Other than perhaps the Palm Pre, I have not seen any non-RIM phones with a decent keyboard. Motorola Admiral comes kinda close, but keys are wobbly and the software sucks at registering them.
Clueful IT departments will still favor blackberry as it still is far more manageable and secure than the other options. The only real issue is that your coworkers will probably hate you.
None of the people ragging on Blackberry know what theyre talking about either. It seems like noone can consider that there is a market segment that loves what RIM has to offer, just as there is a segment for iPhone and android and WinPhone devices.
Admittedly I think they're higher than 1% here in the UK, but I've wanted them to die for about 8 years now.
That pretty much tells me that you either dont get much work email, or that youre always at your desk. Name me a phone that does better for corp email / calendaring / phonecalls.
At least RIM makes a decent product, even if noone wants it. I cant think of the last time I willingly went to yahoo... I guess people use it for fantasy football?
So the middle east riots focused on American embassies, why? I mean, if its about what they do and dont have, it doesnt make terribly much sense to go and murder an ambassador.
Im pretty sure Google has no power to block stuff on domains not hosted by them, which is why this whole discussion is absurd. Google is not and cannot be a national filter; they can simply make internal decisions about whether to host stuff and where to allow it to be streamed from their servers.
Secondly they open source products when they have to, but most of their products are sealed closed source projects.
Omigosh, they only open source SOME things? Those jerks!
Is this really the sense of entitlement that gets modded up these days? How about you be happy that they contribute as much as they do, even to the extent that they provide Google Code hosting which strongly pushes FOSS licenses (to the extent you CANNOT have a closed-source project hosted by google). Theyve contributed a web browser, big parts of the database system their core product runs on, lots of code to Linux, a Linux derivative (Android), and lots of other big projects.
I challenge you to name any other for-profit company that has done more for OSS than Google (maybe Apple?). But of course THATS not enough, they need to OS license EVERYTHING for you to be satisfied, right?
Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient.
Freedom of speech protects you from the government. If folks at Google decide that they dont like fanning the flames of violent riots, theyre within their rights to un-host the video.
Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed".
Except that Google isnt a government and cannot censor a population; it can merely decide not to extend their services to you. Youre free to host your video on vimeo or whatever.
This is the disconnect that people dont get. Every website is its own little totalitarian province; the operator has (and should have) the right to tell you to get stuffed at any time for any reason; its OK because their power stops at the boundaries of their domain. Governments are held to a far different standard precisely because of the reach of their power-- the government deciding to disenfranchise you has far bigger and more global consequences..
Drugs existed then, and one of those drugs actually simulated death in the user that lasted for just about three days before it wore off. Perhaps, when Mary gave Christ water that drug was 'slipped' to him. When he woke up and realized, "They want to kill me", he got the hell out of town. This is one plausible explanation for the ressurection.
So Jesus lay in a cold tomb with crucifixion wounds, a hole in his side from the centurion's spear, suffering from scourge wounds, with no food, water, nor medical care, for 3 days? Then got up, moved a several hundred pound rock, and went on a journey?
but the workers still have the right to strike if they feel they are being mistreated.
And without unions, the gov't would be free to tell those teachers to pack their bags and find a new job.
Organization of labor it is simply the natural consequence of the every American's right to freely associate, and people are free to decide they will not show up for work.
No, its not; there are additional protections in place that restrict what the employer can and cannot do, when they can fire, when they can hire, how raises must be performed, etc. They can even compel workers to participate in the union, depending on the location.
THATS the problem. The idea of a public-sector union is even more ridiculous because technically the government could simply decide to abolish union rights if it was determined to exploit its workers; you basically have government employees being protected by government regulation from exploitation by the government. How does that make any kind of sense?
Creating a system where half of a teacher's evaluation (and, ergo, the chance they keep their job) is based solely on test scores is simply setting up teachers to fail.
This is some kind of strawman. Theres no reason you have to compare Chicago test scores to Northern Va test scores; you can compare them intra-district in Chicago. You'll still find out who the crappy teachers are, and you get to control for the poverty factor.
Anyone who tries to complain about salaries is merely throwing a red herring into the discussion.
When teachers are striking because of salary negotiations, what theyre currently making is very much relevant to the discussion. Chicago teachers currently make a very cushy $71,000, and I think it is perfectly fair to look at that before considering a raise above that amount.
How do you hope to ensure that the evaluations do not favor teachers who work in "safe" schools in middle class areas, where the students are being pushed by their parents to get high test scores and go to college, over teachers in "tough" schools where the parents are not so worried about education and where the students dream of becoming master criminals?
