College sports actually makes a lot of money for colleges that are put to use in the academic programs.
Unfortunately, what you said about the athletes is true. They do get the chance to get a college degree from a decent school where they might not have made admissions otherwise, but frequently they are treated as products that bring in sports money and don't always have success academically. For that reason alone, I probably wouldn't be all that upset if they dissolved the NCAA and forced students to first make real admissions requirements before playing on a team.
Except that students are no longer the customers. That stopped when you needed a college degree as a checkbox to getting many jobs. Now they are merely the buckets on conveyor belts that are used to move the money into the universities from the student grant/loan streams. They'll fight for quality students to keep their competitive ratings high and have a higher chance of having successful (rich) alums who always wanted a building named after them, of course, but let's face it, they're not going to face a lack of students in general.
Other than that, the customers are those who actually make it possible for students to be put into chairs, and those who provide cash for research that keeps good professors on campus to teach^H^H^H^H^Hdo research and file patents for the university.
If you're in the top 1%, you're clearly a criminal profiteer. This is a problem for people who are in the 1%, but are certain that they aren't criminal profiteers, and yet, they need a catchy name to label criminal profiteers with that makes it seem like they're an exclusive group that is pulling all the strings and must be destroyed.
It's what we call a crisis of labeling. Luckily, there are plenty of other names we can call people who make a lot of money to prove that they are destroying the economy and making the government fail. You could use "wreckers" or "kulaks" or "capitalist pig". I know these are somewhat dated terms, but I'm sure that we can find some chants and slogans which will make use of these terms.
Or how about this? How about we call people on the actions that they have actually taken, as opposed to demonizing a whole class of people just because they make X amount of money? There's always going to be someone in those groups who doesn't deserve the invective that is thrown at them.
On the other hand, I suppose that we could just let God sort them out so that we don't have to do any thinking.
Frequently the "anger" is over the free shit they aren't getting but feel is their "right".
For instance, people are mad that we're not allocating money for this or that disease. Or that we don't have jobs and that government isn't creating more jobs for them.
In this case, since we're talking about Trump in the article, obviously, there is a different sort of anger involved. And that can be just as bad or unfair as the people who want free stuff.
And that is why democracy is a good method for providing legitimacy for government... but it's a shitty way to decide whether something is actually correct.
Democracy is usually benign because most people want to be left alone and vote that way. We're not usually inclined to be belligerent, and even with the higher rate of wars that the US has fought, it pales in comparison to the past ideas of war as being desirable or even "fun" for the ruling classes.
Unfortunately, there are times that you can rouse the majority (or large minority) to anger over something, and then you can control them with rhetoric and make them approve something wrong. And that is where democracy can fail, hard. A democracy is quite capable of electing its own dictator, and has done so more than once.
It is likely being resurfaced with tectonic or volcanic activity. Of course, because Pluto is so cold the "vulcanism" is actually things like water "volcanos", but the resurfacing effect would be very similar as the water will solidify into a smooth surface on Pluto much like cooling lava on Earth and warmer planets.
Much of Africa is effectively in the stage of political development where Europe was a few centuries ago. In Europe, all of this was accepted because there were Kings and Kings needed Crown Princes.
The problem with Africa today is that we have sort of made them call themselves Presidents, but they want to be Kings, and their people treat them similarly. They never had the tribalism beat out of them by long and hard experience, so they're still effectively acting like tribes who have chiefs and kings.
Uganda actually has an internal Kingdom of Buganda (the source of the word Uganda), which is actually led by an actual King today. It's not really a state or a political entity, but it still has some form of authority for the Buganda people who are the largest ethnic group in Uganda. A lot of Africa is tribal rule with a national government slapped on top of it. They really don't have the grounding in democracy, so the people themselves have trouble making it work and fall into older patterns of thought.
I think that his point is that we are constantly told to respect the beliefs of other cultures, that does not appear to extend to those things that are objectionable to current thought from the same people. So, effectively, "tolerance" becomes a word used to berate people who don't have the same idea of what is "tolerable" as others.
