? Any of these discussions have serious ethical considerations, and I would be deeply disappointed if our children were such dunderheads as to be unable to investigate them unprompted.
Get disappointed then. Or perhaps you should have kids and not look at them as if they could do no wrong (because they do, usually more then others when their parents are like that).
Well, perhaps you are right and we should start charging and sentencing children like adults in all cases. I mean why should we have a separate process and lighter sentences if they are fully capable. Clearly society has been wrong throughout all these years and you are right.
It's a worthwhile assignment, and something I could see spawning a multitude of interesting discussions over the breakfast table.
You go ahead and give the assignment to your kids and you deal with them. It's a crap assignment that never should have been issued in a public school. Perhaps in a military academy or something else where extra effort is taken to deal with the ones who can't handle the realities associated with something like this, but not a public school.
Those kids are what, 15, 16 ? At that age you're capable of a lot more critical thought than what the law gives you credit for. At least, you are if you've been allowed to use your brain in those years - some school systems actively discourage that, of course.
I'll agree with you here except that children of this age are typically lacking the experience to tie it all together properly. If you doubt me, then ask yourself why are college kids take to the cleaners financially by credit card scams and special laws are passed specifically to deal with it? And these are the smart ones who made it to college.
f this excercise is well-guided, with plenty of discussion about the ethical side of things, I fail to see the problem. Hell, half of them probably kick ass at counterstrike and whatnot anyway - it's not as if they're not used to violence in games and on TV.
from the article, it isn't well guided and it wasn't an exercise with an intent like that. and the big difference between it and a video game is that they know there is a disconnection with the game.
As far as I'm concerned, this is A Good Thing, regardless of how much some would like to close their eyes and pretend they're in their happy, non-violent place.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe we should expose every child to something like this and draft them into the military at about age 14. The military could finish their k12 schooling and teach them all about this crap at the same time.
And magically, on their 18th birthday, children suddenly become endowed with the wisdom of adults, and the ability to properly process such thoughts.
No, on their 18th birthday, we simply stop accepting the excuses. It's nothing that has happened with the children at that time, it's just the cut off that society has determined is enough time that anyone should be to a certain point.
If you can show you are above the curve there, you can get emancipated by the courts and become of legal age a lot younger (14 or 16 in some states).
Horseshit. You teach kids in a supervised environment, and discuss with them their trains of thought. Early. That is the only way that on their 18th birthday, they aren't as handicapped as they were at 17, 16 or even 12.
Please show me in the article where it says this assignment was assigned in a way that was capable of doing that? I mean I have no problem giving a 12 year old kid a shotgun or riffle and taking them out to kill animals that we will later eat. I have no problem with taking 7 year olds out and doing this. However, I have control of the guns and the support of their parents who advocate it too. But this doesn't seem to be the case in this assignment and the school doesn't appear to be set up to provide the proper amount of supervision over this.
Please show me where in the article or other place that this is wrong.
How can we expect to be equipped to decide what constitutes a reasonable precaution or an effective security measure if hypotheticals are taboo?
Why don't we simply let adults take care of that instead of making it a graded homework for our children?
An assignment to work out the logistics of running an attack, beyond being creativity-inducing in and of itself, is certainly going to raise the ethical and moral questions -- at least among any students with the slightest bit of introspection and curiosity.
That's fine and all, but I would imagine of that was the intent of the assignment, then instructions to that point would have been made. According to the article, they were supposed to explain why they picked a certain sector or people and why they thought their attacks would be effective. This assignment is not designed to pick anything you mentioned up other then how to kill others. Perhaps I'm missing something with it? Perhaps you are assuming more then what was stated in the article?
That statement in the Telegraph is not accurate. The doctors who performed the studies, and their article in the medical journals, say bevacizumab (Avastin) increased "progression-free survival", they don't say that delayed the time until the disease "worsened." Doctors use these particular words for a reason.
Whether or not the article is accurate or not is besides the point here. Again, I'm not arguing anything about the drug or the use of it, I'm arguing that the death panels was an accumulation of more events and scenarios then the just the End Of Life counseling. If what the people were getting was bad information and they were making bad decisions or claims based on that doesn't really matter to my point because it's what they understood at the time and it is the basis of their claims. And it was the claims that my point was about, not the actual information pertaining to it outside of the death panel claims being made about more then end of life counseling as suggested.
