In my kid's school, the PTA raises the money to fund things like a computer skills teacher, playground equipment, more expensive class materials, etc.
And even for a PTA that adds no value, the implication that the self-gratification-oriented crowd is stupider than average is baseless. They may be more overtly annoying, but they're not any stupider than the people who refuse to have anything to do with their children's school.
The PTA's members are fairly representative of the people whose children attend the school. You should expect the PTA members to be just as stupid and uneducated as the parents of all the students.
Therefore, you could reasonably expect the IQ of the average parent in the PTA to be about 100. Just like the rest of the world.
And mine too, apparently. Really cowardly way to go about supporting the company, guys.
You made an unsubstantiated, inflamatory implication in your post, accusing Sony of astroturfing their forums. As if there aren't plenty of Sony fanboys who would do that for Sony, for free.
Your comment was modded 40% Troll (and 40% Interesting and 10% Insightful, so far) as a result. You seriously think it's Sony employees/fans who are modding your Slashdot post down?
I'd speculate that the Troll mods on your post have nothing to do with supporting Sony.
Sounds as if these guys are doing exactly what they should do; evaluating the Internet-related problems they face given their mission to protect their government's interests. I'd be shocked if every major national government doesn't have folks looking at the same problems.
I'd certainly expect the average engineering "teacher" should be able to get through ANY single course in the engineering curriculum.
As long as the people teaching their subjects are competent teachers of that subject, I don't expect it matters if the art faculty are especially skilled in biochemistry.
I guess alot of this would come down to one question, are humans responisble for why they are an endangered species?
There are other relevant and unanswerable questions, such as would they have gone extinct without our help. However, since we can't save them all, the MOST important question BY FAR is how important is this creature to the ecosystem upon which I depend. Everything else is just moral masturbation.
This is the most important question BY FAR to you, perhaps. It's likely for many people, the most important question BY FAR is, "what do I have to do to survive until tomorrow?" However, they might well echo the sentiment about regarding the idea of preserving something beyond their own bodies as moral masturbation.
I haven't seen the full spec sheet, but I'm guessing the Commodore 64 will be using something more powerful than the Atom that's used in the Eee Keyboard.
And I suspect a lot of folks are underestimating the brand value of nostagia. We'll see how it does, but there's nothing interesting to me about Asus as a brand. All things being equal, I'd probably lean toward the familiar C64 brand in preference to the very generic-feeling Asus brand.
We're now spending 3 times as much on education, adjusted, as 25 years ago, yet the results are no better. Perhaps we should put more effort into insisting on quality outputs rather than increasing inputs -- tossing more money -- into the edu operation...
Who is "we"? Do you mean federal, state, local government? Are you talking about pre-college education, or college/university/vocational education?
Without any of that information, I don't understand your assertion or proposoal at all.
According to part of the YouTube terms of service, it means (among other things):
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.
Apparently there is some sort of information-gathering going on, and any at all without clear prior notice to the user and the user's acceptance is... unacceptable.
More to the point, tenure and promotion depend significantly upon recognized publications. I'd speculate that there is zero incentive for an academic to spend time updating Wikipedia, but the traditional conference/journal/book publication path is required for advancement in the academic career.
To represent the disinterest in Wikipedia updates as "academic ego" is extremely misleading.
From INSIDE my house, my laptop sees at least 5 different wireless networks from the surrounding houses. If I were in a dense neighborhood or an apartment complex, I'd see far more networks than that. So, no, 50 meters indoors is not "remarkably short range"; it is remarkably long range for a "private" network. This is not an accident; the range is long intentionally.
The blame for the Google fiasco is misdirected at Google. Yes, Google should not have collected the data, as a matter of privacy ethics. However, the real guilty parties are the wireless device vendors and the ISPs who provide to their customers wireless access devices that are insecure by default.
Hehe.... According to the Googe rep's statement in the article, it's part of Google's agreement with the FTC, "to address their privacy concerns." In any case, I agree, it does sound reasonable, even if it's not entirely voluntary.
More companies would benefit from having that kind of audit pressure.
Sony sues people for even looking funny at their IP.
That's wierd... I have been sticking my tongue at , making faces toward , and otherwise disrespecting 64.37.182.61 for weeks now and they have not even made a peep...
No, someone from "the outside" will audit Google to ensure that they are taking appropriate steps to protect your privacy.
This is not the same as seeing if your data is being leaked. It is a review of their processes.
To be clear, in the fine article, the Google director of privacy is quoted as saying: "We’ll receive an independent review of our privacy procedures once every two years, and we’ll ask users to give us affirmative consent before we change how we share their personal information."
WiFi data that was broadcast in the clear, so by definition perfectly OK to receive.
STFU shill.
Yes, how dare you remind people to use encryption? There are people who make a good living by capitalizing on poor security practices, you insensitive clod.
A real solution to the drunk-driving problem is autonomous cars. DUI checkpoints are simply a profit generator for the police and, IMO, have very little consequence on the amount of accidents.
Autonomous cars seem excessive, when there are safe, already available alternatives, like taxi service. Furthermore, in some cities there are FREE taxi service options such as this one for major occasions when folks are likely to be out partying.
Slashdot Mirror
In my kid's school, the PTA raises the money to fund things like a computer skills teacher, playground equipment, more expensive class materials, etc.
And even for a PTA that adds no value, the implication that the self-gratification-oriented crowd is stupider than average is baseless. They may be more overtly annoying, but they're not any stupider than the people who refuse to have anything to do with their children's school.
The PTA's members are fairly representative of the people whose children attend the school. You should expect the PTA members to be just as stupid and uneducated as the parents of all the students.
