I agree with you about the Libraries... but just to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that speech there also isn't as free as we think. Try walking into a library and shouting slashdot headlines at the top of your lungs... they would most likely kick you out (by calling the police if necessary). Speech is only as free as the people around you agree it is. If they all think you are a nuisance, no amendment will stop them from shutting you up.
Now as to the idea of them making it a state law... I agree it is BS, mainly on the grounds that I highly doubt that any of the state legislators ever go to a public library to use the internet, much less know what is best for the library. If the library feels that social network sites are a nuisance (and I have seen some that do), then they will prohibit it (either through rule or content filter) themselves. The idea of banning it at the state (or national) level smells of a small group foisting their beliefs on the larger group, regardless of how the larger group feels about the issue.
Obviously, if this was a real problem that needed to be addressed by a government of any size, then people on the streets would be talking about it. My guess is people have more important things on their minds, like jobs and families. Of course then again, the state legislature of Illinois probably has more important things to do as well. After all, this is just another report on a *proposed* bill that will raise a clamour and then die.
IANAL, but pretty sure it's established precedent that kids in school have no 1st amendment rights if those rights conflict with maintaining order in the school. For instance, the school can ban student publications (even independent ones) from being distributed on school grounds or read in class if those publications incite disorder or other discipline problems. This bill, however atrocious, would probably be defensible under the idea that social networking sites are disruptive to education.
Then the crybabies would sue claiming that Google was unfairly censoring their content... at which point some retard would equate that with violating 'net neutrality' and suddenly Congress would be involved... and if I have learned anything in my short 23 years on this planet, it's that when Congress gets involved in anything, it takes 10 years, $10 billion, and 10,000 pages of law to resolve.
Some roads are toll roads where people can pay to get somewhere faster just like you pay for a faster connection to the internet. There's nothing wrong with that. Some roads have fast speed limits, some have slower speed limits, and that all factors into how fast the truck gets to its destination. The internet works the same way. Those trucks are called packets...
A slight refinement to your analogy. Paying for a faster connection doesn't increase the speed of the truck (assuming a truck is a packet like you say). The truck (packet) still moves at the speed of light/electrons (slowed by relaying latency of course). A better way to put it is to say that the main highways have billions of lanes, and you can pay for wider on-ramps. Pay more money and your on-ramp has twice as many lanes. Your 'fast speed limit roads' are really roads with more lanes than your 'slow speed limit roads'.
I totally agree with you, hence my comment about Africa.
Africa suffers from several problems. I'm not really qualified to make an intelligent argument, but I believe these problems include geographic isolation, as you pointed out, a predominance of Warlord governments which loot public finances, an AIDS crisis, and ecological disaster. I said that 'Africa is another story' because Africa seems to be the one continent where the population has increased without a corresponding improvement in infrastructure or public order. I don't blame this entirely on the Africans, nor entirely on the West. Nor do I consider myself qualified to lay blame to begin with, as I honestly am not an expert.
That being said, I think on the timelines that the article was discussing, Africa's recent backslide is just a blip. From the time of the first European colonizations of Africa in the 16th century to now only encompasses 500ish years. This is a drop in the 10,000 year bucket the author describes. Combine that with my optimism that recent attention to Africa's issues (both publicly by G8 countries and the EU and privately by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others) means that a lot of improvement can be made in the next 500ish years... well before geographic isolation could lead to speciation.
Is any of that a comfort to someone living in Africa now? No. Should we put off helping Africa because it's problems are recent and hard to blame on any one party? No. But, I think that when looking in the context of the history of humanity, Africas problems, like the Dark Ages in Europe, will eventually be fixed.
I would argue that the poor in those countries are better off than 100 years ago... not all of them, I'll give you that, but there are a lot more with running water and some basic access to medicine than there were back then. Relative to the Rich in those countries, they haven't progressed much, but they still progress.
But I would argue that the only impetus to become rich is poverty. When you have nothing, you have more drive to succede, and liberal capitalism allows that. If you are born rich, or already rich, what drive is there to create anything new? Some people obviously have it, and never are satisfied, but they are the very rare exception. The most innovative ideas come from the ranks of the "poor and stupid" as you call them. Think of the founders of Google, or Andrew Carnegie, or even Jim Carrey. At one point in his life, Jim Carrey lived in a station wagon with his family. Now he makes $20 million+ a movie. If Jim were rich, or even just upper middle class, would the drive been as strong?
I think history proves that the overall condition of society constantly improves, with a setback here and again. There may still be a huge gap between today's rich and poor when it comes to looks, money, talent, education, whatever. But compare today's poor with the poor of a hundred years ago, and things are marginally better (thinking in industrialized countries... Africa is another story). I think the socio-economics of free markets kill off the rich caste, because they become complacent. Is this a bad thing? I think not. Look at the Forbes 400... not a lot of inherited wealth there. When it comes to being rich, ideas and drive count more than beauty and status.
The definition you give is that of the french word... which was adapted by Carroll to mean 'a new word created by sticking parts of two words together'... a new meaning if you will. So yeah, 'coined' might be a little strong, since the word existed in French, but frankly it wasn't part of English until then.
