Although I think selling something online for varying prices, depending on where the customer's IP address is, is a questionable practice, selling things from a physical shop must take into consideration the price levels of the local market.
Suppose I start a shop in the middle of London/Pars/New York/Tokyo (where I imagine the rents will be quite high) and sell nails and hammers. Then I open an identical shop in some out-of-the-way village (where I imagine the rents will be quite low). Even if I own both these shops I might very well have to charge higher prices in the metropolis than in the village, simply to make up for the higher rent. And since my employees in the metropolis will have higher rents to pay, their wages will need to be slightly higher than in the village.
All in all, the price level will be higher in the metropolis than in the village, and this must be reflected in my prices.
What I would like to know is when the sugested system is going to be applied to stupid politicians! When enough of the population in the politicians district think he/she is being inefensibly stupid, the collar gets triggered. I think politicians would learn pretty soon to not get the collar triggered. Or they would quit politics, which might be just as good.
I consider myself a simple man, with modest wishes. As far as my browser needs go, Firefox 3 pretty much fulfills them.
However, things can always get better, so in the future I would like all browsers to render (X)HTML documents correctly (ie as per the W3C specifications) and identically. If the W3C are unclear on anything, they should settle the uncertainty, and fill in any gaps they may have left.
Also, it would be nice to be able to use some of the newer techniques 'out there', like SVG. Firefox seems to do this nicely, but Konqueror does not. I don't think IE in any version does it. For a nice page that uses SVG for good purposes try http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml.
And since I am making wishes for the future, wouldn't it be nice to be able to use any of the techniques the W3C (or other relevant body) accept as recommendations/standards? Like a multitude of image formats, various mark-up languages (MathML springs to mind) and fully supported CSS/JavaSCript/Java.
Maybe some time in the future Microsoft will release an operating system based on BSD (or on something else non-Microsoft), but for the foreseeable future I don't think they will. The reason is quite simple: if Microsoft were to radically change the base of their OS, the end-users would be forced to change all their applications.
Either get a newer version that works on the new OS, or change to a completely new application. Either way, I think this forced application change is perceived by Microsoft as incentive for the end user to change to an application from a manufacturer that does not help Microsoft maintain it's monopoly.
And if you are going to consider an application from a 'hostile' manufacturer, what's to stop you from considering a non-Microsoft OS?
As long as Microsoft can keep the end user from even thinking about changing to another application manufacturer they can remain in control of the majority of computers in the world. And for Microsoft, being in control means they make money. If they loose that control, they stop making money.
As a side-note, I fear Linux will not grow much every year, just continue a slow growth as it has the past years. However, soon Microsoft will see Linux as a genuine, existing as opposed to potential, threat. Once this happens, Microsoft will dig into it's vast monetary reserves and market their latest OS as the greatest thing ever. And they will probably start releasing new versions of OSs and applications faster than they have done recently.
Precisely. Encryption/cracking is just another arms race.
Although the algorith is known to my enemies, my secret is safe as long as they don't have the key with which it is encrypted. They can get a computer to try all possible combinations though (called brute force attack).
My defence against this is to increase the key length so much that all th computers in the wolrd working together would take longer than the age of the universe to test all possible keys.
If 'the enemy' can brute-force an encryption key that is (say) 1024 bits long, I can increase the key length by any number of bits. Each aditional bit will double the length of time needed to test every single possible combination. Adding 10 bits would multiply the time by one thousand, twenty bits would make the time needed one million times longer. Another thousand bits and 'the enemy' can forget about it: the universe is not going to exist long enough for them to crack my encrypted message with brute force atacks, no matter how many computers they use.
Please note that the above only applies to cracking my encrypted message with brute force. I f 'the enemy' is willing to do it they might get a better resutl grabbing me and putting a gun to my head. Or they might try some other method at cracking the encryption.
There is an effective, although controversial, way to combat the "if you are not a terrorist then you have nothing to hide" idea. Ask whoever proposes it if they would mind you mounting a webcam in their bedroom. The idea is that unless they are sexual perverts (or paedophiles) they have nothing to hide, and will then,by their own logic, have nothing to hide. If they have nothing to hide, why should they then object to having a webcam in their bedroom?
I realise this is a very crude way of combating something you dislike, but it does show, very effectively, that even if we 'have nothing to hide' we might object to being spied on.
I live in Sweden, where we have recently been graced with this law allowing FRA to listen in on all traffic crossing the border. As I understand it, this applies to telephone and internet traffic, and any other ways of transporting information electronically that might be in use. While I realise that snooping on certain targets (ie foreign embassies, people suspected of serious crime etc.) is of value to the authorities I think the law (as it has been presented in media) is far too permissive. I think that FRA should be given the possibility to apply for permission to eavesdrop on certain specific targets, and the permissions given should be valid a certain (reasonable) time, and then FRA would have to reapply for permission if they find a target to be of value.
