The point is that it would be always needed while on school property.
Part of the function of the ID is that it is visible, so people can visible identify you, performing the same function as a company ID tag that employees have to wear.
And while I know that going to school isn't an option like going to work, it's really making a mountain of a molehill here. It's just a friggen name tag... it lets onlookers know that they belong there, and kids from other schools could be spotted quite easily, which can make security and safety much easier to manage.
The first amendment says that the government shall pass no law forbidding freedom of speech.
Explain how it is that a school requiring that its students wear special name tags contravenes that.
Ultimately, this is about wearing a freaking school ID tag while on school property. It's a dress-code restriction, nothing more. There is absolutely nothing that prevents public schools from having (civil) dress codes and enforcing them. Students that don't comply with a dress code can reasonably be refused services, although again, by itself, it's probably not a reason to expel... she should be quite welcome to return when she complies with the policy (but should still face consequences for any classes missed).
How much burden is it to wear a name tag? Seriously... all the paranoia about invading privacy or tracking is coming from nothing less than complete ignorance about what RFID is, and how it actually works. At *MOST* it might be able to tell what classroom she is in while she's on school property. It can't track her off site.
As for the burden it places on the school if she does not wear it... it places a burden of requiring that manual attendance be taken. When automated solutions exist, I see no reason to cater to the stubborn young woman's philosphies. Expelling her is extreme, however. She should be perfectly welcome to attend classes, when she is wearing her name tag,
As a secular organization, however, it can easily end up being incompatible with certain religious values.
And that's what's happening here.
Generally, a person's religion is going to be considerably more important to them than what school they can claim to have attended, so it seems that if a school is practicing something that one's religion does not allow, then the obvious choice is to just not go to that school.
And it's a freaking name tag, for crying out loud. So what if it has an RFID tag in it? It's RFID... not freaking GPS.... RFID is not practical as a general purpose location tracking technology... and is only practical for location tracking in fully enclosed areas where RFID scanners have been deployed which already know about the tags.
Why does everybody associate this with "tracking", like RFID is somehow some sort of magical GPS?
It isn't.
The *MOST* it will be able to do with regards to tracking is identify where they are while they are in the immediate vicinity of an RFID scanner that has a-priori knowledge about the specific RFID tag and can correlate the information received from the tag to determine exactly who it belongs to, which means it's under the control of the school board. That also means that it has no chance to be an effective tracking tool off of school property.
My employer could, theoretically, identify whether or not I am at work based on the RFID card I received from him when I first got my job, which I always keep in my wallet, which I have just in case I need to go in on a weekend or holiday, and gives me direct access to my company's office without having to deal with reception first. Is my privacy so utterly compromised simply because of that? No. The RFID tag is completely meaningless outside my company's walls.
Ditto with the RFID school ID. Completely meaningless outside of the school's jurisdiction. As a "tracking tool" it's a pretty lousy one.
If the site you are talking to is, say, having your client make asynchronous javascript requests to the server and fill in assorted requisite fields in your visible web page, then there's not really any way, programatically, to tell on the client side whether any given content you receive will be useful content from the site or if it will be advertisements. If you have javascript disabled, you won't be able to view the content at all.
Of course, you can choose to simply not bother to visit websites that do that sort of thing, but I highly doubt they will miss your business, since you weren't going to generate any revenue for them anyways.
It's not so much that I believe everybody should be tracked and monitored as much as it is that it's not really possible to track somebody using RFID outside of property that is under the control of the issuer of the RFID tag.
RFID is *NOT* GPS.
Where I work, I was given an RFID card that allows me to have 24 hour access to the building in case I ever need to go in on weekends, but it doesn't do squat to allow them to track me, other than to possibly know that I'm inside the building.
ID badges with embedded RFID are fundamentally no different.
Actually, they did. You just were probably unaware of it because most public school dress codes do not differ significantly from public decency standards.
If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.
