I believe the OP was presenting the idea of people more readily forming small businesses, whose bargaining would be with customers (sometimes equals) rather than with large businesses.
Has anything else changed at the same time that might affect students?
Do the changes, if any, hurt or help their ability to learn in our current environment of constant torrents of information?
There's a claim about "ability to persevere in the face of challenging tasks". Do electronic games present challenging tasks that require perseverance? (Sorry, rhetorical question).
Before the first unit ships, it will damage the market for Windows Phone handsets due to the anticipation. It's an old move in the tech business to destroy a market with vaporware: usually, though, companies do it to destroy markets where they're not getting an income.
The Soviet gangsters also practiced rewriting history and making inconvenient facts disappear.
They also valued Party connections over competence. Compare that to the people flown out to do Iraq reconstruction straight from college because they were in the Young Republicans.
If the crooks had just invested a little money on phony think tanks and PR, we'd be hearing about how "over-regulation" was discouraging "job creators".
At least one of the major "free market" political donors has a record of getting sued and prosecuted by neighbors and customers.
There are commercial generators which run on a variable mix of natural gas and diesel. With such a set, you can greatly extend your runtime by reducing the diesel percentage to a minimum when natural gas is available. Then if or when the natural gas goes out you can run them on 100% diesel and you're no worse off.
then it will happen. Companies that survive do so by providing something that people want and something that people will pay for (sometimes the two are split, like Facebook).
If other people don't want what you want, accept it, and don't blame Silicon Valley.
Security operations on a production network is so different from, say, vulnerability research that it's wrong to use the same term to refer to both.
Then you have to specify what kind of trust you're after. There's an sf story where a character muses about a thug "I would trust him with the crown jewels, but not with my daughter".
> I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
There are many countries with values compatible with yours.
I, however, am an American, and I would rather be blown up by a terrorist than see my country turn into a place where the whole population is treated like jail inmates.
I mean that. The ideas behind America are more important than my life.
For public figures, the standard is "reckless disregard for the truth". "Reckless" is a technical legal term which is harder to prove than you might think.
It's also easy to defend against a claim that someone made a knowingly false statement. All the defendant has to do is make a case that he's so stupid he actually believed what he was saying.
Railroad development in the 19th century USA was a cesspool of explicit and implicit corruption. It also created vital infrastructure.
The crash in China reads at first glance like any other Horrible Example from systems safety engineering: lack of redundancy and communication, and poorly interacting emergency procedures.
A rigorous definition of "exploit" could be a challenge, and proving an operating system to be safe against them would be a major theoretical challenge.
So start with something easier to assess: prove whether the operating system will halt.
If you can't solve the easier problem, don't pretend to have solved the harder problem.
I have some time and inclination to help bring Card Services in contact with the legal system. I also know a lawyer who sues robocallers on contingency.
Isn't the gathering of abstract scientific knowledge and the attempt to form theories an expression of a faith that knowledge is somehow worthwhile for its own sake and that the universe is understandable?
Slashdot Mirror
They're sometimes called "guilds".
The AMA and the Bar Association are union-like in many ways even if they don't form picket lines or directly set pay scales.
I believe the OP was presenting the idea of people more readily forming small businesses, whose bargaining would be with customers (sometimes equals) rather than with large businesses.
Has anything else changed at the same time that might affect students?
Do the changes, if any, hurt or help their ability to learn in our current environment of constant torrents of information?
There's a claim about "ability to persevere in the face of challenging tasks". Do electronic games present challenging tasks that require perseverance? (Sorry, rhetorical question).
Before the first unit ships, it will damage the market for Windows Phone handsets due to the anticipation. It's an old move in the tech business to destroy a market with vaporware: usually, though, companies do it to destroy markets where they're not getting an income.
The Soviet gangsters also practiced rewriting history and making inconvenient facts disappear.
They also valued Party connections over competence. Compare that to the people flown out to do Iraq reconstruction straight from college because they were in the Young Republicans.
This is why we have government regulators.
If the crooks had just invested a little money on phony think tanks and PR, we'd be hearing about how "over-regulation" was discouraging "job creators".
At least one of the major "free market" political donors has a record of getting sued and prosecuted by neighbors and customers.
There are commercial generators which run on a variable mix of natural gas and diesel. With such a set, you can greatly extend your runtime by reducing the diesel percentage to a minimum when natural gas is available. Then if or when the natural gas goes out you can run them on 100% diesel and you're no worse off.
The technical terms you want to Google is "station blackout". A nuclear plant requires non-reactor power for safe operation.
This would be a bad time to discover that someone had forgotten to exercise the diesels.
then it will happen. Companies that survive do so by providing something that people want and something that people will pay for (sometimes the two are split, like Facebook).
If other people don't want what you want, accept it, and don't blame Silicon Valley.
Security operations on a production network is so different from, say, vulnerability research that it's wrong to use the same term to refer to both.
Then you have to specify what kind of trust you're after. There's an sf story where a character muses about a thug "I would trust him with the crown jewels, but not with my daughter".
> I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
There are many countries with values compatible with yours.
I, however, am an American, and I would rather be blown up by a terrorist than see my country turn into a place where the whole population is treated like jail inmates.
I mean that. The ideas behind America are more important than my life.
>not a police state
In New York the police can and frequently do detain people on the street and search them, with no oversight and no grounds beyond "acted furtively".
Then there's the "papers please" state.
Read "Lost Rights", or be African-American for a month, or protest at the Republican national convention.
People have apparently forgotten how this country came to be.
Even if terrorists were as dangerous as King George's soldiers, letting ourselves be treated like convicts would not be the answer.
Nobody's in the streets protesting. Nobody but me is boycotting airlines. My letters to my Senator didn't even get a robo-acknowledgement.
Have we changed that much since the 60s?
The chance to vote for the lesser of two evils is something many people around the world would kill for.
If you're in a swing state, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote in favor of Romney-appointed Supreme Court justices.
For public figures, the standard is "reckless disregard for the truth". "Reckless" is a technical legal term which is harder to prove than you might think.
It's also easy to defend against a claim that someone made a knowingly false statement. All the defendant has to do is make a case that he's so stupid he actually believed what he was saying.
Is this just a giveaway to the patent owners?
One of the key features of a nuclear power plant is that once you've paid the huge construction costs it's not that expensive to operate.
If they think they might ever need a nuclear plant in the future, they'd be much better off to mothball it until electricity prices go up.
Railroad development in the 19th century USA was a cesspool of explicit and implicit corruption. It also created vital infrastructure.
The crash in China reads at first glance like any other Horrible Example from systems safety engineering: lack of redundancy and communication, and poorly interacting emergency procedures.
A rigorous definition of "exploit" could be a challenge, and proving an operating system to be safe against them would be a major theoretical challenge.
So start with something easier to assess: prove whether the operating system will halt.
If you can't solve the easier problem, don't pretend to have solved the harder problem.
The "investment" is a sunk cost whose continuing use is of negative value.
I have some time and inclination to help bring Card Services in contact with the legal system. I also know a lawyer who sues robocallers on contingency.
Depends on the jurisdiction: in my state commercial robocalls to residents are illegal.
Isn't the gathering of abstract scientific knowledge and the attempt to form theories an expression of a faith that knowledge is somehow worthwhile for its own sake and that the universe is understandable?
Reason, by itself, notoriously cannot refute solipsism.