I didn't say I rely on the press to objective. I said we hold them to an ideal. Honestly, they hold themselves to the ideal and then fail miserably.
Research would be nice. As in, it would be nice if they researched what the government tells them before the report it, but in cases especially like those you mention (Lusitania, Maine, Gulf of Tonkin) it isn't always possible to go beyond the press release.
However, in the case of a presidential campaign that runs for two years it is. And they did try to do some digging on one side only.
You completely miss the point. We hold the press to the ideal of objectivity. Yes, Obama "was hitting the themes that struck a chord with Americans," but that's because he wasn't answering questions about his drug use or his record. Do you really think that if a Republican had abandoned his pledge to use the pubic finance system, and then raised over $500 million the press wouldn't have been reporting daily over where the money came from? The press spent more time covering the unsubstantiated rumors of a McCain affair with a lobbiest than it did covering Obama's relationship to Tony Rezko, or his admitted youthful indiscretions.
You seem to love the bias, since you don't understand the issues. McCain would "tax healthcare" from employers as a benefit and then would make the first $10,000 tax deductible for all people so that the self-insured would receive the same benefit as those insured through their jobs. And the point of Obama's political career starting in William Ayer's living room is a valid one (though not major). Obama hasn't always shown the best judgment about people. He only distances himself from distasteful people when they might cost him votes (ie Ayer's and Wright).
If the coverage had been more neutral, you might understand more than what your own natural bias lends itself to. That's the role the press is supposed to fill, not cheerleading for one side or the other.
Disappear for 2 weeks. Your boss can tell people that he's only handling "emergency" requests (completely dead computers) until you return. Then they can figure out what you do.
Yes, you're right, so much better that the Principal should follow your logic, call the FBI because someone is impersonating him, and then bring the resources of the government to sue the student and family for Libel and financially ruin them (all of which is reasonable and legal). That's a much better solution than the school dealing with behavior directly related to it because it didn't happen within it's walls.
The judge did point out specifically that discussion of the site took place in school and a printout of the site came to school.
I suppose because this is posted on Slashdot I'm not conversing with you.
Free speech for minors in a school setting is very limited by necessity. The implied citizen-government compact is between parents and the school, not students. Can you imagine a classroom full of students chanting "We Shall Overcome" to get out of their history test?
On the whole, I'm with the crowd that says, "better the school internally punish the student for defaming the principal, than have the school board and the principal hire an attorney to sue the student for libel." CmdrTaco says satire, but most teachers don't like pedophilia jokes, it's a "touchy" subject.
I'm IT director at a school which runs K-12. We have a one-to-one laptop program in the high school, so we have about 350 laptops in the high school. All tolled we have about 200 faculty and staff, about 850 user accounts, and an additional 125 computers around the other buildings (staff computers, labs, mobile labs, etc).
We support all that with 6 full-time staff including myself. We have 1 database consultant that we use for about 100 hours per year. We fix Dell, HP, and Apple laptops in house. Personally, I think our ratio is a little low, but I really only would like one or two more staff total.
Not only that, but the law in most places allows you to bring your own helper with you. You don't have to trust the government provided helper, you can bring a trusted family member or friend.
And remember, the secret ballot is a right, not a responsibility. You are allowed to tell people who you voted for. It's just that no one can make you say.
1st day of high school physics my teacher asked us to prove the Moon orbits the Earth based on personal observations, calculations, and deductions. We couldn't do it. We take huge amounts of science on faith that someone has checked this stuff.
You put a great deal of faith in "science". There is very little that you can independently confirm. I for one have huge problems with Big Bang Theory, because it cannot explain some big questions and it has to be fudged with dark matter and dark energy. That's why there are also competing theories and frequent revisions.
The point is, that there are many in the academic/scientific community (you know who you are) who feel that faith in God, means you're not a real scientist. I suggest that you can use your faith in God to scientifically study His universe and that there is no conflict.
I can provide eye-witness testimony (the Bible -- heavily vetted and researched) to the existence of God. Can you provide eye-witness accounts of, say, another planet outside our solar system? No. But you might be able to provide some convincing math supporting it, if I could understand the math. Alas, I probably can't so I'll have to take it on faith...
Why can't God and Evolution co-exist? Darwin doesn't state that we are a freak accident of mud and electricity -- why can't God have created life and evolution and then let them be?
