It might not be in the Constitution, but federal law says "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." Seems pretty clear to me. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does imply a right to travel between the states. Although, it looks like it's OK for states to keep people who owe child support from traveling. What a strange country we live in.
Yes. There are several training courses offered by police departments where open and concealed carry is common. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing only works if that good guy is trained and everybody knows he's the good guy. There are videos of and interviews with people who have taken the courses. The vast majority of them failed in their first simulated aggressor situation. Either they failed to identify the right shooter, got shot, or mistook someone fleeing with hands up for a "bad guy with a gun."
I don't know of any cases where this has happened in real life, but if it happens to people who get trained in this sort of thing, imagine how much more often it would happen to the unwashed masses. Just think of how often friendly fire accidents happen in a war zone. These are people who have trained for months or even years on exactly what to do, and they still make mistakes.
I would like to point out that a "good guy with a gun" can't stop a shooting from happening. Hell, it's not even a deterrent. Especially if it's a crazy who is planning on getting killed in the process anyway.
Yeah, but only if they're actually going the speed limit and paying attention to the road. If they are zipping through a neighborhood at 45MPH while staring at their precious Waze, that's probably the real reason the homeowners are pissed. Hell, in my neighborhood, you will get stuff thrown at your car if you go more than 20.
This entire thing is total bullshit. GE does not do annual raises. They have an annual review process that is only tangentially related to the timing of your salary increase. One of the reasons I left was because only the "top talent" (basically the ass-kissers) got a raise in 12 months. For the common folk it was 16 to 20 months. And of course for the bottom ten percent (or if you pissed off your boss) there were no raises. So basically you get 2 or 3% every year and a half. Not even close to covering inflation. That was a decade ago, so maybe they do things differently now.
People make fun of Texas, but water quality is one thing they take pretty seriously. It may taste like a swimming pool, but it won't kill you or damage brain cells. My company runs its own water well, and has to submit to TCEQ Pb/Cu testing twice a year. They have strict rules about when to sample, and how to sample. You take the sample first thing in the morning from a line that hasn't been used for 8 hours. You do not remove the aerator. You use only the cold water line. Then it's straight to the lab. They charge you out the ass, and if you have one line that is.1 ppm over the limit, you have to submit to more testing. Then if you don't fix it in a year you submit to an improvement/abatement program. Fun times.
bullshit, everybody knows that the only way to truly appreciate the visual arts is by a gold plated optic fiber transmitting photons entagled with the original sunlight that hit the actors and scenes during the original filming. Don't even get me started on the delayed transmission of sound waves.
You realize this is essentially the system the Republicans were espousing in the 90s, right? If Obama had any balls at all, he would have insisted on single payer. Instead, he thought using a page from the Republican playbook would somehow assuage them. He really underestimated their hatred for him. He could have proposed tax cuts for Exxon and a ban on raping puppies, and they would have balked.
Yeah, and if you can't afford 100% of the lifetime costs of running a business, don't start one! If you can't afford 100% of tuition and books, don't go to college! If you can't afford 100% of your health care, go kill yourself!
Aside from missing out on the human nature aspect of wanting to have kids, your logic is not very good. 1) You don't know what a kid is going to cost. 2) The world is only overpopulated if everybody consumes as much as an American. 3) Whether you can afford a child or not has no bearing on the overpopulation issue.
It's funny how skewed human sense of fairness is. My shop had a power outage, so we sent everybody home except the two guys that were helping me fix it. My boss kindly decided to give everybody who showed up that morning a full 8 hours, even if they only worked for one. So one of my guys who was there for four hours got paid the same 8 hours as the guys who were there for 30 minutes. To me, this is more than fair: he's getting 4 hours of unearned pay. But to him, he's getting screwed because he had to work 4 hours for that pay, when everybody else just left.
Even Jesus preached on this topic 2000 years ago, and people still don't get it. Just because somebody else got extra, doesn't mean you got cheated. I know this on a rational level, but on an emotional level, it's hard to accept. I can understand why some of Dan Price's employee's got disgruntled at suddenly making the same wage as the janitor. But just because somebody else is getting more than what you think they deserve doesn't entitle you to more, too.
