Yes, the natural way.
With folate (folic acid) and selenium and other proper nutrion. (very important to women proir to and during pregnancy for proper cell division and development). Also important for adults. Studies are ongoing of course.
Selenium levels are low in the US so it would be smart to supplement the diet.
It seems science has been on the verge of a cancer cure for more then 30 years.
The less exposure people have to a song, the less that song will sell. Radio and TV is not the best advertising for songs. Kids are.
A simple example for the **AA.
Fifteen year old Sally Sue hears a new song. She likes it and records the song. Sally loves this song so she pesters mom to buy her the song and all the other songs on the recording. She brings it to school. Other kids hear it. They like the song too. Why?, because they like Sally and they are influenced by Sally because she is Sally (she happens to be really cool). So they also pester mom to go purchase the song for them so they can be like Sally. Sally created sales for the song.
Years latter Sally gets sued because because her kid downloaded a song from the internet. Sally is pissed. Sally refuses to buy any more music for her kids.
Kids are now forced to get music however they can. Record sales go down.
Boo-Hoo for the **AA.
And to all a good fight..err...night
"This black list was nothing to joke about. People lost their lives, lost their businesses, lost their homes, and were falsely jailed."
"Give one example?"
Only one?
Suicide: "On Feb. 9, 1950, in Wheeling, W.Va., McCarthy claimed that there were 205 known communists in the State Department. Later on the Senate floor, he reduced this number to 57. That led to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings and McCarthy's continued attacks. In 1951, Hunt noted that "there have been many suicides due to the smearing received either in Committee hearings or from remarks made in the United States Congress." He introduced a bill providing for lawsuits against the United States for those who were defamed by members of Congress. The bill did not receive enough support." http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/11/ 01/news/wyoming/8cf263f85d4be99387256f3e0020f92f.t xt [casperstartribune.net]
Lost Jobs: "Yale Law School professor Ralph Brown, who conducted the most systematic survey of the economic damage of the McCarthy era, estimated that roughly ten thousand people lost their jobs. Such a figure may be low, as even Brown admits, for it does not include rejected applicants, people who resigned under duress, and the men and women who were ostensibly dismissed for other reasons. Still, it does suggest the scope of the economic sanctions." http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schreck er-blacklist.html [upenn.edu]
Frightened Students: "In the late 1950s a group of graduate students at the University of Chicago wanted to have a coffee vending machine installed outside the Physics Department for the convenience of people who worked there late at night. They started to circulate a petition to the Buildings and Grounds Department, but their colleagues refused to sign. They did not want to be associated with the allegedly radical students whose names were already on the document." http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecke r6.htm [uiuc.edu]
"The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question."
This has got to be one of the best examples of what is wrong in America today. On the one side we have professors (usually liberal Democrats) that we are trusting with the higher education of our children abusing their power and influence. Then, we have on the other side, a pissed off (usually republican) man that is going to fix the problem by paying these young adults to spy on their teachers. What a mess. What an "Us against Them" attitude we are setting as an example for these young adults.
But hey, why should it be any different on the college campuses of America then it is in Congress? This article and the information in this article is another example of the "Left-Side of the isle Right-Side of the isle"; or, "us against them" mentality that is ramped-up in America today.
Now that i am done with the rant part, I'll give an opinion on the issue. The professors are only marginally better in their behavior then the group that is paying cash for spying. I say marginally because i find them wrong but not as wrong as paying students to be spies. This has a complete and total ring from the 1950's called McCarthy-ism. For those that do not remember, McCarthy-ism is a period in our history when everyone was afraid to say anything against government (or say anything else for that matter) else they might end up on "The Black List" and called communist.
This black list was nothing to joke about. People lost their lives, lost their businesses, lost their homes, and were falsely jailed. Some even committed suicide due to the finger pointing and mass hysteria caused in this country by McCarthyism. And guess what? During McCarthyism we saw Americans being asked to spying on each other in similar fashion that we see in this article. What a disgrace.
