The second amendment has nothing to do with deterrence of wackos bent on shooting you. It is all about the checks and balances found within the US government. Each branch of the gov has the ability to check and balance the others. This prevents one branch from becoming dominant, thereby keeping the power evenly distributed. The second amendment provides the same structure between the people and the government, as clearly defined in the Federalist Papers comment above. The Founding Fathers were always concerned with tyrants rising to power, so right was "protected" by the Bill of Rights. Note the right was not granted. One of the unique principles of the US Constitution is that it establishes that the government derives its power from the governed, not the other way around. This means the government cannot "grant" any right. It is simply beyond the scope of its power. Therefore, without the permission of the majority, it cannot take away any right of the people.
Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Imagine, for a moment, if the people in 1776 were denied the right to bear arms. Would the Revolutionary War have taken place? Would the tyranny imposed by the British monarch have ended? I suspect the world would be very different. The United States is the longest lived republic for a reason, and that reason is that the power the government holds is balanced by the people, through elections and the fact they can refresh the tree of liberty as necessary
I would have to agree that IT people are often too myopic for their own good. Perhaps this concept would make more sense if you realized that all the examples you cited reduced expenses and in no way created income. IT is a support system, period. Generating income means creating something new which can be sold, whether that is a tangible product or some service, which the CEO, VP and so forth are doing. They manage programs and make decisions which generate income. Yes they get paid a lot for it, but they just don't sit at their computers all day reading slashdot and complaining about how they get "ignored" by the people upstairs.
Minimizing expenses is a wonderful thing, and needs to be explored, but sometimes this exploration reaches a point of diminishing returns. I currently run a project where, as the project manager, have to do all the IT work myself, and I am sure it costs us a lot of money. It would be great to get some IT people to work on the project, and it would save me money, but it will never generate income for the project. And if my infrastructure goes down, costing me millions, as mentioned in the parent, I am not going to think "If I had spent more money on IT, I would not be here right now." The thought going through my head is "Those IT guys are costing the company millions."
Security is like insurance, you buy it based on how much risk you can and are willing to absorb. I don't buy my homeowners insurance based upon the most risk-free solution. It just costs to much, more than the value of what is being protected. The same is true for security. I could security which effectively guarantees my data is secure, but it would cost more than the value of the data it is protecting.
I am getting pretty tired of Linux snobs. I use Suse on my home computer, and like it very much. I have used Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian and others, and like Suse the best. I, by no means, am a Linux expert, but certainly can get through most things. I do, however, use WinXP on my Laptop and office computer because most of the analysis software I use has no counterpart on Linux. For my home computer, I chose Suse because it is easy to learn and use. My wife uses my home computer, so it needs to be simple. This is not because she is incapable of learning a new OS, is that she doesn't want to, nor does she have the time. This is what is going hold Linux back. The Linux community seems hell bent on showing off that they know more than everyone else. Ever wonder why computer geeks (read: Linux freaks) have no friends, except other geeks? The general public needs a distro which they can use without having to think to much about it. That is why I chose Suse. I don't have to worry about it too much, and my wife can actually use it. RPM's make installation of software simple. If I were to ask my wife (who can install software in windows) to install something on Linux, she could not do it. She would look at me, ask "What the hell do you mean, I need to compile it first." Then she would say "Why can't it just be ready to install? Why do they have to make it so hard?" Having distros which are far more complex, such as Debian, are great, but not for the general public. So pull your heads out of your asses and realize that you will lose this fight unless you start acting more in the public interest, which I see Novell doing here.
I would have to agree, sort of. The media now days certainly influencing this debate, but anyone who has studied this, knows that the warming trend we are seeing is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions. It is in the media, but you have to look for it. This is the first article in the media I have seen which attributes global warming to the sun. I am a graduate student who has done extensive research into the space environment and its effects on the Earth's atmosphere. Several years ago, I took a class which introduced the solar cycle and how it effects the earths temperature. Through my study in that course, I discovered that the authors of respected and authoritative journal articles place a greater emphasis on the Sun as the cause of the Earth's temperature fluctuations. Go ask NASA why Skylab burned up prematurely, it is the same for the same reason. The alarmism of the environmental groups in the modern media causes real, accurate science to be buried and listed as "in the pocket of big corporations." John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, would roll over in his grave would he know about current "environmentalists." They take too narrow a view of the problem, and find "solutions" which are backward and impractical. While our CO2 emissions are certainly going to contribute, it is in such small amounts as to be under the "noise floor." Lets all look at this from a broad scientific perspective, instead of narrowing our views. This is simple intellectual honesty. Someone who is really "liberal" would listen to all the views, not throw one out simply because it may not coincide with their own. Approaching this from the perspective "How to I debunk" means we have already prejudiced ourselves, and the resulting conclusions will show that.
