I suggest considering the purchase of something like the Wacom tablets. You can handwrite wonderfully with those things. The best ones even have displays behind them, so you can see what you're drawing.
You can make your presentation work just like a blackboard. And, they're much easier to clean than a blackboard!
In my first year at law school I had a contracts professor who knew his material very well. He got behind some in the first semester, so in the second semester he presented material at a rapid pace. I wasn't getting it that well. One day I taped his class (or somebody taped it for me, I can't recall) and listened to it later. Then, I could slow it down and digest what he said at my own pace. I was surprised. The presentation was brilliant and awesome.
When I told him that, the professor was visibly chagrined. His problem was that he just didn't have enough time.
I don't think that presentation software is the problem. The problem is the same back as when I was in law school. For many people, it isn't enough for the teacher to explain the point. The teacher often needs to explain the point, hammer it home, illustrate it in various contexts, deconstruct it, reassemble it, then blow it up and do it once again.
When a teacher asks questions, it shouldn't be to fuck with the student. The only valid reason for a teacher to ask questions is to help the teacher figure out if the students are getting what he's saying. If they're not, the teacher's job is to REORIENT himself/herself and approach the material from a different tack. In other words, lecturing is not enough. The teacher needs to LISTEN.
When PowerPoint divorces the teacher from getting student feedback, then PowerPoint is mightily bad. When PowerPoint is used interactively with the students, it can be mighty good.
PowerPoint should be used like music sequencing software. You should have multiple clips that you can use to explain the same point in different ways, if necessary. Forcing the lecturer to make clip selection decisions, will force the lecturer to interact with his students and listen to them. This can only add to the quality of the presentation.
Judgments are not discharged. They still exist. However, the bankruptcy discharge enjoins the judgment holder from collecting on the judgment. The DEBT is discharged, not the judgment.
If the bankruptcy court finds that the conduct at issue was fraudulent or willful (or a few other things), then that debt won't be discharged.
Judgment liens are another story.
Another reason to ignore legal conclusions on/.----including this one.:)
The answer is AVARICE. People want STUFF. They are not happy with what they have, so they covet things that other people have. Nobody needs the Beatles, but people really want to possess instances of their music.
Somebody is going to crack the market--and it won't be one of the people who sit at home and cry in their beer about how Intel rules the world and that nobody has any hope of success!!
Thank goodness for the entrepreneurs who spit on lassitude and take their shot! Those wozniaks are the people who end up delivering really cool stuff for the rest of humanity, and leave the conventional wisdom people in the dust.
The computer and the internet are potent forces for destablization, but they are also potent forces for control. We're fortunate to live in an age where we can watch people grapple over their initial implementation.
Yes, I'm going to be fully web-interconnected in a steep, densely canopied draw in Olympic National Park. And the Google and Tom Tom services are going to serve me there. Oh yeah . ... And when I'm riding my bike in the middle of nowhere--the web will serve me there too . . .
I don't think so. Some people would rather not put their credit card on an IV hookup to a service provider if they don't need to.
On the other hand, if the maps are free, reliable, and downloadable . ... Then I'm listening!
Women, despite outnumbering men, have been unable to achieve equality in macho culture despite at least 100 years of effort. No big reason to think that nerds will do any better.
Neal Stephenson's book, "The Diamond Age," really got me thinking about matter printers. They're already here and they'll just keep getting better and better. In the near future, you'll be buying a bag of carbon pellets at the hardware store. Then, along with the design software, you'll be able to matter-print physical items. Recycling will probably get easier, also. As time progresses, the matter printers will get cheaper and more sophisticated. They will then become ubiquitous. Such devices could really change economies.
If music piracy was bad, matter piracy will be worse. It will be difficult for patent and copyright holders to police their work. Consumers who own matter printers may be able to pressure their governments to relieve them from existing restrictions. On the other hand, merchants will pressure for more invasive restrictions.
I don't know where the future will go with this, but it sure will be interesting.
Maybe SCO got rid of Darl because the company doesn't need an executive any more. It needs a lawyer to manage litigation, because the big lawsuit (such as it is) is the only asset of SCO.
If you're not making, only suing, then it makes sense that your corporate boss should just be a lawyer to manage the lawsuit.
SCO's new slogan: "We're a big, lean litigating machine!"
These people are going to have the very very best investigators, experts, and lawyers. They are going to examine every nook and cranny of the case in the attempt to find one little crack of reasonable doubt that will enable them to beat the rap.
