What's the goal? To improve the education process or to make sure that Laura Ingalls cannot recognize it as a school?
What would she recognize? The blackboard? The alphabet and numbers in a row at the top of the front wall? A lot of child-sized desks and one or two adult-sized desks?
Until we develop direct neural input technology and start pumping information straight into the brains of the students, the classroom will always look like a classroom.
So stop worrying about how it LOOKS. Form follows function.
If you want to improve it, look at the various experimental schools that have higher graduation rates and where the students score higher than the average.
If the ad agencies cannot improve their systems with all the information already available to them, why would the criminals be able to do anything more?
Cash out a credit card, yes.
Cash out your mom and dad's address and the fact that you go there for Thanksgiving after buying a Safeway pumpkin pie, no.
Then why weren't any of the "threats" ever followed up by the local cops or FBI?
No, McBride was just attempting to paint anyone who opposed him as criminally violent.
With the resources of SCO at his disposal, they should have been able to identify ONE person who made a threat via email and parade that person in front of the media.
Can anything that someone goes to so much effort to critique truly have failed?
Sure. It just depends upon your definition of "failure".
It brought in a LOT of money... but it is nothing more than plot devices strung together with plot holes. If it didn't have "light sabers" and the "force" or "jedi knights" it would have been ignored.
Seriously. How many years were there between the last of the original movies and the start of production of the new trilogy? And that was the script?
What they're saying is that they'll give Company A's packets "priority" - this would not necessarily have to have any impact over Company B's available bandwidth, until a saturation point is reached.
So they sell "priority" to Company A... but Company A's packets go through with the exact same speed as Company B's packets.
UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IS.
The only way for an ISP to make a profit is to over-sell their bandwidth. If the ISP is profitable, their lines WILL be saturated.
If you're talking systems administration and defending against crackers then the analogy that is closest is "video game" rather than "war".
Oops. You missed something. All your data was destroyed. Reboot your systems and restore from backup.
As opposed to: Oops. You missed something. You're dead. Mom is going to get a letter, a free funeral and a flag and will keep your enlistment photo on her mantle until she dies too.
Sure, it's not one key-stroke. It's fire or earthquake or whatever. Part of being an admin is planning for AND MITIGATING the various possible disasters.
And that precludes someone from joining the military?
But the explanation is simple.
You're selecting for the wrong criteria. You MIGHT get a grunt who can also be trained as a competent admin. But if that happens it is purely by chance.
Instead, select for competent admins and then spend time teaching them how the organization works.
If you are depending upon a person knowing the data and reviewing the data to see if you've been cracked then you've already lost.
Once geeks get above a certain level of (in their own minds, at least) elitism they tend to presume that everyone around them is an idiot.
Think back to your school years. You progress through 12 years of school or whatever. Now compare yourself to someone who's repeated the 3rd grade over and over while you've been moving on.
In most of the sciences (yes, we're talking about computer science) there are a few people who know a LOT and LOT of people know very little.
If you keep learning, you WILL leave more and more people behind you.
Now, how do you feel when you're working extra weekends because those people who decided NOT to continue learning have broken something and YOU are the only one with the knowledge to fix it?
Just how is something supposed to get coded, if nobody explains what should it be?
They don't want to have to explain because they don't KNOW what they want.
They only know the end result that they want. Success and fame and more money.
Translating that into real-world products is beyond them. So they want people who can do that for them. They want magic. They want people who can read their minds, predict the future and turn out world changing products... and then give all the credit to their "manager".
Why would someone like that work for a manager like that?
Everyone would like to have Superman working for them. Or a whole team of Superman.
The kids know all the names and attributes of game characters because they spend the equivalent of WEEKS in school learning them.
Schools just cannot devote the next 2 months for JUST memorizing the periodic table of the elements.
And the kids learn the stories on TV and the movies because the stories are all simplified and standardized. History isn't that clean. Humans do not follow the same pattern as our society's myths do.
Which is the great part about learning REAL history. You see the people as more than 1 dimensional entities. In the movies, this guy is bad because he is the bad guy. This guy is good because he fights the bad guy and feeds baby puppies.
Lots of candidates put down that they have, for instance, ten years of experience of Java. And maybe they do! But depressingly often they can't do trivial tasks, like select a random element from an array.
I see that a lot. There needs to be a differentiation between "experience" and "drawing a paycheck".
If you get hired by a company to drop workstation images onto workstation hardware... and you do it for 10 years... do you have 10 years of experience working with those OS's?
No. You have 1 week experience... repeated 520 times (not counting vacations).
Is there any particular advantage to having a new OS every half-year (versus Apple's two year cycle or Microsoft's 3-4 year cycle)?
It allows (in theory) for the faster development of the system. The new code goes through a short testing cycle and gets out into the public twice a year.
No matter how much effort you put into testing, it always seems like the majority of the bugs are only found once it is released.
Because you get people who KNOW the material that they are covering.
They may be over estimating the importance of what they cover, but they KNOW what they're covering.