Who they should apply to might be a difficult question, since the fact that they want to eavesdrop on any particular target must be kept a secret (or the information gained will be of little or no value).
If medication is the only way to help a child with some problem, then let the remedy be medication. I would have settled for just a different way of doing things, if that would help.
I had a couple of pupils with reading disorders, and no guidance on how to handle the problem (and it was a problem for me.) Just a few weeks before the school year ended I found out, by chance, one possible way to handle the problem, and it involved no medicine at all. The short time I could try this 'different' method, it worked well.
Ever tried to get people INTERESTED in succeeding in your subject?
Of course, that is the first step. But I can only try in so many ways. When all the ways I can imagine (and all the ways my colleagues can imagine) produce no results, what am I to do?
Ever wondered why some people hate Chemistry while others hate Math and yet others hate CS? I think you have the answer. If I am not good at a certain subject and am disinterested in it and the teacher ignores me because of that, I will hate the subject. Yes. But if you show just some will to learn, I will not abandon you. (Well, at least a certain amount of will. If your level of ambition is to spend all term solving a maths problem that would take the average student 5-10 minutes, I think it would be fair of me to reassign the time I would have spent on you otherwise.)
You don't decide what merits your time. I don't agree at all. Unless you are in the class room you cannot possibly hope to tell me how to spend my time. You can draw up guide lines, rules, draft laws and pass regulation. But when it comes down to it, only the people in the class room can decide what to do. Obviously, I will follow rules, laws and so on as well as possible, but the situations in classrooms are not always as clear as one thinks when writing rules and laws.
Although my primary function in a classroom is to make sure the pupils learn my subject, I must also function as a referee/policeman, adult other than the pupil's parents, part-time friend and more.
This might be offensive, but let me assure you that if they paid teachers decent wages, with this attitude, you or the OP would definitely not have jobs as teachers. No offense taken.
I have worked as a teacher, and am currently studying to become a qualified teacher. My position is that as long as the pupil is trying in my subject, he/she will get his/her fair share of my time. But when the student shows no ambition at all (or simply too little) I will take that fair share of time and distribute it among those students who actually _want_ to succeed in my subject.
This action is probably illegal, and most parents would object strongly if they realised what I consider is justified. But it boils down to a simple fact: you cannot teach someone who doesn't want to learn. If the student doesn't want to learn my subject, I am wasting my time on him/her, and could spend it better on those in the class who want to learn my subject.
Doing this does not bother me at all, and I will do it whenever I feel a student does not merit my time.
What does bother me though, is parents who don't care enough about their children. I have had pupils that I, as an unqualified teacher with practically zero knowledge of the mind and body, can tell have some sort of problem (like ADHD or similar issues). In most cases the parents have refused to have their children examined, in case they get 'stamped' as being a multiletter diagnosis. The effect of this is that I am left desperately trying to find a way of dealing with a pupil's (or several pupils') problems while having absolutely no guidance.
Before one can make any statement like "X writes better code than Y", one must define what constitutes "better" in this case.
If I were a racing car driver, "better" would probably mean "faster", but things are a little more complex in the computer world.
For example, one might be writing code to be embedded in a device with minimal memory. "Better" might then mean "using less ROM/RAM".
Or the code might be used to control some equipment at CERN (where I imagine the demand for speed is high). "Better" would in this sense mean code that executes faster.
Or one might be writing a book on the subject of programming. It would be reasonable, then, to assume that "better" means code that with more clarity than other code illustrates how to use the language/algorithm in question.
Only when you have defined what constitues "better" code can you single out any individual or group as writing better code than others.
Having said the above I think it is quite possible that women write "better" code than men, but I would not state it as a fact without a good survey and strict definition of "better".
Some people will actively try to get some version of Windows running on their hardware, but I think a greater number will simply not notice that they are not running Windows.
And the reason is that if they can do all the work they want to (check email, write letters, do some maths, play simple games...) they won't bother with asking about the operating system. After all, I don't care what's inside the rear hub on my bike, as long as the gears work. Why should a computer user be that different?
Unfortunately, there will be some people who will not buy a computer unless it has Windows on it, because that is the only thing they know and they fear change more than death itself.
Despite the above, I think you are right when it comes to the TV: that which is seen on commercials (and not only on TV, but anywhere) will do better than that which is not seen.
If a company wants to use software released under the GPL in their own products, hadn't they better understand the licence terms before they start doing anything? What would happen if Microsoft caught Adobe using Excel in parts of Photoshop?(1)
As I see it the creators of some software relesase this software under the GPL, which grants you certain liberties you would not have if the software were released under a more classic closed source commercial licence (think Microsoft/Adobe/Apple...). I think that if you are to use the work of the original creators you should abide by their wishes/terms. If you won't/can't then dont use their work and create your own software doing the same function.
