Of course, a lot of classes do (and will) require Internet access -- the article is more about steps taken to control exactly when and to what degree students can reach it.
Well I, for one, think that it's about time. Now that we've all stopped crying hysterically about how grade schools need unfettered, full access to the Internet (for God knows what), a school has noticed that it might be beneficial to students to only allow them to access certain sites.
What?! I can't access Hotmail and IM my buddies in physics class? Oh no! I've been censored! [sarcasm off] Maybe if we put the focus on learning again today's high school and college graduates could get a little education while they're at school.
And Timothy, serves you right for posting a topic from "SkewlD00d" and posting a bogus link. Your anti-censorship head is crammed so far up your anti-censorhip, uh, shoulder, that you can't see the cases where it might actually be useful.
on the ILlinois State Police's transition to a wireless solution in their cars. They're all using Panasonic Toughbooks. Unfortunately, the current online issue is last month's, so Oct. won't be out for a little while. (But in any case it's a great magazine. If you want to stay on top of how companies are using cutting edge products in real world situations they have some great writeups.)
I doubt that this will be seen, posting so late into this thread. But with all the recent terrorist events, I heard a radio program on airline security this morning. The security analyst said that bombs have been known to be placed in laptops and was ripping apart American security by showing an example from Germany.
"In Germany," he said, "they don't just ask you to power on your laptop or wave a magic wand over it. They take it to a scale and compare it against known weights for every laptop model." Sounds impressive, but I wonder how upgrading a laptop would affect its weight, and thus, international security restrictions.
After all, sheep will be sheep
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Experts seem to agree that security measures can never completely prevent a determined, well organized attempt involving suicide killers.
If there is one reason why wolves prey on sheep, it is simply because sheep behave like sheep. If sheep banded together and fought off the wolves, limited as a sheep's natural defenses are, wolves would not kill sheep.
It's a simple parallel, but the metaphor is strong. Bank robberies commit robberies because they believe they will get money. Kidnappers steal children because they believe it will be profitable. Hijackers hijack planes because they believe they will be successful. If average citizens really hated terrorism, if they hated it so much that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives as a deterrant to future terrorist acts, terrorists would realize that their attacks would be fruitless.
The whole idea of a hostage is the assumption that a person threatens the life of another person who doesn't want to lose theirs. If people weren't averse to losing their lives in the name of stopping a global evil--terrorism--perhaps we wouldn't see those evils take place. It's ironic that one of our most cherished Western qualities, the sanctity of life, is also what makes us so vulnerable to those who don't hold that to be an important trait.
But ultimately, I don't think it can happen. What parent would be the first to give up a child? What passenger would be the first to take the bullet when they rush the hijackers? What bank customer would be willing to confront an armed gunman? But if us sheep could stop being sheep, I think something special would happen...
Searching on Google for "twin towers" I came across the following, amazing link: http://www.playlouder.com/feature/515kingsofconven ience/. Scroll down to the part about "episode two." In light of today's events, simply amazing.
I'm surprised that all the comments thus far have been related to whether or not the player in question is Fischer, and the playing style has been glossed over. The fact that someone--Fischer, anyone--could compose such a record against the IM's that he played is nothing short of amazing.
I haven't played much chess in a while, but a quick viewing of some of the games posted show that Fischer (let's assume that it's him) exploits two commonly held notions of modern chess: early castling and protecting the king at all costs. It seems (to me) that he assumes that his opponent will castle and builds a pre-determined offense based on which corner his opponent will put the king, perhaps using his "useless" pawn moves watch his opponents strategy build. Common themes include disrupting the side pawns (even sacrificing a knight to do it) and putting bishops on b2 and g2 to control the long diagonals.
He also uses his king as an offensive weapon! Amazing! Instead of locking him in the left or right corner dungeon he freely moves him around the board, protecting him to some degree but using him more as a weapon than a protected piece.
One immediate side affect of the strategy is that all pieces get pushed up. In effect, Fischer builds a fortified position in his opponenet's territory, sometimes leaving a blank row or two on his own end. This not only cramps his opponent, but forces him to attack in unorthodox ways, something he is probably not used to.
