I think there's a "keeping up with the Joneses" effect with having those spiffy B/W Geekmobiles parked in front of a 3 car garage...
"Honey, I know the computer needs to be fixed, but I really think we should use the Geek Squad. I saw one of their cars parked in front of the __________'s house last week!"
I was running my own tech services business when the Geek Squad was still a Minneapolis/St. Paul company. I, too, had numerous customers who came to me after being frustrated by the Geek Squad's service (and, at times, rediculous prices!). I have another term for them...recovering Geeekaholoics.
I think the real power in the pirate party will be as a gauge to the primary parties as to how important this issue is to consumers. If the party posts large numbers of members, Donkeys and Elephants may consider addressing some IP issues, just as a way to grab those potential votes.
Of course, RIAA may simply try to hack/buy the pirate party roster as a list of possible new defendants in their next round of lawsuits...
This is not just happening in Massechussetts, but we only see the headline because of the size of this specific contribution.
Microsoft has long provided grants of software through various computer refurbishing programs (e.g. Minnesota Computers for Schools Refurbishing Program). They provide licenses for the operating system (usually n-1 OS realeases, to match the older hardware), and these various organizations distributed the refurbished computers to schools for free or at a low price (Minnesota's program started by distributing free refurbished computers to schools, but I believe they now have a pricing structure). As noted by other folks, this software costs MS nearly nothing, but it was not without value. When pairing the free OS with free- or reduced-cost hardware, that's where you'll see schools making the big jump from Apple to Wintel.
My kids' school has another business partnership in the community, and that enterprise paid for all new iMacs a few years back. To the schools, anything free is welcome. They're too cash-strapped to consider the implications for ODF or future technology needs, and this constant hand-to-mouth budget mentality prevents schools from considering future costs (like upgrades).
Sure, those in tech circles have strong opinions on Microsoft and its alterior motives, but to average citizens, the big payoff here is perceived goodwill. Parents and voters will be less likely to oppose a company (any company) that give products or services to schools, especially when they hear teachers complain almost daily (as they do here in my city) that budget cuts (or freezes) have been so bad that teachers need to buy nearly every supply necessary to conduct their lessons. They get their single ream of paper at the start of the year and are pretty much told (by their peers) where they can buy the most supplies for the least money. Then, we parents get school supply lists that are aimed at stocking the classroom shelves rather than making sure that "Johnny" has his pencils, crayons, and notebooks.
Unless many more techies are going volunteer many more hours of their time to help local schools migrate to (and support) other platforms, Microsoft's contributions will continue to be welcomed.
When it comes down to it, budget is budget is budget. At the end of the day, you need to make the most of the dollars you have. If the bulk of the responsibility will fall to you, make the choice you are most comfortable with. My best regards to you.
That said, what is the purpose of the technology in your environment or (for the other comment writers) for education in general? I've read through all of the comments, and many are framed as if the technology were the main focus of education. From my reading of the question and my own experiences, technology is the tool to facilitate the education, not the focus of the education itself. Students will learn technology skills through their use of the tools, but the tools are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. [So you will know where I am coming from, I am a techie by day and a part time tech educator by night, so I do understand the value of technical education.]
Would I hope that children learn about technology through their exposure to it? Absolutely. In the end, will it matter whether that exposure is through Windows, Linux, or Mac? Not if the children are educated about their technology, rather than being given a set of buttons to push...
One comment cited an instructor who was teaching children to find the Internet by clicking the "blue E" icon. While I understand such oversimplification at one level, that's the type of thinking about technology that really impedes users in the real world. As a support person, I want users who become familiar with their computing environment, users who will read dialog boxes and shortcut names, users who will ask questions, users who will try to understand their technology. Instead of teaching a child that a "blue E" equals Internet, the child may educated to understand the concept more than the procedure of clicking an icon. Imagine the teacher saying this:
"Okay, kids, lets access the Internet. The software we used to look at things on the Internet is called an Internet browser. On your computers, Internet Explorer is the Internet browser; it has a blue "E" icon. If you use a different computer--at home or at the library, for example--it may use a different Internet browser. Just remember that we use an Internet browser to view information on the Internet."
Should students be presented information in this manner, they learn that they need an Internet browser to view information on the Internet. Then, when they graduate to an environment different than the one they knew (the one with the "blue E"), they should be able to look at the user interface and ask themselves not "Where is the blue E?", but "Where is the Internet browser?"
