Well, what's modern advertising, if not an attempt to distort "perfect information" in favour of the advertiser? Sounds pretty damned close to institutionalised theft/fraud to me, sanctioned by your favourite socio-economic philosophy...
Fraudulent advertising is a crime, and people pay fines, lose businesses, and get creamed in civil court for doing it. Proclaiming the virtues of your product is scarcely fraud (unless you're actually lying). Which advertisers are you referring to, that actually continue, day-to-day, committing actual fraud?
I'm certainly not referring to local pockets of culture that have local papers tilted one way or another - that's like talking about global weather by citing the temperatures in four zipcodes around a certain town. No doubt there are some locals with rabid-crazy righties, just like there are with rabid-crazy lefties. I was referring to the more big-ticket, mass-media outfits with the sophistication to make their spin (bias) a trifle more subtle, and thus far more insidious.
For some values of the word earn- if you scam someone out of his money, you've "earned" it by the definition of capitalism.
Which definition are you using, exactly? Here's one from the dictionary:
"An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists."
And here's some help on the word "scam":
"A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle"
To defraud someone of a dollar is to steal it. Theft is theft under any economic system,, but it's institutionalized under socialism. So... where were you headed with that again?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx... And in a more general sense, the statement comports with capitalist ideas of individual agency and self-interest.
Man, that's a good one. Look, in a market situation, you may have abilities you don't feel like selling, and you may have needs you can't possibly meet (or, far more likely, a wildly distorted sense of the word "need" means - as in, "I really need that new Sony console.").
Any system that purportes to externally gauge what each person's abilities and needs are, and allocates according to that, is the farthest thing from a capitalist, market economy. What if you have an entire city full of people who have astounding abilities to perform ballet, but that's their only ability? That means you've also got a whole lot of skinny dancer types who also happen to have the need for food, HVAC maintenance, appendectomy surgeries, and so on. Central authorities that attempt to size up a situation like that and re-allocate people and resources in a way that doesn't cause friction end up... named Stalin.
it's not "any manner they see fit".. it's the bloody internet.. the proper way to put it would be "in the manner in which it was designed and intended to be used"
You mean, as a tool funded by the Defense Department, developed by and for academics doing defense-related sciences during the Cold War? As a network designed to be decentralized and still allow critical government institutions to communicate even after a large-scale nuclear attack? It was designed to facilitate research and allow schools and government scientists to expose their research data and facilities to others working on the same projects. That's how it was "intended to be used."
That other network providers and commercial entities have hooked their own networks up to that other network of networks may have completely altered the practical landscape for your average private citizen, but it doesn't change a thing about how a given campus has to allow students to use that campus' network infrastructure whether or not that network has a gateway to other networks. It's no different than the campus water system, roads, cafeterias, or phone systems. You may have the expectation that you can park, in a campus dorm parking lot, a giant billboard showing pictures of you drunk and naked at a party, but that doesn't mean the school has to let their facilities be used in that way. It's not about whether they have the bandwidth (or the parking lot space), it's about whether the terms of your use of their facilities and of being either student or faculty at that school are, or are not defined. Which, of course, they are.
is like the notion that only ford taurus drivers are the cause of rushour
Remember when Napster was just a quaint little curiosity? Back when it was consuming well over half of the bandwidth of many college networks? No? That's OK, just Google a bit and you'll see endless articles about how that particular form of traffic completely choked many networks - to the point of rendering many of them academically useless. Now that's been replaced with other multi-media files being passed around via e-mail (including through things like GMail accounts, not the campus e-mail systems, necessarily) and of course, the ubiquitous embedded movie-type nonsense on so many social networking pages. But your point, that certain types of traffic aren't any worse than others, is just simply wrong on the face of it, historically, currently, and conceptually. If campuses don't shape bandwidth, they end up drowning in P2P traffic. But we're not talking about capacity, here - we're talking about the school's obligation to see its infrastucture used in a way that's consisten with why the school exists at all.
They're not banning the use of MySpace by their students. They're deciding not to put the campus bandwidth to use in that way. That's a policy decision that in no way infringes on anyone's free speech since those students can still make use of that non-school service over their own non-school (or free, elsewhere) bandwidth all they want - and also deal with the consequences if in doing so that happens to break their agreed-to code of conduct, which most probably do not.
Just like the students can't simply decide how to use other campus infrastructure in whatever manner they see fit, a particular heavy drain on the IT infrastructure (or the prospect of one) is no different than having policies in place to prevent a certain type of march down the campus parking lots while they're busy trying to use it as a school.
this is a state run institution
Yup! And the people of Ohio, who chartered and operate that school, and whose kids make up most of its student population (and tuition revenue) have a fantasticly simple way to set or change such policies: voting. The school's administration works for people who are voted into office by Ohio residents. And they have regular opportunities to throw out or keep people who make decisions about how state funds (and infrastructure, such as college campuses, equipment, networks, etc) can be used. Kent State isn't "free" for every Ohio resident, and does indeed put boundaries around what they expect students to do (and not) while receiving the services that school provides. Just like state law governs what you can do, or what kinds of signs you can display, while using a state road - even the ones in Ohio that charge those steep tolls.
Why not dictate the stores theyre allowed to shop in as well?