Science theorizes what happened from about 10(-43) seconds after the Big Bang, what came before? Where did all that stuff come from? If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
There is still room for God in Science. If Science is about trying to understand and describe Nature and God created Nature, then Science is about understanding God. There need not be a contradiction.
When I was in college (about 20 years ago), two of my friends were charged with "Academic Dishonesty" for working in a math study group. Oddly, after working together, they had the same answers. They didn't copy one to the other, the collaborated -- just as they were encouraged to by the dept.
The professor violated the school procedures in filing a charge before speaking with the students, and so the were let off with a mere warning not to let it happen again. No one ever made it clear if that meant study together or have a jerk professor not understand how to work with other humans.
This is the same thing only bigger. Either you have a policy that says all student work must be done individually, or you face the fact that some people will take more than their fare share out of a collaboration. Political Scientists and Economists will recognize this instantly. This is also why the homework is only 10% of the grade. Facebook won't help in the exam.
Ignoring that they only claim to keep parts for warranty repairs and this wasn't one (why can't people read?), there is another legitimate reason to keep parts. I run a self-maintainer repair shop in a school with hundreds of laptops. Certain valuable parts must be returned. Things like hard drives, memory, motherboards, processors, LCDs. It would be very easy to start building extra computers if we didn't send back all the broken ones. Just start filing claims that things are broken, right?
That said, we did send a tablet to HP to get the trackpad fixed and got a call from someone a month later saying he had our hard drive with all of the teacher's files on it. HP never could explain why they took the HD out of our computer and put it in someone else's.
Pierre Salinger, in his final years, spent his time chasing conspiracy theories. He downloaded emails that circulated on the internet as proof. So you have an article that cites no sources and quotes a deceased journalist who didn't need sources as the basis of this discussion? As bad as mainstream media can be, they do require something more than a dead person's gut feeling before reporting something.
Ghirardelli is great chocolate and American.
More importantly, what am I missing? Don't chocolatey and chocolate-flavored refer to products that don't have chocolate liquour in them? Basic chocolate is chocolate liquour and cocoa butter, usually with sugar. Milk is an additive that makes it milk chocolate. "chocolate flavor" means that it only has cocoa powder.
So, the public's right to know is protected by allowing him not to testify as to what he saw? This case was never about protecting sources. This was always about him not wanting to have to comply with a law that applies to everyone. If you witness a crime you can be supoenaed to testify. Press covering a public event have no exemption because they stick a "press" sign on their hat.
Realistically, We could see this in a few years. If the current researchers (or the NIH) fund a small-scale initial research. If this continues to look promising, the Bill Gates foundation could drop $50-$150 million on funding the clinical trials to see if it is really worth it.
As a pure assumption, I'm going to say that it won't be as effective as many of our current chemotherapies, but if it is say 70% as effective and costs 5% as much, then it could be a meaningful life saver in the parts of the world that can't afford $10,000 treatments.
It would also help tremendously if it were effective against a broad spectrum of cancers. Imagine a drug that could be stocked in rural/remote pharmacies, that has a long shelf life, and can be easily dosed without fears of killing the patient. This would be a great service from a charity. So much of what the Bill Gates foundation does now is simply spending money in the third world that the local governments are unwilling to. While it is humanitarian, it doesn't help in the long-run.
Physical harm has nothing to do with it. This is serious stealing. This guy didn't grab an extra copy of an $800 program so he could play with it, he manufactured bogus copies. This is no different than hacking into a bank and stealing millions of dollars. The punishment needs to be great enough to deter. And let's be clear -- I'm sure a good number of his customers thought it was real. I'm in IT at a school and constantly get forwarded emails from his type of company by innocent users in the school looking to save us some money. They don't get that it's like buying a rolex on the street in Manhattan for $20.
Maybe it is just that the difference between a Pentium 4 running at 500MHz and one running at 2GHz is less perceptible to a human than the difference between 50MHz and 200 MHz was a decade ago.
Gee, my 15 year old car still runs on the same highways and uses the same gas as all the newer cars. Maybe we should change the gas formula every 4 years so people will have to buy new cars...
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say I rely on the press to objective. I said we hold them to an ideal. Honestly, they hold themselves to the ideal and then fail miserably. Research would be nice. As in, it would be nice if they researched what the government tells them before the report it, but in cases especially like those you mention (Lusitania, Maine, Gulf of Tonkin) it isn't always possible to go beyond the press release. However, in the case of a presidential campaign that runs for two years it is. And they did try to do some digging on one side only.
