What about CDNs physically located in NY that serve news and video from very popular sites? And how are you going to verify all this information? Like, I go through Tor, I tell you I'm Jim Conte, I give you his home address and then I verify that I'm indeed him and all this time someone on the staff of this news site is... doing what exactly? Verifying how? Are they calling ISPs and saying "Hey, does this IP address check out for this home address? And how on Earth are they going to be able to afford to do this for anonymous comments?
Show me you palm, Jim Conte. Hmmm... yes, yes... see that line there? I can tell you by the look of it: your wish will be granted, in a very near future, no Websites will be hosted and no CDN-es will have presence in NY... but when it happens, if you'll remind your voters about your success, they'll throw rotten eggs at you.
I mean consider the university lecture: you have 50 people in a room, 1 professor delivering essentially a fixed lecture. Even with questions answered live, you would struggle to deal with 10 students who wanted to ask different questions. And my university mathematics lectures were far bigger then that.
During my uni time, after a 1.5-2 hours lecture with 200 students, we had at least one 2-3 hours seminar - in smaller groups 18-20 at max - to discuss and detail the topics, explore consequences and solve problems. With one of the professor's assistants (every professor had 2 or 3). Each professor would have at max 16 h/week teaching and research for the rest of it (with or without students. BTW, does a 6 school-days/week, 8-10 hours/day somehow horrifies you?)
But when you think about it, it's also just a grossly inefficient use of resources. We have the technology to deliver lectures whenever we want, at any rate we want, at people's own pace. Surely we can think of a better use of human resources in this equation then narrating a powerpoint presentation.
If the "human resources" are just narrating a slideshow, I can do nothing but to agree that's a waste. But not a waste of the said "human resources" (can't call them teachers), but of the students time. That being said, I'll end by:
1. if education is a primordially a matter of "resources", I'll remind you of Derek Bok (hint: start by googling "if you think education")
2. education is an area in which positive feedback tends to happen. And when it happens, it happens on long term: if one generation "degenerates" in the style of education on a "it's just good enough" level, you can bet with high chances of success the next generation will degenerate even further. Case at hand: a youngster nowadays can't even imagine that real teaching/learning may be more than "narrating a powerpoint". Well, it can... see a very informative post - Google for some terms there, will lead you to some interesting info.
So, even if some part of the teaching is crap, if the system has given the students a clearer indication of what's going to be on the test, students will find another way of learning how to answer the test (ask their friends in the other stream, read a worked answer to last year's exam, Google...). That means there's often a hidden variable of whether setting computer practice tests is making the students better at the guessing game of knowing what's going to be on the real test.
In the context of experiments (mixed-mode or not), I tend to agree with you.
However, it is not true in general. The best exam I ever stayed (nuclear protection engineering): open-books exam, a single problem to solve (each student had their own), you were even allowed even to go to the library and consult whatever book or journal you'd like or even borrow it. Even talk to whoever you liked outside the exam room. The single restrictions: the total time you were allowed to miss from the exam room was 1 hour. The maximum time you had for the entire exam: 8 hours (a work-day for the prof/assistants), no hand written papers brought from outside.
Granted, happened during late '80 - no mobiles or tablets to receive all the info in electronic format from outside.
> this device was quite much copied from Nokia's symbian phones
Even though we have remote controls today, and clicking on the article link no longer requires you to get your ass out of your chair, you can still make a fool of yourself by being too lazy to read it and discover that the first remote control was invented in 1955, long before there was Symbian, or mobile phones.
He must be of the same intellectual quality as the persons that, back during mid '90-ies, carried a remote and mocked speaking on a mobile in an attempt to fool others into believing they owned one (granted, some early Ericsson models have had some resemblance).
A piece of software can deliver all of these questions, sit there and blather at me and etc. just as well as a far more expensive professor.
Here's the proof for the current low level in education... people that don't know and can't imagine better about learning/teaching than teachers that delivers questions, sit and blather. (with a grid exam at the end, isn't it? Because it doesn't matter that's a suboptimal way of assessing the learning: it's "objective" and, above all, cheap)
I'd rather be misidentified than have my ID chip blacklisted. Do something the government doesn't like? They disable your chip... then you're screwed. No thanks.
