When the mines get labeled as missiles, the mechanics will just have to try and make them fit under the wings or get charged with insubordination. I don't care what it looks like, soldier, the tag says it's a missile.....
There is a reason that we train our troops, y'know.
At the end-chain for any critical supply, such as mines, missles, or specific bullets, there will probably be a manual confirmation--probably at a few points along the supply chain, too.
Remember: the military has been messing up their mammoth supply chains for decades now. I'm sure that they have the intstitutional wherewithal to make-to, slowly improve the system, and realize that cheap civilian-made computers can and do mess up.
Maybe, but only if they charge "late fees" to late students.
Ah, no. (That'd be "revenue" anyway.)
Some simple numbers:
Let's estimate that the RFID tags save the school thirty seconds of staff time per child per day, between the security guards, teachers, aides, and teachers-acting-as-disciplinarians.
If the Charter school has 1,000 students, and is in school for 200 days a year, it saves some 1,600 hours each year--$24,000, assuming an average hourly rate of $15 for the staff time. While the cost for the first two or three years may exceed this, once the equipment is paid for, it'll be near-total savings from then on out, with the exception of maintenance and some 300 new tags each year--which, even at $5 a tag, is only $1500 (+ about 5 hours labor, if each tag takes 5 minutes to assign.)
And this isn't even trying to count the intangible benefits, such as inreased peace-of-mind for the parents or improved school discipline.
Isn't it amazing that schools always seem to have money for this crap
This is a charter school--a privately run school that applies capitalism's "someone doing it for a profit will do it better" principle to higher education.
Plus, this system could actually save the charter school money.
This isn't a way of tracking the teachers, or tracking what the students say, or watching visitors to the school. It's a means of the school doing what we want them to do already--keep track of the children while they're in school.
And, considering that this is a charter school, any parent who doesn't want their children tracked is welcome to simply not send their children there.
Honestly, I would like it if this sort of thing was MORE prevalant. How much class-time is wasted taking attendance?
The simple fact is that law is irrelevant if you can't afford the lawyers to enforce it.
If you get slapped with a lawsuit like that, and genuinely cannot afford to hire a lawyer, you may be able to have one appointed for you--even in a civil matter.
You can also purchase legal insurance, or if worst comes to worst, represent yourself.
...which is pretty straightforward in most cases....
Odd. I've been told (by laywers teaching my paralegal classes) that the law is rife with exceptions, collalaries, and special instances, and so while the general rules are easy to learn, applying them can be difficult.
So difficult, in fact, that we pay a special class of professionals to do so.;)
At any rate, don't you think that a specific publication aimed at an audience as an introduction is a good thing? Law journals are written for lawyers, and can be as difficult to read as kernal-development listservs if you don't know at least the basics.
(An example for the peanut gallery: Reading a judge's opinion a few weeks ago, in class, I came across the term "EBT." I was wondering where electronic money was passing hands, until the professor explained that "EBT" stood for "Examination Before Trial.")
Think I'm paranoid? Ask the RIAA how long they think a copyright should be good for.
There's a HUGE differnece between the creative works of an individual and a technological process. In fact, that's why we have two entirely different legal mecahnisms for them.
Neither covers nor jewel cases music make. If that's what you want, then buy a mass-produced CD.
If you want digital music for your computer, it's fairly hard to beat $.99 a song--unless you buy albums with more tracks you'll listen to than dollars in price.
'course, I'm still a bit miffed that Metallica isn't on the iTunes store. Ah, well. Can't blame the metal-luddites. (They're probably still burned from the high-technology microbrew beer that came off skanky.)
I'm sorry, PDA's are a nice technology, but they in no way are superior to a good calculator.
Grammatical nitpick: of course PDAs have advantages over calculators. You mean that they are in no way "a replacement for" a good calculator.
Whereas with a PDA, I'd be lucky if I could do anything much more complex than basic math without wasting time digging through menus, no matter how well organized.
With a palm, I've got a dedicated and configurable calculator button, and every palm I've ever owned (5 betwee me and the wife) comes with a free calculator that has functions roughly equal to most scientific calculators.
And, if for some reason I need something more complex, I can get a graphing spreadsheet for the palm, which lets me do something that calculators generally can't--save the darn quick work if I decide I'll want it later.
HP still makes calculators because there are entrenched markets that want calculators instead of PDAs, for a variety of reasons. But unless you're in the field, claiming that a calculator is the most efficient way to do anything is demonstratably wrong.
Actually, that's how it is right. Right now, online music sales are the cheapest (or nearly the cheapest) legal way to get most music. Part of the reason that the price is where it's at is the DRM, which helps alleviate the opportuniy cost of electronic downloads.
