Notebooks are non-installable (no e-viruses), portable, inexpensive, and do not require access to a third party online service (school access whitelists work).
They are as secure as they need to be - students are to use their own notebooks and note share them, and as long as a notebook is closed it is secure from prying eyes. These aren't nuclear codes, they're access to textbook sites used by grade school kids. If you're so concerned, have your child get a small, pocket sized notebook and write them down there, and remind him or her that they should keep it with them at all times and bring it home every night and back to school each morning.
PS - The admonition not to share passwords is a good way to train kids that security information should not be shared, even though it's not really a critical safety concern at this point.
It's school; all the computers are locked down and limited in access only to approved sites (whitelist). No outside software may be installed, and all USB ports are frozen. No personal electronics are allowed to be brought in by kids.
Remind me again how LastPass, 1Password, and KeePass work in these environments?
LG G3; front pocket 4-12 hours a day and she's absolutely pristine. Maybe if Apple hadn't made the 6 so fucking long, or weakened the case with side buttons, or insisted on a (fairly) rigid material with poor toughness this wound't be an issue. But it's damned pretty when it's all fresh and new!
(I'd argue cyclic loading/fatigue, since Aluminum is *very* poor in such conditions, but nobody has had a 6 long enough to induce a fatigue crack).
The return of the phone holster will be next years hot accessory. The iPhone 4 made bumpers cool, now they're going to bring back the day of the belt-mounted phone clip.
Even more interestingly, the Samsung didn't permanently bend, but the flex of the case allowed damage to the screen. The Sony failures occurred in BACK pockets. The sole Blackberry bend occurred from "unknown causes" - which could have been anything the owner doesn't want to admit, not just a front-pocket failure.
It's mostly aluminum with very little ferrous metals. The most that will do is melt the iron parts of the sensors and components.
Better to just set it up on a grating and heat it vigorously from below with an oxy-acetylene torch. It still won't fix it, but it may make a satisfying popping sound from time to time.
Indeed, it's simple engineering mechanics. As you get thinner, the case gets weaker by a factor of (thickness ratio)^2. As you make it longer, the internal stresses in the metal go up by (length ratio)^2. Then, to ice the cake, there are cutouts which form stress concentrations which will be 1.5-3x the predicted strength if you don't account for the amplification due to shear flow around the opening (though I suspect there are internal bosses to mitigate this).
The solution, of course, is not to compromise the perimeter at all and put the buttons in the center of the back of the case. But if they did that, it wouldn't be innovated enough I guess. Maybe we'll get that in the iPhone 8 and it will be innovative by then.
Actually, I know quite a few people in that boat. Most of them do "invest" their extra cash because they don't have a need to spend more than they currently are. They don't live paycheck to paycheck, that money just goes into their investment portfolios (which, in a way, is "spent" but in reality is just changing hands with other investors who are moving elsewhere). It definitely doesn't buy bombs or planes or fatigues or army personnel.
Will they spend some of that 40%? Sure. Will they spend all of it? Not even close.
Actually, that's what would happen if the cut it all immediately people actually got their "wish." And it's why these kinds of things have to be tapered with quite a bit more finesse than the angry mob suggests.
Not that slashing $1T would really work. We'd have to keep paying the same tax rates AND skip the services for 15 years or more to retire the debt. But, hey, good luck with your plans.
but that's better than most. My takeaway - these two have shown that they can curve fit a simulation which shows 60-70% of the warming noted *could* be the result of natural process using a random number based analysis (multiple runs with variables in the rage of recorded data). I take this to mean that it's within the range of a theoretical model to account for as much at 60-70% of the warming. The don't indicate what the minimum amount of heating that could be attributable (or even tempoerature loss) was in the abstract. We must, of course, presume that a net temperature loss due to natural factors should be possible within the realm of the stochastic analysis model unless then mean of the simulations is so high as to exclude several standard deviations from falling below net zero.
Your stock broker doesn't charge you on your gains, they charge you on trades - volume or basis Your real estate agent's commission isn't on your profit from a house Your copier maintenance company doesn't charge based on your copy profit - it's fixed value plus cost per copy The gas station doesn't charge you based on the net of your paycheck
If you want a fair system, you tax on gross receipts. Running the government (pacing roads, defending the country, testing medications, monitoring the food supply, preserving the ecosystem) is a cost of doing business and comes off the top. It also simplifies the tax code, eliminating all the arguments about what may or may not be a cost of doing business / deductibles. You put down your income from all sources, you pay a percentage.