Personally, I think it's either insane or brilliant, maybe both. Perhaps when his opponents get used to him moving his king in a circle to taunt them during the first five moves they'll figure out a way to beat him. Or perhaps he's opened a new era of chess strategy. Either way, I'm going to start playing again.
If you really want to impress your competition on that flight from New York to Seattle, you can tell a little tale by removing the secondary battery pack and continuing to work on a computer without any visible power source - maybe even stretch the truth a wee bit by telling them that mere keystrokes generate enough electricity to power the computer!
Yeah, these guys are really connected to reality.;-)
No, Palm is one generation "behind" Pocket PC devices. (If you count not having improved MP3 support and wireless networking as being behind.) OS 4.0 was released spring 2001. And Palm still has two features in its arsenal: price and form factor.
Today I saw a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune for an iPAQ for $549 with a wireless sled from GoAmerica for a total of $849. Can you believe paying $849 for a wireless PDA? You could buy a Dell 1.4GHz PC (with a monitor) for that price these days. Instead I bought our VP of Sales a Palm VIIx for $99 ($100 rebate). It's cheaper, it delivers more relevant information, and it isn't 3" thick. And that's where Palm's true strengths lie, not in being however many generations you think they are behind Pocket PC's.
Who thinks that their next handheld will be a PalmOS machine? HERE it gets interesting, only around 50% of the audience raised their hands.
I think you may be confusing real issues, like current market share, with future, possible issues, like, "I think I'll buy another Palm device." No one knows what the future holds. I hate to use such a trite saying, but it's true. I may buy a Palm for my next PDA, or I may buy a Pocket PC. I may be busy at work tomorrow, or I may not.
The moderator, taken aback, thought about it and then asked; Who would consider buying a wince machine when they buy their next handheld? Around 50% of the audience raised their hands.
People will consider buying something else because no one in their right mind would blindly buy the "next" product in their favorite brand line. Even Mac zealots wait to see what people say about a new design before blindly buying them. I would consider myself remiss if I didn't research the current state of handhelds--i.e., consider--before buying another Palm.
If you look at MS's marketing strategy over the last ten years it has been to overpromise and underdeliver. Who wouldn't consider a Pocket PC device when you listen to the promises that they tout. Streaming wireless video! MP3 player! Cell phone/PDA combo! Sounds great, doesn't it? It's supposed to.
The moderator then asked who thinks that PalmOS has gone as far can with its current architecture? AROUND 70%+ OF THE AUDIENCE RAISED THEIR HANDS AFFIRMATIVELY.
Keep in mind that this is an audience of C|Net, ZDNet, tech-reading people, and the Palm devices have always been bashed in the press for not having features that stack up to Pocket PC's. But the Palm devices continue to grab and hold market share. And this was before Palm's acquisition of Be, and before Palm's stated intention to produce a StrongARM device, and before (IIRC) Palm's release of the m500/m505.
Why? Let me give you a few reasons that I think are the most relevant.
Price Most Palm devices sell from between $129 - $449. Most CE devices sell from between $399 - $650. (The new Jornada will retail for $599 vs. $449 for a m505.) And consumers have shown time and time again that they will buy the cheaper product--airline tickets, PC's, and yes, handhelds.
Form Factor I don't think MS gets it: I'm sure they've been told time and time again, but it doesn't matter how many features you cram into a device, if you can't get it small enough to fit in (not on) the palm of your hand and/or fit in a pocket, you've already got a strike against you.
If you want to make a great handheld, keep it light (less than 6oz), keep it narrow (less than 4") and keep it thin (less than 1", and then closer to paper thin the better). PDA's that are 1.5" and 2" thick are the bricks of the industry. Look at all sci fi shows and movies. You don't see them lugging around Clancy-novel-thick computers. Thin devices are useful devices.
"Zen of Palm"
Everyone talks about Palm's simplicity, but I'm not sure that everyone knows what it really means. Palm's mindset is to give the users what features Palm decides they will need. If only 10 - 20% of users will use a function, they strip it out. Most software developers would cry foul. (Why not give users the options they want!) That thought process might work well on desktops, but doesn't work well on handhelds. On a handheld, people need information quickly. The more taps away their information is from them the less likely it is that they will find it, and hence, use the device.
