When I saw your comment about flirting, it immediately reminded me of my experience patronizing a particular pretzel chain last weekend. My wife and I placed our order, and we were told, "We make those fresh, so it's going to take about 7-8 minutes." We said alright, sat down, and waited. With four workers behind the counter, all female, I didn't expect it to take too long. But as soon as we sit down, Mr. "I dropped out of high school because I look this good" walked up and leaned against the counter. And all that estrogen ran to him like rats to limburger. Except for the one girl in the back... She did all the pretzel rolling...all the baking...all the packaging...and 15 minutes later, we had our order.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all a fan of Mr. Moneybags replacing all his workers with computers & robots, keeping all the profits, and putting them in offshore accounts until he can repatriate the money at a meager 7.5% tax. I'm also not a fan of Mr. Moneybags not paying American workers anymore who are unemployed and unable to buy pretzels at Mr. Moneybags's pretzel shop, drying up the American economy. What that establishment, and every establishment, needs is good management.
From the abstract... Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made...The experience of choice is susceptible to “postdictive” influence and that people may systematically overestimate the role that consciousness plays in their chosen behavior.
Free will is too heavy a term for what's at play here. These methods of study simply show that our freedom of choice does not mean that we choose at random. And that's been studied and experimented with, debated by philosophers throughout human history, and has popped up even on Slashdot. As my first source clearly says, "One of the worst ways to generate 'random' numbers is to ask somebody to write down some numbers 'at random'. It won't work...The human mind is built for patterns; it doesn't like boring repititions." Just because we have the freedom to choose, a.k.a. "free will," does not guarantee our choices is random.
This experiment just shows that, when we aren't given enough time for the "consciousness circuitry" within our minds to make its choice, other circuitry in our minds take over and make for some interesting results. Maybe, instead of debating whether or not free will exists, we should instead attempt to analyze what cranial pathways are taking over. I'd be very interested to know what portions of the mind take over when it's forced to make split-second decisions, then measure whether or not these decisions are more accurate, or in what ways, compared to the "I've had time to think about it, and I've concluded..." choices.
You're exactly right on the button. Political parties are private institutions, and they can make whatever rules they want. Super-delegates, uncommitted delegates, state-by-state rules... hell, they can throw darts at a dartboard or draw names out of a hat for all I care. They make the rules for their party, and they have every right to do so.
Only a minority of states even had a primary prior to 1972. It was the mess of a 1968 Democratic Convention and nomination of Hubert Humphrey after not having won a single state primary that pushed both parties for nationalization of the state primary process. But, just because it's a national process doesn't mean it needs to be a democratic one. Major news networks are so starving for every iota of election coverage that they make primaries sound like elections. They're not; nothing in the Constitution mandates or even mentions them. The only thing citizens should be concerned about is the limits the reigning political parties have put in place making it near-impossible for any other individual or party to participate in the presidential election.
We just need to stop these polls. We're asking Americans who just don't understand the political process what they think about it. Their answers are going to be misguided, and we shouldn't consider the poll results any more valid than asking Pacific Islanders what ice is best for making an igloo.
From the article...This group of CEOs, governors and educators is...saying that this issue can be addressed without growing the federal budget..."We’ll use the money to train over 25,000 public school teachers to introduce computer science to students who would otherwise never have this opportunity.”
This group appears to claim that no additional money needs to be spent if we can use the existing teacher workforce to teach computer science. If that's the case, what will those teachers no longer teach? I mean, it's not like teachers are sitting around all day with nothing to do. Should we pull math teachers, and just teach less math? Or maybe the music teachers? We can always teach less music, and I'm sure music teachers will have no troubles learning how to code, right? And certainly these coders will be top quality, having been trained by the best math teachers and music teachers our country has to offer.
I wish government officials could realize one day that there's never an educational initiative that comes without a cost. Training costs money. People cost money. Computers cost money. Electricity costs money. Time costs money. So tell this group of CEOs, governors and educators not to put another single unfunded mandate onto the table until they fund the ones they've been mandating so far.
Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution...Mayoral candidates in London...call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."
