What part of "There have been several studies..." falls into "Anecdotes. Anecdotes." Or were you referring to your experience?
I can match your anecdotes with ones that demonstrate the opposite. That is why I use the studies to make my case.
So, you believe that children will develop more desirable social traits by learning how to interact with others from other children than they would by learning from adults? Public schooled children generally learn how to interact with others form other children with little or no intervention from adults. Home schooled children generally learn how to interact with others because of adult correction of inappropriate behavior.
Depends on how you define desirable. To me that includes being able to cope with all the fucktards in the world, which homeschooling lowers their exposure to.
I define desirable as not being one of the fucktards in the world. I think that public schools do a wonderful job of teaching children to be fucktards, but not so much about teaching them not to be.
Second, you do realize that the first thing that happens when they get out of your 'supervision' is they do all the shit they would have done before to try it out. Theres a reason for stereo types like 'catholic school girls'.
What does that have to do with being homeschooled? I am not sure if you realize but 'catholic school girls' aren't home schooled. What makes you think that children who are home schooled are always under their parents supervision?
You go ahead and keep reading studies by people who don't have any children or first hand experience.
I know quite a few parents who home schooled their children. In my experience, their children are unfailingly better prepared to be productive members of society than the typical child of the same age and demographic who attended public school for their entire schooling. So, in addition to various studies, I, also, have my personal experience. Do you know anybody who was home schooled?
Actually, every reference I have been able to find says that you have to get certified as a teacher by the German government (or one of its states). Those references indicate that one must at least complete a 24 month training program in order to get that certification. So, it is not a matter of taking a test and demonstrating sufficient knowledge. A much more equitable method of determing whether parents could home school or not would be periodic testing of the children in question using tests that are also used for children in the state schools and penalizing the parents if the children do not pass.
Big fan of home schooling myself, however the biggest problem with home schooling isn't the quality of education. It is the lack of socialization. Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
Sorry, once again you have bought into the propaganda of the education establishment. There have been several studies that indicate that home schooled kids are better socialized (that is they are less likely to have sociopathic and/or psychopathic tendencies and are more likely to be well adjusted social individuals) than children who have gone through public schools.
This even makes sense if you think it through. First, most home school parents are part of home schooling groups so thier kids get social time with other children. Second, most "socialization" in schools occurs with minimal or no adult supervision. Do you really believe that children develop desirable social traits by learning how to interact with others from other children?
Also, it's not a "huge step backward" even if we agree with everything else you say, because it's what's on the iPhone. It's not backward, it's the same.
I thought this was a tablet computer. The Iphone is a phone combined with an Ipod, plus a few additional features, it is not a computer. I take it that you believe that the Ipad is just a large Ipod with additional functionality?
I hate to have to tell you this, but the government agencies that Sarah Palin referred to as "death panels" were created by the stimulus bill passed in February of 2009. They are panels that are supposed to determine what the most cost effective treatments are for various medical maladies and there is language in the bill to penalize doctors who prescribe treatment other than what those panels have concluded are the most cost effective.
Whether or not it is accurate to call them "death panels" is a matter of opinion, but the argument of conservatives is that, if the government is paying for healthcare, it is only a matter of time until those panels decide that it is not cost effective to keep people with certain health problems alive.
You expected "net neutrality" regulations to call for actual neutrality? Of course it was going to have some caveat in it to allow ISP's to regulate traffice the government doesn't want to flow.
Your average conservative hears nothing but Fox News, the conservative talk show crowd and the Tea Party Movement people,
Where do you get that idea? I go to a conservative news aggregation site that works by member submissions, it frequently has news articles from the NYT and the Washington Post as well as many other sites both conservative and liberal. Since these are articles get there by submission by the people who read the site and the overwhelming majority are conservatives, it is obvious that those conservatives read news from many sources, not just the ones that you seem to think that they rely on.
Where in the summary does it mention that Optimum Online subscribers get access for free? It, also, does not mention that subscribers to the print version get the online subscription for free (or the one or two other ways that people get free subscription to the online version). Based on the number of people on Long Island who get a free subscription to the online version of Newsday, this tells us nothing about paywalls. From reading the article (which I did on another site before it appeared here), just about everybody on Long Island (which means just about everybody in Newsday's target audience) gets free access to the Newsday website, so the key question is, who are these 35 people who subscribed?