I suspect that Microsoft becoming friendly with a competing OS is actually in anticipation of the fact that the Democrats may gain control of Congress in a few days. Back in the 90's, it was a Democratic White House putting pressure on them for Anti-Trust violations. Once the Republicans gained power, that threat went away. Now that the pendulum is swinging back, perhaps Microsoft is making some preemptive moves so they don't get slammed again, like the EU is doing to them. I may disagree with the Democratic Party on most issues, but slapping MS is something I can agree with.
This is old news. NASA Adminstrator Mike Griffin is using half a billion dollars to invest in private industry to spark this. Al Gore is just trying to stay in the headline. But with Al Gore pushing this, next thing we know, he is going to claim to have "invented" private access to space the same way he "invented" the internet.
I would disagree that we were "the" dominant power before WWII. The US certainly was after. It is true however that we are the current power when speaking of aerospace research, but we are losing that dominance. I certainly applaud the efforts of ESA and so forth, but as an American, I think it dangerous to our national security to lose our power in this arena. In a recent address, Mike Griffin stated 25% of NASA's work force will retire in the next 5 years. Since 1990, the number of people employed in the aerospace community has dropped by 43%! According to various reports I have read, one of the primary causes of this is because the workforce is getting old and retiring, without new, young people to replace them. If the US doesn't step up and put some effort into developing new engineers to enter the aerospace workforce, we will fall behind other nations that are.
One just needs to remember why we work. We work to support our families. This means our families should be a higher priority. If we don't need to work to support our families, then it is only for our own fullfillment. Either way, if our goal is to maintain the integrity of our families, they need to come first. In stead of asking slashdot, and getting all sorts of stupid, childish remarks, go read Stephen R. Covey's books "7 Habits for Highly Successful People" and "The 8th Habit." Slashdot is not going to tell you why your marriage failed. Some introspection will.
Many people look at this entire debate and see science and religion as opposing each other. But that is a very narrow minded perspective, and any person who is dedicated to either should recognize that. Scientists use mathematics and scientific principles to explain the world around us, while religion depends on stories and mythology. What makes these different? In a society where the majority of the people come from judeo-christian cultures, one simply needs to look at the context of where the religion comes from to see a scientific explaination. Take Joel for example. He prophesied that in the last days "The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (Joel 2:31). How many of us have sat outside during a summer evening and seen the moon a deep red color because of smog? If you were him, how else would you explain something when you don't know what smog is, nor do the people around you? I think the "moon into blood" is a pretty good decription. It is really that simple. Religion and science simply are using different perspectives on the same event or idea. Principles from both certainly can be true. I am a engineer/scientist who has deep religious beliefs. I don't see a relationship conflict, I see a complementary relationship. One can use scientific principles to supplement their religious understanding and vice versa. It is like speaking multiple languages, it helps you understand something better if you can see it in both.
While the ISS is certainly an engineering and political achievement, one has to wonder about the actual value of the ISS. NASA is spending massive amounts of money to build it, at the expense of funding critical science research. It is also causing them to ignore the fact that within 5 years, more than 1/4 of NASA's workforce is going to retire. Seeing that it is usurping all of NASA's resources, it makes me wonder, Is it really worth it? It reminds me of something I heard about a year or so ago. A retired Russian cosmonaut was speaking about about the ISS. He said "The international space station is like a nice piece of luggage that does not have a handle. It is totally worthless, but a pity to leave behind."