Progression-free survival is controversial among oncologists; everybody agrees that what matters is overall survival. Progression-free survival is merely a surrogate or marker that's supposed to predict overall survival. When you finally have a study that gives you the overall survival, you can ignore progression-free survival.
Well, here is the problem. suppose product A killed cancer but not fast enough to save a life. Now suppose product B slows the spread or growth of the cancer but does not destroy or damage it and doesn't extend anyone's life. Now suppose someone was reading about A and B and thought, if we use B to slow the cancer down, A will have enough time to possibly work it's magic. So even though A = no progress, and B = no progress, A+B could equal progress but as the article claimed, B will not be covered by the insurance companies or government medical now because they didn't see a cost benefit to using it. If A and B kept their approval, then it's just a matter of adding the two prescriptions together. Now it has to be off label prescriptions and outside payment sources, and to the point of death panels, it actually is a panel of people set up by the government that decided to take the action for whatever reason which has the effect of depriving certain treatments from people who are not wealthy enough to pay for it from other sources. That is the charge concerning the death panels, it's about government bureaucrats who are not doctors associated with the primary or secondary care of the patient making decisions based on criteria other then the patients specific needs which creates a set of health care from some and not others.
And all your objections so far has been besides the point that the death panels charge is about more then end of life counseling as suggested.
Extending the life of the patient is the whole point. That's what patients want to do.
Oh no.... It's not what all the patients want. I have a step mother who has cancer and her entire point in treatment is not to cure the disease but to help her maintain as productive of a life as possible until she expires. In other words, she is looking for quality over quantity in the time she has left. Others may be looking for extensions on life, and some doctors may be looking for time so other treatments can be more effective. I have to echo the doctor you mentioned, "So what if it doesn't extend the life of the patent". There are so many reasons to still use the drug outside of extending the life of the patient.
No, it doesn't. Avastin (bevacizumab) doesn't slow the spread. It slows the progression, which is different. It doesn't help other treatments become more effective. Even in combination with other treatments, it doesn't extend the life of the patient.
You're misreading the Telegram and WSJ articles (which were intended to be misleading).
I'm sorry, but I fail to see anywhere in the article where this assignment would teach the students to empathize with the enemy. It was an assignment that required the students to pick a target, plan and attack, and explain why they thought that was the most effect attacks and targets. It had nothing to do with conflict resolution or the struggle of the terrorists. It was more or less a military exercise in how to kill people which is disturbing considering the targets were innocent civilians and the desired outcome was to force an entity entirely different to adopt some political line.
I don't think this is a taboo on thinking as much as it's a taboo on getting others to think something specific.
Children are a special part of society that do not carry the same rights and full blown adults. In most cases, children committing crimes aren't even charged with anything close to resembling the same punishment as adults. The reasoning for this is because the Child's mind is still developing and they are literally handicapped when compared to an adult. This reason is the basis in why children are restricted from entering into most contracts, why having sex with them is generally forbidden, why there is a certain age before being allowed to drink or drive or both, and so on.
Instructing children to create these scenarios is not a good idea as they aren't really capable of the context necessary to fully comprehend the results or the ramifications from the results. what makes it even more disturbing is that the parental supervision, be it from school, from home, or any other organization which maintains control over the child, is most likely not capable of ascertaining when this presents a problem that could carry over to a life threatening situation.
Pushing adaults to think about this is one thing, pushing children to do it is just a little different. I'm not saying they should never think about it, but when the assignment is a terrorist attack, and the real life consequences can be serious bodily harm including death, a great deal of caution needs to be taken into consideration too.
If anyone's qualifications should be questioned, it should be the latest appointee who has never sat as a judge before in her life. Anyways, I suggest you actually look at the two justices appointed by G.W and come to terms with how that is packing the court. Perhaps you are looking at the last 5 justices appointed and mistakenly attributing them to one president instead of the three or four and it's your ideology that needs a check?
Also, the GPS tracker would have to chirp to send out your data. It would probably be of VHF since that's unregulated (148 - 152 MHz is a good one) so all you'd have to do is check for broadcasts of that frequency. GPS refreshes at 1Hz, so that's probably what they would chirp at unless they're using burst downloads.
FYI, the range on GPS / VHF transmissions in urban environmentsis very short. It gets unreliable after a few hundred meters and it completely thwarted by brick.
Most GPS trackers I have dealt with use SMS or text message sent to a server by signals over regular cellular carriers. They can be programmed to send every minute or ten minutes of longer.
