Very insightful commentary. The way around putting yourself on the record would be to simply use a non-state run e-mail server. This is the same tactic employed by republicans in the Bush White House for eight years. It provided protection not only from the freedom of information act but criminal investigations. If this University uses GMAIL as their host provider it may not be legal to access any University e-mail even though it may have the.edu. In any event if the professor sent any e-mails on a non University e-mail those would not be subject to the public information request. Finally, he might simply use the oops - all got deleted defense. All of these defenses were successfully used by republicans during the infamous e-mail gate criminal investigation.
"Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government." WIki article "Bush White House e-mail controversy" or e-mail-gate!
We can all learn something from republican's here - even during a criminal investigation it is not really a requirement to provide e-mail information. The professor has two republican lines of defense: 1. I did not use a University e-mail address but rather an e-mail hosted on a non-state server. 2. Oops, all my e-mails related to that blog article were deleted.
"Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government." WIki article "Bush White House e-mail controversy" or e-mail-gate!
And that is exactly why any professors with blogs would never use their University e-mail but rather a private-domain e-mail when doing any controversial research or commentary. It is the same tactic used by republicans in the White House to avoid criminal prosecution for firing 8 U.S. Attorney's in 2007.
"Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government." WIki article "Bush White House e-mail controversy" or e-mail-gate!
Easy solution - simply respond with the now infamous republican tactic of stating the professor did not use University e-mail or that the e-mails were accidentally deleted. If it works for republicans during a criminal investigation it will certainly work for a University Professor in a non-criminal investigation. From Wiki: "The Bush White House e-mail controversy surfaced in 2007, during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million e-mails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]"
Had AT&T provided a similar communication I believe their network could have been managed better. This is a great bit of marketing - showing that 5% of the users can impact the experience of 95% of users. While the 5% may be more vocal - the silent majority finally wins. Kind of like Tea Party protesters prior to losing all those elections.
Your definition of the abuse of power is different from my own.
Reagan: Iran Contra Affair - drugs for weapons
Bush: Warrantless Wiretapping, Torture, Kidnapping and Detention, Abuses of the Patriot Act, Abuse of The Freedom of Information Act, Spying on Quakers, PETA, Greenpeace, ACLU, and the Arab American Anti-Defamation Committee, Abuse of the Material Witness Statute, Denying Academic Freedom to professors with different ideologues from the administration.
Obama: Listening to the interests of business his administration shuts down sites that provide access to stolen property by using a provision of law that arguably allows the government to do exactly that which they are doing.
A site dedicated to providing access to stolen goods is and should be illegal. Imagine if what you did in your career was suddenly stolen and distributed by thieves. Your company would no longer hire and be forced to downsize and cut costs. In my company 20,000 people would lose their jobs if thieves opened shop and provided our stolen goods. That is 20,000 families being wiped out or impacted - lower salaries, fewer career opportunities, layoffs, and stagnant growth or declines. It is really a horrible thing to do when you think of the millions of unemployed today.
Does the value of the patent and your time exceed the cost of hiring an attorney and gaining a settlement? If it does then start by hiring a lawyer and formally contacting IBM. It is possible that IBM would simply settle. If not then it will get costly.
To compare a job evaluation of an accountant or assemblyline worker to a teacher is not a valid position. Teachers are evaluated on the performance of others - from students, parents, demographics, culture, districts, Admin... These all influence a teachers ability to teach. Student performance to a test is an important part of an evaluation process. When students fail to achieve we need to look beyond the classroom. Unions will place new teachers in positions to fail to protect job security for teachers with seniority. Districts will hamstring teachers... Parents and culure impact performance. The best teachers are sometimes setup to fail and teachers that should fail are protected. Too many ways to game the system.
Parents, Districts, Unions, and local government are in general well meaning but share equally in the failure of our public and charter public school system. There are a lot of stats from all sides. Blame unions for seniority over ability and districts for lack of intelligence and public education policy decision making, parents for lack of interest or the narrow interests, non-parents for voting down bonds or property taxes...
Everyone has a stat to yell about. But this focus on test scores is not complete. Are demographics really the same? Culture, language at home, income, district and teachers pro-actively getting parents involved, location - busing, after school programs, length of day, materials provided (teachers buy do much out of pocket in some districts).