..and really all of the "simple" solutions. It seems like a good idea - just don't spend that $1 Trillion and we can drop our taxes by $1 Trilllion. Except that economies don't really work that way. You can't add or subtract a trillion dollars like that and expect things not to spiral out of control.
Remember the recession that freaked out the entire world? Remember the job losses, the stagnation of the economy, and the general feeling that the world would end? We lost 8.8 million jobs, most of them paying $14-21/hr (if wikipedia is to be believed). Do you know how many jobs $1 Trillion dollars pays for? About 18 Million - more than double what was lost in the great recession.
"But wait," I hear you cry, "that trillion dollars would still be spent by the people who wouldn't have been taxed!" Oh, that's partially true. Understand that 40% of that money would go to multi-millionaires who's purchasing habits generally are not affected by their income. The other 60% probably would be spent, but that 60% would be spent on goods and services in an economy which has almost zero overlap with the manpower which would be idled by the drop of $1T in defense spending. Those are soldiers, intelligence report creators, bomb makers - not really things you purchase in your every day life. And because you can't train and re-purpose people fast enough to build the TVs and tablets and cars and hotel staff to pick up the increase in demand, the prices for all those products would increase. And because of the numbers, dropping the US income tax would result in a net increase in take home pay of about 4%-5% for most people in the middle class (Say, $60-80,000 annual household income) or about $50 a week.
So you're magical tax-free utopia would end up with 18 Million people out of work and without the skills needed to change jobs, inflation in the disposable goods and discretionary services market, and a net effect of $50 a week in the pockets of the people who still have jobs.
If you go by preorders, all of the the 6+ models at verizon (16/64/128GB in the three colors) were multiple weeks out before the 6 models started to slip on delivery.
As for cutting into tablet sales...my 5.5" LG G3 works well enough for surfing that I gave my iPad to my daughter. I just no longer have much use for it. It's not full featured like my Win8 based convertible, and it's not portable enough to justify carrying it with me many places just to surf or read email.
Now that Apple has joined the phablet bandwagon, we have another problem: manufacturers are only offering their premium devices in phablet, or near-phablet, sizes. Want the "smaller" iphone? Sure, but you have to give up camera features. Most of the Android phones are in a similar boat - you can get a 4-4.5" screen phone, but you'll give up memory, or speed, or camera functionality, LTE, or any of a number of other features. Smaller screens mean lower price points and cutting corners.
Wouldn't it be nice it you really could choose a 3.5-4" screen phone that did everything else the larger models did?
Oh, sure, you can get a whole skeleton for under a grand, but you get a generic skeleton.
What if you wanted a custom skeleton? A skeleton with a particular deformity? Or maybe a non-earth skeleton? Compared to the cost of having a skeleton custom carved/molded, this would be cheap.
Look, all you have to do is look at the stills from the recent lunar orbters when taken over several orbits in differing light. You can *clearly* see the remains of the sound stage rigging they left there when they lifted off. None of that stuff was necessary for the landing - they just shot the video with faked effects right there and came back leaving all the video gear. You can't argue with that.
I haven't been modded troll in, like 40 hours, so I was feeling left out. Anyway...
You're employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they have asked you to job which requires that training and they hired you knowing that you did not have those skills. Some companies provide training as a benefit - allowing you to increase your skill level in your field or even a related one on their dime because they feel that developing in house expertise is valuable and will pay dividends. If your company identifies a need for a skill which you do not have, I would expect them to either hire someone else or offer to send you to training.
In any case where you bring a possibility for training, your manager (we hope, though sometimes it's faceless management or HR) will look to see if it increases your ability to perform work and provide additional value to the company. That gets played against the budget, the path your employer has for you within the organization, your value to the organization, and your overall marketability.
As a business owner, I can tell you that training is wildly expensive. As a former employee, I can tell you that conferences - on the whole - are wasted time and money for the employer. Training is a toss up unless it's directly related to your work or the work the company would like to go after or compete for. If you ever think training is cheap, take the cost of the class, the cost of transportation, the cost of lodging, the cost of per diem then add to it about $500 in internal time processing all the requests and approvals, then take your hourly rate times the number of hours you'll miss work and multiply it by 2.5. THAT'S the cost to the company. And that's why not all training is approved. A $250 conference for half a week can easily hit $5,000 in costs to the company.
