That may be true. It may not, and I am certainly not particularly capable of judging.
It is certainly true that what they are learning is different, and it seems fairly likely to me that what they are learning is far more broad in general application. Whether they have less actual knowledge is debatable; it seems like an issue that is prone to moral panic attacks, much like school shootings. The cries of "Our children are learning less than they ever were!" ring out just as loudly as "Our children are in far more danger now than they ever were!". Statistically speaking, school shootings are not significantly more prevalent than they were in the 1960s, and I have a fair feeling that the same is true of education. However, I think as our knowledge as a society continues to expand we are going to start 'downloading' material that we find more and more basic.
Already, it is relatively common for students to spend ten years in post-secondary education when they specialize; they end up eating significant chunks of their adult life away in education rather than production, when we are now coming to realize that a large proportion of the most educationally-productive years (the youngest) are being 'wasted'.
Especially as specialization drives our society, (an electrical engineer who designs LCD displays is going to have a hard time moving over to designing rocket avionics) it seems increasingly likely that the most basic necessary education will be imparted earlier and earlier, so as to give more time toward focusing on specific disciplines, perhaps to a disadvantage. The Renaissance person of centuries past, like Leonardo Da Vinci, who could do well at anything he set his hand to is already decades long gone.
Children are most definitely not the same as adults, as you went to great pains to explain on a handful of occasions in your post. That doesn't mean they're less intelligent or less competent; but they are different, just like women are different from men.
There are trade-offs, advantages, and drawbacks to everything. To very roughly paraphrase: "For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven."
I think this is very true. As a rule, the general 'trend' of knowledge and capability is increasing- we see the percentage of 25 year olds who have undergraduate degrees today is the same as the percentage of 25 year olds who had high school diplomas forty or fifty years ago.
But the maximum, the possibilities, have increased immensely- in 50 years, we've developed in every field, from metallurgy to medicine to computers in ways that would never have been dreamed possible seventy-five years ago.
And, as you posit, our transition to a knowledge-based economy has made it possible for those who aren't interested in self-development to essentially stagnate, comfortably, at an unusual lack of development, especially compared to those who DO focus on development and continue to advance.
The financial gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase; and yes, so does the knowledge gap.
Essentially, I think, you are starting to see a striation into class-like bands in our society- between those who want to develop and advance for advancement's sake and those who merely want to live their lives.
I really wonder what schools you are talking about.
Yes, there are always a handful of individuals at the cutting edge, not only of technology but of culture. These people existed in previous generations, and they will always exist; in many ways, they operate very similarly across multiple generations, just with a change of medium.
But the vast majority of today's youth also have no clue about the Internet, how to use it, and what it could bring them. They show exceptionally limited independent action and little to no independent thought.
Today's youth may be connected- but there's no real information passing between them.
There will always be a... cutting edge, a group of individuals both as students and as adults, who will find ways to use everything they have available in the best ways possible. This has always been true, and as a rule, people have never really known what to do about them.
Unfortunately, as a student, I have far less confidence in my peers than you seem to.
The problem is that if they did that, they'd have nowhere to put it.
Unless you want to create an international organization with its own territory (sort of like the UN headquarters) that controls global routing- it can't be subject to any national law because it's got its own extraterritoriality (although international lawyers would tell me it's not true extraterritoriality, blah blah blah).
But somebody has to control THAT organization, and unless its mandate is simply to maintain the internet routing in a transparent manner between national-level routing domains...
Perhaps the fact that the prosecutor's office is not charging the 'sex freak', who in fact CONFESSED to eight murders, with those murders indicates there's a very good reason they don't consider him a suspect- like the fact he's entirely lacking in credibility.
Practically speaking, however, that's a fallacious argument. Plenty of people believe in God; but logically speaking, the chances of his actually existing are so low as to not trigger the reasonable-doubt threshold.
Basically, people will believe plenty of things that are so unlikely as to be unpractical. That doesn't make reasonable doubt.
Unless of course you sell service to people all over the globe with a constellation of LEO satellites.
In any case, a Molniya orbit would only require three satellites for coverage, looks ideal for Japan as a nation, and the perigee can be as low as ~400km. The round-trip latency for 400 km would be (400*4/300,000), or 5ms (if my mental mathematics is not off by a decimal point or so).
Is it not, after all, a fundamental not only on Slashdot but of security in general that any security can be broken if you have physical access to the boxen?
In any case, I think as a primary corollary to your first question, one really needs to ask whether this is a decision that the submitter should be making with his sister. It seems to me, that with all of the talk on Slashdot about 'we must blame the parents who do not take care of their children', this is a decision the parents need to make with their daughter (or that she needs to make alone and can then argue with them afterwards about).
It seems like a ripe situation for family conflict when the (brother, presumably) interposes himself as he is doing here.
