The major premise of wikipedia functionality is that it can be edited by anyone, yes? This is probably also its number one criticism, but taking that into account, how does it matter if someone high-up in the organization has background issues? Unless he is maliciously mucking up the software itself, he hardly has any more potential for corrupting the content than I do or some random schmuck browsing wiki at a library.
If he had been working at Encyclopedia Brittanica as an editor, sure, worry about his work. But at wikipedia is rather duplicitous to criticize it for *both* it's egalitarian editing policy and the character flaws of its administrators. The former mitigates the latter.
"antimicrobial resistance is said to 'emerge,' 'arise,' or 'spread' rather than 'evolve.' "
Could this possibly have something to do with the fact that the latter terms are used when they are more scientifically accurate?
If you're talking about antimicrobial resistance spreading, then it would be absolutely wrong to say that it was evolving: the bacteria has already evolved and the spread is just the increasing domination of that new line. If they have lumped all those words together than that alone could account for their conclusion by itself, although I would also argue that the other harms have certain preferable contexts for description.
The reserachers did not bother to do any actual pyschological research in their psychological study: they only looked at frequency distributions of the terminology. Apparently this is enough to infer the motivations of the medical patois. I don't suppose it's even remotely possible that the simple fact that evolutionary biologists study evolution could explain the increased frequency of 'evolve' in their personal vernacular? Perhaps if medical scientists spent all of their time researching, reading about, and writing about evolution, the word "evolve" might be as much integrated into their writing.
Regardless, it is absurd to suggest that incipient trends in word usage should in any way be a concern of either medical or evolutionary scientists. I might expect some outcry if people were being coerced (perhaps that is why there was no psychological investigation in this--not enough drama) but if you are going to throw a fit because a certain word isn't used as often as synonymns which say the same things but aren't as directly referential to your pet issue, I would say you are as much a culprit in politicizing science as any creationist school board.
Rhetoric == politics. Research results are not changed by the linguistics of the writeups.
The sole reason that a business would contribute money to a politician is to get some favors.
I'm afraid that's a bit absurd. Businesses act in their own interests, certainly. But supporting a candidate whose views coincide with your interests hardly equates to bribery. There is a huge difference between paying someone to change his mind about wildlife reserves, and, between two candidates, supporting the campaign of the candidate whose view on wildlife reserves is better suited to your own.
Anyway, what does $6k translate into, a few radio ads? If that's all it takes to buy a state mandate for my billion dollar idea, I think it's time to cash in my savings and endorse some politicians.
It doesn't even make sense to send someone to Siberia for piracy. The place is bloody landlocked.
Now Venice, that would be a good place to send someone for piracy.
Here's a helpful hint for this Valentine's Day: Give your significant other potatoes instead of roses.
Think about roses - they only last about a week, maybe two weeks max if you leave them in water. Their only purpose is to be pretty, so that's like saying "My love for you is fleeting, and based solely on your appearance". Roses twist in the wind, which implies fickleness. Roses also have thorns, and you probably do not want your significant other associating you with "pain" any more than he/she already does.
Now think about potatoes - they last for much much longer, and not only will they not rot, they will actually sprout and grow, even without any attention. That part alone makes it a good symbol, but there's more! Potatoes are actually useful. There are many ways to enjoy potatoes:
* you can peel them
* you can boil them, bake them, fry them, and mash them
* you can julienne them
* you can make chips from them
* you can plant them and grow more
* you can let them grow in a cup of water in your windowsill
* you can use them to copy simple graphics
* you can play games with them (okay, just two games, "mr potato head" and "toss")
* you can even make a battery with them!
That's like saying "I have many ways in which I show my love for you". You just can't do any of those things with roses (except for perhaps tossing them). Potatoes are roots, which reminds your significant other of the deep-rooted-ness of your love. And although potatoes may be ugly, they're still wonderful, so that's like telling your significant other "It doesn't matter at all what you look like, I'll still love you".
(found that <a href="http://hatlessinhattiesburg.blogspot.com/200 6/02/practical-valentine.html">here</a>)
The idea of gun registration is about investigating gun crime, and in this regard the gun registry has been a major boon for law enforcement officials (note that every time the Conservatives start making noise about scrapping it, the police unions step up and plead their case that the registry routinely aids in their ability to investigate gun crimes). Yes, and likewise you will find a general support from the police for video surveillance and DNA registries, etc., all of which would also aid them in investigating crimes. It would make them more effective and their jobs easier.
