My question is, what do you mean by "American"? Do I count, as a naturalized citizen of this wonderful country? Yes.
have you ever thought about why these people came over here to learn in the first place? Wouldn't you, for a free ride?
Seriously, when did "Americans" become so hostile towards immigrants? When our politicians gave them free education, and tax incentives to employers to hire them over equally qualified Americans who had to pay for their education with a lifetime of debt.
On a conceptual level, you're agreeing that providing cheap / free education works. So, why not extend that to the US citizens? I don't believe I oppose giving it to US Citizens. Doubly so, as long as we're paying for Indians and Chinese.
My snark is aimed solely at those who are going to oppose the idea outright, just because a politician suggested it and it's not politically acceptable to give money to Americans (omg socialism! *ranting noises*).
What exactly are you referring to? We spent most of the 80s and 90s giving tremendous amounts of money to Indian and Chinese exchange students (at the high school level) and student visa students (at the college level). None of the students on those visas were paying for their education, nor were their home governments sending them here. We imported them, and paid for the entire cost, including subjects other than just Math, Science, and Engineering. Largely part of political plays to show what nice tolerant people we were, and "increase diversity" in schools.
Now, where have all the jobs been going in the last 10 years?
If by "Indians" you mean "Native Americans," I can tell you, from first-hand experience, that it's not a free ride. I wouldn't still be paying off credit card debt, if it were. It's a good thing then, by "Indians" I mean "Citizens of the Republic of India".
They should teach you English, too. I apologize that my attempt at a sarcastic first post did not meet your perfecting standards for internet forums. Clearly, I should prepare as though writing for a peer-reviewed medical journal.
Aside from that, don't forget that giving free college education to foreigners is great, considering that you get to choose how long you keep them, and where you let them work. Actually, I disagree. If we keep them, they take a job from an American. If we send them home, they compete with us from abroad, and make money for India/China instead of for the US. In either case, Americans lose.
You save twelve years of fundamental education, and with just four, you get an engineer who will work where you want him to work, and for as long as you wish. Since the fundamental education is a sunk cost, why should we shoot ourselves in the foot by stopping there and giving the education to someone who is going to hurt us in either case (see above); instead of giving it to an American, who will also perform the same work, for what is likely a longer period of time?
An Indian or Chinese will often fulfill their obligation, while sending money back to their home country. When completed, they will usually leave on their own, as their US Salary is a King's Fortune there. An American, likely will not be emigrating to India to enjoy the money they've made here. Since you're rather pedantic, let me point out that I said "usually" and "likely" meaning "The number of Indians/Chinese who take their money and run greatly exceeds the number of US students who get free educations here and move to India or China." and not "It will never happen, ever, so a single instance or a small minority percentage is a valid counter-argument."
despisethesun wrote:
Schwarzanegger isn't "campaigning for a single issue". He's campaigning against video game violence while deflecting questions about the violent movies he starred in. So, because he's campaigning about video games, and not taking questions about movies, he's "not campaigning for a single issue"? Huh?
And "Active Participation + Low Community Standards" is a blatant falsehood. This isn't 1993, the ESRB is arguably stricter and more consistent in its application of ratings than the MPAA, Hot Coffee not withstanding. Yes but, the local video game store isn't enforcing the ESRB ratings the way a theater commonly does the MPAA ratings. So it is not a "blatant falsehood"; and perhaps you should consider such before resorting to "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!" as a reply.
despisethesun wrote:
If he were arguing for the MPAA's rating system to have legal enforcement as well, there would be no hypocrisy but he's not. Why is someone a hypocrite for campaigning for a single issue at a time? Is everyone who doesn't push for simultaneous and linked legislation on every possible permutation of their belief a hypocrite?
Further, why shouldn't video games, which are actively participated in by the player; be considered on their own merits seperate from a movie, which is passive entertainment?
The way I see it:
Active Participation + Low Community Standards = Government Steps In.
Passive Viewing + High Community Standards = Good to go.
Pojut wrote:
You may spit in our faces, but you will be spitting in our faces as we put food on the tables of millions of people around the world.
While at home, you have willing, able, law abiding citizens like myself stuck at home, unable to work. My family scrapes by while my partner works overtime for pathetic pay. We don't get any extra food to help us; while the illegal immigrant with 3 naturalized kids sits at home all day and eats for free. We're being so generous giving away all our jobs to illegals and H1B abuse; and then we mail money and food back to their homes too!
