1.1 million people there..... unsure why the amateur attempt at a joke

People these days have gone off the deep end in the search for 'equal rights for everyone'.....including children. It's quite ridiculous.

The true purpose for filtering or keeping anything away from a child (sex, the internet, mobile phones, guns, the ability to drive, etc, etc, etc) is to protect them from hurting themselves until they are mentally and physically capable of handling those things, and making wise decisions regarding them. The majority of these potentially life-altering and harmful subjects aren't things that children are able to adequately handle until they are likely 16-18 years old or even older. Yet people keep trying to convince themselves that children are capable of dealing with these things properly....treat them like adults....and we end up with poor-decision making pre-teens that act like entitled 30 year olds.

It's bad for our society's present and future. Everyone else ends up paying for it (literally and figuratively). It needs to end.

President Obama is center or center-left....no way is the man center-right.

A true center-right man would not have condoned either the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or this debacle of a bill for Healthcare.

Generally speaking, anyone that's in any way right-leaning takes smaller, more sane approaches to addressing issues through change over periods of time...especially if what is being addressed already works decently well (i.e. Healthcare). That's as opposed to drawing up massive, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, policy-shifting bills which are based on a lot of theories and guesses (and yes, I'll give you your token comment re: WMD and the Iraq war on this one).

In any event, this slower incremental policy change is part of what conservatives should be known for. It's too bad President Obama is not more conservative as he'd have done better getting his Healthcare changes implemented by taking an incremental approach to change (to start a cycle of change, test, observe) as opposed to changing things wholesale, and allowing a very defective bill like this one to get this far.

If it gets passed, it will be a debacle, and there will be years of cascading problems (economic, budgetary, and health related) caused as a result of it.

I completely agree that there is a definitive relationship between handwriting and effective learning. In the current day, the fact that a lot of classes are being taught via computer only or with kids taking notes via computer is disturbing to me. I don't think nearly as much is retained or absorbed without that added involvement of taking an idea or concept, then expressing it in one's own words with one's own handwriting. I know from my own experience (I'm in my late 30's so I've had classes that took both approaches) that I retained much more of the material in classes where I took my own notes by hand. I retained much less if I was typing the notes. And obviously even less if I was given the notes electronically.

When I have children I know I will advocate the use of handwritten notes, even if we're living in a 'paperless' age by that point in time.

And just so it's clear that I'm not a technophobe of some kind, my career is as a UNIX system administrator.

I think it must have been around 1994-1995. I never liked PCs and always used alternative computers...so at that time I had an Atari Falcon. I used an external SCSI enclosure for the drive to host the OS and had to buy the FPU for the '030 as Linux-m68k required it.

Anyways, it was pretty 'hand-crafted' relative to even the manually installed x86 'distributions' at the time so it took some doing. But it worked like a champ. I can recall running the boot loader out of TOS, it loading the kernel, and then dumping to the console login getty for the first time. I was like, 'Wow, would you look at that.' I was stoked in the typically geeky kind of way only UNIX types can be.

And, as has been pointed out at least 10 trillion times already in this discussion, just because you can think of worse ways to torment someone than forcing him to watch an offensive movie, that doesn't mean that forcing him to watch the movie is hunky-dory.

You know what, given this is in a war context...and we're talking about Saddam, who is a prisoner of the war in question...well, to be honest, forcing him to watch a movie that annoys him is well....nothing. Absolutely nothing. We're talking about a damned war here, not a bridal shower.

Seriously, that's the best you expect from the US Armed Forces? "Hey, we're not as bad as Saddam!"

What, the US Armed Forces are supposed to be choir boys now? Of the millions, every single man and woman a paragon of perfection, and none have flaws? Trained killers, yes, but all sensitive to the emotional needs of their enemy? Give me a break.

So, yes, not being as bad as Saddam is sure as hell good enough in my book. I don't expect our machine of war to be angels. They never have been, they never will be...and in fact, they shouldn't be, as they wouldn't be able to do their job. They will, as a whole, however, be generally more sympathetic, and treat others better than those others would ever treat them. Count on it.

Sticking to the topic at hand....

There are ten trillion things worse one can do to someone than forcing them to watch a movie insulting to them multiple times. Really, there are.

