Pangloss

Good place for reference reviews of mobos: http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/index.html

Yah, I think the tracking approaches are pretty logically sound. The technology-versus-cost equation is not too great at this point, but I think there's a good opportunity here for Florida (which reported a budget surplus this past year in spite of four hurricane strikes) to spend a little money and lead the way. It's not a perfect solution either -- people may still be able to avoid even the latest tracking systems, and there are groups like the EFF and the ACLU that are still really unhappy about them -- but they seem like reasonable compromises to me. I believe a law was just passed here that forces the worst types of offenders (the "predators") to be tracked for the remainder of their lives.

We're getting off track here. By all means, state your opinions about prosecutions and sentences, but the question before us in this thread is how to deal with criminals who have served their time, and that question is not answered by "don't prosecute them in the first place" or "don't let them out". They're already out, and they have to be dealt with. I agree the barn door needs to be closed. Unfortunately it's the rampaging horse in the yard that I'm dealing with at the moment.

I don't, but I think you're forgetting that what we're discussing here is a ban on living within 2500 feet of a school or park. Not exactly the normal hunting grounds for the date rape crowd. They're going to get in their cars and drive down to South Beach with a bag of X and a list of this weekend's raves. So it's really a moot point. But I suggested earlier that we have a judge or case worker look at these category one individuals and decide if the ban needs to apply to them. I still think that's a reasonable compromise, and it's one I would be willing to pay for.

One of the more amusing things about "legislating morality" discussions is the idea that it's something only conservatives do. Examples of "legislated morality": - Welfare - Unemployment compensation - Affirmative action - Minimum wage - Hate crimes laws - Marriage for gays and lesbians Of course in many cases the opposite of the above positions are also examples of morality, such as with the last point in particular. But the point is that while some will view many of the above as "fairness" issues, others will not. The difference between those two groups of people is... drum roll please... morality.

Just to update this, I wrote my council member and asked her to seriously consider making the rule only apply to category three predators, and not necessarily the "But she said she was 18!" variety. I also wrote a local reporter who runs a weekly show on local politics and told him that the last thing we want is another Florida judge to show up on Bill O'Reilly and get labelled a "judicial activist" just because we can't seem to have a full and thorough debate before we go and pass legislation. I am sympathetic to Bettina's (et al) position, though, and I'm willing to give the statute a try for the "predator" types. We don't seem to be having a lot of luck with other approaches.

That's one of my concerns at the moment, that we'll go to all this trouble only to see it all overturned by the courts (with even more of our local judges showing up on Bill Oh'Really), further polarizing the political climate of this area, and doing absolutely nothing to protect children. But (as you may have noticed) I'm a huge believer in compromise. I'm wondering at the moment if the above modification I mentioned (having the ban only apply to "Predators", e.g. category 3 of our database, and/or having a case worker decide of the other categories need to be allowed on a case-by-case basis) is a reasonable compromise.

Part of the problem here is that the new rule includes not only the type that hang out around elementary schools with cameras, but also the type that pick up women in bars (i.e. fairly normal guys, they just picked up someone who turned out to be underage). I'm not saying the latter shouldn't be punished appropriately, I'm just saying that this 2500-foot restriction may be a little harsh on that category, since they're not the same threat to the community, or exhibiting dangerous behavior that never changes. There could be cases where the one type might turn out to be the other type, but maybe we should at least include a clause in these new 2500-foot laws that would have a case worker evaluate these statutory rape offenders and decide if the restriction should apply to them. Thoughts? I'm trying to decide if I should write such an opinion up and send it to my council member, so I'd appreciate any further feedback about that kind of change.