America spit on me and kicked my family while we were down. My new American dream is that someday we'll save up enough to go to a progressive country that will allow me to have a job.
crucini wrote:
There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.(with link to copyright.gov page) My good friend, the page you linked to does not say that. The entire page talks about software, not movies or music. The closest thing on the page is a reference to the fact that you can't buy a "backup" from someone else -- your fair use backup must be made by yourself.
You do have the right to "rip" (meaning place-shift) movies and music that you have bought; provided you do so yourself, or someone on your behalf working directly with your personal copy does so, and can do so without violating the DMCA (meaning DVDs are probably out).
Anonymous Coward wrote:
See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment... If you ask me, using the threat of US Government action is just as much a violation as the government taking that action on their own accord.
I wouldn't be one to claim that a "First Amendment" or "Illegal Censorship" issue takes place when legal, private action (such as a store refusing to stock your product) is the stick used. However, using the government itself as the stick (via a lawsuit), is very much the same. I will grant you however, that our current SCOTUS staff that runs entirely on party lines and is even willing to overturn Brown vs. Board; would likely side with the Corporation over the Constitution.
rbanzai wrote:
I've played all three of those games and never heard of this guild. I was a member of a very top end guild in EverQuest (still #1 today); up until I quit about a year and a half ago. There was a small handful of guilds that were in serious running for the "top 5"; with many expansion races being decided by a matter of minutes for the first 3 finishers.
I've heard of the Syndicate, but they were always in that "tier 2" level of guilds. The kind of guild that the top guilds usually recruited from. They were good, but they didn't usually finish expansions before the release of the next one, and that left them behind in the second wave of finishers.
Thanks, That helps, hopefully someone will mod you up on this one.
On the "being pedantic" sidenote; I have karma bonus disabled, but you start at a base of 1, not zero. So the 2 positive mods you got give 2+1=3, it'd have been +4 with your bonus. But in either case, thanks for the answer:)
gr8_phk wrote:
What's the tactical reason? And somehow Chandon Seldon got a +3, Informative for:
Tactics are exactly the answer here - the FSF has a history of making tactical compromises. The FSF's process has no more been compromised over this than it was when they decided to release the LGPL and license GNU libc under it. Personally, as an outsider on this particular issue; I am no closer to an answer to gr8_phk's question. What exactly is informative about answering "What's the tactical reason" with "The tactics"?
QuesarVII wrote:
Says the person who's never done any real benchmarking of these things...
Unless you buy the right raid card, you'll likely get worse performance from it than you would from software raid. I'm talking the name brands too - LSI, Adaptec, 3Ware. They all suck. Could you post a couple links to some benchmark results?
Tucson[, AZ] got like 0.6" of snow on Sunday! people were freaking out and some schools were closed the next day! WTF!
As a former Arizona resident (moved in December 06); this phenomenon seems strange on the surface but does have at least some basis in reality. I'm not saying there aren't people that overreact, but you have to understand how things are set up.
In Arizona, the streets do not have storm drainage. It'd be practically useless, as soon as the sun comes out again the water is dried up in 10 minutes. Therefore on the 2-3 days a year it does rain (or the once a century it snows), its actually quite dangerous to drive as the water is sitting in the roads. In addition, most cars (I know mine wasn't) do not have aqua-tread type tires. Most people are using regular tires or at best off road tires. Neither of which are anything close to tires with a double tread with a cavity down the center to push water aside. You can also just completely forget the idea that the city even OWNS a snow plow for the road.
So the question is, do you want your kids on a bus driving through a half inch of unplowed, melting snow, with regular tires and a driver that hasn't seen snow in 25 years? The "think of the children" fallacy doesn't apply when you're talking about closing schools due to a legitimate chance of a massive accident that can be avoided by simply taking 1 day off so the sun can fix the problem.
I would just like to comment, that i don't think that he isn't breaking anything.
1. Mail is not your papers (it's the senders, until you accept it.)
Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)
2. Mail is given to the post office to be delivered according to the rules, and it is those rules that he is changing.
From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces(emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?
He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.
3. The keyword here is "reasonable". Assuming safe guards are in place, a search of the mail is reasonable.
He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards, on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them. What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue? What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?
4. The president can declare martial law in which case due process is suspended.
Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.
Just to pick up on the laptop issue, it is possible, and indeed recommended by Microsoft to use non-expiring keys on laptops. They activate over the web to MS's central servers just once, just like a home license key does.
The GGP/Article was talking about Vista requiring you to "check in" every 6 months or lose access to your system. MS should never be allowed, technically or legally, to arbitrarily turn off your system until you jump through some more hoops for that. Yes, this "never" includes any smoke and mirrors set up about it being a "business machine".
