Wrong. Its still precedent. Every where. Until another circuit rules differently it is still essentially the law of the land.
Let me slightly amend my original statement. It is not binding precedent except in the original circuit. It is persuasive precedent, but that and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Different rulings in different circuits are a rarity in US jurisprudence, and they are virtually never are allowed to stand. They are strictly temporal anomalies.
Not since the Reagan administration, when SCOTUS review became almost entirely discretionary. These days, the SCOTUS frequently rejects cert on cases with significant conflicts between circuits. They only have time to review a few dozen cases per year, and as a result, it is not at all uncommon for conflicts of interpretation to persist for many, many years.
Also, different rulings in different circuits are remarkably common these days, particularly when you have ridiculously oversized circuits like the 9th that half the time don't even agree with themselves....:-D
*shrugs* I work in high tech, and although I know calculus, I can't say I've used it... well, ever, at least not since I took the class. Calculus is certainly important in certain narrow fields relating to materials science, aerospace, etc., but it doesn't have a lot of practical use as a general tool. (Quick, when's the last time you needed to calculate the area under a curve?)
On the other hand, I use statistics frequently as a fundamental part of my understanding of the world around me. Every day, I curse the public's lack of understanding of basic statistics. When people panic in fear of relatively rare events while doing nothing to prevent common problems that kill people on a daily basis, I grow concerned. When products get banned because of a couple of deaths over several years, while the news media decries those products as death traps even though more people die annually from drinking too much water, I grow concerned. And so on.
What I'd like to see is less time spent on basic math during the first few years. When you really get right down to it, we have calculators and computers for that. Being able to successfully add, subtract, multiply, and divide four-digit numbers is no longer a particularly useful skill. Instead, we should spend only a year or two explaining all of the basic concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and fractions sufficiently for kids to understand what's happening at a crude level, then move on to more useful, high-level math like algebra, statistics, geometry, calculus, etc. By wasting so much time on the tedious basics (which half of them will never use again once they get their hands on their first calculator), kids get turned off to mathematics before they even get into the good stuff. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division simply cannot ever be anything but drudgery. Statistics, on the other hand, is actually moderately enjoyable. Can you imagine how much more fun it would be if the Skittle color statistic stuff was taught in first or second grade instead of high school? And once you're teaching statistics in elementary school, then moving on to teach trig in 8th grade and calculus in 9th grade is a no-brainer.
Then again, I'm of the opinion that by first grade, every student should be exposed to abstract concepts like variables, whether in programming classes or in algebra. (And yes, I learned to program on my own at that age with a series of training tapes. Most kids can, honestly.) Abstract thought, like language skills, is something that must be learned while the brain is still forming. By high school, it's too late to pick up those skills, and if you don't have them, you'll barely make it through algebra. Many people never do, and IMO this is at least in part caused by teachers spending all of the critical first two years of education teaching kids to color the horse black or brown, teaching them how to count coins, and other relatively concrete concepts instead of exposing them to things like music, computer programming, abstract mathematics, and other tasks that require higher-order thought.
This is not to say that you should really teach statistics, algebra, trig, and calculus to first graders; they're not really ready to fully grasp the concepts yet. Instead, you should expose them to the concepts early and often, presenting the same concepts with varying levels of complexity and in different ways, knowing that they'll pick up more and more of those abstract concepts as they get older. The important part is to lay the groundwork. In much the same way, kids can pick up the tedious grunt work like addition and subtraction a little bit at a time, spread over the course of their entire K-12 career instead of having it all shoveled in at the front.
Of course, such an approach pretty much requires throwing away the book on how teaching is done. You can't evaluate kids on their skills if your primary goal is laying the groundwork for those skills rather than teaching them entirely. You have
Not really. By refusing to grant certiorari, the lower court's decision stands, but it is not considered precedent in any other circuit. No precedent is set by refusal to grant certiorari.
The problem is that, as the market shows, most people neither need nor want gigabit or even 100meg. even 50/20 is more than most people will ever use.
