For instance, in Texas in history we need to teach the controversy of the Alamo. Have the kids research and debate if the heros of the Alamo were in fact primarily concerned with keeping slaver in the nation of texas, a basic right that would have taken away if Mexico's liberal no slavery policy were allowed to prevail.
There are many examples of this. In world history rather than focusing on wars, we could include the faith based authoritarian regimes and ask if faith has been used to create the oppress more than used to help the oppressed. Again, not take sides. Just have student read about the controversy in order to develop students better at problem solving.
We could do the same thing in literature, reading books that teach the controversy of religion, democracy, and capitalism.
My problem with teaching the controversy is that if I ask a christian why we have public school prayer when the bible prohibits it, they don't want to take about that controversy. So why are we taking about evolution when there is really nothing in the bible, or at the Christian testament, that prevents it from validity. Of course if they really wanted to pursue a controversy, they would be working on disavowing the trinity, something that no good protest, only the modern Catholics who follow the Council of Niceae, should believe.
So was this the one where Metro froze to the point they had to use the extra tablet. I know this is just beta, but entering data is not an experimental feature. It is not like were playing Angry Birds. I hope that these things are cheap enough so firms can purchase a Redundant Array of Tablet Devices. Can't imagine what will happen when one freezes at a sales meeting, though.
While I don't agree that CD are unpleasant to listen to, there is a generational shift, and I think if the numbers are looked at in an objective way, this shift is what is responsible for decline of sales.
The fact is that record sales boomed for a few generations, I would argue to due to radio and good marketing on the part of the labels. We see tens of millions of albums selling records in the 1970's and 1980's(the Beatles and other started the trend in the alte 60's). That's it. The drop of new albums began in the 90's. The CD stalled the drop, but we have virtually no new album topping 40 million for the 1990's, and there has been 20 years for it to happen, and public that is growing and kids with more money.
There are still a few big artists, but when the recording companies blame piracy, it is because they can't blame what they really want to, which is a loss of entitlement. They want to make money just because they made money before.For a generation they made huge amounts of money by selling a product a generation wanted, and now they want to foce the next generation to consume the products in the same way that maximized revenue. It is silly. It is like the state mandating that online sales are illegal because they deny the right of brick and mortar store to make enough profit to keep the inefficient model in tact.
This applies to movies and everything else. There is not right to profit, just the pursuit fo profit. And if the market sees no value in a product, then so be it. The value in music, movies, etc is not what it was. The suppliers need to adjust.
For building, the code is international, published by the International Code Council. You can have you own copy at around $500 a year. If you are building, this is what you need. Each locality is going to decide which of these are enforced, but to know the details you will have to pay cash.
I assume what the article is taking about is that building codes and the like are made into law, but those codes are not actually written into the law, but included by reference. To me this is a quibble. No one is hiding these standards from the public. I presume if you distributed copies of these, there would be trouble just like any other copyrighted material, but no is stopping lending. There is a reference copy at my local library. I know that kids these day think walking to the library to get a book is a huge violation of their civil rights, but really, it is not huge deal to someone who wants to build. And if one is a contractor, paying $500 to support the development of such standards is probably not a huge amount. And the convince of having the code automatically influencing the law, rather than having to require government intervention, probably provides a good bit of simplification for builders.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting debate. I would not simply have a knee jerk reaction that information wants to be free, because good information does cost money, and money is hard to get, especially for these international agreements. Just look at the funding to the UN, which is a fraction of a percent of the US budget. People think we funding an organization that has the funding to take over the US. And we pay about 25% of the costs.
In the context of current conservative though, opposing the requirement that a women to be raped by order of the state prior to having acces to an abortion is liberal. Anyone who opposed the stated mandated rape would be roundly criticized by conservative establishment. This does not mean that someone who says a women should not be raped is a great proponent of the women's right to control her own medical care, or even that such a person considers a women to be a person, simply that that person understands that state regulation of a doctor patient relationship is wrong, and the state mandating frivolous medical procedures, or create government board to tell a person what or what not can be done, is wrong.
Likewise, if there was a law that prohibited prayer in anyplace outside of a religious institution, I could say I was not an anti-religious zealot because I only supported the enforcement in flagrant cases, for instance, where a family was praying in public in a distracting manner, or where someone was having a party and playing Fireflight too loud. Then we could bring them to court and prosecute them for playing. You see, I don't hate the people who choose to worship false idols and fails to follow the bible(Matthew 6:5), I simply want an ordered society where we follow the rule of law. That I get to harass people who annoy me, even when they are in the privacy of their own home, is just frosting on the cake.
Just because one hates a little less than one peers does not give the person a right to deny their bigotry. Is a person who only burns down empty churches and synagogues any less of a bigot than someone who shoot the members? I would think not. Just because one is a little less hateful and therefore is ridiculed by one's peers, does that give free reign to other denegate the annoying people? I don't think so.
I believe that Card thinks he is not a homophobe just like rush thinks he did nothing wrong on his little trip to the DR or Santorum thinks that he believes he has respect for the ability of woman to think for herself. And all these people are probably a little less crazy than some of the other people in their peer group, and for that we can be thankful. That there are some insane people who are not so insane as to actually want to do harm to the people they hate, unless, or course, they don't know their place. People who are just keeping the lesser folks in their place and enforcing the norms of society, then, are to thanks, not called out for who they are.
