Is that what you got out of what I said? I was never advocating government taking over for parents - I was mad because parents are not doing their job and working with the school systems. Parents are actively preventing the school systems from functioning by challenging the way teachers are educating. If these parents don't like it, they should pull their kids from school since these are the same kids who are creating all the problems.
Please quote from my post where I suggested that the role of a parent should be replaced by the government.
I'll probably be marked a troll for having these types of thoughts but it doesn't matter. I think this is a valid point of view and I'd rather put it out there for others to discuss.
From the article:
""Our belief is these children have never done anything to give up some of their civil rights. They've never done anything wrong, and they're being tracked," said Michelle Tatro who along with her husband, Jeff, wrote a formal complaint to the school board protesting the program."
Perhaps Michelle Tatro might want to get a little education herself. You have no right to privacy in a public school system. To believe that children have a right to privacy is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of what rights a citizen has in a public space. Furthermore, this is indicative of the larger problem facing public schools in the United States. Parents are no longer on the side of teachers and the administration. It is a battle with the parents believing that their child can do no wrong and everyone is out to get that child. The problem is that when parents complain about a teacher being strict with students, the administration crumbles and the teacher loses all authority in the eyes of the students. All this, to avoid law suits. Parents who think Little Johnny is an angel, would never do anything wrong, and the reason he can't read or write is because the teachers are not doing their job [not because the parents offer no reinforcement or punishment for a child who refuses to take part in his or her role in the education system] are the root cause of the failing education system. Be fearful and send your children to private institutions.
On a personal note, I know someone who works in an inner city school and the stories I hear are simply awful. People who have no business being within a mile of children are spawning at unhealthy rates. This is for a number of reasons but one is because there is a culture in this country that seeks not to judge anyone. Well guess what - I will. If you're a single mother, you made a mistake. I don't support your decision and I think the world would be a better place if abortions were forced upon you. Just the other night I saw on the news a 19 year old girl who had 3 children and was being brought up on child neglect charges. It is simply sickening. Society, as a whole, needs to tell these swine that if you have that many children and that young of an age, you are the scum of the Earth and the planet would be better off without you. I am sick and tired of supporting someone else's mistake. And of course, those 3 children will grow up to either steal my car, have children they can't support just like their mother, or both.
"Its just a matter of letting them know how serious it is. Most people aren't dumb. If you tell them not to hit the button that will blow them up, they wont hit it. You just have to tell them (a couple of times)!"
But all you've done is train them not to use IE. You haven't provided them with any information about how to run a secure system and how to avoid Spyware. Sure, tell them not to install Kazaa and hide IE from them. What happens when Firefox asks if they want to install some plugin and, as most users will do, they just click okay without even reading the entirety of the message?
A person who knows nothing about security running IE will quickly run into trouble. A person who knows nothing about security running Firefox is going to run into trouble in the long term.
If you're going to take on the role of educator, don't just show them some rules and say why it has to be this way. Explain to them the thought behind it so that they can run the computer on their own. Similar to teaching someone how to fish instead of giving them a fish to eat, you shouldn't just say "Here's Firefox - no worries." because it's simply not correct.
And if you're under the impression that nothing can go wrong with Firefox, perhaps you should hire someone to teach you a thing or two.
That perpetuates the problem of clueless users. Teach them that it is their responsibility to take care of their computer. Don't tell them - "Oh, I set this up and everything will get done automatically." That's not helping anyone because they still won't have any respect for the amount of effort that needs to go into both maintaining and repairing a system. That, in turn, just leads to more broken systems out there for a variety of reasons.
Oh, you should charge less since you're obviously not providing much service if you won't even explain to a person why they need to run Windows Update.
But as much as you tell them that you're not going to fix any future problems without compensation, they're going to come to you and blame you for not telling them exactly how to avoid the future fuck-up.
Again, I am not arguing that it is impossible to setup a situation where you are compensated and don't have people hassling you constantly. I am saying that it is a lot more hassle than it is worth. Presumably the person asking the question has a job - trying to make money on the side from computer repair does not bring in enough money to be worthwhile if you've got a moderate salary. And besides, as soon as you take money from friends for computer repair, they're going to want money from you for favors. Don't do business with friends.