No, the market does not show that. The market shows that most people are unwilling to pay more than the base price for Internet service, period, regardless of what the base service provides. Using those same standards, fifteen years ago, you would probably have said that 56 kilobit is more than most people will ever use, simply because nobody was willing to pay through the nose for ISDN.
The fact of the matter is that only a tiny fraction of people have service over a couple of megabits per second. Therefore, there is no market for content encoded at a higher rate or services that would require a higher rate. Therefore, there are no services that require a higher rate. History has consistently shown that as average service speeds increase, the need for bandwidth increases to match. Any argument that any given amount of bandwidth is more than most people will ever use is absurd, because it assumes a stagnant industry that does not exist and never has.
Part of living in the real world is prioritizing how you spend your limited resources, and generally its better to address needs that you have NOW rather than addressing potential future needs.
Part of living in the real world is anticipating future needs and prioritizing them when it is potentially beneficial. For example, those cities and towns that get high-speed fiber everywhere are going to draw in the sorts of high-tech people who drive innovation. Businesses that need those sorts of people are going to locate there because of that advantage. This will result in higher property values, more tax revenue, better schools, and a better standard of living even for people who don't care about those networks.
I can easily think of lots of general-purpose uses for gigabit connections. They mostly involve removing the need for local storage of everything. Right now, it isn't practical to just shove your movies, applications, etc. up into the cloud, because the performance is 1–2 orders of magnitude slower than your local hard drive (in the best case scenario). With gigabit, that bottleneck goes away. It would also enable 3D Blu-Ray quality streaming video over gigabit fiber (64 Mbps peak data rate). Heck, 3D Blu-Ray quality videoconferencing would become feasible at that point.
That said, probably the biggest reason for moving to gigabit fiber has nothing to do with gigabit and everything to do with replacing the aging copper infrastructure that Internet service currently depends on. DSL is crap. It provides service only near the CO or specially equipped RTs, it runs over aging pairs, many of which are in sad shape and get crosstalk every time it rains, etc. And cable modems have signal strength problems from aging lines, seriously limited bandwidth that's shared among everyone on your local loop and seriously limits what can be done in terms of things like VOD, etc.
Fiber has none of those problems. It is a next-generation infrastructure that will be robust for decades, replacing one that breaks down constantly. The long-term cost of continuing to maintain a legacy copper network will eventually be more expensive than the cost of building out a modern fiber network. The only real question is where the tipping point is.
The literacy standards reduce the amount of fiction being read substantially, and non-fiction reading becomes emphasized.
No, the literacy standards are intended to increase the amount of nonfiction by adding additional reading in non-English classes. The standards are not intended to reduce the amount of fiction at all, and if that's happening, you're doing it wrong.
I think it's a reall good thing--we currently do a poor job of preparing our students for the myriad of technical text they will have to interact with as a person and a professional.
The reality, though, is that technical texts are inherently uninteresting. I spend 40 hours a day writing technical texts, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone unless you need to understand that particular subject. There's no such thing as a general-interest technical text that would be useful, accessible, and interesting to an average high school student, because different students have different interests and technical backgrounds. Technical texts really have no place in a high school curriculum except as part of a technical class. High school students should read technical texts in computer classes. They should read them in woodworking classes. They should read them in science classes. They should not read them in English classes.
The purpose of English classes is to teach the English language. Technical texts do not do that. Except for subject-specific terminology, we write at about a third-grade reading level. The sentence structure is fairly rigid, the word choice is very basic, and the sentences are kept very short. We use bullet points to simplify parsing of anything longer than about ten words. In short, technical texts are designed around precision and concision, which is to say that they use as little English as humanly possible while still conveying the point. Therefore, using such material in an English class would actively harm students' vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, etc. because all those things pretty much go out the window in a technical text, in favor of absolute simplicity.