Which is to say that I know where Card is coming from, and by the measure of the religious right that wishes to convert anyone they do not agree with I am sure he is a flaming liberal that love to bend over for Obama, but in the world where love and tolerance and acceptance prevail, only a homophobe could write something like that. The rest of us believe that we adults should be able to have consensual sex in our homes and show affection for who we please outdoors. After all, I don't see police harassing straight couples leaving the theatre.
To continue on the serious note, everyone, I mean everyone, complains that boys don't read. The fact is that if a boy is brought up int he average school, he is given nothing, and excuse my language, but chick lit to read. The only reason I read was because my father read and it was stuff interesting to boys. Heinlein, Pohl, etc. It was pulp, but it got me into the habit of reading so i could read more of the conventional and socially acceptable stuff.
I mean school is so screwed up that when we read the Canterbury Tales, the cool tales were the ones that could not be assigned.
To go into conspiracy theory time I think the conservatives don't want kids to read. The books that are allowed tend to enforce a traditional world view that is common to those who are less intelligent. The books that challenge that view, and are allowed, tend to end with the protagonist learning that the protest was a youthful indiscretion.
So Ender's Game, though written by a very traditional homophobe, certainly challenges the conservative world view and does not end well. Though the male dominated world is validated, there is an indication that doning anything to win a war. As so often happens, single incidences in the book are used to provide cover for objections that is really about general content. In effect, too many parents are afraid when their children learn to think.
That there is no way to fix the default interface in Windows 8, of Vista to run like XP. unlike most other OS(like OS X lion where you would fix the trackpad) or most *nix where you can run everything whatever GUI or CL you want, even X. This is pretty much why I only upgraded MS Windows XP when it became clear that MS Windows 7 worked. There is no way to go back with MS.
Note to bash, but the install summary kind of reminds that MS Windows XP for the longest time could not really deal with mass storage devices, such a hard disks, cameras, video recorders, without a special device driver. Even now MS Windows wants a device driver for each flash drive.
Not to say that one thing is good because another is worse, but the issues with the *nix GUIs is they are developed with different viewpoint than say MS or Apple uses. Because they are not what people expect or are used to, and because each iteration might be more radical, users think they are bad. Just like people are hating on Metro without even seeing how it works in the real world over time. Of course it could be clippy.
Race conditions are always a primary concern when dealing with this sort of thing. I would think that not building two systems to do the same job would be a basic thing to avoid, rather a common problem. Of couse, it could be that a certain part of the cloud is being built by people who do not know what they are doing, that are putting prefab units together with no understanding of what is going on, and in such a case it could be that race conditions are created without any knowledge. In such a case, however, it is likely that incompetence has crated other issues. Of couse since race conditions are intermittent and often very difficult to diagnose, such a problem could create long term uptime problem, in opposition to what the summary suggests.
I would also suggest that there are two clouds, emerging from the existing infrastructure that has been popular for at least the past five years, and in use for about 10 years since the technology was cheaply available. What most people see as the cloud is extremely cheap remote capability made practical because of cheap and fast always on network connections. This will be unreliable because most customers are going to value cost over reliability. We see this with Amazon. I think the the other cloud, emerging from the traditional mainframe or mini datacenter, do provide real value and reliability over any traditional solution for those that can justify the cost. Imagine real time offsite backup to every continent. Instant redundant processing in the UK when the North American grid goes down.
I am not grammer nazi, but use of "live" was always an annoyance to me, especially when with real. It is like we are are a bunch of 10 years old and talking about meeting a real live basketball player. Or even worse reading ads about live psychics. I often wanted to start a firm that featured dead psychics. I mean wouldn't that be better? They are in the after life and communicate with the living over specially interfaced phones. That my idea, I will sue anyone who uses it. Then of course there is the live girls on stage. What is the alternative, dead girls on stage? I suppose that distinction needs to be made so that a certain segment of the community does not get confused.
Of course speaking of dead astronauts as opposed to live astronauts is a bit disconcerting as it reminds us that due to the fact the human space travel is only 50 years old, and it dangerous nature, it is still more likely that an astronaut had dies in an accident, on the job or otherwise, than of natural causes. Cancer and Heart attacks, like for all us, are a popular option of natural death.
Research in user interfaces and the like is probably a good fit, but I find that many employers want a masters degree. It is not so much that they want a masters degree, or they are willing to pay for a masters degree, but you will competing against people who have masters degrees. So who will they choose, when experience is non existence
But the submitter did say something about coding, so I assume that the part of the computer gig they want is coding. In that case the best thing to do is get some experience coding. Read the books on how to create an application, not just be a code monkey. Find people who need code written, and write it. Create more open source software. I see ads for Android and iOS developers. Write some app that utilizes your personal knowledge and skills. iOS is where the PC was 25 years ago. Lean and efficient, with employers needing people who knew what they are doing, not just with the proper degrees.
I know this is easier said than done. For the most part I code when I am paid for it. It requires a discipline to put together a professional product for grins. But that is the point. The employer knows that if you do it for free, then you will do it for pay. Again, a masters degree will probably help in whatever you do, so two years to a masters in another field, maybe three, is maybe worthwhile. But code monkeys respect code.
The world changes and we have to have legal definitions to meet those changes. Those legal definition by their very nature imposes societies will on the everyone. For instance, we don't require that a person who kills another person believe that they are murderer, just that the act is done with certain set of circumstances. The circumstances, not the beliefs of the individual, dictates the jury decision and any sentence that may be imposed. For instance, Eric Rudolph brutally murdered Alice Hawthorne. He believed he was doing the will of god by bringing attention to the murder of babies. Many people, presumably christian like himself, agreed with him, and helped him evade arrest for 5 years. If we base conviction on belief, we should have pinned a medal on him, not put him in jail. But we are a country primarily of rule, not faith. So though he did not get the sentence that, say, the beltway killers got, he was punished.