Schools, even public ones, are permitted to have dress codes, and wearing a specially issued id tag on your clothes while you are on school property is really not that big a deal. There's shouldn't be concern about being tracked off of school property because because one's location through RFID can only be tracked if they are in close proximity of an RFID reader that understands what the tag is, and who it belongs to. The RFID readers which are connected to the database of RFID tags owned by the school aren't going to be anywhere but on school property, so that's the only place where one is ever going to be tracked.
There should be no more concern that this could be used to invade somebody's privacy than an RFID card issued to an employee to get into a company building during non-office hours could reasonably represent a privacy invasion for that employee.
If the oil level is high enough that there is a serious spill risk after the turkey is in, then the turkey is too big for the fryer. Deep frying should not be a dangerous experience other than the increased health risks that might come with eating certain deep fried foods. The cooking itself should be no less safe than cooking anything else.
I'll agree that it's probably not worth getting a larger one for most people... I was only pointing out what appeared to be the general problem with the ones shown in those videos.
Now that said, what I might suggest people who are going to try this do is do a test run by putting the bird into a clean and completely empty deep fryer first to see how it fits... before putting heating it, and before putting any oil in, then fill the fryer with water such that the bird is covered as you would expect it to be with oil. The amount of water that you've put into the fryer at this point should be roughly the same amount of oil that you will need. If water level at this point is above the recommended safe oil level for the fryer, then you should not be trying to deep fry that turkey in that fryer. End of story. Use your oven instead.
If all is okay, however, then carefully pull out the turkey, and let the water that might be flowing off of the turkey drip back into the fryer for a few seconds. Pay attention to where the water level is at that time, because that's the level that marks roughly how much oil you're going to need to cover the turkey in the fryer. Adding more than this is inadvisable if the safe oil level was not much higher than the height of the turkey in the fryer.
Actually, the chief problem seems to be that people are trying to do this with a deep fryer whose volume is not significantly more than that of the turkey they are trying to cook. Even if the oil level were initially at the lowest level possible such that once the turkey is in, the oil will fully cover the turkey, the top of the oil is still going to be too close to the top of the fryer to be safe. For the size of turkey they were trying to cook, they should have used a fryer with at least 50% taller, and ideally much wider than the one that they were using. An overall increase in volume of the fryer by about a factor of 2 or 3 would probably make it quite safe.
Those "projects you might be interested in" are probably no more a promotion of those specific projects on kickstarter than Amazon's "suggested reading list" is a promotion of those specific books. It's really just about making more money. The actual recommendations are just based on a computer algorithm that attempts to profile what else might interest you based on only your involvement so far, not on the merit of those recommendations, and just picks ones that are somehow related to what you've already done (in Kickstarter's case, possibly through other donators who have donated to different projects in addition to ones that you yourself have donated to) so that they can make more money from the kickbacks on more projects.
what "shit" have I allegedly claimed to know, above? I think you may be presuming something that I never actually said.
I find your assertion that I somehow deserve to be insulted to be baseless, and your repetition of hostility is only serving to reinforce the hypothesis I alluded to above, which is that insulting me somehow helps you feel better about yourself.
And again, I'm not inclined to obey imperatives from random characters on slashdot, let alone an A.C. Please direct legitimate complains to administration if I have actually violated any policies.
An alternative conjecture is that you are simply trolling me... if so, congratulations... you won... because that possibility had genuinely not occurred to me until just now.
Because even the highest sea level rise estimates that could be attributed to global warming so far cannot account for a sea level change of over 1400 meters.
And somehow this devolves into insults... like that's supposed to accomplish anything?
I'm still entirely unsure as to what prompted that sort of tone. There's one friggen huge ass amount of difference between being unintelligent and simply misreading something. Had the original respondent pointed out exactly what it was that I had misread instead of immediately taking a hostile tone, which judging from yours, might assume is the same person, I might have noticed the mistake much sooner. But hey... if calling people names makes you feel better about yourself, more power to you.