I don't quite follow how the expansion of the universe is not governed by the speed of light. If the Big Bang theory claims that the universe began as a singularity and then exploded, then all matter/energy began at a single point, and expanded outward. In order for this to occur and reach 180 billion lightyears in diameter in only 15.8 billion years, it would have to move at 5.69 times the speed of light. This means either Einstien was wrong, the Big Bang theory is wrong, or we still don't understand either. However, from the time-dialation equation, you cannot move faster than the speed of light, so somehow, I doubt Einstien was wrong. Just as Newton was superceded, Einstien will be too. However, Newton was not wrong, and newtonian mechanics is still considered law where applicable. The same will be true with Einstien. He will only be shown to be wrong when trying to move our paradigm to a more general one. Until proven otherwise, my personal opinion is that we do not understand how the universe was formed and that our current explaination needs to be expanded.
The purpose of creating these small university satellites is to provide a pathway for students to enter this field. Since the early 1970's, very few engineers have entered the space industry, so now, 30 years later, the workforce is getting older and older. Being a program manager of a university small satellite program, I commend the students for having built operational satellites. It is not an easy task. The requirements for building a space worthy device are far more stringent than for something that remains here, even the software. And on top of that, they are launching on a Russian vehicle, so they had to wade through the deep waters of ITAR and so forth to even get a launch.
Students are still very new at this sort of thing, and often start out with very ambious goals. As they learn, often those goals are descoped. Being very familiar with this process, I assure you, while the end product may not be the sexiest thing ever launched, but the experince those students gained in getting there is priceless.
Having many friends who work in call centers for "tech support", they tell me this supposed "supervisor" is actually just the person sitting next to them.
According to a licsened psycotherapist who specializes in treatment of sexual impulsivity, "in a practical sense, pornography is any visual or written medium created with the intent to sexual stimulate. If the work was not intended to stimulate, but nevertheless causes sexual arousal in an individual, it constitues pornography for that person."
I very much feel that pornography is a very destructive force on society. I have seen it destroy marriages and relationships time and time again. It creates a false idea of sexuality in those who view it. Sitting at a computer and viewing pornography is no different than going out and having an affair. (Expect you are doing it by yourself. How pitiful!)
I dare everyone who views pornography to go home and ask your wives or girlfriends how they feel about it. I'll bet a majority will hate it. They will feel their intimate relationship is not driven by love, but by lust for the pornographic images. They will then compare themselves to the women in the porn. It goes on and on.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell this to the millions of people without power the next time a geomagnetic storm hits.
The second amendment has nothing to do with deterrence of wackos bent on shooting you. It is all about the checks and balances found within the US government. Each branch of the gov has the ability to check and balance the others. This prevents one branch from becoming dominant, thereby keeping the power evenly distributed. The second amendment provides the same structure between the people and the government, as clearly defined in the Federalist Papers comment above. The Founding Fathers were always concerned with tyrants rising to power, so right was "protected" by the Bill of Rights. Note the right was not granted. One of the unique principles of the US Constitution is that it establishes that the government derives its power from the governed, not the other way around. This means the government cannot "grant" any right. It is simply beyond the scope of its power. Therefore, without the permission of the majority, it cannot take away any right of the people. Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Imagine, for a moment, if the people in 1776 were denied the right to bear arms. Would the Revolutionary War have taken place? Would the tyranny imposed by the British monarch have ended? I suspect the world would be very different. The United States is the longest lived republic for a reason, and that reason is that the power the government holds is balanced by the people, through elections and the fact they can refresh the tree of liberty as necessary
I would have to agree that IT people are often too myopic for their own good. Perhaps this concept would make more sense if you realized that all the examples you cited reduced expenses and in no way created income. IT is a support system, period. Generating income means creating something new which can be sold, whether that is a tangible product or some service, which the CEO, VP and so forth are doing. They manage programs and make decisions which generate income. Yes they get paid a lot for it, but they just don't sit at their computers all day reading slashdot and complaining about how they get "ignored" by the people upstairs. Minimizing expenses is a wonderful thing, and needs to be explored, but sometimes this exploration reaches a point of diminishing returns. I currently run a project where, as the project manager, have to do all the IT work myself, and I am sure it costs us a lot of money. It would be great to get some IT people to work on the project, and it would save me money, but it will never generate income for the project. And if my infrastructure goes down, costing me millions, as mentioned in the parent, I am not going to think "If I had spent more money on IT, I would not be here right now." The thought going through my head is "Those IT guys are costing the company millions." Security is like insurance, you buy it based on how much risk you can and are willing to absorb. I don't buy my homeowners insurance based upon the most risk-free solution. It just costs to much, more than the value of what is being protected. The same is true for security. I could security which effectively guarantees my data is secure, but it would cost more than the value of the data it is protecting.