But your argument does have some traditional support. For instance, for years to be convicted of a rape the person who claimed he was just having consensual sex with a willing woman had be shown to believe he was rapist, and not just a boy being a boy. So question were asked. Was she a coed that went to a lot of parties? Was she on birth control? Did she have a boyfriend? Did she go up and flirt with guys? Was she wearing revealing clothes? If any of these were true, then of course the guy could not think he was a rapist. Here was a willing woman who would take care of his hard on. No harm no foul. And if she was drunk, so what? That was just so she would not have to take responsibility. She probably planned it because she hated the guy and wanted to put him jail. Increasingly, however, that is not the world we live in. In the 1970's the rape kit was developed which helped move rape cases away from 'he didn't mean to rape her' to 'if the physical evidence implies rape, then it is rape'.
So we are dealing with two things here. The first is technology that makes secretly filming people and distributing said video very easy. I think we all agree that such a thing should be mitigated with strong consequences. Any of us can imagine a roommate situation with a sociopath who thinks it is funny to film us and post it to the internet. Sure we should be strong enough not to kill ourselves, and a moral conscious should be enough, but it is not always. Look at Eric Rudolph. He was alleged to have a moral conscious, but he enjoyed killing innocent mothers. Sometimes an example must be made.
The second thing is understanding that certain things are no longer tolerated. When the boys of Mississippi Delta mutilated and lynched Emmet Till for chatting up a white girl, the locals confirmed they were well within their rights. In 1991, when some kids from the suburbs of Houston drove into the inner city with the intent to kill a gay person, there was not much to stop them. In the end ne person was killed, another critically wounded. Being the south, and kids were just having fun, most of them just got probation, and most to the rest has served their time. In Texas where such a murder could include the death penalty, we have no jail time or just a token amount. For premeditated murder. The killers of James Byrd, Jr were not so lucky. They waited a few years too late to have their fun and play their prank. Two or three received the death penalty. One believed he committed no crime. I am sure they would say they have no bias, simply trying to keep society together, keep the values in place.
It is unclear if anyone access data. It appears from the write that people were more interested in personal information(facebook) than corporate espionage.This makes sense as what is the average person going to do with corporate data? Sell to another corporate entity. How many of us has such contacts for espionage? No, we hope to find some embarrassing picture of celebrity that we can sell to the tabloids. So we rifle in facebook and the pictures.
As far as returning the phone, there has to be someway to get data to return the phone.This involves one of two things. First is waiting for the person to call the phone and hope the person who answers is intent on returning it,or going through the address book and calling people so the phone can be returned. The later was how I got my Razr back when I lost it on the Texas A&M campus. So rummaging though the phone, as some people did, can either be considered snooping or data gathering to try to return the phone. Accessing email may be to send an email say the phone was found, or trying to steal email. The motive is ambiguous, though the scare mongering obvious. If I found a lost phone, I would expect a call on it pretty promptly asking for it back. The lack of such a call would mean that something else was going on.
In fact the only thing that is clear is that if you lose a phone, there is at least 50% chance that no effort will be made to return it. From the data It seems about half the finders did what any competent thief would do. Remove the sim card, go to the nearest public computer and wipe the phone. The real race when losing a phone is getting a lock before this happens.
It pretty much treated Texas a developing country, full of cheap labor, desperate government willing to pay companies to build, and no labor standards. Texas does have two advantage. First, unlike much of the south, we do not have Nazi style laws in which people can be stopped without probable cause and detained for lack of papers. Texas also has a pretty good higher educational system, so there are a lot of english majors in desperate need of work to pay of huge students loansIn state can easily rake up loans of 20K).
Rick Perry, of course is desperate to keep unemployment down. The primary method of doing so is government job(texas has had about a 20% public sector job growth), the rest are low paying no benefit jobs. In this light the Apple jobs are likely to be superior, but certainly not the engineering jobs that we would be getting in Texas if we had a decent governor and lege. Texas does have engineers, and does have a lot technology, and we should not be begging for these third world jobs. I certainly don't like the slush fund the governor uses to get such deals done.
I would go even further. If I were supervising a lab, and every calibration came in as a simple spot on reading, I would pretty much know that the calibrations were not being run. I would expect to the at least the occasional off reading with evidence a correction has been made. As such the supervisors and/or process were defective and require adjustment. If the officers were allowed to write done numbers without testing, that is just human nature. We have no evidence that they were not trained to so do. The only miscarriage of justice here will happen if supervising personel are not severely reprimanded and if the process is not improved to make it more robust.
You are looking at this from the point of view that Google purpose to make developers use Google Wallet. While this may be part of the reason, and is certainly the justification, it is not the primary objective.
Google always has an objective and a cover. The objective is to often to control the user or the users data. The cover is search, apps, and other useful services. In this case the cover is wallet, the desire is to close the app store in an effort to protect user from malware. If they actual closed the app store, there would not only be political problems, but also financial burdens as they would have to review and verify the safety of apps. Failure to do so would lead to liability issues. This way, they have data on every developer, and, if an app proves to be malicious, it is easy enough to close the google wallet account and cut of the developer. Most of the benefits of a closed app store, with none of the political or personel costs, and a little bit of extra profit in the process. This is really an idea from the mind of an evil genius.
