Your distinction is correct and I fully understand it, however its not at the crux of the matter and in the US there are increasing pushes to move away from a representative democracy to a direct democracy... and in practice the distinction is a pedantic one at best today. In any number of jurisdictions, Kansas comes to mind, representatives be they state legislators or school board members, are elected by majority votes (actually, since we're being anal, more often than not pluralities not majorities). At the end of the day, those that show up to vote (or by proxy via the representatives for whom they vote) use the schools to indoctrinate not just their children, but most children. This is an outcome of our democratic tradition, our making democracy too easy, and by entrusting the very rationality of our children to others.

My point is simple and need not be tied up in word-smithing or the minutia of direct democracy vs. representative democracy: if you advocate both increasing direct democracy and participation in the democratic process while at the same time expecting the state to be your (or your children's) caretaker, then don't be surprised when this happens: its a possible outcome of the system you embrace.

A catch 22, then isn't it? How does one define what a properly functioning public school is? I actually have very little doubt that the sponsors and advocates of this bill in NM would say precisely the same thing as you just did and that this bill is their solution to the problem. Now of course you don't agree, but if you live in NM and your children are going to public school... well, your ideas of what constitutes 'proper functioning public school system; are out and theirs are in.

BTW, what you really mean by 'properly functioning public school system' is one that indoctrinates everyone's children into your way of thinking with your priorities... this is no different that what the NM legislators are trying to accomplish. You're merely a different side of the same coin.

I can tell you this... I sure as hell won't let my kids go to a public school system to be the play-things of well-meaning people such as you and the legislators in NM behind the bill in question. Neither of you will serve their interests which is all that matters.

This is just the outcome of public provided services and a government increasingly directed by the whims of the majority. I thought that was what everybody here was clamoring for? Freeing the people... ...if the people just happen to be dumb-shits or irrational? Well that's the bed you've made for yourself, why are you disappointed or put out?

Hear hear....

Slashdot editorial staff does story vetting in very much the same manner that this story's submitter alleged that Qwest performed the DSL installation. Given that this story is still on the Slashdot front page without any update regarding the submitter's retraction (at least that of the Picasa poster that is), they make the Drudge Report look like a peer reviewed journal.

Of course, clearly the Slashdot audience isn't much better on the whole either; Regardless of the average Slashdot reader's opinion of Qwest, Slashdot fucked up as did the submitter. It takes a big bit of intellectual dishonesty to continue to try and bemoan the evil Qwest, at least in this context. And for the number of comments that say the retraction was due to strong-arming by Qwest... I haven't seem that much paranoia since the National Truther/Birther convention hit town! Of course I've been here long enough to expect that sort of thing to be the mainstream perspective in these parts.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this; but there can be issues if the work you do involves information that could be subject to discovery phase in litigation or other legal matter.

FYI IANAL... I could be badly mistaken on this. But...

Depending on the controls being actively enforced, and perhaps regardless of them, documents can be copied from Citrix (et al) environments to the personal computer; this is often times more convenient, especially if you're not near a network. If a subpoena is issued for all devices where the work took place, it is conceivable that your personal equipment would be subject to that discovery effort. I think this would be more an issue in regulatory investigations, and even occasional work could put you in that bucket.

Anyway, I keep my devices strictly separate (laptops, phones, etc.)... and I do have the option of using personal gear (and would prefer it)... but want to avoid those issues.

Cheers,
SCB

... when a billion dollars was real money!

:-)

For the record:

Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +3
    70% Insightful
    20% Troll
    10% Overrated

My starting post came closer to your near perfect understanding of those in the Slashdot community willing to spend their time moderating:

Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +1
    40% Insightful
    40% Troll
    20% Underrated

Afterall, we wouldn't want just anyone saying just anything when the credibility free speech is at stake!

This is a false premise. Whether you agree with the actions of the Pentagon or not, they didn't offer the documents for release: these documents were stolen from them and then released by other people that put their interests above the lives of others. No matter whether this is a Just War being conducted as honorably as is possible in war or if this war is merely cruel and arbitrary: there is zero culpability on the part of the Pentagon in this matter. The choice to proceed with the publication, and to do so when other might well die, was WikiLeaks alone. They were not forced to publish the documents and they were not forced to do so without first protecting those that they endangered: they exercised free will.

Man up and admit that you would gladly sacrifice a few lives for your ideals to dominate, even if to do so was not to risk your own. I realize the reality of your philosophical view, and that of WikiLeaks/Assange, brings you down to the level of those you chastise: that you, too, believe that to kill and be killed is alright so long as the cause is the politically correct cause.

The reality is that you're no damn different than those that you would call 'murderer', save for political outlook.

You have to be joking. That anyone would expect the Pentagon to abet the compromise of its own classified material is as assine as the idea that civilians don't die in wars and that the enemy is always given a trial prior to actions on the battlefield.