But that is entirely moot because we don't want to live fully documented and fully accountable lives so that Big Brother can keep everyone in line.
The gun registry is by far the worst offender on that front. Some day the government will decide the people don't need a say in who is elected, that they can't be trusted to look after themselves, that the government must assume total power 'for the greatest good.' And the first order of business will be to pull out that handy list of honest citizens with firearms and confiscate them.
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer. If I may ask, exactly how many of the ne'er do well criminal types are you expecting to not only register their murder weapons, but all pay $500 to the government on top of that?
I assume a gun like this would go onto a destroyer. I can't think of the last time a destroyer was used in any meaningful way in combat since WW2.
You are right, but you are looking at thinks from the wrong angle. The destroyer has not been de-emphasized because the ship itself has been antiquated. It has been de-emphasized because modern weapons and deployment options favor the designs of other ships.
The emergence of the 230 mile railgun which can be fitted on a destroyer means precisely this: that destroyers are now again a naval powerhouse.
I guess you could put it on a tank or something, but most conflicts that are fought now are on the ground and are more guerilla tactics than formal engagements. Railguns might well have a place on armored units in the future, but for all intents and purposes those would be a completely different type of weapon. A 230 mile gun does not need to be armored against infantry attacks because it is going to be 230 miles from whatever battle that's taking place. An AA battery is infinitely more useful for guarding such a weapon than even several feet of steel.
Am I missing something here? Their are numerous strategic advantages to be pushed by the development of these guns (and the rule for a peacetime military is 'always be the first to develop the techology') but the most significant reason for the U.S. navy to be pushing these is that it increasing their monopoly on global defense. The basic fact is that the U.S. owns the high seas. They are the uncontested naval presence. If the rest of the world declared war on the U.S., only Canada and Latin America would be able to get troops anywhere near them. But that doesn't do much for the U.S. as far as it might be interested in executing invasions and occupations of various continental countries. But show up with a bunch of high-precision 230 mile guns on the coast that are capable of firing cheap ammunition and now the naval advantage is all-terrain.
I'd be very careful accounting for winds over a distance of 200 miles
"they will apex at 95 miles altitude, well into space."
There are no winds in space. For that matter, the atmosphere thins out considerably before then. If it didn't these long range railguns would be pretty useless because most of the kinetic energy would be lost. And at the velocities we are considering the time spent in the deeper atmosphere is miniscule. Neither do we know how much spin the projectiles will have (a major stabilizing factor). But it's hard to imagine any such simple and fundamental thing would be overlooked by the scientists involved.
Drug companies spend far more money on advertising than they do on research and development. The next time you watch "Wheel of Fortune", you might realize that the billions of dollars being spent pushing viagra and nexium on everyone are NOT making their way to fundamental advances in science.
Let's evaluate, shall we? Ask yourself, why would a company possibly eat into their profits to spend even $1 on advertising? Could it be because they expect >$1 return?
The money spent on advertising generates more money for research. Not less. You would be just as absurd complaining about how St. Jude's Hospital spends so much money advertising for donations. Their expenditures result in more money to help sick kids get better, and the situation is exactly comparable.
You may besides consider that in as much as we are discussing monopolistic patents, these companies are generally not advertising to compete against other products, but rather to perform the service of informing people about the existence of their product, i.e., people who would otherwise not receive treatment due to ignorance of its availabilty.
On top of that, the increased scale of marketing decreases the optimal sale price.
No matter what the local basement-dwelling Rand-ite may tell you, economics is not a science and is not necessarily the best model for health care. Human welfare is not a widget that can (or should) be bought and sold like a car or an mp3 player.
economics -noun
1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
No one's telling you to like the conclusions of economics, but saying it is not a science is astoundingly ignorant. What else do you call a mathematical theory of behavior that is firmly grounded in real-world confirmation?
Your assertions about the value of human welfare may be right; but quite honestly, they are not relevant to the discussion. I for one would tender that a human life is infinitely valuable. Would I therefore justify sacrificing the entire U.S. GDP to save one person? Would I do something like outlaw peanut butter in order to rescue those persons who may otherwise die from peanut allergies? How about outlawing cars?