The question is what has Google given back. Webkit has given some code back to KHTML. WebKit2 is the open source alternative to chrome. While parts of chrome may be OSS, it is not like WebKit2, which is OSS. Certainly there would be no chrome without the development efforts of Apple.
This is not to say that Apple has not closed some projects. They have. But Google business model depends on acquiring public property, repackaging it, closing it, and suppling it for ad revenue and other compensation.
Do you live in a right to work state? It is the same thing. People are not allowed to create a closed club. They have to let in anyone. The employer has the right to tell the workers what they can and can't do in the club. The government tells the private club what they can and can't do with the money. The government tells they club they must provide welfare to those who chose not to join the club.
The job creators are the aristocracy, and their needs must be paramount. If they need bribes to hire workers they need anyway, give it to them. if they need military to put down worker rebellions, give it to them. If they need to let children of employees die to keep up personal lifestyles that is too important a right to infringe upon by passing laws that insure that kids have basic health care, as the cost of a fraction of a percent of loss of income is too much.
Yes, in happy land the few laws would be enforced to make sure that rights of individual would be protected from the megalomaniacs, but all too often that is not the case. Those who serve the megalomaniacs are too afraid to lose their job, and will not pass laws to keep the maniacal villains in check, or even utter simply words that what the villain said was wrong.
Ideally such laws would not be necessary. Ideally the job market, like any other market, would be of low friction so that employees and employers could find each other in a way that supply and demand was matched, instead of the often adversarial situation that exists now. Unfortunately, the market are broken, again primarily due to the desires of the megalomaniacs, who value personal power more than values and efficient markets.
I would say the employee has no choice bu to engage in rebellious tactics, maybe like the scarlet pimpernel. Fortunately technology means that one does not have to an aristocrat to defend oneself. Create a second facebook profile.
Seriously, there is no defense of this. It will be the limiting factor in selling mobile devices. Sure one is mostly going to use with wifi, but if the selling point is faster mobile, yet expected planes only give you a few hours of usage, at the most, there is little use in it. Apple explicitly showed us how fast and clear movies are over ATT and Verizon, yet existing data plans won't even let us watch a movie a week. The speed increase and mobile improvements must be accompanied by bandwidth increases. This is simply going to be market expectation. I understand bandwidth is limited, but increased celluar speed is simply a waste of money without increased bandwidth.
The breakout app that sells a million new ipads is not going to be shooting and editing low depth pictures or shooting shaking movies or dictating voice notes. That is the iPhone. It is watching streaming movies on a bigger screen in the car. And with the caps there is just no way to do this on a regular basis.
No the moral of the story is that the average person have sex is no interest to someone who sees it hundreds of times a day. Despite what your teachers may have told you, you are not especially special.
Combine this with the fact that if these people are doing this job, they probably need the money and are going to be unwilling to take risks. Sure, there are some who are in for criminal gain. Just like it is crazy to give a credit card to any person who takes it out of your sight, even for a second.
There is really little difference between this and what probably happens at insurance companies. Low paid employees get a hold of embarrassing data and then make fun of the client. It is one thing to be cautious about what one puts on line. It is another to turn an unfortunate job category into an egotistical fright fest.
I think this is what defines many firms, who can take advantage of an opportunity. Google has always been willing to do whatever it takes to monetize a situation.
It is absolutely true that homeopathic therapies largely has not been subject to scientific analysis, and when it is it has been found to be lacking.
That said homeopathic and such therapies have been used to effective in managing the health of communities for a long time. It is possible that such therapy may be useful in managing the health needs in the future. The fact is not science based is not an issue in medicine, because medicine is not really science based. The science in medicine is use primarily to protect doctors from the harm they cause. Since homeopathy and such therapies cause no harm, there is no need for the protection of science
Let's look at psychology which until the 1970's classified being gay as a illness and now revels in filling children bodies with poison. Gay as illness is a religious characterization, and never had any basis in science. The science that was done, and the classification in the DSM was to protect the doctors who wished to damage humans to fulfill a religious quest, not an effort to heal humans. Likewise, the scandals of the fake research and ghost written papers has shown that science has nothing to do with current crop of psychographics. Zyloft has had dozens of ghost written papers advocating Zyloft. A researcher that is not willing to put his or her name to a paper, or writes paper for money, has a huge credibility problem. The fact that a third of the paper for Zyloft are not traditional research is troublesome.
Likewise Vioxx., which kills patients, is not based on proper traditional science, but on paid research by the drug companies. The fake science protects the doctors who prescribed the medicine, and protect Merck from taking full responsibility for those deaths. Again, traditional medicine does not get any of those protections.
In more 'hard medicine' look at heart therapies There were few studies on women in term of cardiovascular health until the end of the twentieth century. Up until that time the focus was on men, and women were considered to be essentially the same. Not completely true. The pseudo research that so characterizes the medicine as the adopted blackshep of the genuine research community was based on what the power wanted to believe is true, rather than what observations indicated to be true.
This debate is mostly about the pharmaceuticals trying to enforce the monopoly of drugs as the primary method to manage human health. Most people who are using traditional methods are just reacting to the real message that 'drugs are bad' and it may be useful for look for other methods, even the effect of those methods cannot be quantified. It is of great benefit to the pharmaceutical companies to put a child on ridlin and guarantee a customer until death does them part, but is it beneficial to the child? And this is not a think of the kids moment. Adults are being injured every day because of the beliefs that drugs are good. Just remember when everyone was taking Pseudoephedrine for even mild symptoms of cough and cold. The amount of damage done is incalculable.