To be a great teacher goes well beyond the classroom.
The case against Hurd - sexual harassment claim by Jodie Fisher and falsified expense reports to hide his relationship with Ms. Fisher. Falsified expense reports in itself is grounds for termination - anyone less than an executive would not be given the opportunity to resign but be fired. Look at this from 10,000 feet away - hot blonde with Political Science Degree has no business escorting a popular and charismatic CEO to these CEO executive summit meetings. We should shortly hear from Hurd's wife.
Advantage of Windows:
1..NET framework
2. Vizio?
Advantages of Apple's OS:
1. No licensing fees for Snow Leopard Server - greatly reducing cost
2. Lower level of IT support required - IT team could easily manage 5k clients over a school district.
3. Students learn C+, Objective C, and develop iPhone/Touch/iPad apps as a way to learn programming.
Check out Apple's site for iPhone developer support for education - really interesting.
Nokia's claim against Apple involves patents Nokia has that are based on industry standards. Where does Nokia's innovation start and where does industry standard end? Can you patent an industry standard? Can you charge license fees that rely on an industry standard? What of the companies involved in the standard - do they now have to pay to use what they developed?
Apple's claim against Nokia does not involve's standards but rather patents it owns on mobile device hardware, software, interface... Apple is in a good position on a few of its claims against Nokia. Industry experts believe Nokia and Apple will Settle based on the strength of Apple's claims against Nokia.
Is that what you are learning on the Internets? The vast success of the iPhone & App Store in both number of useful Apps and profit for both developers and Apple have shown the business model to be successful. Now it needs refining - but not in the angry knee jerk reactionary way of bloggers and forum gripers.
After projects Mercury and Gemini capsule size increased to seat 3 pilots for the Apollo project's moon mission. The first Apollo disaster was significant because it was a crew of 3.
Three pilots were on board all Apollo missions: Commander, Command Module Pilot, and Lunar Lander Pilot. Most of these pilots were from test pilot programs. Media was there for both the significance of the first manned mission to the moon as well as the height of the cold war and the internal political and external diplomatic ramifications of a successful moon shot. Later space programs launched the first civilian scientists and engineers.
Summary of Apollo I investigation:
The thorough investigation by the Apollo 204 Review Board of the Apollo accident determined that the test conditions at the time of the accident were "extremely hazardous." However, the test was not recognized as being hazardous by either NASA or the contractor prior to the accident. Consequently, adequate safety precautions were neither established nor observed for this test. The amount and location of combustibles in the command module were not closely restricted and controlled, and there was no way for the crew to egress rapidly from the command module during this type of emergency nor had procedures been established for ground support personnel outside the spacecraft to assist the crew. Proper emergency equipment was not located in the "white room" surrounding the Apollo command module nor were emergency fire and medical rescue teams in attendance.
There appears to be no adequate explanation for the failure to recognize the test being conducted at the time of the accident as hazardous. The only explanation offered the committee is that NASA officials believed they had eliminated all sources of ignition and since to have a fire requires an ignition source, combustible material, and oxygen, NASA believed that necessary and sufficient action had been taken to prevent a fire.
Of course, all ignition sources had not been eliminated.
The Apollo 204 Review Board reported that it took approximately 5 minutes to open all hatches and remove the two outer hatches after the fire was reported; that the first firemen arrived about 8 to 9 minutes after the fire was reported and that the first medical doctors did not arrive until about 12 minutes or more after the fire was reported. Thus there was not expert medical opinion available on opening the hatch to determine the condition of the three astronauts although medical opinion based on autopsy reports concluded that chances for resuscitation decresed rapidly once consciousness was lost and that resuscitation was impossible by the time the hatch was opened.
It is clear from the Board's report and the testimony before the committee that this kind of accident was completely unexpected; that both NASA and the contractor were completely unprepared for it despite the amount of documentation of fire hazards in pure oxygen environments. The committee can only conclude that NASA's long history of successes in testing and launching space vehicles with pure oxygen environments at 16.7 p.s.i. and lower pressures led to overconfidence and complacency.