So I'll add up what i read on/. today:
1)Two groups file Domestic Spying Lawsuit
2)censorship in the workplace
3)Old men and Old women at Quaker Church spied on, asks for congressional hearing and gets it
4)Google being threatened if it does not fork up private information.
5)Censorship of web pages
6)Various related topics too numerous to list
When ya add it all up, it reeks with censorship,spying, and finger pointing called McCarthyism.
"The Constititution and FISA are both notably silent on data mining on telco traffic to/from foreign nations."
The Constitution is very specific on data mining, telco traffic:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches " is so difficult for so many to understand?
The worda "and effects" pretty much covers anything that could not be for seen like internet,celluar and any other future technology. And in addition, they added "probable cause, supported by oath" to make sure that the need to search is real under penalty of perjury.
When i hear the term "the constitution is a living document" i chuckle. Because it is not a living document. It is a set of rules handed down "of the people, by the people and for the people" to the government limiting the behavior of the government. Why? Because the people that came from England wanted to make sure that what happened in England could not happen here. What is one of those things? Amendment IV,the Abuse of power via unreasonable searches, seizures and spying. This does not change over time or with every generation. Amendment IV (and The Constititution in general) is a specific set of rules for the government at all levels to follow. The Constititution does not live, nor should it ever change to suit the whims of the people in power at the time.
This domestic spying reminds me of another case where a 10-year-old girl was strip-searched. More disturbing then that is the search was upheld by the Supreme Court even though the warrant did not list the 10 year girl old as suspect.
Once again, the Constitution clearly states a rule for this: The warrant must be sworn by oath AND it must be "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I am quite sure it was this little girl the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect. And i am quite sure that the framers wanted to protect the folks in that Quaker Church that was snooped on recently.
I am also quite sure that the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect all American's from all forms of unreasonable searches without a sworn oath that the search is necessary.
"Because the people you're eavesdropping on can set up arbitrarily complex networks of people and messages across different communication networks."
This very notion was on a major news network recently. Everyone was wondering how the major bad guy was getting information way up in the mountain caves.
It seems to me that the bad guys know we are listening. So they are not using technology. They are probably using old fashion relay by people.
Some may think thats too slow, but these people have demonstrated patience to achieve their goals.
"You appear to be arguing that if a newspaper's website solicits comments, that it is somehow a public service and should keep all submitted comments available."
Not at all,however,what i am arguing is that the blog was made public, and then because of some lame postings the owner removed them. Which leads to the question: Why make a blog public (and unmoderated by the way) if postings are going to be removed? Now, am i saying that the owner has no right to remove the entries? No, of course not. Because as you point out,"Websites aren't public or community property, they are the property of the website owners."
However, since the blog was made available to the general public with no moderation or limits, then the owner should leave the the posts intact.
An analogy would be landlord/tenant. The land lord owns the property, but the renter has rights to make the property their home. Likewise, the blog my be owned by the newspaper, but if they want viewers and posters (the renters) they should allow the users to make the blog their home. And as in any home there will be disagreements. And not all of the disagreements will be pleasant ones.
With that said, and after considering other factors since i made my first post, I have changed my opinion somewhat. One factor being this ever increasing world of companies being sued by folks rolling the dice in courts of law as if they were a crap table (no pun intended),i can understand why a large company such as a newspaper would feel it necessary to remove the posts.
As a side note, i thought blogs were a lame idea when they first came out. I saw the potential for too much abuse.
A newspaper prints what the editor (and/or owner) allow and decide to be printed. Freedom of the press literally belongs to those who own the presses.
All the more reason for the truth to stand regardless if some find it offensive or not. Or do you believe that only a newspaper editor/owner should decide what is and is not fit for people to read? If so, this is the reason why so many are turning to the internet for news, opinions and information. Smart people want the truth, they do not want their news slanted by the left-right mentality;Or by censorship.