Recently Floridians have caught the local legislation bug, thanks in part to the national reaction to the recent cases of young girls who were killed by repeat sex offenders. Communities all over Florida are imposing new "2500 feet" rules, that basically prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, park, or other youth-oriented facility (day care, etc). The problem is that 2,500 feet can be a really large radius in an urban or even suburban environment. Often schools or parks are only separated by a mile or so, leaving very little room in between for the sex offenders to find a place to live. And the laws are retroactive, so if you live in an area that becomes banned, you have no choice but to move. A recent study regarding the proposed ban in Miami Beach showed that the rule covered virtually the entire island that the beach is located on. And of course once Miami Beach started to consider the ban, all the communities west of Miami Beach suddenly woke up and began to consider their own bans, under the assumption that all those sex offenders would move west as soon as the Miami Beach ordinance went into place. Last night my community approved a plan and it will likely become law this fall. Just to give an idea of what the climate is like at the moment, at the council meeting last night, members of a local retirement community were up in arms because their area was excluded from the ban. Turns out their golf course is so large that it effectively kept them outside of the 2500-foot rule. So the council simply extended the ban to include their golf course. I guess it's kind of like a park, even though it's private and costs $250,000 per year to join.... So now my community, which is somewhat sandwiched between the Everglades and the coast, is effectively off limits to convicted sex offenders. I think there's a hammock or two out in the swamp they might have missed. Maybe they can live out there... no, no I guess that's Miccosukee tribal indian land. And every single municipality in Broward and Dade counties are powering forward with similar ordinances, lest they get stuck with Miami Beach's rejects. It's a fascinating case of NIMBY, and certainly an understandable one, but I just cannot help but wonder where it's all going to lead. These people have to live somewhere. Aren't we effectively creating "internment camps" out of the tiny little zones they're allowed to live in? I'm not quite sure what to think of it all. Obviously steps have to be taken, but these are the kind of steps that are really difficult to fall back from, even if tracking technology advances to the point where these laws might not be necessary. Who's going to vote to recind them? (Not to change subjects, but this is the kind of thing, by the way, that I like to bring up when the far right starts screaming about "judicial activism". We haven't fully thought this out, and there's been no serious debate or consideration of all points of view. But we're going to implement it anyway. So what's a constitutionally-minded judge to do? Why do we keep putting them in this kind of position?) Anyway, I'm curious what you all think of this stuff.

Both involve faith. It's an interesting comparison, at least on the surface. Let's talk about it some more.

I agree with your points, and I would add that it's possible that those are factors that contribute to common misperceptions about education in the southeast. It should be noted, however, that the fact that southerners at the time of the war saw the issue as one of "state's rights" is also taught in the North. As it should be. It's important that we recognize, for example, the Southern inability to compromise on what they should have understood to be a fundamental issue of human rights. It helps us to understand the importance of compromise today. We ALL need to learn from the South's mistake. Not just southern men. All of us are equally capable of repeating their mistake, and we see signs of this every day. (If anything, we seem to be getting WORSE at it.) We should also look hard at why they (incorrectly) saw it as a "state's rights" issue, so that we may contrast it with the relevent applications of that issue today. State's rights ARE important today (just not for the reasons or to the extent that the confederates believed). Less than a week ago it was cited by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner in the dissenting opinion regarding the subject of medical marijuana use. There is a reason why the framers withheld all rights not specifically given to the federal government to the states. (Anyone who doesn't believe in the importance of that, just ask the nearest gay or lesbian person to explain it to you.) And on top of all that, we should pay attention to the tendency that you and and bud have hinted at, which some in the South may still feel today (even though they are NOT taught it in school), who may, for example, miscontrue our honored respect for the fallen Confederate soldiers to mean that we should glorify the horrendous thing they were, in actuality, fighting for. As William Faulkner put it in "Intruder in the Dust", Yes, I believe I understand your's and bud's concerns. I hope you can understand mine.

