It's always good fun toying with my favorite slashdot stalker plasmacutter. He has such a cute passive aggressive name.
Let's see if we can get to the core here:
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
First of all, allow me to thank you for adding much needed, albeit unintentional humor to this election season.
Now, what the hell do you mean by "no standing"? Since when does a person required to have "standing" to ask a politician a question in public? I mean, what the hell do you expect? Should Obama have pulled out the FRCP and cited 12(b)(6) and said, "I'm sorry, Joe, it appears that you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as you are not, in fact, in possession of a small business nor capable of buying one at this time. As such, your question is dismissed with prejudice until such time as you own a business which has an income over $250k"? I mean, is this what you're talking about when it comes to "standing"?
Should we require the same of reporters? "I'm sorry, it looks like you, a male reporter, asked a question about abortion. I refuse to answer on the grounds that you lack standing as you are not a female. Come back to me after the sex change or whatever." Or, "that's a fascinating question about my healthcare plan, but it looks like you're an able-bodied person. So don't ask me any questions on this because you lack standing."
Joe - or Sam, or whatever - has "standing" by being a human being. Period. Perhaps he though too highly of himself. Perhaps he embellished. But it doesn't matter. If this complaint were going forth in a courtroom, of course it would be tossed out - standing actually, you know, matters there. But it is in the interest of every person to be able to ask a question of a politician in the United States even if there is no direct impact on the questioner. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, the person asking the question does not believe, as a matter of principle, that X should be done because it conflicts with his ideology Y on the matter.
And that's where the firearms question comes from above. It appears to have flown over your head - and boy, was that a shocker. Even a person who does not own firearms retains the right to question Obama about his firearms policies. Hell, even a convicted felon who is legally prohibited from owning a firearm and would never be directly affected (legally, at least) by a ban on high-capacity magazines can ask a question about these policies. Why? Because he has a right to hear an answer from his government or someone who wants to be a leader in the government on this issue.
I can claim that I'm the Queen of Sheba in a political question. It doesn't matter. It's the answer that deserves focus. And shifting the blame on the questioner is a sick, stupid tactic. Now, if you'd like to go through the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code - or, why not, have some fun and go through the FRCP - and find the place where we are required to have proper "standing" to dare ask a politician a question, please, be my guest. (Let me save you some time, though - you won't find it because it's not there.)
The guy asked a fair question. Obama, an unseasoned and untested politician, answered off the cuff in a way that a lot of people didn't like. That's what you get when you bring a minor league politician on board in a major national election. Deal.
standing, n. A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right - Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004
Ah, plasmacutter. That champion of the underclasses in his own mind.
Fraud and slander against the Obama campaign? Please.
No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to go all Huey Long and talk about spreading the wealth. It's his tax plan. That someone who may not be harmed by it had the audacity to ask him about it is irrelevant. It is the answer that most people find concerning. And it jives with much of the rest of Obama's redistributionist ideology. Arguing that the question should not have been asked based on the personal qualifications of the questioner is petty and absurd - just like a certain poster I know on Slashdot, come to think of it...
I, for example, do not own a firearm at this time. But I am still quite concerned about Obama's policies regarding firearms, and his previous record leaves little reassurance one way or another. You see, even though I'm not in a position now to buy firearms (although I likely will if Obama wins), I just might be years down the road, and I'd like my rights preserved to the greatest extent possible until then. Are firearms a key concern for me? No - they're second tier at best. But they are on the list.
If you would like to see the U.S. become a socialist paradise, then this doesn't concern you. If you don't mind when government computers are used for unauthorized purposes to dig up dirt on a person who dares to affront The One by daring to question him on a plank of his campaign, then by all means, go for Obama!
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
I'm lucky, in that where I live, full coverage runs just shy of $700/year for this car.
As to putting money into savings for a new car - I'm a grad student (law school). "Savings" isn't something I've really got at the moment, and as this is strictly a short term arrangement (baby only needs to last two more years... just two more years... then I will have passed the car and all will be well...) I'd rather just avoid another extreme financial shock for now.