The FBI doesn't just need to dot every i and cross every t, they need to develop a case so tight that even the most moronic juror will see the wrong clear as day, when the best lawyers in the world are trying to obscure everything.
On top of that, the US Attorneys don't like to go to trial unless they have a slam dunk. Losing makes them (and their administration) look bad--and image is sooo important!!
Bottom line is that the FBI had to work their ass off to get the goods on these guys and we should all damn well appreciate it!
Will this law ever make it past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
It looks really overbroad. I can say something with the intent to harm you that is totally legal and absolutely protected by the First Amendment. I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your business interests (by advancing mine at your expense); I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your political interest (to get your sorry ass out of office); and I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your religious interest (because your religious influence is heretical).
It also appears (from the lame summary and article) that truth is no defense. So, that if I harm you with the truth--I can go to prison.
And that's only some ideas from the point of view of the POSTER.
The social networking sites themselves are getting screwed over, here. What is the COMPELLING governmental reason for jacking up the criminal speech regulation on social networking sites and not on blogs and newspapers????? There is no compelling reason for such a limitation on free speech and my bet is that some lawyers are going to have an easy, fun, and lucrative time taking this law DOWNTOWN.
Anyway, thanks very much to the Texas legislature for providing another money-stream to the lawyers. They'll be the only ones having fun with this dog of a law!
I won't EVER buy a Dell again. I bought one for my wife and the motherboard went (just after warranty). The company made inconsistent statements about motherboard availability and never could provide me with a replacement.
The irony is that I build my own computers, but I bought my wife one so that maintenance wouldn't be a problem. The HELL with DELL.
Wrong about the ability to force the Japanese to surrender without boots on the ground. There were a lot of boots on Saipan and Iwo Jima fighting to create the airstrips that made the retribution possible.
Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false. I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.
You have to qualify your statement to read "airpower ALONE doesn't win wars"--that statement has been generally true in the past. On the other hand, any person would be a moron to assume that the statement will continue to be true in the future. Generals usually start the next war off by fighting it just like the previous war. They are oftentimes not the brightest bulbs in the hardware store. They often fail to timely recognize, that certain technologies are game-changers. Think aircraft carriers in WWII and machine guns in WWI, for example.
But all this stuff misses the mark, in my opinion. Everybody has to agree that airpower provides a vital and irreplaceable role in the projection of power.
But this "boots on the ground" idea is simply stupid when it is applied in the abstract.
Before you can EVER begin to determine the proper role and scope of airpower in any kind of violent conflict, you MUST figure out just what "winning" is. Only when you've determined your victory conditions, can you determine the role that airpower will play in meeting those conditions.
Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning. This is like super-Vietnam deja vu. We're somewhere between creating a US-friendly country with a US-friendly power structure (neocolonialism) and going in there, bashing the hell out of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and getting out.
We can't make the Vietnam mistake of blindly trusting that our leaders' goals are appropriate and achievable. Our leaders are no brighter or more insightful than we are. There needs to be a public dialog about victory conditions . . . But I digress.
To get back on topic: You can't determine the proper scope of airpower until you define appropriate victory conditions. Jabbering back and forth about grunts versus pilots is meaningless, because in almost all of the common scenarios, each is vitally interdependent upon the other.
A license is a contract. A contract is an exchange of enforceable promises. Patenting a contractual idea would deprive other people of the freedom to contract in a certain manner (because Microsoft has patented it). Freedom to contract is an idea that a lot of judges groove with--it has a lot to do with liberty, freedom, and other cool ideas like that.
I don't think that Microsoft will be able to tell other people how they can and cannot order their affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
Seen the movie Network . . .?
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." P.T. Barnum
duh-duh-duh dat's all folks!!!!!!
I suggest considering the purchase of something like the Wacom tablets. You can handwrite wonderfully with those things. The best ones even have displays behind them, so you can see what you're drawing.
You can make your presentation work just like a blackboard. And, they're much easier to clean than a blackboard!
In my first year at law school I had a contracts professor who knew his material very well. He got behind some in the first semester, so in the second semester he presented material at a rapid pace. I wasn't getting it that well. One day I taped his class (or somebody taped it for me, I can't recall) and listened to it later. Then, I could slow it down and digest what he said at my own pace. I was surprised. The presentation was brilliant and awesome.
When I told him that, the professor was visibly chagrined. His problem was that he just didn't have enough time.