And if the situation had been reversed and George Bush had been captured by Saddam, you can sure as hell bet George would have been treated ten trillion times worse than Saddam was by the US. I believe that without a doubt in my mind. So paint it as you will, the treatment of Saddam wasn't handled by prim and proper Catholic schoolboys....but I'm sure it was several orders of magnitude better than what the Republican Guard would have done to Bush (now there's a somewhat ironic statement).

I expect much protestation and 'but we have to be nice to everyone' type of responses. You know what? No, we don't, and no, we weren't. It's called war for a reason, ladies and gentlemen....just or unjust, it was war. Last I checked, nice things don't happen in a war.

AIX is going away. IBM sells more Linux than AIX.

Well, x86 hardware is cheap relative to Power hardware, so that's hardly a revelation. People will continue to buy AIX over Linux so long as it has more enterprise features and functionality than Linux...which I believe it will continue to have for quite some time. Also, Power hardware being higher quality than x86 hardware, enterprises will more likely use that platform if they have the budget...and it's only natural to use AIX on that platform over Linux. However, back to my original point, which was that in a consolidated IBM/Sun mix, the war of proprietary UN*X's would be in favor of an AIX over a Solaris if IBM took over Sun.

If you're still using big iron any place it's not fundamentally necessary then you have missed the boat entirely. The boat is now clustering with a distributed architecture.

I said 'iron' and not 'big iron'. I'm talking any variety of server hardware...not just big, monolithic boxes. The reduction of another vendor in the IT space....whether they provide big servers, small servers, industry standard servers or proprietary servers....is a loss in choice to us the consumer, which is a bad thing for I.T.

And as far as 'boats' are concerned, you can splash around with your clustered, distributed boxes all you want. Have fun. As an admin, I'll take a rock-solid, simple, yet completely redundant single machine any day over multiple smaller, clustered boxes that are a pain in the arse to keep synchronized and talking to one another.

The problem is, they're not that innovative any more.

Eh? I really don't think you know much at all about their technology if you say that...your comment smacks of someone who hasn't used any of their products. They're entirely more innovative than either HP or IBM. Niagara, Solaris 10, ZFS, DTrace, VirtualBox, MySQL, GlassFish, Java, Cloud Computing, SunRay thin clients, OpenStorage systems, blah, blah, blah. Seriously, the list is gigantic.

Last time they tried to bring out a new architecture they failed.

Are you talking about Niagara? Their T1 and T2-based systems have been quite successful. Which 'new architecture' are you talking about?

and their x86 offerings haven't been particularly appealing

Sun's x86 offerings are amongst the best in the business. What are you talking about? By and large, they are better designed, better packaged, consume less space, and consume less power than their IBM and HP counterparts. Please explain yourself? I've used all three vendor's x86 boxes and the Sun ones are as good or better than any of the others.

If Java were really all that great it would have become a major force long before now. Java still compares unfavorably to Smalltalk in many ways...

Um, last I checked Java was pretty damned pervasive. Where have you been? Smalltalk? You're seriously comparing them in this context? Outside of academic circles, please tell me about the ubiquity of Smalltalk.

Sun has changed Solaris to have a more Linuxlike userland and even created an Open Source version to try to compete but they definitely still don't get it. The future doesn't involve control by a single entity.

Sure, they want people weaned on Linux to be more comfortable working in a Solaris environment. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. You're fairly well delusional here, to be honest. Of all the major players in the UNIX-oriented I.T. world, Sun is truly the one that most gets it.

Name me another major UNIX vendor that open-sourced their cornerstone operating system? You know, the one they built the majority of their business on. Oh, that's right...there's only one - Sun Microsystems.

If true.

And I say that for three very important reasons:

a) IBM was sure to 'consolidate' a great number of things. And I'm sure any remnants of Sun left after this process would have been IBM-ized. And I do say that with a great deal of negative connotation. IBM has a habit of having some great tech, but in many cases doing very dumb things to it to make it annoying to work with. (Exhibit #1 = AIX boxen)

b) Our choices for 'iron' and 'OS' variety in the IT space would have been reduced as I'm sure overalpping server lines would disappear, as well as perhaps an OS (AIX vs. Solaris). Some variety in the I.T. space is most definitely to our advantage as I.T. folks. Of course, pricing competition between rivals is always a good thing, too.

c) Lastly, the most important thing, is that we'd have lost one of the most innovative enterprise I.T. companies ever. Say what you will about their ability to turn it into large $$$, but Sun has come up with some of the most innovative ideas the server-related I.T industry has seen since their inception....and they continue to do so. I think many people lose sight of this as they like to whine about Sun simply because they're a big corporation.