Because it's pretty hard to come up with a way in which choosing a store would reflect badly on the school's standards and reputation, or showcase the students acting illegally. Of course, many schools have dont things like refuse to do business with certain stores because of student-body or faculty votes/policies dictating interaction with companies that, say, used to do business in South Africa, etc. Careful what you wish for.
how about forcing them to buy a specific make and model car?
See above.
how about rejecting republicans? muslims? athiests?
See above.
where exactly does this end sir?!
It ends where each institution's rational policies say it ends. There are more schools to choose from than there are decent students to fill them. If you want a school that says "we're fine if you break the law and put coverage of that up on a web site that explicity ties that behavior to the school," then choose one that does. If you'd rather go into the world with a resume that cites your training and education at a school that doesn't seem like a giant, drunk joke after spending one minute on Google, then support such a school with the thousands you'll spend on buying their services. Higher education is, and should be, a marketplace. That's why there are schools that range in local culture from Berkeley to Catholic University - something for everyone. And somewhere in most of the middle are schools that actually act as if an education, rather than advertised binge drinking by underage scholarship atheletes, is their primary goal and the source of their professional reputation. If such objectives don't matter to you, spend your dollars somewhere else.
If you're right, and there is a huge, pent-up demand for college diplomas from schools that don't have any code of conduct or expectation of standards, then all sorts of schools will rise (or sink) to the demand you've identified. Just like they did years ago with co-ed dorms, or any number of other shifts in cultural mode. I'm betting, though, that your average journalism student, or physics student, would like it if the school they're betting their tuition on isn't a laughing stock. But it they don't care, they've got other choices.
if an academic institution is allowed to control where you speak then you no longer have it. it's a fundamental right
How are they controlling it? Putting conditions on getting tens of thousands of dollars of services for free as long as you participate in representing the school's sports program in a particular way is not controlling expression. It's stating the terms under which a very select bunch of students gets something the rest of the students don't get, and which they (the rest of the students) in fact subsidize. If you bothered reading the article you'd see that the school has no stance one way or the other on what the average student puts up, and further doesn't seem to care about things like MySpace. It's the tying of the school's established teams and the students who are being paid by the school to play for them to certain types of online coverage that's being discussed. I know you're trying to ignore that because it allows you to rant better, but you're ignoring reality.
i'm sorry but this assertion just is not true. The media is generally very right leaning and those with conservative points of view hold a greater power and voice than those with a liberal point of view.. they get more exposure. The truth is that 70% of the US and an even greater percent of the world is "left leaning".. this means that the center is further "left" than you care to admit.
Wow, that's rich. Heh.
First, the editorial stances of almost every major newspaper, of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN... all of those could scarecly be defined as conservative by any standard. More conservative, perhaps, than way-way-out crazy left, but being more conservative than, say, George Soros or Barbara Streisand doesn't mean you're some hard-core right winger. But never mind my take on it or yours: just read a little bit of actual academic research.
"larger picture" is a piece of jargon which in lobbyist speak means "my point of view rather than common sense"
Ok, so you think that's how lobbyists use that phrase. So what? That doesn't change the fact that most of the discussions surrounding this issue have tunnel vision that only sees "person trying to say something, evil institution preventing them," when there are actually many more factors in play (thus, a larger picture).
I'm sorry but am I the only one who sees a lot of conservative bias in this piece?
First, aren't you even a little embarassed to pretend that the general editorial and commentary orientation on slashdot isn't demonstrably left-leaning on many subjects? I don't care that it is, it just is, and that's part of the atmosphere. But don't pretend that it's normally straight-down-the-middle objective or equally deferential to every point of view.
There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.
I don't always subscribe to Timothy-think, but he's actually providing a valuable service, here. He's pointing out that, contrary to the foregone conclusions that people like you have made, that some very thoughtful people are seeing the larger picture here, and bothering to make those thougts clear to this audience. In essence, it's worth the posting space because it's unusual for slashdot. Oh, and just because identifying "straw man" arguments is a favorite junior varsity sport here doesn't mean that simply calling something one makes that true. These students are graciously receiving scholarships, and countless court rulings have affirmed that participating in extra-curricular activities (to say nothing of being given money) can sure as hell be dependent on a code of conduct that extends outside of the classroom.
The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?
You mean like means testing? Already done. Do you mean like, certain types of criminals and fraud artists don't get to have the benefits? Already done. Other than that, your merit as an athlete isn't what gets you government entitlements - but it is what gets you a selective, qualified, and behavior-dependent athletic scholarship. Scholarship students with bad grades lose the scholarship. Medicare patients with crappy eating habits and drinking problems still get medical care.
Wouldn't it be more direct (and ethical) to deal with the problem behavior, rather than coming up with ways of hiding it, and thereby protect the university image?
Lack of discretion is the problem behavior. Web content that celebrates the exhibition of underage drinking suggests that the author considers that display to be symbolic of their world view. Having a beer next to a topless woman and telling the world that you think doing so is a idealization of the school's ethos are very different things.
Find a way to make the players "act better"
Perhaps one way would be to discourage the public celebration of not acting better, and thus reducing the peer pressure to behave that way and record it as a triumph of some sort? You know, like telling them that using a profile system that ties them to the school and makes their real identities as scholarship recipients to showcase actual law breaking might be bad?
Accept that the university image will be tied to the actions of these people, for better or worse
So... if they win on the field and get good grades, these students' records will shine. Even if they get blindingly drunk with Marxist transvestite strippers in pirate costumes. But making their primary online presence all about the blindingly drunk part... that skews the image. Never mind, of course, that these idiots aren't thinking about what this will do to a potential professional athletic career or even just a good office job.