Reconsider getting into this. Here's the issue: as soon as you
take money, you are the guy who was paid to fix the computer.
At that point, when you walk out the door, the person is going
to immediately install a bunch of Spyware and basically undo
all your hard work. As much as you attempt to educate them, they
will. Then, they call you back and expect you to come right over
and fix it "right." In their mind, they paid you to fix the computer
and the computer doesn't work. And, if you do decide to fix it again,
even for another fee, at that point they will be demanding your
help at a time that is not convenient.
My rule is that I will fix friends and family members computers
if I happen to have the time and they clearly appreciate my help
and don't see it as my obligation. If they offer to pay me,
I'll ask for a dinner sometime or just a case of Bass beer.
Trust me, taking money is more hassle than it will be worth.
If Michael had a problem with my wording, [which he obviously did], he should have reworded it the way he liked it and posted it without attributing it to me. This is not a typical editor situation. He can feel free to edit whatever he likes but I do not appreciate the false quotes he attributes to me.
And just because that's the way Slashdot has always operated does not mean it should operate that way. If Michael doesn't like the wording, Michael should not change the words and then still claim that those words are the ones submitted. I would have been perfectly happy if he had simply posted his own summary and never mentioned my name. I will be emailing Rob Malda about this to see why exactly this "news service" is attributing false quotes to me.
I'd like it noted that in my original submission, there were no quotation marks around the word revealed. I find it disgusting that michael would change my submission and still attribute it to me.
1. He said "all American magazines"
2. He wanted technical information from "all American magazines."
Using the above, we can see that he was using the definition of technical meaning Belonging or relating to a particular subject:. Therefore, the New Yorker has technical information on the arts. The question is - how has the New Yorker [a noted American magazine] been dumbed down.
After all, according to the poster, all American magazines have been dumbed down.
Wow - all American magazines are dumbed down? You do realize that the word "all" has some meaning, right? Perhaps in the particular field of magazines you are talking about, there has been a dumbing down of the articles but does that mean that all American magazines have been dumbed down?
Tell me, how has the New Yorker been significantly "dumbed down" from the version of the New Yorker produced in the 90s? Please cite specific articles. Thank you.
Yeah? What are you going to do if you see such an item for sale? Please describe the action you are going to take to verify that it is yours and how you're going to get it back. I didn't say it was impossible that it would end up on eBay. It is impossible that you'll ever be able to get it back in that manner.
"Well, a Handera 330 for auction, without the box, cradle, or charging cable, in Europe, would be a decent indication. It was stolen in Ireland."
Yeah? What are you going to do if you see such an item for sale? Please describe the action you are going to take to verify that it is yours and how you're going to get it back. I didn't say it was impossible that it would end up on eBay. It is impossible that you'll ever be able to get it back in that manner.
"Gee, I had the same feeling about your "STFW" comment.:->"
Yes but I am smarter than you so my thoughts on your comments hold more weight.
"so no, as a bittorrent user, you cannot be VERY selective about your involvement in the distribution of the file(s)."
Yes you can. Don't take part in a torrent of a copyrighted file. Only choose to join a torrent of public domain files. Yeah...that's really tough, right?
Don't be so pompous when you're trying to rationalize breaking copyright law.
"Was he even a seed? Or was he just downloading them?"
Two separate questions. Let's suppose he wasn't a seed - downloading from the torrent means he was uploading to others as well as downloading for himself. That's the way bittorrent works.
So tell me - why is it a bad thing? He was supplying copyrighted material to others in violation of the law. Don't like copyright law? Get it changed, don't break it.
You think you're going to spot yours on eBay? And how would you verify it was yours? Ask the seller for the serial number?
Come on, keeping your eye on eBay is probably the dumbest comment posted in reply to your rather trite question [and that's an accomplishment, looking at the other comments]. By the way - your comments in reply to the other comments in this article are rather bitchy and whiney.
Killing is the wrong word to use AND the people who are being "abused" in both the situations you describe are making decisions of their own free will. Sorry, I'm not crying any tears for them.
"My impression is that the typical techie/nerd is a lot more free with his money than the walmart crowd..."