Can be worse than a simple refusal of services... someone classifying you as an enemy combatant.
Anyway, wouldn't it be better to abstain from waging future wars than to rely on chipping your "friends" to distinguish them from your (possible not chipped, thus perhaps freer) enemies?
Solar eclipse during night time? Now, this is literally fantastic (i.e. pertaining to fantasy).
Check the article title: now you know why it is a _rare_ annular eclipse...normal annular solar eclipses are almost annual too (not quite but once every 1-3 years).
A matter of terminology: to me, on Earth surface, night time is when the Sun is totally "eclipsed" by the Earth (the way I noticed, it happens every day). As such a "Sun eclipsed by Moon" - annular or not - cannot be observed during night time.
If we could use ultrasound to structure an on-demand horizontal thin film barrier strong enough to resist convective air currents, we might have a really useful energy conservation measure.
Just vacuum the room out of any air and there you have it: no convective currents. Then use soap bubbles to insulate the room as you please.
That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!
Use it while you still can. Next in line, Google and Apple dusting off some of their patents and banning each others phones, including the MS one.
Getting around the bans will be possible: except the smart phones won't be that smart anymore, each one will need to eliminate the "smartness" covered by the patents of the others.
Please don't equate financial risk with jumping off of a bridge or even stupid risk like buying into your brother's Ponzi scheme. Financial risk has a precise meaning and it does correlate with long-term reward.
Hmmm... like CDO-es based on sub-prime mortgages, ain't it? I wonder how well they correlate nowadays with long term rewards?
called this one back around 1970 in his classic story "Inconsistent Moon".
Memory ageing detected at location... refresh recommended. (hint: check again the title. The story seems to be nice enough to recheck more than the title).
The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
I'd say it's their fault in that case, then. I think too often dog owners get punished when it really wasn't their fault.
I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
They should really stop that.
Ok. What's your opinion on the more general view of "responsibility of an owner about how their property is used no matter by whom"? Does it exist in such a general context? 'cause in more restricted contexts certainly is: e.g. at least in some (many?) countries, try to get a firearm and you'll be asked to keep it secure/under-lock when you are not wearing/using it.
Furthermore, the owner is the only one that can keep the dog under control.
The dog was on leash. The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
You don't typically have full control over other human beings so you can keep them from committing crimes.
And then there's the fact that, unlike in the situation you describe, open WiFi can be used for legitimate purposes.
A dog may be useful for legitimate purposes as well - property defense, guide dogs for the blind, etc.
There would be a difference: there was no other human using the dog for illegitimate purposes. But this were it becomes interesting: even if the owner hasn't been negligent with the dog (his property) and there was noone else to "mishandle" it (this should make it a milder case), I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
Offtopic: Can we please automatically delete all posts with links to my clean pc?
Ontopic:
This baffles me on how money is wasted on anti-piracy. This case should have been dismissed at the very beginning. How can you blame someone simply on the basis of ownership? This is like suing an owner of a car for not locking his car, because his car stolen and used in a crime.
Hmmm... just for the sake of (hopefully civilized) debating: would one be off-the-hook if the dog one is owning bite a person passing-by? (say... while walking in the park. Even when on leash, sometime it happens) If you think this is not a valid analogy, can you please explain why?
Bert64 is correct and that was my point. Copyright legislation is not a "contract" or "license" in any sense of either term. Some people today do seem to get them confused, but their confusion does not reality make.
See my reply above. I truly don't say "copyright law is a contract", but I do argue that "the copyright notice is as good a contract as an EULA"
In my view: as long as something establishes who is the owner and what conditions you need to respect in using the property (even if it is only by reference to the law), we are speaking of contractual matters - irrespective how short or how long the notification text is. And this is because the owner made you aware that it is s/he that is entitled to damages if you break the law (which is a fact specific to the transaction between the publisher - owner of the content - and you - the owner of the book); in my mind, this is enough for me to consider the copyright notice for a book is as binding as EULA is for software.