These kids probably run Windows on their computers at home.
When they'll go to High School they'll be using Windows machines there.
After they graduate they'll be using Windows machines at university.
After they graduate from university they'll be using Windows at work.
That's the old argument that kids are going to drink anyway, so you might as well give them keys to the liquor cabinet.
There's an old saying: "he one who controls the youth controls the future." If you expose kids to something other than MS, they just might grow up to (gasp!) suggest that their enterprises use something other than MS.
For me, it's not sad to think that MS will still be the dominant OS/office suite provider in 10 years. What's sad is holding that position so tightly that other options are crowded out of view.
Let's face it, if Dell pushed the Linux line more aggressively, they could tick off M$, which could result in less favorable contract terms when it is time to renew their vendor relationship. Even a small increase in OS pricing multiplied by the number of machines produced would have a significant impact on the company's bottom line.
The fact that I do not support either side may seem useless to you, but for me it is an honest statement of position. I am not going to state to a certainty that either side has the argument that clearly answers all of the questions, because I do not believe either side can support that claim. I still have questions, and I will continue to examine every bit of information made available to me so that my understanding may be more complete.
Listen to yourself. You make some grand presumptions about my beliefs, both scientifically and socially. IMO, pedophiles, priests or otherwise, should not be defended or excused. Where I in control, they would all be executed (when convicted in a court of law). Our current legal system does not support that level of punnishment (at least not in my state). I find those who would cover up such acts detestible. Your response proves my point that so many on each side are quick to paint with a broad brush.
I belive, perhaps, my original point has been lost in all of the dogmatic posturing. My point is this: don't throw out ID as junk just because you don't believe it. Rather than label us all as morons, spend the time to examine the literature and argue the positions (ID followers would be wise to do the same). I would rather have the debate and be persuaded by a good argument than to simply be labeled a moron for having a view outside of scientific orthodoxy.
My biggest problem is this: each side is quick to criticize the other with only their own camps' experts and literature in tow. I've heard pro-evolution talking heads rip apart ID with the help of interviews with other pro-evolution peers, and I've heard Christians set up ID vs. Evolution debates where they have Christian scientists arguing for both sides (and they expected the audience to believe it was a fair debate!). Let me see both sides engage each other and get into the details, not just all of the high-level mudslinging that has perpetuated here.
I've argued for the ID camp in this thread, but I have no sure commitment to either camp. I want to see both sides fully engaged. Would I love to see ID theory thwart evolutionary theory? Sure (hey, I'm being honest--it better fits my world view)!, but it won't destroy my faith to see evolutionary theory win the day. No matter how you approach this universe, you must admit that it is amazing!
Cell division and maturation in a complex life form is a direct result of the genetic sequence for that given organism, so I do not believe it is a suitable support for your argument. The cells that divide and appear to become more complex are the end result of what was present at the time when the first cells divided. The cells specialize during that process, but they all carry and are based upon the original genetic sequence.
it doesn't say anything about order, period. What it talks about is entropy: the entropy of the universe must increase (or rather, statistically, it oughtn't decrease).
It doesn't say anything about order? How can it talk about entropy without talking about order? The 2LoT states that a system will move from a state of low entropy (order) to a state of high entropy (disorder) and then it will eventually reach a state where there is no more available energy to change other factors. Or have you decided to redefine entropy?
Your coming closer to my point. Neither side can prove its argument to a certainty. Each side accepts its interpretation of the facts at some level beyond that of the facts themselves.
Whereas there are some folks out there (I won't deny it) who approach this topic with the attitude you described, I would never argue "God created it, so stop questioning it." In fact, for me the opposite is true. It is because I believe that God exists that I want to have a better understanding of this world and all that lies within (and beyond it)!
So, please, don't paint with such a broad brush. My intellect is not squandered simply because I do not share your views on this topic.
You misunderstand the definition of "fact". The Big Bang is a reasoned inference based on the collection of data which support a specific theory of origins. The data are the facts used to reason for a Big Bang. The Big Bang itself is not fact, no matter how much any of us would want it to be.
If you still wish to insist that the Big Bang is a fact, then allow me to ask one further question: from where did this cosmic egg come?
"It was the collapsed remains of a previously expanded (and subsequently contracted) universe" is one common argument. Okay, if I cede that, then we are back to some other cosmic egg eons before our present egg. From where did that egg come?
