yup. Books in the home is another interesting metric.
Steven Levy addressed this in his book "Freakonomics". He found that although "books in the home" is correlated with better performance in school, once you correct for the IQ of the parents, it actually makes no difference at all.
So, the correlation is actually "smart parents tend to end up with smart kids". But an indicator of smart parents is "books in the home" (which is a lot easier to see than IQ), so I don't see the issue - so long as you don't try to claim that smart parents and books *both* increase your kid's smarts.
They joined International Baccalaureate, which is supposed to be a good program, so I'm hoping it goes well, but we'll have to see.
IB gets a lot of "prestige" for being good, but after a few friends moved overseas, we found out what it actually is.
It's literally "international school", for kids of parents who move around a lot. Grade 1 IB is the same curriculum regardless of where you are. This is good because when you get reassigned to a new country over the summer, they can start grade 2 IB and not have to adjust to a different curriculum. It's "harder", but only because it has to meet everyone's standards.
What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.
I personally file being forced to choose between sexual assault (maybe they can plead down to "interference") and having nude pictures taken of me to be "hassle".
The images may be shown on the display screen as stick figures, but the unmodified nude 3d models are still stored as useful biometric information data in government databases. Count on it.
Actually, let's back up for a second.
How do they plan on displaying the stick figure but still showing what they're carrying? That strikes me as either BS (they'll draw a stick figure over the nude) or a pretty obvious loophole (figure out how the software decides what's "person" and you've beaten the system.
Lawyers are nothing but hired guns to fight battles. An attorney is required to provide the best defense or offense for their client regardless of what they think of their client. If attorneys started refusing to provide legal defenses for the worst of the worst then how would we really know who they are; the government would be free jail most anyone by claiming them "the worst of the worst."
I wish I remember the source of the quote, but I remember a defense lawyer saying that it's not a question of "what I think of the client" - the point is to make sure the prosecution does *their* job. If the guy is guilty, he deserves to go to jail, but just because he's scum doesn't mean that the cops and prosecutors get to slack off. (Re-reading that, I'm guessing it was a court-appointed lawyer. *g*).
I mean really, why would you want somebody who is an expert in the field of law, writing your laws?
Because I want my laws written by people who aren't concerned about this or that legal precept - I want them written by as-close-to-normal folks as we can find (accepting that really normal people don't *want* to be politicians), who then have a lawyer to make it sound legally for them.
Lawyers are tools (yes, in both senses of the word) - you don't let the architect decide what house you want, you *tell* them what house you want and they make it work (or tell you why it can't).
I've wondered why AnonOps or one of the other group of that style hasn't tried that yet. RC helicopters with cameras are getting scarily cheap these days, for instance...
But on a serious note - I can see the hybrid role being more popular, since the person building your new widget can also be the person making sure that the widget is useful to the company. Less layers between user and programmer.
By your logic if a French boat is sailing in international waters the British navy has every right to blow it the hell up ?
Yep. The only reason they don't is that it would most likely piss off not only France, but other countries who would like their boats to not be blown up.
My first thought was those man-made islands made by dredging up the ocean. Only difference I see is that one is made of dirt and one made of metal.
It's pretty academic, anyway - if I build a giant floating base, declare independance, and can effectively defend myself against aggression... I'm effectively a "nation" for intents and purposes, the same as Taiwan. We might not be "recognized", but that just means that other countries don't want to talk to me. Taiwan still manages to get a lot of trade, though...
And as otherwise noted - the US hasn't demonstrated that they'll respect recognized nations anyway, so that's not any particular defense.
I don't think Sealand is as well protected as people think. It's just that they're minding their own business so nobody cares.
+1 Obvious Truth.
Equally obvious - international recognition doesn't make you a country (or principality, or whatnot). The ability to hold and defend claimed territory is.
Sealand being on manufactured land isn't the problem - it's that they have zero defensive capabilities, so they can't stand against any claim to their sovereignty. No-one has bothered because they have nothing they want. When that changes, Sealand will be forced to defend their claim or more likely, simply disappear.
Yeesh - it's their first try at this. Can we let them enjoy the basics before we start bugging them about why they didn't create a million-dollar launch vehicle?
Making the front page just means it's a slower news day and it's a happy feel-good story. ("Kids did something useful! News at 11!")
