Neustedt called this arrangement "seperated institutions sharing powers."
The other big phrases are "neither purse nor sword" and "neither force nor will." Meaning, respectively, it can't appropriate, it doesn't control the military, it has no forceful power, and it must be called into action by a third party.
For these reasons the judiciary is called the "least dangerous branch."
Well, the point of a mail in campaign is to sway a decision. Boucher and PTFC not only are already firmly in favor of the bill, their position is probably that which coincides with the vast majority of Slashdot readers. Therefore, a mail-in campaign directed to either of those would be completely ineffective.
As per usual, it is best to mail your own representatives in Congress. No one else's representatives have to answer to you in November, so they won't care.
No joke... my friend is getting a laptop that weighs 17.5 pounds. It has desktop components in it. The battery doesn't so much as last anything as it does tear a hole in the space-time continuum.
You do realize, don't you, why Bush and Co are focusing on hydrogen as the supposed future? It's so far off in terms of actually replacing much of anything that focusing on it to the detriment of other, more immediately applicable, technologies (hybridization) ensures oil's continued dominance for the foreseeable future.
This all sort of reminds me of the company that was putting out a huge new version of their product, that was taking an incredibly long time. And all their sales people were saying... don't buy yet.. wait... basically hyping the new product. And then when the new product came out they immediately started hyping the next product. No one bought the first product as a result, the company went out of business, and the second version never appeared.
There is a progression of technologies here, and praying for a leapfrog to the next decade's technology and ignoring more immediate technologies only benefits the oil companies, and further delays actual energy independence.
I don't know WHY I'm responding to an AC troll, but here goes.
This isn't anything moralistic. Simply that if you want to achieve a high rate of growth for a moon colony, you're going to need a high birthrate. Considering the sort of people that would be on the moon (upper, upper middle class, highly educated) are the same populations that have markedly reduced rates of birth, this is an issue.
All that is independent of ideology or value judgement. You can take numerous steps to increase the birthrate. Limiting availability of the pill would have to be one of them. The other option is to reevaluate your growth targets. One of the two.
As a women's rights issue this would be a gray area. After all, any women signing onto this project would be doing it aware of the need for population growth. They'd also be made aware of limitations on birth control before they signed up. Colonies are special circumstances. It wouldn't be like moving to Ohio, at least not at first.
The other option, of course, is to re-evaluate your population growth targets.
Key to populating the moon is going to be refusing to import the pill. The pill more or less completely removes the possibility of "accidental" pregnancies, and would probably seriously drive down the birth rate in such a situation.
Again, you're confusing entitlement to right. In your example, if you were to suppose that you have a right to pursue someone (dubious), then, yes, the government couldn't prevent you from "having" that person, either. And, again, that doesn't mean that the other person can't say no, or that the government has to deliver them up bound and gagged. Simply that the government is bound not to violate that right by preventing you from being with that person (and since we're talking about a second person, here, their rights matter as well, so the point gets complicated).
Same with the second. A right does not necessarily mean that the government enforces and ensures whatever the right centers on. The right to print what you want doesn't mean that the government has to give you a free printing press, or that G-men have to show up at a publisher that turned you down and make them print your material. Of course, such a vague concept of happiness is full of complexities and such, and as with any right there's no reason such a right (if it existed, mind you) couldn't be violated within the limits of tests set by the court (for instance, taxing would be allowed even though it violated the 'right to happiness'). How is that defined? What are the exceptions? Who knows. However, none of this speaks to any sort of obligation on the part of government to ensure your continued happiness, once you have it, or that you be able to find some publisher to print your manuscript.
Think about it this way. You have the right to freedom of speech, but no one says that the government has to make people listen. You have the right to have sex and get married (well, if you're heterosexual) butno one says the government has to make someone have sex with you and marry you. On the contrary, the government is only barred from contradicting those rights, not pledged to enforce them substantively.