And the one preceding it?
And the one preceding it?
You see, the Big Bang theory provides no answer to origins at all, it just defers the ultimate question further back in time. The ultimate question begs the philosophical...was there ever an uncaused cause?
We are dealing with timeframes so far back in history that we will never (short of time travel) have a way to confirm the earliest events.
The biblical account states the first thing in the created universe was light ("Fiat lux" or "Let there be light."). The science behind the Big Bang tells us that the first affect of the explosion was the release of tremendous amounts of energy in the form of light and other radiation. I will not be unreasonable and deny the science that leads many to infer a Big Bang, but I expect to be respected for questioning a theory that has become an assumption of many who refuse to look at the evidence.
[I've chosen to reply under your post, but my comments are applicable to all.]
The film A Flock of Dodos would be good viewing for anyone on the topic. Reasonable folks on the evolutionary side of this debate are coming out publicly and noting that their peers are the ones responding in a manner that undermines their credibility.
From most of the responses here, I see an outright dismissal of the possibility of ID, because of "overwhelming proof". All I am suggesting is that the facts are and should remain open to reinterpretation.
What about the concept of entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics? Without outside influence (in their natural states), systems move from order to disorder. Under Big Bang theory, we have a cosmic explosion that has gradually become more and more ordered while eons and eons have passed. Am I somehow "unscientific" for questioning Big Bang theory on this basis?
If you will be honest with yourselves, I believe many of you are more offended that some in our society would even suggest that there is a God, because it does not align with your beliefs, than you are that a long established theory has come under attack. Hey, the Roman Church did the same things with folks like Gallileo. It is part of human nature to attack anything which contradicts our indoctrinated notions!
Just think about it, folks. Our scientific stereotypes are often more prejudiced than the ones we hold socially!
Since when is it a fact that the entire known universe started as an miniscule "cosmic egg" that exploded into everything? That is a theory developed on an interpretation of available facts. Intelligent design similarly interprets available facts (e.g., the notion of irreducible complexity) and attempts to coordinate them within a unified theory of origins.
Neither camp can prove their theory to a scientific certainty (as much as either side wants to believe they can), but each should be allowed to make their arguments. Let the arguments be tested and challenged in the public sphere, and learn from the debate.
The real kicker is that copyright law changed in recent decades, so you no longer need to file for specific protection. Copyright is automatically assumed for any original work. Of course, filing with the copyright office makes it easier to sue in the event of infringement, but it is not required.
For what it's worth, here's my suggestion for dealing with some of the problem posts/discussions:
Place a submit button at the end of every post and reply. The button is labeled with instructions to "Click here if this reply is off-topic, an attack on the submitter....[you could add more criteria]"
Clicking the button logs the post/reply ID, possibly the ID of the clicker (e.g. HikingStick for me, Anonymous Coward for many).
When any given thread reaches a threshhold based on average volume, an alert is generated. For the sake of this illustration, lets assume that 20 clicks is enough to generate the alert.
The alert sends an email to a small group of users who would normally be eligible for moderation. This email provides them a link to the flagged material and they are assigned special moderator privileges for that given item regardless of when they last had (or if they currently have) moderator points.
These "incident moderators" can review the post/reply and, if appropriate, take immediate action to drop the rating more than one point (perhaps two points), or can take other administrative action as delegated.
I don't disagree with you here. My point was to counter the statement that the US has always "sucked" at guerilla warfare. You are dead on about being in the opposite role here, but I still find it ironic that we cry "foul" about an enemy (the Taliban in Afghanastan) which appeared to have no formal uniform or organization, when that is exactly what gave us our advantage during our Revolutionary War. We still have (to my civillian knowledge) the most advanced, able, and experienced combat force in the world. I don't think our technology is a lame attempt to compensate for some weakness in our armed forces. I believe that technology is what has allowed us to do with hundreds or thousands what would have taken tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands not too long ago. Just look at the fatality figures for WWI and WWII and compare them to casualties in the current string of conflicts, and (without trivializing the value of any single life in any conflict) you will see that we have lost far fewer than during any comparable engagement. Regardless of where any reader falls on these recent conflicts, they must at least cede that point.
Funny. The Americans always think there's some sort of magical technical solution to something they have always been extremely crap at - guerilla warfare.