If someone wants to take about the best way to take care of patients, this is a good conversation If someone simply wants to defend prescription drugs as savior of humankind, while there is truth in it we do not need to bow down before the gods of the pharmco. If we want to talk about the decline of the university, I think it would behoove us to analyze how the pharmcos have contributed to that decline in research integrity.
If they are tracking, they can be tracking everything you do, even if you are running software and data off a USB driver. If it has a camera, the camera potentially can be turned on without your knowledge.
I don't really go for such paranoid stuff, but I don't use work laptops either. I have a macbook air that I use for personal stuff and most work stuff I need. If there is something specific that needs to be done for work, I take and use the work laptop, but not for personal stuff. It is just a phone. I would never conduct personal conservation, live or text, over a corporate phone. I just don't want anyone to know those things. And I know if that if a device belongs to corporate, they are free to do whatever they want.
So there are three choices. Use the work laptop and hope that none of your personal life gets caught up in the IT net or snoopers who have nothing better to do. Use a personal machine and work machine, maybe personal is a tablet. Or use a personal machine for most things, and the work machine only when you have to.
I had a computer in around 1983, could have early 84, but I had one. And a modem. Many more of my friends has an Atari, which had more computer functionality than the average gaming console. We also had many ways to connect with each other. Mostly community systems, but a few paid services. Of course there were many mainframes still around, so I spent much time connecting to the mainframe and coding.
But that has nothing to do with this. This, from what I can tell, is about an early attempt to make the TV interactive. The fact is that many have tried to make the TV interactive, and many have failed. It is likely until the TV has an OS that subsumes the tv functionality to a customized GPC, it will remain this way. This is the way that the phone became a smart phone, by sacrificing the phone. I don't care what anyone says, the smart phone is no where near as easy and reliable as the 1970's touchtone brick.
The petroleum narrative is a simplistic and naive story meant to promote an industry that, on a whole, is not going to provide long term energy solutions to the US. Petroleum is not going to solve the gas problem any more than than producing more seeds solves the food shortage. Sure, you can distribute the seeds, but without arable land, labor, fertilizer, there is going to be no food.
Gasoline is the same thing. We have petroleum. What we need are refineries and refineries that will sell to the US. In the current free market environment, and the specter that shale is going to cost upwards of $60 a barrel to extract, selling gas n the US is nor profitable. What is profitable, given the extremely cheap natural gas available in the US, is refining the crude. But selling it as $4 to us, when you can get $5-$6 in other parts of the world, that is insanity. That is why the US is going to exports of refined product are going to increase to 100 billion dollars over the next few years. Is this going to make gas more expensive. Yes, but not because there is not enough oil, but because only so much can be refined, and the free market is going to sell that refined product to the place where demand results in the highest price, which is not the US.
But we say we can build more refineries. Why, yes, we can, if we have a business plan. And where is that business plan going to sell refined product? Not the us where the public expects the oil companies to be a charity, but elsewhere where the product is valued.
So how can we keep prices low, at least for the short term. The conservative house has to pass a bill that taxes gasoline exports to a degree where they are no longer profitable. That will put around $80 billion dollars worth of fuel on the US market overnight. No need to wait for shale. Just force the fuel that is produced at home to be consumed at home. This is not a naive narrative to promote dead business models. This is simple economics.
Slashdot Mirror
There are many examples of this. In world history rather than focusing on wars, we could include the faith based authoritarian regimes and ask if faith has been used to create the oppress more than used to help the oppressed. Again, not take sides. Just have student read about the controversy in order to develop students better at problem solving.
We could do the same thing in literature, reading books that teach the controversy of religion, democracy, and capitalism.
My problem with teaching the controversy is that if I ask a christian why we have public school prayer when the bible prohibits it, they don't want to take about that controversy. So why are we taking about evolution when there is really nothing in the bible, or at the Christian testament, that prevents it from validity. Of course if they really wanted to pursue a controversy, they would be working on disavowing the trinity, something that no good protest, only the modern Catholics who follow the Council of Niceae, should believe.
So was this the one where Metro froze to the point they had to use the extra tablet. I know this is just beta, but entering data is not an experimental feature. It is not like were playing Angry Birds. I hope that these things are cheap enough so firms can purchase a Redundant Array of Tablet Devices. Can't imagine what will happen when one freezes at a sales meeting, though.
The fact is that record sales boomed for a few generations, I would argue to due to radio and good marketing on the part of the labels. We see tens of millions of albums selling records in the 1970's and 1980's(the Beatles and other started the trend in the alte 60's). That's it. The drop of new albums began in the 90's. The CD stalled the drop, but we have virtually no new album topping 40 million for the 1990's, and there has been 20 years for it to happen, and public that is growing and kids with more money.
There are still a few big artists, but when the recording companies blame piracy, it is because they can't blame what they really want to, which is a loss of entitlement. They want to make money just because they made money before.For a generation they made huge amounts of money by selling a product a generation wanted, and now they want to foce the next generation to consume the products in the same way that maximized revenue. It is silly. It is like the state mandating that online sales are illegal because they deny the right of brick and mortar store to make enough profit to keep the inefficient model in tact.
This applies to movies and everything else. There is not right to profit, just the pursuit fo profit. And if the market sees no value in a product, then so be it. The value in music, movies, etc is not what it was. The suppliers need to adjust.