I am getting pretty tired of Linux snobs. I use Suse on my home computer, and like it very much. I have used Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian and others, and like Suse the best. I, by no means, am a Linux expert, but certainly can get through most things. I do, however, use WinXP on my Laptop and office computer because most of the analysis software I use has no counterpart on Linux. For my home computer, I chose Suse because it is easy to learn and use. My wife uses my home computer, so it needs to be simple. This is not because she is incapable of learning a new OS, is that she doesn't want to, nor does she have the time. This is what is going hold Linux back. The Linux community seems hell bent on showing off that they know more than everyone else. Ever wonder why computer geeks (read: Linux freaks) have no friends, except other geeks? The general public needs a distro which they can use without having to think to much about it. That is why I chose Suse. I don't have to worry about it too much, and my wife can actually use it. RPM's make installation of software simple. If I were to ask my wife (who can install software in windows) to install something on Linux, she could not do it. She would look at me, ask "What the hell do you mean, I need to compile it first." Then she would say "Why can't it just be ready to install? Why do they have to make it so hard?" Having distros which are far more complex, such as Debian, are great, but not for the general public. So pull your heads out of your asses and realize that you will lose this fight unless you start acting more in the public interest, which I see Novell doing here.
I would have to agree, sort of. The media now days certainly influencing this debate, but anyone who has studied this, knows that the warming trend we are seeing is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions. It is in the media, but you have to look for it. This is the first article in the media I have seen which attributes global warming to the sun. I am a graduate student who has done extensive research into the space environment and its effects on the Earth's atmosphere. Several years ago, I took a class which introduced the solar cycle and how it effects the earths temperature. Through my study in that course, I discovered that the authors of respected and authoritative journal articles place a greater emphasis on the Sun as the cause of the Earth's temperature fluctuations. Go ask NASA why Skylab burned up prematurely, it is the same for the same reason. The alarmism of the environmental groups in the modern media causes real, accurate science to be buried and listed as "in the pocket of big corporations." John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, would roll over in his grave would he know about current "environmentalists." They take too narrow a view of the problem, and find "solutions" which are backward and impractical. While our CO2 emissions are certainly going to contribute, it is in such small amounts as to be under the "noise floor." Lets all look at this from a broad scientific perspective, instead of narrowing our views. This is simple intellectual honesty. Someone who is really "liberal" would listen to all the views, not throw one out simply because it may not coincide with their own. Approaching this from the perspective "How to I debunk" means we have already prejudiced ourselves, and the resulting conclusions will show that.
I suspect that Microsoft becoming friendly with a competing OS is actually in anticipation of the fact that the Democrats may gain control of Congress in a few days. Back in the 90's, it was a Democratic White House putting pressure on them for Anti-Trust violations. Once the Republicans gained power, that threat went away. Now that the pendulum is swinging back, perhaps Microsoft is making some preemptive moves so they don't get slammed again, like the EU is doing to them. I may disagree with the Democratic Party on most issues, but slapping MS is something I can agree with.
This is old news. NASA Adminstrator Mike Griffin is using half a billion dollars to invest in private industry to spark this. Al Gore is just trying to stay in the headline. But with Al Gore pushing this, next thing we know, he is going to claim to have "invented" private access to space the same way he "invented" the internet.
I would disagree that we were "the" dominant power before WWII. The US certainly was after. It is true however that we are the current power when speaking of aerospace research, but we are losing that dominance. I certainly applaud the efforts of ESA and so forth, but as an American, I think it dangerous to our national security to lose our power in this arena. In a recent address, Mike Griffin stated 25% of NASA's work force will retire in the next 5 years. Since 1990, the number of people employed in the aerospace community has dropped by 43%! According to various reports I have read, one of the primary causes of this is because the workforce is getting old and retiring, without new, young people to replace them. If the US doesn't step up and put some effort into developing new engineers to enter the aerospace workforce, we will fall behind other nations that are.