Compare that to the "news readers" on the other news shows. Could they even find the countries they're talking about on a map? Or in the USofA, can they find the state they're talking about on a map? There are some good ones but the majority were hired because they're "photogenic" rather than informed.
That's kind of like claiming that a desert and an ocean both have some amount of water in them.
While technically accurate, it does nothing to advance the discussion.
Some sites (such as Fox) are 100% bias. But if you are watching Fox for "news" then you are probably not interested in sites that provide only 50% bias.
CNN will provide a low level of bias... when they get around to covering the NEWS instead of the "freak of the week". Seriously, was the airplane steward guy the MOST IMPORTANT THING HAPPENING? It was if you go by total coverage time.
Instead of complaining about bias (and doing so in a non-productive fashion) how about complaining about having to go digging for NEWS? And offering suggestions as to how to find NEWS stories instead of "biased opinion" or "freak of the week"?
Real innovation means that their existing products no longer sell because everyone buys the innovative product.
So why would an established company scrap their existing investment?
What they want is something new enough to be interesting... but not different enough to threaten their cash cows... that supplements their existing product line.
Apple is great at that. Look at the iPhone. New iterations of their existing product that never threatens their laptop / desktop computer segment. But can supplement it and works well with it.
It is only the startups that don't have an existing investment to threaten that will take the real risks.
Which is why software patents are bad. They allow the existing companies to sue the startups and limit the innovation.
Because FaceBook has such incredibly great security there is no way this could ever be abused by a bored high school kid who decided to post pictures of his teachers there.
Absolutely no possible way this could ever be abused. None whatsoever. Therefore, this is a great idea.
That's what I was trying to understand. Why not use the traditional "x" for the unknown instead of the non-tradition open and closing parentheses "()"?
This doesn't show that kids do not understand the equals sign.
This seems to show that kids do not understand the what they are supposed to solve for in that example. They do not understand the meaning of empty parentheses.
And frankly, I wouldn't be sure that I had solved it THE WAY THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE SOLVED if I had just substituted x for () and gone from there.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the goal? To improve the education process or to make sure that Laura Ingalls cannot recognize it as a school?
What would she recognize? The blackboard? The alphabet and numbers in a row at the top of the front wall? A lot of child-sized desks and one or two adult-sized desks?
Until we develop direct neural input technology and start pumping information straight into the brains of the students, the classroom will always look like a classroom.
So stop worrying about how it LOOKS. Form follows function.
If you want to improve it, look at the various experimental schools that have higher graduation rates and where the students score higher than the average.
If the ad agencies cannot improve their systems with all the information already available to them, why would the criminals be able to do anything more?
Cash out a credit card, yes.
Cash out your mom and dad's address and the fact that you go there for Thanksgiving after buying a Safeway pumpkin pie, no.
Then why weren't any of the "threats" ever followed up by the local cops or FBI?
No, McBride was just attempting to paint anyone who opposed him as criminally violent.
With the resources of SCO at his disposal, they should have been able to identify ONE person who made a threat via email and parade that person in front of the media.
Instead, there is nothing.
Sure. It just depends upon your definition of "failure".
It brought in a LOT of money ... but it is nothing more than plot devices strung together with plot holes. If it didn't have "light sabers" and the "force" or "jedi knights" it would have been ignored.
Seriously. How many years were there between the last of the original movies and the start of production of the new trilogy? And that was the script?
So they sell "priority" to Company A ... but Company A's packets go through with the exact same speed as Company B's packets.
UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IS.
The only way for an ISP to make a profit is to over-sell their bandwidth. If the ISP is profitable, their lines WILL be saturated.
The pipes are still the same size. They don't say that they're going to use the money to buy more bandwidth overall.
What they're saying is that if Company A pays them, they'll make sure that Company B's users get less of the available bandwidth.
If the size of the pipe doesn't change, in order to "prioritize" something, you have to "de-prioritize" something else.
If you're talking systems administration and defending against crackers then the analogy that is closest is "video game" rather than "war".
Oops. You missed something. All your data was destroyed. Reboot your systems and restore from backup.
As opposed to: Oops. You missed something. You're dead. Mom is going to get a letter, a free funeral and a flag and will keep your enlistment photo on her mantle until she dies too.
And isn't this what competent admins do every single day?
Redundant systems.
Off-site backups.
Disaster recovery plans.
Sure, it's not one key-stroke. It's fire or earthquake or whatever. Part of being an admin is planning for AND MITIGATING the various possible disasters.
But the explanation is simple.
You're selecting for the wrong criteria. You MIGHT get a grunt who can also be trained as a competent admin. But if that happens it is purely by chance.
Instead, select for competent admins and then spend time teaching them how the organization works.
If you are depending upon a person knowing the data and reviewing the data to see if you've been cracked then you've already lost.
Like what?
The only one that immediately springs to mind is email and that's simple enough to handle.
What else would a person working on a secured network need to access?