No doubt the millions dying needlessly of AIDS and Malaria (etc) would find your statement a comforting explanation of why
big Pharma has no obligation to license their on-patent lifesaving drugs to low-cost (and even outright charitable)
manufacturers..
So, exactly why would big Pharma spend millions of dollars to develop a new drug, if they must give it away once it has been proven to work?
Are there problems with the patent system? Absolutely!! Would eliminating it entirely fix those problems without creating even worse problems? Not a chance!
Except that the article is not about GM buying then selling Saab. It is about Gm selling Saab rather than liquidating it. So the deal GM is taking a bath on is not the one in the article. GM bought Saab 20 years ago, there is no way for those outside of GM to accurately estimate how much value (if any) they extracted from Saab in those 20 years. As others have mentioned, GM took things engineered at Saab and used them in cars from other badges that they owned.
If they can't/won't do this, they should not have root privileges. People who have root privileges who are the type unable to do what it takes to get around Rogers' "fix", are usually the type who will get pwned. If they are just unwilling to do what it takes, then they don't need root.
My time is college was wonderful and educational and completely irrelevant to anything I have done since. The one job I had related to my degree, they could have taught someone out of high school to do with at most two more days of training over what they gave me. Most of my other jobs required that I have a Bachelor's Degree to get them, but nothing I learned in college was related to the job in any way.
As an engineering major, I'll assume that I fit in to the exception to your 'most' qualifier.
If, after you get your degree, you actually work as an engineer, then probably, but not necessarily. I know a story about a waste water treatment design by an engineer, for a company that my father worked for, that I could see the flaw in when I was in high school, but they needed plans signed off by an engineer, so that was what got built.
But, generally, an engineering degree actually indicates that the person holding it has been taught some practical knowledge that applies to the job they are hired for.
CompTIA certs only impress people who don't know anything, and are helpful to get you through the HR screening by pasting it on your resume.
That accurately describes most college IT degrees, actually.
That accurately describes most college degrees, most of the time they are necessary to get past HR screening, but tell you nothing about the qualifications of the individual in question.
You sum up the situation pretty well. I think the court was correct in this ruling. I, also, think the Warden was wrong. That is, the prison should be allowed to forbid prisoners from playing RPG's (or any other game) when the authorities believe it is warranted, however, the authorities were wrong in concluding that forbiding roleplaying games was warranted. If the prison was doing this because they had a case where some prisoners had used D&D (or some other RPG) as a cover for gang activity, I would fully support the prison's decision. In this case, they are just being stupid. However, that being said, based on what I have seen of the case, they are on sound legal basis to do so. Just because something is stupid, doesn't mean it is illegal.
Also most businesses self insure anyway. The little ones are too fly by night and poor to afford insurance and are judgment proof anyway, and the big ones take risks that are bigger than the insurers themselves and have large enough legal and lobbying departments to be above the law. So the only companies affected are vaguely medium sized. Think, like a small restaurant chain sized company, maybe a single plant manufacturing company.
So, companies that self-insure are on the hook for the entire cost of the security breach, which re-enforces my point. Insurance does not remove the market consequences to a company not protecting its data from a data breach.
I just think its ridiculous to bash a protocol that hasn't even been released when the alternative is to download a file from a complete stranger.
No, the alternative is to download an unmodifiable format file from a reliable source (like the band or the record company or Amazon), but instead this company wants those sources to go to an inherently less secure file format.
No more exploitable than downloading a file from anywhere ever would be. Less exploitable than those who download music for free off of torrents and P2P apps.
The difference being that when I download a new file, I know there is a potential that it will be malware rather than what I am looking for and can take steps to minimize the risk. With this new format, I have a file on my system that can be "updated" at any time by someone remotely, what makes you think it will only be "updatable" by authorized people?
Using the new technology, music labels and bands will be able to send updates to the music files – with tour dates, interviews or updates to social networking pages
They forgot to mention that this would also provide an exploit for malware writers to use to get into people's machines.
The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record...
Insurance covers most companies. Because of this, it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business..
The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit. That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk. That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system. SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "There have been several studies..." falls into "Anecdotes. Anecdotes." Or were you referring to your experience?
I can match your anecdotes with ones that demonstrate the opposite. That is why I use the studies to make my case.
So, you believe that children will develop more desirable social traits by learning how to interact with others from other children than they would by learning from adults? Public schooled children generally learn how to interact with others form other children with little or no intervention from adults. Home schooled children generally learn how to interact with others because of adult correction of inappropriate behavior.
