Good point. Still, I think that the risk to tourists passing through the border is pretty minimal. I've been on the US mexican embassy mailing list, and I readily admit that occasionally I receive an email saying something like: Nuevo Laredo is super fucked up at the moment and police stations are getting bombed. Do not go there. However, this is rare, so considering the short amount of time one would spend at the border, combined with the relative rarity of these places being dangerous to non-drug-traffickers, I think you have to be really unlucky or just acting stupid to get in trouble. Like almost anywhere else.
I've been traveling in Mexico for the last two months. I have never been more surprised by a country: the incredible ancient prehispanic and colonial architecture, beautiful landscapes, and modern, friendly cities. The border is horrible - one hundred miles south of the border (I visited Monterrey and Cd. Chihuahua) is beautiful and safe. Look up pictures of Zacatecas and Guanajuato - amazing.
Corruption and drug use are a big issue, but tourists are safe (except from using your credit card at sketchy clubs to buy drinks... whoops).
To me, Mexico feels like a country rapidly moving towards the first world, not the other way around. In the US, we really only hear the bad stuff, but doesn't begin to sum up feeling in this country - everyone I've met seems optimistic, if not somewhat bitter about government corruption.
Also, here is a very important and recognized recent article from the Mexican magazine Proceso, with an interview with the second in command Mexican drug trafficking: http://www.proceso.com.mx/rv/modHome/detalleExclusiva/78067
Check it out.
In the example you give, absolutely what you say should not be regulated - however, you must admit campaigns with money to spend no doubt receive far more "I emphatically support you" videos than campaigns with nothing. And yes, I think that if you are being paid to speak for a lobbyist there should be some limitations - a special law for bloggers may be necessary because as a form of speech it is so different from anything else. however, i wish i knew the actual motivations for this debate in congress, which i'm sure has no basis in actual morality.
Well it seems to me that if you are paid to express a certain opinion, that expression isn't comparable to the expression of a personal opinion, i.e. free speech. Putting restrictions on an idea that someone is paid to put out doesn't seem to be a restriction of free speech, because there is no restriction on the idea itself, just the "advertising" of that idea. "Advertising" seems to be a better way of viewing lobbying than "free speech," and there should be restrictions on advertising, I think (although it's definitely a murky issue).
I really don't understand the use of making a plan that looks forward 14 years in the future. If NASA made a plan in 1992 to come to the moon today, they wouldn't have had plans to use technology like gps, or nano materials, or fuel cells, or god knows what else. Plans would have had to be so constantly adapted that they never would have gone anywhere. If NASA really wants to go the moon, they need to take the technology we have now, plan for 6 months, and build. Honestly, obviously we have the tech to get to the moon (unless its regressed since '69), we just don't have the balls. NASA has become far too risk averse - I'm sure the astronauts would be willing to put their lives on the line for a shot to begin a new era of human existence, I wish the bureaucracy would stop working for perfection and just go for it.
To quote Stephen Colbert (from memory, from when he was on TDS): "The problem with music today isn't that it's offensive. It's that it sucks."
Re:IMO, a step towards improving our education
on
More A's, More Pay
·
· Score: 1
The public school system is broke. Trying to improve teaching quality by installing programs like this won't counter the fact that the education system in this country doesn't have enough money to pay its teachers, and pay for anything beyond basic school supplies. Honestly, education is possibly this country's most important institution, at least in the long term. To give the education system such a small portion of the national budget is shameful. Programs like this may have some effect - however, they merely sidestep the real issue.
Google technically could put a filter in. However, that starts a terrible precedent. Although pages with the word 'crack'after a piece software in the title could (and probably will) be illegal, what if they are simply information about cracks, for example about cracks' illegality? Should google not be able to link to pages with information about illegal activity? Should they censor out the words "murder" or "theft"?