No civilians got hurt in France during the riots, correct?
Well, sure, as long you don't consider "dying" to be "hurt." Yes, Europe is a peaceful, blissful oasis of wonderfullness, where the sidewalks are lit by rainbows, and all of the people who get knifed on the streets only do it to themselves, or probably deserve it because they can't stop watching Hollywood films and wearing Nike products.
...and require that ours are kept stored for months or years, or even "forever"? Is it me or is something running very wrong here?...
... Not the government has to monitor its people, it is to be done the other way around.
Come on now, it's way too hot outside for tinfoil apparel.
We're talking about data that's copied off to laptops for mobile use. Copied. The concern is over some federal worker or contractor dumping some subset of sensitive data (say, YOUR information?) off to a laptop while working on some report or mindless budget slide show. The issue is making sure that grabbed data isn't easily read by someone who steals the laptop. Whatever big momma database the data was extracted from is still sitting right where it was, behind the scenes. This isn't about "monitoring" you, it's about making sure that sensitive data, which might include yours, is not left lying around in some field office or a hotel room. You really think the founding fathers would have preferred the opposite? The article's not even talking about back-office database/file servers, which are a totally separate firewalling-ish conversation (though TFA does discuss clamping down on dangling remote access connections and requiring two-factor IDs for that, too). Drink more coffee (or less - whatever will get you thinking more calmly) before you post, dude.
And I never liked that the taxes collected went to the top tier of artists. For every one of these, a Springsteen, a Madonna, a Bono, there are 10,000 strivers, sequestered in a home studio, trying to get that vocal or cowbell track perfect.
"I've got a fever, and the only cure is... more cowbell!"
But seriously... you're reaching around looking for a way to make this ridiculous (and as you say, burdensome) sort of tax somehow more fair for starving artists. Here's a thought: drop it entirely. Let artistic merit, as measured by people's willingness to actually pay an artist what they ask for their work, solve the whole thing. I always find it ironic that people are so willing to rip off the work of an artist they claim to like and respect. I wonder if they'd do it while that person was sitting in the room with them, talking about the year they spent working on the album that's about to be ripped by the person who just loves their work, but is too cheap to cough a dollar for their new favorite recording.
It's not like the artists actually make money on the deal unless their stuff sells, so it's not pure communism or anything.
But how are you supposed to know which artists gets a tax-based payment when people are "sharing"/downloading, rather than purchasing, their works? One artist's work could be very good, very popular, and being spread around and burned onto people's blank media at 1000x the rate of some other artist... but in schemes like this there's no mechanism to reward the more effective, prolific, and popular artist for their efforts. It's nonsense. Not all artists are equal (thank goodness).
That's like saying France is a violent society, just because a few thousand people spent a few months in the suburban Paris streets burning cars every night. Honestly, now: would you call Paris (and France) a violent society? How about the UK? Is that a "violent society," considering how many of its citizens can't seem to attend a simple sporting event without getting into riots and hundreds of arrests? I guess the Germans are a violent society, too, then. No?
Violent elements in a society aren't the same thing.
Your example of crazy drug users bashing down your door not withstanding. On a side note, what kind of crazy neighborhood do you live in?? it sounds like the most dangerous place in the world.
I live about 20 minutes from Washington, DC, in the suburbs of Maryland. That wasn't a "crazy example," but was a perfect example of the sort of things that just plain happen - some places more often than others. This isn't my "dream topic," per se, but it's something with which I do have considerable experience. We do have a rash of new street crime problems, most of which is tied to a couple of specific, well-organized Central America gangs (MS-13 is the worst). These groups consist of primarily illegal immigrants who realize they've landed in an expensive semi-urban area where migrant-worker type labor doesn't exactly keep up (hell, those of us in IT can hardly keep up with DC-area costs of living).
The event I mentioned did not include a memeber of that gang - he was a more pedestrian local thug who was quite, quite hosed up on one or more chemicals (so the police later told us), and had gotten himself into a hot pursuit involving people he'd just screwed on a drug deal. He was to the point of being willing to break into a house, and my light was on (no, I wasn't slashdotting in the middle of the night - if I recall correctly, I was writing a proposal due in the morning). He was large (much larger than me, and I'm 6'-2" and 250+), dangerous, and swinging objects at the door. That's just plain scary, and when I wouldn't do what he wanted (which wasn't entirely clear), he said he was going to break down the door and hurt people.
I highly, highly doubt that whatever urban area you live in is without some disturbances like that. But in a suburban area, it takes longer for such things to get police response, and home-invasion crimes (they have a name for it because it happens so often) tend to go from start to finish in about 10 minutes. Usually the person(s) is looking for a wallet, the car keys, some portable loot, and tends to smack around the occupants of the house to intimidate them into not testifying if he/they get caught (this often works, especially as these guys become more and more gang-affiliated). Our county just hired several new gang-only cops, just to deal with this problem, which is getting worse as the local population blooms with paperless, un-employed immigrants, some of which quickly associate with gangs run by their fellow ex-pats.
This (in this regard) is not a dream subject, it's more nightmarish, really. I'd much rather contend with slightly dangerous animals while out in the proper countryside. But work of my sort tends to be closer to the metro areas, so I have exposure to both worlds, and deliberately keep it that way. I'd go crazy in a strictly urban setting - but I do like having DC just a short drive away.