Meanwhile, I wasn't trying to insult the original poster or bring his character into question. I merely posed a question that was based on a misreading of what he had said... so yeah, I'm somewhat confused as to what I did that prompts this sort of hostile response.
If a disproportionately large percentage of all people in group X (where X is, say, 'terrorist risk') have some factor Y in common, (where Y is, say, a particular race, religion, or country of origin), to the point that there appears to be a statistical correlation, but an equally small percentage of people with factor Y in common actually could be delegated to group X, then those factors will balance eachother out, and the software can reasonably exclude factor Y from consideration. However, even if the software involved can consider numerous other factors than Y, the fact that there will still be enough of Y in common among people who are put into group X will still make it appear externally as if factor Y is actually being considered, and profiling based on factor Y will nonetheless still be assumed. It's unavoidable.
Speaking of reading miscomprehension, please reread what I said. I did not at all suggest that he should learn to do geeky things... I said that if he could not think of anything that he did which was geeky, then I was unsure why he would think of himself as a geek at all.
Personally, I think that he doesn't have something that Google would actually pay as much for as he'll get from the publicity he receives by making this announcement.
I'd suggest that I'm confused what spurred the above not remotely veiled personal attack on my intelligence, but based on the tone you've conveyed, I'm unsure how serious you'd bother to phrase a response.
If you feel that I have so violated slashdot policies as to merit "going", which I can only take to mean to leaving slashdot, please direct your concerns through appropriate administration channels. I'm not inclined to follow imperatives given to me by random people on slashdot, let alone an AC.
If you don't do things that people would qualify as geeky, then why on earth would you think that you might be a geek at all? If you do not think that you are a geek, that's all very well and good... but then why would you think that the question was being addressed to you?
That's not geeky. That's just from scratch. Some geeks might find doing thing scratch fun, but if that were a universal trait, I dare suggest that the sales of microwaveable Kraft Dinner would probably not be as good as they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the function of the ID is that it is visible, so people can visible identify you, performing the same function as a company ID tag that employees have to wear.
And while I know that going to school isn't an option like going to work, it's really making a mountain of a molehill here. It's just a friggen name tag... it lets onlookers know that they belong there, and kids from other schools could be spotted quite easily, which can make security and safety much easier to manage.
The first amendment says that the government shall pass no law forbidding freedom of speech.
Explain how it is that a school requiring that its students wear special name tags contravenes that.
Ultimately, this is about wearing a freaking school ID tag while on school property. It's a dress-code restriction, nothing more. There is absolutely nothing that prevents public schools from having (civil) dress codes and enforcing them. Students that don't comply with a dress code can reasonably be refused services, although again, by itself, it's probably not a reason to expel... she should be quite welcome to return when she complies with the policy (but should still face consequences for any classes missed).
How much burden is it to wear a name tag? Seriously... all the paranoia about invading privacy or tracking is coming from nothing less than complete ignorance about what RFID is, and how it actually works. At *MOST* it might be able to tell what classroom she is in while she's on school property. It can't track her off site.
As for the burden it places on the school if she does not wear it... it places a burden of requiring that manual attendance be taken. When automated solutions exist, I see no reason to cater to the stubborn young woman's philosphies. Expelling her is extreme, however. She should be perfectly welcome to attend classes, when she is wearing her name tag,
The student can go to another school.
If it was against the student's religion to wear clothes, should the school be expected to accomodate that as well?
As a secular organization, however, it can easily end up being incompatible with certain religious values.
And that's what's happening here.
Generally, a person's religion is going to be considerably more important to them than what school they can claim to have attended, so it seems that if a school is practicing something that one's religion does not allow, then the obvious choice is to just not go to that school.
And it's a freaking name tag, for crying out loud. So what if it has an RFID tag in it? It's RFID... not freaking GPS.... RFID is not practical as a general purpose location tracking technology... and is only practical for location tracking in fully enclosed areas where RFID scanners have been deployed which already know about the tags.
Why does everybody associate this with "tracking", like RFID is somehow some sort of magical GPS?