True, but all USB 1.1 gizmos are backwards compatible with USB 2.0, and this is hardly backwards compatible with Bluetooth.
In this case you have a totally different standard that appears to be competing not so much in the PAN area but in the wireless-USB area, and in that respect I see it competing with UWB and WUSB. However, WUSB is only 480 Mbits per second...
That said, at the moment, WUSB seems to be a solution looking for a problem; which leads back to my original issue. Where is this going to come in handy at this price point? Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.
At first blush, it seems like this is a bluetooth replacement, until you look at the cost of the chips- almost ten dollars per unit! Wowza- that means it'll cost $15 to put it in anything.
'Course, I don't know how expensive bluetooth chips are per unit, but I expect they're cheaper than that- especially with all the tiny USB bluetooth receivers you can find floating around for $19.99 and under these days.
That said, what else would it really replace or be used in?
I have used UK's T-Mobile service (HSDPA, via bluetooth link to my laptop) and have not noticed any such stripping. A significant issue was latency, generally 100ms to 500ms, and the speed on HSDPA was probably 35-45 KB/s, so make it 300-400 kbps.
I noticed they also specified a cap of, if I recall correctly, 40 MB/day; I went over this supposed cap on more than one occasion (likely every day for the two months I was using it, in fact) and nobody seemed to notice or care.
In short, the only power the Supreme Court has over anything but the specific case brought before it is whatever authority people believe it has (i.e. it influences people because of what they believe). However, the Supreme Court does not have actual authority to enforce its ruling upon any but the parties to the specific case.
Which is simply not true. Stare Decisis causes those decisions to 'flow' downward, and be imposed upon substantively similar cases that are brought forward in courts of first instance; and in fact, that a lower court does not follow precedent is grounds for appeal.
Admittedly, there is a grey area in which courts debate over whether precedent is binding with regard to a specific case; however, in general, the Supreme Court's ability to enforce its rulings are far more substantial than you appear to give it credit for.
In the same way, the Executive is not bound to obey rulings of the Courts, and, for that matter, the military is not bound to obey the orders of its legitimate civilian commanders, either, but they do, in many cases against their specific personal objections- for example, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
Those issues aside, I take no issue with your statements regarding the powers of the Supreme Court and never did; I apologize if it seems that way.
Perhaps you are not aware of exactly how Stare Decisis and precedent work- lower courts are indeed bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Not following precedent is an error and grounds for appeal to a court that will.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
"Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere -- "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.""
Unless the jury can be shown to have received deceiving testimony, they should be held to account. Use the same standard as in any other negligence case for this.
This would cause the entire legal system to collapse. No jury would convict if they were personally liable. There would be no reason to do so and every reason not to.
And the whole concept of a guilty plea needs to be abolished completely. Too many guilty people take "the deal" and get off light, whereas an innocent who pleads their case can be ramrodded into a major sentence.
Plea bargaining is problematic. However, in the system as it stands, it's not going to go away. The courts only hear between 2-5% of criminal charges; the others are dismissed or plea-bargained away. If you get rid of plea-bargaining, either the number of people charged needs to drop dramatically or the number of judges needs to increase dramatically.
Oh... and if acquitted, the courts should pick up the defendant's legal bill and reimburse for lost wages and other damages incurred.
Why should the Court be responsible? Perhaps you mean the Attorney General's office? Again, you create the same problem. Why would the DA/ADA prosecute if s/he is going to be held liable for doing so?
There's a reason why, generally, officers of the court are immune while in the exercise of their duties. It's because otherwise, the system would fall apart, just like without privilege.
You're both absolutely right. Why the fuck should we let incompetent people decide either the result of our criminal trials or the course of our society?
I always respond in the same way to people who think there is some vast conspiracy against Ron Paul.
Is there a conspiracy against Ron Paul?
Yes. A large group in the US has decided to block his rise to power, since his policies would grievously threaten their interests. Little is known about this shadowy organisation beyond its name - 'The Voting Public'.
I have just finished pointing out that all sites take memory. It's a gradual process whereby firefox eats more and more resources until it becomes unusable and has to be killed. There's obviously a leak somewhere, but I freely admit I am no programmer and wouldn't know where to begin looking for one.
I have indeed pointed out a specific problem. The browser leaks memory like a sieve, and uses enormous quantities of processing power when doing apparently nothing. Not only is this a specific problem, it's very significant.
I cannot give you any specific set of steps to reproduce this problem, because there are none. Any use of the browser will inevitably result in the problem arising; the only difference is how much time it takes for the problem to arise. It can take minutes, or hours, or days until the browser becomes unusable due to bloat.
Tell me, how do I 'report' such an issue? How do I give you a specific set of steps, when no set of steps is necessary?