Occupying happiness is implicit in pursuing it. Pray tell, what would be the point of a right to pursue anything if you wouldn't then have the right to what you pursued?
If anything, this comes down to a misconception of what a "right" is. For instance, you have the right to publish whatever you want, and no the government doesn't have to give you a printing press. Contrary to popular belief, you even have a right to cable TV... in the sense that the government can't prevent you from getting cable TV, not that it has to provide it to you.
In this sense, you're correct. There is no guarentee of happiness. But, on the other hand, once you have that happiness they can't take it away from you, either, which is the truer meaning of a right.
All this is fairly moot, however, as the "pursuit of happiness" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and not in any binding law (save for some state constitutions).
Unfortunately, our (specifically, American) society has developed the idea that a diploma is an entitlement rather than a reflection of an earned education. It's really, really hard to teach someone that thinks they have an entitlement to something regardless of whatever they themselves choose to spend their time doing (or not doing). The first step to teaching high schoolers is to actually make them learn something, instead of trying to maximize graduation rates by gutting curriculum and bending over backward to make courses easy to pass.
If you read the sentance carefully, the 'bureaucrat for everything' is only symptomatic of the 'big and impersonal.' I'm certainly not suggesting that having a ton of bureaucrats causes plagiarism. Though, of course, one could argue that a large bureaucracy doesn't necessarily entail a large and impersonal university, but I find it a fair assumption, on the whole. And, of course, you could argue that a university being large and impersonal has nothing to do with plagiarism (the counter position to my comment). If you'd like to make either of those arguments I'd certainly be open to them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was a bit concerned about the existance of a "deputy vice chancellor." Is it really surprising that plagiarism is so rampant when these universities are becoming so big and impersonal that there's a bureaucrat for everything? At my university there's an entire campus devoted to the administration (and of course it's old campus, with all the nicest oldest buildings). Aside from that there are three additional large "Administrative Services Buildings," 5 or 6 additional deans' offices (Not to mention dozens of deans in and of themselves) and an ungodly number of sattelite "student services."
When you bring on a giant student body and build a giant impersonal administration to match, this sort of thing is inevitable. Something tells me if there weren't so many 400 person lecture halls at these universities, where the professors only know the names of a dozen or so choice students, we wouldn't have nearly as big a problem with plagiarism as we do. This is a massive, systemic problem with higher education (at least in America, not necessarily strictly related to the case at hand), that requires a solution larger than google checks on individual papers.
$16 million is plenty of money. I agree that it very comfortably falls into any "margin of waste" for governments, but it's hardly nothing. For instance, it's roughly the budget shortfall of my old school district that I went to high school in. If I was The World Community and had to decide between a specific appropriation so a bunch of bureaucrats could fly around on private corporate jets at public expense and funding the education of a few thousand children, I'd cut ICANN loose too.
Re:i welcome our new ... uh ... wait ...
on
Fix a Troubled Mac
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Everyone knows dealing with macintoshes is witchcraft...
CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn it?
CROWD: Burn it! Burn!
BEDEVERE: How do you know it is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: It looks like one.
BEDEVERE: Bring it forward.
MACINTOSH: I am not a witch!.
BEDEVERE: But you are modded as one.
MACINTOSH: They modded me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't -- no.
MACINTOSH: And this isn't my power button, it's a false one.
BEDEVERE: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the power button.
BEDEVERE: The power button?
VILLAGER #1: And the DVD tray -- but it is a witch!
CROWD: Burn it! Witch! Witch! Burn it!
BEDEVERE: Did you case mod it up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
BEDEVERE: What makes you think it is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, it organized my photographs easily... and it's stable! It doesn't crash.
BEDEVERE: Your photographs?
VILLAGER #3: I got a digital camera, you know, for christmas.
VILLAGER #2: Burn it anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn it!
BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether it is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: CDs!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of CDs...?
BEDEVERE: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether it is made of CDs?
VILLAGER #1: Put it in a boom box.
BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also put cassettes into a boom box?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEVERE: Is a CD not round, like a frozen pizza?