It isn't.
The *MOST* it will be able to do with regards to tracking is identify where they are while they are in the immediate vicinity of an RFID scanner that has a-priori knowledge about the specific RFID tag and can correlate the information received from the tag to determine exactly who it belongs to, which means it's under the control of the school board. That also means that it has no chance to be an effective tracking tool off of school property.
My employer could, theoretically, identify whether or not I am at work based on the RFID card I received from him when I first got my job, which I always keep in my wallet, which I have just in case I need to go in on a weekend or holiday, and gives me direct access to my company's office without having to deal with reception first. Is my privacy so utterly compromised simply because of that? No. The RFID tag is completely meaningless outside my company's walls.
Ditto with the RFID school ID. Completely meaningless outside of the school's jurisdiction. As a "tracking tool" it's a pretty lousy one.
If the site you are talking to is, say, having your client make asynchronous javascript requests to the server and fill in assorted requisite fields in your visible web page, then there's not really any way, programatically, to tell on the client side whether any given content you receive will be useful content from the site or if it will be advertisements. If you have javascript disabled, you won't be able to view the content at all.
Of course, you can choose to simply not bother to visit websites that do that sort of thing, but I highly doubt they will miss your business, since you weren't going to generate any revenue for them anyways.
It's not so much that I believe everybody should be tracked and monitored as much as it is that it's not really possible to track somebody using RFID outside of property that is under the control of the issuer of the RFID tag.
RFID is *NOT* GPS.
Where I work, I was given an RFID card that allows me to have 24 hour access to the building in case I ever need to go in on weekends, but it doesn't do squat to allow them to track me, other than to possibly know that I'm inside the building.
ID badges with embedded RFID are fundamentally no different.
Actually, they did. You just were probably unaware of it because most public school dress codes do not differ significantly from public decency standards.
If the student's religion requires that they not wear such articles, then I think it's a pretty clear case that the student should not be going to that school.
Schools, even public ones, are permitted to have dress codes, and wearing a specially issued id tag on your clothes while you are on school property is really not that big a deal. There's shouldn't be concern about being tracked off of school property because because one's location through RFID can only be tracked if they are in close proximity of an RFID reader that understands what the tag is, and who it belongs to. The RFID readers which are connected to the database of RFID tags owned by the school aren't going to be anywhere but on school property, so that's the only place where one is ever going to be tracked.
There should be no more concern that this could be used to invade somebody's privacy than an RFID card issued to an employee to get into a company building during non-office hours could reasonably represent a privacy invasion for that employee.
If the oil level is high enough that there is a serious spill risk after the turkey is in, then the turkey is too big for the fryer. Deep frying should not be a dangerous experience other than the increased health risks that might come with eating certain deep fried foods. The cooking itself should be no less safe than cooking anything else.
I'll agree that it's probably not worth getting a larger one for most people... I was only pointing out what appeared to be the general problem with the ones shown in those videos.
Now that said, what I might suggest people who are going to try this do is do a test run by putting the bird into a clean and completely empty deep fryer first to see how it fits... before putting heating it, and before putting any oil in, then fill the fryer with water such that the bird is covered as you would expect it to be with oil. The amount of water that you've put into the fryer at this point should be roughly the same amount of oil that you will need. If water level at this point is above the recommended safe oil level for the fryer, then you should not be trying to deep fry that turkey in that fryer. End of story. Use your oven instead.
If all is okay, however, then carefully pull out the turkey, and let the water that might be flowing off of the turkey drip back into the fryer for a few seconds. Pay attention to where the water level is at that time, because that's the level that marks roughly how much oil you're going to need to cover the turkey in the fryer. Adding more than this is inadvisable if the safe oil level was not much higher than the height of the turkey in the fryer.