If I'm wrong, can you please explain why I'm wrong? (I mean, I'd like something more than "because Bert64 and me say so").
That's not an EULA, that's a re-iteration of copyright law. An EULA typically adds additional restrictions on top of the base copyright laws.
The copyright law doesn't establish who has the copyright. The part to which I'm referring:
1. reiterates/references the applicable law (as you said; I won't contradict you on this one)
2. does assert the copyright ownership (which you failed to note/mention)
By buying that book you agree with both of the conditions (respect the law and acknowledge the publisher as the party that has the IP ownership). IANAL (so I could be wrong), but even if simplified (should it be more complicated?), the identification of the other party brings the copyright notice in the domain of a commercial contract; and this is because, if you decide to break the law, it is the party cited by the copyright notice that is entitled to sue you - in other words, this copyright notice establishes with who you, as a buyer, have a specific/restricted to that book agreement within the bounds of the law.
Do you still argue that the copyright notice does NOT add restrictions (i.e. specifics to the consumed transaction) on top of the law?
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't anyone at the store find it suspicious that an expensive big Lego set would suddenly be heavily discounted?
you mean that Target doesn't offer self-serve checkout?
What about CDNs physically located in NY that serve news and video from very popular sites? And how are you going to verify all this information? Like, I go through Tor, I tell you I'm Jim Conte, I give you his home address and then I verify that I'm indeed him and all this time someone on the staff of this news site is ... doing what exactly? Verifying how? Are they calling ISPs and saying "Hey, does this IP address check out for this home address? And how on Earth are they going to be able to afford to do this for anonymous comments?
Show me you palm, Jim Conte. Hmmm... yes, yes... see that line there? I can tell you by the look of it: your wish will be granted, in a very near future, no Websites will be hosted and no CDN-es will have presence in NY... but when it happens, if you'll remind your voters about your success, they'll throw rotten eggs at you.
Is it though?
I mean consider the university lecture: you have 50 people in a room, 1 professor delivering essentially a fixed lecture. Even with questions answered live, you would struggle to deal with 10 students who wanted to ask different questions. And my university mathematics lectures were far bigger then that.
During my uni time, after a 1.5-2 hours lecture with 200 students, we had at least one 2-3 hours seminar - in smaller groups 18-20 at max - to discuss and detail the topics, explore consequences and solve problems. With one of the professor's assistants (every professor had 2 or 3). Each professor would have at max 16 h/week teaching and research for the rest of it (with or without students. BTW, does a 6 school-days/week, 8-10 hours/day somehow horrifies you?)
But when you think about it, it's also just a grossly inefficient use of resources. We have the technology to deliver lectures whenever we want, at any rate we want, at people's own pace. Surely we can think of a better use of human resources in this equation then narrating a powerpoint presentation.
If the "human resources" are just narrating a slideshow, I can do nothing but to agree that's a waste. But not a waste of the said "human resources" (can't call them teachers), but of the students time. That being said, I'll end by:
1. if education is a primordially a matter of "resources", I'll remind you of Derek Bok (hint: start by googling "if you think education")
2. education is an area in which positive feedback tends to happen. And when it happens, it happens on long term: if one generation "degenerates" in the style of education on a "it's just good enough" level, you can bet with high chances of success the next generation will degenerate even further. Case at hand: a youngster nowadays can't even imagine that real teaching/learning may be more than "narrating a powerpoint". Well, it can... see a very informative post - Google for some terms there, will lead you to some interesting info.
So, even if some part of the teaching is crap, if the system has given the students a clearer indication of what's going to be on the test, students will find another way of learning how to answer the test (ask their friends in the other stream, read a worked answer to last year's exam, Google...). That means there's often a hidden variable of whether setting computer practice tests is making the students better at the guessing game of knowing what's going to be on the real test.
In the context of experiments (mixed-mode or not), I tend to agree with you.
