First, count your blessings that you have a son who respects rules, even perhaps in this case when he really doesn't have to.
Second, call the school and complain that it's mega-stupid that they disallow iPads when their own online library app allows you to check out books in the iPad-supported format.
Third, although you may be able to make your own legal copy, can you get someone else's bootleg copy and call it legal? Seems to me that that was Napster's business model. Where are they now?
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." - from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol
These were very cold words from a very cold character that has come to epitomize callousness and indifference in the popular mind. Ebenezer Scrooge the money-lending, usury-gouging skinflint stands for everything that is wrong with your kind of comment, but there it is modded up to +3.
Fair enough, but let's not forget that Dickens made Scrooge a villain who was redeemed by the spirits of Christmas. He changed his ways dramatically and become very charitable for the rest of his life.
Growing up we had part of a Slinky. But I straightened it.
You must have come from a wealthy family. All we had was a rock and a stick, and I had to wait until my older sister got dysentery and died before I could play with them.
Legos sold out the moment they started sets with specially shaped pieces. The brick is perfect in its perfectness.
The plain bricks are awesome... at the proper stage of development. I'm fine with the idea of giving the littler ones a head-start with imagining the world they're trying to create.
Successful learning requires the student to be put in a situation where they need just a little bit more than what they have at that moment to take the next step. That "little bit more" could be an insight from their own mind, or a connection with the group around them. The thing is, you can't frustrate the student by not giving them enough of a head-start to find their way to success. You have years and years to show them how to make their own "head-starts" afterwards.
Maybe this guy won his case, but it's pretty damn clear now that he is not an engineer.
Doh, okay, it's abundantly clear I didn't read the article. He is in fact an (electrical) engineer, just not one who is licensed to practice in the state of Oregon. Sorry.
What Trump supporters expected was for him to "bring back the jobs." Jobs lost by international trade. Jobs that, in all likelihood, aren't coming back. No matter --they heard "bring back the jobs" and got on board.
Trump's campaign managed to intersect with a point in history when the Republican party was vulnerable to a populist uprising, and traditional Democratic supporters were disillusioned by a party they saw as becoming elitist. The loss by Bernie Sanders exacerbated the problem. Clinton did herself and her party no favors by putting her foot in her mouth repeatedly, and ignoring the rust belt, which Trump carried unexpectedly. Of course, Trump put his foot in his mouth too, but not when he said "bring back the jobs."
Trump tapped a nerve with a campaign style that, sadly, has been used successfully by many authoritarians in history: (1) convince the voters that they should be afraid/angry; and (2) convince them that you are the only one who can save them.
I think that those who did not support Trump are indeed seeing exactly what they expected: a giant Trumpian remodeling of the federal government, as though it were one of his commercial properties.
Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.
Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.
Doc Searls decided to rant about the election, and since he's an editor...
Yes, he ranted about the election, but he was not a shill for Hillary. Here's his editorial.
TL/DR: you may agree or disagree with his editorial, but it seems to me to be a sober reflection on the electoral campaign and the result. One important point he makes early on:
Disclosure: I'm a political independent, and not a fan of Hillary Clinton, though I thought she was the only sensible choice, given Trump's shortcomings, many of which should have disqualified him, flat out.
Read the rest of it yourself, but for those who are curious, his piece ends with the following (bold emphasis is his):
Here's the Linux connection: we need to hack news back in a logical direction, and away from the fact-free, misleading and emotion-stirring ways that news is made today. The mainstream media is beyond fixing. So is the newstream media, so long as it remains dependent on surveillance-based advertising, clickbait and fake news of its own.
I don't know how we do that, but we've hacked the world before: with free software, Linux and open source, just to name the Big Three.
We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development
No we don't. Some limited subset of people want to/can't help themselves, but life would go on just fine without it.
I think you selectively misread what he said. Here's the quote in context, with my emphasis added to the stuff you left out:
The genie is out of the bottle. We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development but we also need to be mindful of its very real dangers.
I read this as saying we now have no choice but to continue to work on AI in order to be equipped to cope with it. Life might "go on just fine without it" but it's too late to think that we're going to be without it.
As of last month I progressed from not reading articles to not reading summaries. Now I don't even read the headlines before commenting, so if my comment made any sense at all it was purely a coincidence.
I suppose the logical next step is that you don't read your own posts before submitting. Or are you already there?;-P
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump.
Ummmm... and before that he was appointed by Obama.
He was appointed to the FCC in 2012 by Obama, per Mitch McConnell's recommendation. Obama didn't have a choice in the matter. He had to appoint a Republican to fill a vacant Republican seat on the Commission. (That being said, his appointment was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.) His term expired on June 30, 2016.