Further, if it is possible as you say to get non-expiring keys, of what benefit is the lockout system? The only one I can think of is a power play to help get people adjusted to the idea that their corporate masters have final say on what they can do with what they paid for. The existence of even a single non-expiring key means that's the one "the evil pirates" will use and will evade the system entirely. Only legitimate customers unable or unwilling* to install an non-crippled product will be affected by the lockouts. If you, or anyone else, can name even one legitimate reason for a system like this with a back door in place; please do post it.
~Rebecca
*- I realize sometimes the boundaries between unable and unwilling cross in this area. Frequently the problem is monopoly mindshare; where even though the technical skills may be present a manager is unwilling to give up the MS payola by switching to a better product. The trickle-down from this is that Joe User is unwilling to try something different because he "needs Vista for work", even if it was offered preassembled and installed.
But the fact is that there is a large number of copyright holders for the Linux kernel, not just Linus himself. Not all of these copyright holders accept binary kernel modules, and thus they should be considered illegal to distribute with the kernel.
The kernel accepts binary modules by design and default. Even if the "other copyright holders to the Linux kernel" mattered in this case (they don't, see below); they submitted their code and efforts in agreement with things as they stood then, not some potential future version that Morton might want to make. So you're wrong on that point, despite any arguments they might make or political positions they might support, when the chips were down they did support kernel modules and there is no reason at all they should be illegal.
Further, a large majority of said other copyright holders wouldn't matter if they wanted to. A contributor might have given something great and valuable to the linux kernel. Unless they're the maintainer of the portion that actually handles loading modules, too bad so sad. If I'm not mistaken that's Torvalds and Morton. Everyone else, no matter how great their bluetooth subsystem is, can no more demand linux "make binary modules illegal" than you could of Microsoft.
Are you saying the guards should just refuse to guard? It doesn't work, though. Refusing orders can prevent the worst excesses and prevent individual acts of sadism. But even in the worst Nazi or Soviet concentration camps, what killed the most people was the combination of backbreaking work, inadequate food, lousy hygiene and no medical care. None of those things can be prevented by refusing orders.
Remember in this thread we're talking about the capacity of soldiers to not only refuse an order, but defect to defend the American populace against the rest of the military. That takes more than just refusing orders too. That's going to take doing something.
I'm sure there's plenty of food, they could share some. They could help out on the "backbreaking labor" -- soldiers tend to be in excellent physical condition, and are almost certainly in better shape than the tortured prisoner. The doctor/soldier could you know, uphold the Hippocratic oath and refuse procedures that enable torture (such as stimulants to enable sleep deprivation) or that enable torture to continue (such as force-feed tubes).
They could even release the prisoner and have a decent argument for their court martial -- "We are supposed to refuse illegal acts against civilians. This man has been held and tortured for 2 years and without any charges, trial, or even a visit from a lawyer. He's a civilian, it's illegal, we let him go."
I want to thank you again as I up until now haven't had much chance to have a discussion about this with someone who's actually been in the service recently (my closest military friend is over 2 years overdue now). So it's appreciated even though I don't feel that the assurance of military "rules" is sufficient to be willing to part with the ability to fight back.
It's really interesting reading your perspective, thank you for sharing it. It paints a totally different picture, that's for sure. If things are as you say however, how come no one did anything about Abu Ghraib when it was actually happening? How come Guantanamo persists? Why aren't these trained soldiers refusing these orders today?
Slashdot Mirror
have you ever thought about why these people came over here to learn in the first place? Wouldn't you, for a free ride?
Seriously, when did "Americans" become so hostile towards immigrants? When our politicians gave them free education, and tax incentives to employers to hire them over equally qualified Americans who had to pay for their education with a lifetime of debt.
~Rebecca
My snark is aimed solely at those who are going to oppose the idea outright, just because a politician suggested it and it's not politically acceptable to give money to Americans (omg socialism! *ranting noises*).
~Rebecca
Before all you mods rush to mod this guy up, and mod me as a troll; take a look at his email address. (.uy)
Let's let Americans decide if it's a good idea for Americans to pay for American Education, or Foreign Education.
Cheers,
~Rebecca
Now, where have all the jobs been going in the last 10 years?
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Aside from that, don't forget that giving free college education to foreigners is great, considering that you get to choose how long you keep them, and where you let them work. Actually, I disagree. If we keep them, they take a job from an American. If we send them home, they compete with us from abroad, and make money for India/China instead of for the US. In either case, Americans lose.
You save twelve years of fundamental education, and with just four, you get an engineer who will work where you want him to work, and for as long as you wish. Since the fundamental education is a sunk cost, why should we shoot ourselves in the foot by stopping there and giving the education to someone who is going to hurt us in either case (see above); instead of giving it to an American, who will also perform the same work, for what is likely a longer period of time?
