The best thing MIT could do is release the lectures for free (i.e. remove a profit motive from themselves), eliminate their name being used in association with it, and step back. That's reasonable. Trashing the whole thing is silly.
Maybe there needs to be a creative commons license that expressly forbids attribution, just for this circumstance. I suggest calling it CC-CYA
Nope, still no challenge there. Deleting all of Cosby's TV shows and movies would still be wrong as they are a part of our cultural history. If the content owners want to distance themselves from Cosby's now severely tarnished image, then they should make a public statement that they do not want any further association and then sell the rights to his work or release it to the public domain.
If the norm throughout time was to erase someone from history because they did something terrible once, we would never have been able to progress to the level where we could even have this discussion. Everything we do is built upon a foundation of knowledge provided by those that came before us and if we start pulling out the bricks which were laid by those we see as evil, the whole thing will come crashing down. We have a responsibility to keep growing and strengthening that foundation for future generations to build upon, which is far more important than a vain effort to erase the mistake of associating yourself with that evil person.
That's a valid option as well as long as you're aware of the consequences and that you're choosing it. Life is full of trade-offs. The real mistake is not understanding the choices you're making.
There's an easy solution to that problem. Don't fix it and tell her why.
Seriously, if someone isn't willing to learn and use the most basic of computer hygiene practices, they will eventually fall prey to malware and will almost certainly lose data to hardware failure at some point. And if you're the administrator of the computer when that happens, it'll be your fault for not protecting them (at least in their eyes).
You could also try explaining it as a car analogy: e.g. "You wouldn't just hop in your car and start driving without learning the rules of the road, would you?"
That's the problem with monopolies (natural or otherwise). Still, there is an option to sign up for just the phone plans without wireless data and use wired or satellite ISPs for internet access.
You could also go the route of circumventing the problem (using the methods others have already suggested) with a bit of added effort/cost, but in that case there's no disincentive to help persuade Verizon to stop the program.
How does inflation fund government services to the general populace?
Inflation allows the government to borrow at net interest rates near zero or lower. As long as inflation is higher than the interest rate on the loan, the interest costs are offset by paying the loan back in devalued currency.
I haven't driven a car in the past 15 years that didn't have a "distance to empty" option on the dash.
And I haven't driven a vehicle in the last 15 years that has such a feature. But then all I've driven in that time is a basic light pickup and a Jeep. I know range features are available, but they're more common in higher end domestic or import passenger cars.
Anyway, MPG's a useless metric for figuring out whether you need to stop for gas, unless you also know how big your tank is. If you do, then you're doing the math in your head to duplicate the distance to empty calculation on your dash.
Why would someone not know how big their tank is? There should be a clear reminder of the size every time you fill up.
Finally, the portion of the population who routinely take drives with >150 miles between gas stations is tremendously small.
There are quite a lot of people who live in the western US and Canada, where this is true.
Not that my anecdotes best yours, it's just that there would need to be conclusive evidence that a change would be worth the expense incurred and the arguments for gpm style fuel efficiency ratings don't seem (to me) to be compelling enough to justify such an action.
Fundamentally, we're not interested in how far we can go on X gallons of gas, we're interested in how much gas it will take us to drive to our destination. GPM lets us compare that directly, while MPG doesn't.
But that's only true when making a decision between different cars. It's far more common (at least it is where I live) to have to quickly calculate whether I need to stop for gas now or if I can make it to the next town that's ~150 miles away in the car I'm currently driving.
This is inspiration incarnate. Now we can create any sort of wondrous future we desire and the main project heiroglyph page is all I needed to see for proof. It's marginally functional without javascript!!!!
I responded to a similar comment by an AC earlier, but allowing Arizona's share to go unused would be in addition to the amount agreed to go to Mexico.
This is an obvious troll, but to clarify, there's an agreement in place to ensure that a set amount of water will flow into Mexico. You can read more about it HERE. I was implying that if Arizona didn't use or sell its share that it would flow across the border in addition to what is guaranteed by law.
We shouldn't have 6 million people living in a desert that can barely naturally support 1/10 that many. And pumping several hundred thousand acre feet of water over a mountain range for Phoenix is a terrible waste of water, not to mention the water lost to evaporation in the process and the power used.
