By requiring an 8pm check-in it ensures the kids are actually at home and not out causing problems.
Speaking as a parent, it's not of the school systems's business where my children are at 8pm. If they're out causing problems at 8pm, that's a law enforcement issue, not a school one.
Schools, sadly, do a horrible job of respecting the boundaries of their own authority, preferring instead to involve themselves in countless other things which are not their core mission -- educating children.
Twitter is a vast bathroom wall where people scrawl things. Writing something on the wall is "tweeting".
Some people erroneously think the things you scrawl are important, so they follow you. Your followers watch your bit of wall to see when you write seomething.
When your followers think you wrote something less irrelevant than usual, they may retweet it, which simply means they wrote it on their bit of wall for people who follow them to see.
Damn straight we complain. Class actions are a scam. The parties harmed by the action get a pittance while the lawyers get a metric ton of cash. You might look at it not as outrage that lawyers get paid for their work, but outrage that this action is being taken on behalf of us poor iPhone owners. It's being taken by lawyers for lawyers.
For me, de-friending isn't housecleaning. I don't go through my list to prune it. I will remove people if their statuses are annoying and we're not really friends. The one example that comes to mind is someone I knew as an angry-with-the-world girl in high school who sent me a request, we traded a couple emails, and I accepted. I tired of seeing angry-with-the-world rants about minor offenses people had committed against her, so she got the boot.
You hit the key point, though. Just because facebook calls it "friending" doesn't mean the people on the list are "friends". They're merely people you are willing to be linked to on facebook. Some of mine are friends. Some are just people I knew and am at least casually curious what happens in their lives.
Communication skills allow for exchange and will beat smarts every time.
Not remotely. Counter example? Management by committee. Getting a bunch of good communicators together to validate their poor decisions does not make those decisions good. You still require someone sharp enough to see the solution to the problem. And yes, at that point, you need someone who can actually commmunicate it.
Communication is a great tool. It gets things done, but it doesn't necessarily get the right things done.
It would be like comparing the hardship of carrying a bag of groceries home from the store to the struggle of Christ having to carry his own cross up to get crucified.
That's priceless, because speaking as someone who was raised as a Christian, we often speak of our troubles, minor and major, as being "our cross to bear". It's not offensive. It's common usage.
My figure of 3 was a minimum to do it at all, it was not intended to be per. That would be ridiculous.
By the same logic, it takes a lot more than 3 people to run a prison, so we should monitor them instead.
I think the only way to do a good job with that many people would be to have it highly automated, using a GIS system or some such, which itself would be expensive and costly.
I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if you're one of the less technically proficient here. I don't intend to offend, I just suspect that very many of us read the article and realized that what you propose is exactly what they're going to do, that it wouldn't actually cost that much, and properly engineered, would be rather difficult to defeat. With the exception of the hardware, I could build such a system myself. And as for the hardware, they already use it, so the one part I don't feel qualified to do is a solved problem.
I've wondered the same thing, and the answer I came up with was simply to let the convicted choose death instead of life imprisonment if they so choose. It's a given we're going to screw up and convict the wrong person some percentage of the time. When we do so, let's confine them humanely. I think this is better than executing the wrong person, and by giving them the choice, we insure that the ones who live in that circumstance are only the ones who agree. The ones who would rather be dead would be.
They don't even have single sign on for their OWN systems, and they think they're the right entity to create it for 300 million people? That's hilarious. This will be a $100 billion project that will never actually meet its goals.
Thanks, but no thanks. I actually WANT different passwords on my accounts. I don't WANT my facebook account to unlock my bank, or my slashdot password to unlock my facebook account.
I'm sorry, but if you really want this, you want someone else to do it. If you're smart, you won't want anyone to do it, or at the least, you want opt out.
There was a case of someone winning a jackpot a while back and the casino claiming the jackpot was a "software error" after the fact.
Like everyone else, I read about such things with outrage until I actually RTFA. The jackpot she hit was about 100x higher than the maximum the machine was ever supposed to give, so it WAS an error, and obviously so.
