By pulling this stunt, the teachers were able to scare the kids and permanantly brand the image of terrorists into the Children's minds.
I think you give too much credit to this "technique" of brainwashing. The constant barrage by the media of overhyping the terrorist threat is far more damaging, I'm wondering how many children were scarred for life by "duck & cover" drills.
It more important to mold children into the "American Cog" than to treat them fairly, or to give them an education. I mean, after all, what about the terrorists?
Yes the teachers are all part of a great conspiracy, rather than just being morons.
I am sure good things are happening, but NO amount of good things can make up for the damage we (The US) have done.
I've been against the war, but ultimately we won't be able to put it into context for decades. Far worse has been done and forgotten (Korean War), and other times far worse has been done an spun into a positive (Settlement of the West).
Along the same lines... (speaking generally, not to you in specific) As a human, you have rights.
Rights are restrictions we use to protect the individual from the collective to facilitate participation in society. "Inherent human rights," are just those more universally agreed upon.
The constitution was created to guarantee your rights are not trampled on.
The Constitution is a social contract that outlines the rights agreed upon by society. A different society may have a different set of rights, for example the right to bear arms is not one that is universally shared.
I can choose not to disclose that information, I can choose to disclose that information under a NDA although only the initial discloser will be liable then since he is the only one bound by contract.
Sometimes you don't have a choice whether or not to disclose information when that information is collected by somebody else. Without privacy laws your health information is not protected, because your doctor is the one collecting it. Also, how are NDA's any different from copyright in terms of restricting something that is not scarce? Would it be better that instead of copyright, the **AA uses an NDA/EULA or other contracts to restrict information?
So accountants and programmers and all dreg office workers should really be crammed into little hobbit house cubes? I'm already shoved into a windowless cave, now I lose my headroom too?
There's a difference between understanding one aspect of human behavior and being able to modify human behavior the way you want. A tiny cubicle may inspire more detail oriented thinking, but may have the consequence of lowering productivity because of other psychological effects.
However, you have to realize that by volunteering for the military you are *ENABLING* wars.
You do realize that by voluntarily participating in commerce (beyond basic human necessities) you are also *ENABLING* wars. If you feel the government is committing wrongdoing, you should resign your job so that you don't have to pay tax money that funds the unjust war.
Rights are defined as to determine how scarce resources are to be controlled.
What about privacy? The same "information is not a scarce resource" argument could be made about your SSN, DNA info, health records, web surfing habits, telephone converstaions, etc.
The military was supposed to provide security while the destroyed infrastructure was fixed and the Iraqis magically banded together in a western-style democracy. 5 years out and the infrastructure is just as messed up as when the invasion finished. Military can't seem to protect that infrastructure...sounds like a slap to me..
If that is what you are looking for, then it is impossible. No military in the world can stop every person who straps on a bomb and decides to blow something up. My expectations of the military are to basically prevent an organized uprising capable of overthrowing the installed government until that government can provide the necessary resources to protect and develop the infrastructure.
A smart man would have realized that, hey, infantry != police...and that a better plan was required post invasion.
I agree. Further, a smart man would have realized the insurgency in Iraq would be on the long end of the spectrum 10-12 years especially given external influences.
The military was sent to do a diplomat's job I will admit...but to claim that they aren't pathetically failing at that job would be a lie.
Depends on your definition of failure. As I mentioned before if you are looking for total security, or that they convince all the various political interests to stop fighting, then yes they are failing at impossible expectations. If you are looking for a certain degree of security defined strategically, then they are doing a good job. In either case, they are not being slapped around by the opposition.
A young man, armed only with a whip, travels to Dracula's castle to destroy Dracula.
(I love these games. But... they are going to have to embelish a little...)
Indiana Jones - a young man armed with a whip goes looking for ancient treasure.... oh he hates snakes - is that what you mean by embelishment?
Oh yeah, because everyone knows there are no civilian casualties in Iraq from US military actions. Civilian casualties are civilian casualties, be it from terrorism, military invasion, ethnic cleansing, whatever. The innocent are just as dead.
As we know there were no civilian casualties in any other wars. Is it murder just because it is a war you don't agree with, as opposed to NATO attacks in Bosnia, French attacks in the Ivory Coast, and UN attacks in Haiti?
We can feel empathy for a machine that's doing us a favor -- but in reality has no feelings -- while simultaneously dehumazing whole groups of people who only differ from ourselves culturally and/or geographically.
Not really that strange, it's basic survival instinct. We feel empathy for those we feel will help us survive, and we dehumanize those who we feel threaten us.
War is caused by two factors: (1) a psychopath manages to become dictator, or (2) you can realize a significant material gain from invading your neighbour
Those are both side effects. War is caused by a society feeling threatened (a) Economically or (b) Philosophically. In response to that fear a society will grant power to extremists who have the "solution," typically a scapegoat (Jews, Terrorists, Drugs, Canada, etc.)
In this they are just borrowing a page from our distinguished gentlepersons in the administration, who feel that breaking ANY law is fine if you're working on the whole terrorism problem.
Or from the/. crowd, you can't stop information sharing because "information wants to be free"
If you think DRM is bad now, think of it in a world where there are no restrictions on copying. If there are no legal protections to prevent me from copying your work, the only possible restrictions are technological.
There's always EULAs that give legal protections. In an environment where EULA's are the only protection, I'd expect them to develop into something that can definately be enforced (think along the lines of having to actually sign paperwork). You'll also see more vertical monopolies - companies owning software, hardware, & media formats (a la Sony), or software offered as a service (a la MMOs). I also see no compelling reason to abolish copyright. It won't spark more people to develop freely since if that is what you want to do now there is nothing stopping you. Those creating just for profit will just stop creating so you won't access the material anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes the teachers are all part of a great conspiracy, rather than just being morons.
For me I enjoyed Firefly at first, then it started to wear on me until it felt like the A-team in space.
I have seen the future, and it's direct to DVD
The Constitution is a social contract that outlines the rights agreed upon by society. A different society may have a different set of rights, for example the right to bear arms is not one that is universally shared.
A tiny cubicle may inspire more detail oriented thinking, but may have the consequence of lowering productivity because of other psychological effects.
A scapegoat doesn't necessarily need to be benign.
Thanks to copyright law, you need to add 20 pages of legalese to actually allow anybody else to use the code.
I agree. Further, a smart man would have realized the insurgency in Iraq would be on the long end of the spectrum 10-12 years especially given external influences.
Depends on your definition of failure. As I mentioned before if you are looking for total security, or that they convince all the various political interests to stop fighting, then yes they are failing at impossible expectations. If you are looking for a certain degree of security defined strategically, then they are doing a good job. In either case, they are not being slapped around by the opposition.
War is caused by a society feeling threatened (a) Economically or (b) Philosophically. In response to that fear a society will grant power to extremists who have the "solution," typically a scapegoat (Jews, Terrorists, Drugs, Canada, etc.)
You'll also see more vertical monopolies - companies owning software, hardware, & media formats (a la Sony), or software offered as a service (a la MMOs).
I also see no compelling reason to abolish copyright. It won't spark more people to develop freely since if that is what you want to do now there is nothing stopping you. Those creating just for profit will just stop creating so you won't access the material anyway.