And, incidentally, what pisses me off is that the other driver had a one year old, $20,000 vehicle - which was not very badly damaged at all - while entirely incapable of paying for their insurance. Thanks a lot, folks. I really love those "no credit, no problem!" car dealers now...
But I agree entirely with this statement: "If you think insurance is a scam, tell that to the people whose entire earthly possessions were wiped out in Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, or the California wildfires."
My case doesn't involve natural disasters but a simple car crash. My hunk o' junk car was totaled by an uninsured driver a little over a year ago. I had liability only at the time (stupid, stupid, I know, but it was a sub $2,000 vehicle). Had I bothered to pay just a little bit more, I could have avoided small claims court and the extremely drawn out collection process which is doing little more than pay the interest on the debt that has accumulated not only from purchasing and repairing a new car but also from the other associated bills - a car rental, lost wages, time spent looking for a new car, etc.
I now drive a $1,600 car, with full coverage as well as double minimum state coverage in all areas. It is the ultimate peace of mind knowing that if I were to get into another situation like this I would be out, at most, a few hundred dollars.
Insure yourself. Do it now, and do it right. An extra $100 or so could have saved me from the financial nightmare I've been living for the last year and a half.
The way it was handled in my high school science class was simple: a discussion of what "science" meant. Science, after all, is more of a method of discovery by certain rules than a true monolith (such as "science says"). This was then distinguished from spiritual approaches by focusing on physical evidence, falsifiability, etc.
Essentially, the teacher better defined science and distinguished it from religion. She then stated that, as we were in science class, we would learn the scientific take. We were free to believe as we wished - as is the fundamental right of every man, enshrined in the First Amendment and various case law interpreting it - but, regardless of what we believed, we would learn the scientific take in a science class - it only meant sense.
That, to me, is the appropriate way to handle the situation. I particularly liked the way it reminded us more of the scientific method and of the epistemological differences between the hard sciences and other subjects. This planet and its people would benefit a great deal by learning the ability to approach matters in different ways and to even learn to hold two, conflicting ideas in their heads for a moment's time, if not but for the purpose of comparison. We need to trust people to think about things for themselves. Teaching epistemological approaches and focusing on process rather than product is vital to this.
I was a poli sci major, now a law student (yeah, I know, what the hell am I doing on Slashdot...). I think the most useful discussion I ever heard in class was one on the general idea of "lenses" we see the world through.
The professor who taught the course had been in the Intelligence Community for some time, and this is an issue that analysts and other intelligence officers encountered constantly and is, in fact, encountered in essentially every career path. Analysts, who may not have visited the country they work on in years, will see it very differently than the man on the ground. The man on the ground, however, who is constantly tied up with a million small details, will likely see things differently and fail to see the big picture.
In my own life, I can think of a few instances where this has been particularly true. I had the "pleasure" of getting caught in the middle of a slum during the December 2001 riots in Argentina. Not a pleasant experience, needless to say. So now, every time I go back to Latin America, I'm paranoid. Once you've seen people getting stabbed and robbed all around you, you get that way. It's my "lens" - I always see things as less stable than they truly are, and always feel that I need to be ready to either batten down the hatches or bolt at any moment.
A more useful story would come from a recent work-related incident. A legal issue came up when I was an intern at a law office (yes, imagine that). I was in a conference with the other attorneys - all distinguished professionals with lengthy records - discussing the matter, and all of the attorneys handled it exactly like they would a case from a textbook - they played their "role". They took the facts they were given, assumed they were real, and attempted to find a legal answer to the situation. That's what lawyers do. After listening to discussion on this for several minutes, I piped up and questioned the very basis of the facts (the situation seemed a bit far-fetched to me - one not yet entirely corrupted by the practice of law - and I simply applied Occam's razor). I received strange stares for a moment, and then the attorney in charge of the matter said, "wow, I'd never considered that before. Let's look into it." Sure enough, I was right, and we saved a lot of money, headache, and effort on research and other costs.