The moral value of a person against other physical things is simply not a realistic metric for political decisions. You must instead base your analysis on the apparent worth of health, longevity, etc.. A free market provides the best system for this. A human life may be of infinite value, but this is not how people behave (or else--why the continued market for cigarettes?) and in governmance we must defer to the latter, not the former.
And how many millions of people will die in the meantime?
Quite a few, but also rather a lot less than if we decided that making ineffective moral gestures was more important.
If we can turn semiconductors into superconductors, then we can probably turn my band conductor into a semi-conductor, which would at the very least mean less thrown chairs during parent teacher conferences, and less thrown chairs can only be good for Linux!
(Yes, that happened; and yes, he is still in band director.)
"- Anyway why encrypt everything when it is the data (and not all of it) that you want to encrypt?" In addition to what has already been mentioned: *Because you probably cannot have computer X with you at *all* times. Who needs to break your encryption key if they can gain temporary physical access to your computer? Just compromise the system itself and listen for the password you type.
Encrypting the whole system (except for/boot on your USB dongle which you *do* have with you at all times) prevents any third party from every intercepting the computer and compromising the software. (If you connect to unsecured networks, of course, you are still vulnerable to remote exploits.)
*Because with a fully encrypted disk, there are less forensic hints to clue an attacker into what decryption strategies to try.
*Because simply knowing what you did and did not encrypt is a lot of information.
MOST IMPORTANTLY *If you have classified information, or perhaps a million dollar program being tranported in a laptop, why take a chance?
However, it is also worth pointing out the pervasive hypocrisy. For example, during all the instantiations of Robert A Kennedy's election conspiracy theories, the +5 modded comments have taught us the error of judging the validity of content by the politics of the source. But when anybody who has committed the grievous error of being conservative has anything to say, we learn about the essentials of using knowledge of bias to sieve information.
In short, people only care about logical fallacies when they're not amicable to their own personal cause.
especially since living in a democracy I take it you didn't read the content of your link: "Hitler now pursued the "strategy of legality": this meant formally adhering to the rules of the Weimar Republic until he had legally gained power and then transforming liberal democracy into a Nazi dictatorship."
If someone starts spewing me or anyone else with death threats, that is an actionable wrong against me, regardless of their reasons for doing so.
The problem with the hate crimes legislation is that it makes the reasons criminal vs. the actions. Does thoughtcrime ring a bell?
I'm entirely in favor of prosecuting attacks and threats against any person. My observation is simply that their personal views should not be component to this prosecution.
Why not impose the same penalties for, oh, I don't know, "anti-capitalist speak." Oh, that's a bit familiar, isn't it?
Regardless of what you think of hate speech, once the infrastructure for persecuting people on their thoughts/attitudes/opinions is in place it becomes quite trivial to make it encompass your personal/ideological enemies. All you have to do is redefine "hate."
Pro-religion speech --> hate. (look at verse X of book Y! so intolerant!)
. . .
Maybe it would would end up being more specific, or more round about, but what matters is that motivating ideology is now on the table as something that can be legislated for/against.
Why, exactly, is it that he has missed anything? He has just earned himself a lot of time to kickback, and a lot less future frustration. He only took 3 credits over the summer, afterall, which is just one class, so clearly it is not his goal to spend every waking moment working.
I did not even know APs until junior year (my school loved to sabotauge us like that) but if I had, I would definitely have spent all my time on APs or in the local community college classes, which were payed for by the schools if you enrolled concurrently and are transferable credit at any of the colleges in-state. I dare say I would have had this guy beat. As it stands, I managed to pull off 33 AP credits largely through one big cram at the end of my senior year, and it is has done nothing but good things for me.
A friend who has come up this semester got almost the same number of credits, but she cut out of high school a year early with a GED. The result is not that she is "missing the college experience"; the result is that she can relax and go at whatever pace she feels comfortable, knowing that even in the worst case scenario she would only graduate when she would have otherwise.
Certainty and accomplishment a much greater consolation to many people than the 'normal' route. Neither you nor I has any idea has much peace-of-mind this kid has found through his chosen route, or how much it will do for him in the long run. Undoubtedly, it would be a bad idea to force everyone through the same process, but it is ludicrous to suggest that there would not be some people who would be better off for it, and I speak as someone who would very much have liked the same opportunity.