As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue: it doesn't matter what licence software is released with, you need to understand that licence before using the software in you own products, if at all! The difference between commercial licence and GPL is that the GPL gives you more freedom from the start, while placing certain limits on how much secrecy you can 'afford your products.
1: not likely to ever happen, but play with the thought.
I would not really be all that bothered if the customs inspectors saw what was on my laptop when I crossed the border. What would bother me is the risk of having the data on it copied, with the copy going somewhere where I have no control at all over it.
Suppose I am travelling to the USA to meet an important customer, potentially to close a multimillion deal with them. For practical purposes I would like to have all relevant data in the laptop, rather than having to download it from internet once I am in the country.
Therefore, I would like to bring the current policy down, from inside. This can be done by, for example, providing a large number of unencrypted files (with content suited to your own area of expertise) that look genuine, but are actually complete rubbish. They could be eg designs of new weapons (for an engineer), a medical report on some high-up official (for a doctor), a contract proposal in which the American counterpart is doing something illegal (for business men or lawyers)... If the customs inspectors make a habit of copying* 'interesting' files, all these will be copied and the effect of it will eventually be observable: your 'business partner' will be raided by police because of the content of your bogus business proposal, some American weapons manufacturer might issue a press release about the same weapon you described in your made-up technical specification...
I realise that one person on his/her own has no power to accomplish anything like this, but if most people did this, eventually the customs officers would have to stop copying files, simply because the signal-to-noise ratio is too low.
And to protect the business traveler from having to lie to the inspectors, the laptop should be prepared by someone else, with lots of bogus files. Enough bogus files to hide the true files without other effort, and the traveler will be told which files to use only when he/she calls the company HQ by phone.
* Copying and giving the copies to the CIA, NSA or any American company with which I happen to be competing. If I happen to have some porn on my laptop and this is copied by the customs inspectors I couldn't care less.
There is a much simpler way to deal with this: simply send an official representative of the Air Force to knock on certain doors belonging to a certain large IT-company (whose name is the opposite of Megahard...) and notify them of a new federal requirement. Done this way the botnet could be assembled in a couple of months, and it would probably be against the EULA to remove the botnet functionality. To top it off, it would easily be the largest botnet ever assembled!
However, this method does have a serious drawback: anybody who knows better would change to linux, and fast. Well.... now that I think about it... it's just a positive side effect!
The one and only reason I can see for Microsoft to do this is also the reason any company would do anything: survival!
I may be wrong, but I think the low-cost market is a brilliant market for Linux to use to slowly move into the mainstream desktop area. As such, this is a market that Microsoft must dominate if they are not to loose the battle before the war has begun.
Consider what would happen if Microsoft did nothing about dead-cheap laptops being sold with Linux on them: first of all, average Joe would notice that it actually works, secondly that it works well, thirdly that it does not need (for now at least) umpteen other programs to keep it safe (firewalls, antivirus....) and lastly average Joe would notice that Linux is free.
On its own, each of these points is a practically negligible threat to Microsoft, but together they have the power to quickly take over the desktop market*. Therefore Microsoft are essentially fighting for their very existence: if they do not stop Linux from getting into the desktop arena, they will eventually be forced out of it, or have the game rules dictated by someone/someones else, and neither of these two futures is very tempting for Microsoft.
* Not today, or tomorrow. Not even next year, but at some point in the future Linux could achieve critical mass on the desktop arena, and after that quickly become the major player.
I have a problem with this fingerprinting/exclusion of criminals at a workplace.
Suppose I have been convicted of some crime like embezzlement or robbing banks. Does this make me a worse teacher of mathematics? Or if I have been convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, does that make me unfit for a position as a securities trader in bank?
I realise that certain jobs, like law enforcement and judges, must have a 'clean record' in order to preserve the credibility of the profession as such, but I think society as a whole is going too far in this respect.
Just because you _can_ check every employees fingerprints against a police database doesn't mean you _ought_ to.
If one single company barrs ex convicts from working there, no real harm is done, but when too many companies do this, you get the situation that the only way for an excon to make a living is to keep on being a criminal. Is that what you wanted?
And suppose I apply for a position at some company (or school/public employment....). They ask me for my fingerprints and an extract of my criminal record. Shouldn't I be allowed to ask for the managment's fingerprints/criminal records? If they don't want to take the risk of employing me without knowing if I have been convicted of anything, shouldn't I be given the chance of deciding whether or not to work for someone who has been convicted of abusing his/her employees? Suppose the CEO has a couple of convictions for embezzlement behind him, and his former employees lost a few months worth of wages, I would deffinitely want to know, before making a decision on whether or not to take the position.