VILLAGER #1: Yes, yes it is!.
BEDEVERE: And what does one do with a frozen pizza?
VILLAGER #1: Eat it!
VILLAGER #2: Make a book!
VILLAGER #3: Throw it into the river!
VILLAGER #1: Burn it!
VILLAGER #2: Sit on it!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: You microwave it.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... it cooks... in a microwave... it's made of CDs!
BEDEVERE: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
I'm rather curious what exactly they're doing to prove wrongdoing. Are they grabbing a "file list" to see what the individual is making available to others? Do they then grab one file to have solid proof of distribution? The way I see it, just providing a list of your files doesn't constitute copyright infringement. However, can you really be said to be violating the RIAA's copyright when they themselves initiate a request for download from you? I mean, more or less what is happening, most likely, is the RIAA downloading a single file to "prove" disstribution. However, that to me seems more or less equivalent to the RIAA walking up to you and going "hey, can we get a copy of CD x from you?" That seems to imply permission to copy, to me.
They have people that don't do anything but graphic design. It's not like the rocket scientists are messing around in photoshop wasting time before they start the "real work."
This is a troll and/or flamebait. Regardless of whether you agree with its contents or not. Someone, or multiple someones, are just reposting it wherever they damn well feel like it.
For instance, it was also posted in the story about Intel's patent problems (here).
It's probably ripped off from somewhere else by someone looking to stir up trouble or artificially inflate their own ego by watching some post of theirs to slashdot get modded up. I'd suggest modding it down just for the fact that its most likely ripped off from somewhere and blanket posted wherever the AC thinks he can score up a few mod points. He just got lucky with this story, don't give him the satisfaction.
The mechanical part was just metaphor. There's no functional difference between having a computer generate "bread and circus" than having a team of people do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Neustedt called this arrangement "seperated institutions sharing powers."
The other big phrases are "neither purse nor sword" and "neither force nor will." Meaning, respectively, it can't appropriate, it doesn't control the military, it has no forceful power, and it must be called into action by a third party.
For these reasons the judiciary is called the "least dangerous branch."
Well, the point of a mail in campaign is to sway a decision. Boucher and PTFC not only are already firmly in favor of the bill, their position is probably that which coincides with the vast majority of Slashdot readers. Therefore, a mail-in campaign directed to either of those would be completely ineffective.
As per usual, it is best to mail your own representatives in Congress. No one else's representatives have to answer to you in November, so they won't care.
No joke... my friend is getting a laptop that weighs 17.5 pounds. It has desktop components in it. The battery doesn't so much as last anything as it does tear a hole in the space-time continuum.
You do realize, don't you, why Bush and Co are focusing on hydrogen as the supposed future? It's so far off in terms of actually replacing much of anything that focusing on it to the detriment of other, more immediately applicable, technologies (hybridization) ensures oil's continued dominance for the foreseeable future.
This all sort of reminds me of the company that was putting out a huge new version of their product, that was taking an incredibly long time. And all their sales people were saying... don't buy yet.. wait... basically hyping the new product. And then when the new product came out they immediately started hyping the next product. No one bought the first product as a result, the company went out of business, and the second version never appeared.
There is a progression of technologies here, and praying for a leapfrog to the next decade's technology and ignoring more immediate technologies only benefits the oil companies, and further delays actual energy independence.
I don't know WHY I'm responding to an AC troll, but here goes.
This isn't anything moralistic. Simply that if you want to achieve a high rate of growth for a moon colony, you're going to need a high birthrate. Considering the sort of people that would be on the moon (upper, upper middle class, highly educated) are the same populations that have markedly reduced rates of birth, this is an issue.
All that is independent of ideology or value judgement. You can take numerous steps to increase the birthrate. Limiting availability of the pill would have to be one of them. The other option is to reevaluate your growth targets. One of the two.