We don't give them a casio keyboard with a preprogrammed rendition of "Wake Me Up before You Go-Go" and tell them to play a couple notes over it.
Actually, that's exactly how I got my son interested in making music. I have a keyboard with a few built in tunes and beats and chords. He needed the framework to really get into it. Without a steady beat he struggles. His music class uses recorders. He's way better doing it with accompaniment than solo. He spent years not wanting to sing or play any kind of instrument (piano, guitar, recorder, psaltry, djembe, clarinet, horn, hell--even the maracas). Now, after a couple of hours on the keyboard with all those built in functions, he's decided he wants to produce pop music. Not write songs or perform them, but tweak the voicing/beat/effects, that sort of thing. Not my bag -- not even close, I'm more of a pipe organ and orchestra guy -- but whatever gets him into music is fine by me.
This is true (except the sexy fridge... you lost me there, buddy). My 9 year old desperately wanted to program a game for his iPad. Before I shelled out the $100 for Apple's stupid developer bullshit, I walked him through the first couple of steps of "hello world" in xCode. He quickly bored of the real work involved in programming. Now he's happy with playing on a breadboard with diodes, resistors and switches.
That's why the same approach she criticizes, if applied music, produces students that can play a paticular piece or pieces of "hard" music very well, but cannot meaningfully compose or even read music.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Oboists don't need to be composers to be good oboists. I play horn. I like to improvise and compose. Improvising on a Sunday morning with a receptive congregation is very fulfilling. But the other players in the ensemble are fascinated that I can play without anything written down. Improvising is just not as common a skill as Harel is implying.
If we decide, as a society, that we need more code monkeys than architects, then so be it.
BTW, the reason you don't "teach" improvising en mass to high schoolers, is that when you have 190 kids in a marching band, if they all decide to do their own thing it will sound like crap. One or two people authorized to do something well, say the lead percussionist and trumpet, will have a nice effect. Too much more than that and you get muddled garbage.
I imagine there's a similar effect with a large team of programmers, but I'm not going to pretend that I know what it is or how it works.
Just as would-be musicians become proficient by listening, improvising and composing, and not just by playing other people's compositions, so would-be programmers become proficient by designing prototypes and models that work for solving real problems, doing critical thinking and analysis, and creative collaboration -- none of which can be accomplished in one hour of coding.
Maybe not a terrible analogy, but perhaps the wrong conclusion being drawn from it. You can become an excellent musician even if you only ever play what somebody else has written. You can be a great actor by only ever memorizing the lines somebody else wrote for you. You can be a coder without ever becoming an architect. There are pairs like this all over society: soloist/composer, actor/writer, programmer/architect, fabricator/engineer. You don't necessarily have to be good at one to be good at the other. You can be good at both or bad at both, too. No correlation necessary.
One of the other problems is not casting your net wide enough when determining what is rational. If I speed up really fast and squeeze in ahead of this guy on the exit ramp, I will get to my destination 23 seconds faster. If everybody starts doing that, you get a traffic jam, and I get where I'm going 8 minutes slower. So what's best for me depends on how many people do it. There are several other real-world examples of how doing what is "rational" to you, might actually make your position worse in the long run. See also Nash equilibrium, and tragedy of the commons.
This sort of rationality is why some people need religion in order to have any incentive to behave ethically. If you think you might come back in a future life as a cockroach if you are a dickhead in this life, you might be a little nicer. I don't think that all people feel the way you do (or at least what you're suggesting). I suspect most people would see your intentional willful disregard for their great-grandchildren as a personal attack.
I would like to point out that there are several rational reasons to rethink climate change. If for some reason, medicine advances to where you might live for two hundred years, the effects of climate change might hit you a little harder than you first calculated. If you live in a coastal region and are fairly young, you will see negative effects in your lifetime. Then there's the self-defensive position: if you live in certain parts of the world, espousing the purposeful harming of children is likely to get you shot or worse.