The Spanish conquerors thought it was obscene that the Aztecs would sacrifice thousands on an altar for their religious beliefs, but yet today, much is made about how Spain were imperialist oppressors. The reality is that both were oppressive, but for different reasons. Perhaps we *don't* have to respect the Aztec civilization, and we can be happy it is gone, despite its more positive aspects, such as its engineering feats and such.
Now, I am not suggesting that Uganda's cultural drive to outlaw and kill gays is a good thing. I think it is horrible.
However, perhaps we should agree to whether we condemn a whole culture for its most objectionable traits, or we agree to accept certain culture for who they are. What will not work is the idea that you can define "tolerance" by your own idea of such, and expect that people will simply accept that as a matter of course just because you label your views as "progressive".
You think a Trump or a Sanders is going to stop Executive overreach?
How do you think they're going to get their programs in place?
Sanders is more likely to work with Congress than Trump, but there's a lot of hostility to both in Congress.
Sanders is a bit more of a humble sort, but even he will probably need to get "creative" to make any of his programs have any traction. Trump will just declare that Congress is "low energy" and proceed to attempt to rule by decree.
No. None of our candidates is going to shrink the government. Sanders is actually going to *increase* the government. How do you think he's going to administer his single payer health care system?
Trump isn't promising to increase the government, but he'll probably need a new building just for his Office of the Border Wall Project, assuming he wasn't lying about trying it.
And yes, kids, the border wall is entirely possible to build in four years. It will be expensive, and I don't see at all how he's going to get a billion dollars out of Mexico, but if he makes the effort, he could do it. But that's not going to shrink the government.
Yes, testing TOR to its limit is like trying to break encryption and finding a better method using that information. If you get to the point that you are unable to break it, it becomes much more valuable.
The problem is, until you find the fully secure solution, they are effectively working on a method that will break your crypto or find your hidden service. That will cause immediate security concerns.
Researching Tor is a legitimate course of study. Since the goal of the system is security, breaking that security is a good idea, if only to understand how it can be done and patched. This sort of research is not automatic collaboration with the FBI.
Obviously, a subpoena for this information seems to be more of an issue of opportunity; it would be rather haphazard unless the FBI was following that research. I imagine that researchers could find an ethical way to destroy this data before publishing or something, I can't imagine they would have any legal requirement to hold on to it, unlike corporations with contracts and specific legal regulation.
This should be a minor irritant unless someone writes a law requiring security researchers to cooperate with law enforcement by storing data for their review. And I don't see that happening. But if it did, that would be a concrete step towards the security state.
I'm not too fond of Obama, but I think he was stuck with this situation from Day One. The only argument I have with him is that he pulled out of Iraq way too early, but since that promise was necessary to get him elected, I almost don't blame him for it. The guy who got elected was going to be the one to do the pull out. I just wish he'd found a way to do it that didn't immediately play into the hands of groups that would become ISIS.
And no, he's not a brutal hawk. He's just a guy caught behind the wing of his party that wants to make this all just disappear, and the realities of being President. And that is a situation that is guaranteed to turn a leader into someone who promises peace on one hand, and drone strikes weddings on the other. He's not willing to do what it takes to end the problem, because he's be seen as brutal and illiberal, but he can't disengage. So he's been taking the half-measures that turn war into a long, drawn out disaster filled with collateral damage. We'll probably deliver more civilian collateral damage to Syria and Iraq than if we went in with a few divisions and ran over ISIS.
Yes, it was determined with the assault rifle concept that you would be fine sacrificing some range for higher rate of fire and a more compact weapon. Certainly it was not worth carrying around even the carbine versions of the heavy long rifles like the K98k when you were more often up close and personal.
And of course, for close quarters, range could be very short, and rate of fire for suppression and a smaller form for easier maneuvering in buildings and urban scenarios was even more important. That's where the SMGs really shined.
Yes, but the point was that you still want flexibility. You might find yourself in a situation where you might be prone and want to and be able to take a slow shot at someone at extreme range.
Of course, that is why they have "designated marksman" weapons, which are stock weapons that have been fine tuned and upgraded which can achieve much more accuracy without being completely new weapons with different ammo. But you don't always have a DM or their weapon.