The Apollo 204 accident was a tragic event in the nation's space program. Because of it there has been a thorough analysi and review of all aspects of the Apollo program. Consequently many changes have been made in the Apollo system design, operations, management, and procedures and NASA expects this will result in an improved spacecraft and booster system. The committee's review of the accident found nothing which would make the committee question this expectation. It is the committee's hope that the remainder of the program will be carried out with greater understanding and dedication than if there had been no accident. The total impact of the Apollo 204 accident on the Apollo program is not yet known. In continuing its close surveillance over the Apollo program, your committee will be especially mindful of the impact of the accident on program schedules and cost, and on the effectiveness of the changes in management and operations made by NASA during the past several months.
In the name of share holders companies do many things. Enron and World Com are two companies that always acted in the best interest of shareholders - their stocks skyrocketed and exceeded numerous quarterly estimates.
For an American company to complain about the taxes US corporations pay is outrageous. Companies in the U.S. do not pay as much as China, Japan, Britain, or Germany - in terms of taxes. Within the U.S. companies pit States against one another to see how much a State will cut funding to local schools most in order to "win" a new factory or office location. China does not allow majority ownership of any foreign investment in China - in addition these companies pay out a variety of social taxes to both the State and local community.
The U.S. does not compete with Ireland & co. That would be a race to the lowest common denominator for any of the world's top ten economies.
As for Microsoft - to state that they cannot keep US workers in the US because of a fiduciary duty to shareholders... Share Holder Interest has always been the last refuge of a scoundrel. If it was up to shareholders companies would only be around until the sold them or used a short sale and wanted them to fail. And for Microsoft to say this when the U.S. is at war in two different countries, when unemployment is reaching 10% nationally, when U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for almost two trillion dollars to the banks that provide the financial markets that Microsoft uses to raise billions and profit in the billions...
Why does Microsoft hate American troops? Why does Microsoft hate American children? Why does Microsoft hate America? Because not shouldering their financial responsibility to the country that made them billionaires, provided the innovation, the markets, the engineers... the country that educated their children, the soldiers who died fighting for their freedom... Microsoft's comments are almost treasonous and certainly anti American.
Slashdot Mirror
Very insightful commentary. The way around putting yourself on the record would be to simply use a non-state run e-mail server. This is the same tactic employed by republicans in the Bush White House for eight years. It provided protection not only from the freedom of information act but criminal investigations. If this University uses GMAIL as their host provider it may not be legal to access any University e-mail even though it may have the .edu. In any event if the professor sent any e-mails on a non University e-mail those would not be subject to the public information request. Finally, he might simply use the oops - all got deleted defense. All of these defenses were successfully used by republicans during the infamous e-mail gate criminal investigation.
"Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government." WIki article "Bush White House e-mail controversy" or e-mail-gate!
We can all learn something from republican's here - even during a criminal investigation it is not really a requirement to provide e-mail information. The professor has two republican lines of defense: 1. I did not use a University e-mail address but rather an e-mail hosted on a non-state server. 2. Oops, all my e-mails related to that blog article were deleted. "Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government." WIki article "Bush White House e-mail controversy" or e-mail-gate!
And that is exactly why any professors with blogs would never use their University e-mail but rather a private-domain e-mail when doing any controversial research or commentary. It is the same tactic used by republicans in the White House to avoid criminal prosecution for firing 8 U.S. Attorney's in 2007. "Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government." WIki article "Bush White House e-mail controversy" or e-mail-gate!
Easy solution - simply respond with the now infamous republican tactic of stating the professor did not use University e-mail or that the e-mails were accidentally deleted. If it works for republicans during a criminal investigation it will certainly work for a University Professor in a non-criminal investigation. From Wiki: "The Bush White House e-mail controversy surfaced in 2007, during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million e-mails may have been lost or deleted.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove lost emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been deleted.[5]"
Had AT&T provided a similar communication I believe their network could have been managed better. This is a great bit of marketing - showing that 5% of the users can impact the experience of 95% of users. While the 5% may be more vocal - the silent majority finally wins. Kind of like Tea Party protesters prior to losing all those elections.
Your definition of the abuse of power is different from my own. Reagan: Iran Contra Affair - drugs for weapons Bush: Warrantless Wiretapping, Torture, Kidnapping and Detention, Abuses of the Patriot Act, Abuse of The Freedom of Information Act, Spying on Quakers, PETA, Greenpeace, ACLU, and the Arab American Anti-Defamation Committee, Abuse of the Material Witness Statute, Denying Academic Freedom to professors with different ideologues from the administration. Obama: Listening to the interests of business his administration shuts down sites that provide access to stolen property by using a provision of law that arguably allows the government to do exactly that which they are doing.