OTOH, Radio and Broadcast Television ARE considered "public property" and are highly regulated by the FCC.
Maybe the airwaves are considered "public property" but commercial television is paid for by sponsors. And many sponsors have voted by withholding their dollars if they found content in a specific show questionable. Which reduces down to censorship, which is what the paper did with the blog.
BTW, your topic change: "It's just a website, not The Whole InterWeb" is incorrect. The web is indeed one web site at a time.
------------------
This reminds me of the "Ebonics" issue several years ago.
Communication is the key much of this. Spoken, as well as non-verbal.
When europeans came Ellis Island they assymilated into the American Culture,ate the food,learned the language etc,etc.
When the Irish came to America they assymilated into the American culture,ate the food,learned the language etc,etc.
When the Italians came to America they assymilated into the American culture,ate the food,learned the language etc,etc.
All of these groups were hated at one time and felt prejudice.
Maybe what many percieve as racism is actually mis-communication and a difference in cultures.
"You are quite offensive calling me twat. I hope you get modded down for that. Or have a nasty run-in with one of these -- or even worse, one of these"
Careful with using the "one of those" and the "one of these" you might get called a twat again, or even worst, a racist.:-)
"E.g. in India or China, who you know, and to whom you are related, is critical. It is hard to get ahead without being in the right group. That's especially true in India."
"that's not racism. Its called networking. And it IS critical....Anywhere;-)"
Anywhere but America.:-)
If you are promoted because you network with other white males then every woman's group and every ethenic group comes out of the wood work to cry foul. Yet if they network it is called fair and balanced.
"Having said that, I'll agree with you that USA is RELATIVELY more Meritocratic that anyother nation."
Relativly? You amuse me. If opprotunity were not here in America, for all people in America, then why does everyone want to come to America?
The problem is too many people want laws to make up for lack of abilities.
"E.g. in India or China, who you know, and to whom you are related, is critical. It is hard to get ahead without being in the right group. That's especially true in India.
* that's not racism. Its called networking. And it IS critical....Anywhere;-)
Anywhere but America.:-) If you are promoted because you network with other white males then every woman's group and every ethenic group comes out of the wood work to cry foul.
Yet if they network it is called fair and balanced.
"Having said that, I'll agree with you that USA is RELATIVELY more Meritocratic that anyother nation."
Relativly? You amuse me. If opprotunity were not here in America, for all people in America, then why does everyone want to come to America?
The problem is too many people want laws to make up for lack of abilities.
I think an issue here is do we want an open internet where people are allowed to fully express their beliefs, or a closed and moderaterd internet where the truth never comes out fully.I for one was glad when the internet first came out because it was an truthful alternative to mainstream news.
Obviously alot of people were angry at the article. So, do we want to pretend that anger does not exist? Does the blog owner only want positive comments or comments watered down from the truth?.
Now,I'm not approving of that type of posting, but it would seem to me that the news industry would want to hear the truth no matter how wide of a range it comes in.
The blog was open to the public. And the public responded. If they are going to remove the truth from readers, then the blog was usless. For that matter, even a newspaper would be usless if the truth was blotted out.
-=-=-=-=-
"poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms.'"
IMO these are the two biggest issues that American's face regarding conusmer items from apples to home loans.
And what is needed is to bring back Ralph Nader, his consumer watch dog group and the 3rd party. BTW, where are all the UL labels lately?
Your view may be controversial to some, but to others it is dead on target. Jobs should go to the best qualified imho, and other societies have a far greater problem regarding clan type favoritism and prejudice then we do; as you point out.
Here is another view that may be correlated as to why some may feel there is racism in the work place.The display on national news showing nothing but black folks stranded in New Orleans was a shocking. But there were an equal amount of white people that were in the same waters, and suffered the same pain, and alot of them died. Yet the media focused on just the black folks. So, until this focus is presented in a balanced way, the perception of racisim (real or percieved) will never end in America.