Oh, that's nice. Considering that Walmart is one of the largest retailers in the U.S., the "Walmart crowd" [as you call them] is composed of more than the "NASCAR/strip-bar demographic". So, let's first assume that you believe that the Walmart crowd is more enticing to advertisers than techies. This is just wrong. What are the majority of adverts on television for? I'll tell you what - it's not cold cathode kits or books on Linux or programmable robots. Thus, the Walmart crowd is more attractive because that crowd caters to more mainstream advertisers and, since more advertisers are competing for time slots, there is more competition for time. Next, let's assume that you're only comparing this "NASCAR/strip-bar demographic" to the techie crowd. Looking at this survey it appears that NASCAR fans are much more loyal to those who sponsor programs they watch - very enticing to retailers. Can you find a similar study to say the same thing for the techie crowd? Another article shows that major companies such as AOL, Chevron, DEWALT, DuPont, Kodak, Lowes, Nabisco, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Rubbermaid, SMIRNOFF ICE TRIPLE BLACKTM, Subway, UPS, Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford all advertise at NASCAR events. What advertisers line up to advertise to a techie crowd? Based on TechTV's old adverts, it seems that shoddy 2 year schools that give associate's degrees in IT are going to be the main crowd for such an audience. Furthermore, as demonstrated, the major car companies [who spend an incredible amount on advertising each year] already know and are comfortable with the so-called NASCAR demographic.
Go ahead and generalize about the "NASCAR/strip-bar demographic" all you like but you should know that you're wrong.
What about the arts and crafts? You said my examples didn't fit but only showed how the fishing channel may have not been an adequate example.
Re:another step in the wrong direction
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Really? Then why have other "hobby" channels had success? Wouldn't people want to be outside fishing rather than watch fishing on television? Wouldn't people want to be doing arts and crafts rather than watching it on television? Take your "keen business sense" and shove it up your ass you moron.
Re:Nothing good can come out of anything G4...
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"X-play got moved for hideously awful shows"
XPlay was moved to 11:00 and the show's name changed to XPlay [previously: Extreme Play] before Comcast purchased TechTV.
"Please, give us back our TechTv! Leo, Patrick, Adam, Morgan! We need more of these people!"
You need them. I don't need minor cable celebrities in my life. Go read a book.
Re:another step in the wrong direction
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
" Obviously G4 didn't learn anything when they lost most of their fan base. G4 buying Tech TV was the worst thing to happen in ages."
It must be Comcast's belief that the potential audience of gamers is greater than the audience of "technology enthusiasts" [for lack of a better term]. I think this may just be correct but the question is whether the gaming audience will show up.
"Now they are going further away from the right thing."
Keep in mind that it is the right thing according to you and you are one person. Comcast is not going to cater individually to your interests and they must believe that the gaming audience is larger or a more compelling demographic for advertisers than the old audience was. Can you argue otherwise?
"G4 has ruined everything they ever made me believe in (TechTV that is)."
Oh my god - get over it. TechTV had some okay shows but a lot of them were just half hour commercials for the latest gadget and many others were so dumbed down as to be completely useless. Don't romanticize TechTV so much - it was a g.d. cable station, not a renaissance.
"It's a foot and a half (38cm) tall and weighs five pounds (2.4kg)!"
IT does not exist. They said they'd be creating this football player as a descendent of the robot you cite. It is intellectually dishonest to reply with such an answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Please quote from my post where I suggested that the role of a parent should be replaced by the government.
From the article:
Perhaps Michelle Tatro might want to get a little education herself. You have no right to privacy in a public school system. To believe that children have a right to privacy is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of what rights a citizen has in a public space. Furthermore, this is indicative of the larger problem facing public schools in the United States. Parents are no longer on the side of teachers and the administration. It is a battle with the parents believing that their child can do no wrong and everyone is out to get that child. The problem is that when parents complain about a teacher being strict with students, the administration crumbles and the teacher loses all authority in the eyes of the students. All this, to avoid law suits. Parents who think Little Johnny is an angel, would never do anything wrong, and the reason he can't read or write is because the teachers are not doing their job [not because the parents offer no reinforcement or punishment for a child who refuses to take part in his or her role in the education system] are the root cause of the failing education system. Be fearful and send your children to private institutions.On a personal note, I know someone who works in an inner city school and the stories I hear are simply awful. People who have no business being within a mile of children are spawning at unhealthy rates. This is for a number of reasons but one is because there is a culture in this country that seeks not to judge anyone. Well guess what - I will. If you're a single mother, you made a mistake. I don't support your decision and I think the world would be a better place if abortions were forced upon you. Just the other night I saw on the news a 19 year old girl who had 3 children and was being brought up on child neglect charges. It is simply sickening. Society, as a whole, needs to tell these swine that if you have that many children and that young of an age, you are the scum of the Earth and the planet would be better off without you. I am sick and tired of supporting someone else's mistake. And of course, those 3 children will grow up to either steal my car, have children they can't support just like their mother, or both.
