You mean, the attack on Saddam's regime, following his invasion of a neighboring country and his unwillingness to ever adhere to the terms of his surrender as his forces were pushed back into his own country? That attack? And are you by any chance referring to the attack on the Taliban, who had murderously overtaken Afghanistan - to the considerable misery of the locals - and who were aggressively harboring the group that planned and executed attacks on embaassies and facilities in places all around the world, including the 9/11 events? That Taliban? Ask most Afghanis if they were really pleased, or not, to have their school teachers dragged into the town square (now peacefully free of heretic activities like kite flying and music playing) and shot in the head by the guys who want to see not just the middle east, but the entire world tuned up to their medieval specs. If the US wanted to "attack Afghanistan," the whole place would be a glass parking lot right now. Instead, our troops get killed because of way-crazy ROEs, in the interests of protecting the very people that the Taliban have no problem slaughtering just to make a point.
branding Iran as a terrorist state
So, you have no problem with them being a repressive, terrorist-sponsoring state, you just don't want anyone to call them on it?
Nonsense. The only way a record label has any influence over how much an artist gets from a sale is if the artist chooses to have a third party run that part of their business. As folks here are so fond of pointing out, all sorts of creative people are finding that they can do it themselves. This is exactly why there are so many small labels launched by artists. Of course it's no surprise that a lot of them realize how helpful it is to join up with other similar businesses so that they can all save some money on things like legal issues and lobbying. You know... like forming a trade association. Or joining one that already exists.
Still: do you really think that copyrights are a myth? Please do a little reading so that you don't confuse an artist's copyrights with a label's copyrights once an artist as elected to sign them over in exchange for other services. That's a completely optional, voluntary thing that some artists choose to do. Some authors self-publish, and some would rather let a publishing house handle a bunch of editing, marketing, and legal issues for them in exchange for a formal relationship. Same thing. Don't like it? Do it a different way, as so many people do.
The fact that you don't like how many artists choose to let large publishing houses handle their businness dealings doesn't change the fact that creative works are subject to copyright law through their creators' very act of creating them. That's not a myth, it's the basic facts.
Doesn't this just emphasize the incredible injustice of the American justice system?
No.
Giant corporations get legal protection
No. Anyone who writes a song enjoys the benefits being the copyright holder. Just as true of garage bands that publish their own stuff as it is for recording artists that strike a deal with a record label (no matter how tiny or how large) that happens to be a member of a trade association like the RIAA. The studios and labels that are members of the RIAA aren't getting legal protections, they're just actually acting to enforce the very same protections that you'd have, this minute, if you wrote a song yourself.
waste millions fighting pointless legal battles
It's pointless to take a stand against being ripped off? Is it better just to throw your hands up and let people walk all over you? Should retail stores just fire the guards they'd otherwise use to prevent a stream of shoplifters from leaching the store's shelves? If a store catches some twit stealing a $75 MP3 player, should they hold off on pressing charges if it will cost the store $100, or $1,000 in their own legal costs? Perhaps they have an interest in reminding a wider audience that they're not willing to be perpetually ripped off?
Isn't this an example of a corporate entity literally buying the law in some way?
No. Anyone who creates a work automatically owns the copyrights, and can register their works and pursue infringing parties who rip them off. If you actually register your works with the copyright office and have a slam-dunk case against an obvious infringer, you'll have no problem finding legal representation willing to work on a contingency. Go get 'em. No "buying the law" involved, anyway, since the laws governing this are all well in place.
A datacenter running on its own renewables would be doing something like growing trees on the roof and then burning them, or using waste heat to drive algae scum units and then oil-ifying them, etc. Otherwise you are harvesting/harnessing other sources of energy (wind, solor) or simply pumping your energy into the ground, which you are thus warming up (geothermal cooling). Wind and solar are not renewable per se, they're merely abundant and not terribly efficient to use.
Here's some money for a crappy computer... why aren't you doing better?
What's your point? That giving them five times as much money for a loaded machine, complete with a dual GPU gaming video card and a glowing blue power supply will somehow make the kid's parents better at raising a kid? That a faster machine or more screen resolution will magically create critical thinking habits, creativity, or a longer attention span? That understanding causality, better parsing of complex sentences, abstract thinking using symbols in place of real numbers, and all of those other useful things either work, or don't, based on CPU speed, the amount of RAM you have, or how many USB ports?