The FAQ addresses the issue of contradictions with other ISO and IEC Standards. Part of the answer given is as follows:
"A number of such claimed contradictions were identified...//...It is possible that others may still remain, but these can be taken care of during the maintenance of the standard."
Am I to interpret this as meaning that when they find problems with the standrad, they will change the standard to 'fix' it?
If my interpretation is correct, I wonder where this leads us. I could end up having bought a number of licences for some software that conforms to the standard, only to find, a month or two later, that they have altered the standard.
Since there is a great deal of movement in the EU to accept only standardised file formats, where would this leave me and my umpteen licences? When I bought the software it followed the standard, but does not later. Can I expect the manufacturer to provide me a free upgrade/patch, or is my software to be considered still standards-compliant, or will I simply have to fork out more money for the latest, currently compliant, version?
And the situation gets more interesting when you reverse it: suppose I get the absolutely latest version of some compliant software, and save a file that I send to someone with an older, now not compliant, version of the same software. How should this older version handle my file? should it spit out an error message: "I cannot open this standards compliant file, because the standard has been updated too much"? Or should it open the file and do the best it can? Or should it notify the user that this particular file is newer than the software and might not render correctly?
I can't help but think that a lot of potential problems would have been avoided if the work around this particular standard had been allowed to take it's time, so that a technically sound standard was accepted.
I actually got a letter from my ISP about a year ago, telling me I had sent some virus (or other malware) via email. They recomended several tools for sorting out 'the problem' I might be having.
At first I was utterly stunned, considering I was running Linux, behind a router/firewall, but eventually figured out they were actually correct: a few days earlier I had _knowingly_ sent an acquiantance something I received via email, that I suspected was malware of some sort.
There had been a discussion on a webpage about this particular malware, and one person asked me to send it to him/her, so I did.
The phone contact I had with my ISPs technical staff revealed that this was the only instance of malware-sending they had recorded for me.
My father was not quite so lucky: he got his Windows XP owned pretty bad a couple of years ago, and also he got a letter from the ISP, although they were not quite as polite, saying in effect that if he didn't stop spamming the world they would cancel his service.
On the whole, I think this is a viable way to handling the spam/botnet problem. I don't think it will finish the problem off, but at least greatly reduce it. Having said this, I do wish to say that I am not entirely comfortable with my ISP keeping an eye on the emails I send, even if I can agree that this particular reason is beneficial to mankind.
I don't completely agree with you. I do all my banking online, and have done so for the past eight years, and along the way I have run into some problems.
The biggest problem yet is that some banks (let's face it: all) create systems that assume you are using Windows and Internet Explorer. Their official stance is that anything else is 'unsupported'. I choose to use Linux and Firefox, and sometimes run into problems because of this choice, however much more secure it might be...
If I as the customer am to be held completely responsible for the security of my own computer (as far as banking is concerned) I do think the banks should give me the possibility of avoiding Windows and IE altogether. My choice of browser and operating system should be of no concern to the bank, as long as at least the browser lives up to W3C standards.
On the other hand, the banks could do a lot to help the situation: modify Knoppix and provide each customer with a personalised CD from which to boot the computer. This CD would have only the minimum software on it, along with a personalised (*) encryption tool, that would allow Firefox (or some other secure browser) to talk to _only_ the banks servers. It should be no major obstacle to create this, and would remove many of the problems facing online bankers today: spyware, keyloggers, phishing...
* The personalisation does not have to go further than changing the encryption key for each individual customer.
30Mb/s doesn't sound like much, if you're after the world record... A lady in Karlstad (Sweden) had her son install(*) something a bit faster: 40Gb/s. (article in Swedish: http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.153268). Although she seems to have used this opportunity to do much more than dry her laundry.
* I think the initiative came form the son, not the old lady.
To the best of my knowledge source code is protected by copyright. Obviously changing variable should not be enough to circumvent this, but whether it in reality is enough or not I don't know.
I beg to differ. I think a company might very well prefer settling out of court for more than they might be fined in court. The reason is simple: by settling out of court they don't get a court record, there is les public paper work and the company looks cleaner in the pupblic opinion. Obviously this won't hold for large differences, but if the settling-out-of-court is 10-20% extra I think many companies would prefer this option.
Re "Can we not get them fined for being publicly stupid as a bag of hammers?"
There was a case in Sweden a few years ago, in which (I think) Ericsson got fined for a similar mistake. They had posted the latest yearly financial report on their web site, but not yet included any links to it. However, some computer-savvy person guessed the name of the file, and hey-presto he/she had access to this info days before the rest of the public. Since this is against the stock market rules, Ericsson got fined. I do not know if the 'hacker' got any punishment, but would be surprised is he/she did.