However, it is not true in general. The best exam I ever stayed (nuclear protection engineering): open-books exam, a single problem to solve (each student had their own), you were even allowed even to go to the library and consult whatever book or journal you'd like or even borrow it. Even talk to whoever you liked outside the exam room. The single restrictions: the total time you were allowed to miss from the exam room was 1 hour. The maximum time you had for the entire exam: 8 hours (a work-day for the prof/assistants), no hand written papers brought from outside.
Granted, happened during late '80 - no mobiles or tablets to receive all the info in electronic format from outside.
> this device was quite much copied from Nokia's symbian phones
Even though we have remote controls today, and clicking on the article link no longer requires you to get your ass out of your chair, you can still make a fool of yourself by being too lazy to read it and discover that the first remote control was invented in 1955, long before there was Symbian, or mobile phones.
He must be of the same intellectual quality as the persons that, back during mid '90-ies, carried a remote and mocked speaking on a mobile in an attempt to fool others into believing they owned one (granted, some early Ericsson models have had some resemblance).
A piece of software can deliver all of these questions, sit there and blather at me and etc. just as well as a far more expensive professor.
Here's the proof for the current low level in education... people that don't know and can't imagine better about learning/teaching than teachers that delivers questions, sit and blather. (with a grid exam at the end, isn't it? Because it doesn't matter that's a suboptimal way of assessing the learning: it's "objective" and, above all, cheap)
Boy... I should consider myself lucky, then.
Gosh, from the Fermi's way of teaching to this? In a space of... what??... last 20-30 years?
I'd rather be misidentified than have my ID chip blacklisted. Do something the government doesn't like? They disable your chip... then you're screwed. No thanks.
Can be worse than a simple refusal of services... someone classifying you as an enemy combatant.
Anyway, wouldn't it be better to abstain from waging future wars than to rely on chipping your "friends" to distinguish them from your (possible not chipped, thus perhaps freer) enemies?
Little disposable income?
That is why we constantly have apple articles and things about the latest android gadgets?
Why do you think the disposable income becomes so little? So many gadgets...
Solar eclipse during night time? Now, this is literally fantastic (i.e. pertaining to fantasy).
Check the article title: now you know why it is a _rare_ annular eclipse...normal annular solar eclipses are almost annual too (not quite but once every 1-3 years).
A matter of terminology: to me, on Earth surface, night time is when the Sun is totally "eclipsed" by the Earth (the way I noticed, it happens every day). As such a "Sun eclipsed by Moon" - annular or not - cannot be observed during night time.
If we could use ultrasound to structure an on-demand horizontal thin film barrier strong enough to resist convective air currents, we might have a really useful energy conservation measure.
Just vacuum the room out of any air and there you have it: no convective currents. Then use soap bubbles to insulate the room as you please.
(ducks)
Solar eclipse during night time? Now, this is literally fantastic (i.e. pertaining to fantasy).
All devices are mobile unless they are constructed in place. Even then you probably could move them.
Well, yes. Here's the classification:
- "highly mobile" devices
- portable devices
- transportable devices.
Can't wait the time one will only be able to generate meeting requests on-the-go using their Cray supercomputer in the back of their truck.
That's certainly a good reason to ban a product. That's all I use my phone for!
Use it while you still can. Next in line, Google and Apple dusting off some of their patents and banning each others phones, including the MS one.
Getting around the bans will be possible: except the smart phones won't be that smart anymore, each one will need to eliminate the "smartness" covered by the patents of the others.
Please don't equate financial risk with jumping off of a bridge or even stupid risk like buying into your brother's Ponzi scheme. Financial risk has a precise meaning and it does correlate with long-term reward.
Hmmm... like CDO-es based on sub-prime mortgages, ain't it? I wonder how well they correlate nowadays with long term rewards?
called this one back around 1970 in his classic story "Inconsistent Moon".
Memory ageing detected at location... refresh recommended. (hint: check again the title. The story seems to be nice enough to recheck more than the title).
*the CAMpaign for Real Ale. Anyone visiting the UK who wants to sample proper British beer should look them up.
That was (and remains) on real attraction to me for visiting UK.
and forbidding British beer brewers from selling stuff in many of the capitals pubs...