By the way, just as a side note, this sort of thing is hardly limited to the right. Here's an interesting example of a telephone company that gives a share of its profits to left-wing causes, and in fact has been doing so for twenty years: http://www.workingassets.com/index.cfm http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/july99/072899c.htm

Not interested in supporting your claim that there are southern school districts which don't teach evolution, eh? Or that "a great number of southern districts refuse to begin 'american history' until the late 1860s"? K. I note for the record that in this thread I have done as you've asked and supported my assertions, while you have ignored my requests for you to do the same. News flash: We don't own them today either. I guess we're too busy driving around in our confederate-flagged pickup trucks, attending KKK meetings and calling sinners on behalf of the phone company, as you put it. Surely you don't need me to prove that any ideological fringe and extremist groups (both left and right) exist anywhere in the Northeastern United States! Come on. (Just exactly how utterly perfect are these Northern states anyway? Do you think they'll let me come up for a visit, and do I need to shower the pig sh*t off my blue-jean coveralls first? It'll have to wait, though -- I'm watching Hee Haw at the moment.) In fact cultural labelling and categorization are all over your posts, as demonstrated by this quote from you earlier: Are you actually reading my posts, or is it too much trouble for you to think down to my level? And yet you're unable to prove that, because you say the statistics are unavailable, when in fact I've already provided them. California is not in the Northeast, by the way. Clearly a slip of your blue-states-are-superior tongue there. No, the advantage is clearly quite small. Please see the statistics I linked earlier, which came from multiple respected, objective sources, not just one single, relatively unknown source that doesn't even try to compare regions. But my real point was that it's clearly a gross exaggeration to say that the South is still recovering from the civil war. That's the position you asked me to defend, and I have done so. It's demonstrably true based on your own statements, and directly relevant to the discussion at hand and what you've asked me to do in this thread. I have. They're still there, posted above, in spite of your continued inability to see or respond to them. On this subject our opinions have greater value than your opinion, since we've actually been through that process. Of course, if you'd care to back your assertion with some kind of evidence, I'm all ears.

Congratulations on a breathtaking display of regionalism and cultural elitism. I'll try to remember to prop a confederate flag in the back of my truck the next time I go to the opera. (Well, I'd have to buy a truck first. And a confederate flag.) (This is a wholly appropriate response, by the way, given that your post was entirely composed under the logical fallacy of "hasty generalization".) At any rate, I certainly don't need to worry about whether or not I've put any words in your mouth. Your feelings about Southerners are quite clear: And the miniscule memberships of a few crackpot extremist groups (many similar of which can obviously be found in the Northeast) can hardly be used as supporting evidence of an overall culture that's "still recovering from the Civil War". You've completely failed to support that assertion on a cultural, economic, or educational level. As for the statistics, you seemed to dismiss mine in the following manner: But in fact most of my statistics came from other points of origin, such as the National Education Association, realtors associations, the American School Board Journal, and so forth. I wasn't relying on Professors Black (whose book was published by Harvard Press, where both men received PhDs in social science) at all. Your statistics, in comparison, are cherry-picked to show a specific pair of failures in the SE and a specific success in the NE. To explain the cherry-picking, you imply that better statistics were not available. But in fact I've already quoted and summarized better (and still objective) statistics. You could have read those sources and responded to them, but you chose to ignore them instead. But I guess I'm just an ignorant Southerner, not worthy of point-by-point response. Allow me to summarize the discussion: - I don't necessarily disagree with the statement: "Public schools are better in the North". The numbers I posted earlier suggest a slight, marginal advantage in spending and test scores, which may or may not be offset by a higher cost of living and higher jobs losses in education. There may be a slight advantage in public education in the Northeast. - But the claim that the South is "still recovering from the Civil War" has been completely debunked. You asked me to support it, and I did. You've failed to support your assertion with anything other than cherry-picked statistics and politically irrelevent extremist groups with tiny memberships. - Thanks for helping me support my claim that "You'd be hard pressed to find a more ignorant fool than a yankee who's confident in his knowledge that liberalism equals righteousness and that the northeast is the center of the civilized world." I reiterate my assertion that this is "Typical blue-state foolishness. The kind of thinking that generates more failed Democratic candidates. You need to move past that kind of nonsense." - I have debunked these points from you, with specific (and clearly objective) examples which you have ignored: - "it's unfortunate, but undeniable that overall, the south lacks sufficient funding for their school systems" - "it's unfortunate, but undeniable that a great number of southern districts refuse to begin "american history" until the late 1860s" (see mine and Mokele's posts) - "it is unfortuante, but undeniable that a great number of southern districts refuse to teach evolution" (actually I didn't debunk this one specifically, but I would like to see your evidence that there are southern school districts that do not teach evolution. You believe it's true? Prove it.) - "it is unfortunate, but undeniable that southern schools appear to have the tendency to place a lesser emphasis on the importance of academic merit" I leave that for dear reader to decide. The word "I" is capitalized, by the way.