Sweden also has the same kind of child porn filter. But it contains some rather puzzling sites, among others http://www.koreabonsai.com/ which to me appears to be a site about growing bonsai trees. The last time I used my ISPs DNS servers I found another site on the list that when I examined it did have some pictures I would have called inappropriate (a young girl in non-sexual poses but still a sexual undertone to the pictures), but not child pornography. I chose not to fully examine the site, since it would have cost me money, and my opinion is based only on the material I could see without paying anything.
Also, a few months ago the police wanted to add The Pirate Bay to the list since there apparently were a few child-porn torrents available. They have not, however, added Google to this child porn list, but they should if they are to follow their own guidelines: the list is to be over sites known to host child porn. Google hosts it's own thumbnails and caches, while TPB hosts only the torrent files, not the files themselves...
I fear you have misphrased your question. From Europe, where I live, it appears that the USA is getting more and more like a banana republic every day. Previously I would have considered 'USA' and 'banana republic' to be mutually exclusive, but I have had to change that opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I think selling something online for varying prices, depending on where the customer's IP address is, is a questionable practice, selling things from a physical shop must take into consideration the price levels of the local market.
Suppose I start a shop in the middle of London/Pars/New York/Tokyo (where I imagine the rents will be quite high) and sell nails and hammers. Then I open an identical shop in some out-of-the-way village (where I imagine the rents will be quite low). Even if I own both these shops I might very well have to charge higher prices in the metropolis than in the village, simply to make up for the higher rent. And since my employees in the metropolis will have higher rents to pay, their wages will need to be slightly higher than in the village.
All in all, the price level will be higher in the metropolis than in the village, and this must be reflected in my prices.
What I would like to know is when the sugested system is going to be applied to stupid politicians! When enough of the population in the politicians district think he/she is being inefensibly stupid, the collar gets triggered. I think politicians would learn pretty soon to not get the collar triggered. Or they would quit politics, which might be just as good.
I consider myself a simple man, with modest wishes. As far as my browser needs go, Firefox 3 pretty much fulfills them.
However, things can always get better, so in the future I would like all browsers to render (X)HTML documents correctly (ie as per the W3C specifications) and identically. If the W3C are unclear on anything, they should settle the uncertainty, and fill in any gaps they may have left.
Also, it would be nice to be able to use some of the newer techniques 'out there', like SVG. Firefox seems to do this nicely, but Konqueror does not. I don't think IE in any version does it. For a nice page that uses SVG for good purposes try http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml.
And since I am making wishes for the future, wouldn't it be nice to be able to use any of the techniques the W3C (or other relevant body) accept as recommendations/standards? Like a multitude of image formats, various mark-up languages (MathML springs to mind) and fully supported CSS/JavaSCript/Java.
Maybe some time in the future Microsoft will release an operating system based on BSD (or on something else non-Microsoft), but for the foreseeable future I don't think they will. The reason is quite simple: if Microsoft were to radically change the base of their OS, the end-users would be forced to change all their applications.
Either get a newer version that works on the new OS, or change to a completely new application. Either way, I think this forced application change is perceived by Microsoft as incentive for the end user to change to an application from a manufacturer that does not help Microsoft maintain it's monopoly.
And if you are going to consider an application from a 'hostile' manufacturer, what's to stop you from considering a non-Microsoft OS?
As long as Microsoft can keep the end user from even thinking about changing to another application manufacturer they can remain in control of the majority of computers in the world. And for Microsoft, being in control means they make money. If they loose that control, they stop making money.
As a side-note, I fear Linux will not grow much every year, just continue a slow growth as it has the past years. However, soon Microsoft will see Linux as a genuine, existing as opposed to potential, threat. Once this happens, Microsoft will dig into it's vast monetary reserves and market their latest OS as the greatest thing ever. And they will probably start releasing new versions of OSs and applications faster than they have done recently.
Precisely. Encryption/cracking is just another arms race.
Although the algorith is known to my enemies, my secret is safe as long as they don't have the key with which it is encrypted. They can get a computer to try all possible combinations though (called brute force attack).
My defence against this is to increase the key length so much that all th computers in the wolrd working together would take longer than the age of the universe to test all possible keys.
If 'the enemy' can brute-force an encryption key that is (say) 1024 bits long, I can increase the key length by any number of bits. Each aditional bit will double the length of time needed to test every single possible combination. Adding 10 bits would multiply the time by one thousand, twenty bits would make the time needed one million times longer. Another thousand bits and 'the enemy' can forget about it: the universe is not going to exist long enough for them to crack my encrypted message with brute force atacks, no matter how many computers they use.
Please note that the above only applies to cracking my encrypted message with brute force. I f 'the enemy' is willing to do it they might get a better resutl grabbing me and putting a gun to my head. Or they might try some other method at cracking the encryption.