People simply see things differently and will process information differently. Environment, experience, language, education, spirituality, family background, geographical origin, economic situation, genetics (to an extent), etc. all shape how we see the world - and how we even interpret - or even recognize - fact. It's only human. The best we can hope to do is to acknowledge it and to seek out those who view things differently in the hopes of honing our own vision and seeing things we hadn't seen before.
I won't vote for a ticket that uses Catholic Social Doctrine to justify its tax policies and who proclaims himself to be in "totally consistent" on this point. I'm not Catholic - I don't want a Catholic doctrine to be used to go after my checkbook.
Just say no to Biden/Obama and their theocratic tax scheme!
An organization that gives "a single voice for speaking out on issues that affects everyone"?
Uh, what?
The ABA does play many important roles in the practice of law, but it is hardly the only body to which lawyers belong, and a great many attorneys are recoiling away from the ABA based on its continuing politicization of virtually everything it touches - everything from who law schools must admit to what recruiters should have open access to law students, etc.
If you're looking for an example, the ABA is probably not the best one.
The difference here is one of copyright and right to distribution.
As has been stated repeatedly above and elsewhere, the manuals have essentially nothing to do with "spreading the word". They are almost entirely managerial in nature and contain no doctrines not found anywhere else in very publicly available sources. The Mormon church (of which I am a member) does quite a good job of "spreading the word" online, and has posted not only all of the basic scriptural works but every single periodical for the last several decades, all major speeches for the last several decades, and virtually everything of that nature. There is no Scientology-esque desire to guard copyrighted doctrine here. Just a desire to guard the copyright - which, opposed to what you hear on Slashdot, is a right - to some of its publications.
And, yes, protecting copyright to things is important for any church. Copyright to its logo and name, for example, to prevent unauthorized use. And, yes, even copyright to basic leadership requirements.
The more "religious" the world's populations become, the closer to the dark ages we become. (The reverse is true as well as history illustrates.)
I realize that taking swipes at religion at/. is simply common fare and is an easy way to boost karma, but seriously, what? Where is this link between religion - one would assume all religion, as the OP discuss the population of the entire world - and this surge to the dark ages?
From the demographic viewpoint, a simple look at the high rate of belief in deity/practice of religion and the United States - the world economic leader, and still, in spite of some losses in this area, the center of innovation in all (well, at least most) things technological - would seem to indicate that the causal link between a belief in religion and a return to the "dark ages" is tenuous at best. For fun, compare the rate of technological advance in the U.S. with that of the devoutly non-religious Soviet Russia or Communist China throughout the cold war.
Then, one could look at individuals - Mendel, Newton, a wide assortment of Muslim mathematicians and astronomers, etc. Even a look at more mundane topics, such as engineers and inventors shows a broad array of other religious folks as well. As a Mormon, the first two that come to mind are Browning, a perhaps unrivaled genius to this day in the design of firearms, and Farnsworth - largely responsible for the electronic television.
Now, I'll be the first to concede the point that several religious groups have shown less technological advance over time, Wahabi Muslims in particular come to mind, but so do numerous others. Some groups have eschewed technology altogether, such as the Amish, but these are exceptional cases. But to argue that the act of being religious at all is somehow tied to a magical turn to the dark ages is absurd, and to argue that a lack of religion has always led to some drive away from the dark ages is no better.
Of course, I also don't see red dots on a green background, green dots on a red background, nor any discernible difference between many colors my wife swears exist, either. (Of course, I think I share that particular feature with most men as is.)
I was held up by French airport security in CDG for half an hour because, as it turned out, my car key was rotated in a funny position that made it look like I had an extremely tiny knife in my bag. It took them forever to figure that out - right after the rifled through everything I had and left my suitcase in one big mess.