Huh?!! Really?
(please provide a link; if credible, one less ticket to London's Olympiad, thanks)
They will still be needed, of course, for some jobs where only such a monster can help,
Yeah, like TFS (seems to) suggest:
'Big machines are the product of big visions, and they make big visions real. How about a Heavy Fusion Program?'"
I just wonder if 50,000 tons would be enough, though.
(ducks)
The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
I'd say it's their fault in that case, then. I think too often dog owners get punished when it really wasn't their fault.
I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
They should really stop that.
Ok. What's your opinion on the more general view of "responsibility of an owner about how their property is used no matter by whom"? Does it exist in such a general context? 'cause in more restricted contexts certainly is: e.g. at least in some (many?) countries, try to get a firearm and you'll be asked to keep it secure/under-lock when you are not wearing/using it.
In that situation, there is no human to punish.
The dog's owner?
Furthermore, the owner is the only one that can keep the dog under control.
The dog was on leash. The bitten person just approached to much and too sudden for the owner to react (and actually the dog bite because of the surprise)
You don't typically have full control over other human beings so you can keep them from committing crimes.
And then there's the fact that, unlike in the situation you describe, open WiFi can be used for legitimate purposes.
A dog may be useful for legitimate purposes as well - property defense, guide dogs for the blind, etc.
There would be a difference: there was no other human using the dog for illegitimate purposes.
But this were it becomes interesting: even if the owner hasn't been negligent with the dog (his property) and there was noone else to "mishandle" it (this should make it a milder case), I reckon chances are high that a court will still award damages in the favor of the bitten person.
Offtopic: Can we please automatically delete all posts with links to my clean pc?
Ontopic: This baffles me on how money is wasted on anti-piracy. This case should have been dismissed at the very beginning. How can you blame someone simply on the basis of ownership? This is like suing an owner of a car for not locking his car, because his car stolen and used in a crime.
Hmmm... just for the sake of (hopefully civilized) debating: would one be off-the-hook if the dog one is owning bite a person passing-by? (say... while walking in the park. Even when on leash, sometime it happens)
If you think this is not a valid analogy, can you please explain why?
Is that Windows 8 has 30 features
It doesn't. Actually, the bad mouths say there are 2 features and 28 bugs.
(takes cover)
Bert64 is correct and that was my point. Copyright legislation is not a "contract" or "license" in any sense of either term. Some people today do seem to get them confused, but their confusion does not reality make.
See my reply above. I truly don't say "copyright law is a contract", but I do argue that "the copyright notice is as good a contract as an EULA"
In my view: as long as something establishes who is the owner and what conditions you need to respect in using the property (even if it is only by reference to the law), we are speaking of contractual matters - irrespective how short or how long the notification text is. And this is because the owner made you aware that it is s/he that is entitled to damages if you break the law (which is a fact specific to the transaction between the publisher - owner of the content - and you - the owner of the book); in my mind, this is enough for me to consider the copyright notice for a book is as binding as EULA is for software.
If I'm wrong, can you please explain why I'm wrong? (I mean, I'd like something more than "because Bert64 and me say so").
That's not an EULA, that's a re-iteration of copyright law. An EULA typically adds additional restrictions on top of the base copyright laws.
The copyright law doesn't establish who has the copyright. The part to which I'm referring:
1. reiterates/references the applicable law (as you said; I won't contradict you on this one)
2. does assert the copyright ownership (which you failed to note/mention)
By buying that book you agree with both of the conditions (respect the law and acknowledge the publisher as the party that has the IP ownership).
IANAL (so I could be wrong), but even if simplified (should it be more complicated?), the identification of the other party brings the copyright notice in the domain of a commercial contract; and this is because, if you decide to break the law, it is the party cited by the copyright notice that is entitled to sue you - in other words, this copyright notice establishes with who you, as a buyer, have a specific/restricted to that book agreement within the bounds of the law.
Do you still argue that the copyright notice does NOT add restrictions (i.e. specifics to the consumed transaction) on top of the law?