Re:Weapons for shopping malls, other occassions
on
Encrypted Ammunition?
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that's pretty damn funny. Obviously I was illustrating a point, and that sort of stuff doesn't tend to happen all in one evening, if you know what I mean. At least not the mountain lion and the coyote at the same time, anyway (not unless we're out of town, visiting friends out west). But I can see grenading a racoon and nuking the gang-bangers both on the same day - at least, here in suburban Maryland, anyway.
Yeah, no kidding. But of course I wasn't even responding out of any hope he'd somehow grow up - just offsetting any stray malformed thoughts that someone else might get from his rantings. Thanks, though, for pointing that out, and for being smart enough to stay outside the crossfire.
No one is forcing this on you, IT IS AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.
I can see, if you think that's the case, why you'd think I sound a little crazy. But please read up on states that are passing laws expressly lining things up to permit only the sale of such guns once the technology becomes "adequate." Maryland's last governor (here in my state) also launched such an initiative. Just keep watching - it's not pretty.
So really, I suppose I can't be disappointed this way, nor have I wasted too much time.
Still, preaching to the choir is a time-honored tradition, ain't it? Good links, of course. Another fun Google search is "australia crime gun ban" - which coughs up all sorts of fascinating (and alarming) stats. I love the Aussies, but they really hosed it up on that one.
think you might have a cultural problem in America too...
No doubt. But that's the thing to address, not whatever bits of metal one gets to carry. And as to your observations: if find it absolutely hilarious that knives are illegal unless you're a Sikh, etc. What fantastic irony (since the religions that mandate that sort of thing do so expressly because of a warrior tradition).
Yeah, all that time with parents who are teachers, or that have doctorates in things like hospital administration and whatnot is pretty much like growing up in a trailer in the Ozarks. I can see how you'd draw that conclusion.
See, while you were busy pulling legs off spiders, I was learning things, vacationing in europe, learning languages- improving myself, and giving myself a better shot in life.
Huh, how about that! Vacationing in Europe! Why, it's a good thing there aren't any long standing traditions of hunting in Germany, or France, or Italy, or Russia! I'm sure you learned more about biology and meteorology hanging out in an effite coffee bar in Prague than I have actually out in the weather or interacting with animals in all sorts of terrains and climates.
Shoot, if I can finish picking my teeth with this here Bowie knife, maybe I can remember where I put my wife, who was born in Germany, and watched parts of the Cold War unfold in front of her as a child living in Vienna. Or maybe I can recall where we put that bottle of wine our dear Romanian friends just dropped off. Or remember where we put the nice pictures we took while we traveled in Greece, or Italy, or Turkey, or Crete. Nah... I'm too stunted by my exposure to a high school full of kids from diplomatic families all around DC, or my neighbors from Cameroon, or the kids from Peru we grew up with. My sheer ignorance and sheltered hillbilly upbringing probably explains that Chinese/Pakistani girlfriend in high school, too.
I wanted something more than camouflage fatigues and drunk, sub-literate "buddies."
Hmmm... I see more drunk, sub-literate idiots wearing fashionable camo stumbling around most liberal arts campuses than I do in any of my social circles.
you should have spent more time at what I like to call the "book range," or the "reading range."
Perhaps we should compare reading lists? You obviously haven't gotten over your infatuation with sophistry and childish, low-brow sarcasm, so I can limit my list to stuff I finished in 8th grade, if that will make you feel better. Not to worry, though, the next Harry Potter isn't too far off, and if the words are too big, there's always the movies, and no-one will see your lips moving that way. Versuchen Sie, sich beim Schreiben nicht zu verletzen, Sie arroganter Esel.
If by "no," you mean "yes," then you're correct! Crime per capita has nothing to do with it. It's the change in crime per capita and the nature of that crime before/after gun bans (or liberalization in ownership) that we're talking about.
One year after a sweeping ban/confiscation program in Australia, they had these charming results:
homicdes up 3.2%
assaults up 8.6%
armed robberies up 44% (!!)
in Victoria, homicides with firearms up 300%
25-year downward trends in armed robbery and homicides with firearms reversed
and so on. This program cost Australia about half a billion dollars, and now many lives. Much the same story in Scotland.
why most homocides here in Denmark are done with knifes - we haven't raised the stakes to guns!
Come on, now, read some actual statistics! In counties like Australia, where the guns were banned and largely confiscated, not only to knife-murders go up, but overall crime and murder went up entirely. Fewer guns in the hands of people willing to defend themselves, and people willing to kill with a knife or their bare hands are less worried about being stopped. This is true in certain states/cities in the US (say, in Florida, where once people were recently allowed once again to carry a gun, knifings went down, as did all violent crime).
Most likely the longer Danish history of less violent crime has to do with having a smaller, less stratified population in a much smaller area. As your population so dramatically shifts (with your huge immigration issues), you may see a situation much more similar to that of the Paris suburbs. I hope not... I'd like to visit Denmark some day, since I have had many ancestors from there and elsewhere in Scandinavia (Rasmussens, Kuykendaals, Hendrixes, and more) and I guess I still have some hope that I can see some Danish countryside that still feels a bit like it was when they lived there.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, what's modern advertising, if not an attempt to distort "perfect information" in favour of the advertiser? Sounds pretty damned close to institutionalised theft/fraud to me, sanctioned by your favourite socio-economic philosophy...