Therefore, you could reasonably expect the IQ of the average parent in the PTA to be about 100. Just like the rest of the world.
It's not a meme. It's a correct answer to a question which was written ambiguously, allowing multiple interpretations.
It's an annoying and eccentric behavior, perhaps, but it has been done for centuries, or longer.
The old phrase is, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull....", attributed to W.C. Fields
They've been doing standardized testing of students for more than 30 years. What the tests are, and how they handle the results has changed.
Can you really tell whether the schools in your state are doing better or worse than they were 30 years ago?
And mine too, apparently. Really cowardly way to go about supporting the company, guys.
You made an unsubstantiated, inflamatory implication in your post, accusing Sony of astroturfing their forums. As if there aren't plenty of Sony fanboys who would do that for Sony, for free.
Your comment was modded 40% Troll (and 40% Interesting and 10% Insightful, so far) as a result. You seriously think it's Sony employees/fans who are modding your Slashdot post down?
I'd speculate that the Troll mods on your post have nothing to do with supporting Sony.
Sounds as if these guys are doing exactly what they should do; evaluating the Internet-related problems they face given their mission to protect their government's interests. I'd be shocked if every major national government doesn't have folks looking at the same problems.
.... Earth is around 4000 years old?
Yeah, it's pathetic. That's off by another 50%.
I'd certainly expect the average engineering "teacher" should be able to get through ANY single course in the engineering curriculum.
As long as the people teaching their subjects are competent teachers of that subject, I don't expect it matters if the art faculty are especially skilled in biochemistry.
I guess alot of this would come down to one question, are humans responisble for why they are an endangered species?
There are other relevant and unanswerable questions, such as would they have gone extinct without our help. However, since we can't save them all, the MOST important question BY FAR is how important is this creature to the ecosystem upon which I depend. Everything else is just moral masturbation.
This is the most important question BY FAR to you, perhaps. It's likely for many people, the most important question BY FAR is, "what do I have to do to survive until tomorrow?" However, they might well echo the sentiment about regarding the idea of preserving something beyond their own bodies as moral masturbation.
Faster posting on /. ?
Perhaps... especially using something like this, which you could also use for lots of other stuff you'd normally use a "regular computer" for.
I haven't seen the full spec sheet, but I'm guessing the Commodore 64 will be using something more powerful than the Atom that's used in the Eee Keyboard.
And I suspect a lot of folks are underestimating the brand value of nostagia. We'll see how it does, but there's nothing interesting to me about Asus as a brand. All things being equal, I'd probably lean toward the familiar C64 brand in preference to the very generic-feeling Asus brand.
We're now spending 3 times as much on education, adjusted, as 25 years ago, yet the results are no better. Perhaps we should put more effort into insisting on quality outputs rather than increasing inputs -- tossing more money -- into the edu operation...
Who is "we"? Do you mean federal, state, local government? Are you talking about pre-college education, or college/university/vocational education?
Without any of that information, I don't understand your assertion or proposoal at all.
According to part of the YouTube terms of service, it means (among other things):
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.
Mmmm... The lesson the bully learned here is: The antitrust complaint is mightier than the chair.
Apparently there is some sort of information-gathering going on, and any at all without clear prior notice to the user and the user's acceptance is ... unacceptable.
That's copmletely unsubstantiated.
More to the point, tenure and promotion depend significantly upon recognized publications. I'd speculate that there is zero incentive for an academic to spend time updating Wikipedia, but the traditional conference/journal/book publication path is required for advancement in the academic career.
To represent the disinterest in Wikipedia updates as "academic ego" is extremely misleading.
From INSIDE my house, my laptop sees at least 5 different wireless networks from the surrounding houses. If I were in a dense neighborhood or an apartment complex, I'd see far more networks than that. So, no, 50 meters indoors is not "remarkably short range"; it is remarkably long range for a "private" network. This is not an accident; the range is long intentionally.
The blame for the Google fiasco is misdirected at Google. Yes, Google should not have collected the data, as a matter of privacy ethics. However, the real guilty parties are the wireless device vendors and the ISPs who provide to their customers wireless access devices that are insecure by default.
Hehe.... According to the Googe rep's statement in the article, it's part of Google's agreement with the FTC, "to address their privacy concerns." In any case, I agree, it does sound reasonable, even if it's not entirely voluntary.
More companies would benefit from having that kind of audit pressure.
Sony sues people for even looking funny at their IP.
That's wierd... I have been sticking my tongue at , making faces toward , and otherwise disrespecting 64.37.182.61 for weeks now and they have not even made a peep...
Maybe they are getting soft...
Good chuckle. If I had mod points, you'd get one.
No, someone from "the outside" will audit Google to ensure that they are taking appropriate steps to protect your privacy.
This is not the same as seeing if your data is being leaked. It is a review of their processes.
To be clear, in the fine article, the Google director of privacy is quoted as saying:
"We’ll receive an independent review of our privacy procedures once every two years, and we’ll ask users to give us affirmative consent before we change how we share their personal information."
WiFi data that was broadcast in the clear, so by definition perfectly OK to receive.
STFU shill.
Yes, how dare you remind people to use encryption? There are people who make a good living by capitalizing on poor security practices, you insensitive clod.
The informal Google motto is Don't be evil.
No, just a developer, developer, developer.... [sound of crashing chair in background]
A real solution to the drunk-driving problem is autonomous cars. DUI checkpoints are simply a profit generator for the police and, IMO, have very little consequence on the amount of accidents.
Autonomous cars seem excessive, when there are safe, already available alternatives, like taxi service. Furthermore, in some cities there are FREE taxi service options such as this one for major occasions when folks are likely to be out partying.