There are some that send via satellite too. Those are generally reserved for large item tracking (like shipping containers or heavy equipment and can be activated remotely as well as penetrate large walls and buildings. I can't find my reference link to it right now, but the UN has even approved a couple of these for international tracking of UN equipment and shipments.
Slashdot Mirror
Yawn.. Rush Limbaugh.
Rush is an avid Apple Fanboy who frequently sings the praises of anything apply on his program. In fact, of you "friend him" on his face book account, you are signed up for some ipad or something giveaway contest Rush is hosting.
I don't think he votes democrat.
That's a tad bit different of a stand then I gathers from out communications. I can see that position as valid but I think that some publicity needs to be made in order to stop another teacher from doing the same stupid crap.
No, you did not make it explicit. Not in the least with the previous impressions floating around. It wasn't until this post that is became clear and no amount of reading would have changed that.
Lol.. I know a bunch of bartenders and waiters who have a system too. You don't tip, you get crappy service. eventually you won't come back. If you do come back, they short your drink, spit in your food, or do some nasty things behind your back that you definitely do not want to know about.
Bottom line is, you treat them like crap, they will return the favor in kind.
On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in 'if you take care of your bartender, your bartender will take care of you". By tipping what probably amounts to one drink for every 2 or 4 drinks, I tend to get service faster then others, I'm singled out when they are slammed and everyone is hollering for something, and when they mess up a drink, I'm usually one of the ones they offer it to. And by mess up a drink, I mean something like making a Beam and coke instead of a jack and coke or cherry bomb instead of a grape bomb- the customer catches it before it gets to them so it's not like anyone else has drank from it.
That's actually illegal. The owner cannot threaten to do close down a business or actually close the business down on the condition of unionization. The best he can get by with is actually closing the shop down after it unionizes and cite something else as the reason. That reason has to be valid too.
A Union isn't necessarily the answer either. Some people tip, some do not. Some people tip too much, some tip not enough, the trick is getting a mix of users/customers in that the good make up for the bad and that having good wait staff can help a lot. I know waitresses making 40K or more a year and only claiming less then 20K because the rest is in tips. A good waiter/waitress in a high volume area that isn't run down with poverty or something like a restaurant that is only a buffet and they bring the drinks, can make 300-400 dollars a weekend in tips alone. If they make another $200 or more during the weekdays, that's about 26K a year on top of her regular salary. I know bartenders who make almost twice as much in tips but they are in really expensive bars.
Actually, 99.5% is a little high. Try something closer to 80%.
And yes, I'm speaking from the experience of cleaning systems where windows has Zero day vulnerabilities recently discussed here where simply going to an infected website was enough not to mention programs masquerading as legitimate installed programs because the legitimate programs draws it's window frames from IE and it's almost identical when it pops up saying "infection found, do you want to delete it". and lets not mention the recent network solutions app infections recently discussed here too.
We have a few sites that all web access is audited with log trails that even reveal what is types into word processors (the owners are anal about security and yes, working there is hell too). We tracked a few infections back to the ads served on some legitimate sites where the system was infected before the user had a chance at clicking anything. Of course our AV caught the infections but not before the winsock stack got hosed and we needed to reset it with the netsh command. And I stress again, this was with no user interaction other then going to a legitimate website for official work use as our tracking software showed. And this was also only a couple of weeks ago.
I'm not sure what the dictionary says in your country, but in mine, the word Same is defined as equal in amount or value. When the requirement is to provide the same or equal in amount or value, then yes, having to look for the source, even if you have to click the parent directory, is not the same in the spirit or wording of the GPL. I know it's trivial to some, but we are talking about a legal document that has specific requirements.
If you link to their download page and allow the user to select the download, it's the third party distributing it. But if you are linking directly to the binary (as the statement originally implies) and the link from your page starts the download directly, then _yes_you_are_distributing it. And yes, several court cases concerning copyright infringement have backed that statement up. Lime wire and the pirate bay are some of the larger ones.
To keep with the dope dealer scenario you laid out, the differences is that one is telling someone where the dope dealer is might be complicity to the dealing (if it can be proven the intent was to initiate the dealing but that's not what this particular part of the copyright is about) where linking directly to the file and starting the download is the same as saying wait here, I get your smack for you- even though the dealer is holding it. The first is on shaky grounds, but how can you argue the later isn't dealing too? I mean you might just be the middle man, but you are providing the dope.
