"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.
The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.
So perhaps you misread the subject, re: "how you extract location data from Facebook" (GGGP post) when you responded to this thread.
Anyway, here's the answer: No one can. FB does not make that information available regarding any user.
But how does one access that about another person on a social media site like Facebook?
"i want my teachers teaching, not spying"
Teachers are not administrators. The two camps are generally in opposition. In recent years administrators have generally taken more control of schools away from teachers at all levels (i.e., become more manager-employee relationship). Administrators would decide and run a program like this. Likely teachers would be the only voice in schools arguing *against* something like this -- and here's hoping they have some job protection so they don't get fired in response.
Example: Administrators in Holyoke, Massachusetts demand putting up students' names and test scores in a public "data wall" to motivate them. Teacher Agustin Morales, local union president, attends school board hearing and points out this is likely illegal. His observation reports suddenly switch from positive to negative and he's fired soon thereafter. Fairly common story.
http://www.psc-cuny.org/clarion/december-2014/why-teacher-agustin-morales-lost-his-job
I'll take "Poor Thinkers are Also Poor Spellers" for $1000, Alex.
Thanks for posting that.
.... I mean Texas.
My understanding is that the walk at R'lyeh would be normal, but the view of the distant surroundings highly skewed, and possibly take exponential time:
I'm broadly guessing that this was the setup for a new interview question: "Were you dumb enough to believe that I ask the puzzle about walking around the poles for a job interview at SpaceX?"
Totally agreed. Vaporware.
20-year-old college students says to me yesterday: "I just got my first computer and I'm trying to figure out these files and directories and stuff."
Your personal experience is not universal.
Your interpretation makes no sense in a few different ways. First: The Federalist Papers are arguing in support of the core Constitution at a time before the Bill of Rights or 2nd Amendment existed or had even been proposed. Second: Once again, the argument by Hamilton is not that random ownership of guns will protect liberty, but actually the exact opposite. Federalist No. 29 is specifically in support of the the fact that the Federal government needs to be in charge of an elite armed forces, and that this is "the best possible security", that the people as a whole cannot possibly be up to the task. The only question here is whether this well-trained and Federally-organized "select corps" is a full-time army or a part-time militia. Here's your quote in context of the full paragraph:
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
I recommend that anyone read the whole paper, it's pretty short and highly illuminating to the true purpose of a Federally-run armed force, specifically in contrast to disorganized and undisciplined random mobs.
Disagree. Technology is entirely controllable (see: documents that current photocopiers, printers, or Photoshop will not print). And: We will never get off this planet, that's just fantasy stuff. Come back to reality.
"how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?"
Significantly less. Sample paper on the subject by Yip et. al., Lancet, 2012:
"Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not..."
"Some even go further and claim that guns make you more likely to try to kill yourself (as opposed to merely more likely to succeed, two radically different concepts that they don't quite 'get')"
There is in fact pretty consistent support that even a brief barrier from effective means of suicide will result in someone not ever attempting it. Example paper: Yip, et. al., "Means restriction for suicide prevention", Lancet, 2012.
"Abstract: Limitation of access to lethal methods used for suicide--so-called means restriction--is an important population strategy for suicide prevention. Many empirical studies have shown that such means restriction is effective. Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not; when they do, the means chosen are less lethal and are associated with fewer deaths than when more dangerous ones are available."
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