Look, anybody who uses FB as their primary source of news should be publicly ridiculed. It is an amalgamation, like Slashdot. A secondary source (at best) with public commentary. What is truly disappointing is how some *actual* news shows use FB trending topics as a source of their news. Which is almost as bad as virtual man-on-the-street segments where somebody from CNN or Fox News actually reads random twitter posts. Seriously? Is this what has become of our beloved first amendment right to free press? Now we have news shows trying to be social, and social networks trying to be news sources. What's next, people taking the Daily Show "reporters" at face value? Oh wait, they already do (I'm looking at you, HuffPo and the Blaze).
Facts will make no difference to anybody who viewed this as a problem in the first place. Once the right wing whackadoos think they are maligned, they will whine about it ad nauseum. FB could produce a mountain of evidence showing what exactly what stories were "trending" on FB vs how many posts were actually posted on those topics. The response would be "see! now they're covering it up." I think the real problem is that most right-wingers really believe that they're in the vast majority, despite just about every election ever proving that false. So they think anytime they don't see their specific opinion echoed in teh lamestream media that it's a personal attack against them.
I have an employee who works for me who constantly complains about how hard it is being a white male, and how frequently he is mistreated because of it. When I ask him for a specific example, he pulls a Trump/Palin non-answer about how it's so obvious. As if the very fact that I'm asking for a smidge of evidence would somehow prove my prejudice against his ideas. When I list several studies that show blacks, females and latinos (why does FF want to auto-correct to "Latinos," but not "Blacks"?) consistently receive fewer interview calls, less pay, more police stops, etc., he says it's just the liberal elite academics who are trying to skew the facts. But the obvious truth is that any facts that don't align with his worldview are automatically discounted.
Not all conservatives are this way, and a large number of liberals are. But the fact of the matter is that Fox News and the like consistently complain about the "victim culture" in America, while trumpeting such nonsense as the "War on Christmas." Do they not grok the irony?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure why not? We already give up all these rights when we go to an airport.
It might not be in the Constitution, but federal law says "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." Seems pretty clear to me. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause does imply a right to travel between the states. Although, it looks like it's OK for states to keep people who owe child support from traveling. What a strange country we live in.
Have you ever seen bonobos?
Show me a US mosque where they actually encourage murdering homosexuals.
Now I'll show you Westboro Baptist and New Hartford Word of Life.
You're right. It is a correlation. Just like the inverse correlation between pirates and global temperatures. Ramen.
Yes. There are several training courses offered by police departments where open and concealed carry is common. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing only works if that good guy is trained and everybody knows he's the good guy. There are videos of and interviews with people who have taken the courses. The vast majority of them failed in their first simulated aggressor situation. Either they failed to identify the right shooter, got shot, or mistook someone fleeing with hands up for a "bad guy with a gun."
I don't know of any cases where this has happened in real life, but if it happens to people who get trained in this sort of thing, imagine how much more often it would happen to the unwashed masses. Just think of how often friendly fire accidents happen in a war zone. These are people who have trained for months or even years on exactly what to do, and they still make mistakes.
I would like to point out that a "good guy with a gun" can't stop a shooting from happening. Hell, it's not even a deterrent. Especially if it's a crazy who is planning on getting killed in the process anyway.
Yeah, but only if they're actually going the speed limit and paying attention to the road. If they are zipping through a neighborhood at 45MPH while staring at their precious Waze, that's probably the real reason the homeowners are pissed. Hell, in my neighborhood, you will get stuff thrown at your car if you go more than 20.
This entire thing is total bullshit. GE does not do annual raises. They have an annual review process that is only tangentially related to the timing of your salary increase. One of the reasons I left was because only the "top talent" (basically the ass-kissers) got a raise in 12 months. For the common folk it was 16 to 20 months. And of course for the bottom ten percent (or if you pissed off your boss) there were no raises. So basically you get 2 or 3% every year and a half. Not even close to covering inflation. That was a decade ago, so maybe they do things differently now.