The real question that has to be asked is: Why are there less black folks in IT? Could it be that we are conditioned by the media to believe that if a black person fails in a catagory such as IT that its due to racism? Or is it lack of intrest in IT on the part of black folks? Lack of ability? Lack of grades in that area? If i were an IT manager, i would ask these questions first, and if i was not satisfied, then i would investigate my focus on the issue of race.
"This does not mean the end result will be cheaper than the previous generations of "liability free" software."
Well, i never mentioned "liability free". What i did mention is software makers being held to the same standard as the rest of the world regarding their product and its defects. Unless you do not think that constant patching of a product is a defect. And i do not mean the occasional patch, or the once/twice a year product update. I am talking patch after patch after patch just to make the product perform to a minimum standard of security.
"I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. This isn't about economies of scale, it's about fundamentally changing the processes of consumer-oriented computer software (and hardware) development. Sure, it would get cheaper compared to the costs of the initial change to "liable" software, but it's highly questionable if it would end up cheaper than "non liable" software was.
IMHO:
It will be about economies of scale after prices stabalize from the additional R&D expences and the necessary change in "processes of consumer-oriented computer software".
The software industry has recieved a free ride long enough. Its time for them to step up to the plate and make better software that does not need to go into the shop so often for repairs(patching).
"We believe consumers are already paying to support broadband access to the Internet through subscription fees and, as a result, consumers should have the freedom to use this connection without limitations'"
I apperciate Google for taking this position. Because it is the truth.
If companies seeking to charge Google were as well run as Google, they would not need to seek additional revenues in this fashion.
No wonder so many get in a long line wanting a job at Google. They offer top pay, incentives, day care,stock,bonus, a pleasent work environment, security, great benefits,day care. Hell, you can even bring your dog to work with ya.
"Logically, interactive rape cannot be discussed as truly different than interactive killing. Forcible or consensual "virtual death" can only be as meaningful, or meaningless, as virtual sex, again forcible or consensual.
I do not see logic in this stetement at all. Because the context of killing is usually in a war setting or a good-guy bad-guy setting.
But, what setting can you possibly pick that marginally justifies rape? At least in a combat game, or in a cops-n-robber game, the violence is somewhat justified and therefore allows the easy exit from supension of disbelief.
It isn't real."
Maybe not real to most. But children and many young adults have trouble with breaking suspension of disbelief. Some can get very adsorbed in playing the game to the point that they become the character.
While many young people objectivly know that rape is wrong,
subjectivly, rape becomes o.k in the game to them.
Because the objective truth that rape is wrong becomes elevated to the status of a lie, making rape o.k.
"They are just trying to prove that it is easy for anyone (including a minor) to find pr0n on the internet. "
It seems to me that even a chimp, with a low IQ whould know that anyone with access to a computer can type in the word pr0n and get search results. There is no need to prove this, because it is common knowledge. I believe there are rules that give guidelines as to what constitutes "common knowledge".
(matters of common knowledge, facts capable of verification )
Adults have the right to search and access what they want. Many parents want to keep their children from adult sites. What is needed is a "GoogleSex" or a seperate search engine that is adult subscribed and only for adults. There already is a seperate domain.
Slashdot Mirror
"a process that is potentially reversible."
Yes, the natural way.
With folate (folic acid) and selenium and other proper nutrion. (very important to women proir to and during pregnancy for proper cell division and development). Also important for adults. Studies are ongoing of course.
Selenium levels are low in the US so it would be smart to supplement the diet.
It seems science has been on the verge of a cancer cure for more then 30 years.
The less exposure people have to a song, the less that song will sell. Radio and TV is not the best advertising for songs. Kids are.
A simple example for the **AA.
