From my own experiences in public schools I have found the vast majority of students do not enjoy their time at school, nor do they want to learn. They aren't particularily concerned with their futures or the long-lasting benefits of their education.
There will always be a large number of trouble makers and disruptive students in any public school. Corporal punishment would be an excellent way of dealing with them.
The methods for corporal punishment were usually quite well defined - typically a belt or a rod was smacked against the palm of your non-dominant (so you can still write comfortably) hand or your posterior. When followed properly there was no reasonable chance of permanent damage.
Abused? Corporal punishment in schools was just that - punishment. There was never any permanent damage inflicted. Children could easily avoid being punished by simply following the rules (which you are much more inclined to do with the prospect of physical pain awaiting you should you violate them).
I would absolutely love to see corporal punishment brought back in schools.
There are a number of surgeries I would undergo if needed even if they were a bit risky. This doesn't include any type of surgery where I may go blind if something goes wrong.
Even were it possible to attempt 100 billion keys a second you would still require ~3.31 * 10 ^ 1214 years to exhaust all the possible combinations of a 4096 bit key.
The data would be quit secure unless the encryption algorithm has a very severe weakness.
Strong encryption algorithms with suitably long key lengths will take longer than the lifetime of the sun to crack (barring the possibility of quantum computing taking off).
Wait, so B&N is cheaper than buy.com which is cheaper than OverStock which is cheaper than BookPool which is cheaper than Amazon which is cheaper than B&N?
Your assertation about what constitutes "acceptable" axioms is just an assumption, a value judgement - "just guessing or self-delusion."
Or rather, all axioms are opinions, we understand nothing, which is really the only defensible position.
When we speak of rights or some other ethical phenomenon being "universal", we mean that they do not vary from society to society, nation to nation.
Read the individual I responded to initially. He has stated quite clearly that humans have rights irrespective of whether or not society chooses to recognize those rights. There have been several societies that have not protected what are considered by many to be universal rights.
Any logical argument rests on assumed axioms and defintions. Do you argue that geometry is opinion and nothing more?
The only acceptable axioms when it comes to what we believe is that our senses provide for us a somewhat reasonable representation of the outside world. Anything more is just guessing or self-delusion.
(And yes, just as other sets of geometric axioms are possible in theory, it is possible to consider ethical theories in which mass misery and suffering are considered good, desirable outcomes. While that may be an interesting exercise of the imagination, I believe the term for one who actually attempts to practice such a theory is "psychopath".)
There is no evidence for either misery or happiness being favoured by the universe, just as there is no evidence for universal human rights.
If we accept that X are the conditions needed for human beings to thrive, and we accept that we wish to organize a society in which human beings tend to thrive, then we must organize our society such that individual's fulfilment of X is maximized.
There is a significant difference. In the former situation you have a society which is created for the benefit of individuals. In the latter you have the assumption of some sort of universal rule that humans have rights, and that it is universally wrong to deprive them of them.
Following the Tao, an expert butcher cuts between the joints and thus never has to sharpen his blade. Although a good surgeon is anything but a butcher, incisions must just the same be made one way and not another. This fact can be generalized to all reasonable human activity, including construction of social arrangements. So we see there are rights, or naturally right ways to behave, ways of the Tao, that take conditions into consideration, as well as ecology and sociology. Therefore it is possible with common sense to distinguish between natural ethics that work and unnatural moralities that eventually only produce widespread misery.
That assumes some universal definition of good. It also assumes that misery is bad. Neither can be argued for logically - they are opinions and nothing more.
"Rights" are the basic conditions needed for humans to thrive.
This makes rights nothing more than a set of conditions - not some universal set of freedoms each individual is entitled to.
If you're viewing something for text then images / misc eye candy serve as nothing but distractions.
A text based browser is perfect for viewing the actual content of a page without all the unnecessary cruft.
You can't use a graphical browser on a shell account.
Slashdot loses any credibility as a true 'news for nerds' site if it won't even render properly in Links with the default (IE not the 'Simple Design') layout.