Once upon a time, Americans were very good at guerilla warfare. Just ask the British (sorry Britons) -- otherwise, we would still be English colonies. To paraphrase Bill Cosby, who put it so well in one of his routines, the American army could shoot from behind rocks and trees, and could wear any color they wanted to wear, while the British army had to wear red and walk in straight lines.
Unfortunately, like most other bureaucracies, we have become more formal as time has passed. I remember some of the reports out of Afghanastan early on where military people cited how hard it was to determine who was in the opposing army, since there was no standard uniform. I can imagine there were similar reports by British officers during our Revolutionary War. Our units (in Afghanastan and elsewhere) were nailed while in standard formations by people who fought the way the American founding fathers fought not so long ago. I found it ironic that we had come so far that we were now the proverbial Red Coats--obvious and easy targets for a less formalized force.
[By means of the preceding example, I do not intend to imply or disallow any moral equivalencies between those two conflicts. My point is in the fighting style and formality of military operations.]
I believe the free-market view has increasingly exerted influence all areas of our society. Not an evil in and of itself, it has reduced altruism in many arenas, including science.
That said, I don't know a single doctor or research scientist who is motivated first and foremost by his own needs. I'm glad to say that most are still ardent idealists with a generous dose of realism thrown in for good measure.
I believe there was a time where there was a greater emphasis on increasing our scientific understanding for the sake of all. I believe it is still out there, but it can get back-burnered by the same free-market system that prompts many to excel. When scientists feel pressure to keep publishing or keep winning big dollar research grants just to make sure they are not displaced in our economy, we limit their ability to wrangle with those larger questions, and those issues that really stir their passions. Most medical doctors chose that career because, at some level, they wanted to help people (yes, there are those who mostly wanted a good career and a Jag), but ask your doctor how much time they lose to administration, regulation, and paperwork and you will get a better understanding of what I am trying to describe.
Thank God for the free market, but let's not forget that any system comes with both perks and problems. I think you've touched on one of the problems of our free market system.
Even better weasel-like brilliance would be to border programming windows with Google's current strong-point: text based links. Those links generally would not distract from the programming, and could change with the scenes or where there would have been commercial breaks. Then, with TV's becoming/being Internet ready media boxes, you would only need to click on the link to have the information pop up in a picture-in-a-picture display, on another PC in the home, or in your email inbox. Again, targeted ads would be the coup de grace, and the non-intrusive text ads would be a great improvement over the ever-more-obvious product placements.
Call me old-fashioned, but I would almost rather see a cast member turn toward the camera announce that "this episode of [whatever moronic show is on at the time] is brought to you by [vendor]". In this day and age, it would, at least, be refreshing.
If there is enough of a ground swell, politicians may see this as a good battle to fight. Every campaigner out there would love to tell the constituency that s/he voted to criminalize this type of behavior...
Slashdot Mirror
And is that the name we would see on your card? "Anonymous Coward?"
I think there's a "keeping up with the Joneses" effect with having those spiffy B/W Geekmobiles parked in front of a 3 car garage...
"Honey, I know the computer needs to be fixed, but I really think we should use the Geek Squad. I saw one of their cars parked in front of the __________'s house last week!"
I was running my own tech services business when the Geek Squad was still a Minneapolis/St. Paul company. I, too, had numerous customers who came to me after being frustrated by the Geek Squad's service (and, at times, rediculous prices!). I have another term for them...recovering Geeekaholoics.
I think the real power in the pirate party will be as a gauge to the primary parties as to how important this issue is to consumers. If the party posts large numbers of members, Donkeys and Elephants may consider addressing some IP issues, just as a way to grab those potential votes. Of course, RIAA may simply try to hack/buy the pirate party roster as a list of possible new defendants in their next round of lawsuits...
This is not just happening in Massechussetts, but we only see the headline because of the size of this specific contribution.
Microsoft has long provided grants of software through various computer refurbishing programs (e.g. Minnesota Computers for Schools Refurbishing Program). They provide licenses for the operating system (usually n-1 OS realeases, to match the older hardware), and these various organizations distributed the refurbished computers to schools for free or at a low price (Minnesota's program started by distributing free refurbished computers to schools, but I believe they now have a pricing structure). As noted by other folks, this software costs MS nearly nothing, but it was not without value. When pairing the free OS with free- or reduced-cost hardware, that's where you'll see schools making the big jump from Apple to Wintel.