Here's another idea: how about we do not limit emission tests to only laboratory settings? That would send the message to all manufacturers that they can no longer cheat, but it doesn't deprive individuals of the choice to drive Diesel.
Just like a politician...kiss the babies to get elected, then promise to throw them out with the bathwater once in office.
Coincidentally, I just came across this Ted talk from Alex Winter the other day. It was most excellent. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) He made a very compelling argument for the value of privacy in the marketplace, why Dark Web vendors such as Silk Road (which he made a documentary on) and others are battling to protect it, and why privacy needs to be protected.
Are you happy right now with private businesses, credit bureaus, banks, and the government all logging, monitoring, and referencing your entire financial history? Would you like it any more if any of these institutions were hacked, and all your data was made public? If you aren't, then you should be mourning the loss of a private marketplace.
Just the other day I had a conversation with an 11th grade student and a science teacher about global warming. Turns out, the students were doing a research essay on the subject, one page, and the teacher accepts every paper that's backed up with good sources. And they have a good conversation even evaluating some of the sources. He openly tells students that he firmly believes global warming is real, but it's an open dialog with students.
Not every school discourages open conversation regarding climate change. And I'm equally frustrated that there's just as much closed-minded fervor from both sides of the conversation.
In my study of the topic, I've concluded that climate change is happening, and humans are partially responsible for the change. But the Earth has ways of compensating for the change, though some of these compensations will necessitate either adaptations or extensions from all walks of human life. We humans have had such success in adapting to our environment that we should have no troubles adjusting, but ironically, we resist change. In order to adapt, we need to talk about the changes taking place and how to respond to them accordingly. That's becoming incredibly difficult; climate-change believers are so self-righteous, they feel humans need to take full responsibility for its existence and pretentiously claim we have to "undo" it all; and climate-change deniers don't want to accept any responsibility at all, especially due to the costs.
Climate is changing every moment of every day, and the complete calculus that is climate is so complex, it's nothing short of arrogance to think we alone are at fault. Milankovich cycles. Volcanic vents. Solar output.Water vapor. Not to mention butterflies, methane emissions from cattle (and don't forget buffalo), forest fires, surface volcanic eruptions, and who knows what else. The only explanation I have for taking a ~30 year warming trend within the billions of years of our planet's existence and constituting it as a global crisis is because we humans like to imagine that we're in control of this world. But we're not.
It angers me even further that, just because there's so much in this world that we do not and cannot control, there's no good reason -not- to do what we can to clean up our planet. Until we can find another one to take its place, and find a way to get a subset of the human population there, this is the only one we have. So let's not fuck it up.
And then the downloads began: 14 seasons of MythBusters; 24 seasons of The Simpsons; the entire Wikipedia database; Microsoft software for his job; updates for his Xbox games; and "a lot of random other stuff". He also synced all his Spotify playlists offline..."It's always movie/TV night at my house at the moment."
With all that binge-watching, when does he ever has any time to do his job?
Who says you need to use YouTube? Who says YouTube has to change what it has become to please you? What did everyone do when they weren't happy with MySpace?
Switch.
Pick your poison. Vimeo. Daily Motion. Veoh. Hell, even Zippcast is still there. And maybe, just maybe, if it's a good enough service, we might turn one of those into the next Facebook.
Yes, I did, three years ago. And for a lot less than $200. Five terminations total (three bedrooms, living room, & basement rec room). 250' of 5e by Sewell for $40 (it's even cheaper now), connectors and wall jacks for another $30, and $10 for some cable fasteners and 1-gang boxes from the local hardware store. It helped a lot that my basement was unfinished at the time. Finally, a simple $50 dual-band wireless router w/ a 4-port switch, and I was done. $130 total, plus my own time. (Though, you do probably need to spend another $30 on tools, unless you borrow from a buddy / the workplace.)
Because it's versatile. With the right tools, it's incredibly easy to terminate and repair in the field. Parts are cheap. And I can crimp any length cable whenever I need it.