As a women's rights issue this would be a gray area. After all, any women signing onto this project would be doing it aware of the need for population growth. They'd also be made aware of limitations on birth control before they signed up. Colonies are special circumstances. It wouldn't be like moving to Ohio, at least not at first. The other option, of course, is to re-evaluate your population growth targets.
Key to populating the moon is going to be refusing to import the pill. The pill more or less completely removes the possibility of "accidental" pregnancies, and would probably seriously drive down the birth rate in such a situation.
Wait... I thought thunderbird WAS firefox? I'm so confused.
Again, you're confusing entitlement to right. In your example, if you were to suppose that you have a right to pursue someone (dubious), then, yes, the government couldn't prevent you from "having" that person, either. And, again, that doesn't mean that the other person can't say no, or that the government has to deliver them up bound and gagged. Simply that the government is bound not to violate that right by preventing you from being with that person (and since we're talking about a second person, here, their rights matter as well, so the point gets complicated).
Same with the second. A right does not necessarily mean that the government enforces and ensures whatever the right centers on. The right to print what you want doesn't mean that the government has to give you a free printing press, or that G-men have to show up at a publisher that turned you down and make them print your material. Of course, such a vague concept of happiness is full of complexities and such, and as with any right there's no reason such a right (if it existed, mind you) couldn't be violated within the limits of tests set by the court (for instance, taxing would be allowed even though it violated the 'right to happiness'). How is that defined? What are the exceptions? Who knows. However, none of this speaks to any sort of obligation on the part of government to ensure your continued happiness, once you have it, or that you be able to find some publisher to print your manuscript.
Think about it this way. You have the right to freedom of speech, but no one says that the government has to make people listen. You have the right to have sex and get married (well, if you're heterosexual) butno one says the government has to make someone have sex with you and marry you. On the contrary, the government is only barred from contradicting those rights, not pledged to enforce them substantively.
Occupying happiness is implicit in pursuing it. Pray tell, what would be the point of a right to pursue anything if you wouldn't then have the right to what you pursued?
If anything, this comes down to a misconception of what a "right" is. For instance, you have the right to publish whatever you want, and no the government doesn't have to give you a printing press. Contrary to popular belief, you even have a right to cable TV... in the sense that the government can't prevent you from getting cable TV, not that it has to provide it to you.
In this sense, you're correct. There is no guarentee of happiness. But, on the other hand, once you have that happiness they can't take it away from you, either, which is the truer meaning of a right.
All this is fairly moot, however, as the "pursuit of happiness" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, and not in any binding law (save for some state constitutions).
The person was a psychic, not god. Psychics don't perform miracles.
Unfortunately, our (specifically, American) society has developed the idea that a diploma is an entitlement rather than a reflection of an earned education. It's really, really hard to teach someone that thinks they have an entitlement to something regardless of whatever they themselves choose to spend their time doing (or not doing). The first step to teaching high schoolers is to actually make them learn something, instead of trying to maximize graduation rates by gutting curriculum and bending over backward to make courses easy to pass.
Plato, anyone?
Don't forget "invade Russia in the winter." That's always a classic.
I'd go for the more elegant "pwned"
If you read the sentance carefully, the 'bureaucrat for everything' is only symptomatic of the 'big and impersonal.' I'm certainly not suggesting that having a ton of bureaucrats causes plagiarism. Though, of course, one could argue that a large bureaucracy doesn't necessarily entail a large and impersonal university, but I find it a fair assumption, on the whole. And, of course, you could argue that a university being large and impersonal has nothing to do with plagiarism (the counter position to my comment). If you'd like to make either of those arguments I'd certainly be open to them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I was a bit concerned about the existance of a "deputy vice chancellor." Is it really surprising that plagiarism is so rampant when these universities are becoming so big and impersonal that there's a bureaucrat for everything? At my university there's an entire campus devoted to the administration (and of course it's old campus, with all the nicest oldest buildings). Aside from that there are three additional large "Administrative Services Buildings," 5 or 6 additional deans' offices (Not to mention dozens of deans in and of themselves) and an ungodly number of sattelite "student services."