But the point is, from my vantage, the CRTC is all about making insane decisions that hurt Canadians for a goal that they probably don't even understand (what the hell is "Canadian culture" in the context of our media anyway.. I'm Canadian and I only vaguely know... is it Red Green!).
I think at this point it's simply defined as "made in Canada" - Canadian writers, producers, actors, etc. I could go all warm-fuzzy about "Canadian stories", but that's almost beside the point. Right now it's cheaper to pay a US channel to grab Simpsons reruns than it is to film a Canadian show - so if we want a Canadian film and TV business, we need some carrots and sticks.
Actually, since part of the CRTC's mandate is to promote and protect Canadian content, complaining about how the Internet makes that more difficult makes sense. (And yes, I'm fully aware that the media companies have managed to subvert, pervert, and otherwise avoid that mandate whenever possible).
Of course, the answer isn't to block off the internet, but since that's an answer that makes the media companies happy, that's what they'll roll with.
We used to have Videotron here in Edmonton - until Shaw bought them.
Actually, it was kind of weird - Videotron had half the city and Shaw had the other half (I'm going to guess divided by the river, but I'm not sure). So no-one was really surprised when one bought the other, although most of us wish it had gone the other way.
But what's the harm? Worst case is that nothing happens. (I suppose theoretical worst place is that you're ostracized from the community for daring to procreate, but then you should probably consider relocating.)
I'm not suggesting that they're going to retire on this - just that there are other options besides "roll over and take it".
You need to show a bunch of six-year-olds how to program in an hour? Here's LOGO. Here's your turtle. Type FWD 20, watch it move forward. Five minutes later, the kids know all the basic commands. Put a maze in front of them, let them figure it out. Congrats - they're programming with a computer.
LOGO was my first programming language, back on an Apple II with a big honkin 5 1/4" floppy disk drive. It was the eye-opening "OMG these things do more than Oregon Trail?!?!?" moment.
Should I *force* my over-dedicated employees to go home at 5 or to take vacations without bringing the iPhone?
Not yes but Hell Yes. You want them to take their vacations, make them take the vacation. (Up here, the employer can give the employee two weeks notice and say "yep, you're off this stretch".)
Let them bring the phone, but make it clear (to both them and the other employees) that the building had better be metaphorically ablaze before you call them. (And emails should be politely ignored).
Now, your employee might still be checking emails, and you can't completely stop it. But you can foster the culture that it's discouraged and certainly not expected.
It's better for you too - if the work phone only rings in dire emergencies, you're more likely to get a response.
So, technically the was something she could do. She could spend a large amount of time spending money. Then when the lawsuit was over she could spend another year or two paying the rest of the lawyer fees since even a win wouldn't cover the legal costs.
That's when you call your friendly TV network's "troubleshooter" and see if they'd like to interview an expecting mother who was fired for being pregnant. Depending on how much you like those lawyers, bring that piece into it as well.
Is it a cheap shot? Hell yes. But you play the hand you're dealt. Not a lot of companies who want to appear on the six o'clock news as "those family-hating bastards".
What has been found in actual studies was that a person working 60 hours per week for six weeks and a person working 40 hours per week for six weeks produce the same amount of work. No gain whatsoever from slaving extra 20 hours a week.
I can vouch for that - I've been up to 100 hours a week. (Sole supervisor for a department that was only closed 16 hours a *week* - ran non-stop from 6am Sunday morning till midnight Friday night, then open Saturday). At it's worst I was awake (and at work) eight hours, home eight hours, back to work eight hours...
(And yes, I mean I worked Sunday morning, then Sunday graveyard, then Monday afternoon... it was insanely stupid).
You can put in an appearance for that much time, but you are *not* productive. I knew the routine stuff well enough to do it in my sleep (and pretty much *was*), but I wasn't doing anything really useful.
Slashdot Mirror
yup. Books in the home is another interesting metric.
Steven Levy addressed this in his book "Freakonomics". He found that although "books in the home" is correlated with better performance in school, once you correct for the IQ of the parents, it actually makes no difference at all.
So, the correlation is actually "smart parents tend to end up with smart kids". But an indicator of smart parents is "books in the home" (which is a lot easier to see than IQ), so I don't see the issue - so long as you don't try to claim that smart parents and books *both* increase your kid's smarts.
You can buy things with turtles? No wonder they're endangered!