Americans pride themselves (ourselves) as being strong and tough. The reality is that our country would not be in the state it is in if Americans weren't so utterly terrified of terrorism. Is it terrifying? Yes. But that's what toughness is - standing up to something that scares you. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be gun toting crazy fucks who prowl the borders searching for terrorists to chase with assault rifles. Instead it seems the party now stands for giving up personal freedom to hide from the terrorists behind a wall of helplessness. C'mon, you need to pick one, having guns, or having the government watch and protect you like your mother. You don't get both. Then again, I guess if the government only illegally detains arab citizens it's not so bad. Sigh...
from a nytimes article on the subject:
"Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before."
i dont know if this means that google will be changing search results, but if it does, this is a pretty drastic philosophy change, and something that seems to bode extremely negatively for googles future
You may have seen stories today reporting on a new product that we're testing, and speculating about our plans. Here's what's really going on. We are testing a new way for content owners to submit their content to Google, which we hope will complement existing methods such as our web crawl and Google Sitemaps. We think it's an exciting product, and we'll let you know when there's more news.
Somehow I doubt that hundreds of millions of people will volunteer their time to scan books into PDF's. Also, if you believe google, books finding their way onto the web will help people find these books in order to buy them, it won't steal their business. how many people really want to read hundred page books on their computer? you can't (easily) read the computer while you're on the toilet!
i wonder if this partnership will affect google earth's relationship with world wind. maybe they will collaborate? share satellite imagery? hopefully both products will stay out, they perform some different functions, this seems to be the only place where there is currently competition between google and nasa, and i wonder if this has anything to do with the partnership.
i've personally used this program quite a bit in its current form, and its actually quite fantastic from a novice standpoint. it makes it incredibly easy to make graphically intensive websites with flashy rollovers and buttons, and is really intuitive and powerful. i don't know how advanced it can be when brought to its full potential, but i've had a lot of fun with it and like it more than illustrator in terms of convergence with bitmap images and ease of use.
I don't mean to make a Nazi comparison, but I will anyway. When the Nazi's started hauling making abusive laws for Jews, and then hauling them off to camps, their neighbors said the same thing as you: has this impacted me or my friends? No. So they did nothing and 6 million people died. Just wait long enough, and by the time it impacts you you won't be able to make posts on slashdot asking questions about who's been impacted.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Still, I think that the risk to tourists passing through the border is pretty minimal. I've been on the US mexican embassy mailing list, and I readily admit that occasionally I receive an email saying something like: Nuevo Laredo is super fucked up at the moment and police stations are getting bombed. Do not go there. However, this is rare, so considering the short amount of time one would spend at the border, combined with the relative rarity of these places being dangerous to non-drug-traffickers, I think you have to be really unlucky or just acting stupid to get in trouble. Like almost anywhere else.
I've been traveling in Mexico for the last two months. I have never been more surprised by a country: the incredible ancient prehispanic and colonial architecture, beautiful landscapes, and modern, friendly cities. The border is horrible - one hundred miles south of the border (I visited Monterrey and Cd. Chihuahua) is beautiful and safe. Look up pictures of Zacatecas and Guanajuato - amazing. Corruption and drug use are a big issue, but tourists are safe (except from using your credit card at sketchy clubs to buy drinks... whoops). To me, Mexico feels like a country rapidly moving towards the first world, not the other way around. In the US, we really only hear the bad stuff, but doesn't begin to sum up feeling in this country - everyone I've met seems optimistic, if not somewhat bitter about government corruption. Also, here is a very important and recognized recent article from the Mexican magazine Proceso, with an interview with the second in command Mexican drug trafficking: http://www.proceso.com.mx/rv/modHome/detalleExclusiva/78067 Check it out.
In the example you give, absolutely what you say should not be regulated - however, you must admit campaigns with money to spend no doubt receive far more "I emphatically support you" videos than campaigns with nothing. And yes, I think that if you are being paid to speak for a lobbyist there should be some limitations - a special law for bloggers may be necessary because as a form of speech it is so different from anything else. however, i wish i knew the actual motivations for this debate in congress, which i'm sure has no basis in actual morality.
Well it seems to me that if you are paid to express a certain opinion, that expression isn't comparable to the expression of a personal opinion, i.e. free speech. Putting restrictions on an idea that someone is paid to put out doesn't seem to be a restriction of free speech, because there is no restriction on the idea itself, just the "advertising" of that idea. "Advertising" seems to be a better way of viewing lobbying than "free speech," and there should be restrictions on advertising, I think (although it's definitely a murky issue).
