Am I the only one who sees a problem with giving schools control over students' lives beyond campus grounds?
No, but much of this activity does happen on school grounds, sometimes using school equipment. For those cases the school does need to establish specific policies.
Another questin to ponder. If a picture is taken on school property but published "off campus" on a web site, does/should the school have some recourse?
I'm not talking about a dedicated mission to retrieve the scope, but having its retrieval be the last phase of another mission?
If that can be done, considering most of the risk (AFAIK) is during takeoff and landing, does it really add much risk to a mission that's already going to "be there"?
I don't see why you can't make "visible wavelength images" out of the James Webb Scope. Can't they simply use psuedo-color to map the infrared spectrum used into the visible spectrum? The result could be even more spectacular.
Just curious if there's something more to it than that.
I thought the quote rather funny too. So the person who has this movie sitting in a shared folder so anyone can download it for free constitutes "high-reward"?
Sure, the "real" pirates who make thousands of duplicates of a DVD and sell it cheap are reaping a high-reward, but not the P2P drone.
No, it absolutely does not mean piracy to me. I was trying to make the point that others, including Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who blasted Jobs for the Rip/Mix/Burn campaign in a congressional hearing, seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Jobs is also the CEO of Pixar. Thus he has as much of a vested interest in protecting the "industry" as anyone else. If Jobs doesn't have a problem with Rip/Mix/Burn, why should anyone else?
The really ironic part is that Eisner used Monsters, Inc. as an example of a movie that was floating around the internet before it was even released. The ironic part being that Monsters, Inc. was made by Pixar.
Let's also not forget the other companies Jobs founded.
There's NeXT. Wether that's a plus or minus I'll leave to the/. masses to determine.
Then there's Pixar. A definite hit. Funny how many people forget he's still CEO of Pixar. Especially when they talk about things like the Rip/Mix/Burn campain indicating Jobs condones piracy.
To answer some of my own questions, I did a little looking. It looks like a space elevator could be closer to reality than I expected.
From http://www.isr.us/SEConcept.asp?m=2
"With a concerted and well-funded effort the raw technologies could be ready in two years, further engineering would take three more years. Once construction begins it will take six years to complete construction and launch the initial spacecraft. Two and a half additional years will be required to build up the ribbon to a 20,000 kg capacity. "
That having been said, why would you want to send a space station to the moon and then bring it back.
I wouldn't. I envisioned one group of shuttles going between earth and a space station, and a second set going between the space station and moon. Each type of shuttle designed for its own specialized use (earth vs. moon landings).
As you mentioned, though, it may be cheaper for a single use craft to put the payloads into space. Wether this same single-use craft could also safely deliver its cargo to the moon or you would need a separate delivery vehicle, I don't know.
WRT the space elevator, I don't know much about it beyond a general clue of what it is, but is it really feasible at this time or in the semi-near future?
Maybe I need to pull my head out of the SF clouds, but it seems like we really need both.
Creating a moonbase will require a lot of material and a lot of manpower. How are you going to deliver that?
My answer would be to use shuttles, but you're going to need two different kinds.
The first kind we already have. Its good for ferrying people and supplies from earth to space (orbit).
The second kind would be for ferrying people and supplies from space (orbit) to the moon.
Why two kinds? Because you can't land a shuttle on the moon (no atmosphere) and the kind of rocket-assisted landings used on the moon are nearly impossible on the earth (too much gravity).
So unless we can come up with a vehicle that can handle both types of landings (completely different design criteria), we'll need both kinds of shuttles. That means we need a space station before we can have a moonbase, IMO.
Problem is, once you mine a few tons of minerals, how do you get them back to earth?
You need to control the descent so you don't drop it on somebody's head and the cargo doesn't burn up on entry into the atmosphere. That's going to add a lot to the cost.
They'd have to be mining something with a lot of value/weight. Any guesses as to what would fit that category?
AFAIK mining operations would be to support other operations occuring in space. IOW it would have to be part of a space-based-infrastructure which means a huge investment over decades.
With TV you almost have to prerecord all your shows and then zip (zap?) through them to eliminate the commercials.
I wish that actually worked. Ever notice while watching a show that more and more of the screen real estate is being used for continuous advertising? It started with networks putting their logo in the bottom right corner continuously during the shows on up to 1/3 of the screen being taken over by advertising just before or after a "real" commercial break. Its so much fun to get to an intense part of a show and have Joe Shmo appear on the bottom of the screen!
And one big choice we have is what advertising to be influenced by. Unfortunately it takes a certain level of awareness and some effort not to let "the messages" filter in passively. The bottom line is if we didn't let the advertising influence our decisions, it would disappear on its own.
That reminds me of a story (yeah I'm old and I can't remember it all quite right).
The factory floor was brought to a screeching halt because of a machine malfunction. Nobody on the floor knew how to fix it and the business was losing $1000s an hr for every hour the machinery was down. So the plant manager calls in an expert. The expert walks in, looks around for a few minutes, pushes a button and pulls a lever and everything starts working again. He then writes out his bill and gives it to the manager. Amazed, the manager says, "How can you possibly charge us $250 for pushing a button and pulling a lever? It only took you a few minutes!" The expert apologises and writes out a new bill.
