"If you think playing endless hours of Dungeons & Dragons will create a desire to get into the information technology, think again. A new study by CompTIA of teens and young adults shows that only 17% want to pursue a technology career despite the fact that 97% say they 'love' technology."
Looks like CIStud actually wrote his own summary. That's actually better than the SOP of quoting the first paragraph and leaving it at that. That's more work than the/. editors do.
If they still refuse to pay, and insist you MUST come-in on Saturday to work for free (like my last job), do so, but watch hulu instead
If I'm at work, the damage is already done. Whether I work or watch hulu, the point is I'm not relaxing at home. If you find yourself in such a position, get the manager on tape and sue.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Do creationists really have a problem understanding that multiple objects could be equidistant? Hell, do they have a problem with multiple siblings all being equally closely related?
If any of these concepts pose the slightest difficulty for you, please refrain from forming any opinions on anything scientific or technical. Your brain just isn't up to the job.
Only if enables them to live without working. It would be more productive over all to make the capital available for the most useful purpose, and to make the capitalist do productive work for a living.
Yeah, I'm not surprised that they're bending over backwards to find a way to rid themselves of Assange. When has any British citizen been convicted of rape under similar circumstances?
âoethe fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.â
I don't even know where to start with this logic. Rape is illegal because of the state of mind of the victim, not the state of mind of the aggressor.
Except for separating content from presentation. That would be particularly important for this guy, as he could make things as big and ugly as he needs to for his poor eyesight, and still produce an attractive final document.
Even if Assange committed the acts he was accused of, those acts are not illegal in any country besides Sweden. That usually means that you don't get extradited. Unless the United States wants you, then you're not safe anywhere.
They are going to go after US citizens. Not to kill them, but to observe them where traditionally we've had an expectation of privacy that would require them to get a warrant. Remember that the US still officially refuses to admit that it even has a drone program. This shit is not going through due process.
the fact that we refused to use naval ranks like Admiral or army ranks above Major General. (Even today, Major General is the highest permanent rank in the US Army
What does that matter? This is like the Spinal Tap joke about having an amp that goes up to 11 in reverse. You didn't change the actual power, you changed the name.
BTW, when was it that the distrust of standing armies turned into wholesale military fetishism? That's fairly recent I think.
Does the original question remotely claim to want to teach kids how to program? No, it specifically says "internet/email/word processing and whatever other apps come with edubuntu"
Which is exactly what's wrong with computer education. That's not education at all, but training. I don't care if you can write a Word doc. If you can't tell me how a Word doc differs from a text file, you haven't been educated about computers. Training only prepares you to do one thing. Proper education gives you a real understanding of the field and prepares you for anything. Training really only benefits your future employer. Education improves you as a person, and improves society as a whole.
It is also woefully misguided. Programming is not a trivial task. That's why there is a trillion dollar commercial market for it. In the workplace, if your task is not programming, you don't have the time to program anything that is not trivial and whatever you can cook up in "a few minutes" is not worth doing.
Which is entirely bullshit. Not every application requires years of development. A little bit of scripting can simplify all sorts of tasks. People encounter small problems every day that could be automated, and teaching them how automation is done will at least give them the ability to understand how things are done.
Most people will never solve an algebraic equation after high school, but we still teach it because it's important that people know how math works. We should teach them programming for the same reason. Everyone needs to know that computers aren't magic, and at least some fraction of them will actually use those skills to improve their lives, even if they don't become professional programmers.
A private school can't require your kids to do anything, because they are not required to go to private school. If you choose to send your kids to a private school, then anything they "require" is actually chosen by you.
Why not? Is climate science fundamentally opposed to oil use? If so, why do you think that is? Could it be because the facts of climate science so strongly speak to the dangers of continued oil use? If not, where does the bias come from? Do you think these people just woke up one day and decided to take on the most powerful industry in the world for no reason?
If the facts of climate science did not support AGW so strongly, there would be no reason for oil friendly individuals to avoid climate science. Actually, they could make a great name for themselves by demonstrating that AGW were false. But this doesn't happen because AGW is a fact.
The only path forward is not to call it a hearing assistance device at all.
That's the idea. Clearly a simple pocket computer with audio input and output isn't a hearing assistance device. Otherwise every smart phone would be a medical device.
Similarly, a piece of code is just a piece of code. Not a medical device. Publish it open source and disclaim all warranties.