Not sure how I feel about it, but it would probably be okay to have your round self destruct at actual maximum effective range. Just don't give the DM that ammo.
That experience may relate to older experiences with M16s when they first came out in Vietnam. They did experience a lot of jams and issues unless you kept them quite clean. That didn't always work very well in the jungle.
They did make some adjustments to mostly correct that, but the M16, M4 and AR-15 type of rifle isn't quite as rugged at the AK-47 variants have been.
Windows 10 is okay, all things told. The problem is when they sneak this shit in, but people who know what they are doing will consult the appropriate guide to turn it all off. Just like we did with all the other junk Windows tried to get in under the radar.
However, while I have to admit that it is a pretty ballsy move to have your OS serve you ads, it's not like no one saw this one coming. I was wondering when I'd have Windows 10, "sponsored by Square Enix and Coca-Cola". It seems that it has now arrived. Welcome to the future.
The only reason reason why not would be if it takes away developer or test time and resources from their other, higher priority offerings. It would be an alternative, and Ubuntu does already offer alternatives. Unity or not, as long as the only work they had to do was minimal, offering the choice seems to not harm Ubuntu at all.
You'd probably have a more conventional propulsion system for slowing down. So you'd carry fuel or perhaps deploy your giant blast shield and use nukes to slow down. You may not want to nuke the shit out of your own solar system, but no one cares about some backwater like Alpha Centauri.
Seriously, though. Even if you had to carry fuel to brake with a rocket propulsion system, you'd only have to carry half the amount, which would be a pretty big win.
And obviously, for two way travel, you can certainly build one in your destination, if you had sufficient reason to set one up there.
Of course, this doesn't get you FTL travel, or even high relativistic velocities, so this isn't exactly the birth of the Federation here.
Slashdot Mirror
College sports actually makes a lot of money for colleges that are put to use in the academic programs.
Unfortunately, what you said about the athletes is true. They do get the chance to get a college degree from a decent school where they might not have made admissions otherwise, but frequently they are treated as products that bring in sports money and don't always have success academically. For that reason alone, I probably wouldn't be all that upset if they dissolved the NCAA and forced students to first make real admissions requirements before playing on a team.
Except that students are no longer the customers. That stopped when you needed a college degree as a checkbox to getting many jobs. Now they are merely the buckets on conveyor belts that are used to move the money into the universities from the student grant/loan streams. They'll fight for quality students to keep their competitive ratings high and have a higher chance of having successful (rich) alums who always wanted a building named after them, of course, but let's face it, they're not going to face a lack of students in general.
Other than that, the customers are those who actually make it possible for students to be put into chairs, and those who provide cash for research that keeps good professors on campus to teach^H^H^H^H^Hdo research and file patents for the university.
If you're in the top 1%, you're clearly a criminal profiteer. This is a problem for people who are in the 1%, but are certain that they aren't criminal profiteers, and yet, they need a catchy name to label criminal profiteers with that makes it seem like they're an exclusive group that is pulling all the strings and must be destroyed.
It's what we call a crisis of labeling. Luckily, there are plenty of other names we can call people who make a lot of money to prove that they are destroying the economy and making the government fail. You could use "wreckers" or "kulaks" or "capitalist pig". I know these are somewhat dated terms, but I'm sure that we can find some chants and slogans which will make use of these terms.
Or how about this? How about we call people on the actions that they have actually taken, as opposed to demonizing a whole class of people just because they make X amount of money? There's always going to be someone in those groups who doesn't deserve the invective that is thrown at them.
On the other hand, I suppose that we could just let God sort them out so that we don't have to do any thinking.
I certainly don't.
That said, I'm glad that in Apple's case, even evil has standards.
It's 80% higher than it was before. That's all you need to know.
It's teh nuclear radiations. It's going to mutate fish into giant sea monsters, give mice cancer, and reduce property values.
Methinks your second head doth protest too much.
I eat a lot of red meat. Tuesday is the distant future.
Perhaps so, but at least you're going to enjoy your remaining time.
Animals... yum.
Close enough for government work.
Frequently the "anger" is over the free shit they aren't getting but feel is their "right".