And students really are fairly well prepared for reading technical texts. Reading the texts, assuming they are written properly, is remarkably easy. What students lack is the vocabulary in any specific discipline. However, they can't usefully get that in high school because high school is not a specialized, single-career-track program. That's what college is for. Having all the students in an English class read some technical report about bird habitats or whatever isn't particularly useful to them in a career unless they plan to go into an environmental studies field. Having them all read a computer programming book isn't useful unless they plan to go into programming. The notion that high school can somehow prepare students for the technical parts of a college curriculum is prima facie absurd.
What high school can and should do is require students to write more. Requiring research papers in science and history classes is a great way to do this. It teaches students how to read technical texts for comprehension, but allows students the flexibility to choose a subject that interests them. It forces students to write, so even though the texts they are reading don't really improve their vocabulary (except in a subject-specific area), it encourages them to use their vocabulary while writing, which inherently strengthens it.
Teaching nonfiction in English classes is not the manner in which the Common Core was intended to be implemented. The intent was for science and history teachers to increase the nonfiction reading in their classes. Unfortunately, lots of schools are doing it wrong.
This is particularly disturbing because reading nonfiction in English classes is pretty much an utter waste of time. The purpose of English classes is to learn about the language. Nonfiction books don't use the language. They're almost invariably either academic in tone (which is just dreadfully boring unless you happen to be interested in that particular topic, and will only further the disenchantment that the youth of today feel towards reading) or technical in tone (which is even worse). Neither one is likely to expand vocabulary, excite students, force students to think, or basically do anything else that a classroom is supposed to do.
Nonfiction reading in a history or science class, however, facilitates learning about a particular subject in history. Assuming students have some freedom to choose texts that interest them, such reading has the potential to enhance the learning process.
For this reason, it is crucial that teachers and parents loudly shout, "No!" when school administrators try to implement the Common Core by shoehorning nonfiction reading into the English classroom. That's the wrong way to implement the standard, and any district that tries to do it that way is in desperate need of a change in leadership.
When I went to school (I'm 46), "Wrinkle in Time" was on the curriculum.
A decade later, it wasn't in our curriculum, but it was part of the summer reading list that they encouraged kids to read in elementary school. We read Brave New World in high school English, and in our junior high gifted program, we read a creepy sci-fi short story in which they executed kids who scored above a certain IQ. IIRC, we read it shortly before the 8th grade standardized test. Gee, thanks.
The marathon was on the 15th, and he was last seen on the 16th. So unless someone saw his ghost, it is, in fact, unreasonable to suspect that he was dead before the bombings. He did, however, disappear shortly before he was accused, so it isn't clear whether his actual death was in response to the accusation or not.
From what I have read, geologists are careful to emphasize our understanding of what is down there is speculative and based on indirect evidence.
Well, then, we need to send someone down to the Earth's core at once to find out for certain. Might I be the first to recommend that we start with all of Congress, followed by all the lawyers?
Yes, it's possible that it was not cause and effect. Either way, the point still stands that it is not a very good investigative technique, and should be used sparingly, because quite frankly most people look like someone else.
Genetics are bit a like the birthday paradox. It typically takes only a couple of thousand people before you start to see people who bear an uncanny resemblance to someone else you have already seen. Spread that across 300 million people, and everyone in the U.S. likely has at least a kilodoppelgänger.
The bombers were taken because of footage from cameras, most of which were owned by private individuals. Those cameras don't have the same privacy concerns as government-owned cameras because no single entity has access to all of them except under extreme circumstances where everyone universally agrees to make that footage available. And this is the way that it should continue to be done. This bombing provides no justification for any changes whatsoever. The system, as designed, with privacy built in, mostly worked.
Incidentally, to the extent that the system did not completely work, it failed in a way that more cameras—particularly publicly accessible cameras—would exacerbate. If the public had access to more cameras, more often, we would have more incidences of false accusations like the one that led to the (presumed) suicide of Sunil Tripathi. The whole reason for limiting access to video from lots of different sources is that it greatly increases the probability of misidentification by greatly increasing the perceived confidence in the evidence (regardles of whether the public or police are doing that identification). Thus, the Boston bombing incident plainly demonstrates why the use of video evidence as a starting point, in the absence of other evidence tying someone to a crime, is an extreme solution that should be used only in extreme circumstances, where there is a serious public safety concern. Based on what happened here, IMO, giving the police access to more cameras more often is only likely to ruin a lot of innocent people's lives.