I get it, you don't like the Central Arizona Project, but without it what would Arizona do with it's share of the Colorado? I think it's better to deliver it to where it's needed (i.e. Phoenix) than sell it to southern California or let it flow into Mexico unused. The areas nearest the river are poor areas for development anyway.
Plastic, plastic everywhere! Except on most surfaces of the Keyboardio ergonomic keyboard
The key caps are still plastic, so depending how you count the surfaces that's 94-99% plastic. Maybe if you calculate it by area but exclude the sides of the keys and ignore that you'll almost never need to touch the aluminum portions, it might drop below 50%.
Yes, but only because Amazon refuses to release the app for Android because they want you to buy a Kindle/Fire Phone instead, so you can be locked into their walled garden.
Just because the problem is "solved" (i.e. designs have improved to the point where this failure mode is no longer critical), doesn't mean that there aren't better (lower cost/weight and stronger) solutions available if the design constraints are changed by the availability of new technologies.
Now is it as safe or safer than current designs? I don't know, but I don't see a compelling reason why it couldn't be. I'm certain there will be quite a lot of testing and analysis of failure rates, system redundancies and the capabilities of the associated degraded states before regulatory agencies approve the use of this type of system.
The problem is that Congress made that illegal specifically to address community antenna television (CATV) operators who did almost exactly what you describe.
This is a good summary, but for the tl;dr crowd the opinion of the Court is essentially relying on the duck test. e.g. "if it looks like CATV and acts like CATV it is CATV"
The dissent clearly shows the flaws in this reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
The best thing MIT could do is release the lectures for free (i.e. remove a profit motive from themselves), eliminate their name being used in association with it, and step back. That's reasonable. Trashing the whole thing is silly.
Maybe there needs to be a creative commons license that expressly forbids attribution, just for this circumstance. I suggest calling it CC-CYA
Nope, still no challenge there. Deleting all of Cosby's TV shows and movies would still be wrong as they are a part of our cultural history. If the content owners want to distance themselves from Cosby's now severely tarnished image, then they should make a public statement that they do not want any further association and then sell the rights to his work or release it to the public domain.
If the norm throughout time was to erase someone from history because they did something terrible once, we would never have been able to progress to the level where we could even have this discussion. Everything we do is built upon a foundation of knowledge provided by those that came before us and if we start pulling out the bricks which were laid by those we see as evil, the whole thing will come crashing down. We have a responsibility to keep growing and strengthening that foundation for future generations to build upon, which is far more important than a vain effort to erase the mistake of associating yourself with that evil person.
That's a valid option as well as long as you're aware of the consequences and that you're choosing it. Life is full of trade-offs. The real mistake is not understanding the choices you're making.
There's an easy solution to that problem. Don't fix it and tell her why.
Seriously, if someone isn't willing to learn and use the most basic of computer hygiene practices, they will eventually fall prey to malware and will almost certainly lose data to hardware failure at some point. And if you're the administrator of the computer when that happens, it'll be your fault for not protecting them (at least in their eyes).
You could also try explaining it as a car analogy: e.g. "You wouldn't just hop in your car and start driving without learning the rules of the road, would you?"
Wow, it's up to 200% effective!?!?!?!?!
That's the problem with monopolies (natural or otherwise). Still, there is an option to sign up for just the phone plans without wireless data and use wired or satellite ISPs for internet access.
You could also go the route of circumventing the problem (using the methods others have already suggested) with a bit of added effort/cost, but in that case there's no disincentive to help persuade Verizon to stop the program.
Don't use Verizon as your ISP?
How does inflation fund government services to the general populace?
Inflation allows the government to borrow at net interest rates near zero or lower. As long as inflation is higher than the interest rate on the loan, the interest costs are offset by paying the loan back in devalued currency.
I haven't driven a car in the past 15 years that didn't have a "distance to empty" option on the dash.
And I haven't driven a vehicle in the last 15 years that has such a feature. But then all I've driven in that time is a basic light pickup and a Jeep. I know range features are available, but they're more common in higher end domestic or import passenger cars.