For instance, people are mad that we're not allocating money for this or that disease. Or that we don't have jobs and that government isn't creating more jobs for them.
In this case, since we're talking about Trump in the article, obviously, there is a different sort of anger involved. And that can be just as bad or unfair as the people who want free stuff.
And that is why democracy is a good method for providing legitimacy for government... but it's a shitty way to decide whether something is actually correct.
Democracy is usually benign because most people want to be left alone and vote that way. We're not usually inclined to be belligerent, and even with the higher rate of wars that the US has fought, it pales in comparison to the past ideas of war as being desirable or even "fun" for the ruling classes.
Unfortunately, there are times that you can rouse the majority (or large minority) to anger over something, and then you can control them with rhetoric and make them approve something wrong. And that is where democracy can fail, hard. A democracy is quite capable of electing its own dictator, and has done so more than once.
It is likely being resurfaced with tectonic or volcanic activity. Of course, because Pluto is so cold the "vulcanism" is actually things like water "volcanos", but the resurfacing effect would be very similar as the water will solidify into a smooth surface on Pluto much like cooling lava on Earth and warmer planets.
Much of Africa is effectively in the stage of political development where Europe was a few centuries ago. In Europe, all of this was accepted because there were Kings and Kings needed Crown Princes.
The problem with Africa today is that we have sort of made them call themselves Presidents, but they want to be Kings, and their people treat them similarly. They never had the tribalism beat out of them by long and hard experience, so they're still effectively acting like tribes who have chiefs and kings.
Uganda actually has an internal Kingdom of Buganda (the source of the word Uganda), which is actually led by an actual King today. It's not really a state or a political entity, but it still has some form of authority for the Buganda people who are the largest ethnic group in Uganda. A lot of Africa is tribal rule with a national government slapped on top of it. They really don't have the grounding in democracy, so the people themselves have trouble making it work and fall into older patterns of thought.
I think that his point is that we are constantly told to respect the beliefs of other cultures, that does not appear to extend to those things that are objectionable to current thought from the same people. So, effectively, "tolerance" becomes a word used to berate people who don't have the same idea of what is "tolerable" as others.
The Spanish conquerors thought it was obscene that the Aztecs would sacrifice thousands on an altar for their religious beliefs, but yet today, much is made about how Spain were imperialist oppressors. The reality is that both were oppressive, but for different reasons. Perhaps we *don't* have to respect the Aztec civilization, and we can be happy it is gone, despite its more positive aspects, such as its engineering feats and such.
Now, I am not suggesting that Uganda's cultural drive to outlaw and kill gays is a good thing. I think it is horrible.
However, perhaps we should agree to whether we condemn a whole culture for its most objectionable traits, or we agree to accept certain culture for who they are. What will not work is the idea that you can define "tolerance" by your own idea of such, and expect that people will simply accept that as a matter of course just because you label your views as "progressive".
You think a Trump or a Sanders is going to stop Executive overreach?
How do you think they're going to get their programs in place?
Sanders is more likely to work with Congress than Trump, but there's a lot of hostility to both in Congress.
Sanders is a bit more of a humble sort, but even he will probably need to get "creative" to make any of his programs have any traction. Trump will just declare that Congress is "low energy" and proceed to attempt to rule by decree.
No. None of our candidates is going to shrink the government. Sanders is actually going to *increase* the government. How do you think he's going to administer his single payer health care system?
Trump isn't promising to increase the government, but he'll probably need a new building just for his Office of the Border Wall Project, assuming he wasn't lying about trying it.
And yes, kids, the border wall is entirely possible to build in four years. It will be expensive, and I don't see at all how he's going to get a billion dollars out of Mexico, but if he makes the effort, he could do it. But that's not going to shrink the government.
Yes, testing TOR to its limit is like trying to break encryption and finding a better method using that information. If you get to the point that you are unable to break it, it becomes much more valuable.
The problem is, until you find the fully secure solution, they are effectively working on a method that will break your crypto or find your hidden service. That will cause immediate security concerns.