Yup, a car key. Serious electronic equipment there, I tell you what.
I don't think it's a TSA thing - I think it's a let's-pay-people-$30k-a-year-and-get-them-paranoid thing around the world.
The problem is, the majority of the "ruling class" in management, government and all other areas are generally not scientifically inclined nor are they actively promoting science.
I think there's some truth in this, but I also see little effort by the scientifically knowledgeable to attain great heights of power. When they do, they often lack social skills or approach power in such a dogmatic way as to drive others away. I'm making sweeping generalizations here, of course, and ask forgiveness for that.
Then again, there could be some reasons for this. With all due respect, the "scientifically knowledgeable" are often both obtuse and rude to the outsider, mocking what they find to be important. Of course, the outsider is no better.
As the son of a teacher, I would agree that much of the problem with education indeed has to do with those exercising great influence over - but it's not so much politicians. Teachers at the K-12 level are generally trained as teachers, not specialists in their fields. Education departments at universities like to see themselves as gatekeepers in this way, and view education as their sacred cow (in spite of the fact that the supposed "best way" of teaching children changes every few months, and that imparting knowledge to others, while a skill, does not require much of the psychological crap they are forced to listen to). So, we end up with a crop of teachers who are, more often than not, not up to the same level of expertise as a person who graduated in the same field without the education degree.
Then, these teachers want to limit the amount of work they have to do. I can understand this - lesson plans are hard to write after all, and doing research for hours on end isn't exactly their idea of a good time, especially on their salary. And here come the real molders - special interest groups that seek to "educate" kids. Need to teach your kids about local history? Here comes a group from some minority who wants to do nothing more than let all the children know how great they are and what victims they were - and how we should help them out. Environmental stuff? Here comes the local/national wacko group that will tell your kids all about how the world will melt in 5 years. Parents convinced that your teachers can't handle math properly? Here comes new math!
What we need are specialized teachers with a real education (not classes telling them that diversity is the awesomest thing evah) and real curriculums designed by teachers who research the topic themselves and can show both sides of an issue fairly. (And yes, it can happen - my most even-handed college professor was actually a Green.)
We also need to make sure children understand the difference between METHOD and findings. Classical science and logic are, of course, the former.
I don't see much of a chance of any of this happening, but boy would I love to see it one day.
... that you could copyright a system for crashing browsers, infuriating mac users, and pissing off entire universities from students to faculties to staff.
I'll generally state that I agree with the above post, but would respond to this one statement below:
Firstly, if America is such an economic juggernaut, then why is it such a huge net borrower? One would think that such an economic superpower would be a net lender.
There's a distinction here between people and nations that often goes unnoticed by those who make this argument.
If you stop paying your mortgage, the bank comes and kicks you out of your house and then sells it to recover its losses. You're screwed, and the bank can generally recover most of its losses.
If the U.S. suddenly decides to not pay back its loans, China can't kick the U.S. out of house and home. Sure, it would hurt the U.S. to default on loans - it would make getting future loans much harder - but many foreign economies are built in part on loaning money to the U.S. so they can see the return on the interest. Should the U.S. take away that interest, it will hurt itself in the long run but also cause severe damage to foreign economies. Borrowing money from foreign economies makes them all the more dependent on us, and helps ensure that they keep us afloat.
So, who holds the power? The debtor or the holder of the debt? Answer that question completely, and you'll be lauded as a hero among political economists.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always good fun toying with my favorite slashdot stalker plasmacutter. He has such a cute passive aggressive name.
Let's see if we can get to the core here:
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
First of all, allow me to thank you for adding much needed, albeit unintentional humor to this election season.
Now, what the hell do you mean by "no standing"? Since when does a person required to have "standing" to ask a politician a question in public? I mean, what the hell do you expect? Should Obama have pulled out the FRCP and cited 12(b)(6) and said, "I'm sorry, Joe, it appears that you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as you are not, in fact, in possession of a small business nor capable of buying one at this time. As such, your question is dismissed with prejudice until such time as you own a business which has an income over $250k"? I mean, is this what you're talking about when it comes to "standing"?