Electromagnetic fields of sufficient power will definitely make people think that there are ghosts in the area or at least weird paranormal phenomena/
Really? Because I used to spend a lot of time around MRI coils. Much higher magnetic fields than you're going to find in any supposed haunted house, and a kilowatt+ RF transmitter blaring EM fields all over the place. I often found it noisy and cold. Sometimes boring. Never haunted.
You're playing word games. The point isn't that this is not the optimal use of the money, the point is that this is a spectacularly stupid waste of the money. Don't forever try to find the perfect use for it, but if you're going to raise half a billion, let's do something that's not spectacularly stupid.
If your solution really is superior, but implementing it and maintaining it is beyond the abilities of your team, then... you need a better team.
To a point. Reliance on superstars causes trouble. They're hard to find. Sometimes hard to identify. I've seen too many polished and confident people who sell well but deliver poorly Stars are expensive. They're sought after, so leave. As TFA suggests, they're prone to realizing they're superstars and expect to be treated like superstars, which does a good bit to negate their value.
One of the attributes of a really superior solution is that it can be built and maintained by mere mortals. The closer your solution is to being able to be implemented by average joes with the typical knowledge in their field, the better. Of course, now and again you have big problems that need to be solved Right Now. Then you pull a Manhattan Project, get the best and brightest and spare no expense.
I'd have to wait an entire second to launch one of the most complex pieces of software on my computer.
I think you just refuted your own point. The most complex piece of software on your computer is a word processor. That's the problem. Things which are conceptually simple have become so monstrously bloated that they're now "complex software".
Not necessarily. He can fix it and some other developer can un-fix it. Microsoft famously does this. Not frequently, but more often then they should.
You are on a fixed salary, you idiot!
Partly irrelevant. You're still paying the guy $X per hour to fix the bugs. If he could do something else useful during that time, it's valid to say the time and money spent on fixing the bugs is saved (and spent on something else).
There is a better alternative. Stop slapping drunk drivers on the wrist. Instead of a ticket, a drunk driving conviction == you lose your license. Drive while on a DUI-revoked license, you go to jail. We don't have to aggressively search for people to slap on the wrist. We have to reasonably search for people and then make them stop reoffending. Just give them the legal equivalent of "Look, a**hole, you want to drink, fine, take a cab home. Everybody's happy. Do this again you're in a cell. One way or another, your drunk azz isn't going to be on the roads again."
Drunk driving, like so many other things, need to be punished based on harm done, not on the presumption that harm might be done
Why? Two equally drunk people get into their cards after a night of hard drinking. Both drivers are all over the roads. Drunk #1 happens to be lucky. There's nobody else on the roads. Drunk #2, driving the very same roads, encounters exactly one car, hits it, and kills the driver.
Both did precisely the same thing. They got drunk and then drove. The only thing that differed is circumstances they had no control over. Why do we give Drunk #1 a ticket, if he happens to get caught, and #2 a jail term? Both should be punished for extreme negligence that a reasonable person would know is likely to result in death, injury, or damage to property.
Sounds like a 4th amendment issue. "We don't have probable cause, so we can't get a warrant. MAY we search your house?" "NO you may not." "OK then, your refusal to allow us to search gives us probable cause to believe you're hiding something illegal. Now that we have probable cause, here's the warrant. Step aside."
This is actually a great reason for as many people as possible to refuse searches as a matter of course. Even putting aside the constitutional and rights issue, which of course we shouldn't, the basic logic is flawed if half the people who are asked "May we search your house?" say "Of course not." Then it becomes a pretty solid argument when 95%+ of the people who refuse searches haven't done anything illegal.
I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context
Frankly, he's an embarassment to the badge he used to wear.
We give these guys phenominal power over us. They can accuse you of a crime, which carries a heavy burden even if you're later found innocent. Stand in front of a judge and tell the judge "A happened!" while the police officer says "!A happened!" and guess what the judge believes? !A. Police carry the presumption of being the good guys. Hell, they can SHOOT people and, in all but the most egregious cases, the worst punishment they'll face is getting fired.
