[Right or wrong, teachers get paid on a set scale, with their salaires dependent solely upon years of experience and level of education. The subject they teach does not factor into salary placement at all.]
This is the arrangement that teachers, in the form of their unions, have negotiated. Right or wrong, this is not *imposed* externally on teachers, it's what they (as a large group) have chosen over time.
* Schools, teachers, etc. talk about the important of the assignment and completion of homework - in some case, *massive* amounts thereof.
* Adults may be labelled mal-adjusted over-acheiving poor family members probably destined for divorce and deep unhappiness, if they take work home with them.
Of course both of these are overstatements, but:
If we want adults to put in a solid day's work, get the job done, then go home and do other things, perhaps it would make sense to teach this same thing to people on the way to becoming adults (students).
[The bottom line: They're getting hosed in the long run.]
But much less hosed than if Covad went under and left them with nothing. Getting their money back is highly unlikely, or else they would not have agreed to this.
I'm not at the point of worrying about rates. I need availability. Covad is the *only* DSL provider to serve me... because I'm too far from the CO for high speed DSL, and only Covad bothered to install equipment here to serve me with low-speed, expensive IDSL.
But I'm not complaining about my low-speed, expensive IDSL, because it works. The alternative is dialup.
[person next to you absorbed in the exact same task and working closely with you will keep you focused better]
I have experienced this myself. Pairing keeps you on-task. It also reduces distractions as passers-by seem less inclined to interrupt two people working on a problem together than a person working alone.
* already have hosting arrange somewhere else and not want to switch
* want to buy a flavor of hosting that Verizon does not offer
* Have more than one ISP for whatever reason... obviously at most one can be the same place I host my domain.
* etc.
[Verizon doesn't want to be relaying mail for non-customer domains]
Indeed they don't.
It would make a lot more sense, though if they were interested in relaying mail only for their *customers* regardless of domain, rather than only for *customer domains* per se. My ISP (which is not Verizon) has the desired behaviour, for example.
[don't think this qualifies as a "Your rights online"]
Agreed. But it does seem like a customer-hostile policy.
[Paying customers who are unaware of the benefits
provided by Reply-To: headers are also very annoying.]
Sending out email with a From: that lists a residential throwaway ISP mail account and only the Reply-to: lists your real, long-term, paid-for-the-domain email account, looks rather unprofessional. Some mail clients either don't handle Reply-to very well.
In some areas, Verizon is the cable modem ISP and that is the only broadband ISP available. So for some people, they are essentially the only game in town.
Some of the early posters confused open relaying with normal SMTP behaviour and normal ISP behaviour.
For example, I have my own domain, kylecordes.com. It's hosted by an internet hosting provider. I receive email there.
My ISP for internet access is Speakeasy. I send email through them, but that email is marked *from* my email address, which is @kylecordes.com. Speakeasy does not force me to have any email I send through them marked @speakeasy.net.
Speakeasy is not an open relay; they are correctly handling outgoing SMTP only for their own customers (including me). They know it's me because I connect through their network.
Were I a Verizon customer, I would be unhappy. I don't wish to use an @verizon email address... that's why I got my own domain name.
The Verizon policy looks like a way to try to force their branding onto all of their customers' email address.
They shot a missle from one spot on earth, then shot an intercept missle at it from somewhere over a continent away. These missles are around 10-20 feet in diameter. The combined closing speed was thousands of miles per hour.
They managed to get one to hit the other. That's not luck, it's a tremendously difficult technical accomplishment.
Ah, but it's not as far out of the U.S.'s reach as it is out of other nations' reach.
I would prefer that the U.S. be as far ahead as possible in war-related technology. SDI seems like a stunningly expensive way to do that, unfortunately.
Indeed, this isn't really about the current perceived threats, it's about future threats.
Does anyone seriously believed that the history of large-scale conflict is over, that all major nations will be nice to each other from now until forever?
Speakeasy is almost too good to be true. They provide actual service, installed roughly when promised. They bill me accurately. They have people to answer the phone who, after a longer-than-I-would-like delay, actually know what they are talking about.
What really matters, in terms of reducing costs to orbit?
I think you have correctly identified that it is *not* necessarily ISP or payload ratio.