Fraudulent advertising is a crime, and people pay fines, lose businesses, and get creamed in civil court for doing it. Proclaiming the virtues of your product is scarcely fraud (unless you're actually lying). Which advertisers are you referring to, that actually continue, day-to-day, committing actual fraud?
Every major paper there is conservative.
I'm certainly not referring to local pockets of culture that have local papers tilted one way or another - that's like talking about global weather by citing the temperatures in four zipcodes around a certain town. No doubt there are some locals with rabid-crazy righties, just like there are with rabid-crazy lefties. I was referring to the more big-ticket, mass-media outfits with the sophistication to make their spin (bias) a trifle more subtle, and thus far more insidious.
For some values of the word earn- if you scam someone out of his money, you've "earned" it by the definition of capitalism.
Which definition are you using, exactly? Here's one from the dictionary:
"An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists."
And here's some help on the word "scam":
"A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle"
To defraud someone of a dollar is to steal it. Theft is theft under any economic system,, but it's institutionalized under socialism. So... where were you headed with that again?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx ... And in a more general sense, the statement comports with capitalist ideas of individual agency and self-interest.
Man, that's a good one. Look, in a market situation, you may have abilities you don't feel like selling, and you may have needs you can't possibly meet (or, far more likely, a wildly distorted sense of the word "need" means - as in, "I really need that new Sony console.").
Any system that purportes to externally gauge what each person's abilities and needs are, and allocates according to that, is the farthest thing from a capitalist, market economy. What if you have an entire city full of people who have astounding abilities to perform ballet, but that's their only ability? That means you've also got a whole lot of skinny dancer types who also happen to have the need for food, HVAC maintenance, appendectomy surgeries, and so on. Central authorities that attempt to size up a situation like that and re-allocate people and resources in a way that doesn't cause friction end up... named Stalin.
it's not "any manner they see fit".. it's the bloody internet.. the proper way to put it would be "in the manner in which it was designed and intended to be used"
You mean, as a tool funded by the Defense Department, developed by and for academics doing defense-related sciences during the Cold War? As a network designed to be decentralized and still allow critical government institutions to communicate even after a large-scale nuclear attack? It was designed to facilitate research and allow schools and government scientists to expose their research data and facilities to others working on the same projects. That's how it was "intended to be used."
That other network providers and commercial entities have hooked their own networks up to that other network of networks may have completely altered the practical landscape for your average private citizen, but it doesn't change a thing about how a given campus has to allow students to use that campus' network infrastructure whether or not that network has a gateway to other networks. It's no different than the campus water system, roads, cafeterias, or phone systems. You may have the expectation that you can park, in a campus dorm parking lot, a giant billboard showing pictures of you drunk and naked at a party, but that doesn't mean the school has to let their facilities be used in that way. It's not about whether they have the bandwidth (or the parking lot space), it's about whether the terms of your use of their facilities and of being either student or faculty at that school are, or are not defined. Which, of course, they are.
is like the notion that only ford taurus drivers are the cause of rushour
Remember when Napster was just a quaint little curiosity? Back when it was consuming well over half of the bandwidth of many college networks? No? That's OK, just Google a bit and you'll see endless articles about how that particular form of traffic completely choked many networks - to the point of rendering many of them academically useless. Now that's been replaced with other multi-media files being passed around via e-mail (including through things like GMail accounts, not the campus e-mail systems, necessarily) and of course, the ubiquitous embedded movie-type nonsense on so many social networking pages. But your point, that certain types of traffic aren't any worse than others, is just simply wrong on the face of it, historically, currently, and conceptually. If campuses don't shape bandwidth, they end up drowning in P2P traffic. But we're not talking about capacity, here - we're talking about the school's obligation to see its infrastucture used in a way that's consisten with why the school exists at all.
They're not banning the use of MySpace by their students. They're deciding not to put the campus bandwidth to use in that way. That's a policy decision that in no way infringes on anyone's free speech since those students can still make use of that non-school service over their own non-school (or free, elsewhere) bandwidth all they want - and also deal with the consequences if in doing so that happens to break their agreed-to code of conduct, which most probably do not.
Just like the students can't simply decide how to use other campus infrastructure in whatever manner they see fit, a particular heavy drain on the IT infrastructure (or the prospect of one) is no different than having policies in place to prevent a certain type of march down the campus parking lots while they're busy trying to use it as a school.
this is a state run institution
Yup! And the people of Ohio, who chartered and operate that school, and whose kids make up most of its student population (and tuition revenue) have a fantasticly simple way to set or change such policies: voting. The school's administration works for people who are voted into office by Ohio residents. And they have regular opportunities to throw out or keep people who make decisions about how state funds (and infrastructure, such as college campuses, equipment, networks, etc) can be used. Kent State isn't "free" for every Ohio resident, and does indeed put boundaries around what they expect students to do (and not) while receiving the services that school provides. Just like state law governs what you can do, or what kinds of signs you can display, while using a state road - even the ones in Ohio that charge those steep tolls.
Why not dictate the stores theyre allowed to shop in as well?
Because it's pretty hard to come up with a way in which choosing a store would reflect badly on the school's standards and reputation, or showcase the students acting illegally. Of course, many schools have dont things like refuse to do business with certain stores because of student-body or faculty votes/policies dictating interaction with companies that, say, used to do business in South Africa, etc. Careful what you wish for.
how about forcing them to buy a specific make and model car?