Anyway, MPG's a useless metric for figuring out whether you need to stop for gas, unless you also know how big your tank is. If you do, then you're doing the math in your head to duplicate the distance to empty calculation on your dash.
Why would someone not know how big their tank is? There should be a clear reminder of the size every time you fill up.
Finally, the portion of the population who routinely take drives with >150 miles between gas stations is tremendously small.
There are quite a lot of people who live in the western US and Canada, where this is true.
Not that my anecdotes best yours, it's just that there would need to be conclusive evidence that a change would be worth the expense incurred and the arguments for gpm style fuel efficiency ratings don't seem (to me) to be compelling enough to justify such an action.
Fundamentally, we're not interested in how far we can go on X gallons of gas, we're interested in how much gas it will take us to drive to our destination. GPM lets us compare that directly, while MPG doesn't.
But that's only true when making a decision between different cars. It's far more common (at least it is where I live) to have to quickly calculate whether I need to stop for gas now or if I can make it to the next town that's ~150 miles away in the car I'm currently driving.
It must be the higher dimensionality thing since he successfully converts that to 350 cubic gallons (imperial, no less) a bit further along.
Alternatively, the water produced by this process is cubic in shape which would make it difficult to use with traditional plumbing systems.
Oh, darn. We must be on different wavelengths. Last I heard, they were doing swell.
I guess these sorts of things just ebb and flow with the economic tides.
This is inspiration incarnate. Now we can create any sort of wondrous future we desire and the main project heiroglyph page is all I needed to see for proof. It's marginally functional without javascript!!!!
In my limited experience, MX Browns are a good compromise. Still some tactile feedback without being obnoxiously loud.
Buckling springs and blues are enough to make neighbors in a cube farm go postal and aren't that much better.
If you like cable lacing, you'd probably love lock wiring.
Even if it's horribly labor intensive, the end result sure looks nice.
True, but Understanding of others' Ignorance also Brings Fear
Also, it's a Futurama reference.
I responded to a similar comment by an AC earlier, but allowing Arizona's share to go unused would be in addition to the amount agreed to go to Mexico.
This is an obvious troll, but to clarify, there's an agreement in place to ensure that a set amount of water will flow into Mexico. You can read more about it HERE. I was implying that if Arizona didn't use or sell its share that it would flow across the border in addition to what is guaranteed by law.
We shouldn't have 6 million people living in a desert that can barely naturally support 1/10 that many. And pumping several hundred thousand acre feet of water over a mountain range for Phoenix is a terrible waste of water, not to mention the water lost to evaporation in the process and the power used.
I get it, you don't like the Central Arizona Project, but without it what would Arizona do with it's share of the Colorado? I think it's better to deliver it to where it's needed (i.e. Phoenix) than sell it to southern California or let it flow into Mexico unused. The areas nearest the river are poor areas for development anyway.
Plastic, plastic everywhere! Except on most surfaces of the Keyboardio ergonomic keyboard
The key caps are still plastic, so depending how you count the surfaces that's 94-99% plastic. Maybe if you calculate it by area but exclude the sides of the keys and ignore that you'll almost never need to touch the aluminum portions, it might drop below 50%.
Yes, but only because Amazon refuses to release the app for Android because they want you to buy a Kindle/Fire Phone instead, so you can be locked into their walled garden.
It's a whoosh up until about Mach 0.9-0.95. After that, it's a boom.
Just because the problem is "solved" (i.e. designs have improved to the point where this failure mode is no longer critical), doesn't mean that there aren't better (lower cost/weight and stronger) solutions available if the design constraints are changed by the availability of new technologies.
Now is it as safe or safer than current designs? I don't know, but I don't see a compelling reason why it couldn't be. I'm certain there will be quite a lot of testing and analysis of failure rates, system redundancies and the capabilities of the associated degraded states before regulatory agencies approve the use of this type of system.
The problem is that Congress made that illegal specifically to address community antenna television (CATV) operators who did almost exactly what you describe.
This is a good summary, but for the tl;dr crowd the opinion of the Court is essentially relying on the duck test. e.g. "if it looks like CATV and acts like CATV it is CATV"
The dissent clearly shows the flaws in this reasoning.