Unless RIAA's various stockholders pass a resolution compelling it, I don't want the recording industry thinking in moral or social terms--I want them thinking of simple economics.
If they start using moral or social thought, it'll become impossible to buy any music that isn't "Wal-Mart safe."
the rest of M$ Office features are just crappy IMO.
Not crappy. Just specalized. A short list:
integration with Documents-to-Go or other palm word processors
Support for creating bookmared PDFs
A Grammar checker (ok, this one might be crappy...)
Word-count selected text
There are other bits and pieces that are different, or missing, and a whole slew of things that word just can't do (like, save a file as XML, or work the same across virtually all PC platforms).
Ah, I mis-read you. Linux, BeOS, UNIX, Solaris, and possibly PalmOS, WinCE, and Apple will all be likely unable to read "IRM" files.
The last three might get readers and/or a native office port, as they're parts of many company's IT systems. But Linux is probably out of luck.
The good news, of course, is that if you're using Linux, your company probably won't get Windows Server 2003, and thus won't be able to use the "IRM" system.
So, what happens when you want to send the e-mail to your family, who run Mac/Win 95/Win 98/Linux/Other Unix Variant?
They use an internet explorer plug-in to read your document. Essentially the same as if you sent a PDF or flash document.
Or, alternately, you can just turn the darn thing off for that message.
As for it being "easily circumventable"--while you'll always be able to pick up a digital camera, they can (at least on Windows) block the text-select and print-screen functions, which will easily take out most of the easy ways of cirumventing this.
It's impossible for it to be "uncrackable", but MS can make it too hard to bother for the target audience.
I figure that Carter wasn't so much "weasely" as "overly idealistic but ineffective." Sort of like Dilbert, if Dilbert were to be elected president and wear a sweater.
Why they chose to redefine 'Maximize' is beyond me, and you can't get it to fill the window.
They didn't. Take a close look at the middle "window move" button. It never changes from the two-window "resize" icon, which is what Firebird is when it's maximized (right now.)
When I click that button, and go to a "not-full-screen" window, that button is a one-window "maximize" icon.
Apple didn't re-define anything; they just didn't make their app maximizable... and it's hardly the first app to do so. (Winamp, ICQ, and I'm sure more than a few more.)
This is true; there are psychics who are not con artists. OTOH, I have yet to see a psychic who can actually do the things he or she claims to be able to do without using the techniques that a con artist would use. If you have, by all means point them at James Randi's million dollar challenge.
Nitpick: the two best theorums about how psychics work (collective unconciousness or 'magickal world') both nicely explain why psychics don't work for skeptics. Plus, the guy apparantly works to discredit any possible psychic, as if he had a million dollars on the line or something.;)
What's really depressing about all this is that I, and I'm sure the rest of us, had hopes that the {Learning, Discovery, History} Channels wouldn't pander to the crackpots... and yet there I was the other week watching the History Channel put on a very credulous hour's worth of claptrap on the so-called "Bible Code."
Yes, there is crap on TV. There's crap on HBO, too, but "Real Sex" that doesn't keep artsy folk from watching it for "The Sopranos." (And, to be fair, the bible code is a moderately working therory... just neither a proven one, nor one that can ever have scientific acceptance.)
One final thought:
A person is smart. People are stupid, bliterhing idiots. A scientist is a person, and therefore smart. But his work has to be vetted by peer review--and peer review is done by a "People", and since they are people, they're blithering idiots...
and, thus, "science" is what is proven so well that even blithering idiots believe it.
...the upset was of course the fault of the "vast right wing conspiracy" that brought all those allegations of sexual misconduct about Clinton to the airwaves...wait, those were true?
Doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy. Just that the "conspiracy" has moral motives.
The US has been spied upon from space since just shortly after Sputnik launched. And we spy upon everyone else, too. (Even Canada.)
Remember: the Cold War was dangerous because of uncertainity, not knowledge. The best way to avoid war between China and America is for our counries to understand and watch each other.
Nice try. However, YOU live in the age of reason, and you and I have both had an ample opportunity to learn about God.
It's all a question of faith. If God exists, then He works in a rational and reasonable way, with a fairly clear plan. If he doesn't exist, then at the least He was a creation of pre-scientific men who truly believed that He existed.
Slashdot Mirror
When the mines get labeled as missiles, the mechanics will just have to try and make them fit under the wings or get charged with insubordination. I don't care what it looks like, soldier, the tag says it's a missile.....
There is a reason that we train our troops, y'know.
At the end-chain for any critical supply, such as mines, missles, or specific bullets, there will probably be a manual confirmation--probably at a few points along the supply chain, too.
Remember: the military has been messing up their mammoth supply chains for decades now. I'm sure that they have the intstitutional wherewithal to make-to, slowly improve the system, and realize that cheap civilian-made computers can and do mess up.