Or is it possible that a kid living in a household that doesn't have the culture, or the inclination, or the time dedicated to being a thoughtful, inquisitive person sees being handed a computer (any computer) as getting just another form of distracting entertainment? It's not about how "crappy" the computer is, it's about how crappy the kid's household culture is.
Unless you're a Republican. Then every policy is political. Because all government is socialism, which is evil.
Nice straw man, there. Might as well say "And of course, if you're a Democrat, anyone attempting to in any way manage their own affairs or provide for themselves is unacceptably trying to avoid the benign stewardship of their betters in the government. And any move in any direction that doesn't increase the size, power, and intrusiveness of government into every aspect of life is... um... Capitalism and stuff, which is evil." Just as ridiculous as your characterization.
As for your policy point: there is not "just making policy on some knowledge" that somehow magically happens without a political context, because any such policy must involve a change from one way of doing things to another. And if that involves everyone, then it by definition involves some mechanism by which to enforce that policy change, which means arriving at a voted-upon family of penalties for not behaving according to the new policy. If the new policy has no prospect of actually being put to work, it's pointless. Any any policy that has teeth is by necessity only going to come into existence through politcal means. And any rational, adult person who is proposing a specific policy knows this, and discusses it in that practical, real context.
This is especially true when the point of the policy is to modify the global economy by changing the way trillions of dollars of activities take place while specifically describing those changes in ways that will force them upon some people, but not on others. Such policies are marinated in politics before their proponents even so much as utter notions about them out loud for the first time.
Or even worse, amateurs who do not know how to read the data using it to 'prove' nonsense
Yeah, crazy stuff like how the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in just years. Nusto stuff like that, being pushed by unskilled cranks, right?
If the data's solid (and hasn't been tossed out already, as Jones did with his), then it's easy enough to straighten out the bad conclusions by third parties. Insisting that you don't wish to be bothered with that, even as the conclusions you do put out there are going to be used to drive trillions of dollars worth of policy decisions - that's the height of elitist snobbery and arrogant BS.
Doing things in creative and different ways is not acceptable for whatever reason...
In the context of assembling large, expensive pieces of heavy machinery with moving parts, that's so that you don't have to hire highly creative lawyers to deal with work injury claims or other lawsuits that the company might lose because another lawyer can easily establish the fact that the company doesn't have a stable set of procedures.
If you want to change how it's done, make a persuasive business case for getting you into management. If you're right, you can point out how your preferred approach is better for the bottom line in every respect (not just a bit faster from the perspective of the workers in one department).
Re:Thank God for standardized testing
on
The Creativity Crisis
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There is no creativity required or recommended on these exams
So what? School only lasts a few hours a day. What are you doing for the hours, days, and months between classes to actually make a difference? Creativity is fostered in a big-picture way. Kids will bring creativity to their school work and opportunities if it's a solid part of the environment and circumstances in which they're raised.
Creativity is declining because parents are washing their hands of the responsibility to shape the minds of their own kids. You don't get an inquisitive, creative mind at school - you arrive at school with one.
It's so diculous, it's ridiculous twice! It's re-diculous. Not to ridicule, of course.
As for connecting things to private networks: read. This is done in cooperation with private network owners that agree it's a good idea, considering what they're operating/protecting. You're not being forced, on your own network, to have anything to do with it.
Majority wins and not just the vocal (or rich) minority
The problem is that the majority wants free stuff, and wants it now. Just like in California, they (the majority, by referendum) paint themselves into a corner financially, and then see taxing the productive minority of the population as the only way out. The problem with non-productive, confiscatory majorities is that they eventually run out of people to take things from.
The director didn't say that this was about getting the Muslim culture to participate in international space programs. He said it was about "making them feel good" about their history, relative to science, math, and engineering.
You're so quick to believe this because it confirms your biases
Actually, no. What I'm doing is pointing out the specific things that he said. There's no "believe" involved. So, which is worse, then? That he really was told what he says he was told, or that he runs NASA, and would lie to the public about what (his words here) the president tasked him with doing? It's one or the other, neither of which is a good thing. Either he's telling the truth (which makes his boss seem like a fatuous twit), or he's lying (which makes his boss, the guy who appointed him to the job, seem like he's made a really poor choice).