But copper has its limits. To get beyond those limits, pair twists are tighter, cables are getting thicker, pull specs more delicate, and installation more complex. As conductors get thicker and shielding becomes mandatory, backwards compatibility is proving a challenge. We're now at the point where manufacturers like Leviton are engineering prefabricated connectors with built-in wiring to be fitted on a neck connector in which rests the cable's conductors. Shrink the head, and it'll have to be prefabricated like this.
Sure, we can make smaller connector heads, but at increased cost and decreased versatility. If we do, why stop there? If we're going to redo the connector, why not the entire cable? Would it even be possible to re-engineer the twisted pair cable to give us the same performance and versatility but shrink its diameter and reduce its delicacy?
The most insightful thing Curt Carver says is at the very beginning of his article:
Candidly, the people that have been loyal to the organization, that are active employees, that are eager and hungry to learn – those are the ones that I’m willing to invest in to keep.
What he doesn't get is that Silicon Valley is the antithesis of that. There was a time where Silicon Valley didn't exist, and IBM and Bell Labs were king. According to this PBS Documentary, the culture at that time was that talent was nurtured, not bought. You got your desk, you were a pencil pusher, and if you had ambition, you climbed the ladder, but you remained loyal to the company that provided for you. Then William Shockley broke away from Bell Labs, ventured out to California to make them a reality, and formed Shockley Semiconductor Laboratories. In a twist of irony, the very people he recruited to break ranks from Bell Labs (The "Traitorous Eight" as they came to be called, quit to form their own company, Fairchild Semiconductor. (And exactly 18 months later, interestingly.)
Silicon Valley has always been about venturists who seek opportunity wherever they can find it. If that's Silicon Valley's own undoing, so be it. Let the snake consume its own tail.
There's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity".
I understand your feelings about immunity, but it's a very important and necessary process in obtaining testimony. The Illustrated Guide to Law does a very good job in explaining all the reasons why immunity is used, but here's a short paraphrase:
1) Everyone has the constitutional right to refuse to testify when said testimony can be used to incriminate oneself (now or in the future) of a crime. 2) The only means of forcing a witness to provide self-incriminating testimony is to grant them immunity from incrimination. 3) Deciding whether or not to grant immunity all comes down to what is more important for the prosecuting agent: prosecuting the witness or obtaining the witness's testimony.
In this case, we all know they want to see Clinton hanging from a rope; a low-level tech is not on their radar. They want the testimony, and they want it badly; therefore, they offer immunity.
I don't want a jerk -or- a corporate puppet. Sadly, the GOP doesn't appear to be all that concerned with finding someone that doesn't fit into at least one of those categories. I almost think they purposefully encourage candidates like Dr. Carson to apply to make the jerks and puppets look that much more appealing.
When it comes to the position of the President of the United States, I don't believe a "lesser of two evils" strategy should ever be presented as an option.
...I mean, after all, as a school technology director, I've been playing that cat-and-mouse game with Facebook, etc. for 10 years. Block facebook.com, students figure out the "https" workaround...block all Facebook IPs, students use proxies...block all proxies, facebook.com now accessible w/ new IP address...neverending game of whack-a-mole.
And you just keep playing the game. As long as you make the efforts, you can say you're doing what you can, and that covers your back.
First, self incrimination, i.e. the 5th amendment, has absolutely no bearing on this case. If a police officer, prosecutor, congressional tribunal, what-have-you, asks you a question that may be used to incriminate you of a crime, you have the right to say, "I plead the 5th." But your constitutional protections end there; they have every right to look for evidence that may incriminate you outside of your own self. In this matter, we have a phone. It's not a person. It is an object that presents itself as evidence, ergo it may be used as such.
Second, and more difficult to accept, the 4th amendment has no bearing on this case either. The 4th amendment protects an individual's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It begins and ends with the individual. This phone was not unlawfully seized. It didn't even belong to the individual; it belonged to the company he worked for. And the company who owns the property surrendered it willingly to law enforcement. (Side tangent lesson: don't ever use a company phone EVER for anything other than business. It may be used against you for any crime.)