I assume what the article is taking about is that building codes and the like are made into law, but those codes are not actually written into the law, but included by reference. To me this is a quibble. No one is hiding these standards from the public. I presume if you distributed copies of these, there would be trouble just like any other copyrighted material, but no is stopping lending. There is a reference copy at my local library. I know that kids these day think walking to the library to get a book is a huge violation of their civil rights, but really, it is not huge deal to someone who wants to build. And if one is a contractor, paying $500 to support the development of such standards is probably not a huge amount. And the convince of having the code automatically influencing the law, rather than having to require government intervention, probably provides a good bit of simplification for builders.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting debate. I would not simply have a knee jerk reaction that information wants to be free, because good information does cost money, and money is hard to get, especially for these international agreements. Just look at the funding to the UN, which is a fraction of a percent of the US budget. People think we funding an organization that has the funding to take over the US. And we pay about 25% of the costs.
Likewise, if there was a law that prohibited prayer in anyplace outside of a religious institution, I could say I was not an anti-religious zealot because I only supported the enforcement in flagrant cases, for instance, where a family was praying in public in a distracting manner, or where someone was having a party and playing Fireflight too loud. Then we could bring them to court and prosecute them for playing. You see, I don't hate the people who choose to worship false idols and fails to follow the bible(Matthew 6:5), I simply want an ordered society where we follow the rule of law. That I get to harass people who annoy me, even when they are in the privacy of their own home, is just frosting on the cake.
Just because one hates a little less than one peers does not give the person a right to deny their bigotry. Is a person who only burns down empty churches and synagogues any less of a bigot than someone who shoot the members? I would think not. Just because one is a little less hateful and therefore is ridiculed by one's peers, does that give free reign to other denegate the annoying people? I don't think so.
I believe that Card thinks he is not a homophobe just like rush thinks he did nothing wrong on his little trip to the DR or Santorum thinks that he believes he has respect for the ability of woman to think for herself. And all these people are probably a little less crazy than some of the other people in their peer group, and for that we can be thankful. That there are some insane people who are not so insane as to actually want to do harm to the people they hate, unless, or course, they don't know their place. People who are just keeping the lesser folks in their place and enforcing the norms of society, then, are to thanks, not called out for who they are.
Which is to say that I know where Card is coming from, and by the measure of the religious right that wishes to convert anyone they do not agree with I am sure he is a flaming liberal that love to bend over for Obama, but in the world where love and tolerance and acceptance prevail, only a homophobe could write something like that. The rest of us believe that we adults should be able to have consensual sex in our homes and show affection for who we please outdoors. After all, I don't see police harassing straight couples leaving the theatre.
I mean school is so screwed up that when we read the Canterbury Tales, the cool tales were the ones that could not be assigned.
To go into conspiracy theory time I think the conservatives don't want kids to read. The books that are allowed tend to enforce a traditional world view that is common to those who are less intelligent. The books that challenge that view, and are allowed, tend to end with the protagonist learning that the protest was a youthful indiscretion.
So Ender's Game, though written by a very traditional homophobe, certainly challenges the conservative world view and does not end well. Though the male dominated world is validated, there is an indication that doning anything to win a war. As so often happens, single incidences in the book are used to provide cover for objections that is really about general content. In effect, too many parents are afraid when their children learn to think.
Note to bash, but the install summary kind of reminds that MS Windows XP for the longest time could not really deal with mass storage devices, such a hard disks, cameras, video recorders, without a special device driver. Even now MS Windows wants a device driver for each flash drive.
Not to say that one thing is good because another is worse, but the issues with the *nix GUIs is they are developed with different viewpoint than say MS or Apple uses. Because they are not what people expect or are used to, and because each iteration might be more radical, users think they are bad. Just like people are hating on Metro without even seeing how it works in the real world over time. Of course it could be clippy.
I would also suggest that there are two clouds, emerging from the existing infrastructure that has been popular for at least the past five years, and in use for about 10 years since the technology was cheaply available. What most people see as the cloud is extremely cheap remote capability made practical because of cheap and fast always on network connections. This will be unreliable because most customers are going to value cost over reliability. We see this with Amazon. I think the the other cloud, emerging from the traditional mainframe or mini datacenter, do provide real value and reliability over any traditional solution for those that can justify the cost. Imagine real time offsite backup to every continent. Instant redundant processing in the UK when the North American grid goes down.
Of course speaking of dead astronauts as opposed to live astronauts is a bit disconcerting as it reminds us that due to the fact the human space travel is only 50 years old, and it dangerous nature, it is still more likely that an astronaut had dies in an accident, on the job or otherwise, than of natural causes. Cancer and Heart attacks, like for all us, are a popular option of natural death.
But the submitter did say something about coding, so I assume that the part of the computer gig they want is coding. In that case the best thing to do is get some experience coding. Read the books on how to create an application, not just be a code monkey. Find people who need code written, and write it. Create more open source software. I see ads for Android and iOS developers. Write some app that utilizes your personal knowledge and skills. iOS is where the PC was 25 years ago. Lean and efficient, with employers needing people who knew what they are doing, not just with the proper degrees.
I know this is easier said than done. For the most part I code when I am paid for it. It requires a discipline to put together a professional product for grins. But that is the point. The employer knows that if you do it for free, then you will do it for pay. Again, a masters degree will probably help in whatever you do, so two years to a masters in another field, maybe three, is maybe worthwhile. But code monkeys respect code.