Think back to your school years. You progress through 12 years of school or whatever. Now compare yourself to someone who's repeated the 3rd grade over and over while you've been moving on.
In most of the sciences (yes, we're talking about computer science) there are a few people who know a LOT and LOT of people know very little.
If you keep learning, you WILL leave more and more people behind you.
Now, how do you feel when you're working extra weekends because those people who decided NOT to continue learning have broken something and YOU are the only one with the knowledge to fix it?
They don't want to have to explain because they don't KNOW what they want.
They only know the end result that they want. Success and fame and more money.
Translating that into real-world products is beyond them. So they want people who can do that for them. They want magic. They want people who can read their minds, predict the future and turn out world changing products ... and then give all the credit to their "manager".
Why would someone like that work for a manager like that?
Everyone would like to have Superman working for them. Or a whole team of Superman.
But why would Superman need YOU?
The kids know all the names and attributes of game characters because they spend the equivalent of WEEKS in school learning them.
Schools just cannot devote the next 2 months for JUST memorizing the periodic table of the elements.
And the kids learn the stories on TV and the movies because the stories are all simplified and standardized. History isn't that clean. Humans do not follow the same pattern as our society's myths do.
Which is the great part about learning REAL history. You see the people as more than 1 dimensional entities. In the movies, this guy is bad because he is the bad guy. This guy is good because he fights the bad guy and feeds baby puppies.
To see if in the next 3 years they report a massive increase in the number of malware infections.
I see that a lot. There needs to be a differentiation between "experience" and "drawing a paycheck".
If you get hired by a company to drop workstation images onto workstation hardware ... and you do it for 10 years ... do you have 10 years of experience working with those OS's?
No. You have 1 week experience ... repeated 520 times (not counting vacations).
You have 10 years of drawing a paycheck.
That's why I prefer to test candidates myself.
It allows (in theory) for the faster development of the system. The new code goes through a short testing cycle and gets out into the public twice a year.
No matter how much effort you put into testing, it always seems like the majority of the bugs are only found once it is released.
"This is my sign. There are many like but this one is mine."
"Free ice cream and puppies! See the man in the van."
"This sign for rent / Your message here / Reasonable rates."
"I like turtles!"
"Available for on-camera interviews"
Seriously, if you can take out the power for the entire East coast ... why not just do it? Why worry about the Internet?
Not only that but the article conflates two different issues.
1. technology that COULD be improved (complete with buzz-words).
2. government/corporation control of data.
meh
The Daily Show is great. But they only have time to cover a few items (and those are chosen for humour value anyway).
And when Left and Right "discuss" things online, all I see are opposing, uninformed biases. Not much in the way of information or insight.
I look for newspapers in Germany, the Mid-East and other places. Once you step away from US political biases you get better news.
Inside the USofA, look for any indie sites that focus on a specific issue.
Because you get people who KNOW the material that they are covering.
They may be over estimating the importance of what they cover, but they KNOW what they're covering.
Compare that to the "news readers" on the other news shows. Could they even find the countries they're talking about on a map? Or in the USofA, can they find the state they're talking about on a map? There are some good ones but the majority were hired because they're "photogenic" rather than informed.
I'll take informed over photogenic any day.
That's kind of like claiming that a desert and an ocean both have some amount of water in them.
While technically accurate, it does nothing to advance the discussion.
Some sites (such as Fox) are 100% bias. But if you are watching Fox for "news" then you are probably not interested in sites that provide only 50% bias.
CNN will provide a low level of bias ... when they get around to covering the NEWS instead of the "freak of the week". Seriously, was the airplane steward guy the MOST IMPORTANT THING HAPPENING? It was if you go by total coverage time.
Instead of complaining about bias (and doing so in a non-productive fashion) how about complaining about having to go digging for NEWS? And offering suggestions as to how to find NEWS stories instead of "biased opinion" or "freak of the week"?
Real innovation means that their existing products no longer sell because everyone buys the innovative product.
So why would an established company scrap their existing investment?
What they want is something new enough to be interesting ... but not different enough to threaten their cash cows ... that supplements their existing product line.
Apple is great at that. Look at the iPhone. New iterations of their existing product that never threatens their laptop / desktop computer segment. But can supplement it and works well with it.
It is only the startups that don't have an existing investment to threaten that will take the real risks.
Which is why software patents are bad. They allow the existing companies to sue the startups and limit the innovation.
Because FaceBook has such incredibly great security there is no way this could ever be abused by a bored high school kid who decided to post pictures of his teachers there.
Absolutely no possible way this could ever be abused. None whatsoever. Therefore, this is a great idea.
That's what I was trying to understand. Why not use the traditional "x" for the unknown instead of the non-tradition open and closing parentheses "()"?
This doesn't show that kids do not understand the equals sign.
This seems to show that kids do not understand the what they are supposed to solve for in that example. They do not understand the meaning of empty parentheses.
And frankly, I wouldn't be sure that I had solved it THE WAY THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE SOLVED if I had just substituted x for () and gone from there.