Fifteen year old Sally Sue hears a new song. She likes it and records the song. Sally loves this song so she pesters mom to buy her the song and all the other songs on the recording. She brings it to school. Other kids hear it. They like the song too. Why?, because they like Sally and they are influenced by Sally because she is Sally (she happens to be really cool). So they also pester mom to go purchase the song for them so they can be like Sally. Sally created sales for the song.
Years latter Sally gets sued because because her kid downloaded a song from the internet. Sally is pissed. Sally refuses to buy any more music for her kids.
Kids are now forced to get music however they can. Record sales go down.
Boo-Hoo for the **AA.
And to all a good fight..err...night
"which is in clear violation of the text of the Constitution."
You mean the Constitution that use to mean something? That one?
"and not a political party."
It seems with enough cash these days you can purchase your wish list from the political party of your dreams.
So who needs to actually BE a political party when you can just rent it for shits-n-giggles these days?
This issue is So amusing.
Google is one of the best run and best managed companies in America. When you are the best, one or two things may go wrong from time to time.
You also may take some heat when you are the best. But Google seems to stand firm even during the bad weather. Excellent Job Google.
You really need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
"This black list was nothing to joke about. People lost their lives, lost their businesses, lost their homes, and were falsely jailed."
/ 01/news/wyoming/8cf263f85d4be99387256f3e0020f92f.t xt [casperstartribune.net]
k er-blacklist.html [upenn.edu]
e r6.htm [uiuc.edu]
s m.htm [schoolnet.co.uk]
"Give one example?"
Only one?
Suicide:
"On Feb. 9, 1950, in Wheeling, W.Va., McCarthy claimed that there were 205 known communists in the State Department. Later on the Senate floor, he reduced this number to 57. That led to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings and McCarthy's continued attacks.
In 1951, Hunt noted that "there have been many suicides due to the smearing received either in Committee hearings or from remarks made in the United States Congress." He introduced a bill providing for lawsuits against the United States for those who were defamed by members of Congress. The bill did not receive enough support."
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/11
Lost Jobs:
"Yale Law School professor Ralph Brown, who conducted the most systematic survey of the economic damage of the McCarthy era, estimated that roughly ten thousand people lost their jobs. Such a figure may be low, as even Brown admits, for it does not include rejected applicants, people who resigned under duress, and the men and women who were ostensibly dismissed for other reasons. Still, it does suggest the scope of the economic sanctions."
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrec
Frightened Students:
"In the late 1950s a group of graduate students at the University of Chicago wanted to have a coffee vending machine installed outside the Physics Department for the convenience of people who worked there late at night. They started to circulate a petition to the Buildings and Grounds Department, but their colleagues refused to sign. They did not want to be associated with the allegedly radical students whose names were already on the document."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/schreck
More:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyi
Not convinced?
Do a google search on McCarthism + Blacklist
"The tactics used by Jones and his group are raising quite a few questions, however, offering to pay students for recordings or teaching materials that could provide 'evidence' against professors in question."
/. today:
Here is the link to the web site of Jones' organization for those interested:
http://www.bruinalumni.com/
This has got to be one of the best examples of what is wrong in America today. On the one side we have professors (usually liberal Democrats) that we are trusting with the higher education of our children abusing their power and influence. Then, we have on the other side, a pissed off (usually republican) man that is going to fix the problem by paying these young adults to spy on their teachers. What a mess. What an "Us against Them" attitude we are setting as an example for these young adults.
But hey, why should it be any different on the college campuses of America then it is in Congress? This article and the information in this article is another example of the "Left-Side of the isle Right-Side of the isle"; or, "us against them" mentality that is ramped-up in America today.
Now that i am done with the rant part, I'll give an opinion on the issue. The professors are only marginally better in their behavior then the group that is paying cash for spying. I say marginally because i find them wrong but not as wrong as paying students to be spies. This has a complete and total ring from the 1950's called McCarthy-ism. For those that do not remember, McCarthy-ism is a period in our history when everyone was afraid to say anything against government (or say anything else for that matter) else they might end up on "The Black List" and called communist.