The electronics must be small, they mustn't be very heavy, and the must do something that is computationally expensive (signal isolation in a noisy background), combined with amplification, all in a custom fitting (to your ear) enclosure.
No they don't. Just use earbuds. Run a wire to a box with a microcontroller(or R-pi), with another wire leading to a mic on your lapel. Power the thing with some AA batteries. Total hardware cost $100. Sure, it will look goofy, but it's better than being unable to hear.
The only hard part is the software. But how hard would it be for some grad student audiologist to knock up an open source algorithm based on published data?
Apologies, the Greenpeace US budget is around 10 million/year. Globally it's 360 million. I should have read more carefully.
I will point out that 360 million is still peanuts compared to the oil industry. If money speaks louder than facts in climate science, why is the consensus not what the oil industry wants to hear?
Greenpeace's total budget is around10 million per year. How is it that they can influence the overwhelming majority of climate research?
If climate science is primarily agenda driven, and climate science is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW there must be a group out there that profits from the fabrication of data for the AGW hypothesis and has more money than the oil industry. I don't see any candidates.
The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.
Yes, this would prompt the oil industry to manufacture controversy allowing it to continue polluting. But that's only one side of the story.
Who benefits by the fabrication of AGW data? If no one benefits, then how do you square your claim that climate science is primarily agenda driven with the fact that climate science is overwhelmingly in agreement with the AGW hypothesis?
I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that?
NASA does a considerable amount of research into the radiation of energy by planetary bodies. This research is diretly related to the AGW argument. Those models are developed and used by people like James Hansen to predict what will happen to the energy our planet absorbs, given the composition of the atmosphere. If you are correct, and all of this is bunk science driven by an agenda, then NASA must have been coopted by some special interest group. Is that your claim?
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the summary it says:
Looks like CIStud actually wrote his own summary. That's actually better than the SOP of quoting the first paragraph and leaving it at that. That's more work than the /. editors do.
If they still refuse to pay, and insist you MUST come-in on Saturday to work for free (like my last job), do so, but watch hulu instead
If I'm at work, the damage is already done. Whether I work or watch hulu, the point is I'm not relaxing at home. If you find yourself in such a position, get the manager on tape and sue.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. Do creationists really have a problem understanding that multiple objects could be equidistant? Hell, do they have a problem with multiple siblings all being equally closely related?
If any of these concepts pose the slightest difficulty for you, please refrain from forming any opinions on anything scientific or technical. Your brain just isn't up to the job.
Only if enables them to live without working. It would be more productive over all to make the capital available for the most useful purpose, and to make the capitalist do productive work for a living.
The capital would be available for productive uses if it were not hoarded by the idle classes.
Investing is how the idle class siphons wealth from the productive class without actually doing anything of value.
Why would it be limited to the localhost? I expect to be able to ssh in and out of my phone. X-forwarding with NX would be awesome too.
The best way to rob a bank is to own one. And it's only gotten better for the robber barons over the past 30 years.
If I can't get a UNIX shell on it, I don't want it.
Yeah, I'm not surprised that they're bending over backwards to find a way to rid themselves of Assange. When has any British citizen been convicted of rape under similar circumstances?
âoethe fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.â
I don't even know where to start with this logic. Rape is illegal because of the state of mind of the victim, not the state of mind of the aggressor.
Citation.
Except for separating content from presentation. That would be particularly important for this guy, as he could make things as big and ugly as he needs to for his poor eyesight, and still produce an attractive final document.
This is a world record in destruction of a market leader. Understand what that means. Elop has set a world record in management failure.
This assumes that destruction of Nokia wasn't Elop's goal to begin with. It's hard to look at the facts and come away with that impression.
All capitalism is crony capitalism.
Even if Assange committed the acts he was accused of, those acts are not illegal in any country besides Sweden. That usually means that you don't get extradited. Unless the United States wants you, then you're not safe anywhere.
The actual act Assange is accused of would not be considered rape in any other country in the world.
They are going to go after US citizens. Not to kill them, but to observe them where traditionally we've had an expectation of privacy that would require them to get a warrant. Remember that the US still officially refuses to admit that it even has a drone program. This shit is not going through due process.
the fact that we refused to use naval ranks like Admiral or army ranks above Major General. (Even today, Major General is the highest permanent rank in the US Army
What does that matter? This is like the Spinal Tap joke about having an amp that goes up to 11 in reverse. You didn't change the actual power, you changed the name.