Put another way, I think any question about Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's common sense has really been taken off the table.
The problem is that they claim that their service is always without a contract, which simply isn't true. It would be true if they did not force people to pay the full loan amount upon terminating their service, but by tying the availability of the loan to your continued use of their service, the claim that you are not under contract becomes false, or at best disingenuous.
It's not unusual in cell phone service contracts, but such tying is fairly unusual in loan contracts, which T-Mobile's equipment loan contracts claim to be.
If you mean the developer forums, those really aren't support forums. If Quinn or somebody else from Apple happens to know the answer and can explain it quickly, you might get an answer, but it isn't guaranteed. The more complex the question, the less likely you are to get an adequate answer. This is triply true if the problem is specific to your code and isn't easily reproduced with a simple, reduced test case.
At the show, the Apple person can actually look at your app's source code and help you figure out what's going on. The Apple engineer can at least ostensibly move back and forth between your source code and the underlying OS source code that you are calling, and can say, "Oh, that parameter can't be NULL if this other parameter is an NSString," or whatever. You just can't feasibly get that level of interaction going in a forum.
For situations where one correct answer right now is worth a thousand correct answers that take several days apiece to obtain, there's a significant benefit. Of course, if you don't care about getting your app updated to support [insert latest whizz-bang feature] on the very first day that [insert new OS version] comes out the door, YMMV.
It just says that they're posting videos during the conference, not that it will be live.
IMO, the biggest thing the $1,600 buys you is near-real-time help from Apple engineers to get you past any problems you run into while testing whatever new APIs, new technologies, etc. that they're showing off that year. Bear in mind that a single DTS incident costs $195 (last I checked), and if you get help eight times, you've paid for the cost of your ticket.
Also, you get the opportunity to kvetch at real, live Apple engineers, see the Timnote live, see an exclusive concert, provide feedback that helps shape the direction that the technology takes in the future, etc.
I'll be impressed when they can match ComicCon San Diego, who have a hard time finding a ticket sales service that can stand up to more than a few seconds before it collapses under the load. The only reason it took 93 minutes to sell out completely was the slow server response times. Not many wet sites can handle 140,000+ people trying to log in at the same time.
Quite the opposite, really. WWDC sold probably five or six thousand tickets in a little over sixty seconds. That's about a hundred tickets per second. Had ComicCon SD used Apple's online store servers instead of an online ticket service, they would have sold out in a little over 23 minutes instead of 93.
As for the total magnitude, obviously I don't know the server stat numbers, but there are over 275,000 registered iOS developers in the U.S. alone (source: Apple), and the WW stands for "worldwide". Given that most of those folks would find a way to pay for it just to say that they got to go once, I'd be shocked if there were as few as 140,000 people hitting Apple's servers this morning.
In other words, I think you're grossly underestimating the magnitude of what just happened.
Yes, that's generally what "paying off" means in the context of a loan—paying the remaining balance all at once. Making regular payments is "paying down" the loan, at least until the final payment.
The phone service plan (i.e., getting a signal) is no contract. Buying the phone itself, *if you choose to buy a phone from them using an installment plan*, is a contract.
Yes, but the conditions of that loan contract mandate continuous service. Therefore, the phone service plan is only a no-contract plan if you pay for the entire cost of the phone up front. If you pay for it on a monthly basis, you not only have a contract for the loan, but also (in effect) a contract on your phone plan that is tied to that loan contract.
This is like a car service contract where when you decide you want to get your oil changes from someone else, you have to pay off your car loan. That's a substantially nonstandard contract term that requires more than just incidental mention in some terms and conditions.