With regard to other browsers, they're all bad. As I said, Firefox is the best of a bad lot, but that says nothing good about firefox, just that Opera and IE7 are even more crappy.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true. It may not, and I am certainly not particularly capable of judging.
It is certainly true that what they are learning is different, and it seems fairly likely to me that what they are learning is far more broad in general application. Whether they have less actual knowledge is debatable; it seems like an issue that is prone to moral panic attacks, much like school shootings. The cries of "Our children are learning less than they ever were!" ring out just as loudly as "Our children are in far more danger now than they ever were!". Statistically speaking, school shootings are not significantly more prevalent than they were in the 1960s, and I have a fair feeling that the same is true of education. However, I think as our knowledge as a society continues to expand we are going to start 'downloading' material that we find more and more basic.
Already, it is relatively common for students to spend ten years in post-secondary education when they specialize; they end up eating significant chunks of their adult life away in education rather than production, when we are now coming to realize that a large proportion of the most educationally-productive years (the youngest) are being 'wasted'.
Especially as specialization drives our society, (an electrical engineer who designs LCD displays is going to have a hard time moving over to designing rocket avionics) it seems increasingly likely that the most basic necessary education will be imparted earlier and earlier, so as to give more time toward focusing on specific disciplines, perhaps to a disadvantage. The Renaissance person of centuries past, like Leonardo Da Vinci, who could do well at anything he set his hand to is already decades long gone.
Children are most definitely not the same as adults, as you went to great pains to explain on a handful of occasions in your post. That doesn't mean they're less intelligent or less competent; but they are different, just like women are different from men.
There are trade-offs, advantages, and drawbacks to everything. To very roughly paraphrase: "For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven."
I think this is very true. As a rule, the general 'trend' of knowledge and capability is increasing- we see the percentage of 25 year olds who have undergraduate degrees today is the same as the percentage of 25 year olds who had high school diplomas forty or fifty years ago.
But the maximum, the possibilities, have increased immensely- in 50 years, we've developed in every field, from metallurgy to medicine to computers in ways that would never have been dreamed possible seventy-five years ago.
And, as you posit, our transition to a knowledge-based economy has made it possible for those who aren't interested in self-development to essentially stagnate, comfortably, at an unusual lack of development, especially compared to those who DO focus on development and continue to advance.
The financial gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase; and yes, so does the knowledge gap.
Essentially, I think, you are starting to see a striation into class-like bands in our society- between those who want to develop and advance for advancement's sake and those who merely want to live their lives.
I really wonder what schools you are talking about.
Yes, there are always a handful of individuals at the cutting edge, not only of technology but of culture. These people existed in previous generations, and they will always exist; in many ways, they operate very similarly across multiple generations, just with a change of medium.
But the vast majority of today's youth also have no clue about the Internet, how to use it, and what it could bring them. They show exceptionally limited independent action and little to no independent thought.
Today's youth may be connected- but there's no real information passing between them.
There will always be a... cutting edge, a group of individuals both as students and as adults, who will find ways to use everything they have available in the best ways possible. This has always been true, and as a rule, people have never really known what to do about them.
Unfortunately, as a student, I have far less confidence in my peers than you seem to.
Probably be remarkably ineffective. Sovereign governments are, as a rule, immune from civil suit.
The problem is that if they did that, they'd have nowhere to put it.
Unless you want to create an international organization with its own territory (sort of like the UN headquarters) that controls global routing- it can't be subject to any national law because it's got its own extraterritoriality (although international lawyers would tell me it's not true extraterritoriality, blah blah blah).
But somebody has to control THAT organization, and unless its mandate is simply to maintain the internet routing in a transparent manner between national-level routing domains...
There's a reason B-2 stealth bombers don't go supersonic. The rather large, obvious concussive boom makes your stealthy plane not so stealthy anymore.
Perhaps the fact that the prosecutor's office is not charging the 'sex freak', who in fact CONFESSED to eight murders, with those murders indicates there's a very good reason they don't consider him a suspect- like the fact he's entirely lacking in credibility.
Boston Legal thanks you for your viewership. :P
Practically speaking, however, that's a fallacious argument. Plenty of people believe in God; but logically speaking, the chances of his actually existing are so low as to not trigger the reasonable-doubt threshold.
Basically, people will believe plenty of things that are so unlikely as to be unpractical. That doesn't make reasonable doubt.
Unless of course you sell service to people all over the globe with a constellation of LEO satellites.
In any case, a Molniya orbit would only require three satellites for coverage, looks ideal for Japan as a nation, and the perigee can be as low as ~400km. The round-trip latency for 400 km would be (400*4/300,000), or 5ms (if my mental mathematics is not off by a decimal point or so).
Yes, you'd need three satellites, admittedly.
Is it not, after all, a fundamental not only on Slashdot but of security in general that any security can be broken if you have physical access to the boxen?