An Indian or Chinese will often fulfill their obligation, while sending money back to their home country. When completed, they will usually leave on their own, as their US Salary is a King's Fortune there. An American, likely will not be emigrating to India to enjoy the money they've made here. Since you're rather pedantic, let me point out that I said "usually" and "likely" meaning "The number of Indians/Chinese who take their money and run greatly exceeds the number of US students who get free educations here and move to India or China." and not "It will never happen, ever, so a single instance or a small minority percentage is a valid counter-argument."
~Rebecca
Look how well it's done with the US Government giving free educations to the Indians and Chinese; imagine if we gave it to Americans!
~Rebecca
Schwarzanegger isn't "campaigning for a single issue". He's campaigning against video game violence while deflecting questions about the violent movies he starred in. So, because he's campaigning about video games, and not taking questions about movies, he's "not campaigning for a single issue"? Huh?
And "Active Participation + Low Community Standards" is a blatant falsehood. This isn't 1993, the ESRB is arguably stricter and more consistent in its application of ratings than the MPAA, Hot Coffee not withstanding. Yes but, the local video game store isn't enforcing the ESRB ratings the way a theater commonly does the MPAA ratings. So it is not a "blatant falsehood"; and perhaps you should consider such before resorting to "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!" as a reply.
~Rebecca
If he were arguing for the MPAA's rating system to have legal enforcement as well, there would be no hypocrisy but he's not. Why is someone a hypocrite for campaigning for a single issue at a time? Is everyone who doesn't push for simultaneous and linked legislation on every possible permutation of their belief a hypocrite?
Further, why shouldn't video games, which are actively participated in by the player; be considered on their own merits seperate from a movie, which is passive entertainment?
The way I see it:
Active Participation + Low Community Standards = Government Steps In.
Passive Viewing + High Community Standards = Good to go.
~Rebecca
You may spit in our faces, but you will be spitting in our faces as we put food on the tables of millions of people around the world.
While at home, you have willing, able, law abiding citizens like myself stuck at home, unable to work. My family scrapes by while my partner works overtime for pathetic pay. We don't get any extra food to help us; while the illegal immigrant with 3 naturalized kids sits at home all day and eats for free. We're being so generous giving away all our jobs to illegals and H1B abuse; and then we mail money and food back to their homes too!
America spit on me and kicked my family while we were down. My new American dream is that someday we'll save up enough to go to a progressive country that will allow me to have a job.
~Rebecca
You do have the right to "rip" (meaning place-shift) movies and music that you have bought; provided you do so yourself, or someone on your behalf working directly with your personal copy does so, and can do so without violating the DMCA (meaning DVDs are probably out).
IANALly,
~Rebecca
I wouldn't be one to claim that a "First Amendment" or "Illegal Censorship" issue takes place when legal, private action (such as a store refusing to stock your product) is the stick used. However, using the government itself as the stick (via a lawsuit), is very much the same. I will grant you however, that our current SCOTUS staff that runs entirely on party lines and is even willing to overturn Brown vs. Board; would likely side with the Corporation over the Constitution.
~Rebecca
Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!
(Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)
~Rebecca
I've played all three of those games and never heard of this guild. I was a member of a very top end guild in EverQuest (still #1 today); up until I quit about a year and a half ago. There was a small handful of guilds that were in serious running for the "top 5"; with many expansion races being decided by a matter of minutes for the first 3 finishers.
I've heard of the Syndicate, but they were always in that "tier 2" level of guilds. The kind of guild that the top guilds usually recruited from. They were good, but they didn't usually finish expansions before the release of the next one, and that left them behind in the second wave of finishers.
~Rebecca
Thanks, That helps, hopefully someone will mod you up on this one.
:)
On the "being pedantic" sidenote; I have karma bonus disabled, but you start at a base of 1, not zero. So the 2 positive mods you got give 2+1=3, it'd have been +4 with your bonus. But in either case, thanks for the answer
~Rebecca
What's the tactical reason? And somehow Chandon Seldon got a +3, Informative for:
Tactics are exactly the answer here - the FSF has a history of making tactical compromises. The FSF's process has no more been compromised over this than it was when they decided to release the LGPL and license GNU libc under it. Personally, as an outsider on this particular issue; I am no closer to an answer to gr8_phk's question. What exactly is informative about answering "What's the tactical reason" with "The tactics"?
Can anyone provide an actual answer?