Let me spell this out a little clearer. IF you have a website and on that site, there is a download page. And if this download page has a link to a GPL'd binary file, for it to count as distributing both source and object code, there must also be a link to the source. Otherwise, you have to provide an offer valid for 3 years to anyone requesting the source or pass along the offer you received if your distribution qualifies. The link doesn't have to initiate both the binary and source downloads, there just has to be a link to both from the same page.
Actually, you can. The FSF has even wrote about doing so saying it's not against the GPL but it can get complicated isn't a good idea.
You also can "not" distribute the binary and source together and simply take the "make the source available for 3 years to anyone" option. The same place is only concerning files on a server when you are attempting to distribute the source and binary together to escape the 3 years requirement.
Please explain this process to me. Is it where you start to lose an argument then attempt to skirt around the issues by changing the rules of engagement and taking crap out of context?
And you point is what? I simply stated that it doesn't matter what the terrorist think of their targets.
But there isn't more to the context of the point in which you originally made. You said "Let's say you were given a button that would make everyone within 2000 miles of you 5 IQ points smarter. If you would ignore that button because it would make better criminals" I said better criminals wouldn't matter because it would be a zero sum gain.
Actually, I said "Well, if there was an imaginary button that could do that, it would be a zero sum gain. You see, for each smarter criminal there will be smarter cops and we all know that criminals succeed only because cops are stupid." I'm not sure why you are attempting to inject other crap when the fear of smarter criminals would be negated by the smarter cops and all would be the same on it. But instead of you concentrating on the part of the comment about making people smarter being different then training children to commit felonies, you want to focus on one thing out of context for some reason. Perhaps it's because you know you have lost.
Then please tell me why you keep insisting that an assignment that requires children to break the law by plotting the murders of groups of people in order to influence the political whims of the government is somehow legitimate when traditional teaching techniques does not require breaking laws or plotting to do so? I mean how can you claim that it is valid and should be kept in practice when traditional teaching techniques achieve the same goals without teaching children to be terrorists and run afoul of the law?
Well, feel free to bail out on this. Your right, it's clearly not happening here. However, I strongly suspect is isn't on my side.
It's kind of like the allegations of voter fraud when someone distributed leaflets in Cleavland Ohio claiming that democrats should vote on some day 2 days late for the election.
Anyone intelligent enough that should have a legitimate interest will not fall for the tricks. Some people will and it gives more idiots a chance to complain. Of course there is always the Streisand effect and the possibility that the changes were made just to create or manufacture a controversy and promote then event. Chances are, it was some kid somewhere playing games and not even realizing how it would be taken in this context.
Now, if someone was really attempting to confuse people, they wouldn't have moved the location to the same general area where mistakes will only cause delays. Instead, they would have changed the Lincoln memorial location to the Lincoln monument location where a mistake would cost the entire event.
Dude, you forgot the SOFA agreement Bush implemented in 2008 that also happens to be Obama's pulling troops from Iraq as promised plan.
I mean give him credit.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. If you apply the same increase in metrics towards an attack and defense, you will have the same outcome. Criminals are the attack, cops are the defense, giving them both a 10 point increase means they are still the same in battle. That is what the point of the button was isn't it? Not using it because it would make criminals more smart? Well, it would make the cops more smart too and it would be a zero sum gain.
No one is making it taboo for any law abiding person. The taboo is about forcing children to do it as part of their grades in a state sponsored institution of education. This is not to mention that the act of conspiring to commit a terrorist attack is a felony already in most jurisdictions (regardless of being a school assignment or not), but they are being instructed to plan several other felonies (acquiring chemical or biological WMDs, planing the murder of innocent civilians, using violence against the government and society) in order to do something that in a democracy, speech and the exchange of ideas have traditionally been more effective.
I'm sorry, I simply cannot conceive of any benefit that committing felonies or the planning of felonies as part of a grade would serve that isn't better served by traditional teaching techniques- even the ones you mentioned. And no, this isn't flag waiving rhetoric, it's about common sense. If the kids came together on their own and thought this through, it would be different, if they were studying someone else' attempts whether failed or successful, it would be different, but this is instructing the children in avenue they are forced to attend by law as well as social-economical pressures to attack the very same government that provides it's own charter.
I can see now how the wording is a little confusing. I will try better to avoid that next time.