See above.
how about rejecting republicans? muslims? athiests?
See above.
where exactly does this end sir?!
It ends where each institution's rational policies say it ends. There are more schools to choose from than there are decent students to fill them. If you want a school that says "we're fine if you break the law and put coverage of that up on a web site that explicity ties that behavior to the school," then choose one that does. If you'd rather go into the world with a resume that cites your training and education at a school that doesn't seem like a giant, drunk joke after spending one minute on Google, then support such a school with the thousands you'll spend on buying their services. Higher education is, and should be, a marketplace. That's why there are schools that range in local culture from Berkeley to Catholic University - something for everyone. And somewhere in most of the middle are schools that actually act as if an education, rather than advertised binge drinking by underage scholarship atheletes, is their primary goal and the source of their professional reputation. If such objectives don't matter to you, spend your dollars somewhere else.
If you're right, and there is a huge, pent-up demand for college diplomas from schools that don't have any code of conduct or expectation of standards, then all sorts of schools will rise (or sink) to the demand you've identified. Just like they did years ago with co-ed dorms, or any number of other shifts in cultural mode. I'm betting, though, that your average journalism student, or physics student, would like it if the school they're betting their tuition on isn't a laughing stock. But it they don't care, they've got other choices.
if an academic institution is allowed to control where you speak then you no longer have it. it's a fundamental right
How are they controlling it? Putting conditions on getting tens of thousands of dollars of services for free as long as you participate in representing the school's sports program in a particular way is not controlling expression. It's stating the terms under which a very select bunch of students gets something the rest of the students don't get, and which they (the rest of the students) in fact subsidize. If you bothered reading the article you'd see that the school has no stance one way or the other on what the average student puts up, and further doesn't seem to care about things like MySpace. It's the tying of the school's established teams and the students who are being paid by the school to play for them to certain types of online coverage that's being discussed. I know you're trying to ignore that because it allows you to rant better, but you're ignoring reality.
i'm sorry but this assertion just is not true. The media is generally very right leaning and those with conservative points of view hold a greater power and voice than those with a liberal point of view.. they get more exposure. The truth is that 70% of the US and an even greater percent of the world is "left leaning".. this means that the center is further "left" than you care to admit.
Wow, that's rich. Heh.
First, the editorial stances of almost every major newspaper, of ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, CNN... all of those could scarecly be defined as conservative by any standard. More conservative, perhaps, than way-way-out crazy left, but being more conservative than, say, George Soros or Barbara Streisand doesn't mean you're some hard-core right winger. But never mind my take on it or yours: just read a little bit of actual academic research.
"larger picture" is a piece of jargon which in lobbyist speak means "my point of view rather than common sense"
Ok, so you think that's how lobbyists use that phrase. So what? That doesn't change the fact that most of the discussions surrounding this issue have tunnel vision that only sees "person trying to say something, evil institution preventing them," when there are actually many more factors in play (thus, a larger picture).
I'm sorry but am I the only one who sees a lot of conservative bias in this piece?
First, aren't you even a little embarassed to pretend that the general editorial and commentary orientation on slashdot isn't demonstrably left-leaning on many subjects? I don't care that it is, it just is, and that's part of the atmosphere. But don't pretend that it's normally straight-down-the-middle objective or equally deferential to every point of view.
There were plenty of good points made that this violated people's rights.. and yet this writeup seems to focus very strongly on the straw man that private activites can be curtailed on the idea that the students are being graciously allowed athletic scholarships.
I don't always subscribe to Timothy-think, but he's actually providing a valuable service, here. He's pointing out that, contrary to the foregone conclusions that people like you have made, that some very thoughtful people are seeing the larger picture here, and bothering to make those thougts clear to this audience. In essence, it's worth the posting space because it's unusual for slashdot. Oh, and just because identifying "straw man" arguments is a favorite junior varsity sport here doesn't mean that simply calling something one makes that true. These students are graciously receiving scholarships, and countless court rulings have affirmed that participating in extra-curricular activities (to say nothing of being given money) can sure as hell be dependent on a code of conduct that extends outside of the classroom.
The state also gives out medicare and a number of other social benefits to people.. maybe washington should be allowed to selectively deny us those benefits in the same way?
You mean like means testing? Already done. Do you mean like, certain types of criminals and fraud artists don't get to have the benefits? Already done. Other than that, your merit as an athlete isn't what gets you government entitlements - but it is what gets you a selective, qualified, and behavior-dependent athletic scholarship. Scholarship students with bad grades lose the scholarship. Medicare patients with crappy eating habits and drinking problems still get medical care.
Wouldn't it be more direct (and ethical) to deal with the problem behavior, rather than coming up with ways of hiding it, and thereby protect the university image?
Lack of discretion is the problem behavior. Web content that celebrates the exhibition of underage drinking suggests that the author considers that display to be symbolic of their world view. Having a beer next to a topless woman and telling the world that you think doing so is a idealization of the school's ethos are very different things.
Find a way to make the players "act better"
Perhaps one way would be to discourage the public celebration of not acting better, and thus reducing the peer pressure to behave that way and record it as a triumph of some sort? You know, like telling them that using a profile system that ties them to the school and makes their real identities as scholarship recipients to showcase actual law breaking might be bad?