To shameless rip the Wikipedia article quoted by the GP.
"Portmanteau", from Middle French "porter" (to carry) and "manteau" (a coat or cover), formerly referred to a large travelling bag or suitcase with two compartments, hence the linguistic idea of fusing two words and their meanings into one. "Portmanteau" is rarely used to refer to a suitcase in English any more, since that type of a suitcase has fallen into disuse. In French, the word has the different meaning of "coat rack," and sometimes "coat hanger," and is spelled "porte-manteau." The French word for "Portmanteau" is "mot valise", which translates literally as "suitcase word".
"Portmanteau word" was the original phrase used to describe such words (as listed in dictionaries published as late as the early 1990s), but this has since been abbreviated to simply "portmanteau" as the term (and the type of words it describes) gained popularity.
Actually, pretty sure that Wikipedia leverages the collective foresight of humanity to write the articles BEFORE the event happens... and if you don't believe me, I'm sure I could stick that 'fact' in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia... creating a paradox in the space-time continuum and destroying the universe... don't make me do it!
A well... guess I picked a bad example... but I honestly can't believe that one party does crooked things and the other doesn't. Frankly, I distrust both sides... and that was my point. Nice debunking... I admit I got bored reading that insanely long article and was struggling to finish it, let alone fact check it.
*sigh*... it would be nice if you could just depend on stuff printed at a fairly popular outlet to actually be fact checked. But I guess that would be too much to ask...
Historically, democrats have been backed by big unions... which for a long time (maybe still) were pretty much run by and for the mafia. So the Mafia found ways to get people to register their dead relatives as voters, and vote for them by mail... or at least sign their 'signature' on petitions. In exchange for helping the Democratic Machine, I'm sure the Mafia got some leeway...
I'm sure the Republicans have done some things equally as dirty to throw elections in their favor... Recently saw this theory for instance: Was the 2004 Election stolen?
I think that computer science is new enough that a college degree doesn't directly indicate one's abilities... a lot of the best stuff out there is made by kids still in high school or reformed art history majors that suddenly decided to create something Web 2.0ish. A college degree in Computer Science is usually required to get you a day job... but hardly anyone is creating anything innovative in an 8x8 cubicle at MegaCorp... they are doing it in their spare time... and then getting bought by MegaCorp (who then claims the innovation as their own).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you about the Libraries... but just to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that speech there also isn't as free as we think. Try walking into a library and shouting slashdot headlines at the top of your lungs... they would most likely kick you out (by calling the police if necessary). Speech is only as free as the people around you agree it is. If they all think you are a nuisance, no amendment will stop them from shutting you up.
Now as to the idea of them making it a state law... I agree it is BS, mainly on the grounds that I highly doubt that any of the state legislators ever go to a public library to use the internet, much less know what is best for the library. If the library feels that social network sites are a nuisance (and I have seen some that do), then they will prohibit it (either through rule or content filter) themselves. The idea of banning it at the state (or national) level smells of a small group foisting their beliefs on the larger group, regardless of how the larger group feels about the issue.
Obviously, if this was a real problem that needed to be addressed by a government of any size, then people on the streets would be talking about it. My guess is people have more important things on their minds, like jobs and families. Of course then again, the state legislature of Illinois probably has more important things to do as well. After all, this is just another report on a *proposed* bill that will raise a clamour and then die.
IANAL, but pretty sure it's established precedent that kids in school have no 1st amendment rights if those rights conflict with maintaining order in the school. For instance, the school can ban student publications (even independent ones) from being distributed on school grounds or read in class if those publications incite disorder or other discipline problems. This bill, however atrocious, would probably be defensible under the idea that social networking sites are disruptive to education.
Then the crybabies would sue claiming that Google was unfairly censoring their content... at which point some retard would equate that with violating 'net neutrality' and suddenly Congress would be involved... and if I have learned anything in my short 23 years on this planet, it's that when Congress gets involved in anything, it takes 10 years, $10 billion, and 10,000 pages of law to resolve.
Some roads are toll roads where people can pay to get somewhere faster just like you pay for a faster connection to the internet. There's nothing wrong with that. Some roads have fast speed limits, some have slower speed limits, and that all factors into how fast the truck gets to its destination. The internet works the same way. Those trucks are called packets...
A slight refinement to your analogy. Paying for a faster connection doesn't increase the speed of the truck (assuming a truck is a packet like you say). The truck (packet) still moves at the speed of light/electrons (slowed by relaying latency of course). A better way to put it is to say that the main highways have billions of lanes, and you can pay for wider on-ramps. Pay more money and your on-ramp has twice as many lanes. Your 'fast speed limit roads' are really roads with more lanes than your 'slow speed limit roads'.
At least that is my interpretation.
Completely off-topic, but I wonder if I'm the only one that laughed hysterically at 'onky'
Just a funny sounding word.
First, mix flour and milk... Profit!
While we're at it, I wouldn't mind if they threw in a Fruit Fucker ... you know, in case of Zombie Infestation.
I totally agree with you, hence my comment about Africa.