So, if the concern is context, it's not that hard to deal with. If the clip ONLY shows the cop beating up the suspect, say that. If it doesn't--if it shows a peaceful demonstrater getting beat down, then cop gets fired. Cop gets prosecuted. Cop goes to jail. Sorry if this offends any cops out there, but you get a lot of power over the rest of us, therefore you must be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lesser one. If you aren't willing to have your actions scrutinized when wielding this power over the citizens you're supposed to be serving and protecting, you're in the wrong job.
Long ago, I had a police officer lie through her teeth in court about me. It was just a stupid little traffic ticket, so in the grand scheme of things, wasn't a big deal, but the lesson never left me. Police WILL and DO lie in court, and if your story doesn't match theirs, YOU are perceived as the liar. I don't think it's all of them all the time. I like to believe the average cop is a good guy doing a good job, but it's naive to believe they're all good, all the time. They're not.
Much as I despise the idea of a surveillance state, I want a camera on me every time I'm interacting with the police as a possible suspect. Every time. It's the only hope you have of an impartial observer.
Does the name Alan Turing [wikipedia.org] ring a bell? The same guy who saved more lives in WW2 than anyone else by cracking the german cypher codes was also forced to take female hormones to chemically castrate him to avoid going to jail for being gay (1952).
Hate to derail a good rant, but that was 60 years ago in a different country and not under DADT. Wildly irrelevant.
And yes, this is not a story that should be on slashdot. Interesting and relevant? Of course! But how many other sites cover this? Oh, I dunno, all of them? When Slashdot becomes CNN jr, it's time to close up shop.
It's not a treaty, it's a doctrine. Politician for "idea". It's just nations telling each other "If you hit me, I'mma hit you so hard your grandma feels it!" When heavily armed nuclear powers to that, you get MAD. No winners, so playing the game at all becomes a bad idea. Hey, someone should make a movie about that...
No, I rather doubt we'd turn the country into a parking lot. After all, a lot of civilians live there. I rather doubt there'd be much left of their military, however. They'd be neutered. Would we do so lightly? Of course not. Now, if NK were to directly attack the US with nukes, I suspect they'd cease to be a world power before they landed here.
That is the point. Java is only valuable begause it is given away for free.
Not quite. If it were valuable, people would wilingly pay for it, and Sun/Oracle would have made a monumental error in not charging money for it. Java is useful. The challenge is to get people to pay money for it, or in some other way to cough up cash as a result of using Java. Do that, and it's also valuable.
It's a bad policy if you're using P2P software but not violating anyone's copyright. For example, I have musician friends. If they choose to distribute their music in that fashion, it's not a crime, nor does the RIAA have any legitimate thing to say about it. It's actually a terrible thing to throw someone under the wheels of "justice" and figure if they didn't really do anything, no harm will come to them.
To use your example, this is a lot more like the university ticketing every car in a parking lot where a lot of people park illegally, including those with permits to park there.
and the RIAA, who will have a hard time justifying onerous financial impositions on what amounts to a crime that, in real life, is no more major than jaywalking
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a parent, it's not of the school systems's business where my children are at 8pm. If they're out causing problems at 8pm, that's a law enforcement issue, not a school one.
Schools, sadly, do a horrible job of respecting the boundaries of their own authority, preferring instead to involve themselves in countless other things which are not their core mission -- educating children.
Twitter is a vast bathroom wall where people scrawl things. Writing something on the wall is "tweeting".
Some people erroneously think the things you scrawl are important, so they follow you. Your followers watch your bit of wall to see when you write seomething.
When your followers think you wrote something less irrelevant than usual, they may retweet it, which simply means they wrote it on their bit of wall for people who follow them to see.
Damn straight we complain. Class actions are a scam. The parties harmed by the action get a pittance while the lawyers get a metric ton of cash. You might look at it not as outrage that lawyers get paid for their work, but outrage that this action is being taken on behalf of us poor iPhone owners. It's being taken by lawyers for lawyers.
For me, de-friending isn't housecleaning. I don't go through my list to prune it. I will remove people if their statuses are annoying and we're not really friends. The one example that comes to mind is someone I knew as an angry-with-the-world girl in high school who sent me a request, we traded a couple emails, and I accepted. I tired of seeing angry-with-the-world rants about minor offenses people had committed against her, so she got the boot.