"Should people have a RIGHT to minimum wage or decent working conditions? Workers can always choose to work for a different company, or not work at all"
I'll word this differently: should people have a RIGHT to make private contracts? If I want to do something respectable in exchange for $4, who are you to come and tell me that I can't?
The minimum wage is a great law for the middle class: someone with an education is more likely to be worth $6 an hour. Sucks if you are one of the elements of the cycle-of-poverty who is only worth $3 an hour, because no one is going to hire you at a $3 loss. (Actually, what usually happens is that those below the poverty line do get hired, but not for nearly enough hours. They would be better off working a dollar less per hour for twice as many hours--which is not an unlikely outcome for a marginal utility curve for labor!--but try explaining the math involved to someone in congress.)
"Should people have a RIGHT to not have their medical records released to everybody? We can always choose to not use a health care provider that doesn't protect privacy."
But your medical records *can* be released to everyone... if you give permission. Unlike with the minimum wage example, you actually have a choice.
The 'right' here is actually a valid instance of the sanctity of private contract. The government has just said it has to be opt-out instead of opt-in. The important part is the 'opt'!
"Protection laws such as minimum wage or ADA were enacted to address the gaps between social responsibility and the free market." Now here is the problem: where is the responsibility? Is it also Target's responsibilty to pay for the blind's computer access equipment? Do they have to provide them transport to and from the store, since they can't drive on their own? Does there need to be a guy with a megaphone standing on every Target billboard declaring the contents of the sign in an audible format?
Why is this not a problem with the *technology*? It's theoretically possible to write a program to parse Target's site correctly, so is it Target's problem that this technology does not exist? If the technology that exists right now was not available, would this mean it would be illegal to have any commerce site whatsoever until technology was developed to allow the blind access?
It's not immediately evident what the way of reconciling disability with this new medium should be, and it's up to congress to make the laws clear. I'm perfectly alright with requiring businesses to make their sites 'accessible' as long as it's not something that would prevent me and other non-megacorporations from putting together a business related website. But it's daft to go around persecuting people and even businesses for not complying with legal standards that don't technically exist. If standard X is mandatory, someone needs to mention that specifically in the lawbook before the criminal investigations start.
I don't see what good having different desktop backgrounds does. I for one never really see my desktop background except for maybe when I first login.
The workspace switcher is far more useful because it shows me immediately the content (in an abbreviated form) of all of all the workspaces without my having to switch. And I can even *manage* the content without having to switch. Perhaps it's changed, but not being able to drag-and-drop windows between workspaces from the workspace-switcher was one of the reasons I went with gnome over kde.
And as far as "categorizing" the workspaces (web browsing / programming / music/etc.) associating them with hotkeys is better both in terms of efficiency and mental identification.
Not that it isn't cool to have different desktops available, but in my mind it mostly just amounts to a clever gimmick.
Sixty hours is only bad if you're a lazy pampered American like me and your number one concern is having enough time to level your character in World of Warcraft.
If instead your number one concern is that your family doesn't starve, or making enough money to emmigrate from the oppressive regime in which you live, and the amount of money you make is proportionate to the number of hours you work, you would generally like to work as many hours as humanly possible. I knew at least one guy (in America) who used pull over a hundred hours a week working at an oil rig. It was quite dangerous to boot, but his reason for doing it was just the extra padding in his bank account, not because he had an emaciated wife and toddler back at home.
The last thing people in developing nations need is you telling them that they can't have a job except at 10 bucks an hour, or that they can't work for more than 40 hours a week, or that it's only legal for companies to come in and provide them with a way of obtaining food, medicine, and education (i.e. money) if they also provide full health care, dental, and college tuition for the kids.
I'm not saying to give companies free reign. Some things are clearly morally despicable. But frankly speaking, you are not helping these people by being indignant when they are not afforded the same accomodations that you are. That is the one asset they have that allows them to compete for jobs against Joe Westerner (whose parents could afford to get him quality education and is the preferable employee at comparable wages).
Don't let corporations get away with complete crap, but please don't have people starve for the sake of your armchair idealism either.
Just because people are willing to part with their freedom, liberty, and happiness does not mean that they want to risk something serious like losing karma on Slashdot.
To be fair, if you view the purpose of the justice system to rehabilitate, a guy who mugs a 7-11 is probably a much tougher case for that than Martha Stewart.
