The reason I believe in evolution is that by the scientific method, it is based on hard facts. Theories based on those facts have been used to predict unknown things. When observed and measured, those unknown things turned out to follow the prediction of the theories (most recently genetic frequencies and the morphology of that fossil up in canada).
Wrong answer.
Evolution isn't an article of faith you have to believe in. It's a verifiable, testable theory. You don't have to believe in it, because you can review the evidence and come to agree or disagree with the conclusions.
Everytime someone uses the term "believe in" to describe their attitude towards the theory of evolution, I have to think that the nutcases have won. They've been able to twist the language so that even rational people refer to it as if it's something that requires faith.
If I was a parent I would need to know if the teacher my children had were pro-science or pro-creationism or maybe believer in the little blue rabbit from the outer sector of the left galaxy.
Better not to, really. Teachers, particularly science teachers, are usually educated, rational thinkers. They're far more likely to support the teaching of evolution in schools compared to the parent of the average child (keeping in mind here that uneducated parents, and religious whackos generally, typically have more children than educated ones). So if that information was widely available, you'd have far more idiot parents looking for similarly idiotic teachers than the other way around.
There's a difference between supervision and "parental" control software. Which is really corporate control software installed by parents.
Really, probably the kids just shouldn't have computers in private parts of the house. That way, there's supervision. Software is a cop-out of responsibility, and a highly annoying one at that.
Haven't you learned yet not to use the word impossible. Never discount the power of mismanagement. Somehow, some schmuck, probably someone who works for the government or some sort of regulator, will find a way to use up all the addresses.
The trouble isn't that it's not impeachable - it is - it's that impeachment is a political process, and even after the Democratic takeover, there has not been the political will in congress to impeach. (Also, IIRC successfully impeaching a president requires a 2/3 majority of the senate, which would be clearly impossible with all the Republicans goosestepping behind Bush).
Desktops have them, too. While the most commonly used programs, like Office, and, of course, Windows itself, remain closed source, many business desktops in a lot of places I've been have programs have OSS programs like PDFCreator and PuTTY.
Not likely. A spammer probably wouldn't have the problem in the first place, because their own maching wouldn't be sending out the emails. That's what botnets are for.
The security people were more likely just sceptical that the caller was bright enough to fix such a problem. Which is hardly unfair...I've worked in tech support - not that it shouldn't be obvious to anyone on the internet - but most people are clueless. The assumption that someone dumb enough to get infected would be unable to fix the problem it is quite reasonable.
I think one thing that's being missed is the internet in Egypt isn't exactly speedy to begin with. Even small downloaders would be used to starting a download and leaving it for a long time.
Have you ever taught courses in how to use office?
Some people can just sit down with a program and push buttons until it works. What's more, they use a lot of shortcut keys, so the impact of the interface change isn't all that relevant. The cost of any change for them is basically a small drop in productivity for about a week while they figure everything out. These people are advanced users.
It's the average users that are the problem. Most office users, though, while they've adapted to computers, are still uncomfortable with them. You change the location of a button and they'll need someone to actually come over and show them how to use it. For commonly used functions, this is a small hassle, but for functions that are only used occasionally...If it comes up shortly after the rollout, you'll be fine, but further down the road, the average user will think "I know how to do this, I've done it before," and then spend the next 30-60 minutes trying to figure it out before they summon help. Not good for productivity.
Having taught Office classes, I'd have to say that any change is going to cause disruption, but for the average user, a change in appearance is going to have a more significant impact than a change in the back end. In both excel and word, the functions used by average users tend to be in the same places (at least prior to 2007) as their OOo equivalents, and so I would that Office 2003 -> OOo would be a less traumatic change in most offices than an Office upgrade. An office full of power users would be a different story.
As you probably know, total cost of ownership, while real, is pretty hard to predict in advance. Anyone telling you otherwise is probably selling something.
It is generally true. Most job applicants out there are familiar with MS software and have used it extensively in the past. Ergo, the software learning curve for a new employee is generally lower.
At this point, I think it's a fair argument that the cost of retraining to use OO.o is probably much smaller than the cost of retraining to use Office 2007. Just because a job applicant is familiar with MS hardly means they're familiar with the latest version, which has fewer similarities to Office 2003 than OO.o does.
License fees are tiny next to the cost of operating an IT department and any productivity gains/losses. A handful of guys working in IT will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Even if you have a lopsided ratio and a few IT guys are supporting hundreds of people that is still a one time cost of a few tens of thousands of dollars versus hundreds of thousands a year.
While this is a fair argument, I'd be interested to see some evidence that there's a difference in IT costs between the different suites, and, if there is, is it greater than the total licensing costs.