You hit the key point, though. Just because facebook calls it "friending" doesn't mean the people on the list are "friends". They're merely people you are willing to be linked to on facebook. Some of mine are friends. Some are just people I knew and am at least casually curious what happens in their lives.
Not remotely. Counter example? Management by committee. Getting a bunch of good communicators together to validate their poor decisions does not make those decisions good. You still require someone sharp enough to see the solution to the problem. And yes, at that point, you need someone who can actually commmunicate it.
Communication is a great tool. It gets things done, but it doesn't necessarily get the right things done.
That's priceless, because speaking as someone who was raised as a Christian, we often speak of our troubles, minor and major, as being "our cross to bear". It's not offensive. It's common usage.
By the same logic, it takes a lot more than 3 people to run a prison, so we should monitor them instead.
I'm going to go out on a limb and ask if you're one of the less technically proficient here. I don't intend to offend, I just suspect that very many of us read the article and realized that what you propose is exactly what they're going to do, that it wouldn't actually cost that much, and properly engineered, would be rather difficult to defeat. With the exception of the hardware, I could build such a system myself. And as for the hardware, they already use it, so the one part I don't feel qualified to do is a solved problem.
I've wondered the same thing, and the answer I came up with was simply to let the convicted choose death instead of life imprisonment if they so choose. It's a given we're going to screw up and convict the wrong person some percentage of the time. When we do so, let's confine them humanely. I think this is better than executing the wrong person, and by giving them the choice, we insure that the ones who live in that circumstance are only the ones who agree. The ones who would rather be dead would be.
They don't even have single sign on for their OWN systems, and they think they're the right entity to create it for 300 million people? That's hilarious. This will be a $100 billion project that will never actually meet its goals.
Thanks, but no thanks. I actually WANT different passwords on my accounts. I don't WANT my facebook account to unlock my bank, or my slashdot password to unlock my facebook account.
I'm sorry, but if you really want this, you want someone else to do it. If you're smart, you won't want anyone to do it, or at the least, you want opt out.
Like everyone else, I read about such things with outrage until I actually RTFA. The jackpot she hit was about 100x higher than the maximum the machine was ever supposed to give, so it WAS an error, and obviously so.
Since you're posting on /., I can only assume your cat was really, really upset with you.
Really? Because I used to spend a lot of time around MRI coils. Much higher magnetic fields than you're going to find in any supposed haunted house, and a kilowatt+ RF transmitter blaring EM fields all over the place. I often found it noisy and cold. Sometimes boring. Never haunted.
You're playing word games. The point isn't that this is not the optimal use of the money, the point is that this is a spectacularly stupid waste of the money. Don't forever try to find the perfect use for it, but if you're going to raise half a billion, let's do something that's not spectacularly stupid.
To a point. Reliance on superstars causes trouble. They're hard to find. Sometimes hard to identify. I've seen too many polished and confident people who sell well but deliver poorly Stars are expensive. They're sought after, so leave. As TFA suggests, they're prone to realizing they're superstars and expect to be treated like superstars, which does a good bit to negate their value.
One of the attributes of a really superior solution is that it can be built and maintained by mere mortals. The closer your solution is to being able to be implemented by average joes with the typical knowledge in their field, the better. Of course, now and again you have big problems that need to be solved Right Now. Then you pull a Manhattan Project, get the best and brightest and spare no expense.
I think you just refuted your own point. The most complex piece of software on your computer is a word processor. That's the problem. Things which are conceptually simple have become so monstrously bloated that they're now "complex software".
Not necessarily. He can fix it and some other developer can un-fix it. Microsoft famously does this. Not frequently, but more often then they should.
Partly irrelevant. You're still paying the guy $X per hour to fix the bugs. If he could do something else useful during that time, it's valid to say the time and money spent on fixing the bugs is saved (and spent on something else).
There is a better alternative. Stop slapping drunk drivers on the wrist. Instead of a ticket, a drunk driving conviction == you lose your license. Drive while on a DUI-revoked license, you go to jail. We don't have to aggressively search for people to slap on the wrist. We have to reasonably search for people and then make them stop reoffending. Just give them the legal equivalent of "Look, a**hole, you want to drink, fine, take a cab home. Everybody's happy. Do this again you're in a cell. One way or another, your drunk azz isn't going to be on the roads again."