Should we require the same of reporters? "I'm sorry, it looks like you, a male reporter, asked a question about abortion. I refuse to answer on the grounds that you lack standing as you are not a female. Come back to me after the sex change or whatever." Or, "that's a fascinating question about my healthcare plan, but it looks like you're an able-bodied person. So don't ask me any questions on this because you lack standing."
Joe - or Sam, or whatever - has "standing" by being a human being. Period. Perhaps he though too highly of himself. Perhaps he embellished. But it doesn't matter. If this complaint were going forth in a courtroom, of course it would be tossed out - standing actually, you know, matters there. But it is in the interest of every person to be able to ask a question of a politician in the United States even if there is no direct impact on the questioner. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, the person asking the question does not believe, as a matter of principle, that X should be done because it conflicts with his ideology Y on the matter.
And that's where the firearms question comes from above. It appears to have flown over your head - and boy, was that a shocker. Even a person who does not own firearms retains the right to question Obama about his firearms policies. Hell, even a convicted felon who is legally prohibited from owning a firearm and would never be directly affected (legally, at least) by a ban on high-capacity magazines can ask a question about these policies. Why? Because he has a right to hear an answer from his government or someone who wants to be a leader in the government on this issue.
I can claim that I'm the Queen of Sheba in a political question. It doesn't matter. It's the answer that deserves focus. And shifting the blame on the questioner is a sick, stupid tactic. Now, if you'd like to go through the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code - or, why not, have some fun and go through the FRCP - and find the place where we are required to have proper "standing" to dare ask a politician a question, please, be my guest. (Let me save you some time, though - you won't find it because it's not there.)
The guy asked a fair question. Obama, an unseasoned and untested politician, answered off the cuff in a way that a lot of people didn't like. That's what you get when you bring a minor league politician on board in a major national election. Deal.
standing, n. A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right - Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004
Ah, plasmacutter. That champion of the underclasses in his own mind.
Fraud and slander against the Obama campaign? Please.
No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to go all Huey Long and talk about spreading the wealth. It's his tax plan. That someone who may not be harmed by it had the audacity to ask him about it is irrelevant. It is the answer that most people find concerning. And it jives with much of the rest of Obama's redistributionist ideology. Arguing that the question should not have been asked based on the personal qualifications of the questioner is petty and absurd - just like a certain poster I know on Slashdot, come to think of it...
I, for example, do not own a firearm at this time. But I am still quite concerned about Obama's policies regarding firearms, and his previous record leaves little reassurance one way or another. You see, even though I'm not in a position now to buy firearms (although I likely will if Obama wins), I just might be years down the road, and I'd like my rights preserved to the greatest extent possible until then. Are firearms a key concern for me? No - they're second tier at best. But they are on the list.
If you would like to see the U.S. become a socialist paradise, then this doesn't concern you. If you don't mind when government computers are used for unauthorized purposes to dig up dirt on a person who dares to affront The One by daring to question him on a plank of his campaign, then by all means, go for Obama!
The parent making an accurate point is moded down.
The response, which completely misses the point, is moded up.
The difference? The accurate one is from the right. The inaccurate from the left.
Slashkos. Welcome.
Where questioning The One is flamebait.
Gone are the days when dissent was the highest form of patriotism, I assume.
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
Hope and change indeed.
I'm lucky, in that where I live, full coverage runs just shy of $700/year for this car.
As to putting money into savings for a new car - I'm a grad student (law school). "Savings" isn't something I've really got at the moment, and as this is strictly a short term arrangement (baby only needs to last two more years... just two more years... then I will have passed the car and all will be well...) I'd rather just avoid another extreme financial shock for now.