Thanks,
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Says the person who's never done any real benchmarking of these things... Unless you buy the right raid card, you'll likely get worse performance from it than you would from software raid. I'm talking the name brands too - LSI, Adaptec, 3Ware. They all suck. Could you post a couple links to some benchmark results?
Thanks,
~Rebecca
As a former Arizona resident (moved in December 06); this phenomenon seems strange on the surface but does have at least some basis in reality. I'm not saying there aren't people that overreact, but you have to understand how things are set up.
In Arizona, the streets do not have storm drainage. It'd be practically useless, as soon as the sun comes out again the water is dried up in 10 minutes. Therefore on the 2-3 days a year it does rain (or the once a century it snows), its actually quite dangerous to drive as the water is sitting in the roads. In addition, most cars (I know mine wasn't) do not have aqua-tread type tires. Most people are using regular tires or at best off road tires. Neither of which are anything close to tires with a double tread with a cavity down the center to push water aside. You can also just completely forget the idea that the city even OWNS a snow plow for the road.
So the question is, do you want your kids on a bus driving through a half inch of unplowed, melting snow, with regular tires and a driver that hasn't seen snow in 25 years? The "think of the children" fallacy doesn't apply when you're talking about closing schools due to a legitimate chance of a massive accident that can be avoided by simply taking 1 day off so the sun can fix the problem.
~Rebecca
Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)
From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces (emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?
He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.
He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards, on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them. What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue? What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?
Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.
~Rebecca
The GGP/Article was talking about Vista requiring you to "check in" every 6 months or lose access to your system. MS should never be allowed, technically or legally, to arbitrarily turn off your system until you jump through some more hoops for that. Yes, this "never" includes any smoke and mirrors set up about it being a "business machine".
Further, if it is possible as you say to get non-expiring keys, of what benefit is the lockout system? The only one I can think of is a power play to help get people adjusted to the idea that their corporate masters have final say on what they can do with what they paid for. The existence of even a single non-expiring key means that's the one "the evil pirates" will use and will evade the system entirely. Only legitimate customers unable or unwilling* to install an non-crippled product will be affected by the lockouts. If you, or anyone else, can name even one legitimate reason for a system like this with a back door in place; please do post it.
~Rebecca
*- I realize sometimes the boundaries between unable and unwilling cross in this area. Frequently the problem is monopoly mindshare; where even though the technical skills may be present a manager is unwilling to give up the MS payola by switching to a better product. The trickle-down from this is that Joe User is unwilling to try something different because he "needs Vista for work", even if it was offered preassembled and installed.
~Rebecca
The kernel accepts binary modules by design and default. Even if the "other copyright holders to the Linux kernel" mattered in this case (they don't, see below); they submitted their code and efforts in agreement with things as they stood then, not some potential future version that Morton might want to make. So you're wrong on that point, despite any arguments they might make or political positions they might support, when the chips were down they did support kernel modules and there is no reason at all they should be illegal.
Further, a large majority of said other copyright holders wouldn't matter if they wanted to. A contributor might have given something great and valuable to the linux kernel. Unless they're the maintainer of the portion that actually handles loading modules, too bad so sad. If I'm not mistaken that's Torvalds and Morton. Everyone else, no matter how great their bluetooth subsystem is, can no more demand linux "make binary modules illegal" than you could of Microsoft.
~Rebecca
Remember in this thread we're talking about the capacity of soldiers to not only refuse an order, but defect to defend the American populace against the rest of the military. That takes more than just refusing orders too. That's going to take doing something.
I'm sure there's plenty of food, they could share some. They could help out on the "backbreaking labor" -- soldiers tend to be in excellent physical condition, and are almost certainly in better shape than the tortured prisoner. The doctor/soldier could you know, uphold the Hippocratic oath and refuse procedures that enable torture (such as stimulants to enable sleep deprivation) or that enable torture to continue (such as force-feed tubes).
They could even release the prisoner and have a decent argument for their court martial -- "We are supposed to refuse illegal acts against civilians. This man has been held and tortured for 2 years and without any charges, trial, or even a visit from a lawyer. He's a civilian, it's illegal, we let him go."
I want to thank you again as I up until now haven't had much chance to have a discussion about this with someone who's actually been in the service recently (my closest military friend is over 2 years overdue now). So it's appreciated even though I don't feel that the assurance of military "rules" is sufficient to be willing to part with the ability to fight back.
~Rebecca
It's really interesting reading your perspective, thank you for sharing it. It paints a totally different picture, that's for sure. If things are as you say however, how come no one did anything about Abu Ghraib when it was actually happening? How come Guantanamo persists? Why aren't these trained soldiers refusing these orders today?
~Rebecca