Why? Two equally drunk people get into their cards after a night of hard drinking. Both drivers are all over the roads. Drunk #1 happens to be lucky. There's nobody else on the roads. Drunk #2, driving the very same roads, encounters exactly one car, hits it, and kills the driver.
Both did precisely the same thing. They got drunk and then drove. The only thing that differed is circumstances they had no control over. Why do we give Drunk #1 a ticket, if he happens to get caught, and #2 a jail term? Both should be punished for extreme negligence that a reasonable person would know is likely to result in death, injury, or damage to property.
This is actually a great reason for as many people as possible to refuse searches as a matter of course. Even putting aside the constitutional and rights issue, which of course we shouldn't, the basic logic is flawed if half the people who are asked "May we search your house?" say "Of course not." Then it becomes a pretty solid argument when 95%+ of the people who refuse searches haven't done anything illegal.
Frankly, he's an embarassment to the badge he used to wear.
We give these guys phenominal power over us. They can accuse you of a crime, which carries a heavy burden even if you're later found innocent. Stand in front of a judge and tell the judge "A happened!" while the police officer says "!A happened!" and guess what the judge believes? !A. Police carry the presumption of being the good guys. Hell, they can SHOOT people and, in all but the most egregious cases, the worst punishment they'll face is getting fired.
So, if the concern is context, it's not that hard to deal with. If the clip ONLY shows the cop beating up the suspect, say that. If it doesn't--if it shows a peaceful demonstrater getting beat down, then cop gets fired. Cop gets prosecuted. Cop goes to jail. Sorry if this offends any cops out there, but you get a lot of power over the rest of us, therefore you must be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lesser one. If you aren't willing to have your actions scrutinized when wielding this power over the citizens you're supposed to be serving and protecting, you're in the wrong job.
Long ago, I had a police officer lie through her teeth in court about me. It was just a stupid little traffic ticket, so in the grand scheme of things, wasn't a big deal, but the lesson never left me. Police WILL and DO lie in court, and if your story doesn't match theirs, YOU are perceived as the liar. I don't think it's all of them all the time. I like to believe the average cop is a good guy doing a good job, but it's naive to believe they're all good, all the time. They're not.
Much as I despise the idea of a surveillance state, I want a camera on me every time I'm interacting with the police as a possible suspect. Every time. It's the only hope you have of an impartial observer.
Hate to derail a good rant, but that was 60 years ago in a different country and not under DADT. Wildly irrelevant.
And yes, this is not a story that should be on slashdot. Interesting and relevant? Of course! But how many other sites cover this? Oh, I dunno, all of them? When Slashdot becomes CNN jr, it's time to close up shop.
It's not a treaty, it's a doctrine. Politician for "idea". It's just nations telling each other "If you hit me, I'mma hit you so hard your grandma feels it!" When heavily armed nuclear powers to that, you get MAD. No winners, so playing the game at all becomes a bad idea. Hey, someone should make a movie about that...
No, I rather doubt we'd turn the country into a parking lot. After all, a lot of civilians live there. I rather doubt there'd be much left of their military, however. They'd be neutered. Would we do so lightly? Of course not. Now, if NK were to directly attack the US with nukes, I suspect they'd cease to be a world power before they landed here.
Not quite. If it were valuable, people would wilingly pay for it, and Sun/Oracle would have made a monumental error in not charging money for it. Java is useful. The challenge is to get people to pay money for it, or in some other way to cough up cash as a result of using Java. Do that, and it's also valuable.
Wait, so the deal is that mankind was wrong about something?
In that case, the response shouldn't be "Awesome!", it should be "Oh, again?"
It's a bad policy if you're using P2P software but not violating anyone's copyright. For example, I have musician friends. If they choose to distribute their music in that fashion, it's not a crime, nor does the RIAA have any legitimate thing to say about it. It's actually a terrible thing to throw someone under the wheels of "justice" and figure if they didn't really do anything, no harm will come to them.
To use your example, this is a lot more like the university ticketing every car in a parking lot where a lot of people park illegally, including those with permits to park there.
You must be new here.