One just needs to remember why we work. We work to support our families. This means our families should be a higher priority. If we don't need to work to support our families, then it is only for our own fullfillment. Either way, if our goal is to maintain the integrity of our families, they need to come first. In stead of asking slashdot, and getting all sorts of stupid, childish remarks, go read Stephen R. Covey's books "7 Habits for Highly Successful People" and "The 8th Habit." Slashdot is not going to tell you why your marriage failed. Some introspection will.
Many people look at this entire debate and see science and religion as opposing each other. But that is a very narrow minded perspective, and any person who is dedicated to either should recognize that. Scientists use mathematics and scientific principles to explain the world around us, while religion depends on stories and mythology. What makes these different?
In a society where the majority of the people come from judeo-christian cultures, one simply needs to look at the context of where the religion comes from to see a scientific explaination. Take Joel for example. He prophesied that in the last days "The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" (Joel 2:31). How many of us have sat outside during a summer evening and seen the moon a deep red color because of smog? If you were him, how else would you explain something when you don't know what smog is, nor do the people around you? I think the "moon into blood" is a pretty good decription.
It is really that simple. Religion and science simply are using different perspectives on the same event or idea. Principles from both certainly can be true. I am a engineer/scientist who has deep religious beliefs. I don't see a relationship conflict, I see a complementary relationship. One can use scientific principles to supplement their religious understanding and vice versa. It is like speaking multiple languages, it helps you understand something better if you can see it in both.
While the ISS is certainly an engineering and political achievement, one has to wonder about the actual value of the ISS. NASA is spending massive amounts of money to build it, at the expense of funding critical science research. It is also causing them to ignore the fact that within 5 years, more than 1/4 of NASA's workforce is going to retire. Seeing that it is usurping all of NASA's resources, it makes me wonder, Is it really worth it? It reminds me of something I heard about a year or so ago. A retired Russian cosmonaut was speaking about about the ISS. He said "The international space station is like a nice piece of luggage that does not have a handle. It is totally worthless, but a pity to leave behind."
I don't quite follow how the expansion of the universe is not governed by the speed of light. If the Big Bang theory claims that the universe began as a singularity and then exploded, then all matter/energy began at a single point, and expanded outward. In order for this to occur and reach 180 billion lightyears in diameter in only 15.8 billion years, it would have to move at 5.69 times the speed of light. This means either Einstien was wrong, the Big Bang theory is wrong, or we still don't understand either. However, from the time-dialation equation, you cannot move faster than the speed of light, so somehow, I doubt Einstien was wrong. Just as Newton was superceded, Einstien will be too. However, Newton was not wrong, and newtonian mechanics is still considered law where applicable. The same will be true with Einstien. He will only be shown to be wrong when trying to move our paradigm to a more general one. Until proven otherwise, my personal opinion is that we do not understand how the universe was formed and that our current explaination needs to be expanded.
The purpose of creating these small university satellites is to provide a pathway for students to enter this field. Since the early 1970's, very few engineers have entered the space industry, so now, 30 years later, the workforce is getting older and older. Being a program manager of a university small satellite program, I commend the students for having built operational satellites. It is not an easy task. The requirements for building a space worthy device are far more stringent than for something that remains here, even the software. And on top of that, they are launching on a Russian vehicle, so they had to wade through the deep waters of ITAR and so forth to even get a launch. Students are still very new at this sort of thing, and often start out with very ambious goals. As they learn, often those goals are descoped. Being very familiar with this process, I assure you, while the end product may not be the sexiest thing ever launched, but the experince those students gained in getting there is priceless.
Having many friends who work in call centers for "tech support", they tell me this supposed "supervisor" is actually just the person sitting next to them.
According to a licsened psycotherapist who specializes in treatment of sexual impulsivity, "in a practical sense, pornography is any visual or written medium created with the intent to sexual stimulate. If the work was not intended to stimulate, but nevertheless causes sexual arousal in an individual, it constitues pornography for that person." I very much feel that pornography is a very destructive force on society. I have seen it destroy marriages and relationships time and time again. It creates a false idea of sexuality in those who view it. Sitting at a computer and viewing pornography is no different than going out and having an affair. (Expect you are doing it by yourself. How pitiful!) I dare everyone who views pornography to go home and ask your wives or girlfriends how they feel about it. I'll bet a majority will hate it. They will feel their intimate relationship is not driven by love, but by lust for the pornographic images. They will then compare themselves to the women in the porn. It goes on and on.