You completely miss the point. We hold the press to the ideal of objectivity. Yes, Obama "was hitting the themes that struck a chord with Americans," but that's because he wasn't answering questions about his drug use or his record. Do you really think that if a Republican had abandoned his pledge to use the pubic finance system, and then raised over $500 million the press wouldn't have been reporting daily over where the money came from? The press spent more time covering the unsubstantiated rumors of a McCain affair with a lobbiest than it did covering Obama's relationship to Tony Rezko, or his admitted youthful indiscretions.
You seem to love the bias, since you don't understand the issues. McCain would "tax healthcare" from employers as a benefit and then would make the first $10,000 tax deductible for all people so that the self-insured would receive the same benefit as those insured through their jobs. And the point of Obama's political career starting in William Ayer's living room is a valid one (though not major). Obama hasn't always shown the best judgment about people. He only distances himself from distasteful people when they might cost him votes (ie Ayer's and Wright).
If the coverage had been more neutral, you might understand more than what your own natural bias lends itself to. That's the role the press is supposed to fill, not cheerleading for one side or the other.
Disappear for 2 weeks. Your boss can tell people that he's only handling "emergency" requests (completely dead computers) until you return. Then they can figure out what you do.
This is easy -- soon we will extend it enough that the two halves touch. We'll just "Spring Forward" at some point and never fall back.
Sure, Local Noon will be 1 hour before real noon, but this is a government program, right?
Yes, you're right, so much better that the Principal should follow your logic, call the FBI because someone is impersonating him, and then bring the resources of the government to sue the student and family for Libel and financially ruin them (all of which is reasonable and legal). That's a much better solution than the school dealing with behavior directly related to it because it didn't happen within it's walls.
The judge did point out specifically that discussion of the site took place in school and a printout of the site came to school.
I suppose because this is posted on Slashdot I'm not conversing with you.
Free speech for minors in a school setting is very limited by necessity. The implied citizen-government compact is between parents and the school, not students. Can you imagine a classroom full of students chanting "We Shall Overcome" to get out of their history test?
On the whole, I'm with the crowd that says, "better the school internally punish the student for defaming the principal, than have the school board and the principal hire an attorney to sue the student for libel." CmdrTaco says satire, but most teachers don't like pedophilia jokes, it's a "touchy" subject.
I'm IT director at a school which runs K-12. We have a one-to-one laptop program in the high school, so we have about 350 laptops in the high school. All tolled we have about 200 faculty and staff, about 850 user accounts, and an additional 125 computers around the other buildings (staff computers, labs, mobile labs, etc). We support all that with 6 full-time staff including myself. We have 1 database consultant that we use for about 100 hours per year. We fix Dell, HP, and Apple laptops in house. Personally, I think our ratio is a little low, but I really only would like one or two more staff total.
Not only that, but the law in most places allows you to bring your own helper with you. You don't have to trust the government provided helper, you can bring a trusted family member or friend. And remember, the secret ballot is a right, not a responsibility. You are allowed to tell people who you voted for. It's just that no one can make you say.
But if the Accountant goes to work and talks about his hunting trip last weekend, should he be fired?
1st day of high school physics my teacher asked us to prove the Moon orbits the Earth based on personal observations, calculations, and deductions. We couldn't do it. We take huge amounts of science on faith that someone has checked this stuff.
You put a great deal of faith in "science". There is very little that you can independently confirm. I for one have huge problems with Big Bang Theory, because it cannot explain some big questions and it has to be fudged with dark matter and dark energy. That's why there are also competing theories and frequent revisions.
The point is, that there are many in the academic/scientific community (you know who you are) who feel that faith in God, means you're not a real scientist. I suggest that you can use your faith in God to scientifically study His universe and that there is no conflict.
I can provide eye-witness testimony (the Bible -- heavily vetted and researched) to the existence of God. Can you provide eye-witness accounts of, say, another planet outside our solar system? No. But you might be able to provide some convincing math supporting it, if I could understand the math. Alas, I probably can't so I'll have to take it on faith...
Why can't God and Evolution co-exist? Darwin doesn't state that we are a freak accident of mud and electricity -- why can't God have created life and evolution and then let them be?