Third, I don't see how treason plays into any of this. Article III, section 3 defines treason as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The charges I believe Apple will be facing is Obstruction of Justice, as, from the perception of the government, they are interfering with an investigation. And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511, which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with a court order directing such assistance."
Apple is trying to set a new precedent, one I would consider a push-back for all the illegal surveillance the US Government has done over the last fifteen years. They are attempting to make digital-communication-evidence-gathering impossible if an individual so wills it. I don't know whether they'll be successful or not.
For the record, I am not a lawyer, but it's my country and my laws as much as the rest of yours, so I feel responsible to understand them.
what needs to be taught differently in early math so that students will enjoy it?
Here's my answer...from the perspective of a licensed math teacher in the state of Minnesota, plus the father of a two-year-old and an 18-year-old...
1) Teach parents how to teach their children. As a teacher, when I conferenced with parents, there was always a high likelihood that students that struggled with math had parents struggle as well. (And they would openly admit this, sometimes even with pride. It was very common for parents to say things like, "I don't get the stuff myself, and I'm doing fine, so why does my child need to learn it?) With my 18-year-old, every question he asked about math, I could answer, so nothing held him back. My 18-year-old isn't brilliant in math, but he's not afraid of it and knows how to use it.
2) Teach elementary teachers how to teach their students. In the US, most elementary teachers are general educators responsible to instruct in all subject areas. Teachers who are disinterested in one or more of those areas, especially mathematics, do not display the enthusiasm and joy that teachers need to radiate for students to absorb. In addition, those teachers lack a deep understanding of the subject which is necessary even at the elementary level to answer all the questions children have on the subject. (I myself had one teacher in 3rd grade who often responded to my questions with, "Because that's the way it works, dear.")
3) Fix and enrich the curriculum. American curricula is difficult and frustrating, because it is "created" by state governments but authored and published by private textbook companies. The left hand never really understands what the right hand is doing. In addition, neither body really has any true educational knowledge or experience, leaving the final product often minimal, inconsistent, and unpractical, not to mention unpalatable. Finally, it continues to change each election cycle, making teaching it that much more difficult.
4) Empower teachers as professionals. Even with a poor curriculum, It's up to each and every school and even teacher to decide how to teach the course material, as long as standards are followed. So, each and every day across the country teachers have to reinvent the wheel, finding their own way of making their lessons effective. Teach teachers how to evaluate the efficacy of lessons, and give them time to collaborate with their fellow teachers, within their district and within their state, to evolve the curriculum in a way that works not just in one classroom, but in thousands.
I'm another active slashdot user since '99. I'd also hate to see it go away. And to resonate what you just said, I think it's quite marvelous that a post about Slashdot being sold has become a post about what Slashdot is and what we'd like to see it become. Not to mention the fact that it's already has 650+ posts. I appreciate our community caring about our community.
And I appreciate the BIZX owner who was interviewed who had this to say: “What impressed us about Slashdot was the quality of the typical community member and how truly informed and educated they were on a wide variety of discussion topics that directly relate to today’s relevant tech news. There’s a lot more noise on the Internet now than there was when Slashdot was created, but we think the Slashdot user base is one of the most knowledgeable and informed communities anywhere on the web. We ultimately plan to listen to the community.” I hope that means he understands the community and appreciates its value. Yes, he intends to make money, but let's hope he does it in a way that doesn't destroy the community.
As a technology director and math teacher in the state of Minnesota, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute my perspective to this community, and I value the perspective of others who also contribute to it. Despite Slashdot's many struggles and failures, its community remains vibrant. BIZX, please don't destroy that.
Slashdot Mirror
When I saw your comment about flirting, it immediately reminded me of my experience patronizing a particular pretzel chain last weekend. My wife and I placed our order, and we were told, "We make those fresh, so it's going to take about 7-8 minutes." We said alright, sat down, and waited. With four workers behind the counter, all female, I didn't expect it to take too long. But as soon as we sit down, Mr. "I dropped out of high school because I look this good" walked up and leaned against the counter. And all that estrogen ran to him like rats to limburger. Except for the one girl in the back... She did all the pretzel rolling...all the baking...all the packaging...and 15 minutes later, we had our order.
