I guess in a way, if you squint at it right.
Sure the government is forcing communism on everyone, but at least under the dictionary definition, a country could be communist and have a democracy. Don't tell me a country can be communist and capitalist.
Yes, but maybe not in the way you mean. My understanding is it's not the labor costs that are the main concern, but the fact that these ores contain other toxic materials. Disposal of these material is most of the expense. And, of course, the that's no problem for the Chines
I don't know about XBees, but WiFi shares one of its channels with Amateur Radio on a bases with the Amateur Radio operators allowed to interfere with Wifi, but not visa versa. Also I'd bet XBees have terrible receivers.
I agree that current copy write law maybe to strict, but this seems to be a pretty clear cut case where the pub deserved it. Also you seem to be saying that copy write and/or patents should be totally gotten rid of. I don't think you could be father from the truth. Lets say you spend years working on a book or a series of books only to have some one steal all your ideas. In your word there would be nothing you could do about it.
I know. I should have made that clear. All I'm saying is they claim that particular method for solving video captchas no longer works on their captchas. It could be a lie, but either way saying that it is compromised is going a bit to far. We have computers that can beat humans at just about any game. They just take up a small building and need the air conditioning of a small city. Captchas can be beaten by computers and we're getting to the point where any test that a computer can't do a human can't either. Sure humans can interpret language better, but computers also can't come up with a good word problem and if you have a human do it there's only so many tests they can come up with in a reasonable amount of time. We have to come up with a better answer I'm not sure if this is that answer, as other commenters have said it maybe easier to crack then normal captchas, but we do have to come up with something different. Not really sure how I got here, but that's my take on it
Watch the video first. Apparently, they've already fixed that particular vulnerability. Note I'm not saying that there aren't vulnerabilities just that that particular one has been fix.
I think it's probably a little big for that, the shipping would be incredible. On a more serious note they're selling the detector not the accelerator.
Seems to be all he does on that blog. Find things he disagrees with, and accuses the researchers of making mistakes. Hence the 100 posts proceeding this one criticizing climate scientists, even though he's not qualified.
That's a fallacy. Just because he's been crazy in the past doesn't necessarily mean he's being crazing now. Argue about the idea not the person.
Of course a bill like this might be used to shelter some anti-evolutionist thinking.
That's the goal, not a side effect
Even if someone is questioning evolution in class, there are enough other viewpoints in the outside world that the truth will come through. And doesn't it make a stronger case for evolution when you have considered and dismissed the counter-arguments? Wouldn't that make for a better student to not just be told how something is, but to learn how to debate the way things are to consider future issues too?
No one is suggesting banning research that is against evolution. But if it's flawed (which has been the case for all creationist/ID "research" so far) than it doesn't belong in science class.
As it currently stands, if any credible research contradicted evolution, science teachers could present legally, making this bill unnecessary.
If you disagree strongly enough as a parent with what is being taught, then seek to remove that teacher
How? The district can't fire them for what they teach. There would be no legal way to fire them unless the committed some other offence.
rather than force all teachers to toe a politically correct line for whatever current group-think is fashionable. But let the determination of how appropriate a teachers words are come from parents, not from a bureaucracy above.
But if school districts aren't allowed to consider what a science teacher actually teaches, then they'll have to make hiring designs based on other qualifications and what the candidates are willing to work for.
What if a creationist offers to teach science significantly less than the other candidates. If his church or another creationist organization was willing to help support him and he was decently qualified, he'd be the only candidate the school board could legally hire
In the meantime it's good to truly protect freedom of speech
Would you support a barring school districts from firing a math teacher who told students 2+2=5? How about a geography teacher you claimed the earth was flat. Teachers are allowed to say what ever they want when they aren't at work, but they should still be expected the teach the curriculum.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably not enough power.
I guess in a way, if you squint at it right. Sure the government is forcing communism on everyone, but at least under the dictionary definition, a country could be communist and have a democracy. Don't tell me a country can be communist and capitalist.