Science theorizes what happened from about 10(-43) seconds after the Big Bang, what came before? Where did all that stuff come from? If the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
There is still room for God in Science. If Science is about trying to understand and describe Nature and God created Nature, then Science is about understanding God. There need not be a contradiction.
You're appalled at this film. Have you seen it?
/. community are well versed with the "everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as it is mine" people in the world.
I continue to understand the film is an exploration of the academic/scientific community's enforcement of orthodoxy.
I think people in the
When I was in college (about 20 years ago), two of my friends were charged with "Academic Dishonesty" for working in a math study group. Oddly, after working together, they had the same answers. They didn't copy one to the other, the collaborated -- just as they were encouraged to by the dept.
The professor violated the school procedures in filing a charge before speaking with the students, and so the were let off with a mere warning not to let it happen again. No one ever made it clear if that meant study together or have a jerk professor not understand how to work with other humans.
This is the same thing only bigger. Either you have a policy that says all student work must be done individually, or you face the fact that some people will take more than their fare share out of a collaboration. Political Scientists and Economists will recognize this instantly. This is also why the homework is only 10% of the grade. Facebook won't help in the exam.
Ignoring that they only claim to keep parts for warranty repairs and this wasn't one (why can't people read?), there is another legitimate reason to keep parts. I run a self-maintainer repair shop in a school with hundreds of laptops. Certain valuable parts must be returned. Things like hard drives, memory, motherboards, processors, LCDs. It would be very easy to start building extra computers if we didn't send back all the broken ones. Just start filing claims that things are broken, right?
That said, we did send a tablet to HP to get the trackpad fixed and got a call from someone a month later saying he had our hard drive with all of the teacher's files on it. HP never could explain why they took the HD out of our computer and put it in someone else's.
Pierre Salinger, in his final years, spent his time chasing conspiracy theories. He downloaded emails that circulated on the internet as proof. So you have an article that cites no sources and quotes a deceased journalist who didn't need sources as the basis of this discussion? As bad as mainstream media can be, they do require something more than a dead person's gut feeling before reporting something.
9 28-2004Oct16.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/09/twa.salinger/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38
Ghirardelli is great chocolate and American. More importantly, what am I missing? Don't chocolatey and chocolate-flavored refer to products that don't have chocolate liquour in them? Basic chocolate is chocolate liquour and cocoa butter, usually with sugar. Milk is an additive that makes it milk chocolate. "chocolate flavor" means that it only has cocoa powder.
So, the public's right to know is protected by allowing him not to testify as to what he saw? This case was never about protecting sources. This was always about him not wanting to have to comply with a law that applies to everyone. If you witness a crime you can be supoenaed to testify. Press covering a public event have no exemption because they stick a "press" sign on their hat.
Realistically, We could see this in a few years. If the current researchers (or the NIH) fund a small-scale initial research. If this continues to look promising, the Bill Gates foundation could drop $50-$150 million on funding the clinical trials to see if it is really worth it. As a pure assumption, I'm going to say that it won't be as effective as many of our current chemotherapies, but if it is say 70% as effective and costs 5% as much, then it could be a meaningful life saver in the parts of the world that can't afford $10,000 treatments. It would also help tremendously if it were effective against a broad spectrum of cancers. Imagine a drug that could be stocked in rural/remote pharmacies, that has a long shelf life, and can be easily dosed without fears of killing the patient. This would be a great service from a charity. So much of what the Bill Gates foundation does now is simply spending money in the third world that the local governments are unwilling to. While it is humanitarian, it doesn't help in the long-run.
Physical harm has nothing to do with it. This is serious stealing. This guy didn't grab an extra copy of an $800 program so he could play with it, he manufactured bogus copies. This is no different than hacking into a bank and stealing millions of dollars. The punishment needs to be great enough to deter. And let's be clear -- I'm sure a good number of his customers thought it was real. I'm in IT at a school and constantly get forwarded emails from his type of company by innocent users in the school looking to save us some money. They don't get that it's like buying a rolex on the street in Manhattan for $20.
Maybe it is just that the difference between a Pentium 4 running at 500MHz and one running at 2GHz is less perceptible to a human than the difference between 50MHz and 200 MHz was a decade ago. Gee, my 15 year old car still runs on the same highways and uses the same gas as all the newer cars. Maybe we should change the gas formula every 4 years so people will have to buy new cars...