If you view it's purpose to offer proportionate punishment, then they should probably both do about the same time.
If you view the purpose of the justice system as merely to deter crime, then the punishment divided by the probability of getting caught should be greater than the payoff (the 'equivalence' point).
Personally, I'm a fan of rehabilitation, proportionate punishment, [i]and[/i] deterrence. In fact, the only reason I can conjur for any leniency at all is the possibility of innocent conviction. I just wanted to point out that the discrepancy in sentencing is not necessarily hyprocristy--it could simply constitute a different view on what the purpose of incarceration is.
Slashdot Mirror
If he had been working at Encyclopedia Brittanica as an editor, sure, worry about his work. But at wikipedia is rather duplicitous to criticize it for *both* it's egalitarian editing policy and the character flaws of its administrators. The former mitigates the latter.
Could this possibly have something to do with the fact that the latter terms are used when they are more scientifically accurate?
If you're talking about antimicrobial resistance spreading, then it would be absolutely wrong to say that it was evolving: the bacteria has already evolved and the spread is just the increasing domination of that new line. If they have lumped all those words together than that alone could account for their conclusion by itself, although I would also argue that the other harms have certain preferable contexts for description.
The reserachers did not bother to do any actual pyschological research in their psychological study: they only looked at frequency distributions of the terminology. Apparently this is enough to infer the motivations of the medical patois. I don't suppose it's even remotely possible that the simple fact that evolutionary biologists study evolution could explain the increased frequency of 'evolve' in their personal vernacular? Perhaps if medical scientists spent all of their time researching, reading about, and writing about evolution, the word "evolve" might be as much integrated into their writing.
Regardless, it is absurd to suggest that incipient trends in word usage should in any way be a concern of either medical or evolutionary scientists. I might expect some outcry if people were being coerced (perhaps that is why there was no psychological investigation in this--not enough drama) but if you are going to throw a fit because a certain word isn't used as often as synonymns which say the same things but aren't as directly referential to your pet issue, I would say you are as much a culprit in politicizing science as any creationist school board.
Rhetoric == politics. Research results are not changed by the linguistics of the writeups.
I'm afraid that's a bit absurd. Businesses act in their own interests, certainly. But supporting a candidate whose views coincide with your interests hardly equates to bribery. There is a huge difference between paying someone to change his mind about wildlife reserves, and, between two candidates, supporting the campaign of the candidate whose view on wildlife reserves is better suited to your own.
Anyway, what does $6k translate into, a few radio ads? If that's all it takes to buy a state mandate for my billion dollar idea, I think it's time to cash in my savings and endorse some politicians.
It doesn't even make sense to send someone to Siberia for piracy. The place is bloody landlocked. Now Venice, that would be a good place to send someone for piracy.
"some valentine"
0 6/02/practical-valentine.html">here</a>)
Indeed:
Here's a helpful hint for this Valentine's Day: Give your significant other potatoes instead of roses.
Think about roses - they only last about a week, maybe two weeks max if you leave them in water. Their only purpose is to be pretty, so that's like saying "My love for you is fleeting, and based solely on your appearance". Roses twist in the wind, which implies fickleness. Roses also have thorns, and you probably do not want your significant other associating you with "pain" any more than he/she already does.
Now think about potatoes - they last for much much longer, and not only will they not rot, they will actually sprout and grow, even without any attention. That part alone makes it a good symbol, but there's more! Potatoes are actually useful. There are many ways to enjoy potatoes:
* you can peel them
* you can boil them, bake them, fry them, and mash them
* you can julienne them
* you can make chips from them
* you can plant them and grow more
* you can let them grow in a cup of water in your windowsill
* you can use them to copy simple graphics
* you can play games with them (okay, just two games, "mr potato head" and "toss")
* you can even make a battery with them!
That's like saying "I have many ways in which I show my love for you". You just can't do any of those things with roses (except for perhaps tossing them). Potatoes are roots, which reminds your significant other of the deep-rooted-ness of your love. And although potatoes may be ugly, they're still wonderful, so that's like telling your significant other "It doesn't matter at all what you look like, I'll still love you".
(found that <a href="http://hatlessinhattiesburg.blogspot.com/20
But that is entirely moot because we don't want to live fully documented and fully accountable lives so that Big Brother can keep everyone in line.