In any case, I think as a primary corollary to your first question, one really needs to ask whether this is a decision that the submitter should be making with his sister. It seems to me, that with all of the talk on Slashdot about 'we must blame the parents who do not take care of their children', this is a decision the parents need to make with their daughter (or that she needs to make alone and can then argue with them afterwards about).
It seems like a ripe situation for family conflict when the (brother, presumably) interposes himself as he is doing here.
True, but all USB 1.1 gizmos are backwards compatible with USB 2.0, and this is hardly backwards compatible with Bluetooth.
In this case you have a totally different standard that appears to be competing not so much in the PAN area but in the wireless-USB area, and in that respect I see it competing with UWB and WUSB. However, WUSB is only 480 Mbits per second...
That said, at the moment, WUSB seems to be a solution looking for a problem; which leads back to my original issue. Where is this going to come in handy at this price point? Nobody's going to pay upwards of $35 for a glorified USB cable.
At first blush, it seems like this is a bluetooth replacement, until you look at the cost of the chips- almost ten dollars per unit! Wowza- that means it'll cost $15 to put it in anything.
'Course, I don't know how expensive bluetooth chips are per unit, but I expect they're cheaper than that- especially with all the tiny USB bluetooth receivers you can find floating around for $19.99 and under these days.
That said, what else would it really replace or be used in?
I have used UK's T-Mobile service (HSDPA, via bluetooth link to my laptop) and have not noticed any such stripping. A significant issue was latency, generally 100ms to 500ms, and the speed on HSDPA was probably 35-45 KB/s, so make it 300-400 kbps.
I noticed they also specified a cap of, if I recall correctly, 40 MB/day; I went over this supposed cap on more than one occasion (likely every day for the two months I was using it, in fact) and nobody seemed to notice or care.
Which is simply not true. Stare Decisis causes those decisions to 'flow' downward, and be imposed upon substantively similar cases that are brought forward in courts of first instance; and in fact, that a lower court does not follow precedent is grounds for appeal.
Admittedly, there is a grey area in which courts debate over whether precedent is binding with regard to a specific case; however, in general, the Supreme Court's ability to enforce its rulings are far more substantial than you appear to give it credit for.
In the same way, the Executive is not bound to obey rulings of the Courts, and, for that matter, the military is not bound to obey the orders of its legitimate civilian commanders, either, but they do, in many cases against their specific personal objections- for example, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
Those issues aside, I take no issue with your statements regarding the powers of the Supreme Court and never did; I apologize if it seems that way.
"There can be no right, without remedy."
"Ubi jus ibi remedium." (Where law prevails, there is a remedy.)
Go ask Blackstone.
Perhaps you are not aware of exactly how Stare Decisis and precedent work- lower courts are indeed bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Not following precedent is an error and grounds for appeal to a court that will.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
"Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere -- "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.""
Sure I would. How about whoever was trying to muscle in on the government's turf?
This would cause the entire legal system to collapse. No jury would convict if they were personally liable. There would be no reason to do so and every reason not to.
Plea bargaining is problematic. However, in the system as it stands, it's not going to go away. The courts only hear between 2-5% of criminal charges; the others are dismissed or plea-bargained away. If you get rid of plea-bargaining, either the number of people charged needs to drop dramatically or the number of judges needs to increase dramatically.
Why should the Court be responsible? Perhaps you mean the Attorney General's office? Again, you create the same problem. Why would the DA/ADA prosecute if s/he is going to be held liable for doing so?
There's a reason why, generally, officers of the court are immune while in the exercise of their duties. It's because otherwise, the system would fall apart, just like without privilege.
You're both absolutely right. Why the fuck should we let incompetent people decide either the result of our criminal trials or the course of our society?
Let me guess, the United States is not giving you access to TDRSS? ;)
A very good point. If, for whatever reason, the author's original grant of the license was bad...
A good lawyer would look long and hard for such a technicality.
Is there a conspiracy against Ron Paul?
I have just finished pointing out that all sites take memory. It's a gradual process whereby firefox eats more and more resources until it becomes unusable and has to be killed. There's obviously a leak somewhere, but I freely admit I am no programmer and wouldn't know where to begin looking for one.
I have indeed pointed out a specific problem. The browser leaks memory like a sieve, and uses enormous quantities of processing power when doing apparently nothing. Not only is this a specific problem, it's very significant.
I cannot give you any specific set of steps to reproduce this problem, because there are none. Any use of the browser will inevitably result in the problem arising; the only difference is how much time it takes for the problem to arise. It can take minutes, or hours, or days until the browser becomes unusable due to bloat.
Tell me, how do I 'report' such an issue? How do I give you a specific set of steps, when no set of steps is necessary?
With regard to other browsers, they're all bad. As I said, Firefox is the best of a bad lot, but that says nothing good about firefox, just that Opera and IE7 are even more crappy.