There is an effective, although controversial, way to combat the "if you are not a terrorist then you have nothing to hide" idea. Ask whoever proposes it if they would mind you mounting a webcam in their bedroom. The idea is that unless they are sexual perverts (or paedophiles) they have nothing to hide, and will then,by their own logic, have nothing to hide. If they have nothing to hide, why should they then object to having a webcam in their bedroom?
I realise this is a very crude way of combating something you dislike, but it does show, very effectively, that even if we 'have nothing to hide' we might object to being spied on.
I live in Sweden, where we have recently been graced with this law allowing FRA to listen in on all traffic crossing the border. As I understand it, this applies to telephone and internet traffic, and any other ways of transporting information electronically that might be in use. While I realise that snooping on certain targets (ie foreign embassies, people suspected of serious crime etc.) is of value to the authorities I think the law (as it has been presented in media) is far too permissive. I think that FRA should be given the possibility to apply for permission to eavesdrop on certain specific targets, and the permissions given should be valid a certain (reasonable) time, and then FRA would have to reapply for permission if they find a target to be of value.
Who they should apply to might be a difficult question, since the fact that they want to eavesdrop on any particular target must be kept a secret (or the information gained will be of little or no value).
If medication is the only way to help a child with some problem, then let the remedy be medication. I would have settled for just a different way of doing things, if that would help.
I had a couple of pupils with reading disorders, and no guidance on how to handle the problem (and it was a problem for me.) Just a few weeks before the school year ended I found out, by chance, one possible way to handle the problem, and it involved no medicine at all. The short time I could try this 'different' method, it worked well.
Of course, that is the first step. But I can only try in so many ways. When all the ways I can imagine (and all the ways my colleagues can imagine) produce no results, what am I to do?
Ever wondered why some people hate Chemistry while others hate Math and yet others hate CS? I think you have the answer. If I am not good at a certain subject and am disinterested in it and the teacher ignores me because of that, I will hate the subject. Yes. But if you show just some will to learn, I will not abandon you. (Well, at least a certain amount of will. If your level of ambition is to spend all term solving a maths problem that would take the average student 5-10 minutes, I think it would be fair of me to reassign the time I would have spent on you otherwise.) You don't decide what merits your time. I don't agree at all. Unless you are in the class room you cannot possibly hope to tell me how to spend my time. You can draw up guide lines, rules, draft laws and pass regulation. But when it comes down to it, only the people in the class room can decide what to do. Obviously, I will follow rules, laws and so on as well as possible, but the situations in classrooms are not always as clear as one thinks when writing rules and laws. Although my primary function in a classroom is to make sure the pupils learn my subject, I must also function as a referee/policeman, adult other than the pupil's parents, part-time friend and more.
This might be offensive, but let me assure you that if they paid teachers decent wages, with this attitude, you or the OP would definitely not have jobs as teachers. No offense taken.
I completely agree with this.
I have worked as a teacher, and am currently studying to become a qualified teacher. My position is that as long as the pupil is trying in my subject, he/she will get his/her fair share of my time. But when the student shows no ambition at all (or simply too little) I will take that fair share of time and distribute it among those students who actually _want_ to succeed in my subject.
This action is probably illegal, and most parents would object strongly if they realised what I consider is justified. But it boils down to a simple fact: you cannot teach someone who doesn't want to learn. If the student doesn't want to learn my subject, I am wasting my time on him/her, and could spend it better on those in the class who want to learn my subject.
Doing this does not bother me at all, and I will do it whenever I feel a student does not merit my time.
What does bother me though, is parents who don't care enough about their children. I have had pupils that I, as an unqualified teacher with practically zero knowledge of the mind and body, can tell have some sort of problem (like ADHD or similar issues). In most cases the parents have refused to have their children examined, in case they get 'stamped' as being a multiletter diagnosis. The effect of this is that I am left desperately trying to find a way of dealing with a pupil's (or several pupils') problems while having absolutely no guidance.
Before one can make any statement like "X writes better code than Y", one must define what constitutes "better" in this case.
If I were a racing car driver, "better" would probably mean "faster", but things are a little more complex in the computer world.
For example, one might be writing code to be embedded in a device with minimal memory. "Better" might then mean "using less ROM/RAM".
Or the code might be used to control some equipment at CERN (where I imagine the demand for speed is high). "Better" would in this sense mean code that executes faster.
Or one might be writing a book on the subject of programming. It would be reasonable, then, to assume that "better" means code that with more clarity than other code illustrates how to use the language/algorithm in question.
Only when you have defined what constitues "better" code can you single out any individual or group as writing better code than others.
Having said the above I think it is quite possible that women write "better" code than men, but I would not state it as a fact without a good survey and strict definition of "better".
I dont agree.
Some people will actively try to get some version of Windows running on their hardware, but I think a greater number will simply not notice that they are not running Windows.
And the reason is that if they can do all the work they want to (check email, write letters, do some maths, play simple games...) they won't bother with asking about the operating system. After all, I don't care what's inside the rear hub on my bike, as long as the gears work. Why should a computer user be that different?