Or Cyrillic
People make fun of Texas, but water quality is one thing they take pretty seriously. It may taste like a swimming pool, but it won't kill you or damage brain cells. My company runs its own water well, and has to submit to TCEQ Pb/Cu testing twice a year. They have strict rules about when to sample, and how to sample. You take the sample first thing in the morning from a line that hasn't been used for 8 hours. You do not remove the aerator. You use only the cold water line. Then it's straight to the lab. They charge you out the ass, and if you have one line that is .1 ppm over the limit, you have to submit to more testing. Then if you don't fix it in a year you submit to an improvement/abatement program. Fun times.
bullshit, everybody knows that the only way to truly appreciate the visual arts is by a gold plated optic fiber transmitting photons entagled with the original sunlight that hit the actors and scenes during the original filming. Don't even get me started on the delayed transmission of sound waves.
You realize this is essentially the system the Republicans were espousing in the 90s, right? If Obama had any balls at all, he would have insisted on single payer. Instead, he thought using a page from the Republican playbook would somehow assuage them. He really underestimated their hatred for him. He could have proposed tax cuts for Exxon and a ban on raping puppies, and they would have balked.
Yeah, and if you can't afford 100% of the lifetime costs of running a business, don't start one! If you can't afford 100% of tuition and books, don't go to college! If you can't afford 100% of your health care, go kill yourself!
Aside from missing out on the human nature aspect of wanting to have kids, your logic is not very good. 1) You don't know what a kid is going to cost. 2) The world is only overpopulated if everybody consumes as much as an American. 3) Whether you can afford a child or not has no bearing on the overpopulation issue.
Even Jesus preached on this topic 2000 years ago, and people still don't get it. Just because somebody else got extra, doesn't mean you got cheated. I know this on a rational level, but on an emotional level, it's hard to accept. I can understand why some of Dan Price's employee's got disgruntled at suddenly making the same wage as the janitor. But just because somebody else is getting more than what you think they deserve doesn't entitle you to more, too.
You're talking about a landlord for low-rent apartments. Chances are a lot of these tenants are too poor to find anyplace else to live.
We don't give them a casio keyboard with a preprogrammed rendition of "Wake Me Up before You Go-Go" and tell them to play a couple notes over it.
Actually, that's exactly how I got my son interested in making music. I have a keyboard with a few built in tunes and beats and chords. He needed the framework to really get into it. Without a steady beat he struggles. His music class uses recorders. He's way better doing it with accompaniment than solo. He spent years not wanting to sing or play any kind of instrument (piano, guitar, recorder, psaltry, djembe, clarinet, horn, hell--even the maracas). Now, after a couple of hours on the keyboard with all those built in functions, he's decided he wants to produce pop music. Not write songs or perform them, but tweak the voicing/beat/effects, that sort of thing. Not my bag -- not even close, I'm more of a pipe organ and orchestra guy -- but whatever gets him into music is fine by me.
This is true (except the sexy fridge... you lost me there, buddy). My 9 year old desperately wanted to program a game for his iPad. Before I shelled out the $100 for Apple's stupid developer bullshit, I walked him through the first couple of steps of "hello world" in xCode. He quickly bored of the real work involved in programming. Now he's happy with playing on a breadboard with diodes, resistors and switches.
That's why the same approach she criticizes, if applied music, produces students that can play a paticular piece or pieces of "hard" music very well, but cannot meaningfully compose or even read music.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Oboists don't need to be composers to be good oboists. I play horn. I like to improvise and compose. Improvising on a Sunday morning with a receptive congregation is very fulfilling. But the other players in the ensemble are fascinated that I can play without anything written down. Improvising is just not as common a skill as Harel is implying.
If we decide, as a society, that we need more code monkeys than architects, then so be it.
BTW, the reason you don't "teach" improvising en mass to high schoolers, is that when you have 190 kids in a marching band, if they all decide to do their own thing it will sound like crap. One or two people authorized to do something well, say the lead percussionist and trumpet, will have a nice effect. Too much more than that and you get muddled garbage.