My kids' school has another business partnership in the community, and that enterprise paid for all new iMacs a few years back. To the schools, anything free is welcome. They're too cash-strapped to consider the implications for ODF or future technology needs, and this constant hand-to-mouth budget mentality prevents schools from considering future costs (like upgrades).
Sure, those in tech circles have strong opinions on Microsoft and its alterior motives, but to average citizens, the big payoff here is perceived goodwill. Parents and voters will be less likely to oppose a company (any company) that give products or services to schools, especially when they hear teachers complain almost daily (as they do here in my city) that budget cuts (or freezes) have been so bad that teachers need to buy nearly every supply necessary to conduct their lessons. They get their single ream of paper at the start of the year and are pretty much told (by their peers) where they can buy the most supplies for the least money. Then, we parents get school supply lists that are aimed at stocking the classroom shelves rather than making sure that "Johnny" has his pencils, crayons, and notebooks. Unless many more techies are going volunteer many more hours of their time to help local schools migrate to (and support) other platforms, Microsoft's contributions will continue to be welcomed.
That said, what is the purpose of the technology in your environment or (for the other comment writers) for education in general? I've read through all of the comments, and many are framed as if the technology were the main focus of education. From my reading of the question and my own experiences, technology is the tool to facilitate the education, not the focus of the education itself. Students will learn technology skills through their use of the tools, but the tools are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. [So you will know where I am coming from, I am a techie by day and a part time tech educator by night, so I do understand the value of technical education.]
Would I hope that children learn about technology through their exposure to it? Absolutely. In the end, will it matter whether that exposure is through Windows, Linux, or Mac? Not if the children are educated about their technology, rather than being given a set of buttons to push...
One comment cited an instructor who was teaching children to find the Internet by clicking the "blue E" icon. While I understand such oversimplification at one level, that's the type of thinking about technology that really impedes users in the real world. As a support person, I want users who become familiar with their computing environment, users who will read dialog boxes and shortcut names, users who will ask questions, users who will try to understand their technology. Instead of teaching a child that a "blue E" equals Internet, the child may educated to understand the concept more than the procedure of clicking an icon. Imagine the teacher saying this:
Should students be presented information in this manner, they learn that they need an Internet browser to view information on the Internet. Then, when they graduate to an environment different than the one they knew (the one with the "blue E"), they should be able to look at the user interface and ask themselves not "Where is the blue E?", but "Where is the Internet browser?"
There's an old saying: "he one who controls the youth controls the future." If you expose kids to something other than MS, they just might grow up to (gasp!) suggest that their enterprises use something other than MS.
For me, it's not sad to think that MS will still be the dominant OS/office suite provider in 10 years. What's sad is holding that position so tightly that other options are crowded out of view.
Let's face it, if Dell pushed the Linux line more aggressively, they could tick off M$, which could result in less favorable contract terms when it is time to renew their vendor relationship. Even a small increase in OS pricing multiplied by the number of machines produced would have a significant impact on the company's bottom line.
The fact that I do not support either side may seem useless to you, but for me it is an honest statement of position. I am not going to state to a certainty that either side has the argument that clearly answers all of the questions, because I do not believe either side can support that claim. I still have questions, and I will continue to examine every bit of information made available to me so that my understanding may be more complete.
Listen to yourself. You make some grand presumptions about my beliefs, both scientifically and socially. IMO, pedophiles, priests or otherwise, should not be defended or excused. Where I in control, they would all be executed (when convicted in a court of law). Our current legal system does not support that level of punnishment (at least not in my state). I find those who would cover up such acts detestible. Your response proves my point that so many on each side are quick to paint with a broad brush.
I belive, perhaps, my original point has been lost in all of the dogmatic posturing. My point is this: don't throw out ID as junk just because you don't believe it. Rather than label us all as morons, spend the time to examine the literature and argue the positions (ID followers would be wise to do the same). I would rather have the debate and be persuaded by a good argument than to simply be labeled a moron for having a view outside of scientific orthodoxy.
My biggest problem is this: each side is quick to criticize the other with only their own camps' experts and literature in tow. I've heard pro-evolution talking heads rip apart ID with the help of interviews with other pro-evolution peers, and I've heard Christians set up ID vs. Evolution debates where they have Christian scientists arguing for both sides (and they expected the audience to believe it was a fair debate!). Let me see both sides engage each other and get into the details, not just all of the high-level mudslinging that has perpetuated here.