It won't matter. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalties-from-girl-scouts-and-regrets-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
But your argument does have some traditional support. For instance, for years to be convicted of a rape the person who claimed he was just having consensual sex with a willing woman had be shown to believe he was rapist, and not just a boy being a boy. So question were asked. Was she a coed that went to a lot of parties? Was she on birth control? Did she have a boyfriend? Did she go up and flirt with guys? Was she wearing revealing clothes? If any of these were true, then of course the guy could not think he was a rapist. Here was a willing woman who would take care of his hard on. No harm no foul. And if she was drunk, so what? That was just so she would not have to take responsibility. She probably planned it because she hated the guy and wanted to put him jail. Increasingly, however, that is not the world we live in. In the 1970's the rape kit was developed which helped move rape cases away from 'he didn't mean to rape her' to 'if the physical evidence implies rape, then it is rape'.
So we are dealing with two things here. The first is technology that makes secretly filming people and distributing said video very easy. I think we all agree that such a thing should be mitigated with strong consequences. Any of us can imagine a roommate situation with a sociopath who thinks it is funny to film us and post it to the internet. Sure we should be strong enough not to kill ourselves, and a moral conscious should be enough, but it is not always. Look at Eric Rudolph. He was alleged to have a moral conscious, but he enjoyed killing innocent mothers. Sometimes an example must be made.
The second thing is understanding that certain things are no longer tolerated. When the boys of Mississippi Delta mutilated and lynched Emmet Till for chatting up a white girl, the locals confirmed they were well within their rights. In 1991, when some kids from the suburbs of Houston drove into the inner city with the intent to kill a gay person, there was not much to stop them. In the end ne person was killed, another critically wounded. Being the south, and kids were just having fun, most of them just got probation, and most to the rest has served their time. In Texas where such a murder could include the death penalty, we have no jail time or just a token amount. For premeditated murder. The killers of James Byrd, Jr were not so lucky. They waited a few years too late to have their fun and play their prank. Two or three received the death penalty. One believed he committed no crime. I am sure they would say they have no bias, simply trying to keep society together, keep the values in place.
As far as returning the phone, there has to be someway to get data to return the phone.This involves one of two things. First is waiting for the person to call the phone and hope the person who answers is intent on returning it,or going through the address book and calling people so the phone can be returned. The later was how I got my Razr back when I lost it on the Texas A&M campus. So rummaging though the phone, as some people did, can either be considered snooping or data gathering to try to return the phone. Accessing email may be to send an email say the phone was found, or trying to steal email. The motive is ambiguous, though the scare mongering obvious. If I found a lost phone, I would expect a call on it pretty promptly asking for it back. The lack of such a call would mean that something else was going on.
In fact the only thing that is clear is that if you lose a phone, there is at least 50% chance that no effort will be made to return it. From the data It seems about half the finders did what any competent thief would do. Remove the sim card, go to the nearest public computer and wipe the phone. The real race when losing a phone is getting a lock before this happens.
Rick Perry, of course is desperate to keep unemployment down. The primary method of doing so is government job(texas has had about a 20% public sector job growth), the rest are low paying no benefit jobs. In this light the Apple jobs are likely to be superior, but certainly not the engineering jobs that we would be getting in Texas if we had a decent governor and lege. Texas does have engineers, and does have a lot technology, and we should not be begging for these third world jobs. I certainly don't like the slush fund the governor uses to get such deals done.
I would go even further. If I were supervising a lab, and every calibration came in as a simple spot on reading, I would pretty much know that the calibrations were not being run. I would expect to the at least the occasional off reading with evidence a correction has been made. As such the supervisors and/or process were defective and require adjustment. If the officers were allowed to write done numbers without testing, that is just human nature. We have no evidence that they were not trained to so do. The only miscarriage of justice here will happen if supervising personel are not severely reprimanded and if the process is not improved to make it more robust.
Google always has an objective and a cover. The objective is to often to control the user or the users data. The cover is search, apps, and other useful services. In this case the cover is wallet, the desire is to close the app store in an effort to protect user from malware. If they actual closed the app store, there would not only be political problems, but also financial burdens as they would have to review and verify the safety of apps. Failure to do so would lead to liability issues. This way, they have data on every developer, and, if an app proves to be malicious, it is easy enough to close the google wallet account and cut of the developer. Most of the benefits of a closed app store, with none of the political or personel costs, and a little bit of extra profit in the process. This is really an idea from the mind of an evil genius.
This is not to say that Apple has not closed some projects. They have. But Google business model depends on acquiring public property, repackaging it, closing it, and suppling it for ad revenue and other compensation.
The job creators are the aristocracy, and their needs must be paramount. If they need bribes to hire workers they need anyway, give it to them. if they need military to put down worker rebellions, give it to them. If they need to let children of employees die to keep up personal lifestyles that is too important a right to infringe upon by passing laws that insure that kids have basic health care, as the cost of a fraction of a percent of loss of income is too much.
Yes, in happy land the few laws would be enforced to make sure that rights of individual would be protected from the megalomaniacs, but all too often that is not the case. Those who serve the megalomaniacs are too afraid to lose their job, and will not pass laws to keep the maniacal villains in check, or even utter simply words that what the villain said was wrong.
Ideally such laws would not be necessary. Ideally the job market, like any other market, would be of low friction so that employees and employers could find each other in a way that supply and demand was matched, instead of the often adversarial situation that exists now. Unfortunately, the market are broken, again primarily due to the desires of the megalomaniacs, who value personal power more than values and efficient markets.
I would say the employee has no choice bu to engage in rebellious tactics, maybe like the scarlet pimpernel. Fortunately technology means that one does not have to an aristocrat to defend oneself. Create a second facebook profile.
