Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Discrimination (Score 1) 622

by Scott Swezey (#41969111) Attached to: With NCLB Waiver, Virginia Sorts Kids' Scores By Race

I did address this at the end of my comment.

>> On the flip side, this is a slap in the face to the idea of anyone becoming whatever they work for. To me, this conjurers ideas that Latino's and blacks either can't go
>> as high, or should expect to get what they want for doing less work than others... both of which are obviously untrue.

Comment: Discrimination (Score 1) 622

by Scott Swezey (#41968819) Attached to: With NCLB Waiver, Virginia Sorts Kids' Scores By Race

It's not often that I like people talking about whites being discriminated against, but in this case I do feel especially bad for Asian's and Whites given the higher requirement for them. As a student who went through school doing the least amount I could while still being able to graduate, I would have been very upset needing higher/lower test scores just because I had the (mis)fortune of being born into a certain family/race. On the flip side, this is a slap in the face to the idea of anyone becoming whatever they work for. To me, this conjurers ideas that Latino's and blacks either can't go as high, or should expect to get what they want for doing less work than others... both of which are obviously untrue.

Comment: Re:So they left out the good part (Score 2) 73

@AC, if you are out there and still reading this.

Most of the sites I know of that index links to sites such as Rapidshare, use HTML magic to forward you to the link without a referrer anyway

I am relatively proficient when it comes to many things web/html related, yet I have never heard of being able to create a link that doesn't pass referrer information. After googling this topic for a little bit, all I see is that most modern browsers now pass the referrer info, even with target="_blank" or when the link is handled via javascript.

That said, I am well aware that "The more I learn, the less I know."... So... Can you enlighten us on this HTML magic to which you refer?

Comment: Re:Terrible reason for veto; Let courts do their j (Score 2) 462

by Scott Swezey (#37673738) Attached to: California Governor Vetoes Ban On Warrantless Phone Searches

It was the supreme court of the state of CA, not SCOTUS, and since they didn't rule that a specific law was unconstitutional, I believe a new law would supersede their decision... unless of course they ruled that the new law violated the state constitution.

Remember, the court makes decisions within the bounds of current law. Unless a law violates the constitution, the courts are overridden by the law. Not the other way around.

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission

Working...