I've argued for the ID camp in this thread, but I have no sure commitment to either camp. I want to see both sides fully engaged. Would I love to see ID theory thwart evolutionary theory? Sure (hey, I'm being honest--it better fits my world view)!, but it won't destroy my faith to see evolutionary theory win the day. No matter how you approach this universe, you must admit that it is amazing!
It doesn't say anything about order? How can it talk about entropy without talking about order? The 2LoT states that a system will move from a state of low entropy (order) to a state of high entropy (disorder) and then it will eventually reach a state where there is no more available energy to change other factors. Or have you decided to redefine entropy?
Your coming closer to my point. Neither side can prove its argument to a certainty. Each side accepts its interpretation of the facts at some level beyond that of the facts themselves.
Whereas there are some folks out there (I won't deny it) who approach this topic with the attitude you described, I would never argue "God created it, so stop questioning it." In fact, for me the opposite is true. It is because I believe that God exists that I want to have a better understanding of this world and all that lies within (and beyond it)!
So, please, don't paint with such a broad brush. My intellect is not squandered simply because I do not share your views on this topic.
You misunderstand the definition of "fact". The Big Bang is a reasoned inference based on the collection of data which support a specific theory of origins. The data are the facts used to reason for a Big Bang. The Big Bang itself is not fact, no matter how much any of us would want it to be. If you still wish to insist that the Big Bang is a fact, then allow me to ask one further question: from where did this cosmic egg come? "It was the collapsed remains of a previously expanded (and subsequently contracted) universe" is one common argument. Okay, if I cede that, then we are back to some other cosmic egg eons before our present egg. From where did that egg come? And the one preceding it? And the one preceding it? You see, the Big Bang theory provides no answer to origins at all, it just defers the ultimate question further back in time. The ultimate question begs the philosophical...was there ever an uncaused cause? We are dealing with timeframes so far back in history that we will never (short of time travel) have a way to confirm the earliest events. The biblical account states the first thing in the created universe was light ("Fiat lux" or "Let there be light."). The science behind the Big Bang tells us that the first affect of the explosion was the release of tremendous amounts of energy in the form of light and other radiation. I will not be unreasonable and deny the science that leads many to infer a Big Bang, but I expect to be respected for questioning a theory that has become an assumption of many who refuse to look at the evidence.
[I've chosen to reply under your post, but my comments are applicable to all.] The film A Flock of Dodos would be good viewing for anyone on the topic. Reasonable folks on the evolutionary side of this debate are coming out publicly and noting that their peers are the ones responding in a manner that undermines their credibility. From most of the responses here, I see an outright dismissal of the possibility of ID, because of "overwhelming proof". All I am suggesting is that the facts are and should remain open to reinterpretation. What about the concept of entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics? Without outside influence (in their natural states), systems move from order to disorder. Under Big Bang theory, we have a cosmic explosion that has gradually become more and more ordered while eons and eons have passed. Am I somehow "unscientific" for questioning Big Bang theory on this basis? If you will be honest with yourselves, I believe many of you are more offended that some in our society would even suggest that there is a God, because it does not align with your beliefs, than you are that a long established theory has come under attack. Hey, the Roman Church did the same things with folks like Gallileo. It is part of human nature to attack anything which contradicts our indoctrinated notions! Just think about it, folks. Our scientific stereotypes are often more prejudiced than the ones we hold socially!
Since when is it a fact that the entire known universe started as an miniscule "cosmic egg" that exploded into everything? That is a theory developed on an interpretation of available facts. Intelligent design similarly interprets available facts (e.g., the notion of irreducible complexity) and attempts to coordinate them within a unified theory of origins. Neither camp can prove their theory to a scientific certainty (as much as either side wants to believe they can), but each should be allowed to make their arguments. Let the arguments be tested and challenged in the public sphere, and learn from the debate.
The real kicker is that copyright law changed in recent decades, so you no longer need to file for specific protection. Copyright is automatically assumed for any original work. Of course, filing with the copyright office makes it easier to sue in the event of infringement, but it is not required.
There may be some potential here. It could be an alternative page view for /.
