Because people like having remote door lock/unlock, remote engine start, tire pressure monitoring, push button start (instead of a key). All that requires some kind of wireless networking. And almost everything inside the car is on some kind of network (CAN bus). All those buttons on the steering wheel (cruise control, radio controls, etc) are just devices on a network. Door locks and window motors are devices on a network. Same with climate controls, entertainment system, etc.
It IS a 'district level' thing. The law only states that districts must have a written policy for acceptable communication between teachers and students, and that social networking must be included in the policy. The policy does not ban Facebook or anything like that. The only requirement is that there not be a communication channel between the teachers and students that is not also open to administrators and parents.
The only law is that school districts must have a written policy for acceptable communication between teachers and students, and this law must include all communication, including social networking.
The law says nothing at all about Facebook or friending. That was all in the bloggers imagination. All the law says is that school districts must have a policy for acceptable teacher/student communications, and social networks must be considered as part of this policy. Other than that, all it specifies is that the policy must ban any private electronic communication between teachers and students (private meaning the parents and school admin do not have access to the communication.) Such a policy for Facebook could be "if you friend a student, you must also friend their parent and the school principal".
The only rule the state is enacting is one saying all school districts must have a written policy of 'acceptable communications between teachers and students', and that the policy must include all forms of communication including social networks. Beyond that, all it says it that there should be no teacher/student communications which the student's parents and school administration do not have access to. It does not 'ban' anything other than secrets between teachers and students.
The actual law makes no distinction between any of those methods of communication. It says that each school district must have a POLICY for appropriate teacher-student communications. Communication (as defined by the law) includes oral and non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication includes "electronic media", and electronic media includes "social networking". Social media is not being singled out for anything; at most it is being hilighted as an area not to be forgotten. And the only thing banned is communication (including web pages, social media, etc) that is 'exclusive' between the teacher and student. Exclusive, as defined in the law, means that the student's parent or guardian and/or school administration do not have access.
Did you bother to read the actual bill, or just the rantings of some blogger? Nowhere in the bill does it mention Facebook or 'friends'. All it says is that school districts must have a written policy concerning teacher-student and employee-student communications. This policy must include
Appropriate use of electronic media such as text messaging and internet sites for both instructional and personal purposes, with an element concerning use of social networking sites no less stringent than the provisions of subsections 2, 3, and 4 of this section.
No that it does NOT say Facebook is 'banned', only that use of social media must be addressed just like all other electronic media.
When you read subsections 2,3, and 4 you will find that what they are requiring is that any contact between a teacher and a student must be accessible by the student's parent or legal guardian.
Stop drooling over your 'stick it to the telco' thoughts, and actually think for a moment. The stated bandwidth of this is 22Mbps per WRAN (not per user, per WRAN). The population of New York State (averaged) is 411 people/sq mi. So in the 12000sq mi area a tower covers you have almost 5 million people (on average). So each person can have a whopping 4 BITS per second of bandwidth. Even if you covered on 1 sq mi per tower (a huge expense) your would still be sharing 22Mbps with 410 other people. Of course, the actual density in NYC is more like 30000 people/sq mi.
The only place this makes sense is where the population has very low density, which are places that currently have no coverage at all. Just like TFA says.
Sorry, but you are going to have to explain how I got 'ripped off', or in what way I am getting less for my money.
The things I value in a receiver are: sound and features (inputs, etc). How does 'hand wired' add any value to the product (it doesn't). If it doesn't add value, then taking it away does not give me 'less'. How does the component cost affect the value of the product (except to the extent that it changes the sound or features, it doesn't). How does lowering the component cost give me 'less'? How does the profit margin to the manufacturer affect the value of the product (it doesn't). How does an increase in the profit margin give me less?
As to the 'ripped off': to me, ripped off implies some sort of fraud. Where is the fraud here? Does the amp perform as advertised (yes). Does the amp have the advertised features (yes). Did they sell it for the advertised price (yes). Where is the rip off?
How much would it cost for me to have a similar amp custom built? I am guessing several thousand dollars. Paying $500 doesn't seem like such a bad deal.
I will never understand people who equate production cost to value. If going to an indie movie that cost $1M to make costs you $10, would you pay $5000 to see a blockbuster that cost $500M to make? If not, why not, since you equate production cost with value.
Bad assumption. You still need a physical 'key' to drive the car (the key may be a chip on your keyring in your pocket, but it still needs to be there).