The gun registry is by far the worst offender on that front. Some day the government will decide the people don't need a say in who is elected, that they can't be trusted to look after themselves, that the government must assume total power 'for the greatest good.' And the first order of business will be to pull out that handy list of honest citizens with firearms and confiscate them.
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer. If I may ask, exactly how many of the ne'er do well criminal types are you expecting to not only register their murder weapons, but all pay $500 to the government on top of that?You are right, but you are looking at thinks from the wrong angle. The destroyer has not been de-emphasized because the ship itself has been antiquated. It has been de-emphasized because modern weapons and deployment options favor the designs of other ships.
The emergence of the 230 mile railgun which can be fitted on a destroyer means precisely this: that destroyers are now again a naval powerhouse.
I guess you could put it on a tank or something, but most conflicts that are fought now are on the ground and are more guerilla tactics than formal engagements.
Railguns might well have a place on armored units in the future, but for all intents and purposes those would be a completely different type of weapon. A 230 mile gun does not need to be armored against infantry attacks because it is going to be 230 miles from whatever battle that's taking place. An AA battery is infinitely more useful for guarding such a weapon than even several feet of steel.
Am I missing something here?
Their are numerous strategic advantages to be pushed by the development of these guns (and the rule for a peacetime military is 'always be the first to develop the techology') but the most significant reason for the U.S. navy to be pushing these is that it increasing their monopoly on global defense. The basic fact is that the U.S. owns the high seas. They are the uncontested naval presence. If the rest of the world declared war on the U.S., only Canada and Latin America would be able to get troops anywhere near them. But that doesn't do much for the U.S. as far as it might be interested in executing invasions and occupations of various continental countries. But show up with a bunch of high-precision 230 mile guns on the coast that are capable of firing cheap ammunition and now the naval advantage is all-terrain.
"they will apex at 95 miles altitude, well into space."
There are no winds in space. For that matter, the atmosphere thins out considerably before then. If it didn't these long range railguns would be pretty useless because most of the kinetic energy would be lost. And at the velocities we are considering the time spent in the deeper atmosphere is miniscule. Neither do we know how much spin the projectiles will have (a major stabilizing factor). But it's hard to imagine any such simple and fundamental thing would be overlooked by the scientists involved.
Let's evaluate, shall we? Ask yourself, why would a company possibly eat into their profits to spend even $1 on advertising? Could it be because they expect >$1 return?
The money spent on advertising generates more money for research. Not less. You would be just as absurd complaining about how St. Jude's Hospital spends so much money advertising for donations. Their expenditures result in more money to help sick kids get better, and the situation is exactly comparable.
You may besides consider that in as much as we are discussing monopolistic patents, these companies are generally not advertising to compete against other products, but rather to perform the service of informing people about the existence of their product, i.e., people who would otherwise not receive treatment due to ignorance of its availabilty.
On top of that, the increased scale of marketing decreases the optimal sale price.
No matter what the local basement-dwelling Rand-ite may tell you, economics is not a science and is not necessarily the best model for health care. Human welfare is not a widget that can (or should) be bought and sold like a car or an mp3 player.
economics
-noun
1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
No one's telling you to like the conclusions of economics, but saying it is not a science is astoundingly ignorant. What else do you call a mathematical theory of behavior that is firmly grounded in real-world confirmation?
Your assertions about the value of human welfare may be right; but quite honestly, they are not relevant to the discussion. I for one would tender that a human life is infinitely valuable. Would I therefore justify sacrificing the entire U.S. GDP to save one person? Would I do something like outlaw peanut butter in order to rescue those persons who may otherwise die from peanut allergies? How about outlawing cars?
The moral value of a person against other physical things is simply not a realistic metric for political decisions. You must instead base your analysis on the apparent worth of health, longevity, etc.. A free market provides the best system for this. A human life may be of infinite value, but this is not how people behave (or else--why the continued market for cigarettes?) and in governmance we must defer to the latter, not the former.
And how many millions of people will die in the meantime?
Quite a few, but also rather a lot less than if we decided that making ineffective moral gestures was more important.
Unlimited cosmic power.
If we can turn semiconductors into superconductors, then we can probably turn my band conductor into a semi-conductor, which would at the very least mean less thrown chairs during parent teacher conferences, and less thrown chairs can only be good for Linux!