For what it's worth, here's my suggestion for dealing with some of the problem posts/discussions:
Place a submit button at the end of every post and reply. The button is labeled with instructions to "Click here if this reply is off-topic, an attack on the submitter....[you could add more criteria]"
Clicking the button logs the post/reply ID, possibly the ID of the clicker (e.g. HikingStick for me, Anonymous Coward for many).
When any given thread reaches a threshhold based on average volume, an alert is generated. For the sake of this illustration, lets assume that 20 clicks is enough to generate the alert.
The alert sends an email to a small group of users who would normally be eligible for moderation. This email provides them a link to the flagged material and they are assigned special moderator privileges for that given item regardless of when they last had (or if they currently have) moderator points.
These "incident moderators" can review the post/reply and, if appropriate, take immediate action to drop the rating more than one point (perhaps two points), or can take other administrative action as delegated.
I don't disagree with you here. My point was to counter the statement that the US has always "sucked" at guerilla warfare. You are dead on about being in the opposite role here, but I still find it ironic that we cry "foul" about an enemy (the Taliban in Afghanastan) which appeared to have no formal uniform or organization, when that is exactly what gave us our advantage during our Revolutionary War. We still have (to my civillian knowledge) the most advanced, able, and experienced combat force in the world. I don't think our technology is a lame attempt to compensate for some weakness in our armed forces. I believe that technology is what has allowed us to do with hundreds or thousands what would have taken tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands not too long ago. Just look at the fatality figures for WWI and WWII and compare them to casualties in the current string of conflicts, and (without trivializing the value of any single life in any conflict) you will see that we have lost far fewer than during any comparable engagement. Regardless of where any reader falls on these recent conflicts, they must at least cede that point.
Once upon a time, Americans were very good at guerilla warfare. Just ask the British (sorry Britons) -- otherwise, we would still be English colonies. To paraphrase Bill Cosby, who put it so well in one of his routines, the American army could shoot from behind rocks and trees, and could wear any color they wanted to wear, while the British army had to wear red and walk in straight lines.
Unfortunately, like most other bureaucracies, we have become more formal as time has passed. I remember some of the reports out of Afghanastan early on where military people cited how hard it was to determine who was in the opposing army, since there was no standard uniform. I can imagine there were similar reports by British officers during our Revolutionary War. Our units (in Afghanastan and elsewhere) were nailed while in standard formations by people who fought the way the American founding fathers fought not so long ago. I found it ironic that we had come so far that we were now the proverbial Red Coats--obvious and easy targets for a less formalized force.
[By means of the preceding example, I do not intend to imply or disallow any moral equivalencies between those two conflicts. My point is in the fighting style and formality of military operations.]
I believe the free-market view has increasingly exerted influence all areas of our society. Not an evil in and of itself, it has reduced altruism in many arenas, including science.
That said, I don't know a single doctor or research scientist who is motivated first and foremost by his own needs. I'm glad to say that most are still ardent idealists with a generous dose of realism thrown in for good measure.
I believe there was a time where there was a greater emphasis on increasing our scientific understanding for the sake of all. I believe it is still out there, but it can get back-burnered by the same free-market system that prompts many to excel. When scientists feel pressure to keep publishing or keep winning big dollar research grants just to make sure they are not displaced in our economy, we limit their ability to wrangle with those larger questions, and those issues that really stir their passions. Most medical doctors chose that career because, at some level, they wanted to help people (yes, there are those who mostly wanted a good career and a Jag), but ask your doctor how much time they lose to administration, regulation, and paperwork and you will get a better understanding of what I am trying to describe.
Thank God for the free market, but let's not forget that any system comes with both perks and problems. I think you've touched on one of the problems of our free market system.
Even better weasel-like brilliance would be to border programming windows with Google's current strong-point: text based links. Those links generally would not distract from the programming, and could change with the scenes or where there would have been commercial breaks. Then, with TV's becoming/being Internet ready media boxes, you would only need to click on the link to have the information pop up in a picture-in-a-picture display, on another PC in the home, or in your email inbox. Again, targeted ads would be the coup de grace, and the non-intrusive text ads would be a great improvement over the ever-more-obvious product placements.
Call me old-fashioned, but I would almost rather see a cast member turn toward the camera announce that "this episode of [whatever moronic show is on at the time] is brought to you by [vendor]". In this day and age, it would, at least, be refreshing.
If there is enough of a ground swell, politicians may see this as a good battle to fight. Every campaigner out there would love to tell the constituency that s/he voted to criminalize this type of behavior...