Nowhere did they say they could drive the car, just start the engine. My car has a remote start key fob. You can start the engine with it. Theoretically, someone else could also start the engine if they have the correct code. However, if you don't have the physical key in the ignition, as soon as you touch any control, including the brake pedal, the engine shuts off. It does no good to start the engine if you can't actually use it to move the vehicle.
We're talking consumer equipment, not high end. And the price of consumer equipment has come down. A lot. 30 years ago I bought a Pioneer receiver for about $500. It was stereo, had an AM/FM tuner, a 'phono' input, a tape loop, and an 'aux' input. It sounded pretty good. Now, I have a Yamaha receiver I bought for about $500. Except now instead of stereo it has 7 channels. In addition to the AM/FM tuner it has an XM satellite tuner. It has digital inputs and outputs. It switches HDMI and component video. It has two zones, which can use different inputs. It has DSP built-in. It has a built-in noise generator and microphone for setting the balance correctly. It has a remote control to control all those functions. How does it sound? Well, my ears are also 30 years older, so it still sounds good to me.
True enough about the cookbook recipes. But how many 'new' recipes are in cookbooks? New recipes seem to either take the form of 'tastes like this dish available at this restaurant', and recipes put out by food companies so you buy their ingredients. Neither one of those care about protection of IP (if protectable, the first would be a violation, and the second one they want as widespread as possible).
Coca Cola and Pepsi want to differentiate themselves from each other, but there are loads of generic and local brands that try to copy one or the other of those, always poorly.
If computer source code is kept secret there is no need for copyright protection on the source. I have never heard of anyone being sued for copyright violation of trade secret source. Of course, the binaries still need protection.
Ah yes, the good old pre-copyright days. How many books did the average person own in those days? How many concerts, operas, plays did the average person attend in his lifetime? How many wandering musicians stopped by to play different songs every day? On the other hand, how many books do you own? How many different songs have you heard today? How many movies and TV shows have you seen this month?
I get paid every two weeks. That covers the work I did in the previous two weeks. Under your idea, I should not get paid, because that money is for something that happened in the past, and I don't have to do any more work THIS week to earn LAST weeks pay. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?
If you are creating things 'as a service' then by definition you are not creating mass market goods. How would you get paid 'as a service' for writing a novel?
The creation of mass market goods (including their development) is ALWAYS paid for when the consumer buys it. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a book, a movie, a cheeseburger, a pair of jeans, a car, a computer, or anything else. And the more you sell, the more money you make. And making money is why the thing was made in the first place. Stop trying to act like things protected by copyright are somehow paid for differently than any other consumer good.
Not this stupid argument again. For cookery, there are two markets: making your own food, and prepared food. In the making your own food market we have cookbooks. They, and the recipes in them (except for the lists of ingredients) are in fact protected by copyright. In the prepared food area the recipes are protected by trade secret - they just don't tell you what the recipe is. If the recipe is really unique, you can patent it. Your example of Coca Cola is perfect - you MAY duplicate Coke, but in over a hundred years of trying no-one has succeeded.
In fashion, we again have two markets: mass market, and haute couture. Any IP that exists in the mass market is protected by trademark (branding). The mass market companies are not investing much in design, they just copy each other and try to convince people to buy their version by marketing the brand (differentiating on quality, cool factor, etc). In haute couture, the value is in being different. There is no point in one designer copying another's work, because that is not what the customers want.
Neither of these industries are anything like industries protected by copyright. You can't keep a book, recording, or movie a trade secret and still sell it like you can with prepared food. There is no value in branding books, recordings, or movies, because every copy is exactly the same as the other copies.
Every industry has some kind of protection for its IP.
They say they are looking to add other capabilities, like searching by components. It would be pretty cool if you could say 'here are some components I have, what have people done with them'.
Hot air is less dense than cold air, so it rises. A short chimney would have a small volume of low density air (inside the chimney), and then normal atmospheric pressure on top of it. By using a very tall stack, you have a very large volume of low density air. Because the pressure in the chimney is lower than outside air, more hot air rushes in from the bottom, creating a draft. The taller the chimney, the faster the draft. You need a very fast draft to spin the turbines.
The temperature at the bottom of the tower is not the ambient ground temperature (40C), but has been heated by the greenhouse to 90C. That is a much larger temperature gradient than normal atmosphere. Plus, during the day the ground under the greenhouse is being heated considerably, so at night there is still a very large gradient.
Slashdot Mirror
Because people like having remote door lock/unlock, remote engine start, tire pressure monitoring, push button start (instead of a key). All that requires some kind of wireless networking. And almost everything inside the car is on some kind of network (CAN bus). All those buttons on the steering wheel (cruise control, radio controls, etc) are just devices on a network. Door locks and window motors are devices on a network. Same with climate controls, entertainment system, etc.