I'm not saying that training is bad, or that companies can't find value in training, or that this particular company is good or bad. Merely pointing out that the cost of training is far higher than most employees ever realize.
I started out thinking he was far right, bludgeoning the people who think they know science but are really just too stupid to know better because they're not really geniuses - Fox lives on making fun of the "intellectuals." Then he claims that true science is hard and that people are just animals that can't get past their lack of understanding of basic probability, which puts him soundly on the left end of MSNBC. Then he wraps up by seeming to dismiss everything and everyone for not being good enough in his personal world/religious/scientific view, which could really put him in either the far right or far left.
I think he's mostly a pedant and a language troll, so I guess he fits right in here at/.
Most musicians I know make money doing gigs (i.e. working for a living). Movies are generally profitable or not based on theatrical sales - a time when there are no quality online versions; sales after a theatrical run is complete rarely changes a flop to profitability.
Interestingly, there are troupes of actors travelling all over the country and world who make money night after night performing in venues all over the country side. It's called theater, and - interestingly - when you put a "star" in a show you don't even have to travel. Have you seen the sellouts for Neil Patrick Harris, or Patrick Stewart on Broadway? Even if you ignore the fact that people can still make money performing live, the top movies, since 1920 have *the theatrical receipts* often exceeding the production cost by a factor of 4. That's a margin even the stingiest of capitalists drools over. In fact, the top 50 theatrically grossing movies (which are mostly from the last 20 years) grossed no less than 775 Million dollars EACH, and only 7 of them cost more than 200 Million to make, with none more than 300 Million. It's probably okay not to worry too much about being able to feed the families of the poor movie executives, even if by some strange change in the copyright law they lost all rights to their films at the close of the production run.
Your problem is using Waze. Maps should be all you ever need, and now that Google owns Waze you should expect a more and more hostile environment for the app.
Slashdot Mirror
Notebooks are non-installable (no e-viruses), portable, inexpensive, and do not require access to a third party online service (school access whitelists work).
They are as secure as they need to be - students are to use their own notebooks and note share them, and as long as a notebook is closed it is secure from prying eyes. These aren't nuclear codes, they're access to textbook sites used by grade school kids. If you're so concerned, have your child get a small, pocket sized notebook and write them down there, and remind him or her that they should keep it with them at all times and bring it home every night and back to school each morning.
PS - The admonition not to share passwords is a good way to train kids that security information should not be shared, even though it's not really a critical safety concern at this point.
It's school; all the computers are locked down and limited in access only to approved sites (whitelist). No outside software may be installed, and all USB ports are frozen. No personal electronics are allowed to be brought in by kids.
Remind me again how LastPass, 1Password, and KeePass work in these environments?
You do realize that stainless (in it's most common forms) is no stronger than typical structural aluminums, right?
LG G3; front pocket 4-12 hours a day and she's absolutely pristine. Maybe if Apple hadn't made the 6 so fucking long, or weakened the case with side buttons, or insisted on a (fairly) rigid material with poor toughness this wound't be an issue. But it's damned pretty when it's all fresh and new!
(I'd argue cyclic loading/fatigue, since Aluminum is *very* poor in such conditions, but nobody has had a 6 long enough to induce a fatigue crack).
The return of the phone holster will be next years hot accessory. The iPhone 4 made bumpers cool, now they're going to bring back the day of the belt-mounted phone clip.
Please excuse me while I go throw up.
Even more interestingly, the Samsung didn't permanently bend, but the flex of the case allowed damage to the screen. The Sony failures occurred in BACK pockets. The sole Blackberry bend occurred from "unknown causes" - which could have been anything the owner doesn't want to admit, not just a front-pocket failure.
It's mostly aluminum with very little ferrous metals. The most that will do is melt the iron parts of the sensors and components.
Better to just set it up on a grating and heat it vigorously from below with an oxy-acetylene torch. It still won't fix it, but it may make a satisfying popping sound from time to time.
Indeed, it's simple engineering mechanics. As you get thinner, the case gets weaker by a factor of (thickness ratio)^2. As you make it longer, the internal stresses in the metal go up by (length ratio)^2. Then, to ice the cake, there are cutouts which form stress concentrations which will be 1.5-3x the predicted strength if you don't account for the amplification due to shear flow around the opening (though I suspect there are internal bosses to mitigate this).