Palm devices work simply and efficiently. And for the option-crazy, Palm relies on its 3rd-party developers to create the heavy-duty apps. This results in a streamlined OS that really does what it was intended to do. And it doesn't throw in cool stuff, like an MP3 player, just for the sake of being cool. (How many Pocket PC owners really use it?)
In case you're wondering, I'm not just shooting off the hip here. I've been a Palm developer since '99, and have watched the two sides pretty closely. I'm not blind to the flaws of Palm, and I do think that Pocket PC devices are getting better, but until the prices come down and the form factor improves, I don't see them beating Palm.
Actually, you'll notice that he's just a BBspot fan in general, without gravitating to any one OS. (Of course, there is only one way, one truth, one OS, but he didn't say which one it is. Hint: the (installation) path is narrow;-)
But these "big and old" VisorPhones will definately go down in history as the first useful convergent device.
Well, if you're limiting "convergant device" to the marriage of a cell phone and PDA, I'd say the honor goes to the Qualcomm pdQ, which was a full blown Palm device inside a cell phone, in a convenient brick-like form factor.;-)
Am I the only person who LIKES having a small internet terminal in the kitchen/family room?
If you really mean that, and you're not opposed to spending a lot of money for one, check out the iCEBOX. There are two versions, the CounterTop and the FlipScreen.
When Mr. Burchett called back, he recorded the call and asked for details on the server problem.
I find it so ironic that geeks and programmers (myself included) are so one-dimensional about life. On the one hand, we spend enormous amounts of time and resources securing machines from outside intrusion, and ridicule those who don't (e.g., Microsoft).
On the other hand, our entire lives are an open book to any law enforcement agency, businessperson or non-tech professional because we just don't know enough about how life works.
Here's a clue:don't let an angry guy you don't know record you on the phone! Federal laws are very strict about the legality of recording telephone conversations. If both parties do not agree to the recording, the person doing the recording is commiting a crime.
Maybe if we secured our own lives as well as we did our servers these problems wouldn't happen to us. Why do we blame the sysadmin if someone breaks his insecure box yet blame the government if they break into his insecure life?
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, here's an actual link to the AP article.
Of course, a lot of classes do (and will) require Internet access -- the article is more about steps taken to control exactly when and to what degree students can reach it.
Well I, for one, think that it's about time. Now that we've all stopped crying hysterically about how grade schools need unfettered, full access to the Internet (for God knows what), a school has noticed that it might be beneficial to students to only allow them to access certain sites.
What?! I can't access Hotmail and IM my buddies in physics class? Oh no! I've been censored! [sarcasm off] Maybe if we put the focus on learning again today's high school and college graduates could get a little education while they're at school.
And Timothy, serves you right for posting a topic from "SkewlD00d" and posting a bogus link. Your anti-censorship head is crammed so far up your anti-censorhip, uh, shoulder, that you can't see the cases where it might actually be useful.
on the ILlinois State Police's transition to a wireless solution in their cars. They're all using Panasonic Toughbooks. Unfortunately, the current online issue is last month's, so Oct. won't be out for a little while. (But in any case it's a great magazine. If you want to stay on top of how companies are using cutting edge products in real world situations they have some great writeups.)
If Microsoft made the same announcement about one of their products I don't think we'd be applauding them for their scalability!
"In Germany," he said, "they don't just ask you to power on your laptop or wave a magic wand over it. They take it to a scale and compare it against known weights for every laptop model." Sounds impressive, but I wonder how upgrading a laptop would affect its weight, and thus, international security restrictions.
If there is one reason why wolves prey on sheep, it is simply because sheep behave like sheep. If sheep banded together and fought off the wolves, limited as a sheep's natural defenses are, wolves would not kill sheep.
It's a simple parallel, but the metaphor is strong. Bank robberies commit robberies because they believe they will get money. Kidnappers steal children because they believe it will be profitable. Hijackers hijack planes because they believe they will be successful. If average citizens really hated terrorism, if they hated it so much that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives as a deterrant to future terrorist acts, terrorists would realize that their attacks would be fruitless.
