Since TJ was pretty much a party of Marbury v. Madison (He was Madison's boss at the time), I wouldn't be surprised that he said that. But I would ask how else does one determine the constitutionality of statutes?
For the past sixty years or more, judicial despotism has increased until now, you have governors and legislators of states waiting to see what some court will rule on an issue before they can proceed.
And this is a bad thing? The Founding Fathers may not have intended that judicial review be so broad, but what alternative did they provide?
I fully expect - and hope - that Pres. Bush will tell the Court to go mind its own business in regard to the Gitmo detainees, for instance, just as the Court told ITSELF to do in 1942 when the same sorts of habeas suits were brought on behalf of LEGITIMATE prisoners of war.
The President swears (or affirms) to uphold the Constitution. If not the Court, then who makes sure that he does?
I know that the Left is used to having it this way, but it's a new development, this depending upon a despotism inherent in yet another 5-4 decision to ignore the will of the people and their elected representatives.
The US is a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. If what people want is unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of the Court to ignore the will of the people. Also, when the Court ruled that certain acts by FDR were unconstitutional, it was neither a new nor a leftist development.
Just as an "activist court" has arrogated far too much power to itself, it's time for an "activist President" to take it back.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps both the President and the Court have too much power.
We might have had many operating systems, but would the average consumer care less about computers? Would people be indifferent to the Amigas and Ataris?
Senator Obama is crushing Senator McCain in that regard. Also, it is Obama who is refusing public financing, and McCain who cosponsored Feingold-McCain.
When I needed a free email service, the only other one I could find was Google mail, which required a phone number (I didn'thave a phone at the time). Hence, Hotmail.
Are Gates and Ballmer that critical to Microsoft that the software giant would not be profitable without them? Its stock price might take a hit if the two left, but would there be lasting damage?
(Note: I am an American, and basing my views on educational bureaucracy from that perspective)
Learn in or out of the class? Learn with or without structure?
I was speaking of outside of class. As for structure, why do you believe that structure requires an imposed curriculum, or that students need such structure at all?
Educational systems are flawed, but I am quite skeptical that throwing computers at a bunch of kids while removing teachers from the equation will make them better off. OLPC needs to prove that its solution is beneficial. Heads of state and heads of educational systems don't want to throw good money after bad. Is it indicative of a problem with education? Maybe it is, but I have minimal proof to confirm or deny something on such a grand scale.
Why is the burden of proof on OLPC? As for not throwing good money after bad, I believe that heads of state and educational bureaucracies are perfectly capable of throwing good money after bad even without OLPC. And would it remove teachers?
Say what? Instead of relying on the huge diverse locales of the developing world that cater to the multitude of cultures, peoples, learning styles, etc. we should rely on the one ivory tower of Nicholas Negroponte and Company? I don't really know what's considered educational bureaucracy...everybody's particulars vary. OLPC is not bureaucracy free, either. It is certainly not without its own disfunctionalities as well. I choose to remain skeptical, but at the same time hope for the best.
I don't believe that OLPC was ever meant to replace schools, but only to supplement them. And I'm not impressed with my nation's educational establishment's ability to deal with learning styles. OLPC may have its own dysfunctionalities, but I believe that it is better to have many organizations, each with its own particular failings, than to rely on a single educational bureaucracy.
Problem is, how do you integrate these devices into curricula?
You don't. You simply let the children learn with them.
How do you prove to teachers that integrating these devices into curricula is beneficial?
Has it ever occurred to you that that question is indicative of a problem with education? What if the curriculum is the problem? Or more precisely, the belief that the best way to educate children is to have teachers impose curricula on them?
One size fits all solutions just don't exist. I have yet to find a good baseball cap that stays on my head;-).
Which is exactly why we need to rely more on OLPC and less on educational bureaucracy.
Diamonds are formed by tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms. Tetrahedrally bonded silicon atoms form quartz, which I do not believe is used much in computing equipment.
The poster's use of "Fisher Price OS" may be over the top, but much of the post makes sense. One of everything? So we have to choose between emacs and vi, KDE and GNOME, bash and csh, perl and python, and many others. What may be best for one user might not be best for another. Also, having "redundant" apps may help security/efficiency.
Shouldn't the php scripts be executed by the server, on the server? What is the point of having php scripts on your site if your server isn't running them?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I thought that with increased complexity you'd want more coordination and centralized control, not less.
So did the former Soviet Union. Why do you believe that coordination requires centralizedcontrol?
Perhaps I should have mentioned older children as well. Also,are the things you mentioned really a good substitute for "classic" books?
Since TJ was pretty much a party of Marbury v. Madison (He was Madison's boss at the time), I wouldn't be surprised that he said that. But I would ask how else does one determine the constitutionality of statutes?
For the past sixty years or more, judicial despotism has increased until now, you have governors and legislators of states waiting to see what some court will rule on an issue before they can proceed.
And this is a bad thing? The Founding Fathers may not have intended that judicial review be so broad, but what alternative did they provide?