I really don't understand the use of making a plan that looks forward 14 years in the future. If NASA made a plan in 1992 to come to the moon today, they wouldn't have had plans to use technology like gps, or nano materials, or fuel cells, or god knows what else. Plans would have had to be so constantly adapted that they never would have gone anywhere. If NASA really wants to go the moon, they need to take the technology we have now, plan for 6 months, and build. Honestly, obviously we have the tech to get to the moon (unless its regressed since '69), we just don't have the balls. NASA has become far too risk averse - I'm sure the astronauts would be willing to put their lives on the line for a shot to begin a new era of human existence, I wish the bureaucracy would stop working for perfection and just go for it.
2prong actually puts the new email address in your clipboard (copies it) automatically - all you have to do is paste it.
To quote Stephen Colbert (from memory, from when he was on TDS): "The problem with music today isn't that it's offensive. It's that it sucks."
The public school system is broke. Trying to improve teaching quality by installing programs like this won't counter the fact that the education system in this country doesn't have enough money to pay its teachers, and pay for anything beyond basic school supplies. Honestly, education is possibly this country's most important institution, at least in the long term. To give the education system such a small portion of the national budget is shameful. Programs like this may have some effect - however, they merely sidestep the real issue.
Google technically could put a filter in. However, that starts a terrible precedent. Although pages with the word 'crack'after a piece software in the title could (and probably will) be illegal, what if they are simply information about cracks, for example about cracks' illegality? Should google not be able to link to pages with information about illegal activity? Should they censor out the words "murder" or "theft"?
Americans pride themselves (ourselves) as being strong and tough. The reality is that our country would not be in the state it is in if Americans weren't so utterly terrified of terrorism. Is it terrifying? Yes. But that's what toughness is - standing up to something that scares you. I thought the Republicans were supposed to be gun toting crazy fucks who prowl the borders searching for terrorists to chase with assault rifles. Instead it seems the party now stands for giving up personal freedom to hide from the terrorists behind a wall of helplessness. C'mon, you need to pick one, having guns, or having the government watch and protect you like your mother. You don't get both. Then again, I guess if the government only illegally detains arab citizens it's not so bad. Sigh...
what's the same about star trek and toilet paper? they both circle uranus searching for klingons!
haha, it looks like in an attempt to be creative, they stole the scroll bar from picasa, google's photo organizer. nice one
teledildonics
from a nytimes article on the subject: "Google, which prides itself on the purity of its search results, agreed to give favored placement to content from AOL throughout its site, something it has never done before."
i dont know if this means that google will be changing search results, but if it does, this is a pretty drastic philosophy change, and something that seems to bode extremely negatively for googles future
is this story posted in the Linux section?
This is newsworthy because it appears on the Google blog, which seems to be the main source of Slashdot news these days.
from the google blog:
You may have seen stories today reporting on a new product that we're testing, and speculating about our plans. Here's what's really going on. We are testing a new way for content owners to submit their content to Google, which we hope will complement existing methods such as our web crawl and Google Sitemaps. We think it's an exciting product, and we'll let you know when there's more news.
Somehow I doubt that hundreds of millions of people will volunteer their time to scan books into PDF's. Also, if you believe google, books finding their way onto the web will help people find these books in order to buy them, it won't steal their business. how many people really want to read hundred page books on their computer? you can't (easily) read the computer while you're on the toilet!
from the first paragraph of the article: "one of the world's highest train routes."
no, it says it can't find the file, i don't know whats up
i wonder if this partnership will affect google earth's relationship with world wind. maybe they will collaborate? share satellite imagery? hopefully both products will stay out, they perform some different functions, this seems to be the only place where there is currently competition between google and nasa, and i wonder if this has anything to do with the partnership.
i've personally used this program quite a bit in its current form, and its actually quite fantastic from a novice standpoint. it makes it incredibly easy to make graphically intensive websites with flashy rollovers and buttons, and is really intuitive and powerful. i don't know how advanced it can be when brought to its full potential, but i've had a lot of fun with it and like it more than illustrator in terms of convergence with bitmap images and ease of use.
According to Sim City 2000, we don't get fusion power til 2050
I don't mean to make a Nazi comparison, but I will anyway. When the Nazi's started hauling making abusive laws for Jews, and then hauling them off to camps, their neighbors said the same thing as you: has this impacted me or my friends? No. So they did nothing and 6 million people died. Just wait long enough, and by the time it impacts you you won't be able to make posts on slashdot asking questions about who's been impacted.
(except when microsoft bashes, then its evil)