The whole idea of a hostage is the assumption that a person threatens the life of another person who doesn't want to lose theirs. If people weren't averse to losing their lives in the name of stopping a global evil--terrorism--perhaps we wouldn't see those evils take place. It's ironic that one of our most cherished Western qualities, the sanctity of life, is also what makes us so vulnerable to those who don't hold that to be an important trait.
But ultimately, I don't think it can happen. What parent would be the first to give up a child? What passenger would be the first to take the bullet when they rush the hijackers? What bank customer would be willing to confront an armed gunman? But if us sheep could stop being sheep, I think something special would happen...
In addition to that, take a look at the poster, "Xinoehpoel." Backwards, that reads, "Leo Pheonix." (Presumably that's a misspelled "Phoenix.")
Searching on Google for "twin towers" I came across the following, amazing link: http://www.playlouder.com/feature/515kingsofconven ience/. Scroll down to the part about "episode two." In light of today's events, simply amazing.
The fact that anything would get modded funny today is really sick...
According to radio reports this morning, the FBI is investigating a lead that one of the planes may have been hijacked.
I haven't played much chess in a while, but a quick viewing of some of the games posted show that Fischer (let's assume that it's him) exploits two commonly held notions of modern chess: early castling and protecting the king at all costs. It seems (to me) that he assumes that his opponent will castle and builds a pre-determined offense based on which corner his opponent will put the king, perhaps using his "useless" pawn moves watch his opponents strategy build. Common themes include disrupting the side pawns (even sacrificing a knight to do it) and putting bishops on b2 and g2 to control the long diagonals.
He also uses his king as an offensive weapon! Amazing! Instead of locking him in the left or right corner dungeon he freely moves him around the board, protecting him to some degree but using him more as a weapon than a protected piece.
One immediate side affect of the strategy is that all pieces get pushed up. In effect, Fischer builds a fortified position in his opponenet's territory, sometimes leaving a blank row or two on his own end. This not only cramps his opponent, but forces him to attack in unorthodox ways, something he is probably not used to.
Personally, I think it's either insane or brilliant, maybe both. Perhaps when his opponents get used to him moving his king in a circle to taunt them during the first five moves they'll figure out a way to beat him. Or perhaps he's opened a new era of chess strategy. Either way, I'm going to start playing again.
Yeah, these guys are really connected to reality. ;-)
Today I saw a full-page ad in the Chicago Tribune for an iPAQ for $549 with a wireless sled from GoAmerica for a total of $849. Can you believe paying $849 for a wireless PDA? You could buy a Dell 1.4GHz PC (with a monitor) for that price these days. Instead I bought our VP of Sales a Palm VIIx for $99 ($100 rebate). It's cheaper, it delivers more relevant information, and it isn't 3" thick. And that's where Palm's true strengths lie, not in being however many generations you think they are behind Pocket PC's.
If I had mod points, I would've used them on your comment. What a wonderful, succint post about the true strengths of Palm.
I think you may be confusing real issues, like current market share, with future, possible issues, like, "I think I'll buy another Palm device." No one knows what the future holds. I hate to use such a trite saying, but it's true. I may buy a Palm for my next PDA, or I may buy a Pocket PC. I may be busy at work tomorrow, or I may not.
The moderator, taken aback, thought about it and then asked; Who would consider buying a wince machine when they buy their next handheld? Around 50% of the audience raised their hands.
People will consider buying something else because no one in their right mind would blindly buy the "next" product in their favorite brand line. Even Mac zealots wait to see what people say about a new design before blindly buying them. I would consider myself remiss if I didn't research the current state of handhelds--i.e., consider--before buying another Palm.
If you look at MS's marketing strategy over the last ten years it has been to overpromise and underdeliver. Who wouldn't consider a Pocket PC device when you listen to the promises that they tout. Streaming wireless video! MP3 player! Cell phone/PDA combo! Sounds great, doesn't it? It's supposed to.
The moderator then asked who thinks that PalmOS has gone as far can with its current architecture? AROUND 70%+ OF THE AUDIENCE RAISED THEIR HANDS AFFIRMATIVELY.