Establish a baseline average (median, mean, whatever you statistics gurus think is best) per-school or per-district. Teachers whose students generally perform substantially higher than the baseline get raises. Those typically falling below it get let go. You can even look at 2-3 year trends, to avoid anomalies.
This isnt rocket science, youd think a math teacher could figure this out.
Because some school are in more difficult area with less funding and over worked teacher. Why should they be compared against a teacher in a high d nice area with lot of funding and no problem kid ?
DC spends the absolute most per student in the country, and has the absolute worst performance to show for it. New York and NJ come pretty close too. California is also not doing to well in terms of cost-benefit.
You should go look this up (per-pupil spending by state/city, student performance by state/city)-- its kind of shocking when you see it for the first time.
Look at what these teachers are being paid ($71k!), then reconsider "equal salaries". Teaching in public school doesnt have terribly high requirements, so the idea that theyre being exploited is a bit much.
Im starting to think I went into the wrong profession, honestly.
Yes, it is insane to pay those who are teaching the children well.
If you were to look at teacher salary by location and student performance by location, you would notice a few things.
First, you would notice that some states pay substantially more per student (implied, higher teacher salaries).
You would then notice that those places also have the worst student performance, and that the best student performance tends to come with moderate per-student spending.
For example, consider: Cost per-student per state Notice the top 4-- DC, New York, Wyoming, New Jersey. Guess which of those 3 are at the bottom of the barrel in student performance? DC, New York, New Jersey.
For the record, the average teacher in Chicago makes ~$71,000. 30% over top of that is absurd; thats within the average salary range of a CCIE--of which there are only about 20,000 worldwide (salary range appears to be $95-120k).
Slashdot Mirror
Chrome can be deployed by MSI and managed by GPO. They have the ADM templates right on their site.
Last time I had looked into it, IE9 was more secure in several ways than Firefox. It also had comparable number of security holes.
Have things changed substantially in the last year?
Don't know why I would waste my time installing software for days just to make Windows usable.
Im not sure what, but youre doing something wrong.
Perhaps instead of "experienced IT professionals" he should have said "competent IT professionals".
Other than perhaps the Palm Pre, I have not seen any non-RIM phones with a decent keyboard. Motorola Admiral comes kinda close, but keys are wobbly and the software sucks at registering them.
Clueful IT departments will still favor blackberry as it still is far more manageable and secure than the other options. The only real issue is that your coworkers will probably hate you.
None of the people ragging on Blackberry know what theyre talking about either. It seems like noone can consider that there is a market segment that loves what RIM has to offer, just as there is a segment for iPhone and android and WinPhone devices.
but the nice thing about Android is that you can just put it in yourself.
Baloney, unless you mean that all the devices need to be rooted first.
And the thing about encryption is, its almost never more secure to roll your own.
Admittedly I think they're higher than 1% here in the UK, but I've wanted them to die for about 8 years now.
That pretty much tells me that you either dont get much work email, or that youre always at your desk. Name me a phone that does better for corp email / calendaring / phonecalls.
At least RIM makes a decent product, even if noone wants it. I cant think of the last time I willingly went to yahoo... I guess people use it for fantasy football?
So the middle east riots focused on American embassies, why? I mean, if its about what they do and dont have, it doesnt make terribly much sense to go and murder an ambassador.
Im pretty sure Google has no power to block stuff on domains not hosted by them, which is why this whole discussion is absurd. Google is not and cannot be a national filter; they can simply make internal decisions about whether to host stuff and where to allow it to be streamed from their servers.
Secondly they open source products when they have to, but most of their products are sealed closed source projects.
Omigosh, they only open source SOME things? Those jerks!
Is this really the sense of entitlement that gets modded up these days? How about you be happy that they contribute as much as they do, even to the extent that they provide Google Code hosting which strongly pushes FOSS licenses (to the extent you CANNOT have a closed-source project hosted by google). Theyve contributed a web browser, big parts of the database system their core product runs on, lots of code to Linux, a Linux derivative (Android), and lots of other big projects.
I challenge you to name any other for-profit company that has done more for OSS than Google (maybe Apple?). But of course THATS not enough, they need to OS license EVERYTHING for you to be satisfied, right?
Apparently freedom of speech applies only when it's convenient.
Freedom of speech protects you from the government. If folks at Google decide that they dont like fanning the flames of violent riots, theyre within their rights to un-host the video.
Sounds a lot like the model in China where only specific protests/violence are "allowed".