(Yes, that happened; and yes, he is still in band director.)
"- Anyway why encrypt everything when it is the data (and not all of it) that you want to encrypt?"
/boot on your USB dongle which you *do* have with you at all times) prevents any third party from every intercepting the computer and compromising the software. (If you connect to unsecured networks, of course, you are still vulnerable to remote exploits.)
In addition to what has already been mentioned:
*Because you probably cannot have computer X with you at *all* times. Who needs to break your encryption key if they can gain temporary physical access to your computer? Just compromise the system itself and listen for the password you type.
Encrypting the whole system (except for
*Because with a fully encrypted disk, there are less forensic hints to clue an attacker into what decryption strategies to try.
*Because simply knowing what you did and did not encrypt is a lot of information.
MOST IMPORTANTLY
*If you have classified information, or perhaps a million dollar program being tranported in a laptop, why take a chance?
However, it is also worth pointing out the pervasive hypocrisy. For example, during all the instantiations of Robert A Kennedy's election conspiracy theories, the +5 modded comments have taught us the error of judging the validity of content by the politics of the source. But when anybody who has committed the grievous error of being conservative has anything to say, we learn about the essentials of using knowledge of bias to sieve information.
In short, people only care about logical fallacies when they're not amicable to their own personal cause.
especially since living in a democracy
I take it you didn't read the content of your link: "Hitler now pursued the "strategy of legality": this meant formally adhering to the rules of the Weimar Republic until he had legally gained power and then transforming liberal democracy into a Nazi dictatorship."
If someone starts spewing me or anyone else with death threats, that is an actionable wrong against me, regardless of their reasons for doing so.
The problem with the hate crimes legislation is that it makes the reasons criminal vs. the actions. Does thoughtcrime ring a bell?
I'm entirely in favor of prosecuting attacks and threats against any person. My observation is simply that their personal views should not be component to this prosecution.
Regardless of what you think of hate speech, once the infrastructure for persecuting people on their thoughts/attitudes/opinions is in place it becomes quite trivial to make it encompass your personal/ideological enemies. All you have to do is redefine "hate."
Anti-government speech --> anti-American speech --> hate.
Anti-religion speech --> hate.
Pro-religion speech --> hate. (look at verse X of book Y! so intolerant!)
. . .
Maybe it would would end up being more specific, or more round about, but what matters is that motivating ideology is now on the table as something that can be legislated for/against.
Now this is the kind of honesty you have to appreciate.
Why, exactly, is it that he has missed anything? He has just earned himself a lot of time to kickback, and a lot less future frustration. He only took 3 credits over the summer, afterall, which is just one class, so clearly it is not his goal to spend every waking moment working.
I did not even know APs until junior year (my school loved to sabotauge us like that) but if I had, I would definitely have spent all my time on APs or in the local community college classes, which were payed for by the schools if you enrolled concurrently and are transferable credit at any of the colleges in-state. I dare say I would have had this guy beat. As it stands, I managed to pull off 33 AP credits largely through one big cram at the end of my senior year, and it is has done nothing but good things for me.
A friend who has come up this semester got almost the same number of credits, but she cut out of high school a year early with a GED. The result is not that she is "missing the college experience"; the result is that she can relax and go at whatever pace she feels comfortable, knowing that even in the worst case scenario she would only graduate when she would have otherwise.
Certainty and accomplishment a much greater consolation to many people than the 'normal' route. Neither you nor I has any idea has much peace-of-mind this kid has found through his chosen route, or how much it will do for him in the long run. Undoubtedly, it would be a bad idea to force everyone through the same process, but it is ludicrous to suggest that there would not be some people who would be better off for it, and I speak as someone who would very much have liked the same opportunity.
I think what they mean to say is that "Reality is at least 99.95% right."
Let's not go attempting to invalidate any theories I've spent hundreds of hours trying to understand, ok?
"Should people have a RIGHT to minimum wage or decent working conditions? Workers can always choose to work for a different company, or not work at all"
I'll word this differently: should people have a RIGHT to make private contracts? If I want to do something respectable in exchange for $4, who are you to come and tell me that I can't?