And, incidentally, what pisses me off is that the other driver had a one year old, $20,000 vehicle - which was not very badly damaged at all - while entirely incapable of paying for their insurance. Thanks a lot, folks. I really love those "no credit, no problem!" car dealers now...
But I agree entirely with this statement: "If you think insurance is a scam, tell that to the people whose entire earthly possessions were wiped out in Hurricanes Katrina and Ike, or the California wildfires."
My case doesn't involve natural disasters but a simple car crash. My hunk o' junk car was totaled by an uninsured driver a little over a year ago. I had liability only at the time (stupid, stupid, I know, but it was a sub $2,000 vehicle). Had I bothered to pay just a little bit more, I could have avoided small claims court and the extremely drawn out collection process which is doing little more than pay the interest on the debt that has accumulated not only from purchasing and repairing a new car but also from the other associated bills - a car rental, lost wages, time spent looking for a new car, etc.
I now drive a $1,600 car, with full coverage as well as double minimum state coverage in all areas. It is the ultimate peace of mind knowing that if I were to get into another situation like this I would be out, at most, a few hundred dollars.
Insure yourself. Do it now, and do it right. An extra $100 or so could have saved me from the financial nightmare I've been living for the last year and a half.
meant=made
It's late.
On how they "teach the controversy".
The way it was handled in my high school science class was simple: a discussion of what "science" meant. Science, after all, is more of a method of discovery by certain rules than a true monolith (such as "science says"). This was then distinguished from spiritual approaches by focusing on physical evidence, falsifiability, etc.
Essentially, the teacher better defined science and distinguished it from religion. She then stated that, as we were in science class, we would learn the scientific take. We were free to believe as we wished - as is the fundamental right of every man, enshrined in the First Amendment and various case law interpreting it - but, regardless of what we believed, we would learn the scientific take in a science class - it only meant sense.
That, to me, is the appropriate way to handle the situation. I particularly liked the way it reminded us more of the scientific method and of the epistemological differences between the hard sciences and other subjects. This planet and its people would benefit a great deal by learning the ability to approach matters in different ways and to even learn to hold two, conflicting ideas in their heads for a moment's time, if not but for the purpose of comparison. We need to trust people to think about things for themselves. Teaching epistemological approaches and focusing on process rather than product is vital to this.
I was a poli sci major, now a law student (yeah, I know, what the hell am I doing on Slashdot...). I think the most useful discussion I ever heard in class was one on the general idea of "lenses" we see the world through.
The professor who taught the course had been in the Intelligence Community for some time, and this is an issue that analysts and other intelligence officers encountered constantly and is, in fact, encountered in essentially every career path. Analysts, who may not have visited the country they work on in years, will see it very differently than the man on the ground. The man on the ground, however, who is constantly tied up with a million small details, will likely see things differently and fail to see the big picture.
In my own life, I can think of a few instances where this has been particularly true. I had the "pleasure" of getting caught in the middle of a slum during the December 2001 riots in Argentina. Not a pleasant experience, needless to say. So now, every time I go back to Latin America, I'm paranoid. Once you've seen people getting stabbed and robbed all around you, you get that way. It's my "lens" - I always see things as less stable than they truly are, and always feel that I need to be ready to either batten down the hatches or bolt at any moment.
A more useful story would come from a recent work-related incident. A legal issue came up when I was an intern at a law office (yes, imagine that). I was in a conference with the other attorneys - all distinguished professionals with lengthy records - discussing the matter, and all of the attorneys handled it exactly like they would a case from a textbook - they played their "role". They took the facts they were given, assumed they were real, and attempted to find a legal answer to the situation. That's what lawyers do. After listening to discussion on this for several minutes, I piped up and questioned the very basis of the facts (the situation seemed a bit far-fetched to me - one not yet entirely corrupted by the practice of law - and I simply applied Occam's razor). I received strange stares for a moment, and then the attorney in charge of the matter said, "wow, I'd never considered that before. Let's look into it." Sure enough, I was right, and we saved a lot of money, headache, and effort on research and other costs.