Except that Google isnt a government and cannot censor a population; it can merely decide not to extend their services to you. Youre free to host your video on vimeo or whatever.
This is the disconnect that people dont get. Every website is its own little totalitarian province; the operator has (and should have) the right to tell you to get stuffed at any time for any reason; its OK because their power stops at the boundaries of their domain. Governments are held to a far different standard precisely because of the reach of their power-- the government deciding to disenfranchise you has far bigger and more global consequences..
The article indicates that the attack was done by speaking attack commands.
And as we know, the CIA headquarters are in the World Trade Center buildings.
Drugs existed then, and one of those drugs actually simulated death in the user that lasted for just about three days before it wore off. Perhaps, when Mary gave Christ water that drug was 'slipped' to him. When he woke up and realized, "They want to kill me", he got the hell out of town. This is one plausible explanation for the ressurection.
So Jesus lay in a cold tomb with crucifixion wounds, a hole in his side from the centurion's spear, suffering from scourge wounds, with no food, water, nor medical care, for 3 days? Then got up, moved a several hundred pound rock, and went on a journey?
Yea, that makes perfect sense.
but the workers still have the right to strike if they feel they are being mistreated.
And without unions, the gov't would be free to tell those teachers to pack their bags and find a new job.
Organization of labor it is simply the natural consequence of the every American's right to freely associate, and people are free to decide they will not show up for work.
No, its not; there are additional protections in place that restrict what the employer can and cannot do, when they can fire, when they can hire, how raises must be performed, etc. They can even compel workers to participate in the union, depending on the location.
THATS the problem. The idea of a public-sector union is even more ridiculous because technically the government could simply decide to abolish union rights if it was determined to exploit its workers; you basically have government employees being protected by government regulation from exploitation by the government. How does that make any kind of sense?
Its likely to cause a flamewar along political lines, which really is what slashdot is all about.
Creating a system where half of a teacher's evaluation (and, ergo, the chance they keep their job) is based solely on test scores is simply setting up teachers to fail.
This is some kind of strawman. Theres no reason you have to compare Chicago test scores to Northern Va test scores; you can compare them intra-district in Chicago. You'll still find out who the crappy teachers are, and you get to control for the poverty factor.
Anyone who tries to complain about salaries is merely throwing a red herring into the discussion.
When teachers are striking because of salary negotiations, what theyre currently making is very much relevant to the discussion. Chicago teachers currently make a very cushy $71,000, and I think it is perfectly fair to look at that before considering a raise above that amount.
How do you hope to ensure that the evaluations do not favor teachers who work in "safe" schools in middle class areas, where the students are being pushed by their parents to get high test scores and go to college, over teachers in "tough" schools where the parents are not so worried about education and where the students dream of becoming master criminals?
Establish a baseline average (median, mean, whatever you statistics gurus think is best) per-school or per-district. Teachers whose students generally perform substantially higher than the baseline get raises. Those typically falling below it get let go. You can even look at 2-3 year trends, to avoid anomalies.
This isnt rocket science, youd think a math teacher could figure this out.
Because some school are in more difficult area with less funding and over worked teacher. Why should they be compared against a teacher in a high d nice area with lot of funding and no problem kid ?
DC spends the absolute most per student in the country, and has the absolute worst performance to show for it. New York and NJ come pretty close too. California is also not doing to well in terms of cost-benefit.
You should go look this up (per-pupil spending by state/city, student performance by state/city)-- its kind of shocking when you see it for the first time.
They also by and large have better performing students.
Wait, you mean that theres a reverse correlation between per-pupil spending and pupil performance? Who would have thunk it.
Look at what these teachers are being paid ($71k!), then reconsider "equal salaries". Teaching in public school doesnt have terribly high requirements, so the idea that theyre being exploited is a bit much.
Im starting to think I went into the wrong profession, honestly.
Yes, it is insane to pay those who are teaching the children well.
If you were to look at teacher salary by location and student performance by location, you would notice a few things.
First, you would notice that some states pay substantially more per student (implied, higher teacher salaries).
You would then notice that those places also have the worst student performance, and that the best student performance tends to come with moderate per-student spending.
For example, consider:
Cost per-student per state
Notice the top 4-- DC, New York, Wyoming, New Jersey. Guess which of those 3 are at the bottom of the barrel in student performance?
DC, New York, New Jersey.
For the record, the average teacher in Chicago makes ~$71,000. 30% over top of that is absurd; thats within the average salary range of a CCIE--of which there are only about 20,000 worldwide (salary range appears to be $95-120k).