Here is the big issue. If we were to keep comparing apples to apples instead of apples to trucks or something, then we would ignore the End User License Agreements that come with most close source software altogether and only look at the distribution licenses. This is because the GPL is only a distribution license, not an EULA. Even the anti Tivoisation clauses in the GPLv3 do not kick in until the device is being distributed in a way that copyright would preclude without a license. So in theory, until such time that you decide to distribute such device, you are free to make as many tivos as you want.
So when we narrow our field down to apples and apples license comparisons, we find that much of them have different requirements which some of them being less free and other being more free. When you are paying for the right to distribute something, you end up getting a lot more freedoms when you pay a lot more. If we do not narrow the license options or comparisons down, we might as well be comparing the GPL to your drivers license. I think your confusion, if it still exists, is within the overly broad use of licenses and what they actually pertain to. we need to concentrate on the aspects of the license, not the subject they contain.
Lets see, Of the three things you listed, I will simply generalize about, you fist insisted this was a valid assignment for children because it did certain things, I made the comment that there are other ways to achieve that same goal without having children plan the felony murder of innocent civilians. You remain insisting this is a valid assignment because it does what every other lesson on history eventually does but somehow, you insist that planning a terrorist act is valid in doing what can be done otherwise.
I don't think anything is unfounded at all. I also don't consider paraphrasing the obvious stand from the position you are actively taking is an attack. If you think it is, maybe you should take another look at your position.
So you created a list of things to do, what's to stop them from doing it? Or better yet, what to stop them from getting someone who is more capable or doing it from doing it?
And as I said before, this has been competently dealt with in ways other then planning the mass murder of innocent civilians not even remotely involved in the quip. So why is planning a terrorist attack more suitable then traditional ways of teaching the same exact things? Oh yes, please go back and review what you think is screwed up with my statements.
And I'm saying that you are full of crap. This teaches nothing that cannot be learned in another way without having to resort to the planning of a terrorist attack. It doesn't matter if there are somewhat legitimate goals to it, what matters is that it's inappropriate for the target audience and there is better ways to achieve the same goal. I have never argued that planning the mass killing of innocent civilians in order to forces political opinions with violence instead of speech and idea was not a good way to develop planning skills, I claimed that there were better ways that didn't involve felony acts.
What the hell does violent media have to do with this? Vioolent media is others being presented not you doing as this assignment is. There is a distinct difference here and you know it.
Well, seeing how the GPL doesn't apply unless you are distributing the code, I assumed it was given that all this talk was about distributing the code.
In case you are wondering what I mean here, the GPL doesn't even start to go into effect for use, it's not a EULA or anything you have to agree to in order to get the code or use it.
Well, the GPL doens't apply to getting copies or using them so I'm not sure how you are equating them to end use license agreements in good faith. If Microsoft will not issue a distribution license for windows or photoshop, then it's pointless to bring it up because their licenses simply do not exist and cannot apply. What does exist is situation where you can get a license to distribute the code/product and the licenses do apply. MS has a few distribution licenses that do not require you to distribute source or offer it to anyone, Other companies do as well. But let's make sure we are in perspective, the EULA you click through without reading isn't a license to distribute the product, it's a license to obtain and use the product, it's certainly not on the same level as the GPL seeing how it doesn't apply to any of that.
Did I mention debian specifically? I don't think so but I do find it interesting that you specifically proved my point. Why was it that you didn't want me to select minimal install? It's because it doesn't follow the GPL in listing the source. The GPLv2 says
The GPLv3 says
Is the source for the minimal install in the sam
Actually, much more capable. Typically, the frontal cortex of the brain isn't fully developed until a person is about 20-22 years of age. As we know, this is also the part of the brain that deals with processing reasoning and consequences. so while you are right in that experiences will make them more capable too, someone who is an adult will be more capable then a child.
Also, there is absolutely no sheltering here. I have no in any way said we should shelter the kids. There are numerous other ways to invoke the same thought without causing the kids to plan a felony.
Evidently, your childhood sucked. This assignment will not prepare them for adulthood any better then other assignments could/would and it wouldn't run the risks of the children who are not advanced enough taking it the wrong way. It's reckless, irresponsible, and down right ignorant to claim otherwise. Besides, there is absolutely nothing indicating the children will have learned anything useful in life from this. The assignment was to develop ways to kill people for political purposes and examine how much of an impact their actions would make.
But lets take your statement and play with it a little. "If you want your nation to be known for genius-level terrorists, you don't forbid its children from playing with terrorism tactics; much the contrary, you encourage them. Remember the study to the effect that genius-level skill in anything requires about 10,000 hours of practice, and that those hours almost always start in childhood?" what exactly is your goal again?