That's what they're advertising, but that's not what they're delivering. As long as the loan contract is dependent on continuing service, the service is contractually bound, period.
What I don't get is why T-Mobile doesn't let you continue paying off the phone on a month-by-month basis after you cancel service. That's the part that's potentially deceptive. One would naturally expect that "no contract service" means that your loan on the phone is not tied to that nonexistent contract. The fact that your phone loan is tied to service means that, in fact, it is a service contract, no matter how T-Mobile tries to spin it.
Slashdot Mirror
How else would you attach the hose? To the part that rotates? Every sprinkler I've ever seen has the hose attaching to the base.
Let me slightly amend my original statement. It is not binding precedent except in the original circuit. It is persuasive precedent, but that and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Not since the Reagan administration, when SCOTUS review became almost entirely discretionary. These days, the SCOTUS frequently rejects cert on cases with significant conflicts between circuits. They only have time to review a few dozen cases per year, and as a result, it is not at all uncommon for conflicts of interpretation to persist for many, many years.
Also, different rulings in different circuits are remarkably common these days, particularly when you have ridiculously oversized circuits like the 9th that half the time don't even agree with themselves.... :-D
*shrugs* I work in high tech, and although I know calculus, I can't say I've used it... well, ever, at least not since I took the class. Calculus is certainly important in certain narrow fields relating to materials science, aerospace, etc., but it doesn't have a lot of practical use as a general tool. (Quick, when's the last time you needed to calculate the area under a curve?)
On the other hand, I use statistics frequently as a fundamental part of my understanding of the world around me. Every day, I curse the public's lack of understanding of basic statistics. When people panic in fear of relatively rare events while doing nothing to prevent common problems that kill people on a daily basis, I grow concerned. When products get banned because of a couple of deaths over several years, while the news media decries those products as death traps even though more people die annually from drinking too much water, I grow concerned. And so on.
What I'd like to see is less time spent on basic math during the first few years. When you really get right down to it, we have calculators and computers for that. Being able to successfully add, subtract, multiply, and divide four-digit numbers is no longer a particularly useful skill. Instead, we should spend only a year or two explaining all of the basic concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and fractions sufficiently for kids to understand what's happening at a crude level, then move on to more useful, high-level math like algebra, statistics, geometry, calculus, etc. By wasting so much time on the tedious basics (which half of them will never use again once they get their hands on their first calculator), kids get turned off to mathematics before they even get into the good stuff. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division simply cannot ever be anything but drudgery. Statistics, on the other hand, is actually moderately enjoyable. Can you imagine how much more fun it would be if the Skittle color statistic stuff was taught in first or second grade instead of high school? And once you're teaching statistics in elementary school, then moving on to teach trig in 8th grade and calculus in 9th grade is a no-brainer.
Then again, I'm of the opinion that by first grade, every student should be exposed to abstract concepts like variables, whether in programming classes or in algebra. (And yes, I learned to program on my own at that age with a series of training tapes. Most kids can, honestly.) Abstract thought, like language skills, is something that must be learned while the brain is still forming. By high school, it's too late to pick up those skills, and if you don't have them, you'll barely make it through algebra. Many people never do, and IMO this is at least in part caused by teachers spending all of the critical first two years of education teaching kids to color the horse black or brown, teaching them how to count coins, and other relatively concrete concepts instead of exposing them to things like music, computer programming, abstract mathematics, and other tasks that require higher-order thought.
This is not to say that you should really teach statistics, algebra, trig, and calculus to first graders; they're not really ready to fully grasp the concepts yet. Instead, you should expose them to the concepts early and often, presenting the same concepts with varying levels of complexity and in different ways, knowing that they'll pick up more and more of those abstract concepts as they get older. The important part is to lay the groundwork. In much the same way, kids can pick up the tedious grunt work like addition and subtraction a little bit at a time, spread over the course of their entire K-12 career instead of having it all shoveled in at the front.