Unfortunately, there will be some people who will not buy a computer unless it has Windows on it, because that is the only thing they know and they fear change more than death itself.
Despite the above, I think you are right when it comes to the TV: that which is seen on commercials (and not only on TV, but anywhere) will do better than that which is not seen.
As I see it the creators of some software relesase this software under the GPL, which grants you certain liberties you would not have if the software were released under a more classic closed source commercial licence (think Microsoft/Adobe/Apple...). I think that if you are to use the work of the original creators you should abide by their wishes/terms. If you won't/can't then dont use their work and create your own software doing the same function.
As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue: it doesn't matter what licence software is released with, you need to understand that licence before using the software in you own products, if at all! The difference between commercial licence and GPL is that the GPL gives you more freedom from the start, while placing certain limits on how much secrecy you can 'afford your products.
1: not likely to ever happen, but play with the thought.
I would not really be all that bothered if the customs inspectors saw what was on my laptop when I crossed the border. What would bother me is the risk of having the data on it copied, with the copy going somewhere where I have no control at all over it.
Suppose I am travelling to the USA to meet an important customer, potentially to close a multimillion deal with them. For practical purposes I would like to have all relevant data in the laptop, rather than having to download it from internet once I am in the country.
Therefore, I would like to bring the current policy down, from inside. This can be done by, for example, providing a large number of unencrypted files (with content suited to your own area of expertise) that look genuine, but are actually complete rubbish. They could be eg designs of new weapons (for an engineer), a medical report on some high-up official (for a doctor), a contract proposal in which the American counterpart is doing something illegal (for business men or lawyers)... If the customs inspectors make a habit of copying* 'interesting' files, all these will be copied and the effect of it will eventually be observable: your 'business partner' will be raided by police because of the content of your bogus business proposal, some American weapons manufacturer might issue a press release about the same weapon you described in your made-up technical specification...
I realise that one person on his/her own has no power to accomplish anything like this, but if most people did this, eventually the customs officers would have to stop copying files, simply because the signal-to-noise ratio is too low.
And to protect the business traveler from having to lie to the inspectors, the laptop should be prepared by someone else, with lots of bogus files. Enough bogus files to hide the true files without other effort, and the traveler will be told which files to use only when he/she calls the company HQ by phone.
* Copying and giving the copies to the CIA, NSA or any American company with which I happen to be competing. If I happen to have some porn on my laptop and this is copied by the customs inspectors I couldn't care less.
However, this method does have a serious drawback: anybody who knows better would change to linux, and fast. Well.... now that I think about it... it's just a positive side effect!
I may be wrong, but I think the low-cost market is a brilliant market for Linux to use to slowly move into the mainstream desktop area. As such, this is a market that Microsoft must dominate if they are not to loose the battle before the war has begun.
Consider what would happen if Microsoft did nothing about dead-cheap laptops being sold with Linux on them: first of all, average Joe would notice that it actually works, secondly that it works well, thirdly that it does not need (for now at least) umpteen other programs to keep it safe (firewalls, antivirus....) and lastly average Joe would notice that Linux is free.
On its own, each of these points is a practically negligible threat to Microsoft, but together they have the power to quickly take over the desktop market*. Therefore Microsoft are essentially fighting for their very existence: if they do not stop Linux from getting into the desktop arena, they will eventually be forced out of it, or have the game rules dictated by someone/someones else, and neither of these two futures is very tempting for Microsoft.
* Not today, or tomorrow. Not even next year, but at some point in the future Linux could achieve critical mass on the desktop arena, and after that quickly become the major player.
Suppose I have been convicted of some crime like embezzlement or robbing banks. Does this make me a worse teacher of mathematics? Or if I have been convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, does that make me unfit for a position as a securities trader in bank?
I realise that certain jobs, like law enforcement and judges, must have a 'clean record' in order to preserve the credibility of the profession as such, but I think society as a whole is going too far in this respect.
Just because you _can_ check every employees fingerprints against a police database doesn't mean you _ought_ to.
If one single company barrs ex convicts from working there, no real harm is done, but when too many companies do this, you get the situation that the only way for an excon to make a living is to keep on being a criminal. Is that what you wanted?
And suppose I apply for a position at some company (or school/public employment....). They ask me for my fingerprints and an extract of my criminal record. Shouldn't I be allowed to ask for the managment's fingerprints/criminal records? If they don't want to take the risk of employing me without knowing if I have been convicted of anything, shouldn't I be given the chance of deciding whether or not to work for someone who has been convicted of abusing his/her employees? Suppose the CEO has a couple of convictions for embezzlement behind him, and his former employees lost a few months worth of wages, I would deffinitely want to know, before making a decision on whether or not to take the position.