They joined International Baccalaureate, which is supposed to be a good program, so I'm hoping it goes well, but we'll have to see.
IB gets a lot of "prestige" for being good, but after a few friends moved overseas, we found out what it actually is.
It's literally "international school", for kids of parents who move around a lot. Grade 1 IB is the same curriculum regardless of where you are. This is good because when you get reassigned to a new country over the summer, they can start grade 2 IB and not have to adjust to a different curriculum. It's "harder", but only because it has to meet everyone's standards.
What about the hassle to the people indeed? Really, there isn't any more hassle than there is going through a metal detector, so thats a moot point.
I personally file being forced to choose between sexual assault (maybe they can plead down to "interference") and having nude pictures taken of me to be "hassle".
The images may be shown on the display screen as stick figures, but the unmodified nude 3d models are still stored as useful biometric information data in government databases. Count on it.
Actually, let's back up for a second.
How do they plan on displaying the stick figure but still showing what they're carrying? That strikes me as either BS (they'll draw a stick figure over the nude) or a pretty obvious loophole (figure out how the software decides what's "person" and you've beaten the system.
Lawyers are nothing but hired guns to fight battles. An attorney is required to provide the best defense or offense for their client regardless of what they think of their client. If attorneys started refusing to provide legal defenses for the worst of the worst then how would we really know who they are; the government would be free jail most anyone by claiming them "the worst of the worst."
I wish I remember the source of the quote, but I remember a defense lawyer saying that it's not a question of "what I think of the client" - the point is to make sure the prosecution does *their* job. If the guy is guilty, he deserves to go to jail, but just because he's scum doesn't mean that the cops and prosecutors get to slack off. (Re-reading that, I'm guessing it was a court-appointed lawyer. *g*).
I mean really, why would you want somebody who is an expert in the field of law, writing your laws?
Because I want my laws written by people who aren't concerned about this or that legal precept - I want them written by as-close-to-normal folks as we can find (accepting that really normal people don't *want* to be politicians), who then have a lawyer to make it sound legally for them.
Lawyers are tools (yes, in both senses of the word) - you don't let the architect decide what house you want, you *tell* them what house you want and they make it work (or tell you why it can't).
ensure instead that we never again return to those times
Then perhaps pardoning him would be a step in the right direction?
Or, on the other hand, perhaps it makes a better statement to have it there as a "we now know that was wrong and we won't go back".
In a way, the statement from House of Lords is stronger than a pardon to a long-dead person could ever be.
I've wondered why AnonOps or one of the other group of that style hasn't tried that yet. RC helicopters with cameras are getting scarily cheap these days, for instance...
+1 Buzzspeak
But on a serious note - I can see the hybrid role being more popular, since the person building your new widget can also be the person making sure that the widget is useful to the company. Less layers between user and programmer.
By your logic if a French boat is sailing in international waters the British navy has every right to blow it the hell up ?
Yep. The only reason they don't is that it would most likely piss off not only France, but other countries who would like their boats to not be blown up.
My first thought was those man-made islands made by dredging up the ocean. Only difference I see is that one is made of dirt and one made of metal.
It's pretty academic, anyway - if I build a giant floating base, declare independance, and can effectively defend myself against aggression... I'm effectively a "nation" for intents and purposes, the same as Taiwan. We might not be "recognized", but that just means that other countries don't want to talk to me. Taiwan still manages to get a lot of trade, though...
And as otherwise noted - the US hasn't demonstrated that they'll respect recognized nations anyway, so that's not any particular defense.
I don't think Sealand is as well protected as people think. It's just that they're minding their own business so nobody cares.
+1 Obvious Truth.
Equally obvious - international recognition doesn't make you a country (or principality, or whatnot). The ability to hold and defend claimed territory is.
Sealand being on manufactured land isn't the problem - it's that they have zero defensive capabilities, so they can't stand against any claim to their sovereignty. No-one has bothered because they have nothing they want. When that changes, Sealand will be forced to defend their claim or more likely, simply disappear.
Deep down inside they are suing because they don't like Gingrich. Just my guess though.
Probably a fair guess - if they supported Gingrich they'd call up and negotiate a deal.
What would be amusing is if they proceeded to take-down Gingrich's stuff for copyright infringement.