The breakout app that sells a million new ipads is not going to be shooting and editing low depth pictures or shooting shaking movies or dictating voice notes. That is the iPhone. It is watching streaming movies on a bigger screen in the car. And with the caps there is just no way to do this on a regular basis.
Combine this with the fact that if these people are doing this job, they probably need the money and are going to be unwilling to take risks. Sure, there are some who are in for criminal gain. Just like it is crazy to give a credit card to any person who takes it out of your sight, even for a second.
There is really little difference between this and what probably happens at insurance companies. Low paid employees get a hold of embarrassing data and then make fun of the client. It is one thing to be cautious about what one puts on line. It is another to turn an unfortunate job category into an egotistical fright fest.
I think this is what defines many firms, who can take advantage of an opportunity. Google has always been willing to do whatever it takes to monetize a situation.
That said homeopathic and such therapies have been used to effective in managing the health of communities for a long time. It is possible that such therapy may be useful in managing the health needs in the future. The fact is not science based is not an issue in medicine, because medicine is not really science based. The science in medicine is use primarily to protect doctors from the harm they cause. Since homeopathy and such therapies cause no harm, there is no need for the protection of science
Let's look at psychology which until the 1970's classified being gay as a illness and now revels in filling children bodies with poison. Gay as illness is a religious characterization, and never had any basis in science. The science that was done, and the classification in the DSM was to protect the doctors who wished to damage humans to fulfill a religious quest, not an effort to heal humans. Likewise, the scandals of the fake research and ghost written papers has shown that science has nothing to do with current crop of psychographics. Zyloft has had dozens of ghost written papers advocating Zyloft. A researcher that is not willing to put his or her name to a paper, or writes paper for money, has a huge credibility problem. The fact that a third of the paper for Zyloft are not traditional research is troublesome.
Likewise Vioxx., which kills patients, is not based on proper traditional science, but on paid research by the drug companies. The fake science protects the doctors who prescribed the medicine, and protect Merck from taking full responsibility for those deaths. Again, traditional medicine does not get any of those protections.
In more 'hard medicine' look at heart therapies There were few studies on women in term of cardiovascular health until the end of the twentieth century. Up until that time the focus was on men, and women were considered to be essentially the same. Not completely true. The pseudo research that so characterizes the medicine as the adopted blackshep of the genuine research community was based on what the power wanted to believe is true, rather than what observations indicated to be true.
This debate is mostly about the pharmaceuticals trying to enforce the monopoly of drugs as the primary method to manage human health. Most people who are using traditional methods are just reacting to the real message that 'drugs are bad' and it may be useful for look for other methods, even the effect of those methods cannot be quantified. It is of great benefit to the pharmaceutical companies to put a child on ridlin and guarantee a customer until death does them part, but is it beneficial to the child? And this is not a think of the kids moment. Adults are being injured every day because of the beliefs that drugs are good. Just remember when everyone was taking Pseudoephedrine for even mild symptoms of cough and cold. The amount of damage done is incalculable.
If someone wants to take about the best way to take care of patients, this is a good conversation If someone simply wants to defend prescription drugs as savior of humankind, while there is truth in it we do not need to bow down before the gods of the pharmco. If we want to talk about the decline of the university, I think it would behoove us to analyze how the pharmcos have contributed to that decline in research integrity.
I don't really go for such paranoid stuff, but I don't use work laptops either. I have a macbook air that I use for personal stuff and most work stuff I need. If there is something specific that needs to be done for work, I take and use the work laptop, but not for personal stuff. It is just a phone. I would never conduct personal conservation, live or text, over a corporate phone. I just don't want anyone to know those things. And I know if that if a device belongs to corporate, they are free to do whatever they want.
So there are three choices. Use the work laptop and hope that none of your personal life gets caught up in the IT net or snoopers who have nothing better to do. Use a personal machine and work machine, maybe personal is a tablet. Or use a personal machine for most things, and the work machine only when you have to.
But that has nothing to do with this. This, from what I can tell, is about an early attempt to make the TV interactive. The fact is that many have tried to make the TV interactive, and many have failed. It is likely until the TV has an OS that subsumes the tv functionality to a customized GPC, it will remain this way. This is the way that the phone became a smart phone, by sacrificing the phone. I don't care what anyone says, the smart phone is no where near as easy and reliable as the 1970's touchtone brick.
Gasoline is the same thing. We have petroleum. What we need are refineries and refineries that will sell to the US. In the current free market environment, and the specter that shale is going to cost upwards of $60 a barrel to extract, selling gas n the US is nor profitable. What is profitable, given the extremely cheap natural gas available in the US, is refining the crude. But selling it as $4 to us, when you can get $5-$6 in other parts of the world, that is insanity. That is why the US is going to exports of refined product are going to increase to 100 billion dollars over the next few years. Is this going to make gas more expensive. Yes, but not because there is not enough oil, but because only so much can be refined, and the free market is going to sell that refined product to the place where demand results in the highest price, which is not the US.
But we say we can build more refineries. Why, yes, we can, if we have a business plan. And where is that business plan going to sell refined product? Not the us where the public expects the oil companies to be a charity, but elsewhere where the product is valued.
So how can we keep prices low, at least for the short term. The conservative house has to pass a bill that taxes gasoline exports to a degree where they are no longer profitable. That will put around $80 billion dollars worth of fuel on the US market overnight. No need to wait for shale. Just force the fuel that is produced at home to be consumed at home. This is not a naive narrative to promote dead business models. This is simple economics.