It IS a 'district level' thing. The law only states that districts must have a written policy for acceptable communication between teachers and students, and that social networking must be included in the policy. The policy does not ban Facebook or anything like that. The only requirement is that there not be a communication channel between the teachers and students that is not also open to administrators and parents.
Correct. And they define 'exclusive' as meaning something the parents and school admins don't have access to.
The only law is that school districts must have a written policy for acceptable communication between teachers and students, and this law must include all communication, including social networking.
The law says nothing at all about Facebook or friending. That was all in the bloggers imagination. All the law says is that school districts must have a policy for acceptable teacher/student communications, and social networks must be considered as part of this policy. Other than that, all it specifies is that the policy must ban any private electronic communication between teachers and students (private meaning the parents and school admin do not have access to the communication.) Such a policy for Facebook could be "if you friend a student, you must also friend their parent and the school principal".
The words 'up to' and 'average' do not mean the same thing.
The only rule the state is enacting is one saying all school districts must have a written policy of 'acceptable communications between teachers and students', and that the policy must include all forms of communication including social networks. Beyond that, all it says it that there should be no teacher/student communications which the student's parents and school administration do not have access to. It does not 'ban' anything other than secrets between teachers and students.
The actual law makes no distinction between any of those methods of communication. It says that each school district must have a POLICY for appropriate teacher-student communications. Communication (as defined by the law) includes oral and non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication includes "electronic media", and electronic media includes "social networking". Social media is not being singled out for anything; at most it is being hilighted as an area not to be forgotten. And the only thing banned is communication (including web pages, social media, etc) that is 'exclusive' between the teacher and student. Exclusive, as defined in the law, means that the student's parent or guardian and/or school administration do not have access.
Did you bother to read the actual bill, or just the rantings of some blogger? Nowhere in the bill does it mention Facebook or 'friends'. All it says is that school districts must have a written policy concerning teacher-student and employee-student communications. This policy must include
Appropriate use of electronic media such as text messaging and internet sites for both instructional and personal purposes, with an element concerning use of social networking sites no less stringent than the provisions of subsections 2, 3, and 4 of this section.
No that it does NOT say Facebook is 'banned', only that use of social media must be addressed just like all other electronic media.
When you read subsections 2,3, and 4 you will find that what they are requiring is that any contact between a teacher and a student must be accessible by the student's parent or legal guardian.
The max bandwidth is 22Mbps, per WRAN. So unless there are no more than 2 people using a WRAN it is not going to match your cable.
Stop drooling over your 'stick it to the telco' thoughts, and actually think for a moment. The stated bandwidth of this is 22Mbps per WRAN (not per user, per WRAN). The population of New York State (averaged) is 411 people/sq mi. So in the 12000sq mi area a tower covers you have almost 5 million people (on average). So each person can have a whopping 4 BITS per second of bandwidth. Even if you covered on 1 sq mi per tower (a huge expense) your would still be sharing 22Mbps with 410 other people. Of course, the actual density in NYC is more like 30000 people/sq mi.
The only place this makes sense is where the population has very low density, which are places that currently have no coverage at all. Just like TFA says.
Sorry, but you are going to have to explain how I got 'ripped off', or in what way I am getting less for my money.
The things I value in a receiver are: sound and features (inputs, etc). How does 'hand wired' add any value to the product (it doesn't). If it doesn't add value, then taking it away does not give me 'less'. How does the component cost affect the value of the product (except to the extent that it changes the sound or features, it doesn't). How does lowering the component cost give me 'less'? How does the profit margin to the manufacturer affect the value of the product (it doesn't). How does an increase in the profit margin give me less?
As to the 'ripped off': to me, ripped off implies some sort of fraud. Where is the fraud here? Does the amp perform as advertised (yes). Does the amp have the advertised features (yes). Did they sell it for the advertised price (yes). Where is the rip off?
How much would it cost for me to have a similar amp custom built? I am guessing several thousand dollars. Paying $500 doesn't seem like such a bad deal.
I will never understand people who equate production cost to value. If going to an indie movie that cost $1M to make costs you $10, would you pay $5000 to see a blockbuster that cost $500M to make? If not, why not, since you equate production cost with value.
Yeah, me too. I manage to kill the engine just about every time I use the remote start.
Bad assumption. You still need a physical 'key' to drive the car (the key may be a chip on your keyring in your pocket, but it still needs to be there).