People simply see things differently and will process information differently. Environment, experience, language, education, spirituality, family background, geographical origin, economic situation, genetics (to an extent), etc. all shape how we see the world - and how we even interpret - or even recognize - fact. It's only human. The best we can hope to do is to acknowledge it and to seek out those who view things differently in the hopes of honing our own vision and seeing things we hadn't seen before.
I won't vote for a ticket that uses Catholic Social Doctrine to justify its tax policies and who proclaims himself to be in "totally consistent" on this point. I'm not Catholic - I don't want a Catholic doctrine to be used to go after my checkbook.
Just say no to Biden/Obama and their theocratic tax scheme!
Sorry, was that not what you were expecting?
An organization that gives "a single voice for speaking out on issues that affects everyone"?
Uh, what?
The ABA does play many important roles in the practice of law, but it is hardly the only body to which lawyers belong, and a great many attorneys are recoiling away from the ABA based on its continuing politicization of virtually everything it touches - everything from who law schools must admit to what recruiters should have open access to law students, etc.
If you're looking for an example, the ABA is probably not the best one.
In an ironic twist, most articles on Wikipedia are also within 6 clicks of Kevin Bacon's article!
Enjoy a nice game of WikiBacon!
Link is NOT to my blog
The difference here is one of copyright and right to distribution.
As has been stated repeatedly above and elsewhere, the manuals have essentially nothing to do with "spreading the word". They are almost entirely managerial in nature and contain no doctrines not found anywhere else in very publicly available sources. The Mormon church (of which I am a member) does quite a good job of "spreading the word" online, and has posted not only all of the basic scriptural works but every single periodical for the last several decades, all major speeches for the last several decades, and virtually everything of that nature. There is no Scientology-esque desire to guard copyrighted doctrine here. Just a desire to guard the copyright - which, opposed to what you hear on Slashdot, is a right - to some of its publications.
And, yes, protecting copyright to things is important for any church. Copyright to its logo and name, for example, to prevent unauthorized use. And, yes, even copyright to basic leadership requirements.
The more "religious" the world's populations become, the closer to the dark ages we become. (The reverse is true as well as history illustrates.)
/. is simply common fare and is an easy way to boost karma, but seriously, what? Where is this link between religion - one would assume all religion, as the OP discuss the population of the entire world - and this surge to the dark ages?
I realize that taking swipes at religion at
From the demographic viewpoint, a simple look at the high rate of belief in deity/practice of religion and the United States - the world economic leader, and still, in spite of some losses in this area, the center of innovation in all (well, at least most) things technological - would seem to indicate that the causal link between a belief in religion and a return to the "dark ages" is tenuous at best. For fun, compare the rate of technological advance in the U.S. with that of the devoutly non-religious Soviet Russia or Communist China throughout the cold war.
Then, one could look at individuals - Mendel, Newton, a wide assortment of Muslim mathematicians and astronomers, etc. Even a look at more mundane topics, such as engineers and inventors shows a broad array of other religious folks as well. As a Mormon, the first two that come to mind are Browning, a perhaps unrivaled genius to this day in the design of firearms, and Farnsworth - largely responsible for the electronic television.
Now, I'll be the first to concede the point that several religious groups have shown less technological advance over time, Wahabi Muslims in particular come to mind, but so do numerous others. Some groups have eschewed technology altogether, such as the Amish, but these are exceptional cases. But to argue that the act of being religious at all is somehow tied to a magical turn to the dark ages is absurd, and to argue that a lack of religion has always led to some drive away from the dark ages is no better.
It's about time airports started using their luggage routing software for security purposes.
I just don't see what all the hubbub is about.
Of course, I also don't see red dots on a green background, green dots on a red background, nor any discernible difference between many colors my wife swears exist, either. (Of course, I think I share that particular feature with most men as is.)
How soon until they can put this in textbooks? Now that would be handy...