They will never show any interest in you whatsoever at the administrative level. That's how it is with the public schools. They really have no reason to be customer service oriented. Think of it as the local government. They provide a service that is assumed to exist, rather than trying to sell you a product. You're on their terms at all times. So that means going down to their office, filling out their paperwork, following their procedures, and so forth. The advantage of this system is that, because they're not trying to sell you a product, they're presumed to have a higher standard of academic integrity. In reality is just means that it's like dealing with a local utility. Typically it's much better at the class level -- a professor is more likely to care about his or her students, which they interact with every day. Anyway, good luck with it!

Yeah, no question about that. Actually laptops are everyone's bread and butter right now, outselling desktops last month. They have a much higher profit margin and general selling price.

By the way, Orson Scott Card run a blog called "The Ornery American" that's occassionally interesting to read. http://www.ornery.org/index.html He says Ender's Game is in pre-production for a Wolfgang Petersen movie, by the way. But I guess they're in no hurry on it, because Petersen is busy with the remake of The Poseidon Adventure at the moment. Petersen also made Troy, Air Force One, Das Boot, etc.

I think the power consumption issue for desktops is more or less moot. They're like light bulbs. Some produce 80 watts, others 100 or more. Who cares? All that really matters is how much number crunching they do. At any rate, a lot of the technical stuff I've seen talked about (such as above) seemed pretty good on paper, but you have to bear in mind that Apple had to look at a lot of different aspects of manufacturing. When you hear the Apple folks (like Jobs) talking about why they gave up on IBM, the phrase "roadmap" keeps coming up. It's not that IBM lacked one, it's that their comprehensive future plan was incomplete and had a lot of holes in it in comparison with Intel's. Just to give an example of that, IBM has one chip roadmap. Intel has two discount processor roadmaps, two main-line processors (32/64 and dual-core, with two variations of each), two completely distinct lines of laptop processors, and future processor capacity all down the line thanks to both a 64-bit plan and a dual-core plan. Heady stuff. That's not even IBM's fault, really. The nature of the business is such that companies that produce huge numbers have huge advantages in produce the next five or six generations of chips. In the end, it was probably a very easy call.

(shrug) I simply refer you to your earlier post: You're obviously more interested in making two wrongs a right than in focusing on what Europe might be doing right or wrong. It's an open board, and you can rant all you like, I'm just pointing out that you didn't answer my question in a logically sound manner. (shrug) Still, I appreciate the feedback, such as I got once I weeded out the ideological nonsense. I'm not making an argument, I'm asking for opinions. Are you familiar with the concept? Pursuant to that goal, I'm putting forth a few of the arguments that that side seems to have. I think I've been pretty clear on this point, but I can endeaver to use smaller words if you like. Yes, it's called "considering both sides of an argument". You should try it some time. I've found it to be highly enlightening over the years. It's always interesting to me how extremist positions always resort to demonization of any opposing view. How's that approach working out for you?