I don't think that presentation software is the problem. The problem is the same back as when I was in law school. For many people, it isn't enough for the teacher to explain the point. The teacher often needs to explain the point, hammer it home, illustrate it in various contexts, deconstruct it, reassemble it, then blow it up and do it once again.
When a teacher asks questions, it shouldn't be to fuck with the student. The only valid reason for a teacher to ask questions is to help the teacher figure out if the students are getting what he's saying. If they're not, the teacher's job is to REORIENT himself/herself and approach the material from a different tack. In other words, lecturing is not enough. The teacher needs to LISTEN.
When PowerPoint divorces the teacher from getting student feedback, then PowerPoint is mightily bad. When PowerPoint is used interactively with the students, it can be mighty good.
PowerPoint should be used like music sequencing software. You should have multiple clips that you can use to explain the same point in different ways, if necessary. Forcing the lecturer to make clip selection decisions, will force the lecturer to interact with his students and listen to them. This can only add to the quality of the presentation.
Anyway, my two cents worth.
Parent post provides BAD bankruptcy information.
Judgments are not discharged. They still exist. However, the bankruptcy discharge enjoins the judgment holder from collecting on the judgment. The DEBT is discharged, not the judgment.
If the bankruptcy court finds that the conduct at issue was fraudulent or willful (or a few other things), then that debt won't be discharged.
Judgment liens are another story.
Another reason to ignore legal conclusions on /.----including this one. :)
I can answer your "why? why? why?" question.
The answer is AVARICE. People want STUFF. They are not happy with what they have, so they covet things that other people have. Nobody needs the Beatles, but people really want to possess instances of their music.
I wish I could agree with you. However, the push to put our Iraqi forces into Afghanistan is strong. I'm not sure Obama can resist it.
Are we colonizing? I hope not! That would be an impossible task!
Are we raping and pillaging? Nope!
What the hell are we doing there, other than spending money?
What a WASTE.
Obama's demonstrating that he's powerless to take command of the military.
. . . he has the aggression gene and we want people with that gene out in the community with more opportunity for reproduction?
. . . we like to socialize with aggressive people?
. . . people with the aggressive gene should be given an aggressive crime discount?
. . . he is less accountable for aggressive acts that he is predisposed to commit?
. . . he gets one free aggression discount because of his predisposition?
. . . the judges had pity on him?
Somebody is going to crack the market--and it won't be one of the people who sit at home and cry in their beer about how Intel rules the world and that nobody has any hope of success!!
Thank goodness for the entrepreneurs who spit on lassitude and take their shot! Those wozniaks are the people who end up delivering really cool stuff for the rest of humanity, and leave the conventional wisdom people in the dust.
60 Minutes, in one of the most slanted pieces I have ever seen, said that these pirates are organized criminals.
We've gotta stop them. Hollywood says so!
The STASI (East German Secret Police) got awesome participation from its citizens when it asked them to help them spy on their fellow citizens.
There is a scary lesson in that.
The computer and the internet are potent forces for destablization, but they are also potent forces for control. We're fortunate to live in an age where we can watch people grapple over their initial implementation.
Yes, I'm going to be fully web-interconnected in a steep, densely canopied draw in Olympic National Park. And the Google and Tom Tom services are going to serve me there. Oh yeah . . .. And when I'm riding my bike in the middle of nowhere--the web will serve me there too . . .
I don't think so. Some people would rather not put their credit card on an IV hookup to a service provider if they don't need to.
On the other hand, if the maps are free, reliable, and downloadable . . .. Then I'm listening!
Dunno, but many women have been fighting for just that for a very long time.
Women, despite outnumbering men, have been unable to achieve equality in macho culture despite at least 100 years of effort. No big reason to think that nerds will do any better.
Is SKYNET taking over? Should we be concerned. That's one powerful laptop, if it can fire on an airplane.
Neal Stephenson's book, "The Diamond Age," really got me thinking about matter printers. They're already here and they'll just keep getting better and better. In the near future, you'll be buying a bag of carbon pellets at the hardware store. Then, along with the design software, you'll be able to matter-print physical items. Recycling will probably get easier, also. As time progresses, the matter printers will get cheaper and more sophisticated. They will then become ubiquitous. Such devices could really change economies.
If music piracy was bad, matter piracy will be worse. It will be difficult for patent and copyright holders to police their work. Consumers who own matter printers may be able to pressure their governments to relieve them from existing restrictions. On the other hand, merchants will pressure for more invasive restrictions.