BTW, when was it that the distrust of standing armies turned into wholesale military fetishism? That's fairly recent I think.
Does the original question remotely claim to want to teach kids how to program? No, it specifically says "internet/email/word processing and whatever other apps come with edubuntu"
Which is exactly what's wrong with computer education. That's not education at all, but training. I don't care if you can write a Word doc. If you can't tell me how a Word doc differs from a text file, you haven't been educated about computers. Training only prepares you to do one thing. Proper education gives you a real understanding of the field and prepares you for anything. Training really only benefits your future employer. Education improves you as a person, and improves society as a whole.
It is also woefully misguided. Programming is not a trivial task. That's why there is a trillion dollar commercial market for it. In the workplace, if your task is not programming, you don't have the time to program anything that is not trivial and whatever you can cook up in "a few minutes" is not worth doing.
Which is entirely bullshit. Not every application requires years of development. A little bit of scripting can simplify all sorts of tasks. People encounter small problems every day that could be automated, and teaching them how automation is done will at least give them the ability to understand how things are done.
Most people will never solve an algebraic equation after high school, but we still teach it because it's important that people know how math works. We should teach them programming for the same reason. Everyone needs to know that computers aren't magic, and at least some fraction of them will actually use those skills to improve their lives, even if they don't become professional programmers.
A private school can't require your kids to do anything, because they are not required to go to private school. If you choose to send your kids to a private school, then anything they "require" is actually chosen by you.
Why not? Is climate science fundamentally opposed to oil use? If so, why do you think that is? Could it be because the facts of climate science so strongly speak to the dangers of continued oil use? If not, where does the bias come from? Do you think these people just woke up one day and decided to take on the most powerful industry in the world for no reason?
If the facts of climate science did not support AGW so strongly, there would be no reason for oil friendly individuals to avoid climate science. Actually, they could make a great name for themselves by demonstrating that AGW were false. But this doesn't happen because AGW is a fact.
The only path forward is not to call it a hearing assistance device at all.
That's the idea. Clearly a simple pocket computer with audio input and output isn't a hearing assistance device. Otherwise every smart phone would be a medical device.
Similarly, a piece of code is just a piece of code. Not a medical device. Publish it open source and disclaim all warranties.
The electronics must be small, they mustn't be very heavy, and the must do something that is computationally expensive (signal isolation in a noisy background), combined with amplification, all in a custom fitting (to your ear) enclosure.
No they don't. Just use earbuds. Run a wire to a box with a microcontroller(or R-pi), with another wire leading to a mic on your lapel. Power the thing with some AA batteries. Total hardware cost $100. Sure, it will look goofy, but it's better than being unable to hear.
The only hard part is the software. But how hard would it be for some grad student audiologist to knock up an open source algorithm based on published data?
Apologies, the Greenpeace US budget is around 10 million/year. Globally it's 360 million. I should have read more carefully.
I will point out that 360 million is still peanuts compared to the oil industry. If money speaks louder than facts in climate science, why is the consensus not what the oil industry wants to hear?
Greenpeace was one
Greenpeace's total budget is around10 million per year. How is it that they can influence the overwhelming majority of climate research?
If climate science is primarily agenda driven, and climate science is overwhelmingly in favor of AGW there must be a group out there that profits from the fabrication of data for the AGW hypothesis and has more money than the oil industry. I don't see any candidates.
The controversy I'm talking about is not quite the same as it seems you are thinking. Example: If I make a shitload of money polluting and you say it's bad, having a controversy allows me to keep polluting and continue to make assloads of money. This is a very common business tactic.
Yes, this would prompt the oil industry to manufacture controversy allowing it to continue polluting. But that's only one side of the story.
Who benefits by the fabrication of AGW data? If no one benefits, then how do you square your claim that climate science is primarily agenda driven with the fact that climate science is overwhelmingly in agreement with the AGW hypothesis?
I never said NASA was bad, why would you infer that?
NASA does a considerable amount of research into the radiation of energy by planetary bodies. This research is diretly related to the AGW argument. Those models are developed and used by people like James Hansen to predict what will happen to the energy our planet absorbs, given the composition of the atmosphere. If you are correct, and all of this is bunk science driven by an agenda, then NASA must have been coopted by some special interest group. Is that your claim?