When you bring on a giant student body and build a giant impersonal administration to match, this sort of thing is inevitable. Something tells me if there weren't so many 400 person lecture halls at these universities, where the professors only know the names of a dozen or so choice students, we wouldn't have nearly as big a problem with plagiarism as we do. This is a massive, systemic problem with higher education (at least in America, not necessarily strictly related to the case at hand), that requires a solution larger than google checks on individual papers.
Read/Write speed.
They better be careful, if they piss them off too much they might find themselves... hacked by chinese.
$16 million is plenty of money. I agree that it very comfortably falls into any "margin of waste" for governments, but it's hardly nothing. For instance, it's roughly the budget shortfall of my old school district that I went to high school in. If I was The World Community and had to decide between a specific appropriation so a bunch of bureaucrats could fly around on private corporate jets at public expense and funding the education of a few thousand children, I'd cut ICANN loose too.
Hey, evil isn't cheap.
Everyone knows dealing with macintoshes is witchcraft...
... yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.
CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn it?
CROWD: Burn it! Burn!
BEDEVERE: How do you know it is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: It looks like one.
BEDEVERE: Bring it forward.
MACINTOSH: I am not a witch!.
BEDEVERE: But you are modded as one.
MACINTOSH: They modded me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't -- no.
MACINTOSH: And this isn't my power button, it's a false one.
BEDEVERE: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the power button.
BEDEVERE: The power button?
VILLAGER #1: And the DVD tray -- but it is a witch!
CROWD: Burn it! Witch! Witch! Burn it!
BEDEVERE: Did you case mod it up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no
BEDEVERE: What makes you think it is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, it organized my photographs easily... and it's stable! It doesn't crash.
BEDEVERE: Your photographs?
VILLAGER #3: I got a digital camera, you know, for christmas.
VILLAGER #2: Burn it anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn it!
BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether it is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they?
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: CDs!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of CDs...?
BEDEVERE: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether it is made of CDs?
VILLAGER #1: Put it in a boom box.
BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also put cassettes into a boom box?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEVERE: Is a CD not round, like a frozen pizza?
VILLAGER #1: Yes, yes it is!.
BEDEVERE: And what does one do with a frozen pizza?
VILLAGER #1: Eat it!
VILLAGER #2: Make a book!
VILLAGER #3: Throw it into the river!
VILLAGER #1: Burn it!
VILLAGER #2: Sit on it!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: You microwave it.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... it cooks... in a microwave... it's made of CDs!
BEDEVERE: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
I'm rather curious what exactly they're doing to prove wrongdoing. Are they grabbing a "file list" to see what the individual is making available to others? Do they then grab one file to have solid proof of distribution? The way I see it, just providing a list of your files doesn't constitute copyright infringement. However, can you really be said to be violating the RIAA's copyright when they themselves initiate a request for download from you? I mean, more or less what is happening, most likely, is the RIAA downloading a single file to "prove" disstribution. However, that to me seems more or less equivalent to the RIAA walking up to you and going "hey, can we get a copy of CD x from you?" That seems to imply permission to copy, to me.
They have people that don't do anything but graphic design. It's not like the rocket scientists are messing around in photoshop wasting time before they start the "real work."
This is a troll and/or flamebait. Regardless of whether you agree with its contents or not. Someone, or multiple someones, are just reposting it wherever they damn well feel like it.
For instance, it was also posted in the story about Intel's patent problems (here).
It's probably ripped off from somewhere else by someone looking to stir up trouble or artificially inflate their own ego by watching some post of theirs to slashdot get modded up. I'd suggest modding it down just for the fact that its most likely ripped off from somewhere and blanket posted wherever the AC thinks he can score up a few mod points. He just got lucky with this story, don't give him the satisfaction.
The mechanical part was just metaphor. There's no functional difference between having a computer generate "bread and circus" than having a team of people do it.