Slashdot Mirror
Please.
Anybody so weak that they actually suffer psychological damage from a little bit of pain has no place in society to begin with.
Pain is an excellent conditioning stimulus. It is irrational not to make use of it simply because an insignificant minority are too weak to handle it.
From my own experiences in public schools I have found the vast majority of students do not enjoy their time at school, nor do they want to learn. They aren't particularily concerned with their futures or the long-lasting benefits of their education.
There will always be a large number of trouble makers and disruptive students in any public school. Corporal punishment would be an excellent way of dealing with them.
The methods for corporal punishment were usually quite well defined - typically a belt or a rod was smacked against the palm of your non-dominant (so you can still write comfortably) hand or your posterior. When followed properly there was no reasonable chance of permanent damage.
Unfortunately corporal punishment was long gone by the time I went to school. However my parents weren't afraid of using the strap.
Abused? Corporal punishment in schools was just that - punishment. There was never any permanent damage inflicted. Children could easily avoid being punished by simply following the rules (which you are much more inclined to do with the prospect of physical pain awaiting you should you violate them).
I would absolutely love to see corporal punishment brought back in schools.
As far as I am aware they can demand that you show them the contents of your wallet or leave the store. That is fine, they are privately funded.
Is '... in response to their WGA spyware' really necessary? Provide the information and let the readers make up their minds.
I've had mod points about six or seven times now and I've hardly done anything spectacular to earn them.
/. users have as much or more karma than myself.
I'd be willing to bet most
It's annoying trying to read content when you have to scroll contantly.
The old layout was vastly superior to what we have now.
I play with an excellent (CAL-M) heavy in DoD 1.3 who uses a trackball. His recoil control is impeccable.
However it would probably take a month or more to transition over to.
I'd much rather be dead than blind, however.
There are a number of surgeries I would undergo if needed even if they were a bit risky. This doesn't include any type of surgery where I may go blind if something goes wrong.
Flechette rounds have an effective range of around 300 meters.
Even were it possible to attempt 100 billion keys a second you would still require ~3.31 * 10 ^ 1214 years to exhaust all the possible combinations of a 4096 bit key.
The data would be quit secure unless the encryption algorithm has a very severe weakness.
Strong encryption algorithms with suitably long key lengths will take longer than the lifetime of the sun to crack (barring the possibility of quantum computing taking off).
Mr. Jelly! Mr. Jelly!
Interactive fiction has a rather large following on the 'net. http://www.ifarchive.org/
Wait, so B&N is cheaper than buy.com which is cheaper than OverStock which is cheaper than BookPool which is cheaper than Amazon which is cheaper than B&N?
Recursion error?
Read the individual I responded to initially. He has stated quite clearly that humans have rights irrespective of whether or not society chooses to recognize those rights. There have been several societies that have not protected what are considered by many to be universal rights.
There is no evidence for either misery or happiness being favoured by the universe, just as there is no evidence for universal human rights. There is a significant difference. In the former situation you have a society which is created for the benefit of individuals. In the latter you have the assumption of some sort of universal rule that humans have rights, and that it is universally wrong to deprive them of them.
This makes rights nothing more than a set of conditions - not some universal set of freedoms each individual is entitled to.
You haven't, and I can think of no evidence supporting the existence of rights. You are claiming rights exist. The burden of proof lies with you.
Rights are certainly not self-evident. Unless you can bring some reasoning to defend their existence, I cannot see any validity in your argument.
It doesn't matter if you believe that we have rights, or you don't. The simple fact is that we don't.
See how easy it is when you don't back up your argument?
Rights don't really exist. They are an social constructs.
If you're viewing something for text then images / misc eye candy serve as nothing but distractions.
A text based browser is perfect for viewing the actual content of a page without all the unnecessary cruft.
You can't use a graphical browser on a shell account.
Slashdot loses any credibility as a true 'news for nerds' site if it won't even render properly in Links with the default (IE not the 'Simple Design') layout.
Ergh, s/Copyright/Copyright law/.