Accept that the university image will be tied to the actions of these people, for better or worse
So... if they win on the field and get good grades, these students' records will shine. Even if they get blindingly drunk with Marxist transvestite strippers in pirate costumes. But making their primary online presence all about the blindingly drunk part... that skews the image. Never mind, of course, that these idiots aren't thinking about what this will do to a potential professional athletic career or even just a good office job.
No civilians got hurt in France during the riots, correct?
Well, sure, as long you don't consider "dying" to be "hurt." Yes, Europe is a peaceful, blissful oasis of wonderfullness, where the sidewalks are lit by rainbows, and all of the people who get knifed on the streets only do it to themselves, or probably deserve it because they can't stop watching Hollywood films and wearing Nike products.
...and require that ours are kept stored for months or years, or even "forever"? Is it me or is something running very wrong here? ...
... Not the government has to monitor its people, it is to be done the other way around.
Come on now, it's way too hot outside for tinfoil apparel.
We're talking about data that's copied off to laptops for mobile use. Copied. The concern is over some federal worker or contractor dumping some subset of sensitive data (say, YOUR information?) off to a laptop while working on some report or mindless budget slide show. The issue is making sure that grabbed data isn't easily read by someone who steals the laptop. Whatever big momma database the data was extracted from is still sitting right where it was, behind the scenes. This isn't about "monitoring" you, it's about making sure that sensitive data, which might include yours, is not left lying around in some field office or a hotel room. You really think the founding fathers would have preferred the opposite? The article's not even talking about back-office database/file servers, which are a totally separate firewalling-ish conversation (though TFA does discuss clamping down on dangling remote access connections and requiring two-factor IDs for that, too). Drink more coffee (or less - whatever will get you thinking more calmly) before you post, dude.
And I never liked that the taxes collected went to the top tier of artists. For every one of these, a Springsteen, a Madonna, a Bono, there are 10,000 strivers, sequestered in a home studio, trying to get that vocal or cowbell track perfect.
... more cowbell!"
"I've got a fever, and the only cure is
But seriously... you're reaching around looking for a way to make this ridiculous (and as you say, burdensome) sort of tax somehow more fair for starving artists. Here's a thought: drop it entirely. Let artistic merit, as measured by people's willingness to actually pay an artist what they ask for their work, solve the whole thing. I always find it ironic that people are so willing to rip off the work of an artist they claim to like and respect. I wonder if they'd do it while that person was sitting in the room with them, talking about the year they spent working on the album that's about to be ripped by the person who just loves their work, but is too cheap to cough a dollar for their new favorite recording.
It's not like the artists actually make money on the deal unless their stuff sells, so it's not pure communism or anything.
But how are you supposed to know which artists gets a tax-based payment when people are "sharing"/downloading, rather than purchasing, their works? One artist's work could be very good, very popular, and being spread around and burned onto people's blank media at 1000x the rate of some other artist... but in schemes like this there's no mechanism to reward the more effective, prolific, and popular artist for their efforts. It's nonsense. Not all artists are equal (thank goodness).
America is a violent society
That's like saying France is a violent society, just because a few thousand people spent a few months in the suburban Paris streets burning cars every night. Honestly, now: would you call Paris (and France) a violent society? How about the UK? Is that a "violent society," considering how many of its citizens can't seem to attend a simple sporting event without getting into riots and hundreds of arrests? I guess the Germans are a violent society, too, then. No?
Violent elements in a society aren't the same thing.
Your example of crazy drug users bashing down your door not withstanding. On a side note, what kind of crazy neighborhood do you live in?? it sounds like the most dangerous place in the world.
I live about 20 minutes from Washington, DC, in the suburbs of Maryland. That wasn't a "crazy example," but was a perfect example of the sort of things that just plain happen - some places more often than others. This isn't my "dream topic," per se, but it's something with which I do have considerable experience. We do have a rash of new street crime problems, most of which is tied to a couple of specific, well-organized Central America gangs (MS-13 is the worst). These groups consist of primarily illegal immigrants who realize they've landed in an expensive semi-urban area where migrant-worker type labor doesn't exactly keep up (hell, those of us in IT can hardly keep up with DC-area costs of living).
The event I mentioned did not include a memeber of that gang - he was a more pedestrian local thug who was quite, quite hosed up on one or more chemicals (so the police later told us), and had gotten himself into a hot pursuit involving people he'd just screwed on a drug deal. He was to the point of being willing to break into a house, and my light was on (no, I wasn't slashdotting in the middle of the night - if I recall correctly, I was writing a proposal due in the morning). He was large (much larger than me, and I'm 6'-2" and 250+), dangerous, and swinging objects at the door. That's just plain scary, and when I wouldn't do what he wanted (which wasn't entirely clear), he said he was going to break down the door and hurt people.
I highly, highly doubt that whatever urban area you live in is without some disturbances like that. But in a suburban area, it takes longer for such things to get police response, and home-invasion crimes (they have a name for it because it happens so often) tend to go from start to finish in about 10 minutes. Usually the person(s) is looking for a wallet, the car keys, some portable loot, and tends to smack around the occupants of the house to intimidate them into not testifying if he/they get caught (this often works, especially as these guys become more and more gang-affiliated). Our county just hired several new gang-only cops, just to deal with this problem, which is getting worse as the local population blooms with paperless, un-employed immigrants, some of which quickly associate with gangs run by their fellow ex-pats.