Depends on how you define desirable. To me that includes being able to cope with all the fucktards in the world, which homeschooling lowers their exposure to.
I define desirable as not being one of the fucktards in the world. I think that public schools do a wonderful job of teaching children to be fucktards, but not so much about teaching them not to be.
Second, you do realize that the first thing that happens when they get out of your 'supervision' is they do all the shit they would have done before to try it out. Theres a reason for stereo types like 'catholic school girls'.
What does that have to do with being homeschooled? I am not sure if you realize but 'catholic school girls' aren't home schooled. What makes you think that children who are home schooled are always under their parents supervision?
You go ahead and keep reading studies by people who don't have any children or first hand experience.
I know quite a few parents who home schooled their children. In my experience, their children are unfailingly better prepared to be productive members of society than the typical child of the same age and demographic who attended public school for their entire schooling. So, in addition to various studies, I, also, have my personal experience. Do you know anybody who was home schooled?
Actually, every reference I have been able to find says that you have to get certified as a teacher by the German government (or one of its states). Those references indicate that one must at least complete a 24 month training program in order to get that certification. So, it is not a matter of taking a test and demonstrating sufficient knowledge. A much more equitable method of determing whether parents could home school or not would be periodic testing of the children in question using tests that are also used for children in the state schools and penalizing the parents if the children do not pass.
Big fan of home schooling myself, however the biggest problem with home schooling isn't the quality of education. It is the lack of socialization. Home school kids are massively underdeveloped socially, they miss out on a lot of cues that the rest of the population learned the hard way in social environment.
Sorry, once again you have bought into the propaganda of the education establishment. There have been several studies that indicate that home schooled kids are better socialized (that is they are less likely to have sociopathic and/or psychopathic tendencies and are more likely to be well adjusted social individuals) than children who have gone through public schools.
This even makes sense if you think it through. First, most home school parents are part of home schooling groups so thier kids get social time with other children. Second, most "socialization" in schools occurs with minimal or no adult supervision. Do you really believe that children develop desirable social traits by learning how to interact with others from other children?
Why on Earth would you list Beck and Palin and ignore Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow?
That's easy, everybody ignores Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. Although, that doesn't explain why he left out Jon Stewart.
Also, it's not a "huge step backward" even if we agree with everything else you say, because it's what's on the iPhone. It's not backward, it's the same.
I thought this was a tablet computer. The Iphone is a phone combined with an Ipod, plus a few additional features, it is not a computer. I take it that you believe that the Ipad is just a large Ipod with additional functionality?
The "death panels" are real. No, seriously!
I hate to have to tell you this, but the government agencies that Sarah Palin referred to as "death panels" were created by the stimulus bill passed in February of 2009. They are panels that are supposed to determine what the most cost effective treatments are for various medical maladies and there is language in the bill to penalize doctors who prescribe treatment other than what those panels have concluded are the most cost effective.
Whether or not it is accurate to call them "death panels" is a matter of opinion, but the argument of conservatives is that, if the government is paying for healthcare, it is only a matter of time until those panels decide that it is not cost effective to keep people with certain health problems alive.
You expected "net neutrality" regulations to call for actual neutrality? Of course it was going to have some caveat in it to allow ISP's to regulate traffice the government doesn't want to flow.
Your average conservative hears nothing but Fox News, the conservative talk show crowd and the Tea Party Movement people,
Where do you get that idea? I go to a conservative news aggregation site that works by member submissions, it frequently has news articles from the NYT and the Washington Post as well as many other sites both conservative and liberal. Since these are articles get there by submission by the people who read the site and the overwhelming majority are conservatives, it is obvious that those conservatives read news from many sources, not just the ones that you seem to think that they rely on.
Where in the summary does it mention that Optimum Online subscribers get access for free? It, also, does not mention that subscribers to the print version get the online subscription for free (or the one or two other ways that people get free subscription to the online version). Based on the number of people on Long Island who get a free subscription to the online version of Newsday, this tells us nothing about paywalls. From reading the article (which I did on another site before it appeared here), just about everybody on Long Island (which means just about everybody in Newsday's target audience) gets free access to the Newsday website, so the key question is, who are these 35 people who subscribed?