A site dedicated to providing access to stolen goods is and should be illegal. Imagine if what you did in your career was suddenly stolen and distributed by thieves. Your company would no longer hire and be forced to downsize and cut costs. In my company 20,000 people would lose their jobs if thieves opened shop and provided our stolen goods. That is 20,000 families being wiped out or impacted - lower salaries, fewer career opportunities, layoffs, and stagnant growth or declines. It is really a horrible thing to do when you think of the millions of unemployed today.
Does the value of the patent and your time exceed the cost of hiring an attorney and gaining a settlement? If it does then start by hiring a lawyer and formally contacting IBM. It is possible that IBM would simply settle. If not then it will get costly.
That is if you don't shatter the glass. No way it will break on it's own. It's gorilla glass. Would take more than a dust particle to actually crack.
But Apple would cover such an issue under their service plan.
To compare a job evaluation of an accountant or assemblyline worker to a teacher is not a valid position. Teachers are evaluated on the performance of others - from students, parents, demographics, culture, districts, Admin... These all influence a teachers ability to teach. Student performance to a test is an important part of an evaluation process. When students fail to achieve we need to look beyond the classroom. Unions will place new teachers in positions to fail to protect job security for teachers with seniority. Districts will hamstring teachers... Parents and culure impact performance. The best teachers are sometimes setup to fail and teachers that should fail are protected. Too many ways to game the system.
Parents, Districts, Unions, and local government are in general well meaning but share equally in the failure of our public and charter public school system. There are a lot of stats from all sides. Blame unions for seniority over ability and districts for lack of intelligence and public education policy decision making, parents for lack of interest or the narrow interests, non-parents for voting down bonds or property taxes... Everyone has a stat to yell about. But this focus on test scores is not complete. Are demographics really the same? Culture, language at home, income, district and teachers pro-actively getting parents involved, location - busing, after school programs, length of day, materials provided (teachers buy do much out of pocket in some districts). To be a great teacher goes well beyond the classroom.
The case against Hurd - sexual harassment claim by Jodie Fisher and falsified expense reports to hide his relationship with Ms. Fisher. Falsified expense reports in itself is grounds for termination - anyone less than an executive would not be given the opportunity to resign but be fired. Look at this from 10,000 feet away - hot blonde with Political Science Degree has no business escorting a popular and charismatic CEO to these CEO executive summit meetings. We should shortly hear from Hurd's wife.
Advantage of Windows: 1. .NET framework
2. Vizio?
Advantages of Apple's OS:
1. No licensing fees for Snow Leopard Server - greatly reducing cost
2. Lower level of IT support required - IT team could easily manage 5k clients over a school district.
3. Students learn C+, Objective C, and develop iPhone/Touch/iPad apps as a way to learn programming.
Check out Apple's site for iPhone developer support for education - really interesting.
Nokia's claim against Apple involves patents Nokia has that are based on industry standards. Where does Nokia's innovation start and where does industry standard end? Can you patent an industry standard? Can you charge license fees that rely on an industry standard? What of the companies involved in the standard - do they now have to pay to use what they developed? Apple's claim against Nokia does not involve's standards but rather patents it owns on mobile device hardware, software, interface... Apple is in a good position on a few of its claims against Nokia. Industry experts believe Nokia and Apple will Settle based on the strength of Apple's claims against Nokia.
Is that what you are learning on the Internets? The vast success of the iPhone & App Store in both number of useful Apps and profit for both developers and Apple have shown the business model to be successful. Now it needs refining - but not in the angry knee jerk reactionary way of bloggers and forum gripers.
After projects Mercury and Gemini capsule size increased to seat 3 pilots for the Apollo project's moon mission. The first Apollo disaster was significant because it was a crew of 3. Three pilots were on board all Apollo missions: Commander, Command Module Pilot, and Lunar Lander Pilot. Most of these pilots were from test pilot programs. Media was there for both the significance of the first manned mission to the moon as well as the height of the cold war and the internal political and external diplomatic ramifications of a successful moon shot. Later space programs launched the first civilian scientists and engineers.