Africa suffers from several problems. I'm not really qualified to make an intelligent argument, but I believe these problems include geographic isolation, as you pointed out, a predominance of Warlord governments which loot public finances, an AIDS crisis, and ecological disaster. I said that 'Africa is another story' because Africa seems to be the one continent where the population has increased without a corresponding improvement in infrastructure or public order. I don't blame this entirely on the Africans, nor entirely on the West. Nor do I consider myself qualified to lay blame to begin with, as I honestly am not an expert.
That being said, I think on the timelines that the article was discussing, Africa's recent backslide is just a blip. From the time of the first European colonizations of Africa in the 16th century to now only encompasses 500ish years. This is a drop in the 10,000 year bucket the author describes. Combine that with my optimism that recent attention to Africa's issues (both publicly by G8 countries and the EU and privately by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others) means that a lot of improvement can be made in the next 500ish years... well before geographic isolation could lead to speciation.
Is any of that a comfort to someone living in Africa now? No. Should we put off helping Africa because it's problems are recent and hard to blame on any one party? No. But, I think that when looking in the context of the history of humanity, Africas problems, like the Dark Ages in Europe, will eventually be fixed.
I would argue that the poor in those countries are better off than 100 years ago... not all of them, I'll give you that, but there are a lot more with running water and some basic access to medicine than there were back then. Relative to the Rich in those countries, they haven't progressed much, but they still progress.
But I would argue that the only impetus to become rich is poverty. When you have nothing, you have more drive to succede, and liberal capitalism allows that. If you are born rich, or already rich, what drive is there to create anything new? Some people obviously have it, and never are satisfied, but they are the very rare exception. The most innovative ideas come from the ranks of the "poor and stupid" as you call them. Think of the founders of Google, or Andrew Carnegie, or even Jim Carrey. At one point in his life, Jim Carrey lived in a station wagon with his family. Now he makes $20 million+ a movie. If Jim were rich, or even just upper middle class, would the drive been as strong?
I think history proves that the overall condition of society constantly improves, with a setback here and again. There may still be a huge gap between today's rich and poor when it comes to looks, money, talent, education, whatever. But compare today's poor with the poor of a hundred years ago, and things are marginally better (thinking in industrialized countries... Africa is another story). I think the socio-economics of free markets kill off the rich caste, because they become complacent. Is this a bad thing? I think not. Look at the Forbes 400... not a lot of inherited wealth there. When it comes to being rich, ideas and drive count more than beauty and status.
The definition you give is that of the french word... which was adapted by Carroll to mean 'a new word created by sticking parts of two words together' ... a new meaning if you will. So yeah, 'coined' might be a little strong, since the word existed in French, but frankly it wasn't part of English until then.
To shameless rip the Wikipedia article quoted by the GP.
Unlike the mods, I saw the humor in the parent... nice!
Actually, pretty sure that Wikipedia leverages the collective foresight of humanity to write the articles BEFORE the event happens... and if you don't believe me, I'm sure I could stick that 'fact' in the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia... creating a paradox in the space-time continuum and destroying the universe... don't make me do it!
... I for one welcome our Degenerate Overlords!
*ducks*
/. really needs a +1 Porn mod...
Of course, once you had it, none of the other mods would get used...
Dear AC,
We consider our gifs to be artsy and creative... Web 3.0 if you will.
We scoff at your invitation to the 21st Century... as we and our fellow OSS people are well into the 23rd Century.
Captain Kirk says hi.
Regards,
Vyatta
Every /. user goes through their Pro-Microsoft stage... just usually it happens before they get a /. userid...
Shit explosion ftw!
A well... guess I picked a bad example... but I honestly can't believe that one party does crooked things and the other doesn't. Frankly, I distrust both sides... and that was my point. Nice debunking... I admit I got bored reading that insanely long article and was struggling to finish it, let alone fact check it.
*sigh* ... it would be nice if you could just depend on stuff printed at a fairly popular outlet to actually be fact checked. But I guess that would be too much to ask...
Just to make it clear... the democrats aren't the only ones accused of stuff like this... Republicans do stuff too.
Someone should name a band 'Sneaky Republicans'
Historically, democrats have been backed by big unions... which for a long time (maybe still) were pretty much run by and for the mafia. So the Mafia found ways to get people to register their dead relatives as voters, and vote for them by mail... or at least sign their 'signature' on petitions. In exchange for helping the Democratic Machine, I'm sure the Mafia got some leeway...
I'm sure the Republicans have done some things equally as dirty to throw elections in their favor... Recently saw this theory for instance: Was the 2004 Election stolen?
... and why does a Republican believe in God?
... to get elected.
I think that computer science is new enough that a college degree doesn't directly indicate one's abilities... a lot of the best stuff out there is made by kids still in high school or reformed art history majors that suddenly decided to create something Web 2.0ish. A college degree in Computer Science is usually required to get you a day job... but hardly anyone is creating anything innovative in an 8x8 cubicle at MegaCorp... they are doing it in their spare time... and then getting bought by MegaCorp (who then claims the innovation as their own).
I totally agree with you... I think "CounterStrike: Nonexistant" was way better than any subsequent version... including the initial version!
I know I will just get modded down as flamebait... but this accurately describes my feelings for CounterStrike.