It's awfully credulous of right-wingers to immediately take this at face value, considering that they've spent the last year-and-a-half denouncing everyone who even considered voting for Obama as delusional, besotted fools.
Yes, well, just watch the video so you can relax about all of that. The director seems quite sincere in his description of what the president told him about his three new priorities (of which the "make Muslims feel better about themselves" was the "foremost").
Trollish? How is linking video of NASA's director saying the actual words trollish? How can you not find it outrageous that the guy running NASA is being used in this ridiculous way? Do you really find this sort of crap to be in keeping with NASA's role and purpose? Do you really think that billions of Muslims will like the US more if we tell them how think about themselves and their history? Oh, and nice straw man there, with the whole Obama-secret-Muslim thing. Way to deflect from the incredible hamfisted-ness and tone deaf condescension on display from the administration.
No, this isn't even close to how screwed NASA is getting. Just check out what NASA's director says is Obama's foremost task for his agency: it's really fun.
Glad to see they got this done and available before NASA had to shift its mission over to the administration's new priority for the agency. After all, what could be more important than a condescending, platitudinous mission (the foremost mission, says NASA's director) to boost the self esteem of a specific religious culture?
Maybe... it will push NASA and Obama to rethink their scaling back on the space program
No need! Obama has already given NASA a brand new top priority. According to NASA's director, the agency's foremost (his word) objective is now to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." No, really. That is the director's new top priority. Really.
successful (wealth-accumulating)... PERFORMING music like the minstrels of yore
Yeah, those Olde Time Minstrels really knew how to build a fortune. I mean, it's easier to name the minstrels that didn't get wealthy than it is to name all of the ones that did, right? You bet!
It's sort of like today, when the wealthiest, most successful creative people in the world are all in bar bands.
Slashdot Mirror
the stupid attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan
You mean, the attack on Saddam's regime, following his invasion of a neighboring country and his unwillingness to ever adhere to the terms of his surrender as his forces were pushed back into his own country? That attack? And are you by any chance referring to the attack on the Taliban, who had murderously overtaken Afghanistan - to the considerable misery of the locals - and who were aggressively harboring the group that planned and executed attacks on embaassies and facilities in places all around the world, including the 9/11 events? That Taliban? Ask most Afghanis if they were really pleased, or not, to have their school teachers dragged into the town square (now peacefully free of heretic activities like kite flying and music playing) and shot in the head by the guys who want to see not just the middle east, but the entire world tuned up to their medieval specs. If the US wanted to "attack Afghanistan," the whole place would be a glass parking lot right now. Instead, our troops get killed because of way-crazy ROEs, in the interests of protecting the very people that the Taliban have no problem slaughtering just to make a point.
branding Iran as a terrorist state
So, you have no problem with them being a repressive, terrorist-sponsoring state, you just don't want anyone to call them on it?
Yes, Correct.
I think a recent article debunks this myth
... like forming a trade association. Or joining one that already exists.
Nonsense. The only way a record label has any influence over how much an artist gets from a sale is if the artist chooses to have a third party run that part of their business. As folks here are so fond of pointing out, all sorts of creative people are finding that they can do it themselves. This is exactly why there are so many small labels launched by artists. Of course it's no surprise that a lot of them realize how helpful it is to join up with other similar businesses so that they can all save some money on things like legal issues and lobbying. You know
Still: do you really think that copyrights are a myth? Please do a little reading so that you don't confuse an artist's copyrights with a label's copyrights once an artist as elected to sign them over in exchange for other services. That's a completely optional, voluntary thing that some artists choose to do. Some authors self-publish, and some would rather let a publishing house handle a bunch of editing, marketing, and legal issues for them in exchange for a formal relationship. Same thing. Don't like it? Do it a different way, as so many people do.
The fact that you don't like how many artists choose to let large publishing houses handle their businness dealings doesn't change the fact that creative works are subject to copyright law through their creators' very act of creating them. That's not a myth, it's the basic facts.
corporations have been acting without any legal restraint whatsoever
True. Well, other than the substantial legal restraints under which they operate.
Doesn't this just emphasize the incredible injustice of the American justice system?
No.