But don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all a fan of Mr. Moneybags replacing all his workers with computers & robots, keeping all the profits, and putting them in offshore accounts until he can repatriate the money at a meager 7.5% tax. I'm also not a fan of Mr. Moneybags not paying American workers anymore who are unemployed and unable to buy pretzels at Mr. Moneybags's pretzel shop, drying up the American economy. What that establishment, and every establishment, needs is good management.
From the abstract... Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made...The experience of choice is susceptible to “postdictive” influence and that people may systematically overestimate the role that consciousness plays in their chosen behavior.
Free will is too heavy a term for what's at play here. These methods of study simply show that our freedom of choice does not mean that we choose at random. And that's been studied and experimented with, debated by philosophers throughout human history, and has popped up even on Slashdot. As my first source clearly says, "One of the worst ways to generate 'random' numbers is to ask somebody to write down some numbers 'at random'. It won't work...The human mind is built for patterns; it doesn't like boring repititions." Just because we have the freedom to choose, a.k.a. "free will," does not guarantee our choices is random.
This experiment just shows that, when we aren't given enough time for the "consciousness circuitry" within our minds to make its choice, other circuitry in our minds take over and make for some interesting results. Maybe, instead of debating whether or not free will exists, we should instead attempt to analyze what cranial pathways are taking over. I'd be very interested to know what portions of the mind take over when it's forced to make split-second decisions, then measure whether or not these decisions are more accurate, or in what ways, compared to the "I've had time to think about it, and I've concluded..." choices.
We are going to give you things you can't live without that you just don't know you need today.
Apple's new slogan: "We give you solutions in need of problems."
You're exactly right on the button. Political parties are private institutions, and they can make whatever rules they want. Super-delegates, uncommitted delegates, state-by-state rules ... hell, they can throw darts at a dartboard or draw names out of a hat for all I care. They make the rules for their party, and they have every right to do so.
Only a minority of states even had a primary prior to 1972. It was the mess of a 1968 Democratic Convention and nomination of Hubert Humphrey after not having won a single state primary that pushed both parties for nationalization of the state primary process. But, just because it's a national process doesn't mean it needs to be a democratic one. Major news networks are so starving for every iota of election coverage that they make primaries sound like elections. They're not; nothing in the Constitution mandates or even mentions them. The only thing citizens should be concerned about is the limits the reigning political parties have put in place making it near-impossible for any other individual or party to participate in the presidential election.
We just need to stop these polls. We're asking Americans who just don't understand the political process what they think about it. Their answers are going to be misguided, and we shouldn't consider the poll results any more valid than asking Pacific Islanders what ice is best for making an igloo.
From the article...This group of CEOs, governors and educators is...saying that this issue can be addressed without growing the federal budget..."We’ll use the money to train over 25,000 public school teachers to introduce computer science to students who would otherwise never have this opportunity.”
This group appears to claim that no additional money needs to be spent if we can use the existing teacher workforce to teach computer science. If that's the case, what will those teachers no longer teach? I mean, it's not like teachers are sitting around all day with nothing to do. Should we pull math teachers, and just teach less math? Or maybe the music teachers? We can always teach less music, and I'm sure music teachers will have no troubles learning how to code, right? And certainly these coders will be top quality, having been trained by the best math teachers and music teachers our country has to offer.
I wish government officials could realize one day that there's never an educational initiative that comes without a cost. Training costs money. People cost money. Computers cost money. Electricity costs money. Time costs money. So tell this group of CEOs, governors and educators not to put another single unfunded mandate onto the table until they fund the ones they've been mandating so far.
Diesel cars must meet an official EU limit for NOx but are only tested in a laboratory under fixed conditions. All vehicles sold pass this regulation but, when taken out on to real roads, almost all emit far more pollution...Mayoral candidates in London...call for tighter controls on polluting traffic -- including a ban on diesel cars."
Here's another idea: how about we do not limit emission tests to only laboratory settings? That would send the message to all manufacturers that they can no longer cheat, but it doesn't deprive individuals of the choice to drive Diesel.