This black list was nothing to joke about. People lost their lives, lost their businesses, lost their homes, and were falsely jailed. Some even committed suicide due to the finger pointing and mass hysteria caused in this country by McCarthyism. And guess what? During McCarthyism we saw Americans being asked to spying on each other in similar fashion that we see in this article. What a disgrace.
So I'll add up what i read on
1)Two groups file Domestic Spying Lawsuit
2)censorship in the workplace
3)Old men and Old women at Quaker Church spied on, asks for congressional hearing and gets it
4)Google being threatened if it does not fork up private information.
5)Censorship of web pages
6)Various related topics too numerous to list
When ya add it all up, it reeks with censorship,spying, and finger pointing called McCarthyism.
"See this is why shares are so unpredicatable right now."
This is why gas and oil prices are so high also.
The news media use to be responsible before they became so concerned with putting on a circus for ratings and profit. --
"The Constititution and FISA are both notably silent on data mining on telco traffic to/from foreign nations."
The Constitution is very specific on data mining, telco traffic:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches " is so difficult for so many to understand?
The worda "and effects" pretty much covers anything that could not be for seen like internet,celluar and any other future technology. And in addition, they added "probable cause, supported by oath" to make sure that the need to search is real under penalty of perjury.
When i hear the term "the constitution is a living document" i chuckle. Because it is not a living document. It is a set of rules handed down "of the people, by the people and for the people" to the government limiting the behavior of the government. Why? Because the people that came from England wanted to make sure that what happened in England could not happen here. What is one of those things? Amendment IV,the Abuse of power via unreasonable searches, seizures and spying. This does not change over time or with every generation. Amendment IV (and The Constititution in general) is a specific set of rules for the government at all levels to follow. The Constititution does not live, nor should it ever change to suit the whims of the people in power at the time.
This domestic spying reminds me of another case where a 10-year-old girl was strip-searched. More disturbing then that is the search was upheld by the Supreme Court even though the warrant did not list the 10 year girl old as suspect.
Once again, the Constitution clearly states a rule for this: The warrant must be sworn by oath AND it must be "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I am quite sure it was this little girl the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect. And i am quite sure that the framers wanted to protect the folks in that Quaker Church that was snooped on recently.
I am also quite sure that the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect all American's from all forms of unreasonable searches without a sworn oath that the search is necessary.
---
"Because the people you're eavesdropping on can set up arbitrarily complex networks of people and messages across different communication networks."
This very notion was on a major news network recently. Everyone was wondering how the major bad guy was getting information way up in the mountain caves.
It seems to me that the bad guys know we are listening. So they are not using technology. They are probably using old fashion relay by people.
Some may think thats too slow, but these people have demonstrated patience to achieve their goals.
"You appear to be arguing that if a newspaper's website solicits comments, that it is somehow a public service and should keep all submitted comments available."
Not at all,however,what i am arguing is that the blog was made public, and then because of some lame postings the owner removed them. Which leads to the question: Why make a blog public (and unmoderated by the way) if postings are going to be removed? Now, am i saying that the owner has no right to remove the entries? No, of course not. Because as you point out,"Websites aren't public or community property, they are the property of the website owners."
However, since the blog was made available to the general public with no moderation or limits, then the owner should leave the the posts intact.
An analogy would be landlord/tenant. The land lord owns the property, but the renter has rights to make the property their home. Likewise, the blog my be owned by the newspaper, but if they want viewers and posters (the renters) they should allow the users to make the blog their home. And as in any home there will be disagreements. And not all of the disagreements will be pleasant ones.
With that said, and after considering other factors since i made my first post, I have changed my opinion somewhat. One factor being this ever increasing world of companies being sued by folks rolling the dice in courts of law as if they were a crap table (no pun intended),i can understand why a large company such as a newspaper would feel it necessary to remove the posts.