This (in this regard) is not a dream subject, it's more nightmarish, really. I'd much rather contend with slightly dangerous animals while out in the proper countryside. But work of my sort tends to be closer to the metro areas, so I have exposure to both worlds, and deliberately keep it that way. I'd go crazy in a strictly urban setting - but I do like having DC just a short drive away.
Actually, that's pretty damn funny. Obviously I was illustrating a point, and that sort of stuff doesn't tend to happen all in one evening, if you know what I mean. At least not the mountain lion and the coyote at the same time, anyway (not unless we're out of town, visiting friends out west). But I can see grenading a racoon and nuking the gang-bangers both on the same day - at least, here in suburban Maryland, anyway.
He's just a troll and a hypocrite.
Yeah, no kidding. But of course I wasn't even responding out of any hope he'd somehow grow up - just offsetting any stray malformed thoughts that someone else might get from his rantings. Thanks, though, for pointing that out, and for being smart enough to stay outside the crossfire.
No one is forcing this on you, IT IS AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.
I can see, if you think that's the case, why you'd think I sound a little crazy. But please read up on states that are passing laws expressly lining things up to permit only the sale of such guns once the technology becomes "adequate." Maryland's last governor (here in my state) also launched such an initiative. Just keep watching - it's not pretty.
So really, I suppose I can't be disappointed this way, nor have I wasted too much time.
Still, preaching to the choir is a time-honored tradition, ain't it? Good links, of course. Another fun Google search is "australia crime gun ban" - which coughs up all sorts of fascinating (and alarming) stats. I love the Aussies, but they really hosed it up on that one.
think you might have a cultural problem in America too...
No doubt. But that's the thing to address, not whatever bits of metal one gets to carry. And as to your observations: if find it absolutely hilarious that knives are illegal unless you're a Sikh, etc. What fantastic irony (since the religions that mandate that sort of thing do so expressly because of a warrior tradition).
Unlike you, I had a decent upbringing.
Yeah, all that time with parents who are teachers, or that have doctorates in things like hospital administration and whatnot is pretty much like growing up in a trailer in the Ozarks. I can see how you'd draw that conclusion.
See, while you were busy pulling legs off spiders, I was learning things, vacationing in europe, learning languages- improving myself, and giving myself a better shot in life.
Huh, how about that! Vacationing in Europe! Why, it's a good thing there aren't any long standing traditions of hunting in Germany, or France, or Italy, or Russia! I'm sure you learned more about biology and meteorology hanging out in an effite coffee bar in Prague than I have actually out in the weather or interacting with animals in all sorts of terrains and climates.
Shoot, if I can finish picking my teeth with this here Bowie knife, maybe I can remember where I put my wife, who was born in Germany, and watched parts of the Cold War unfold in front of her as a child living in Vienna. Or maybe I can recall where we put that bottle of wine our dear Romanian friends just dropped off. Or remember where we put the nice pictures we took while we traveled in Greece, or Italy, or Turkey, or Crete. Nah... I'm too stunted by my exposure to a high school full of kids from diplomatic families all around DC, or my neighbors from Cameroon, or the kids from Peru we grew up with. My sheer ignorance and sheltered hillbilly upbringing probably explains that Chinese/Pakistani girlfriend in high school, too.
I wanted something more than camouflage fatigues and drunk, sub-literate "buddies."
Hmmm... I see more drunk, sub-literate idiots wearing fashionable camo stumbling around most liberal arts campuses than I do in any of my social circles.
you should have spent more time at what I like to call the "book range," or the "reading range."
Perhaps we should compare reading lists? You obviously haven't gotten over your infatuation with sophistry and childish, low-brow sarcasm, so I can limit my list to stuff I finished in 8th grade, if that will make you feel better. Not to worry, though, the next Harry Potter isn't too far off, and if the words are too big, there's always the movies, and no-one will see your lips moving that way. Versuchen Sie, sich beim Schreiben nicht zu verletzen, Sie arroganter Esel.
If by "no," you mean "yes," then you're correct! Crime per capita has nothing to do with it. It's the change in crime per capita and the nature of that crime before/after gun bans (or liberalization in ownership) that we're talking about.
One year after a sweeping ban/confiscation program in Australia, they had these charming results:
- homicdes up 3.2%
- assaults up 8.6%
- armed robberies up 44% (!!)
- in Victoria, homicides with firearms up 300%
- 25-year downward trends in armed robbery and homicides with firearms reversed
and so on. This program cost Australia about half a billion dollars, and now many lives. Much the same story in Scotland.why most homocides here in Denmark are done with knifes - we haven't raised the stakes to guns!
... I'd like to visit Denmark some day, since I have had many ancestors from there and elsewhere in Scandinavia (Rasmussens, Kuykendaals, Hendrixes, and more) and I guess I still have some hope that I can see some Danish countryside that still feels a bit like it was when they lived there.
Come on, now, read some actual statistics! In counties like Australia, where the guns were banned and largely confiscated, not only to knife-murders go up, but overall crime and murder went up entirely. Fewer guns in the hands of people willing to defend themselves, and people willing to kill with a knife or their bare hands are less worried about being stopped. This is true in certain states/cities in the US (say, in Florida, where once people were recently allowed once again to carry a gun, knifings went down, as did all violent crime).
Most likely the longer Danish history of less violent crime has to do with having a smaller, less stratified population in a much smaller area. As your population so dramatically shifts (with your huge immigration issues), you may see a situation much more similar to that of the Paris suburbs. I hope not