Just like a politician...kiss the babies to get elected, then promise to throw them out with the bathwater once in office.
...I'm sure that's great news for Energizer and Duracell.
Coincidentally, I just came across this Ted talk from Alex Winter the other day. It was most excellent. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) He made a very compelling argument for the value of privacy in the marketplace, why Dark Web vendors such as Silk Road (which he made a documentary on) and others are battling to protect it, and why privacy needs to be protected.
Are you happy right now with private businesses, credit bureaus, banks, and the government all logging, monitoring, and referencing your entire financial history? Would you like it any more if any of these institutions were hacked, and all your data was made public? If you aren't, then you should be mourning the loss of a private marketplace.
But I think the fairest analogy would be this: I'd conclude that Bill Nye is as much a scientist as Sarah Palin is a politician.
At $100 million, that's roughly the cost of 40 airstrikes against ISIS. It's too bad we're such a trigger-happy country, we aren't willing to let our thumbs rest for two weeks and use the money we saved to launch a scientific mission instead.
Just the other day I had a conversation with an 11th grade student and a science teacher about global warming. Turns out, the students were doing a research essay on the subject, one page, and the teacher accepts every paper that's backed up with good sources. And they have a good conversation even evaluating some of the sources. He openly tells students that he firmly believes global warming is real, but it's an open dialog with students.
Not every school discourages open conversation regarding climate change. And I'm equally frustrated that there's just as much closed-minded fervor from both sides of the conversation.
In my study of the topic, I've concluded that climate change is happening, and humans are partially responsible for the change. But the Earth has ways of compensating for the change, though some of these compensations will necessitate either adaptations or extensions from all walks of human life. We humans have had such success in adapting to our environment that we should have no troubles adjusting, but ironically, we resist change. In order to adapt, we need to talk about the changes taking place and how to respond to them accordingly. That's becoming incredibly difficult; climate-change believers are so self-righteous, they feel humans need to take full responsibility for its existence and pretentiously claim we have to "undo" it all; and climate-change deniers don't want to accept any responsibility at all, especially due to the costs.
Climate is changing every moment of every day, and the complete calculus that is climate is so complex, it's nothing short of arrogance to think we alone are at fault. Milankovich cycles. Volcanic vents. Solar output. Water vapor. Not to mention butterflies, methane emissions from cattle (and don't forget buffalo), forest fires, surface volcanic eruptions, and who knows what else. The only explanation I have for taking a ~30 year warming trend within the billions of years of our planet's existence and constituting it as a global crisis is because we humans like to imagine that we're in control of this world. But we're not.
It angers me even further that, just because there's so much in this world that we do not and cannot control, there's no good reason -not- to do what we can to clean up our planet. Until we can find another one to take its place, and find a way to get a subset of the human population there, this is the only one we have. So let's not fuck it up.
From the article...
And then the downloads began: 14 seasons of MythBusters; 24 seasons of The Simpsons; the entire Wikipedia database; Microsoft software for his job; updates for his Xbox games; and "a lot of random other stuff". He also synced all his Spotify playlists offline..."It's always movie/TV night at my house at the moment."
With all that binge-watching, when does he ever has any time to do his job?
Does that mean that the down payment is actually $8?
Who says you need to use YouTube? Who says YouTube has to change what it has become to please you? What did everyone do when they weren't happy with MySpace?
Switch.
Pick your poison. Vimeo. Daily Motion. Veoh. Hell, even Zippcast is still there. And maybe, just maybe, if it's a good enough service, we might turn one of those into the next Facebook.
Yes, I did, three years ago. And for a lot less than $200. Five terminations total (three bedrooms, living room, & basement rec room). 250' of 5e by Sewell for $40 (it's even cheaper now), connectors and wall jacks for another $30, and $10 for some cable fasteners and 1-gang boxes from the local hardware store. It helped a lot that my basement was unfinished at the time. Finally, a simple $50 dual-band wireless router w/ a 4-port switch, and I was done. $130 total, plus my own time. (Though, you do probably need to spend another $30 on tools, unless you borrow from a buddy / the workplace.)