Giant corporations get legal protection
No. Anyone who writes a song enjoys the benefits being the copyright holder. Just as true of garage bands that publish their own stuff as it is for recording artists that strike a deal with a record label (no matter how tiny or how large) that happens to be a member of a trade association like the RIAA. The studios and labels that are members of the RIAA aren't getting legal protections, they're just actually acting to enforce the very same protections that you'd have, this minute, if you wrote a song yourself.
waste millions fighting pointless legal battles
It's pointless to take a stand against being ripped off? Is it better just to throw your hands up and let people walk all over you? Should retail stores just fire the guards they'd otherwise use to prevent a stream of shoplifters from leaching the store's shelves? If a store catches some twit stealing a $75 MP3 player, should they hold off on pressing charges if it will cost the store $100, or $1,000 in their own legal costs? Perhaps they have an interest in reminding a wider audience that they're not willing to be perpetually ripped off?
Isn't this an example of a corporate entity literally buying the law in some way?
No. Anyone who creates a work automatically owns the copyrights, and can register their works and pursue infringing parties who rip them off. If you actually register your works with the copyright office and have a slam-dunk case against an obvious infringer, you'll have no problem finding legal representation willing to work on a contingency. Go get 'em. No "buying the law" involved, anyway, since the laws governing this are all well in place.
A datacenter running on its own renewables would be doing something like growing trees on the roof and then burning them, or using waste heat to drive algae scum units and then oil-ifying them, etc. Otherwise you are harvesting/harnessing other sources of energy (wind, solor) or simply pumping your energy into the ground, which you are thus warming up (geothermal cooling). Wind and solar are not renewable per se, they're merely abundant and not terribly efficient to use.
Here's some money for a crappy computer... why aren't you doing better?
What's your point? That giving them five times as much money for a loaded machine, complete with a dual GPU gaming video card and a glowing blue power supply will somehow make the kid's parents better at raising a kid? That a faster machine or more screen resolution will magically create critical thinking habits, creativity, or a longer attention span? That understanding causality, better parsing of complex sentences, abstract thinking using symbols in place of real numbers, and all of those other useful things either work, or don't, based on CPU speed, the amount of RAM you have, or how many USB ports?
Or is it possible that a kid living in a household that doesn't have the culture, or the inclination, or the time dedicated to being a thoughtful, inquisitive person sees being handed a computer (any computer) as getting just another form of distracting entertainment? It's not about how "crappy" the computer is, it's about how crappy the kid's household culture is.
Unless you're a Republican. Then every policy is political. Because all government is socialism, which is evil.
... Capitalism and stuff, which is evil." Just as ridiculous as your characterization.
Nice straw man, there. Might as well say "And of course, if you're a Democrat, anyone attempting to in any way manage their own affairs or provide for themselves is unacceptably trying to avoid the benign stewardship of their betters in the government. And any move in any direction that doesn't increase the size, power, and intrusiveness of government into every aspect of life is... um
As for your policy point: there is not "just making policy on some knowledge" that somehow magically happens without a political context, because any such policy must involve a change from one way of doing things to another. And if that involves everyone, then it by definition involves some mechanism by which to enforce that policy change, which means arriving at a voted-upon family of penalties for not behaving according to the new policy. If the new policy has no prospect of actually being put to work, it's pointless. Any any policy that has teeth is by necessity only going to come into existence through politcal means. And any rational, adult person who is proposing a specific policy knows this, and discusses it in that practical, real context.
This is especially true when the point of the policy is to modify the global economy by changing the way trillions of dollars of activities take place while specifically describing those changes in ways that will force them upon some people, but not on others. Such policies are marinated in politics before their proponents even so much as utter notions about them out loud for the first time.
A tidy bit of sensible perspective on the subject. Thank you.
Or even worse, amateurs who do not know how to read the data using it to 'prove' nonsense
Yeah, crazy stuff like how the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in just years. Nusto stuff like that, being pushed by unskilled cranks, right?
If the data's solid (and hasn't been tossed out already, as Jones did with his), then it's easy enough to straighten out the bad conclusions by third parties. Insisting that you don't wish to be bothered with that, even as the conclusions you do put out there are going to be used to drive trillions of dollars worth of policy decisions - that's the height of elitist snobbery and arrogant BS.
Doing things in creative and different ways is not acceptable for whatever reason...