One answer is that the thing that needs to be minimized, is *complexity*. Sometimes it is stated with pride that the Space Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built. To me, that is a statement of utter failure. To be inexpensive and reliable, a spacecraft should *not* be the most complex machine every built. Duh.
Code reviews are of course a good idea, a "best practice", etc. They can be hard to actually do for a variety of reasons... here are a couple of key ones:
1) A code review is essentially judgemental. Even when the reviewer(s) are careful to "review the code, not the coder", the nature of the interaction is that person A looks at person B's work product and perhaps finds it less than good. This can be uncomfortable for the reviewer (who doesn't want to say bad things about a coworker's code) and the reviewee (who might be hesitant to see or admit weakenesses in their work product). Reviewers often hold back valid issues for this reason.
2) Reasonable people can disagree. Sometimes it's the difference between a weakness and a design decision is unclear.
There is probably enough fear of hydrogen, though, that any upcoming commercial airships will use helium, even though it takes a much larger amount of helium (larger structure, weight, cost, etc.) to get a given amount of lift, compared to hydrogen.
[because it's what's available whereever one happens to be.]
In some industries, retailers figured this out a few decades ago and started charging manufacturers for shelf space.
If a manufacturer can't persuade us to buy brand A of product X, they can sometimes pretty much force us to by paying the retailers to (only) carry brand A of product X.
Switching those wires to superconductors would take care of the loss due to resistance in the wires, but it would not prevent the inductive transfer of power to other conductors (like the "capture coil" and florescent light you mention).
Re:I Never Thought I'd Hear It. You didn't!
on
Palm In Trouble?
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but the perhaps WinCE devices are better because their more potent hardware is more amenable to running Linux:-)
Slashdot Mirror
[Right or wrong, teachers get paid on a set scale, with their salaires dependent solely upon years of experience and level of education. The subject they teach does not factor into salary placement at all.]
This is the arrangement that teachers, in the form of their unions, have negotiated. Right or wrong, this is not *imposed* externally on teachers, it's what they (as a large group) have chosen over time.
Regarding homework, it does seem odd that:
* Schools, teachers, etc. talk about the important of the assignment and completion of homework - in some case, *massive* amounts thereof.
* Adults may be labelled mal-adjusted over-acheiving poor family members probably destined for divorce and deep unhappiness, if they take work home with them.
Of course both of these are overstatements, but:
If we want adults to put in a solid day's work, get the job done, then go home and do other things, perhaps it would make sense to teach this same thing to people on the way to becoming adults (students).
[The bottom line: They're getting hosed in the long run.]
But much less hosed than if Covad went under and left them with nothing. Getting their money back is highly unlikely, or else they would not have agreed to this.
I'm not at the point of worrying about rates. I need availability. Covad is the *only* DSL provider to serve me... because I'm too far from the CO for high speed DSL, and only Covad bothered to install equipment here to serve me with low-speed, expensive IDSL.
But I'm not complaining about my low-speed, expensive IDSL, because it works. The alternative is dialup.
[person next to you absorbed in the exact same task and working closely with you will keep you focused better]
I have experienced this myself. Pairing keeps you on-task. It also reduces distractions as passers-by seem less inclined to interrupt two people working on a problem together than a person working alone.
[hosted your domain through Verizon]
How dare I wish to:
* already have hosting arrange somewhere else and not want to switch
* want to buy a flavor of hosting that Verizon does not offer
* Have more than one ISP for whatever reason... obviously at most one can be the same place I host my domain.
* etc.
[Verizon doesn't want to be relaying mail for non-customer domains]
Indeed they don't.
It would make a lot more sense, though if they were interested in relaying mail only for their *customers* regardless of domain, rather than only for *customer domains* per se. My ISP (which is not Verizon) has the desired behaviour, for example.
[don't think this qualifies as a "Your rights online"]
Agreed. But it does seem like a customer-hostile policy.
[Paying customers who are unaware of the benefits
provided by Reply-To: headers are also very annoying.]
Sending out email with a From: that lists a residential throwaway ISP mail account and only the Reply-to: lists your real, long-term, paid-for-the-domain email account, looks rather unprofessional. Some mail clients either don't handle Reply-to very well.
[more locked into not switching ISP's ]
This strikes me as a likely real motivation for this policy...
[If I was using verizon I would consider strongly switching ISP's right away.]