Except strictly on a balance sheet?

I don't see how it would work out well at all unless Sun somehow stayed a separate entity underneath the IBM umbrella. I don't think the two cultures of the companies would mix at all...I think the hardware product lines of both companies very much overlap one another....and we'd be losing a ton of diversity in the IT marketplace given a lot of things would likely be 'consolidated'.

I can't understand how anyone would want this to happen except possibly shareholders. The day Sun Micro is no longer its own entity will be a very, very sad day for the IT industry in my opinion.

He is presumed innocent. The fact that (in your previous post) you refer to someone merely accused of a crime as a "criminal" explains a lot.

Sorry, poor choice of wording. I should have used something neutral like 'the accused' instead. My apologies. I will, however, say my choice of wording didn't really "explain" a damned thing, thank you very much.

And, why would you simply take one person's (the officer's) word over another, all things being equal?

Well, that's just the thing....all things are not equal here. Last I checked, the officer is the one that has selected law enforcement as his profession, has invested years of time and effort into establishing himself and training in that profession, and has sworn multiple oaths to uphold the law, treat others fairly, and dedicate himself to being just. The other person in this 'equation' well...hasn't done any one of those things. So, naturally, I would tend to believe the officer over the accused person to start with.

Let's face it, I think there's a corrupt or crooked element to a portion of the police force. I don't think anyone will argue that. The thing is I think the majority of officers are the good decent people they should be and are professionals. Unfortunately, there are also a number that treat it as a power trip, take liberties, and do malicious things. Apparently a good number of people on /., and possibly yourself, think most police officers are crooked and are simply out there to 'stick it to us'. I don't mean to put words in yours or anyone else's mouth, but if you feel that way, I'm sorry for you.

Ok, a few things:

1. My apologies as I made the mistake of not reading the full, original article that the /. headline pointed to. I based my comments on the content of the /. article only. The only thing indicated there were Facebook and MySpace 'statuses' that were questionanble. To base the dismissal on those alone I thought was frivolous

2. I don't think ceding power to the state is cowardly. In fact, it has to be done in many circumstances (unfortunate as that may be). That doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of it, however.

3. Was there another article I missed? You said the 'facts of the case' show that the 'suspect never had the gun' and that the officer 'made the story up'. What? How the hell do you know that? It's a real possibility, yes. That's what the article implies. But those aren't facts per se. It's also a real possibility the guy had the gun on him. Sorry, in most cases (though not as much in this one) I'm more inclined to believe the officer than I am the accused. Obviously there are crooked cops out there. Question is, how many?

4. I think the fact that the man uses steroids is a much greater issue than Facebook or MySpace statues. So are his prior record of arrests and personal commentaries. That makes things somewhat questionable.

5. There's no doubt we need to 'police' our own police force for improper behavior. We've seen too many instances of it. And you're right, civil rights need to be upheld, obviously. But, the fact of the matter is, police officers are always going to have the benefit of the doubt over a supposed criminal (as they should). If this wasn't the case then we'd simply have other run-of-the-mill citizens trying to 'police' each other. Police officers always have to be held to a higher standard of honesty, ethics, and propriety. If they aren't, they can't be trusted to be the entities we need them to be.

'Public announcement'?

'Sending a message to this officer'?

I seriously wish you were kidding, but I know you're not, and that's the sad part. I'm sure a police officer is using his own spare time on some chintz social networking site to post his deepest personal convictions related to his career in law enforcement via his 'mood update'. Right.

The fact that your post was labeled 'insightful' is both shameful and laughable. The fact that anyone would truly believe that line of reasoning is what's wrong with today's society...it's also why we're greeted by the astounding news that the criminal was actually allowed to subpoena anything so completely unrelated to the charge. Sorry, should have been tossed out. We don't have time, nor should we have any tolerance or patience, for this kind of nonsense.

I still take umbrage with getting marked flamebait on this post. Perhaps I'll have to simply post something a little more smart alec'y or yet another tired old joke in order to get mod'ed up.

No, I won't admit something that's not true, even though you want to believe it's so. Just because I strongly worded my opinion on the original post doesn't mean I wanted to start a flamewar. I simply stated a position...and I think that people who don't think the government hasn't always been doing this are ignorant. I didn't call them any number of more negative things that I could have.

I actually thought someone might agree with me...but apparently not a single person viewing these posts did. I find that both odd and disturbing.