I'm not pathologically anti-MS. I continue to use Windows and Office because it's convenient and makes it easier to switch between work and home, not to mention it allows me to run my games without fussing endlessly with wine. On top of that, I have one Mac on the network, and OOo's lack of a decent Mac version (X term or a very resource intensive Java hack don't count) has left Office as the better option.
It's a tired old argument because it's not related to CC.
It is commercial use, so the CC license doesn't apply...the right to commercial use is reserved. So we fall back to copyright.
But copyright law includes fair use clauses. And search engine use of web material is now clearly established in most jurisdictions as fair use.
A degree gets you in the door for a job....regardless of what it is in often...you have to have one these days to get a good job.
Since entering the working world, I've realised that this is patently untrue. There's specific areas where degrees are required - think engineering, medicine, those sorts of things. But people with general (or no commercial value) degrees are being hired into the same jobs as people without degrees. Decent, white collar jobs for sure, and yes, for further advancement an education is required. But what I discovered is that while my peers with degrees are getting paid the same as me, they have tens of thousands of dollars in debt that I don't have, and yet I can now get the education I need for promotions on the company dime.
This myth of a degree being a requirement of a decent job is just that - a myth.
You're right. I got sucked back into the trap of arguing why software patents shouldn't exist at all, though the two topics are related. Certainly, patenting e-commerce would have, at one point, been a valid patent. I would still argue that one-click isn't.
I, for one. I first got internet access in 1995.
Yes, the web was young. And ugly. E-commerce in general was innovative, and I'm sure Amazon was involved in some pretty innovative stuff. One-click, however, was still an obvious option, just not previously implemented. Just imagine if the very first e-commerce site had patented the concept, which actually was pretty innovative.
The two issues get conflated because Amazon's one-click patent - which really is an obvious development, not an innovation - is an excellent example of why there shouldn't be software patents, doubly so if it does finally clear all the hurdles.
Doesn't matter. A murder charge can be placed against someone who either intends to kill, or shows a willful disregard for life. Dispatching a SWAT team, knowing full well that in a tense situation like a SWAT raid, there's the distinct possibiility someone might come out in a body bag, certainly seems to fit the latter.
Cops are trained in such a way that they can usually take control of the situation without firing shots (this would be the Tactics part of the acronym), so the odds of a death aren't high, but there's so many ways things can go south, that it's certainly irresponsible enough to merit a murder charge if someone does die.
We shouldn't. Really, the correct response to unreasonable copensation on a pro-rich people law is to fix the bad law, not right equally unreasonable payouts into a pro-average joe law.
A law that makes it easier for victims to fix things up and get compensation for their losses and time is reasonable. Even some modest punitive damages are reasonable. But stupid sized compensations like those under the DMCA just give the green light to write more laws with stupid compensation levels, and you may not like the next one.
When I signed up, I had to enter my password first into gmail to confirm, and then into facebook for it to grab my contacts. The second step was skippable. That was only a couple weeks ago. You sure you didn't do that?
"However, unlike many, Cerf doesn't think the bandwidth issues, frequently stated as a potential stumbling block for video over the web, will be a problem. Cerf thinks that a combination of faster connections, improved network technology and not "streaming" content will alleviate any issues."
The guys in the article aren't saying the internet is done for. They're saying the technology currently in use wasn't designed for the kinds of uses it's being put to. Yes it works, but there's a limit to it. Thus, they are working to improve the technology, which apparently the source of your quote agrees is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong answer.
Evolution isn't an article of faith you have to believe in. It's a verifiable, testable theory. You don't have to believe in it, because you can review the evidence and come to agree or disagree with the conclusions.
Everytime someone uses the term "believe in" to describe their attitude towards the theory of evolution, I have to think that the nutcases have won. They've been able to twist the language so that even rational people refer to it as if it's something that requires faith.
Better not to, really. Teachers, particularly science teachers, are usually educated, rational thinkers. They're far more likely to support the teaching of evolution in schools compared to the parent of the average child (keeping in mind here that uneducated parents, and religious whackos generally, typically have more children than educated ones). So if that information was widely available, you'd have far more idiot parents looking for similarly idiotic teachers than the other way around.
There's a difference between supervision and "parental" control software. Which is really corporate control software installed by parents.
Really, probably the kids just shouldn't have computers in private parts of the house. That way, there's supervision. Software is a cop-out of responsibility, and a highly annoying one at that.
Haven't you learned yet not to use the word impossible. Never discount the power of mismanagement. Somehow, some schmuck, probably someone who works for the government or some sort of regulator, will find a way to use up all the addresses.
The trouble isn't that it's not impeachable - it is - it's that impeachment is a political process, and even after the Democratic takeover, there has not been the political will in congress to impeach. (Also, IIRC successfully impeaching a president requires a 2/3 majority of the senate, which would be clearly impossible with all the Republicans goosestepping behind Bush).
