Got to the point the teacher stopped giving me the whole book and I was only given 3-4 pages at a time. So I could "keep up" with other students..meanwhile I coulda had finished the book and been on a 2nd or 3rd by the time the other kids finished the first.
that teacher should be fined or something. That's ridiculous.
Does it make any practical difference? Is there any point to this post?
Yes. Practically the poster and various commentators enjoy the hypothetical. In addition, if there were actually a chance of this happening, it would make a practical difference in the security status of the president of the United States.
Call wealthy alumni. You could probably get a list from the alumni office.
A school like Georgia Tech would already have a finely tuned fundraising apparatus targeting 'wealthy alumni.'
It is highly unlikely the alumni office would provide this list to just anyone.
However, as a 'parent said, there may be funds available at the school.
The alumni office shouldn't provide this list--it's intelligent to tightly control fundraising efforts, if they know their job; and having someone go off-script or divert a $50K donation from their general fund is a big deal. (Especially since their job is to build that fund and preserve those relationships).
You might be able to get a donation from alums you are aware of--successful entrepreneurs tend to make the biggest donations, but for $40K it would be worth contacting successful engineers and the like for a few thousand each. Their companies may have matching programs. But if you're an employee, figure out who to ask at the school about the politics.
How much time will pass before we get a SCOTUS ruling?
One of the problems with the judicial branch is that the appeals process is generally only limited by the size of one's purse.
Bottomless budgets, like governments and large corporations have at their disposal, make for quite the unlevel playing field.
Actually, appeals are relatively cheap, because all you have to do is look at the record from the court below, research a bunch of cases, and write and talk about why your client should have won.
Trials, on the other hand, are expensive and a pain in the ass. You have to do discovery--collecting millions of documents, *analyzing* millions of documents, interviewing lots of people while having at least two lawyers and a court reporter in the room, doing a bunch of motions (each basically like an appeal--look at the docs you have and research a bunch of cases and write and talk about why your client should win), and finally arguing your case in court.
The concept of "justified war" has too major problems:
1) If you accept it, how do you avoid the slippery slope? I can't think of a government in history that has avoided it.
2) If you don't accept it, how do you defend yourself from an aggressor?
The answer to #1 is #2--war is justified when used to defend yourself from an aggressor. The world agreed on this in the Charter of the United Nations, which is why every tinpot dictator now claims his wars are in "self-defense." That claim is what makes wars legal.
That being said, people disagree on what constitutes self-defense, and they lie about it, so you still have a problem.
There's also still two cans and a string. Doesn't make it a valid means of communication for normal people.
It's perfectly valid--it works. Because it covers multiple houses, it does not conform to American standards of personal privacy, at all, which is why SCOTUS should revisit the phone privacy question.
but I thought most people on slashdot wouldn't know what they were
/. is a place wherein denizens brag about using their acoustic couplers, or bbs'ing at 300 baud or computing in the snow, uphill both ways while editing inodes by hand with a magnet. You take a pretty big leap when you guess that "most" people don't know about an outdated technology.
Not really, at least not for a *particular* *very* outdated technology--there was likely to be a sizable minority who would know and inform the rest, which is what happened. But why would I deliberately make a point in a way which was less clear to everyone else?
Because you name age, gender and language, not race. So they are racist.
Logic and you just don't go along do you.
Actually, I was just guessing that the different languages spoken were correlated with different races and using that as sufficient evidence of racism to support the joke.
So... the elephants make decisions about danger based on age, gender, and language?
I see we have never been to Malaysia.
I remember the first time I was in Kuala Lumpur, I was shocked to see newspaper ads for apartments that openly declared "Chinese only" or "Malay Muslim woman only, 18-25" or some such. The racism is all out in the open and codified in law. Every citizen's mandatory ID card has a field for race and religion. Race is there because different people's votes count differently come election time, and religion is there so that when you're eating during the day on Ramadan, when the religious police come into the restaurants you show them and you don't get arrested.
Did we learn something today? Much better than just ignorantly shouting "RACISM!" at a culture with which we are unfamiliar.
Actually, racism is still racism even when and if it is openly endorsed by society.
Ah, the party line. I had almost forgotten about them.
Yes. I thought about calling it a party line, but I thought most people on slashdot wouldn't know what they were--we had the last one in a particular rural community nearly thirty years ago.
This is in some ways an advantage--SCOTUS is supposed to change slowly. But it also results in crazy rulings at times, like the idea that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in who you call. The judges who made that decision a few decades ago grew up when there were still *shared phone lines* between neighboring houses.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
It is absurd that we have five *million* people in the country whom the government has forced to waive their right to be free from *unreasonable* search in order to qualify for their jobs.
If the government inquiries are reasonable, why would they need to make people sign the waiver?
Having a three-tiered system of government employability effectively bars countless Americans from serving in government and *ensures* it is nonrepresentative. In effect, you have cleared employees, non-cleared employees, and ex-cons, in decreasing order of government employability.
"just doing a job" is no excuse.
This. A huge number of corporations and firms, generally because it happens do be profitable rather than out of malice, do *really* bad things. It's not like the guy whose job it is to deny insurance claims or the insurance "adjuster" is somehow insulated from moral culpability because it's his job to basically commit fraud. Excuse me, minimize claims.
"Just following orders" is a highly relevant phrase here. If freedom from government surveillance is a basic right, then people who are "just following orders" to abridge that right are culpable for having done so, even though they were following orders.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