"A number of such claimed contradictions were identified...//...It is possible that others may still remain, but these can be taken care of during the maintenance of the standard."
Am I to interpret this as meaning that when they find problems with the standrad, they will change the standard to 'fix' it?
If my interpretation is correct, I wonder where this leads us. I could end up having bought a number of licences for some software that conforms to the standard, only to find, a month or two later, that they have altered the standard.
Since there is a great deal of movement in the EU to accept only standardised file formats, where would this leave me and my umpteen licences? When I bought the software it followed the standard, but does not later. Can I expect the manufacturer to provide me a free upgrade/patch, or is my software to be considered still standards-compliant, or will I simply have to fork out more money for the latest, currently compliant, version?
And the situation gets more interesting when you reverse it: suppose I get the absolutely latest version of some compliant software, and save a file that I send to someone with an older, now not compliant, version of the same software. How should this older version handle my file? should it spit out an error message: "I cannot open this standards compliant file, because the standard has been updated too much"? Or should it open the file and do the best it can? Or should it notify the user that this particular file is newer than the software and might not render correctly?
I can't help but think that a lot of potential problems would have been avoided if the work around this particular standard had been allowed to take it's time, so that a technically sound standard was accepted.
At first I was utterly stunned, considering I was running Linux, behind a router/firewall, but eventually figured out they were actually correct: a few days earlier I had _knowingly_ sent an acquiantance something I received via email, that I suspected was malware of some sort.
There had been a discussion on a webpage about this particular malware, and one person asked me to send it to him/her, so I did.
The phone contact I had with my ISPs technical staff revealed that this was the only instance of malware-sending they had recorded for me.
My father was not quite so lucky: he got his Windows XP owned pretty bad a couple of years ago, and also he got a letter from the ISP, although they were not quite as polite, saying in effect that if he didn't stop spamming the world they would cancel his service.
On the whole, I think this is a viable way to handling the spam/botnet problem. I don't think it will finish the problem off, but at least greatly reduce it. Having said this, I do wish to say that I am not entirely comfortable with my ISP keeping an eye on the emails I send, even if I can agree that this particular reason is beneficial to mankind.
The biggest problem yet is that some banks (let's face it: all) create systems that assume you are using Windows and Internet Explorer. Their official stance is that anything else is 'unsupported'. I choose to use Linux and Firefox, and sometimes run into problems because of this choice, however much more secure it might be...
If I as the customer am to be held completely responsible for the security of my own computer (as far as banking is concerned) I do think the banks should give me the possibility of avoiding Windows and IE altogether. My choice of browser and operating system should be of no concern to the bank, as long as at least the browser lives up to W3C standards.
On the other hand, the banks could do a lot to help the situation: modify Knoppix and provide each customer with a personalised CD from which to boot the computer. This CD would have only the minimum software on it, along with a personalised (*) encryption tool, that would allow Firefox (or some other secure browser) to talk to _only_ the banks servers. It should be no major obstacle to create this, and would remove many of the problems facing online bankers today: spyware, keyloggers, phishing...
* The personalisation does not have to go further than changing the encryption key for each individual customer.
30Mb/s doesn't sound like much, if you're after the world record... A lady in Karlstad (Sweden) had her son install(*) something a bit faster: 40Gb/s. (article in Swedish: http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.153268). Although she seems to have used this opportunity to do much more than dry her laundry. * I think the initiative came form the son, not the old lady.
To the best of my knowledge source code is protected by copyright. Obviously changing variable should not be enough to circumvent this, but whether it in reality is enough or not I don't know.
I beg to differ. I think a company might very well prefer settling out of court for more than they might be fined in court. The reason is simple: by settling out of court they don't get a court record, there is les public paper work and the company looks cleaner in the pupblic opinion. Obviously this won't hold for large differences, but if the settling-out-of-court is 10-20% extra I think many companies would prefer this option.
There was a case in Sweden a few years ago, in which (I think) Ericsson got fined for a similar mistake. They had posted the latest yearly financial report on their web site, but not yet included any links to it. However, some computer-savvy person guessed the name of the file, and hey-presto he/she had access to this info days before the rest of the public. Since this is against the stock market rules, Ericsson got fined. I do not know if the 'hacker' got any punishment, but would be surprised is he/she did.
Also, a few months ago the police wanted to add The Pirate Bay to the list since there apparently were a few child-porn torrents available. They have not, however, added Google to this child porn list, but they should if they are to follow their own guidelines: the list is to be over sites known to host child porn. Google hosts it's own thumbnails and caches, while TPB hosts only the torrent files, not the files themselves...
I fear you have misphrased your question. From Europe, where I live, it appears that the USA is getting more and more like a banana republic every day. Previously I would have considered 'USA' and 'banana republic' to be mutually exclusive, but I have had to change that opinion.