I fully expect - and hope - that Pres. Bush will tell the Court to go mind its own business in regard to the Gitmo detainees, for instance, just as the Court told ITSELF to do in 1942 when the same sorts of habeas suits were brought on behalf of LEGITIMATE prisoners of war.
The President swears (or affirms) to uphold the Constitution. If not the Court, then who makes sure that he does?
I know that the Left is used to having it this way, but it's a new development, this depending upon a despotism inherent in yet another 5-4 decision to ignore the will of the people and their elected representatives.
The US is a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. If what people want is unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of the Court to ignore the will of the people. Also, when the Court ruled that certain acts by FDR were unconstitutional, it was neither a new nor a leftist development.
Just as an "activist court" has arrogated far too much power to itself, it's time for an "activist President" to take it back.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps both the President and the Court have too much power.
What about children who might be interested in science?
And you're not a fan boy?
We might have had many operating systems, but would the average consumer care less about computers? Would people be indifferent to the Amigas and Ataris?
Also, I hope it only excluded "tits" when referring to breasts, as opposed to the bird
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_(bird)
Senator Obama is crushing Senator McCain in that regard. Also, it is Obama who is refusing public financing, and McCain who cosponsored Feingold-McCain.
Did his programming help him understand the software business? I hate to think how much money Knuth could have made.
Thanks to Microsoft we now have your grandma planning her round the world trip on Google Earth and poking you on Facebook, for better or for worse.
Without BSD, there would not have been a modern internet over which she could have done such things.
"Why are FireFox users using Hotmail?"
When I needed a free email service, the only other one I could find was Google mail, which required a phone number (I didn'thave a phone at the time). Hence, Hotmail.
Are you expecting the government to enforce those those contracts?
Are Gates and Ballmer that critical to Microsoft that the software giant would not be profitable without them? Its stock price might take a hit if the two left, but would there be lasting damage?
Wasn't Snowball Lenin?
(Note: I am an American, and basing my views on educational bureaucracy from that perspective)
Learn in or out of the class? Learn with or without structure?
I was speaking of outside of class. As for structure, why do you believe that structure requires an imposed curriculum, or that students need such structure at all?
Educational systems are flawed, but I am quite skeptical that throwing computers at a bunch of kids while removing teachers from the equation will make them better off. OLPC needs to prove that its solution is beneficial. Heads of state and heads of educational systems don't want to throw good money after bad. Is it indicative of a problem with education? Maybe it is, but I have minimal proof to confirm or deny something on such a grand scale.
Why is the burden of proof on OLPC? As for not throwing good money after bad, I believe that heads of state and educational bureaucracies are perfectly capable of throwing good money after
bad even without OLPC. And would it remove teachers?
Say what? Instead of relying on the huge diverse locales of the developing world that cater to the multitude of cultures, peoples, learning styles, etc. we should rely on the one ivory tower of Nicholas Negroponte and Company? I don't really know what's considered educational bureaucracy...everybody's particulars vary. OLPC is not bureaucracy free, either. It is certainly not without its own disfunctionalities as well. I choose to remain skeptical, but at the same time hope for the best.
I don't believe that OLPC was ever meant to replace schools, but only to supplement them. And I'm not impressed with my nation's educational establishment's ability to deal with learning styles. OLPC may have its own dysfunctionalities, but I believe that it is better to have many organizations, each with its own particular failings, than to rely on a single educational bureaucracy.
Problem is, how do you integrate these devices into curricula?
;-).
You don't. You simply let the children learn with them.
How do you prove to teachers that integrating these devices into curricula is beneficial?
Has it ever occurred to you that that question is indicative of a problem with education? What if the curriculum is the problem? Or more precisely, the belief that the best way to educate children is to have teachers impose curricula on them?
One size fits all solutions just don't exist. I have yet to find a good baseball cap that stays on my head
Which is exactly why we need to rely more on OLPC and less on educational bureaucracy.
Thank you.
I didn't have libflashplayer.so in the "correct" directory. Also, it still has problems.
Diamonds are formed by tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms. Tetrahedrally bonded silicon atoms form quartz, which I do not believe is used much in computing equipment.
as much a part of the marriage ceremony as the white dress, wows and all that.
This is Slashdot.
Canadians say "Aluminum" instead of "Aluminium"? And maybe you should have thought of that before surrendering at Yorktown. Also, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population the majority of native English speakers are American.
I use Flash with Firefox (I'm on youtube now), but I browse Slashdot with Konqueror, which as far as I know, doesn't support Flash.
Wouldn't it be nongoodthinkful to eliminate prolefeed?
The poster's use of "Fisher Price OS" may be over the top, but much of the post makes sense. One of everything? So we have to choose between emacs and vi, KDE and GNOME, bash and csh, perl and python, and many others. What may be best for one user might not be best for another. Also, having "redundant" apps may help security/efficiency.
Shouldn't the php scripts be executed by the server, on the server? What is the point of having php scripts on your site if your server isn't running them?