As a side note, i thought blogs were a lame idea when they first came out. I saw the potential for too much abuse.
A newspaper prints what the editor (and/or owner) allow and decide to be printed. Freedom of the press literally belongs to those who own the presses.
All the more reason for the truth to stand regardless if some find it offensive or not. Or do you believe that only a newspaper editor/owner should decide what is and is not fit for people to read? If so, this is the reason why so many are turning to the internet for news, opinions and information. Smart people want the truth, they do not want their news slanted by the left-right mentality;Or by censorship.
OTOH, Radio and Broadcast Television ARE considered "public property" and are highly regulated by the FCC.
Maybe the airwaves are considered "public property" but commercial television is paid for by sponsors. And many sponsors have voted by withholding their dollars if they found content in a specific show questionable. Which reduces down to censorship, which is what the paper did with the blog.
BTW, your topic change: "It's just a website, not The Whole InterWeb" is incorrect. The web is indeed one web site at a time.
------------------
"It seems a person's accent has a bigger impact."
This reminds me of the "Ebonics" issue several years ago. Communication is the key much of this. Spoken, as well as non-verbal.
When europeans came Ellis Island they assymilated into the American Culture,ate the food,learned the language etc,etc.
When the Irish came to America they assymilated into the American culture,ate the food,learned the language etc,etc.
When the Italians came to America they assymilated into the American culture,ate the food,learned the language etc,etc.
All of these groups were hated at one time and felt prejudice. Maybe what many percieve as racism is actually mis-communication and a difference in cultures.
"You are quite offensive calling me twat. I hope you get modded down for that. Or have a nasty run-in with one of these -- or even worse, one of these"
:-)
Careful with using the "one of those" and the "one of these" you might get called a twat again, or even worst, a racist.
"E.g. in India or China, who you know, and to whom you are related, is critical. It is hard to get ahead without being in the right group. That's especially true in India."
;-)"
:-)
"that's not racism. Its called networking. And it IS critical....Anywhere
Anywhere but America.
If you are promoted because you network with other white males then every woman's group and every ethenic group comes out of the wood work to cry foul. Yet if they network it is called fair and balanced.
"Having said that, I'll agree with you that USA is RELATIVELY more Meritocratic that anyother nation."
Relativly? You amuse me. If opprotunity were not here in America, for all people in America, then why does everyone want to come to America? The problem is too many people want laws to make up for lack of abilities.
"E.g. in India or China, who you know, and to whom you are related, is critical. It is hard to get ahead without being in the right group. That's especially true in India. * that's not racism. Its called networking. And it IS critical....Anywhere ;-)
Anywhere but America. :-) If you are promoted because you network with other white males then every woman's group and every ethenic group comes out of the wood work to cry foul.
Yet if they network it is called fair and balanced.
"Having said that, I'll agree with you that USA is RELATIVELY more Meritocratic that anyother nation." Relativly? You amuse me. If opprotunity were not here in America, for all people in America, then why does everyone want to come to America?
The problem is too many people want laws to make up for lack of abilities.
I think an issue here is do we want an open internet where people are allowed to fully express their beliefs, or a closed and moderaterd internet where the truth never comes out fully.I for one was glad when the internet first came out because it was an truthful alternative to mainstream news.
Obviously alot of people were angry at the article. So, do we want to pretend that anger does not exist? Does the blog owner only want positive comments or comments watered down from the truth?.
Now,I'm not approving of that type of posting, but it would seem to me that the news industry would want to hear the truth no matter how wide of a range it comes in.
The blog was open to the public. And the public responded. If they are going to remove the truth from readers, then the blog was usless. For that matter, even a newspaper would be usless if the truth was blotted out.
-=-=-=-=-
"poor information when purchasing products and unfair contract terms.'"
IMO these are the two biggest issues that American's face regarding conusmer items from apples to home loans. And what is needed is to bring back Ralph Nader, his consumer watch dog group and the 3rd party. BTW, where are all the UL labels lately?