Of course, such an approach pretty much requires throwing away the book on how teaching is done. You can't evaluate kids on their skills if your primary goal is laying the groundwork for those skills rather than teaching them entirely. You have
Not really. By refusing to grant certiorari, the lower court's decision stands, but it is not considered precedent in any other circuit. No precedent is set by refusal to grant certiorari.
No, the market does not show that. The market shows that most people are unwilling to pay more than the base price for Internet service, period, regardless of what the base service provides. Using those same standards, fifteen years ago, you would probably have said that 56 kilobit is more than most people will ever use, simply because nobody was willing to pay through the nose for ISDN.
The fact of the matter is that only a tiny fraction of people have service over a couple of megabits per second. Therefore, there is no market for content encoded at a higher rate or services that would require a higher rate. Therefore, there are no services that require a higher rate. History has consistently shown that as average service speeds increase, the need for bandwidth increases to match. Any argument that any given amount of bandwidth is more than most people will ever use is absurd, because it assumes a stagnant industry that does not exist and never has.
Part of living in the real world is anticipating future needs and prioritizing them when it is potentially beneficial. For example, those cities and towns that get high-speed fiber everywhere are going to draw in the sorts of high-tech people who drive innovation. Businesses that need those sorts of people are going to locate there because of that advantage. This will result in higher property values, more tax revenue, better schools, and a better standard of living even for people who don't care about those networks.
I can easily think of lots of general-purpose uses for gigabit connections. They mostly involve removing the need for local storage of everything. Right now, it isn't practical to just shove your movies, applications, etc. up into the cloud, because the performance is 1–2 orders of magnitude slower than your local hard drive (in the best case scenario). With gigabit, that bottleneck goes away. It would also enable 3D Blu-Ray quality streaming video over gigabit fiber (64 Mbps peak data rate). Heck, 3D Blu-Ray quality videoconferencing would become feasible at that point.
That said, probably the biggest reason for moving to gigabit fiber has nothing to do with gigabit and everything to do with replacing the aging copper infrastructure that Internet service currently depends on. DSL is crap. It provides service only near the CO or specially equipped RTs, it runs over aging pairs, many of which are in sad shape and get crosstalk every time it rains, etc. And cable modems have signal strength problems from aging lines, seriously limited bandwidth that's shared among everyone on your local loop and seriously limits what can be done in terms of things like VOD, etc.
Fiber has none of those problems. It is a next-generation infrastructure that will be robust for decades, replacing one that breaks down constantly. The long-term cost of continuing to maintain a legacy copper network will eventually be more expensive than the cost of building out a modern fiber network. The only real question is where the tipping point is.
No, the literacy standards are intended to increase the amount of nonfiction by adding additional reading in non-English classes. The standards are not intended to reduce the amount of fiction at all, and if that's happening, you're doing it wrong.
The reality, though, is that technical texts are inherently uninteresting. I spend 40 hours a day writing technical texts, and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone unless you need to understand that particular subject. There's no such thing as a general-interest technical text that would be useful, accessible, and interesting to an average high school student, because different students have different interests and technical backgrounds. Technical texts really have no place in a high school curriculum except as part of a technical class. High school students should read technical texts in computer classes. They should read them in woodworking classes. They should read them in science classes. They should not read them in English classes.
The purpose of English classes is to teach the English language. Technical texts do not do that. Except for subject-specific terminology, we write at about a third-grade reading level. The sentence structure is fairly rigid, the word choice is very basic, and the sentences are kept very short. We use bullet points to simplify parsing of anything longer than about ten words. In short, technical texts are designed around precision and concision, which is to say that they use as little English as humanly possible while still conveying the point. Therefore, using such material in an English class would actively harm students' vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, etc. because all those things pretty much go out the window in a technical text, in favor of absolute simplicity.