I just went through the same process myself, chosing a CIS program at AIU. I did a lot of investigating beforehand and learned how the process works. I wanted to be absolutely certain, as you do, that my degree(s) would have value. I checked out UoP and didn't find any major problems with it. I have three friends who either attended or are attending classes there. One is having problems with financial aid; the other two did not. Her complaint is that the school is forcing her to pay for future classes in spite of not receiving full coverage. I'm a little skeptical of her claim, and my other two friends have not had this difficulty. But the whole Financial Aid situation in this country is a major discussion in itself, and I strongly recommend getting full and complete advice on that subject before you sign anything. Caveat emptor. Getting back to the value of the degree, schools today fall into these categories (these are entirely my categories made up for this thread, so don't go Googling "category one" schools): Category 1: Public. These are generally pretty reliable, and cheap, and the full value of the degree is a given. The safest bet. UMUC falls into this category. The down sides basically revolve around convenience, customer service, and the value of the instruction. It varies wildly from school to school, and I have no knowledge about UMUC (sorry). Category 2: Private, non-profit. These are the traditional private universities. That would include places like Harvard and Duke, for example. They belong in a separate category for two reasons that matter to you right now: They cost a lot more money, and they have to go through a process known as "accreditation", which the public schools do not. Accreditation is about to become the most important word you know, as I will explain briefly below. Category 3: Private, for-profit. This is the newest category, made possible by the Clinton administration's changes to the federal student loan program allowing these institutions to take students with federally-backed loans. This would include the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and American Intercontinental University. These schools also cost a lot more than public schools (typically the same or more than category 2 schools). These schools receive accreditation from the same body as category 2 schools, and that's a VERY important consideration. (It's why your degree from UoP will have exactly the same value as a degree from UMUC.) Category 4: Unaccredited schools. ITT and Art Institute, for example, and local shopping-mall type schools. These schools are mainly focus on trade skills, and do have value in that area, but the disturbing trend to call their programs "bacherlor's degrees", and the fact that they're able to receive federal financial aid, seriously undermine the value of category 3 degree programs. (I used to teach at a school like this, before I got a job teaching MCSE classes as an MCT. I didn't have a degree then, so that says a lot about this category, as does the fact that I was not allowed to fail students.) Category 5: Diploma mills. No value, steer clear. I just place them here to clarify that category three schools are NOT diploma mills. The accreditation issue is a serious one and warrants full investigation on your part. DO NOT be persuaded by alternate accreditation programs. Fortunately UoP is accredited by the same body that accredits all category two schools in the southeastern US: SACS. SACS accreditation is the reason why UoP requires that an instructor have at least a Master's degree in the field being taught, for example. SACS accreditation also means you can get into graduate school with that degree. It means full value. Each region of the country is covered by a different subsection of the same body, and I forget the name, but I seem to recall that UoP went through SACS (although you should verify this from the SACS web site, and monitor that page while you make your decision). (One note: The SACS search engine is a bit finicky and if you don't see the school you're looking for right away, it may still be there. I had a lot of trouble finding AIU in it, for example, but I picked it out eventually by messing with the spelling -- it's case sensitive and there's a capital I in the middle, see.) I chose American Intercontinental University (AIU) over Phoenix because I wanted to do on-campus classes and they had a local branch. It worked out well. I'm now in a graduate program at Nova Southeastern University, which has one of the best CIS programs in the country. I'm hoping to start in their PhD program in a few weeks, and at some point this fall I hope to land a teaching position in a category 2 or 3 school. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask. Good luck!

Well I wouldn't have followed Ophiolite's lead. But you did attack Woodward, not just the story.

I'm familiar with the thread, Skye. I wasn't saying it's not valid to say Europe is better or worse than the US, I was saying that it's poor reasoning to say that Europe's system is okay *because* the US system sucks (which was what Aardvark was doing). Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree with that.

Whoa, hang on, I've got to sit down, I'm dizzy from all that spin! ;-) Please remember that we're talking about Europe, here, not the US. A comparison is not a valid argument (i.e. two wrongs don't make a right). Tell me why you think Europe has been *successful* in this implementation, when all evidence appears to be to the contrary. For example, if "worker opportunity is a myth", why not just go ahead and lay off everyone in Europe, then, and just have everyone live off the welfare of the state? The important thing is that everyone is taken care of, right? In their zeal for the socialist ideal, have they stopped to consider what might happen if there's nobody left to tax? How will they pay for all those welfare programs then? Obviously that won't work. So the real question becomes how will Europe compete for business in the global economy, when its workers are taxed to the gills, work far fewer hours, and have massive benefits that the company has to cover? Heck, they'd be foolish not to opt for *American* labor over that madness. But hey, at least everyone has good health care, right?

It's official now. Wow. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8109913/

We'll be lucky to see a decent beta of it this year. My guess is mid-2006.