"This is a very controversial view"
Your view may be controversial to some, but to others it is dead on target. Jobs should go to the best qualified imho, and other societies have a far greater problem regarding clan type favoritism and prejudice then we do; as you point out.
Here is another view that may be correlated as to why some may feel there is racism in the work place.The display on national news showing nothing but black folks stranded in New Orleans was a shocking. But there were an equal amount of white people that were in the same waters, and suffered the same pain, and alot of them died. Yet the media focused on just the black folks. So, until this focus is presented in a balanced way, the perception of racisim (real or percieved) will never end in America.
The real question that has to be asked is: Why are there less black folks in IT? Could it be that we are conditioned by the media to believe that if a black person fails in a catagory such as IT that its due to racism? Or is it lack of intrest in IT on the part of black folks? Lack of ability? Lack of grades in that area? If i were an IT manager, i would ask these questions first, and if i was not satisfied, then i would investigate my focus on the issue of race.
"This does not mean the end result will be cheaper than the previous generations of "liability free" software."
Well, i never mentioned "liability free". What i did mention is software makers being held to the same standard as the rest of the world regarding their product and its defects. Unless you do not think that constant patching of a product is a defect. And i do not mean the occasional patch, or the once/twice a year product update. I am talking patch after patch after patch just to make the product perform to a minimum standard of security.
"I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. This isn't about economies of scale, it's about fundamentally changing the processes of consumer-oriented computer software (and hardware) development. Sure, it would get cheaper compared to the costs of the initial change to "liable" software, but it's highly questionable if it would end up cheaper than "non liable" software was.
IMHO:
It will be about economies of scale after prices stabalize from the additional R&D expences and the necessary change in "processes of consumer-oriented computer software".
The software industry has recieved a free ride long enough. Its time for them to step up to the plate and make better software that does not need to go into the shop so often for repairs(patching).
So you believe that only those 21 and older are playing these games?
Thanks for an intresting debate. :)
I guess you will continue to be wrong about this issue.
"We believe consumers are already paying to support broadband access to the Internet through subscription fees and, as a result, consumers should have the freedom to use this connection without limitations'"
I apperciate Google for taking this position. Because it is the truth.
If companies seeking to charge Google were as well run as Google, they would not need to seek additional revenues in this fashion.
No wonder so many get in a long line wanting a job at Google. They offer top pay, incentives, day care,stock,bonus, a pleasent work environment, security, great benefits,day care. Hell, you can even bring your dog to work with ya.
Google is a winner.
"Logically, interactive rape cannot be discussed as truly different than interactive killing. Forcible or consensual "virtual death" can only be as meaningful, or meaningless, as virtual sex, again forcible or consensual.
I do not see logic in this stetement at all. Because the context of killing is usually in a war setting or a good-guy bad-guy setting. But, what setting can you possibly pick that marginally justifies rape? At least in a combat game, or in a cops-n-robber game, the violence is somewhat justified and therefore allows the easy exit from supension of disbelief.
It isn't real."
Maybe not real to most. But children and many young adults have trouble with breaking suspension of disbelief. Some can get very adsorbed in playing the game to the point that they become the character. While many young people objectivly know that rape is wrong, subjectivly, rape becomes o.k in the game to them. Because the objective truth that rape is wrong becomes elevated to the status of a lie, making rape o.k.
"They are just trying to prove that it is easy for anyone (including a minor) to find pr0n on the internet. "
It seems to me that even a chimp, with a low IQ whould know that anyone with access to a computer can type in the word pr0n and get search results. There is no need to prove this, because it is common knowledge. I believe there are rules that give guidelines as to what constitutes "common knowledge". (matters of common knowledge, facts capable of verification )
Adults have the right to search and access what they want. Many parents want to keep their children from adult sites. What is needed is a "GoogleSex" or a seperate search engine that is adult subscribed and only for adults. There already is a seperate domain.