Researching Tor is a legitimate course of study. Since the goal of the system is security, breaking that security is a good idea, if only to understand how it can be done and patched. This sort of research is not automatic collaboration with the FBI.
Obviously, a subpoena for this information seems to be more of an issue of opportunity; it would be rather haphazard unless the FBI was following that research. I imagine that researchers could find an ethical way to destroy this data before publishing or something, I can't imagine they would have any legal requirement to hold on to it, unlike corporations with contracts and specific legal regulation.
This should be a minor irritant unless someone writes a law requiring security researchers to cooperate with law enforcement by storing data for their review. And I don't see that happening. But if it did, that would be a concrete step towards the security state.
I'm not too fond of Obama, but I think he was stuck with this situation from Day One. The only argument I have with him is that he pulled out of Iraq way too early, but since that promise was necessary to get him elected, I almost don't blame him for it. The guy who got elected was going to be the one to do the pull out. I just wish he'd found a way to do it that didn't immediately play into the hands of groups that would become ISIS.
And no, he's not a brutal hawk. He's just a guy caught behind the wing of his party that wants to make this all just disappear, and the realities of being President. And that is a situation that is guaranteed to turn a leader into someone who promises peace on one hand, and drone strikes weddings on the other. He's not willing to do what it takes to end the problem, because he's be seen as brutal and illiberal, but he can't disengage. So he's been taking the half-measures that turn war into a long, drawn out disaster filled with collateral damage. We'll probably deliver more civilian collateral damage to Syria and Iraq than if we went in with a few divisions and ran over ISIS.
War sucks. There's really no way around it.
Yes, it was determined with the assault rifle concept that you would be fine sacrificing some range for higher rate of fire and a more compact weapon. Certainly it was not worth carrying around even the carbine versions of the heavy long rifles like the K98k when you were more often up close and personal.
And of course, for close quarters, range could be very short, and rate of fire for suppression and a smaller form for easier maneuvering in buildings and urban scenarios was even more important. That's where the SMGs really shined.
Yes, but the point was that you still want flexibility. You might find yourself in a situation where you might be prone and want to and be able to take a slow shot at someone at extreme range.
Of course, that is why they have "designated marksman" weapons, which are stock weapons that have been fine tuned and upgraded which can achieve much more accuracy without being completely new weapons with different ammo. But you don't always have a DM or their weapon.
Not sure how I feel about it, but it would probably be okay to have your round self destruct at actual maximum effective range. Just don't give the DM that ammo.
That experience may relate to older experiences with M16s when they first came out in Vietnam. They did experience a lot of jams and issues unless you kept them quite clean. That didn't always work very well in the jungle.
They did make some adjustments to mostly correct that, but the M16, M4 and AR-15 type of rifle isn't quite as rugged at the AK-47 variants have been.
Windows 10 is okay, all things told. The problem is when they sneak this shit in, but people who know what they are doing will consult the appropriate guide to turn it all off. Just like we did with all the other junk Windows tried to get in under the radar.
However, while I have to admit that it is a pretty ballsy move to have your OS serve you ads, it's not like no one saw this one coming. I was wondering when I'd have Windows 10, "sponsored by Square Enix and Coca-Cola". It seems that it has now arrived. Welcome to the future.
It doesn't. You're being monetized.
I don't see why it couldn't be moved to Ubuntu.
The only reason reason why not would be if it takes away developer or test time and resources from their other, higher priority offerings. It would be an alternative, and Ubuntu does already offer alternatives. Unity or not, as long as the only work they had to do was minimal, offering the choice seems to not harm Ubuntu at all.
You'd probably have a more conventional propulsion system for slowing down. So you'd carry fuel or perhaps deploy your giant blast shield and use nukes to slow down. You may not want to nuke the shit out of your own solar system, but no one cares about some backwater like Alpha Centauri.
Seriously, though. Even if you had to carry fuel to brake with a rocket propulsion system, you'd only have to carry half the amount, which would be a pretty big win.
And obviously, for two way travel, you can certainly build one in your destination, if you had sufficient reason to set one up there.
Of course, this doesn't get you FTL travel, or even high relativistic velocities, so this isn't exactly the birth of the Federation here.