Charter schools are not private schools
I didn't say they were. I said they were privately-run.
The benefits of such are, really, probably more to the lack of a school board's politics than anything else.
Good catch on the higher-ed thing. My bad.
Maybe, but only if they charge "late fees" to late students.
Ah, no. (That'd be "revenue" anyway.)
Some simple numbers:
Let's estimate that the RFID tags save the school thirty seconds of staff time per child per day, between the security guards, teachers, aides, and teachers-acting-as-disciplinarians.
If the Charter school has 1,000 students, and is in school for 200 days a year, it saves some 1,600 hours each year--$24,000, assuming an average hourly rate of $15 for the staff time. While the cost for the first two or three years may exceed this, once the equipment is paid for, it'll be near-total savings from then on out, with the exception of maintenance and some 300 new tags each year--which, even at $5 a tag, is only $1500 (+ about 5 hours labor, if each tag takes 5 minutes to assign.)
And this isn't even trying to count the intangible benefits, such as inreased peace-of-mind for the parents or improved school discipline.
Isn't it amazing that schools always seem to have money for this crap
This is a charter school--a privately run school that applies capitalism's "someone doing it for a profit will do it better" principle to higher education.
Plus, this system could actually save the charter school money.
i.e. "cease and desist", "breaking and entering"
To be anal, those aren't redundant.
Cease: Stop it right now.
Desist: Don't do it again.
Breaking: Bust open the door.
Entering: Enter a home without permission.
kids...
This isn't a way of tracking the teachers, or tracking what the students say, or watching visitors to the school. It's a means of the school doing what we want them to do already--keep track of the children while they're in school.
And, considering that this is a charter school, any parent who doesn't want their children tracked is welcome to simply not send their children there.
Honestly, I would like it if this sort of thing was MORE prevalant. How much class-time is wasted taking attendance?
Windows messenger is part of windows, not AOL's software.
So is the Start Menu, dial-up networking, the modem driver, etc.
The simple fact is that law is irrelevant if you can't afford the lawyers to enforce it.
If you get slapped with a lawsuit like that, and genuinely cannot afford to hire a lawyer, you may be able to have one appointed for you--even in a civil matter.
You can also purchase legal insurance, or if worst comes to worst, represent yourself.
...which is pretty straightforward in most cases. ...
;)
Odd. I've been told (by laywers teaching my paralegal classes) that the law is rife with exceptions, collalaries, and special instances, and so while the general rules are easy to learn, applying them can be difficult.
So difficult, in fact, that we pay a special class of professionals to do so.
At any rate, don't you think that a specific publication aimed at an audience as an introduction is a good thing? Law journals are written for lawyers, and can be as difficult to read as kernal-development listservs if you don't know at least the basics.
(An example for the peanut gallery: Reading a judge's opinion a few weeks ago, in class, I came across the term "EBT." I was wondering where electronic money was passing hands, until the professor explained that "EBT" stood for "Examination Before Trial.")
Yeah, but the idea of your ISP fuX0ring your computer isn't so cool.
Why not? Especially if it's a network service.
This isn't AOL looking for passwords--this is the rough equivalent of them updating the AOL software.
If you want an ISP that just gives you a modem dial-in and e-mail box, then AOL simply isn't your choice.
Think I'm paranoid? Ask the RIAA how long they think a copyright should be good for.
There's a HUGE differnece between the creative works of an individual and a technological process. In fact, that's why we have two entirely different legal mecahnisms for them.
No, I just like the whole experience of holding soemthing in my hand.
:)
So do I, actually. But that's a differnet thing than just wanting the music.
There is no album with only one or two good tracks under the ~350 albums I own.
Note that I didn't say "good." I said "that you will listen to."
...printing the covers and the jewel case...
Neither covers nor jewel cases music make. If that's what you want, then buy a mass-produced CD.
If you want digital music for your computer, it's fairly hard to beat $.99 a song--unless you buy albums with more tracks you'll listen to than dollars in price.
'course, I'm still a bit miffed that Metallica isn't on the iTunes store. Ah, well. Can't blame the metal-luddites. (They're probably still burned from the high-technology microbrew beer that came off skanky.)
I'm sorry, PDA's are a nice technology, but they in no way are superior to a good calculator.
Grammatical nitpick: of course PDAs have advantages over calculators. You mean that they are in no way "a replacement for" a good calculator.
Whereas with a PDA, I'd be lucky if I could do anything much more complex than basic math without wasting time digging through menus, no matter how well organized.
With a palm, I've got a dedicated and configurable calculator button, and every palm I've ever owned (5 betwee me and the wife) comes with a free calculator that has functions roughly equal to most scientific calculators.