And students really are fairly well prepared for reading technical texts. Reading the texts, assuming they are written properly, is remarkably easy. What students lack is the vocabulary in any specific discipline. However, they can't usefully get that in high school because high school is not a specialized, single-career-track program. That's what college is for. Having all the students in an English class read some technical report about bird habitats or whatever isn't particularly useful to them in a career unless they plan to go into an environmental studies field. Having them all read a computer programming book isn't useful unless they plan to go into programming. The notion that high school can somehow prepare students for the technical parts of a college curriculum is prima facie absurd.
What high school can and should do is require students to write more. Requiring research papers in science and history classes is a great way to do this. It teaches students how to read technical texts for comprehension, but allows students the flexibility to choose a subject that interests them. It forces students to write, so even though the texts they are reading don't really improve their vocabulary (except in a subject-specific area), it encourages them to use their vocabulary while writing, which inherently strengthens it.
Teaching nonfiction in English classes is not the manner in which the Common Core was intended to be implemented. The intent was for science and history teachers to increase the nonfiction reading in their classes. Unfortunately, lots of schools are doing it wrong.
This is particularly disturbing because reading nonfiction in English classes is pretty much an utter waste of time. The purpose of English classes is to learn about the language. Nonfiction books don't use the language. They're almost invariably either academic in tone (which is just dreadfully boring unless you happen to be interested in that particular topic, and will only further the disenchantment that the youth of today feel towards reading) or technical in tone (which is even worse). Neither one is likely to expand vocabulary, excite students, force students to think, or basically do anything else that a classroom is supposed to do.
Nonfiction reading in a history or science class, however, facilitates learning about a particular subject in history. Assuming students have some freedom to choose texts that interest them, such reading has the potential to enhance the learning process.
For this reason, it is crucial that teachers and parents loudly shout, "No!" when school administrators try to implement the Common Core by shoehorning nonfiction reading into the English classroom. That's the wrong way to implement the standard, and any district that tries to do it that way is in desperate need of a change in leadership.
A decade later, it wasn't in our curriculum, but it was part of the summer reading list that they encouraged kids to read in elementary school. We read Brave New World in high school English, and in our junior high gifted program, we read a creepy sci-fi short story in which they executed kids who scored above a certain IQ. IIRC, we read it shortly before the 8th grade standardized test. Gee, thanks.
My bad. I have the wrong month. The bombing was April 15.
His death is being treated as a suicide.
The marathon was on the 15th, and he was last seen on the 16th. So unless someone saw his ghost, it is, in fact, unreasonable to suspect that he was dead before the bombings. He did, however, disappear shortly before he was accused, so it isn't clear whether his actual death was in response to the accusation or not.
Well, then, we need to send someone down to the Earth's core at once to find out for certain. Might I be the first to recommend that we start with all of Congress, followed by all the lawyers?
Yes, it's possible that it was not cause and effect. Either way, the point still stands that it is not a very good investigative technique, and should be used sparingly, because quite frankly most people look like someone else.
Genetics are bit a like the birthday paradox. It typically takes only a couple of thousand people before you start to see people who bear an uncanny resemblance to someone else you have already seen. Spread that across 300 million people, and everyone in the U.S. likely has at least a kilodoppelgänger.
The bombers were taken because of footage from cameras, most of which were owned by private individuals. Those cameras don't have the same privacy concerns as government-owned cameras because no single entity has access to all of them except under extreme circumstances where everyone universally agrees to make that footage available. And this is the way that it should continue to be done. This bombing provides no justification for any changes whatsoever. The system, as designed, with privacy built in, mostly worked.
Incidentally, to the extent that the system did not completely work, it failed in a way that more cameras—particularly publicly accessible cameras—would exacerbate. If the public had access to more cameras, more often, we would have more incidences of false accusations like the one that led to the (presumed) suicide of Sunil Tripathi. The whole reason for limiting access to video from lots of different sources is that it greatly increases the probability of misidentification by greatly increasing the perceived confidence in the evidence (regardles of whether the public or police are doing that identification). Thus, the Boston bombing incident plainly demonstrates why the use of video evidence as a starting point, in the absence of other evidence tying someone to a crime, is an extreme solution that should be used only in extreme circumstances, where there is a serious public safety concern. Based on what happened here, IMO, giving the police access to more cameras more often is only likely to ruin a lot of innocent people's lives.