Yes, but maybe not in the way you mean. My understanding is it's not the labor costs that are the main concern, but the fact that these ores contain other toxic materials. Disposal of these material is most of the expense. And, of course, the that's no problem for the Chines
I don't know about XBees, but WiFi shares one of its channels with Amateur Radio on a bases with the Amateur Radio operators allowed to interfere with Wifi, but not visa versa. Also I'd bet XBees have terrible receivers.
Just a theory, but I'd bet that Google's setting this up to give them an excuse to collect even more info about you. Then again I opted in.
I agree that current copy write law maybe to strict, but this seems to be a pretty clear cut case where the pub deserved it. Also you seem to be saying that copy write and/or patents should be totally gotten rid of. I don't think you could be father from the truth. Lets say you spend years working on a book or a series of books only to have some one steal all your ideas. In your word there would be nothing you could do about it.
7) Organisms still last longer than most machines.
I know. I should have made that clear. All I'm saying is they claim that particular method for solving video captchas no longer works on their captchas. It could be a lie, but either way saying that it is compromised is going a bit to far. We have computers that can beat humans at just about any game. They just take up a small building and need the air conditioning of a small city. Captchas can be beaten by computers and we're getting to the point where any test that a computer can't do a human can't either. Sure humans can interpret language better, but computers also can't come up with a good word problem and if you have a human do it there's only so many tests they can come up with in a reasonable amount of time. We have to come up with a better answer I'm not sure if this is that answer, as other commenters have said it maybe easier to crack then normal captchas, but we do have to come up with something different. Not really sure how I got here, but that's my take on it
Watch the video first. Apparently, they've already fixed that particular vulnerability. Note I'm not saying that there aren't vulnerabilities just that that particular one has been fix.
I think it's probably a little big for that, the shipping would be incredible. On a more serious note they're selling the detector not the accelerator.
Well this has pretty much already been said, but yes
Seems to be all he does on that blog. Find things he disagrees with, and accuses the researchers of making mistakes. Hence the 100 posts proceeding this one criticizing climate scientists, even though he's not qualified.
That's a fallacy. Just because he's been crazy in the past doesn't necessarily mean he's being crazing now. Argue about the idea not the person.
Of course a bill like this might be used to shelter some anti-evolutionist thinking.
That's the goal, not a side effect
Even if someone is questioning evolution in class, there are enough other viewpoints in the outside world that the truth will come through. And doesn't it make a stronger case for evolution when you have considered and dismissed the counter-arguments? Wouldn't that make for a better student to not just be told how something is, but to learn how to debate the way things are to consider future issues too?
No one is suggesting banning research that is against evolution. But if it's flawed (which has been the case for all creationist/ID "research" so far) than it doesn't belong in science class. As it currently stands, if any credible research contradicted evolution, science teachers could present legally, making this bill unnecessary.
If you disagree strongly enough as a parent with what is being taught, then seek to remove that teacher
How? The district can't fire them for what they teach. There would be no legal way to fire them unless the committed some other offence.
rather than force all teachers to toe a politically correct line for whatever current group-think is fashionable. But let the determination of how appropriate a teachers words are come from parents, not from a bureaucracy above.
But if school districts aren't allowed to consider what a science teacher actually teaches, then they'll have to make hiring designs based on other qualifications and what the candidates are willing to work for. What if a creationist offers to teach science significantly less than the other candidates. If his church or another creationist organization was willing to help support him and he was decently qualified, he'd be the only candidate the school board could legally hire
In the meantime it's good to truly protect freedom of speech
Would you support a barring school districts from firing a math teacher who told students 2+2=5? How about a geography teacher you claimed the earth was flat. Teachers are allowed to say what ever they want when they aren't at work, but they should still be expected the teach the curriculum.
My understanding is that if you use a ham radio to vew the internet you can't go to any web page with an add on it.