I was held up by French airport security in CDG for half an hour because, as it turned out, my car key was rotated in a funny position that made it look like I had an extremely tiny knife in my bag. It took them forever to figure that out - right after the rifled through everything I had and left my suitcase in one big mess.
Yup, a car key. Serious electronic equipment there, I tell you what.
I don't think it's a TSA thing - I think it's a let's-pay-people-$30k-a-year-and-get-them-paranoid thing around the world.
/me looks at watch. Realizes he just spent the last 15 hours straight working on one assignment... may get an hour's sleep if he's lucky.
Yup. I'd believe it...
From the reports I've read about the FBI's IT woes, he may never have truly experienced the first internet...
The problem is, the majority of the "ruling class" in management, government and all other areas are generally not scientifically inclined nor are they actively promoting science.
I think there's some truth in this, but I also see little effort by the scientifically knowledgeable to attain great heights of power. When they do, they often lack social skills or approach power in such a dogmatic way as to drive others away. I'm making sweeping generalizations here, of course, and ask forgiveness for that.
Then again, there could be some reasons for this. With all due respect, the "scientifically knowledgeable" are often both obtuse and rude to the outsider, mocking what they find to be important. Of course, the outsider is no better.
As the son of a teacher, I would agree that much of the problem with education indeed has to do with those exercising great influence over - but it's not so much politicians. Teachers at the K-12 level are generally trained as teachers, not specialists in their fields. Education departments at universities like to see themselves as gatekeepers in this way, and view education as their sacred cow (in spite of the fact that the supposed "best way" of teaching children changes every few months, and that imparting knowledge to others, while a skill, does not require much of the psychological crap they are forced to listen to). So, we end up with a crop of teachers who are, more often than not, not up to the same level of expertise as a person who graduated in the same field without the education degree.
Then, these teachers want to limit the amount of work they have to do. I can understand this - lesson plans are hard to write after all, and doing research for hours on end isn't exactly their idea of a good time, especially on their salary. And here come the real molders - special interest groups that seek to "educate" kids. Need to teach your kids about local history? Here comes a group from some minority who wants to do nothing more than let all the children know how great they are and what victims they were - and how we should help them out. Environmental stuff? Here comes the local/national wacko group that will tell your kids all about how the world will melt in 5 years. Parents convinced that your teachers can't handle math properly? Here comes new math!
What we need are specialized teachers with a real education (not classes telling them that diversity is the awesomest thing evah) and real curriculums designed by teachers who research the topic themselves and can show both sides of an issue fairly. (And yes, it can happen - my most even-handed college professor was actually a Green.)
We also need to make sure children understand the difference between METHOD and findings. Classical science and logic are, of course, the former.
I don't see much of a chance of any of this happening, but boy would I love to see it one day.
... that you could copyright a system for crashing browsers, infuriating mac users, and pissing off entire universities from students to faculties to staff.
What a country!
There's a distinction here between people and nations that often goes unnoticed by those who make this argument.
If you stop paying your mortgage, the bank comes and kicks you out of your house and then sells it to recover its losses. You're screwed, and the bank can generally recover most of its losses.
If the U.S. suddenly decides to not pay back its loans, China can't kick the U.S. out of house and home. Sure, it would hurt the U.S. to default on loans - it would make getting future loans much harder - but many foreign economies are built in part on loaning money to the U.S. so they can see the return on the interest. Should the U.S. take away that interest, it will hurt itself in the long run but also cause severe damage to foreign economies. Borrowing money from foreign economies makes them all the more dependent on us, and helps ensure that they keep us afloat.
So, who holds the power? The debtor or the holder of the debt? Answer that question completely, and you'll be lauded as a hero among political economists.
I'm a law student, and I'm not so sure I'd have the guts to represent myself on much! (Granted, I haven't studied this particular area of law yet)
So, not only did you win, but you'll get to pocket most of it yourself! Way to be!