Because it's versatile. With the right tools, it's incredibly easy to terminate and repair in the field. Parts are cheap. And I can crimp any length cable whenever I need it.
But copper has its limits. To get beyond those limits, pair twists are tighter, cables are getting thicker, pull specs more delicate, and installation more complex. As conductors get thicker and shielding becomes mandatory, backwards compatibility is proving a challenge. We're now at the point where manufacturers like Leviton are engineering prefabricated connectors with built-in wiring to be fitted on a neck connector in which rests the cable's conductors. Shrink the head, and it'll have to be prefabricated like this.
Sure, we can make smaller connector heads, but at increased cost and decreased versatility. If we do, why stop there? If we're going to redo the connector, why not the entire cable? Would it even be possible to re-engineer the twisted pair cable to give us the same performance and versatility but shrink its diameter and reduce its delicacy?
If you keep this up, we soon will run out of things to complain about.
Or are you just being this good, because you have a plan to bring back Jon Katz?
The most insightful thing Curt Carver says is at the very beginning of his article:
Candidly, the people that have been loyal to the organization, that are active employees, that are eager and hungry to learn – those are the ones that I’m willing to invest in to keep.
What he doesn't get is that Silicon Valley is the antithesis of that. There was a time where Silicon Valley didn't exist, and IBM and Bell Labs were king. According to this PBS Documentary, the culture at that time was that talent was nurtured, not bought. You got your desk, you were a pencil pusher, and if you had ambition, you climbed the ladder, but you remained loyal to the company that provided for you. Then William Shockley broke away from Bell Labs, ventured out to California to make them a reality, and formed Shockley Semiconductor Laboratories. In a twist of irony, the very people he recruited to break ranks from Bell Labs (The "Traitorous Eight" as they came to be called, quit to form their own company, Fairchild Semiconductor. (And exactly 18 months later, interestingly.)
Silicon Valley has always been about venturists who seek opportunity wherever they can find it. If that's Silicon Valley's own undoing, so be it. Let the snake consume its own tail.
There's something sinister about a justice system that feels it necessary to "grant immunity".
I understand your feelings about immunity, but it's a very important and necessary process in obtaining testimony. The Illustrated Guide to Law does a very good job in explaining all the reasons why immunity is used, but here's a short paraphrase:
1) Everyone has the constitutional right to refuse to testify when said testimony can be used to incriminate oneself (now or in the future) of a crime.
2) The only means of forcing a witness to provide self-incriminating testimony is to grant them immunity from incrimination.
3) Deciding whether or not to grant immunity all comes down to what is more important for the prosecuting agent: prosecuting the witness or obtaining the witness's testimony.
In this case, we all know they want to see Clinton hanging from a rope; a low-level tech is not on their radar. They want the testimony, and they want it badly; therefore, they offer immunity.
I don't want a jerk -or- a corporate puppet. Sadly, the GOP doesn't appear to be all that concerned with finding someone that doesn't fit into at least one of those categories. I almost think they purposefully encourage candidates like Dr. Carson to apply to make the jerks and puppets look that much more appealing.
When it comes to the position of the President of the United States, I don't believe a "lesser of two evils" strategy should ever be presented as an option.
...I mean, after all, as a school technology director, I've been playing that cat-and-mouse game with Facebook, etc. for 10 years. Block facebook.com, students figure out the "https" workaround...block all Facebook IPs, students use proxies...block all proxies, facebook.com now accessible w/ new IP address...neverending game of whack-a-mole.
And you just keep playing the game. As long as you make the efforts, you can say you're doing what you can, and that covers your back.
A few lessons on the 4th and 5th amendments...
First, self incrimination, i.e. the 5th amendment, has absolutely no bearing on this case. If a police officer, prosecutor, congressional tribunal, what-have-you, asks you a question that may be used to incriminate you of a crime, you have the right to say, "I plead the 5th." But your constitutional protections end there; they have every right to look for evidence that may incriminate you outside of your own self. In this matter, we have a phone. It's not a person. It is an object that presents itself as evidence, ergo it may be used as such.