And, if for some reason I need something more complex, I can get a graphing spreadsheet for the palm, which lets me do something that calculators generally can't--save the darn quick work if I decide I'll want it later.
HP still makes calculators because there are entrenched markets that want calculators instead of PDAs, for a variety of reasons. But unless you're in the field, claiming that a calculator is the most efficient way to do anything is demonstratably wrong.
and that's just not right - economically...
Actually, that's how it is right. Right now, online music sales are the cheapest (or nearly the cheapest) legal way to get most music. Part of the reason that the price is where it's at is the DRM, which helps alleviate the opportuniy cost of electronic downloads.
Unless RIAA's various stockholders pass a resolution compelling it, I don't want the recording industry thinking in moral or social terms--I want them thinking of simple economics.
If they start using moral or social thought, it'll become impossible to buy any music that isn't "Wal-Mart safe."
Not crappy. Just specalized. A short list:
There are other bits and pieces that are different, or missing, and a whole slew of things that word just can't do (like, save a file as XML, or work the same across virtually all PC platforms).
Ah, I mis-read you. Linux, BeOS, UNIX, Solaris, and possibly PalmOS, WinCE, and Apple will all be likely unable to read "IRM" files.
The last three might get readers and/or a native office port, as they're parts of many company's IT systems. But Linux is probably out of luck.
The good news, of course, is that if you're using Linux, your company probably won't get Windows Server 2003, and thus won't be able to use the "IRM" system.
So, what happens when you want to send the e-mail to your family, who run Mac/Win 95/Win 98/Linux/Other Unix Variant?
They use an internet explorer plug-in to read your document. Essentially the same as if you sent a PDF or flash document.
Or, alternately, you can just turn the darn thing off for that message.
As for it being "easily circumventable"--while you'll always be able to pick up a digital camera, they can (at least on Windows) block the text-select and print-screen functions, which will easily take out most of the easy ways of cirumventing this.
It's impossible for it to be "uncrackable", but MS can make it too hard to bother for the target audience.
I figure that Carter wasn't so much "weasely" as "overly idealistic but ineffective." Sort of like Dilbert, if Dilbert were to be elected president and wear a sweater.
Bush's job approval rating is currently 52%.
That means that we think he's doing an acceptable job--not that we are don't think he's a weasel, or that we won't elect someone totally different.
I mean, he's president. If that's not a job for a weasel, then we've been electing the wrong guy for at least 20 years.
Why they chose to redefine 'Maximize' is beyond me, and you can't get it to fill the window.
They didn't. Take a close look at the middle "window move" button. It never changes from the two-window "resize" icon, which is what Firebird is when it's maximized (right now.)
When I click that button, and go to a "not-full-screen" window, that button is a one-window "maximize" icon.
Apple didn't re-define anything; they just didn't make their app maximizable... and it's hardly the first app to do so. (Winamp, ICQ, and I'm sure more than a few more.)
This is true; there are psychics who are not con artists. OTOH, I have yet to see a psychic who can actually do the things he or she claims to be able to do without using the techniques that a con artist would use. If you have, by all means point them at James Randi's million dollar challenge.
;)
Nitpick: the two best theorums about how psychics work (collective unconciousness or 'magickal world') both nicely explain why psychics don't work for skeptics. Plus, the guy apparantly works to discredit any possible psychic, as if he had a million dollars on the line or something.
What's really depressing about all this is that I, and I'm sure the rest of us, had hopes that the {Learning, Discovery, History} Channels wouldn't pander to the crackpots... and yet there I was the other week watching the History Channel put on a very credulous hour's worth of claptrap on the so-called "Bible Code."
Yes, there is crap on TV. There's crap on HBO, too, but "Real Sex" that doesn't keep artsy folk from watching it for "The Sopranos." (And, to be fair, the bible code is a moderately working therory... just neither a proven one, nor one that can ever have scientific acceptance.)
One final thought:
A person is smart. People are stupid, bliterhing idiots. A scientist is a person, and therefore smart. But his work has to be vetted by peer review--and peer review is done by a "People", and since they are people, they're blithering idiots...
and, thus, "science" is what is proven so well that even blithering idiots believe it.
Doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy. Just that the "conspiracy" has moral motives.
So?
The US has been spied upon from space since just shortly after Sputnik launched. And we spy upon everyone else, too. (Even Canada.)
Remember: the Cold War was dangerous because of uncertainity, not knowledge. The best way to avoid war between China and America is for our counries to understand and watch each other.
Nice try. However, YOU live in the age of reason, and you and I have both had an ample opportunity to learn about God.
It's all a question of faith. If God exists, then He works in a rational and reasonable way, with a fairly clear plan. If he doesn't exist, then at the least He was a creation of pre-scientific men who truly believed that He existed.
Ah, well. I'm sure that you'll grow up someday.