Keep in mind that this is an audience of C|Net, ZDNet, tech-reading people, and the Palm devices have always been bashed in the press for not having features that stack up to Pocket PC's. But the Palm devices continue to grab and hold market share. And this was before Palm's acquisition of Be, and before Palm's stated intention to produce a StrongARM device, and before (IIRC) Palm's release of the m500/m505.
Why? Let me give you a few reasons that I think are the most relevant.
- Price
- Form Factor
- "Zen of Palm"
In case you're wondering, I'm not just shooting off the hip here. I've been a Palm developer since '99, and have watched the two sides pretty closely. I'm not blind to the flaws of Palm, and I do think that Pocket PC devices are getting better, but until the prices come down and the form factor improves, I don't see them beating Palm.Most Palm devices sell from between $129 - $449. Most CE devices sell from between $399 - $650. (The new Jornada will retail for $599 vs. $449 for a m505.) And consumers have shown time and time again that they will buy the cheaper product--airline tickets, PC's, and yes, handhelds.
I don't think MS gets it: I'm sure they've been told time and time again, but it doesn't matter how many features you cram into a device, if you can't get it small enough to fit in (not on) the palm of your hand and/or fit in a pocket, you've already got a strike against you.
If you want to make a great handheld, keep it light (less than 6oz), keep it narrow (less than 4") and keep it thin (less than 1", and then closer to paper thin the better). PDA's that are 1.5" and 2" thick are the bricks of the industry. Look at all sci fi shows and movies. You don't see them lugging around Clancy-novel-thick computers. Thin devices are useful devices.
Everyone talks about Palm's simplicity, but I'm not sure that everyone knows what it really means. Palm's mindset is to give the users what features Palm decides they will need. If only 10 - 20% of users will use a function, they strip it out. Most software developers would cry foul. (Why not give users the options they want!) That thought process might work well on desktops, but doesn't work well on handhelds. On a handheld, people need information quickly. The more taps away their information is from them the less likely it is that they will find it, and hence, use the device.
Palm devices work simply and efficiently. And for the option-crazy, Palm relies on its 3rd-party developers to create the heavy-duty apps. This results in a streamlined OS that really does what it was intended to do. And it doesn't throw in cool stuff, like an MP3 player, just for the sake of being cool. (How many Pocket PC owners really use it?)
Did anyone catch that the story was posted in the from the rug-out-from-under dept? Heh, from "down under"--no pun intended.
Actually, you'll notice that he's just a BBspot fan in general, without gravitating to any one OS. (Of course, there is only one way, one truth, one OS, but he didn't say which one it is. Hint: the (installation) path is narrow ;-)
Well, if you're limiting "convergant device" to the marriage of a cell phone and PDA, I'd say the honor goes to the Qualcomm pdQ, which was a full blown Palm device inside a cell phone, in a convenient brick-like form factor. ;-)
If you really mean that, and you're not opposed to spending a lot of money for one, check out the iCEBOX. There are two versions, the CounterTop and the FlipScreen.
USA Today wrote a review of the unit here.
Anything has a super max range if you neglect aerodrag.
I find it so ironic that geeks and programmers (myself included) are so one-dimensional about life. On the one hand, we spend enormous amounts of time and resources securing machines from outside intrusion, and ridicule those who don't (e.g., Microsoft).
On the other hand, our entire lives are an open book to any law enforcement agency, businessperson or non-tech professional because we just don't know enough about how life works.
Here's a clue: don't let an angry guy you don't know record you on the phone! Federal laws are very strict about the legality of recording telephone conversations. If both parties do not agree to the recording, the person doing the recording is commiting a crime.
Maybe if we secured our own lives as well as we did our servers these problems wouldn't happen to us. Why do we blame the sysadmin if someone breaks his insecure box yet blame the government if they break into his insecure life?
There is a God! At least someone else (just not moderators) can see through bad logic, too.
At first glance, Battling Steganographyseemed like the title to a new Jurassic Park movie!
And in news that maybe be related/unrelated, Alan Kessler, big-wig at Palm, will be leaving the company soon.
Scatterbrained is an old Internet term describing a person who doesn't remember to close their tags!