Trump appointed Pai to the Chairmanship in January 2017. His appointment was confirmed by the senate in October 2017. This time, the Senate confirmation was far from unanimous: the vote was 52-41, split along party lines. (From 2012 to the present, Democrats learned more about Pai's views on deregulation, and changed their minds about him.)
No, it's worse. Pai asks rhetorically whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" and then dodges his own question by saying "Now, I will tell you upfront that I don't have an answer." By doing this, he manages to imply that the answer to his question is "no" without actually saying so. There's a word for this: innuendo.
Pai has jumped the shark.
Alas, he's a presidential appointee. We're stuck with him until his term expires.
The idea that Government knows best for everyone is really really stupid, and will result in lots of unintended consequences and work arounds designed to bypass stupid rules.
FYI, I am for the real version of Net Neutrality, which is getting government out of the regulation of internet
Either you're deliberately twisting the meaning of Net Neutrality, or you live in opposite-land. The purpose of Net Neutrality is not to have the Government decide what's best for us. It's to keep corporations from deciding that.
Slashdot Mirror
They are about to roll out 5G technologies with 10gbs download speeds which is more bandwidth than most everyone will need.
Let's put that one into the time-capsule, along with the apocryphal "640k ought to be enough for anybody."
First, count your blessings that you have a son who respects rules, even perhaps in this case when he really doesn't have to.
Second, call the school and complain that it's mega-stupid that they disallow iPads when their own online library app allows you to check out books in the iPad-supported format.
Third, although you may be able to make your own legal copy, can you get someone else's bootleg copy and call it legal? Seems to me that that was Napster's business model. Where are they now?
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." - from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol
These were very cold words from a very cold character that has come to epitomize callousness and indifference in the popular mind. Ebenezer Scrooge the money-lending, usury-gouging skinflint stands for everything that is wrong with your kind of comment, but there it is modded up to +3.
Fair enough, but let's not forget that Dickens made Scrooge a villain who was redeemed by the spirits of Christmas. He changed his ways dramatically and become very charitable for the rest of his life.
Amazingly, you can only become a PE after another PE signs off on your work experience. So it seems a bit catch-22.
And you can only become a human being if another human being gives birth to you. What's your point again?
You must have come from a wealthy family. All we had was a rock and a stick, and I had to wait until my older sister got dysentery and died before I could play with them.
Okay, time for this. /thread
Legos sold out the moment they started sets with specially shaped pieces. The brick is perfect in its perfectness.
The plain bricks are awesome ... at the proper stage of development. I'm fine with the idea of giving the littler ones a head-start with imagining the world they're trying to create.
Successful learning requires the student to be put in a situation where they need just a little bit more than what they have at that moment to take the next step. That "little bit more" could be an insight from their own mind, or a connection with the group around them. The thing is, you can't frustrate the student by not giving them enough of a head-start to find their way to success. You have years and years to show them how to make their own "head-starts" afterwards.
Maybe this guy won his case, but it's pretty damn clear now that he is not an engineer.
Doh, okay, it's abundantly clear I didn't read the article. He is in fact an (electrical) engineer, just not one who is licensed to practice in the state of Oregon. Sorry.
Maybe this guy won his case, but it's pretty damn clear now that he is not an engineer.
Not really sure what you expected.
What Trump supporters expected was for him to "bring back the jobs." Jobs lost by international trade. Jobs that, in all likelihood, aren't coming back. No matter --they heard "bring back the jobs" and got on board.
Trump's campaign managed to intersect with a point in history when the Republican party was vulnerable to a populist uprising, and traditional Democratic supporters were disillusioned by a party they saw as becoming elitist. The loss by Bernie Sanders exacerbated the problem. Clinton did herself and her party no favors by putting her foot in her mouth repeatedly, and ignoring the rust belt, which Trump carried unexpectedly. Of course, Trump put his foot in his mouth too, but not when he said "bring back the jobs."
Trump tapped a nerve with a campaign style that, sadly, has been used successfully by many authoritarians in history: (1) convince the voters that they should be afraid/angry; and (2) convince them that you are the only one who can save them.
I think that those who did not support Trump are indeed seeing exactly what they expected: a giant Trumpian remodeling of the federal government, as though it were one of his commercial properties.
Since it's in international waters, the only result of this will be that the nations that signed up won't be doing any fishing while the ones that didn't will still be doing business as usual.
Signatories include the EU, and nine nations: Canada, Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia, United States, Japan, China, South Korea, and Iceland. That's a lot of fish that will be left alone for the next 16 years. I'd say that will make an impact.
Doc Searls decided to rant about the election, and since he's an editor ...
Yes, he ranted about the election, but he was not a shill for Hillary. Here's his editorial.