Yeesh - it's their first try at this. Can we let them enjoy the basics before we start bugging them about why they didn't create a million-dollar launch vehicle?
Making the front page just means it's a slower news day and it's a happy feel-good story. ("Kids did something useful! News at 11!")
If you're willing to apply thrust you can orbit a lot lower than that.
But the point is, from my vantage, the CRTC is all about making insane decisions that hurt Canadians for a goal that they probably don't even understand (what the hell is "Canadian culture" in the context of our media anyway .. I'm Canadian and I only vaguely know... is it Red Green!).
I think at this point it's simply defined as "made in Canada" - Canadian writers, producers, actors, etc. I could go all warm-fuzzy about "Canadian stories", but that's almost beside the point. Right now it's cheaper to pay a US channel to grab Simpsons reruns than it is to film a Canadian show - so if we want a Canadian film and TV business, we need some carrots and sticks.
Actually, since part of the CRTC's mandate is to promote and protect Canadian content, complaining about how the Internet makes that more difficult makes sense. (And yes, I'm fully aware that the media companies have managed to subvert, pervert, and otherwise avoid that mandate whenever possible).
Of course, the answer isn't to block off the internet, but since that's an answer that makes the media companies happy, that's what they'll roll with.
We used to have Videotron here in Edmonton - until Shaw bought them.
Actually, it was kind of weird - Videotron had half the city and Shaw had the other half (I'm going to guess divided by the river, but I'm not sure). So no-one was really surprised when one bought the other, although most of us wish it had gone the other way.
But what's the harm? Worst case is that nothing happens. (I suppose theoretical worst place is that you're ostracized from the community for daring to procreate, but then you should probably consider relocating.)
I'm not suggesting that they're going to retire on this - just that there are other options besides "roll over and take it".
You need to show a bunch of six-year-olds how to program in an hour? Here's LOGO. Here's your turtle. Type FWD 20, watch it move forward. Five minutes later, the kids know all the basic commands. Put a maze in front of them, let them figure it out. Congrats - they're programming with a computer.
LOGO was my first programming language, back on an Apple II with a big honkin 5 1/4" floppy disk drive. It was the eye-opening "OMG these things do more than Oregon Trail?!?!?" moment.
Thou shalt re-write the applications when iOS 5 is released (because we decided that access to Device Unique Identifier needs to go away)
Considering that the Device Unique Identifier was becoming a popular vector for spyware, I'm perfectly happy that it's going away.
Should I *force* my over-dedicated employees to go home at 5 or to take vacations without bringing the iPhone?
Not yes but Hell Yes. You want them to take their vacations, make them take the vacation. (Up here, the employer can give the employee two weeks notice and say "yep, you're off this stretch".)
Let them bring the phone, but make it clear (to both them and the other employees) that the building had better be metaphorically ablaze before you call them. (And emails should be politely ignored).
Now, your employee might still be checking emails, and you can't completely stop it. But you can foster the culture that it's discouraged and certainly not expected.
It's better for you too - if the work phone only rings in dire emergencies, you're more likely to get a response.
So, technically the was something she could do. She could spend a large amount of time spending money. Then when the lawsuit was over she could spend another year or two paying the rest of the lawyer fees since even a win wouldn't cover the legal costs.
That's when you call your friendly TV network's "troubleshooter" and see if they'd like to interview an expecting mother who was fired for being pregnant. Depending on how much you like those lawyers, bring that piece into it as well.
Is it a cheap shot? Hell yes. But you play the hand you're dealt. Not a lot of companies who want to appear on the six o'clock news as "those family-hating bastards".
What has been found in actual studies was that a person working 60 hours per week for six weeks and a person working 40 hours per week for six weeks produce the same amount of work. No gain whatsoever from slaving extra 20 hours a week.
I can vouch for that - I've been up to 100 hours a week. (Sole supervisor for a department that was only closed 16 hours a *week* - ran non-stop from 6am Sunday morning till midnight Friday night, then open Saturday). At it's worst I was awake (and at work) eight hours, home eight hours, back to work eight hours...
(And yes, I mean I worked Sunday morning, then Sunday graveyard, then Monday afternoon... it was insanely stupid).
You can put in an appearance for that much time, but you are *not* productive. I knew the routine stuff well enough to do it in my sleep (and pretty much *was*), but I wasn't doing anything really useful.