No doubt the millions dying needlessly of AIDS and Malaria (etc) would find your statement a comforting explanation of why big Pharma has no obligation to license their on-patent lifesaving drugs to low-cost (and even outright charitable) manufacturers. .
So, exactly why would big Pharma spend millions of dollars to develop a new drug, if they must give it away once it has been proven to work?
Are there problems with the patent system? Absolutely!! Would eliminating it entirely fix those problems without creating even worse problems? Not a chance!
Except that the article is not about GM buying then selling Saab. It is about Gm selling Saab rather than liquidating it. So the deal GM is taking a bath on is not the one in the article. GM bought Saab 20 years ago, there is no way for those outside of GM to accurately estimate how much value (if any) they extracted from Saab in those 20 years. As others have mentioned, GM took things engineered at Saab and used them in cars from other badges that they owned.
If they can't/won't do this, they should not have root privileges. People who have root privileges who are the type unable to do what it takes to get around Rogers' "fix", are usually the type who will get pwned. If they are just unwilling to do what it takes, then they don't need root.
My time is college was wonderful and educational and completely irrelevant to anything I have done since. The one job I had related to my degree, they could have taught someone out of high school to do with at most two more days of training over what they gave me. Most of my other jobs required that I have a Bachelor's Degree to get them, but nothing I learned in college was related to the job in any way.
It's just you. If Google wants Google Voice to succeed in the market space they have positioned it for, users must be able to use it on the Iphone.
As an engineering major, I'll assume that I fit in to the exception to your 'most' qualifier.
If, after you get your degree, you actually work as an engineer, then probably, but not necessarily. I know a story about a waste water treatment design by an engineer, for a company that my father worked for, that I could see the flaw in when I was in high school, but they needed plans signed off by an engineer, so that was what got built.
But, generally, an engineering degree actually indicates that the person holding it has been taught some practical knowledge that applies to the job they are hired for.
CompTIA certs only impress people who don't know anything, and are helpful to get you through the HR screening by pasting it on your resume. That accurately describes most college IT degrees, actually.
That accurately describes most college degrees, most of the time they are necessary to get past HR screening, but tell you nothing about the qualifications of the individual in question.
You sum up the situation pretty well. I think the court was correct in this ruling. I, also, think the Warden was wrong. That is, the prison should be allowed to forbid prisoners from playing RPG's (or any other game) when the authorities believe it is warranted, however, the authorities were wrong in concluding that forbiding roleplaying games was warranted. If the prison was doing this because they had a case where some prisoners had used D&D (or some other RPG) as a cover for gang activity, I would fully support the prison's decision. In this case, they are just being stupid. However, that being said, based on what I have seen of the case, they are on sound legal basis to do so. Just because something is stupid, doesn't mean it is illegal.
>
Also most businesses self insure anyway. The little ones are too fly by night and poor to afford insurance and are judgment proof anyway, and the big ones take risks that are bigger than the insurers themselves and have large enough legal and lobbying departments to be above the law. So the only companies affected are vaguely medium sized. Think, like a small restaurant chain sized company, maybe a single plant manufacturing company.
So, companies that self-insure are on the hook for the entire cost of the security breach, which re-enforces my point. Insurance does not remove the market consequences to a company not protecting its data from a data breach.
I just think its ridiculous to bash a protocol that hasn't even been released when the alternative is to download a file from a complete stranger.
No, the alternative is to download an unmodifiable format file from a reliable source (like the band or the record company or Amazon), but instead this company wants those sources to go to an inherently less secure file format.
obviously some system in place to make sure that it is actually the band's newsletter or RSS feed or Twitter Feed getting put through to the file.
Sure, there is some system in place, but do you really think these idiots will have good security on that system?
No more exploitable than downloading a file from anywhere ever would be. Less exploitable than those who download music for free off of torrents and P2P apps.
The difference being that when I download a new file, I know there is a potential that it will be malware rather than what I am looking for and can take steps to minimize the risk. With this new format, I have a file on my system that can be "updated" at any time by someone remotely, what makes you think it will only be "updatable" by authorized people?
Using the new technology, music labels and bands will be able to send updates to the music files – with tour dates, interviews or updates to social networking pages
They forgot to mention that this would also provide an exploit for malware writers to use to get into people's machines.
The cost of a data breach increased last year to $204 per compromised customer record...
Insurance covers most companies. Because of this, it has gone from being a threat that must be addressed to a cost of doing business. .
The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit. That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk. That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system. SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.