Actually, the chief problem seems to be that people are trying to do this with a deep fryer whose volume is not significantly more than that of the turkey they are trying to cook. Even if the oil level were initially at the lowest level possible such that once the turkey is in, the oil will fully cover the turkey, the top of the oil is still going to be too close to the top of the fryer to be safe. For the size of turkey they were trying to cook, they should have used a fryer with at least 50% taller, and ideally much wider than the one that they were using. An overall increase in volume of the fryer by about a factor of 2 or 3 would probably make it quite safe.
Those "projects you might be interested in" are probably no more a promotion of those specific projects on kickstarter than Amazon's "suggested reading list" is a promotion of those specific books. It's really just about making more money. The actual recommendations are just based on a computer algorithm that attempts to profile what else might interest you based on only your involvement so far, not on the merit of those recommendations, and just picks ones that are somehow related to what you've already done (in Kickstarter's case, possibly through other donators who have donated to different projects in addition to ones that you yourself have donated to) so that they can make more money from the kickbacks on more projects.
what "shit" have I allegedly claimed to know, above? I think you may be presuming something that I never actually said.
I find your assertion that I somehow deserve to be insulted to be baseless, and your repetition of hostility is only serving to reinforce the hypothesis I alluded to above, which is that insulting me somehow helps you feel better about yourself.
And again, I'm not inclined to obey imperatives from random characters on slashdot, let alone an A.C. Please direct legitimate complains to administration if I have actually violated any policies.
An alternative conjecture is that you are simply trolling me... if so, congratulations... you won... because that possibility had genuinely not occurred to me until just now.
Because even the highest sea level rise estimates that could be attributed to global warming so far cannot account for a sea level change of over 1400 meters.
And somehow this devolves into insults... like that's supposed to accomplish anything?
I'm still entirely unsure as to what prompted that sort of tone. There's one friggen huge ass amount of difference between being unintelligent and simply misreading something. Had the original respondent pointed out exactly what it was that I had misread instead of immediately taking a hostile tone, which judging from yours, might assume is the same person, I might have noticed the mistake much sooner. But hey... if calling people names makes you feel better about yourself, more power to you.
Meanwhile, I wasn't trying to insult the original poster or bring his character into question. I merely posed a question that was based on a misreading of what he had said... so yeah, I'm somewhat confused as to what I did that prompts this sort of hostile response.
"free and brave"... hah. if only.
If a disproportionately large percentage of all people in group X (where X is, say, 'terrorist risk') have some factor Y in common, (where Y is, say, a particular race, religion, or country of origin), to the point that there appears to be a statistical correlation, but an equally small percentage of people with factor Y in common actually could be delegated to group X, then those factors will balance eachother out, and the software can reasonably exclude factor Y from consideration. However, even if the software involved can consider numerous other factors than Y, the fact that there will still be enough of Y in common among people who are put into group X will still make it appear externally as if factor Y is actually being considered, and profiling based on factor Y will nonetheless still be assumed. It's unavoidable.
Speaking of reading miscomprehension, please reread what I said. I did not at all suggest that he should learn to do geeky things... I said that if he could not think of anything that he did which was geeky, then I was unsure why he would think of himself as a geek at all.
Personally, I think that he doesn't have something that Google would actually pay as much for as he'll get from the publicity he receives by making this announcement.
If he gives this lecture and somebody watching figures out how it works, then that somebody else could claim the bounty.
I'd suggest that I'm confused what spurred the above not remotely veiled personal attack on my intelligence, but based on the tone you've conveyed, I'm unsure how serious you'd bother to phrase a response.
If you feel that I have so violated slashdot policies as to merit "going", which I can only take to mean to leaving slashdot, please direct your concerns through appropriate administration channels. I'm not inclined to follow imperatives given to me by random people on slashdot, let alone an AC.
If you don't do things that people would qualify as geeky, then why on earth would you think that you might be a geek at all? If you do not think that you are a geek, that's all very well and good... but then why would you think that the question was being addressed to you?
That's not geeky. That's just from scratch. Some geeks might find doing thing scratch fun, but if that were a universal trait, I dare suggest that the sales of microwaveable Kraft Dinner would probably not be as good as they are.