The solution, of course, is not to compromise the perimeter at all and put the buttons in the center of the back of the case. But if they did that, it wouldn't be innovated enough I guess. Maybe we'll get that in the iPhone 8 and it will be innovative by then.
Actually, I know quite a few people in that boat. Most of them do "invest" their extra cash because they don't have a need to spend more than they currently are. They don't live paycheck to paycheck, that money just goes into their investment portfolios (which, in a way, is "spent" but in reality is just changing hands with other investors who are moving elsewhere). It definitely doesn't buy bombs or planes or fatigues or army personnel.
Will they spend some of that 40%? Sure. Will they spend all of it? Not even close.
Actually, that's what would happen if the cut it all immediately people actually got their "wish." And it's why these kinds of things have to be tapered with quite a bit more finesse than the angry mob suggests.
Not that slashing $1T would really work. We'd have to keep paying the same tax rates AND skip the services for 15 years or more to retire the debt. But, hey, good luck with your plans.
but that's better than most. My takeaway - these two have shown that they can curve fit a simulation which shows 60-70% of the warming noted *could* be the result of natural process using a random number based analysis (multiple runs with variables in the rage of recorded data). I take this to mean that it's within the range of a theoretical model to account for as much at 60-70% of the warming. The don't indicate what the minimum amount of heating that could be attributable (or even tempoerature loss) was in the abstract. We must, of course, presume that a net temperature loss due to natural factors should be possible within the realm of the stochastic analysis model unless then mean of the simulations is so high as to exclude several standard deviations from falling below net zero.
Not net. Never net.
Your stock broker doesn't charge you on your gains, they charge you on trades - volume or basis
Your real estate agent's commission isn't on your profit from a house
Your copier maintenance company doesn't charge based on your copy profit - it's fixed value plus cost per copy
The gas station doesn't charge you based on the net of your paycheck
If you want a fair system, you tax on gross receipts. Running the government (pacing roads, defending the country, testing medications, monitoring the food supply, preserving the ecosystem) is a cost of doing business and comes off the top. It also simplifies the tax code, eliminating all the arguments about what may or may not be a cost of doing business / deductibles. You put down your income from all sources, you pay a percentage.
..and really all of the "simple" solutions. It seems like a good idea - just don't spend that $1 Trillion and we can drop our taxes by $1 Trilllion. Except that economies don't really work that way. You can't add or subtract a trillion dollars like that and expect things not to spiral out of control.
Remember the recession that freaked out the entire world? Remember the job losses, the stagnation of the economy, and the general feeling that the world would end? We lost 8.8 million jobs, most of them paying $14-21/hr (if wikipedia is to be believed). Do you know how many jobs $1 Trillion dollars pays for? About 18 Million - more than double what was lost in the great recession.
"But wait," I hear you cry, "that trillion dollars would still be spent by the people who wouldn't have been taxed!" Oh, that's partially true. Understand that 40% of that money would go to multi-millionaires who's purchasing habits generally are not affected by their income. The other 60% probably would be spent, but that 60% would be spent on goods and services in an economy which has almost zero overlap with the manpower which would be idled by the drop of $1T in defense spending. Those are soldiers, intelligence report creators, bomb makers - not really things you purchase in your every day life. And because you can't train and re-purpose people fast enough to build the TVs and tablets and cars and hotel staff to pick up the increase in demand, the prices for all those products would increase. And because of the numbers, dropping the US income tax would result in a net increase in take home pay of about 4%-5% for most people in the middle class (Say, $60-80,000 annual household income) or about $50 a week.
So you're magical tax-free utopia would end up with 18 Million people out of work and without the skills needed to change jobs, inflation in the disposable goods and discretionary services market, and a net effect of $50 a week in the pockets of the people who still have jobs.
If you go by preorders, all of the the 6+ models at verizon (16/64/128GB in the three colors) were multiple weeks out before the 6 models started to slip on delivery.
As for cutting into tablet sales...my 5.5" LG G3 works well enough for surfing that I gave my iPad to my daughter. I just no longer have much use for it. It's not full featured like my Win8 based convertible, and it's not portable enough to justify carrying it with me many places just to surf or read email.