Summary of Apollo I investigation: The thorough investigation by the Apollo 204 Review Board of the Apollo accident determined that the test conditions at the time of the accident were "extremely hazardous." However, the test was not recognized as being hazardous by either NASA or the contractor prior to the accident. Consequently, adequate safety precautions were neither established nor observed for this test. The amount and location of combustibles in the command module were not closely restricted and controlled, and there was no way for the crew to egress rapidly from the command module during this type of emergency nor had procedures been established for ground support personnel outside the spacecraft to assist the crew. Proper emergency equipment was not located in the "white room" surrounding the Apollo command module nor were emergency fire and medical rescue teams in attendance. There appears to be no adequate explanation for the failure to recognize the test being conducted at the time of the accident as hazardous. The only explanation offered the committee is that NASA officials believed they had eliminated all sources of ignition and since to have a fire requires an ignition source, combustible material, and oxygen, NASA believed that necessary and sufficient action had been taken to prevent a fire. Of course, all ignition sources had not been eliminated. The Apollo 204 Review Board reported that it took approximately 5 minutes to open all hatches and remove the two outer hatches after the fire was reported; that the first firemen arrived about 8 to 9 minutes after the fire was reported and that the first medical doctors did not arrive until about 12 minutes or more after the fire was reported. Thus there was not expert medical opinion available on opening the hatch to determine the condition of the three astronauts although medical opinion based on autopsy reports concluded that chances for resuscitation decresed rapidly once consciousness was lost and that resuscitation was impossible by the time the hatch was opened. It is clear from the Board's report and the testimony before the committee that this kind of accident was completely unexpected; that both NASA and the contractor were completely unprepared for it despite the amount of documentation of fire hazards in pure oxygen environments. The committee can only conclude that NASA's long history of successes in testing and launching space vehicles with pure oxygen environments at 16.7 p.s.i. and lower pressures led to overconfidence and complacency. The Apollo 204 accident was a tragic event in the nation's space program. Because of it there has been a thorough analysi and review of all aspects of the Apollo program. Consequently many changes have been made in the Apollo system design, operations, management, and procedures and NASA expects this will result in an improved spacecraft and booster system. The committee's review of the accident found nothing which would make the committee question this expectation. It is the committee's hope that the remainder of the program will be carried out with greater understanding and dedication than if there had been no accident. The total impact of the Apollo 204 accident on the Apollo program is not yet known. In continuing its close surveillance over the Apollo program, your committee will be especially mindful of the impact of the accident on program schedules and cost, and on the effectiveness of the changes in management and operations made by NASA during the past several months.
I work too hard to deal with this stuff!! I work too hard!! I'm a Division Manager in charge of 49 people!! I drive a Dodge Stratus!!
In the name of share holders companies do many things. Enron and World Com are two companies that always acted in the best interest of shareholders - their stocks skyrocketed and exceeded numerous quarterly estimates. For an American company to complain about the taxes US corporations pay is outrageous. Companies in the U.S. do not pay as much as China, Japan, Britain, or Germany - in terms of taxes. Within the U.S. companies pit States against one another to see how much a State will cut funding to local schools most in order to "win" a new factory or office location. China does not allow majority ownership of any foreign investment in China - in addition these companies pay out a variety of social taxes to both the State and local community. The U.S. does not compete with Ireland & co. That would be a race to the lowest common denominator for any of the world's top ten economies. As for Microsoft - to state that they cannot keep US workers in the US because of a fiduciary duty to shareholders... Share Holder Interest has always been the last refuge of a scoundrel. If it was up to shareholders companies would only be around until the sold them or used a short sale and wanted them to fail. And for Microsoft to say this when the U.S. is at war in two different countries, when unemployment is reaching 10% nationally, when U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for almost two trillion dollars to the banks that provide the financial markets that Microsoft uses to raise billions and profit in the billions... Why does Microsoft hate American troops? Why does Microsoft hate American children? Why does Microsoft hate America? Because not shouldering their financial responsibility to the country that made them billionaires, provided the innovation, the markets, the engineers... the country that educated their children, the soldiers who died fighting for their freedom... Microsoft's comments are almost treasonous and certainly anti American.