Mr. Assange had a clear choice and clearly he's made it. This choice was whether or not sacrificing the lives of others for your own political objectives is moral course of action. Clearly and without hesitation Mr. Assange made the choice that yes, his political objectives was paramount to the lives of those he outed. The fact that the Pentagon didn't save him from his own philosophy but rather forced him to accept its consequences is a side show. The choice was still his and his alone (OK, perhaps his 'organization') and it was a choice he made willingly.

I have to agree with the top level post's stand on what piracy means for game developers. It's funny that it mentions fully online games as a means to prevent piracy just now though. I was at a party last night where I met one of the QA guys for this company:

http://www.onlive.com/

They're trying to effectively stream games rather than have any local game installs at all. I have no idea how well this works, but it would seem to be very difficult to pirate a game where you never actually possess the code. ...of course that shifts the issue of piracy (a problem for the developer) to issues of identity theft and account security (more often a problem for the player), but I suspect that this shift of downside sits just fine with the developers....

As the old song says... ..."meet the new boss; same as the old boss"

I bet most of the people here that are all up in arms at the whole Intelligent Design in public schools thing, at least here in the US, are also many of the same people responsible that make this possible. These people are clamoring for ways to make democracy easier through increased ways to register to vote ('motor-voter',welfare office provided voter registration,etc) as well as increase the reach and scope of government sponsored school systems. Indeed, these people aren't upset that the schools are used to indoctrinate kids at all. What they're really upset about is that the kids in this case just aren't being indoctrinated with the correct social agenda.

If you want majority rule to broadly define governments and their policies and you want those same governments to oversee the delivery of education, you shouldn't be surprised that your tax dollars may be spent on someone's agenda for society; be that Intelligent Design, GLBT acceptance, or some other agenda.

For the record I do not accept Intelligent Design as scientifically valid and I wouldn't want my kids wasting their time with it; it's religious dogma. But more to the point I don't believe in an educational system which allows majority groups to control education such that they aren't schools, but centers of of mass indoctrination. I believe in private education systems that allow me to know what they teach the kids and make sure that my kids are being taught according to those principles I believe they need to think, survive and to become the intellectual superiors of their peers. I firmly believe that if you want your kids in a religious schools, Marxist schools, whatever, that's your prerogative; but that right ends with your own children and stops well short of mine.

First your premise is flawed. Free choice does not mean absolute choice or that every set of choices includes rainbows and unicorns. Free market choice does boil down, ultimately, to one single decision: is the product or service that I desire worth more than that which I would have to give up to obtain it? If the answer is 'yes' then I proceed and make the buy, if 'no' then I don't. That is the only choice a truly free market offers you and you must use your own mind and morals to determine the answer.

That is the one choice a government bureaucrat does not offer you. They can subvert that choice through what are ultimately immoral and coercive means. So it's not bad enough that they are inept or 'corrupt' in ways such as the NASA handouts... but their very premise allows them to deny you the ability to apply your mind in how best to allocate the products of your labors for your own best interest.

Oh.. you mean like Unions?

How much do you really think corporations or unions would want spend in campaigns if it weren't for the fact that politicians have power to subvert the free market through law, regulation and ultimately force? I bet not much.

In truth a free market only rewards those businessmen that provide something that someone else is willing to purchase. Politicians reward corrupt businessmen by ensuring that upstarts and competitors don't win on their merits in the marketplace.

Lets see...

DoE: You're right and they have managed it for decades... and what was their mission? Oh yeah.. oversee the end of U.S. dependence on foreign oil in the wake of OPEC embargo of the 70's. They've done a stunning job, so now we want to given them greater influence in energy policy and to do it with greater power and money than before. I'm only sure you want them to be as successful in their future as they have been in their past.

The Fed: Yes, to a large degree you're right there, too. They have been managing the banking system for decades. And over the years they have been incredibly destructive. The Fed's cheap money monetary policy of the 90's helped inflate the .com asset bubble... which popped as soon as the Fed began tightening. They brought the rates back down, of course, and in conjunction with stimulus (in the form of the Bush tax breaks, without spending cuts) they helped to change the risk picture of real estate investing. Indeed, I'll have to dig up the quote, but Greenspan himself was urging the use of ARMs to finance housing... never mind the other financial regulatory policies from other areas of the Government (my favorite was Barney Frank's desire to "roll the dice" with looser Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae standards... I guess he crapped out). Boy that worked out real good. And Bernanke can't figure out why Gold is up? HA! But we're content to give more over to the Fed. I'm sure you want them to keep up their stellar track record worked out so well for us up to now.

See, I'd take 1000 corrupt businessmen over a corrupt politician any day of the week. There is nothing a corrupt businessman, by himself, can do to force me to do business with him. But a corrupt politician... he can force me to under threat of force, to do his will.