Put another way, I think any question about Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's common sense has really been taken off the table.
The problem is that they claim that their service is always without a contract, which simply isn't true. It would be true if they did not force people to pay the full loan amount upon terminating their service, but by tying the availability of the loan to your continued use of their service, the claim that you are not under contract becomes false, or at best disingenuous.
It's not unusual in cell phone service contracts, but such tying is fairly unusual in loan contracts, which T-Mobile's equipment loan contracts claim to be.
If you mean the developer forums, those really aren't support forums. If Quinn or somebody else from Apple happens to know the answer and can explain it quickly, you might get an answer, but it isn't guaranteed. The more complex the question, the less likely you are to get an adequate answer. This is triply true if the problem is specific to your code and isn't easily reproduced with a simple, reduced test case.
At the show, the Apple person can actually look at your app's source code and help you figure out what's going on. The Apple engineer can at least ostensibly move back and forth between your source code and the underlying OS source code that you are calling, and can say, "Oh, that parameter can't be NULL if this other parameter is an NSString," or whatever. You just can't feasibly get that level of interaction going in a forum.
For situations where one correct answer right now is worth a thousand correct answers that take several days apiece to obtain, there's a significant benefit. Of course, if you don't care about getting your app updated to support [insert latest whizz-bang feature] on the very first day that [insert new OS version] comes out the door, YMMV.
It just says that they're posting videos during the conference, not that it will be live.
IMO, the biggest thing the $1,600 buys you is near-real-time help from Apple engineers to get you past any problems you run into while testing whatever new APIs, new technologies, etc. that they're showing off that year. Bear in mind that a single DTS incident costs $195 (last I checked), and if you get help eight times, you've paid for the cost of your ticket.
Also, you get the opportunity to kvetch at real, live Apple engineers, see the Timnote live, see an exclusive concert, provide feedback that helps shape the direction that the technology takes in the future, etc.
Quite the opposite, really. WWDC sold probably five or six thousand tickets in a little over sixty seconds. That's about a hundred tickets per second. Had ComicCon SD used Apple's online store servers instead of an online ticket service, they would have sold out in a little over 23 minutes instead of 93.
As for the total magnitude, obviously I don't know the server stat numbers, but there are over 275,000 registered iOS developers in the U.S. alone (source: Apple), and the WW stands for "worldwide". Given that most of those folks would find a way to pay for it just to say that they got to go once, I'd be shocked if there were as few as 140,000 people hitting Apple's servers this morning.
In other words, I think you're grossly underestimating the magnitude of what just happened.
Yes, that's generally what "paying off" means in the context of a loan—paying the remaining balance all at once. Making regular payments is "paying down" the loan, at least until the final payment.
Yeah, I hadn't learned that little tidbit when I posted that comment. :-)
Yes, but the conditions of that loan contract mandate continuous service. Therefore, the phone service plan is only a no-contract plan if you pay for the entire cost of the phone up front. If you pay for it on a monthly basis, you not only have a contract for the loan, but also (in effect) a contract on your phone plan that is tied to that loan contract.
This is like a car service contract where when you decide you want to get your oil changes from someone else, you have to pay off your car loan. That's a substantially nonstandard contract term that requires more than just incidental mention in some terms and conditions.
That's what they're advertising, but that's not what they're delivering. As long as the loan contract is dependent on continuing service, the service is contractually bound, period.
What I don't get is why T-Mobile doesn't let you continue paying off the phone on a month-by-month basis after you cancel service. That's the part that's potentially deceptive. One would naturally expect that "no contract service" means that your loan on the phone is not tied to that nonexistent contract. The fact that your phone loan is tied to service means that, in fact, it is a service contract, no matter how T-Mobile tries to spin it.
It's like buying a carâ"you can buy it with or without a service contract for oil changes, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pay off the loan.