GO forth and judge others.
If you're downloading from a torrent, you're distributing it at the same time you are downloading it.
A person who knows nothing about security running IE will quickly run into trouble. A person who knows nothing about security running Firefox is going to run into trouble in the long term.
If you're going to take on the role of educator, don't just show them some rules and say why it has to be this way. Explain to them the thought behind it so that they can run the computer on their own. Similar to teaching someone how to fish instead of giving them a fish to eat, you shouldn't just say "Here's Firefox - no worries." because it's simply not correct.
And if you're under the impression that nothing can go wrong with Firefox, perhaps you should hire someone to teach you a thing or two.
Oh, you should charge less since you're obviously not providing much service if you won't even explain to a person why they need to run Windows Update.
Again, I am not arguing that it is impossible to setup a situation where you are compensated and don't have people hassling you constantly. I am saying that it is a lot more hassle than it is worth. Presumably the person asking the question has a job - trying to make money on the side from computer repair does not bring in enough money to be worthwhile if you've got a moderate salary. And besides, as soon as you take money from friends for computer repair, they're going to want money from you for favors. Don't do business with friends.
My rule is that I will fix friends and family members computers if I happen to have the time and they clearly appreciate my help and don't see it as my obligation. If they offer to pay me, I'll ask for a dinner sometime or just a case of Bass beer.
Trust me, taking money is more hassle than it will be worth.
And just because that's the way Slashdot has always operated does not mean it should operate that way. If Michael doesn't like the wording, Michael should not change the words and then still claim that those words are the ones submitted. I would have been perfectly happy if he had simply posted his own summary and never mentioned my name. I will be emailing Rob Malda about this to see why exactly this "news service" is attributing false quotes to me.
He should be fired.
2. He wanted technical information from "all American magazines."
Using the above, we can see that he was using the definition of technical meaning Belonging or relating to a particular subject:. Therefore, the New Yorker has technical information on the arts. The question is - how has the New Yorker [a noted American magazine] been dumbed down.
After all, according to the poster, all American magazines have been dumbed down.
Tell me, how has the New Yorker been significantly "dumbed down" from the version of the New Yorker produced in the 90s? Please cite specific articles. Thank you.
Yeah? What are you going to do if you see such an item for sale? Please describe the action you are going to take to verify that it is yours and how you're going to get it back. I didn't say it was impossible that it would end up on eBay. It is impossible that you'll ever be able to get it back in that manner.
Don't be so pompous when you're trying to rationalize breaking copyright law.
So tell me - why is it a bad thing? He was supplying copyrighted material to others in violation of the law. Don't like copyright law? Get it changed, don't break it.
Come on, keeping your eye on eBay is probably the dumbest comment posted in reply to your rather trite question [and that's an accomplishment, looking at the other comments]. By the way - your comments in reply to the other comments in this article are rather bitchy and whiney.
I'll sell you yours back for $100.
Killing is the wrong word to use AND the people who are being "abused" in both the situations you describe are making decisions of their own free will. Sorry, I'm not crying any tears for them.
Go ahead and generalize about the "NASCAR/strip-bar demographic" all you like but you should know that you're wrong.
What about the arts and crafts? You said my examples didn't fit but only showed how the fishing channel may have not been an adequate example.
Really? Then why have other "hobby" channels had success? Wouldn't people want to be outside fishing rather than watch fishing on television? Wouldn't people want to be doing arts and crafts rather than watching it on television? Take your "keen business sense" and shove it up your ass you moron.