Yes, one sided thinking and your side is the only one that is right, right? I mean it's not like they can't read about/study other terrorist attacks (fictional or real) and analyze them without assuming the roles of terrorist and planning a felony, picking the people to murder based on how likely it would be to influence their agenda is there. It's as if the way others have learned throughout history is completely unacceptable in your view or something.
Oh well, like I said, it sounds like your childhood sucked in preparing you for the real world.
It's that some, but certainly not all kids (in the age range we're talking about here) are smarter than most people give them credit for, when they're given the chance and pushed to be. but there is still no guarantee they are ready for assuming the roles of terrorists, picking victims, deciding how to kill them, and evaluating the
Well, there are more restrictions then that. There are restrictions to what code you can link to or use with the programs/*pl'd code, how it can be used and so on. It's not like Lgpl code can link to GPL code and Mycode licenses software at the same time.
Im think he is talking about the license to distribute the software and not the EULA you click through without reading just to use the program. It would most likely need to be this way because the GPL or LGPL doesn't even apply to use, only distribution of the covered works. So perhaps this is a contextual thing revolving around semantics or something.
Well, this is sort of a stickler here as most Linux distributions don't even fully comply with the source code clauses in the GPL. You see, if you offer the binary for download, you need to offer the source on the same server in just as conspicuous of a way. Try finding an ISO with all the source on it on some Distro's download page. Hell, just try to find the source code to the updates the package manager automagically installs when you set it to update. And if you do find them, then find the updates to the 4 year old OS version that they discontinued 2 years ago. The GPL says 3 years after the last offering, most distros move them aside or remove them from public access altogether to make room for the new projects.
Of course that last pet peeve has nothing to do with closed (non-free) verses open (free) licenses, It's just a burden that the GPL's place on the source code distribution that seems like not even some of the major distributions comply with the letter of the GPL.
I don't think he said commercial licenses are more free, he said they can be more free. Look into his statements about typically small companies and see if you can see it too.
Lol.. I expect them to be more capable at age 18. Obviously, I said adults so I'm not just talking about someone over an age, I'm talking about someone who acts like and is an adult- not a juvenile over the age of 18.
And children are employed in counter intelligence and counter terrorism task forces why? I mean why are the children designing the lock in the first place?
Get disappointed then. Or perhaps you should have kids and not look at them as if they could do no wrong (because they do, usually more then others when their parents are like that).
Well, perhaps you are right and we should start charging and sentencing children like adults in all cases. I mean why should we have a separate process and lighter sentences if they are fully capable. Clearly society has been wrong throughout all these years and you are right.
You go ahead and give the assignment to your kids and you deal with them. It's a crap assignment that never should have been issued in a public school. Perhaps in a military academy or something else where extra effort is taken to deal with the ones who can't handle the realities associated with something like this, but not a public school.
I'll agree with you here except that children of this age are typically lacking the experience to tie it all together properly. If you doubt me, then ask yourself why are college kids take to the cleaners financially by credit card scams and special laws are passed specifically to deal with it? And these are the smart ones who made it to college.
from the article, it isn't well guided and it wasn't an exercise with an intent like that. and the big difference between it and a video game is that they know there is a disconnection with the game.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe we should expose every child to something like this and draft them into the military at about age 14. The military could finish their k12 schooling and teach them all about this crap at the same time.
No, on their 18th birthday, we simply stop accepting the excuses. It's nothing that has happened with the children at that time, it's just the cut off that society has determined is enough time that anyone should be to a certain point.
If you can show you are above the curve there, you can get emancipated by the courts and become of legal age a lot younger (14 or 16 in some states).
Please show me in the article where it says this assignment was assigned in a way that was capable of doing that? I mean I have no problem giving a 12 year old kid a shotgun or riffle and taking them out to kill animals that we will later eat. I have no problem with taking 7 year olds out and doing this. However, I have control of the guns and the support of their parents who advocate it too. But this doesn't seem to be the case in this assignment and the school doesn't appear to be set up to provide the proper amount of supervision over this.
Please show me where in the article or other place that this is wrong.
Why don't we simply let adults take care of that instead of making it a graded homework for our children?
That's fine and all, but I would imagine of that was the intent of the assignment, then instructions to that point would have been made. According to the article, they were supposed to explain why they picked a certain sector or people and why they thought their attacks would be effective. This assignment is not designed to pick anything you mentioned up other then how to kill others. Perhaps I'm missing something with it? Perhaps you are assuming more then what was stated in the article?