The minimum wage is a great law for the middle class: someone with an education is more likely to be worth $6 an hour. Sucks if you are one of the elements of the cycle-of-poverty who is only worth $3 an hour, because no one is going to hire you at a $3 loss. (Actually, what usually happens is that those below the poverty line do get hired, but not for nearly enough hours. They would be better off working a dollar less per hour for twice as many hours--which is not an unlikely outcome for a marginal utility curve for labor!--but try explaining the math involved to someone in congress.)
"Should people have a RIGHT to not have their medical records released to everybody? We can always choose to not use a health care provider that doesn't protect privacy."
But your medical records *can* be released to everyone... if you give permission. Unlike with the minimum wage example, you actually have a choice.
The 'right' here is actually a valid instance of the sanctity of private contract. The government has just said it has to be opt-out instead of opt-in. The important part is the 'opt'!
"Protection laws such as minimum wage or ADA were enacted to address the gaps between social responsibility and the free market."
Now here is the problem: where is the responsibility? Is it also Target's responsibilty to pay for the blind's computer access equipment? Do they have to provide them transport to and from the store, since they can't drive on their own? Does there need to be a guy with a megaphone standing on every Target billboard declaring the contents of the sign in an audible format?
Why is this not a problem with the *technology*? It's theoretically possible to write a program to parse Target's site correctly, so is it Target's problem that this technology does not exist? If the technology that exists right now was not available, would this mean it would be illegal to have any commerce site whatsoever until technology was developed to allow the blind access?
It's not immediately evident what the way of reconciling disability with this new medium should be, and it's up to congress to make the laws clear. I'm perfectly alright with requiring businesses to make their sites 'accessible' as long as it's not something that would prevent me and other non-megacorporations from putting together a business related website. But it's daft to go around persecuting people and even businesses for not complying with legal standards that don't technically exist. If standard X is mandatory, someone needs to mention that specifically in the lawbook before the criminal investigations start.
I don't see what good having different desktop backgrounds does. I for one never really see my desktop background except for maybe when I first login.
/etc.) associating them with hotkeys is better both in terms of efficiency and mental identification.
The workspace switcher is far more useful because it shows me immediately the content (in an abbreviated form) of all of all the workspaces without my having to switch. And I can even *manage* the content without having to switch. Perhaps it's changed, but not being able to drag-and-drop windows between workspaces from the workspace-switcher was one of the reasons I went with gnome over kde.
And as far as "categorizing" the workspaces (web browsing / programming / music
Not that it isn't cool to have different desktops available, but in my mind it mostly just amounts to a clever gimmick.
If instead your number one concern is that your family doesn't starve, or making enough money to emmigrate from the oppressive regime in which you live, and the amount of money you make is proportionate to the number of hours you work, you would generally like to work as many hours as humanly possible. I knew at least one guy (in America) who used pull over a hundred hours a week working at an oil rig. It was quite dangerous to boot, but his reason for doing it was just the extra padding in his bank account, not because he had an emaciated wife and toddler back at home.
The last thing people in developing nations need is you telling them that they can't have a job except at 10 bucks an hour, or that they can't work for more than 40 hours a week, or that it's only legal for companies to come in and provide them with a way of obtaining food, medicine, and education (i.e. money) if they also provide full health care, dental, and college tuition for the kids.
I'm not saying to give companies free reign. Some things are clearly morally despicable. But frankly speaking, you are not helping these people by being indignant when they are not afforded the same accomodations that you are. That is the one asset they have that allows them to compete for jobs against Joe Westerner (whose parents could afford to get him quality education and is the preferable employee at comparable wages).
Don't let corporations get away with complete crap, but please don't have people starve for the sake of your armchair idealism either.
There isn't a 3.)
And so thine god was smitten by the god of logic!
Just because people are willing to part with their freedom, liberty, and happiness does not mean that they want to risk something serious like losing karma on Slashdot.
If you view it's purpose to offer proportionate punishment, then they should probably both do about the same time.
If you view the purpose of the justice system as merely to deter crime, then the punishment divided by the probability of getting caught should be greater than the payoff (the 'equivalence' point).
Personally, I'm a fan of rehabilitation, proportionate punishment, [i]and[/i] deterrence. In fact, the only reason I can conjur for any leniency at all is the possibility of innocent conviction. I just wanted to point out that the discrepancy in sentencing is not necessarily hyprocristy--it could simply constitute a different view on what the purpose of incarceration is.