In some areas Verizon is the cable modem ISP and the only available two-way residential broadband.
[only ISP in town]
In some areas, Verizon is the cable modem ISP and that is the only broadband ISP available. So for some people, they are essentially the only game in town.
Some of the early posters confused open relaying with normal SMTP behaviour and normal ISP behaviour.
For example, I have my own domain, kylecordes.com. It's hosted by an internet hosting provider. I receive email there.
My ISP for internet access is Speakeasy. I send email through them, but that email is marked *from* my email address, which is @kylecordes.com. Speakeasy does not force me to have any email I send through them marked @speakeasy.net.
Speakeasy is not an open relay; they are correctly handling outgoing SMTP only for their own customers (including me). They know it's me because I connect through their network.
Were I a Verizon customer, I would be unhappy. I don't wish to use an @verizon email address... that's why I got my own domain name.
The Verizon policy looks like a way to try to force their branding onto all of their customers' email address.
They shot a missle from one spot on earth, then shot an intercept missle at it from somewhere over a continent away. These missles are around 10-20 feet in diameter. The combined closing speed was thousands of miles per hour.
They managed to get one to hit the other. That's not luck, it's a tremendously difficult technical accomplishment.
Ah, but it's not as far out of the U.S.'s reach as it is out of other nations' reach.
I would prefer that the U.S. be as far ahead as possible in war-related technology. SDI seems like a stunningly expensive way to do that, unfortunately.
Indeed, this isn't really about the current perceived threats, it's about future threats.
Does anyone seriously believed that the history of large-scale conflict is over, that all major nations will be nice to each other from now until forever?
Speakeasy is almost too good to be true. They provide actual service, installed roughly when promised. They bill me accurately. They have people to answer the phone who, after a longer-than-I-would-like delay, actually know what they are talking about.
;-)
Their failure must be inevitable
What really matters, in terms of reducing costs to orbit?
I think you have correctly identified that it is *not* necessarily ISP or payload ratio.
One answer is that the thing that needs to be minimized, is *complexity*. Sometimes it is stated with pride that the Space Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built. To me, that is a statement of utter failure. To be inexpensive and reliable, a spacecraft should *not* be the most complex machine every built. Duh.
Code reviews are of course a good idea, a "best practice", etc. They can be hard to actually do for a variety of reasons... here are a couple of key ones:
1) A code review is essentially judgemental. Even when the reviewer(s) are careful to "review the code, not the coder", the nature of the interaction is that person A looks at person B's work product and perhaps finds it less than good. This can be uncomfortable for the reviewer (who doesn't want to say bad things about a coworker's code) and the reviewee (who might be hesitant to see or admit weakenesses in their work product). Reviewers often hold back valid issues for this reason.
2) Reasonable people can disagree. Sometimes it's the difference between a weakness and a design decision is unclear.
There is probably enough fear of hydrogen, though, that any upcoming commercial airships will use helium, even though it takes a much larger amount of helium (larger structure, weight, cost, etc.) to get a given amount of lift, compared to hydrogen.
How would open source solve this?
You look at some options. Some are open source and free, some are not free. You choose the free one. The non-chosen vendors sue for "misprocurement".
I Am Not A Lawyer :-) but if I recall correctly, it isn't libel at all if it's true.
Actually, I think the U.S. has "been there, done that". Remember the Organization Man?
[because it's what's available whereever one happens to be.]
In some industries, retailers figured this out a few decades ago and started charging manufacturers for shelf space.
If a manufacturer can't persuade us to buy brand A of product X, they can sometimes pretty much force us to by paying the retailers to (only) carry brand A of product X.
The pyramids are way too tempting for something that you want people to leave alone. They are visible from a long way away, for one thing.
If you want people to leave something alone, make it an uninteresting shape, bury it way underground in a highly inhospitable place, etc.
Switching those wires to superconductors would take care of the loss due to resistance in the wires, but it would not prevent the inductive transfer of power to other conductors (like the "capture coil" and florescent light you mention).
Ah, but the perhaps WinCE devices are better because their more potent hardware is more amenable to running Linux :-)
Silent?
I'm no expert on tanks or helicopters, but I think they are in the category "really loud things".
The gas turbines in jet aircraft are 120+ dB, I doubt the ones in tanks or helicopters are whisper-quite.