TL/DR: you may agree or disagree with his editorial, but it seems to me to be a sober reflection on the electoral campaign and the result. One important point he makes early on:
Disclosure: I'm a political independent, and not a fan of Hillary Clinton, though I thought she was the only sensible choice, given Trump's shortcomings, many of which should have disqualified him, flat out.
Read the rest of it yourself, but for those who are curious, his piece ends with the following (bold emphasis is his):
Here's the Linux connection: we need to hack news back in a logical direction, and away from the fact-free, misleading and emotion-stirring ways that news is made today. The mainstream media is beyond fixing. So is the newstream media, so long as it remains dependent on surveillance-based advertising, clickbait and fake news of its own.
I don't know how we do that, but we've hacked the world before: with free software, Linux and open source, just to name the Big Three.
Time to do it again.
The correct phrase is "not every iPhone X is created equal." That means some are equal...
Nope!
Fair enough. Some may be equal. Thanks for catching that.
Created equal, every iPhone X is not.
Posted to slashdot, Yoda has!
Cluster Beowulf of Natalie Portman hot grits in Russia Soviet, down pants imagine you, hmm?
The correct phrase is "not every iPhone X is created equal." That means some are equal, but not all.
TFH says "every iPhone X is not created equal." That means each and every one is different for all the others. That is incorrect.
Sorry for ranting, but every time I see this mistake, I die a little.
[Linux Journal] took a political turn to the left, and that's why I dropped my subscription.
When? How? Was it a systematic editorial policy? Or an article or two that offended you?
This will be a new form of life that will outperform humans.
This is the natural order of things.
Perhaps. Isaac Asimov once speculated that the ultimate destiny of humanity might be to create a higher machine intelligence.
We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development
No we don't. Some limited subset of people want to/can't help themselves, but life would go on just fine without it.
I think you selectively misread what he said. Here's the quote in context, with my emphasis added to the stuff you left out:
The genie is out of the bottle. We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development but we also need to be mindful of its very real dangers.
I read this as saying we now have no choice but to continue to work on AI in order to be equipped to cope with it. Life might "go on just fine without it" but it's too late to think that we're going to be without it.
We also only vote on comments, not stories, so there is no comparable voting dynamic.
What about the firehose?
As of last month I progressed from not reading articles to not reading summaries. Now I don't even read the headlines before commenting, so if my comment made any sense at all it was purely a coincidence.
I suppose the logical next step is that you don't read your own posts before submitting. Or are you already there? ;-P
He is republican in the sense that he was appointed by Trump.
Ummmm ... and before that he was appointed by Obama.
He was appointed to the FCC in 2012 by Obama, per Mitch McConnell's recommendation. Obama didn't have a choice in the matter. He had to appoint a Republican to fill a vacant Republican seat on the Commission. (That being said, his appointment was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.) His term expired on June 30, 2016.
Trump appointed Pai to the Chairmanship in January 2017. His appointment was confirmed by the senate in October 2017. This time, the Senate confirmation was far from unanimous: the vote was 52-41, split along party lines. (From 2012 to the present, Democrats learned more about Pai's views on deregulation, and changed their minds about him.)
This is just more deflection.
No, it's worse. Pai asks rhetorically whether social media is "a net benefit to American society" and then dodges his own question by saying "Now, I will tell you upfront that I don't have an answer." By doing this, he manages to imply that the answer to his question is "no" without actually saying so. There's a word for this: innuendo.
Pai has jumped the shark.
Alas, he's a presidential appointee. We're stuck with him until his term expires.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
stop referencing that shit pile of excuses for failed science.
Your post was made possible by a "shit-pile" of innovations that were discovered by the science you dismiss. You're welcome.
Failed science is replaced by successful science. That's how science works.
The idea that Government knows best for everyone is really really stupid, and will result in lots of unintended consequences and work arounds designed to bypass stupid rules.
FYI, I am for the real version of Net Neutrality, which is getting government out of the regulation of internet
Either you're deliberately twisting the meaning of Net Neutrality, or you live in opposite-land. The purpose of Net Neutrality is not to have the Government decide what's best for us. It's to keep corporations from deciding that.
Saloomy also made a mistake. The article talks about 11 feet of water, not 11 meters.
Thanks for catching that. So, divide my energy estimate by 3.9. It's still over 500 times annual USA consumption.
Gaah, not enough coffee. Divide by about 3.3 (feet per metre.) I had 3.9 in my head because a metre is about 39 inches.
Saloomy also made a mistake. The article talks about 11 feet of water, not 11 meters.
Thanks for catching that. So, divide my energy estimate by 3.9. It's still over 500 times annual USA consumption.