In the context of assembling large, expensive pieces of heavy machinery with moving parts, that's so that you don't have to hire highly creative lawyers to deal with work injury claims or other lawsuits that the company might lose because another lawyer can easily establish the fact that the company doesn't have a stable set of procedures.
If you want to change how it's done, make a persuasive business case for getting you into management. If you're right, you can point out how your preferred approach is better for the bottom line in every respect (not just a bit faster from the perspective of the workers in one department).
There is no creativity required or recommended on these exams
So what? School only lasts a few hours a day. What are you doing for the hours, days, and months between classes to actually make a difference? Creativity is fostered in a big-picture way. Kids will bring creativity to their school work and opportunities if it's a solid part of the environment and circumstances in which they're raised.
Creativity is declining because parents are washing their hands of the responsibility to shape the minds of their own kids. You don't get an inquisitive, creative mind at school - you arrive at school with one.
last I checked there were only ~300,000
It's cool that you were around to check back in the early 1700's, but pretty crappy of you not to count the Native Americans.
It's just rediculous
It's so diculous, it's ridiculous twice! It's re-diculous. Not to ridicule, of course.
As for connecting things to private networks: read. This is done in cooperation with private network owners that agree it's a good idea, considering what they're operating/protecting. You're not being forced, on your own network, to have anything to do with it.
Majority wins and not just the vocal (or rich) minority
The problem is that the majority wants free stuff, and wants it now. Just like in California, they (the majority, by referendum) paint themselves into a corner financially, and then see taxing the productive minority of the population as the only way out. The problem with non-productive, confiscatory majorities is that they eventually run out of people to take things from.
The director didn't say that this was about getting the Muslim culture to participate in international space programs. He said it was about "making them feel good" about their history, relative to science, math, and engineering.
You do realize that your source, the SF Examiner...
You do realize that the actual source is video tape of the NASA director explaining this in clear, certain terms. Right?
You're so quick to believe this because it confirms your biases
Actually, no. What I'm doing is pointing out the specific things that he said. There's no "believe" involved. So, which is worse, then? That he really was told what he says he was told, or that he runs NASA, and would lie to the public about what (his words here) the president tasked him with doing? It's one or the other, neither of which is a good thing. Either he's telling the truth (which makes his boss seem like a fatuous twit), or he's lying (which makes his boss, the guy who appointed him to the job, seem like he's made a really poor choice).
It's awfully credulous of right-wingers to immediately take this at face value, considering that they've spent the last year-and-a-half denouncing everyone who even considered voting for Obama as delusional, besotted fools.
Yes, well, just watch the video so you can relax about all of that. The director seems quite sincere in his description of what the president told him about his three new priorities (of which the "make Muslims feel better about themselves" was the "foremost").
the same trollish article
Trollish? How is linking video of NASA's director saying the actual words trollish? How can you not find it outrageous that the guy running NASA is being used in this ridiculous way? Do you really find this sort of crap to be in keeping with NASA's role and purpose? Do you really think that billions of Muslims will like the US more if we tell them how think about themselves and their history? Oh, and nice straw man there, with the whole Obama-secret-Muslim thing. Way to deflect from the incredible hamfisted-ness and tone deaf condescension on display from the administration.
Is this how screwed up NASA is
No, this isn't even close to how screwed NASA is getting. Just check out what NASA's director says is Obama's foremost task for his agency: it's really fun .
Glad to see they got this done and available before NASA had to shift its mission over to the administration's new priority for the agency . After all, what could be more important than a condescending, platitudinous mission (the foremost mission, says NASA's director) to boost the self esteem of a specific religious culture?
I honestly loathe the idea that life is being measured in "content."
You know what I loathe? People who can't actually read and parse the context in which a word is used. That's what I loathe.
Maybe ... it will push NASA and Obama to rethink their scaling back on the space program
No need! Obama has already given NASA a brand new top priority. According to NASA's director, the agency's foremost (his word) objective is now to "reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." No, really. That is the director's new top priority. Really .
successful (wealth-accumulating) ... PERFORMING music like the minstrels of yore
Yeah, those Olde Time Minstrels really knew how to build a fortune. I mean, it's easier to name the minstrels that didn't get wealthy than it is to name all of the ones that did, right? You bet!
It's sort of like today, when the wealthiest, most successful creative people in the world are all in bar bands.