I imagine there's a similar effect with a large team of programmers, but I'm not going to pretend that I know what it is or how it works.
Just as would-be musicians become proficient by listening, improvising and composing, and not just by playing other people's compositions, so would-be programmers become proficient by designing prototypes and models that work for solving real problems, doing critical thinking and analysis, and creative collaboration -- none of which can be accomplished in one hour of coding.
Maybe not a terrible analogy, but perhaps the wrong conclusion being drawn from it. You can become an excellent musician even if you only ever play what somebody else has written. You can be a great actor by only ever memorizing the lines somebody else wrote for you. You can be a coder without ever becoming an architect. There are pairs like this all over society: soloist/composer, actor/writer, programmer/architect, fabricator/engineer. You don't necessarily have to be good at one to be good at the other. You can be good at both or bad at both, too. No correlation necessary.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these caps!
Read my lips: No new CAPS!!!
One of the other problems is not casting your net wide enough when determining what is rational. If I speed up really fast and squeeze in ahead of this guy on the exit ramp, I will get to my destination 23 seconds faster. If everybody starts doing that, you get a traffic jam, and I get where I'm going 8 minutes slower. So what's best for me depends on how many people do it. There are several other real-world examples of how doing what is "rational" to you, might actually make your position worse in the long run. See also Nash equilibrium, and tragedy of the commons.
This sort of rationality is why some people need religion in order to have any incentive to behave ethically. If you think you might come back in a future life as a cockroach if you are a dickhead in this life, you might be a little nicer. I don't think that all people feel the way you do (or at least what you're suggesting). I suspect most people would see your intentional willful disregard for their great-grandchildren as a personal attack.
I would like to point out that there are several rational reasons to rethink climate change. If for some reason, medicine advances to where you might live for two hundred years, the effects of climate change might hit you a little harder than you first calculated. If you live in a coastal region and are fairly young, you will see negative effects in your lifetime. Then there's the self-defensive position: if you live in certain parts of the world, espousing the purposeful harming of children is likely to get you shot or worse.
Look, anybody who uses FB as their primary source of news should be publicly ridiculed. It is an amalgamation, like Slashdot. A secondary source (at best) with public commentary. What is truly disappointing is how some *actual* news shows use FB trending topics as a source of their news. Which is almost as bad as virtual man-on-the-street segments where somebody from CNN or Fox News actually reads random twitter posts. Seriously? Is this what has become of our beloved first amendment right to free press? Now we have news shows trying to be social, and social networks trying to be news sources. What's next, people taking the Daily Show "reporters" at face value? Oh wait, they already do (I'm looking at you, HuffPo and the Blaze).
Facts will make no difference to anybody who viewed this as a problem in the first place. Once the right wing whackadoos think they are maligned, they will whine about it ad nauseum. FB could produce a mountain of evidence showing what exactly what stories were "trending" on FB vs how many posts were actually posted on those topics. The response would be "see! now they're covering it up." I think the real problem is that most right-wingers really believe that they're in the vast majority, despite just about every election ever proving that false. So they think anytime they don't see their specific opinion echoed in teh lamestream media that it's a personal attack against them.
I have an employee who works for me who constantly complains about how hard it is being a white male, and how frequently he is mistreated because of it. When I ask him for a specific example, he pulls a Trump/Palin non-answer about how it's so obvious. As if the very fact that I'm asking for a smidge of evidence would somehow prove my prejudice against his ideas. When I list several studies that show blacks, females and latinos (why does FF want to auto-correct to "Latinos," but not "Blacks"?) consistently receive fewer interview calls, less pay, more police stops, etc., he says it's just the liberal elite academics who are trying to skew the facts. But the obvious truth is that any facts that don't align with his worldview are automatically discounted.
Not all conservatives are this way, and a large number of liberals are. But the fact of the matter is that Fox News and the like consistently complain about the "victim culture" in America, while trumpeting such nonsense as the "War on Christmas." Do they not grok the irony?