Whether or not the article is accurate or not is besides the point here. Again, I'm not arguing anything about the drug or the use of it, I'm arguing that the death panels was an accumulation of more events and scenarios then the just the End Of Life counseling. If what the people were getting was bad information and they were making bad decisions or claims based on that doesn't really matter to my point because it's what they understood at the time and it is the basis of their claims. And it was the claims that my point was about, not the actual information pertaining to it outside of the death panel claims being made about more then end of life counseling as suggested.
Well, here is the problem. suppose product A killed cancer but not fast enough to save a life. Now suppose product B slows the spread or growth of the cancer but does not destroy or damage it and doesn't extend anyone's life. Now suppose someone was reading about A and B and thought, if we use B to slow the cancer down, A will have enough time to possibly work it's magic. So even though A = no progress, and B = no progress, A+B could equal progress but as the article claimed, B will not be covered by the insurance companies or government medical now because they didn't see a cost benefit to using it. If A and B kept their approval, then it's just a matter of adding the two prescriptions together. Now it has to be off label prescriptions and outside payment sources, and to the point of death panels, it actually is a panel of people set up by the government that decided to take the action for whatever reason which has the effect of depriving certain treatments from people who are not wealthy enough to pay for it from other sources. That is the charge concerning the death panels, it's about government bureaucrats who are not doctors associated with the primary or secondary care of the patient making decisions based on criteria other then the patients specific needs which creates a set of health care from some and not others.
And all your objections so far has been besides the point that the death panels charge is about more then end of life counseling as suggested.
Oh no.... It's not what all the patients want. I have a step mother who has cancer and her entire point in treatment is not to cure the disease but to help her maintain as productive of a life as possible until she expires. In other words, she is looking for quality over quantity in the time she has left. Others may be looking for extensions on life, and some doctors may be looking for time so other treatments can be more effective. I have to echo the doctor you mentioned, "So what if it doesn't extend the life of the patent". There are so many reasons to still use the drug outside of extending the life of the patient.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see anywhere in the article where this assignment would teach the students to empathize with the enemy. It was an assignment that required the students to pick a target, plan and attack, and explain why they thought that was the most effect attacks and targets. It had nothing to do with conflict resolution or the struggle of the terrorists. It was more or less a military exercise in how to kill people which is disturbing considering the targets were innocent civilians and the desired outcome was to force an entity entirely different to adopt some political line.
I don't think this is a taboo on thinking as much as it's a taboo on getting others to think something specific.
Children are a special part of society that do not carry the same rights and full blown adults. In most cases, children committing crimes aren't even charged with anything close to resembling the same punishment as adults. The reasoning for this is because the Child's mind is still developing and they are literally handicapped when compared to an adult. This reason is the basis in why children are restricted from entering into most contracts, why having sex with them is generally forbidden, why there is a certain age before being allowed to drink or drive or both, and so on.
Instructing children to create these scenarios is not a good idea as they aren't really capable of the context necessary to fully comprehend the results or the ramifications from the results. what makes it even more disturbing is that the parental supervision, be it from school, from home, or any other organization which maintains control over the child, is most likely not capable of ascertaining when this presents a problem that could carry over to a life threatening situation.
Pushing adaults to think about this is one thing, pushing children to do it is just a little different. I'm not saying they should never think about it, but when the assignment is a terrorist attack, and the real life consequences can be serious bodily harm including death, a great deal of caution needs to be taken into consideration too.
Hahaha.. Do you really believe that?
If anyone's qualifications should be questioned, it should be the latest appointee who has never sat as a judge before in her life. Anyways, I suggest you actually look at the two justices appointed by G.W and come to terms with how that is packing the court. Perhaps you are looking at the last 5 justices appointed and mistakenly attributing them to one president instead of the three or four and it's your ideology that needs a check?
Most GPS trackers I have dealt with use SMS or text message sent to a server by signals over regular cellular carriers. They can be programmed to send every minute or ten minutes of longer.
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/gps-car-tracking-vehicle-logging.html
There are some that send via satellite too. Those are generally reserved for large item tracking (like shipping containers or heavy equipment and can be activated remotely as well as penetrate large walls and buildings. I can't find my reference link to it right now, but the UN has even approved a couple of these for international tracking of UN equipment and shipments.