Nowhere did they say they could drive the car, just start the engine. My car has a remote start key fob. You can start the engine with it. Theoretically, someone else could also start the engine if they have the correct code. However, if you don't have the physical key in the ignition, as soon as you touch any control, including the brake pedal, the engine shuts off. It does no good to start the engine if you can't actually use it to move the vehicle.
We're talking consumer equipment, not high end. And the price of consumer equipment has come down. A lot. 30 years ago I bought a Pioneer receiver for about $500. It was stereo, had an AM/FM tuner, a 'phono' input, a tape loop, and an 'aux' input. It sounded pretty good. Now, I have a Yamaha receiver I bought for about $500. Except now instead of stereo it has 7 channels. In addition to the AM/FM tuner it has an XM satellite tuner. It has digital inputs and outputs. It switches HDMI and component video. It has two zones, which can use different inputs. It has DSP built-in. It has a built-in noise generator and microphone for setting the balance correctly. It has a remote control to control all those functions. How does it sound? Well, my ears are also 30 years older, so it still sounds good to me.
Other than wasting some fuel, what good does starting the engine do?
True enough about the cookbook recipes. But how many 'new' recipes are in cookbooks? New recipes seem to either take the form of 'tastes like this dish available at this restaurant', and recipes put out by food companies so you buy their ingredients. Neither one of those care about protection of IP (if protectable, the first would be a violation, and the second one they want as widespread as possible).
Coca Cola and Pepsi want to differentiate themselves from each other, but there are loads of generic and local brands that try to copy one or the other of those, always poorly.
If computer source code is kept secret there is no need for copyright protection on the source. I have never heard of anyone being sued for copyright violation of trade secret source. Of course, the binaries still need protection.
How many books are available for you to read? How many songs? How many movies? There is your benefit.
Ah yes, the good old pre-copyright days. How many books did the average person own in those days? How many concerts, operas, plays did the average person attend in his lifetime? How many wandering musicians stopped by to play different songs every day? On the other hand, how many books do you own? How many different songs have you heard today? How many movies and TV shows have you seen this month?
I get paid every two weeks. That covers the work I did in the previous two weeks. Under your idea, I should not get paid, because that money is for something that happened in the past, and I don't have to do any more work THIS week to earn LAST weeks pay. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?
If you are creating things 'as a service' then by definition you are not creating mass market goods. How would you get paid 'as a service' for writing a novel?
The creation of mass market goods (including their development) is ALWAYS paid for when the consumer buys it. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a book, a movie, a cheeseburger, a pair of jeans, a car, a computer, or anything else. And the more you sell, the more money you make. And making money is why the thing was made in the first place. Stop trying to act like things protected by copyright are somehow paid for differently than any other consumer good.
Not this stupid argument again. For cookery, there are two markets: making your own food, and prepared food. In the making your own food market we have cookbooks. They, and the recipes in them (except for the lists of ingredients) are in fact protected by copyright. In the prepared food area the recipes are protected by trade secret - they just don't tell you what the recipe is. If the recipe is really unique, you can patent it. Your example of Coca Cola is perfect - you MAY duplicate Coke, but in over a hundred years of trying no-one has succeeded.
In fashion, we again have two markets: mass market, and haute couture. Any IP that exists in the mass market is protected by trademark (branding). The mass market companies are not investing much in design, they just copy each other and try to convince people to buy their version by marketing the brand (differentiating on quality, cool factor, etc). In haute couture, the value is in being different. There is no point in one designer copying another's work, because that is not what the customers want.
Neither of these industries are anything like industries protected by copyright. You can't keep a book, recording, or movie a trade secret and still sell it like you can with prepared food. There is no value in branding books, recordings, or movies, because every copy is exactly the same as the other copies.
Every industry has some kind of protection for its IP.
Why would you think that? A simple Google search shows lots of information about lung transplants.
They say they are looking to add other capabilities, like searching by components. It would be pretty cool if you could say 'here are some components I have, what have people done with them'.
Hot air is less dense than cold air, so it rises. A short chimney would have a small volume of low density air (inside the chimney), and then normal atmospheric pressure on top of it. By using a very tall stack, you have a very large volume of low density air. Because the pressure in the chimney is lower than outside air, more hot air rushes in from the bottom, creating a draft. The taller the chimney, the faster the draft. You need a very fast draft to spin the turbines.
The temperature at the bottom of the tower is not the ambient ground temperature (40C), but has been heated by the greenhouse to 90C. That is a much larger temperature gradient than normal atmosphere. Plus, during the day the ground under the greenhouse is being heated considerably, so at night there is still a very large gradient.