Desktops have them, too. While the most commonly used programs, like Office, and, of course, Windows itself, remain closed source, many business desktops in a lot of places I've been have programs have OSS programs like PDFCreator and PuTTY.
Where I am now, I've even got Gimp.
Not likely. A spammer probably wouldn't have the problem in the first place, because their own maching wouldn't be sending out the emails. That's what botnets are for. The security people were more likely just sceptical that the caller was bright enough to fix such a problem. Which is hardly unfair...I've worked in tech support - not that it shouldn't be obvious to anyone on the internet - but most people are clueless. The assumption that someone dumb enough to get infected would be unable to fix the problem it is quite reasonable.
I think one thing that's being missed is the internet in Egypt isn't exactly speedy to begin with. Even small downloaders would be used to starting a download and leaving it for a long time.
Have you ever taught courses in how to use office? Some people can just sit down with a program and push buttons until it works. What's more, they use a lot of shortcut keys, so the impact of the interface change isn't all that relevant. The cost of any change for them is basically a small drop in productivity for about a week while they figure everything out. These people are advanced users. It's the average users that are the problem. Most office users, though, while they've adapted to computers, are still uncomfortable with them. You change the location of a button and they'll need someone to actually come over and show them how to use it. For commonly used functions, this is a small hassle, but for functions that are only used occasionally...If it comes up shortly after the rollout, you'll be fine, but further down the road, the average user will think "I know how to do this, I've done it before," and then spend the next 30-60 minutes trying to figure it out before they summon help. Not good for productivity. Having taught Office classes, I'd have to say that any change is going to cause disruption, but for the average user, a change in appearance is going to have a more significant impact than a change in the back end. In both excel and word, the functions used by average users tend to be in the same places (at least prior to 2007) as their OOo equivalents, and so I would that Office 2003 -> OOo would be a less traumatic change in most offices than an Office upgrade. An office full of power users would be a different story.
It's a tired old argument because it's not related to CC. It is commercial use, so the CC license doesn't apply...the right to commercial use is reserved. So we fall back to copyright. But copyright law includes fair use clauses. And search engine use of web material is now clearly established in most jurisdictions as fair use.
A degree gets you in the door for a job....regardless of what it is in often...you have to have one these days to get a good job. Since entering the working world, I've realised that this is patently untrue. There's specific areas where degrees are required - think engineering, medicine, those sorts of things. But people with general (or no commercial value) degrees are being hired into the same jobs as people without degrees. Decent, white collar jobs for sure, and yes, for further advancement an education is required. But what I discovered is that while my peers with degrees are getting paid the same as me, they have tens of thousands of dollars in debt that I don't have, and yet I can now get the education I need for promotions on the company dime. This myth of a degree being a requirement of a decent job is just that - a myth.
You're right. I got sucked back into the trap of arguing why software patents shouldn't exist at all, though the two topics are related. Certainly, patenting e-commerce would have, at one point, been a valid patent. I would still argue that one-click isn't.
I, for one. I first got internet access in 1995. Yes, the web was young. And ugly. E-commerce in general was innovative, and I'm sure Amazon was involved in some pretty innovative stuff. One-click, however, was still an obvious option, just not previously implemented. Just imagine if the very first e-commerce site had patented the concept, which actually was pretty innovative.
The two issues get conflated because Amazon's one-click patent - which really is an obvious development, not an innovation - is an excellent example of why there shouldn't be software patents, doubly so if it does finally clear all the hurdles.
Doesn't matter. A murder charge can be placed against someone who either intends to kill, or shows a willful disregard for life. Dispatching a SWAT team, knowing full well that in a tense situation like a SWAT raid, there's the distinct possibiility someone might come out in a body bag, certainly seems to fit the latter. Cops are trained in such a way that they can usually take control of the situation without firing shots (this would be the Tactics part of the acronym), so the odds of a death aren't high, but there's so many ways things can go south, that it's certainly irresponsible enough to merit a murder charge if someone does die.
We shouldn't. Really, the correct response to unreasonable copensation on a pro-rich people law is to fix the bad law, not right equally unreasonable payouts into a pro-average joe law. A law that makes it easier for victims to fix things up and get compensation for their losses and time is reasonable. Even some modest punitive damages are reasonable. But stupid sized compensations like those under the DMCA just give the green light to write more laws with stupid compensation levels, and you may not like the next one.
When I signed up, I had to enter my password first into gmail to confirm, and then into facebook for it to grab my contacts. The second step was skippable. That was only a couple weeks ago. You sure you didn't do that?
Definately glad my votes are still marked with an X. This whole concept of automating elections just screws things up.
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft Missed one.