Now that Apple has joined the phablet bandwagon, we have another problem: manufacturers are only offering their premium devices in phablet, or near-phablet, sizes. Want the "smaller" iphone? Sure, but you have to give up camera features. Most of the Android phones are in a similar boat - you can get a 4-4.5" screen phone, but you'll give up memory, or speed, or camera functionality, LTE, or any of a number of other features. Smaller screens mean lower price points and cutting corners.
Wouldn't it be nice it you really could choose a 3.5-4" screen phone that did everything else the larger models did?
Oh, sure, you can get a whole skeleton for under a grand, but you get a generic skeleton.
What if you wanted a custom skeleton? A skeleton with a particular deformity? Or maybe a non-earth skeleton? Compared to the cost of having a skeleton custom carved/molded, this would be cheap.
Karma's a bitch
Look, all you have to do is look at the stills from the recent lunar orbters when taken over several orbits in differing light. You can *clearly* see the remains of the sound stage rigging they left there when they lifted off. None of that stuff was necessary for the landing - they just shot the video with faked effects right there and came back leaving all the video gear. You can't argue with that.
I've already selected the sword I will use to separate his head from his body.
There can be only one
I haven't been modded troll in, like 40 hours, so I was feeling left out. Anyway...
You're employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they have asked you to job which requires that training and they hired you knowing that you did not have those skills. Some companies provide training as a benefit - allowing you to increase your skill level in your field or even a related one on their dime because they feel that developing in house expertise is valuable and will pay dividends. If your company identifies a need for a skill which you do not have, I would expect them to either hire someone else or offer to send you to training.
In any case where you bring a possibility for training, your manager (we hope, though sometimes it's faceless management or HR) will look to see if it increases your ability to perform work and provide additional value to the company. That gets played against the budget, the path your employer has for you within the organization, your value to the organization, and your overall marketability.
As a business owner, I can tell you that training is wildly expensive. As a former employee, I can tell you that conferences - on the whole - are wasted time and money for the employer. Training is a toss up unless it's directly related to your work or the work the company would like to go after or compete for. If you ever think training is cheap, take the cost of the class, the cost of transportation, the cost of lodging, the cost of per diem then add to it about $500 in internal time processing all the requests and approvals, then take your hourly rate times the number of hours you'll miss work and multiply it by 2.5. THAT'S the cost to the company. And that's why not all training is approved. A $250 conference for half a week can easily hit $5,000 in costs to the company.
I'm not saying that training is bad, or that companies can't find value in training, or that this particular company is good or bad. Merely pointing out that the cost of training is far higher than most employees ever realize.
I started out thinking he was far right, bludgeoning the people who think they know science but are really just too stupid to know better because they're not really geniuses - Fox lives on making fun of the "intellectuals." Then he claims that true science is hard and that people are just animals that can't get past their lack of understanding of basic probability, which puts him soundly on the left end of MSNBC. Then he wraps up by seeming to dismiss everything and everyone for not being good enough in his personal world/religious/scientific view, which could really put him in either the far right or far left.
I think he's mostly a pedant and a language troll, so I guess he fits right in here at /.
Most musicians I know make money doing gigs (i.e. working for a living). Movies are generally profitable or not based on theatrical sales - a time when there are no quality online versions; sales after a theatrical run is complete rarely changes a flop to profitability.
Interestingly, there are troupes of actors travelling all over the country and world who make money night after night performing in venues all over the country side. It's called theater, and - interestingly - when you put a "star" in a show you don't even have to travel. Have you seen the sellouts for Neil Patrick Harris, or Patrick Stewart on Broadway? Even if you ignore the fact that people can still make money performing live, the top movies, since 1920 have *the theatrical receipts* often exceeding the production cost by a factor of 4. That's a margin even the stingiest of capitalists drools over. In fact, the top 50 theatrically grossing movies (which are mostly from the last 20 years) grossed no less than 775 Million dollars EACH, and only 7 of them cost more than 200 Million to make, with none more than 300 Million. It's probably okay not to worry too much about being able to feed the families of the poor movie executives, even if by some strange change in the copyright law they lost all rights to their films at the close of the production run.
Financial reward isn't the goal of kickstarter backers. Never has been.
Your problem is using Waze. Maps should be all you ever need, and now that Google owns Waze you should expect a more and more hostile environment for the app.
Which is funny since I left the iOS world this because things stopped "just working."