I don't know where the future will go with this, but it sure will be interesting.
Maybe SCO got rid of Darl because the company doesn't need an executive any more. It needs a lawyer to manage litigation, because the big lawsuit (such as it is) is the only asset of SCO.
If you're not making, only suing, then it makes sense that your corporate boss should just be a lawyer to manage the lawsuit.
SCO's new slogan: "We're a big, lean litigating machine!"
I totally agree with you.
These people are going to have the very very best investigators, experts, and lawyers. They are going to examine every nook and cranny of the case in the attempt to find one little crack of reasonable doubt that will enable them to beat the rap.
The FBI doesn't just need to dot every i and cross every t, they need to develop a case so tight that even the most moronic juror will see the wrong clear as day, when the best lawyers in the world are trying to obscure everything.
On top of that, the US Attorneys don't like to go to trial unless they have a slam dunk. Losing makes them (and their administration) look bad--and image is sooo important!!
Bottom line is that the FBI had to work their ass off to get the goods on these guys and we should all damn well appreciate it!
You've convinced me to read Hastings' book! Thanks.
Will this law ever make it past the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?
It looks really overbroad. I can say something with the intent to harm you that is totally legal and absolutely protected by the First Amendment. I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your business interests (by advancing mine at your expense); I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your political interest (to get your sorry ass out of office); and I can say harmful things with the intent to harm your religious interest (because your religious influence is heretical).
It also appears (from the lame summary and article) that truth is no defense. So, that if I harm you with the truth--I can go to prison.
And that's only some ideas from the point of view of the POSTER.
The social networking sites themselves are getting screwed over, here. What is the COMPELLING governmental reason for jacking up the criminal speech regulation on social networking sites and not on blogs and newspapers????? There is no compelling reason for such a limitation on free speech and my bet is that some lawyers are going to have an easy, fun, and lucrative time taking this law DOWNTOWN.
Anyway, thanks very much to the Texas legislature for providing another money-stream to the lawyers. They'll be the only ones having fun with this dog of a law!
I won't EVER buy a Dell again. I bought one for my wife and the motherboard went (just after warranty). The company made inconsistent statements about motherboard availability and never could provide me with a replacement.
The irony is that I build my own computers, but I bought my wife one so that maintenance wouldn't be a problem. The HELL with DELL.
Right about the thermo. Sorry.
Wrong about the ability to force the Japanese to surrender without boots on the ground. There were a lot of boots on Saipan and Iwo Jima fighting to create the airstrips that made the retribution possible.
Saying airpower doesn't win wars is probably false. I would suggest that the thermonuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki played a war-winning role.
You have to qualify your statement to read "airpower ALONE doesn't win wars"--that statement has been generally true in the past. On the other hand, any person would be a moron to assume that the statement will continue to be true in the future. Generals usually start the next war off by fighting it just like the previous war. They are oftentimes not the brightest bulbs in the hardware store. They often fail to timely recognize, that certain technologies are game-changers. Think aircraft carriers in WWII and machine guns in WWI, for example.
But all this stuff misses the mark, in my opinion. Everybody has to agree that airpower provides a vital and irreplaceable role in the projection of power.
But this "boots on the ground" idea is simply stupid when it is applied in the abstract.
Before you can EVER begin to determine the proper role and scope of airpower in any kind of violent conflict, you MUST figure out just what "winning" is. Only when you've determined your victory conditions, can you determine the role that airpower will play in meeting those conditions.
Our big problem now in Afghanistan is that we are not defining winning. This is like super-Vietnam deja vu. We're somewhere between creating a US-friendly country with a US-friendly power structure (neocolonialism) and going in there, bashing the hell out of the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and getting out.
We can't make the Vietnam mistake of blindly trusting that our leaders' goals are appropriate and achievable. Our leaders are no brighter or more insightful than we are. There needs to be a public dialog about victory conditions . . . But I digress.
To get back on topic: You can't determine the proper scope of airpower until you define appropriate victory conditions. Jabbering back and forth about grunts versus pilots is meaningless, because in almost all of the common scenarios, each is vitally interdependent upon the other.
A license is a contract. A contract is an exchange of enforceable promises. Patenting a contractual idea would deprive other people of the freedom to contract in a certain manner (because Microsoft has patented it). Freedom to contract is an idea that a lot of judges groove with--it has a lot to do with liberty, freedom, and other cool ideas like that.
I don't think that Microsoft will be able to tell other people how they can and cannot order their affairs.