Second, and more difficult to accept, the 4th amendment has no bearing on this case either. The 4th amendment protects an individual's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It begins and ends with the individual. This phone was not unlawfully seized. It didn't even belong to the individual; it belonged to the company he worked for. And the company who owns the property surrendered it willingly to law enforcement. (Side tangent lesson: don't ever use a company phone EVER for anything other than business. It may be used against you for any crime.)
Third, I don't see how treason plays into any of this. Article III, section 3 defines treason as "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The charges I believe Apple will be facing is Obstruction of Justice, as, from the perception of the government, they are interfering with an investigation. And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511, which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with a court order directing such assistance."
Apple is trying to set a new precedent, one I would consider a push-back for all the illegal surveillance the US Government has done over the last fifteen years. They are attempting to make digital-communication-evidence-gathering impossible if an individual so wills it. I don't know whether they'll be successful or not.
For the record, I am not a lawyer, but it's my country and my laws as much as the rest of yours, so I feel responsible to understand them.
what needs to be taught differently in early math so that students will enjoy it?
Here's my answer...from the perspective of a licensed math teacher in the state of Minnesota, plus the father of a two-year-old and an 18-year-old...
1) Teach parents how to teach their children. As a teacher, when I conferenced with parents, there was always a high likelihood that students that struggled with math had parents struggle as well. (And they would openly admit this, sometimes even with pride. It was very common for parents to say things like, "I don't get the stuff myself, and I'm doing fine, so why does my child need to learn it?) With my 18-year-old, every question he asked about math, I could answer, so nothing held him back. My 18-year-old isn't brilliant in math, but he's not afraid of it and knows how to use it.
2) Teach elementary teachers how to teach their students. In the US, most elementary teachers are general educators responsible to instruct in all subject areas. Teachers who are disinterested in one or more of those areas, especially mathematics, do not display the enthusiasm and joy that teachers need to radiate for students to absorb. In addition, those teachers lack a deep understanding of the subject which is necessary even at the elementary level to answer all the questions children have on the subject. (I myself had one teacher in 3rd grade who often responded to my questions with, "Because that's the way it works, dear.")
3) Fix and enrich the curriculum. American curricula is difficult and frustrating, because it is "created" by state governments but authored and published by private textbook companies. The left hand never really understands what the right hand is doing. In addition, neither body really has any true educational knowledge or experience, leaving the final product often minimal, inconsistent, and unpractical, not to mention unpalatable. Finally, it continues to change each election cycle, making teaching it that much more difficult.
4) Empower teachers as professionals. Even with a poor curriculum, It's up to each and every school and even teacher to decide how to teach the course material, as long as standards are followed. So, each and every day across the country teachers have to reinvent the wheel, finding their own way of making their lessons effective. Teach teachers how to evaluate the efficacy of lessons, and give them time to collaborate with their fellow teachers, within their district and within their state, to evolve the curriculum in a way that works not just in one classroom, but in thousands.
...But if I was him, I'd give Trump all the rope he needs to hang himself with.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm another active slashdot user since '99. I'd also hate to see it go away. And to resonate what you just said, I think it's quite marvelous that a post about Slashdot being sold has become a post about what Slashdot is and what we'd like to see it become. Not to mention the fact that it's already has 650+ posts. I appreciate our community caring about our community.
And I appreciate the BIZX owner who was interviewed who had this to say: “What impressed us about Slashdot was the quality of the typical community member and how truly informed and educated they were on a wide variety of discussion topics that directly relate to today’s relevant tech news. There’s a lot more noise on the Internet now than there was when Slashdot was created, but we think the Slashdot user base is one of the most knowledgeable and informed communities anywhere on the web. We ultimately plan to listen to the community.” I hope that means he understands the community and appreciates its value. Yes, he intends to make money, but let's hope he does it in a way that doesn't destroy the community.
As a technology director and math teacher in the state of Minnesota, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute my perspective to this community, and I value the perspective of others who also contribute to it. Despite Slashdot's many struggles and failures, its community remains vibrant. BIZX, please don't destroy that.