Pushing Button $20 Pulling Lever $30 Knowing which button to push and lever to pull $200
The moral being that even though it may only take you a few seconds to do something on a computer, it may be very difficult or impossible for someone without your knowledge.
The fact that people feel they need to delete all the music files on their computer is downright scary.
Why scary?
Its not illegal to have music files on your computer! Did they delete "legal" and "illegal" ones alike? If so that means the RIAA has scared people into believing they aren't allowed to have music on their computer.
To me it means the RIAA, MPAA, FTC, courts and elected officials have us afraid to fully use technology in a way that is beneficial to us. We're now afraid we may be dragged into court and fined $millions for having music on our computer. We're being told more and more what we can't do, and not what we can do.
Sorry for the ranting, but its sickening to me to think that so many people may be deleting "legal" music from their computer all because of FUD.
With all the fast food jokes etc., it seems the real significance of this deal (if true) is being missed.
With the Peps deal, the goal was to sell 100 million songs by March(?) of next year. This was seen as being extremely ambitious.
Now we up that by an order of magnitude. Now we're talking a complete change in the landscape. Apple is no longer a front-runner in the online music business, Apple is the online music buisiness.
Plus, as you alluded, suddenly AAC has a huge foothold, possibly overshadowing WMA, at least for the short term.
I just hope this turns out to be true, but I'm not holding my breath.
My point was simply that you can't have drivers from two different applications (iTunes and MusicMatch) for the same device (the iPod) being loaded into the system. If it doen's simply crash the system, it would be quite the show to see which one would gain control of the iPod when its plugged in.
So IMO it would be bad for Apple not to disable MusicMatch after giving the user fair warning.
It couldn't possibly be bad for a single device to have two different drivers trying to control it. I'm sure everything works perfectly fine that way -at least as well as when my wife and I both try to drive the car at the same time.
I agree. However the down side of doing this is I end up with a folder full of PDFs with cryptic names, most of which I'll never look at again. I just wish the file didn't get saved unless I told the viewing app to save it.
That's still not big enough. The dock indicates I have 15 applications running. Push F9 and see I have 27 windows open. I'd need a surround monitor for that.
But now Apple has depricated Resource Forks in favor of bundles. Bundles are essentially just folders and each "fork" is a separate file in the folder. That way it it can reside on pretty much any file system.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only one who sees a problem with giving schools control over students' lives beyond campus grounds?
No, but much of this activity does happen on school grounds, sometimes using school equipment. For those cases the school does need to establish specific policies.
Another questin to ponder. If a picture is taken on school property but published "off campus" on a web site, does/should the school have some recourse?
How much does it actually add to the risk though?
I'm not talking about a dedicated mission to retrieve the scope, but having its retrieval be the last phase of another mission?
If that can be done, considering most of the risk (AFAIK) is during takeoff and landing, does it really add much risk to a mission that's already going to "be there"?
I don't see why you can't make "visible wavelength images" out of the James Webb Scope. Can't they simply use psuedo-color to map the infrared spectrum used into the visible spectrum? The result could be even more spectacular.
Just curious if there's something more to it than that.
I thought the quote rather funny too. So the person who has this movie sitting in a shared folder so anyone can download it for free constitutes "high-reward"?
Sure, the "real" pirates who make thousands of duplicates of a DVD and sell it cheap are reaping a high-reward, but not the P2P drone.
No, it absolutely does not mean piracy to me. I was trying to make the point that others, including Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who blasted Jobs for the Rip/Mix/Burn campaign in a congressional hearing, seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Jobs is also the CEO of Pixar. Thus he has as much of a vested interest in protecting the "industry" as anyone else. If Jobs doesn't have a problem with Rip/Mix/Burn, why should anyone else?
The really ironic part is that Eisner used Monsters, Inc. as an example of a movie that was floating around the internet before it was even released. The ironic part being that Monsters, Inc. was made by Pixar.
Let's also not forget the other companies Jobs founded.
/. masses to determine.
There's NeXT. Wether that's a plus or minus I'll leave to the
Then there's Pixar. A definite hit. Funny how many people forget he's still CEO of Pixar. Especially when they talk about things like the Rip/Mix/Burn campain indicating Jobs condones piracy.
Yes. Just like a lot of things.
Did Apple invent the personal computer, the mouse, the GUI....
Wether you answer yes or no to each depends on your perspective.
To answer some of my own questions, I did a little looking. It looks like a space elevator could be closer to reality than I expected.
From http://www.isr.us/SEConcept.asp?m=2
"With a concerted and well-funded effort the raw technologies could be ready in two years, further engineering would take three more years. Once construction begins it will take six years to complete construction and launch the initial spacecraft. Two and a half additional years will be required to build up the ribbon to a 20,000 kg capacity. "
This site is a very interesting read (IMO).
That having been said, why would you want to send a space station to the moon and then bring it back.
I wouldn't. I envisioned one group of shuttles going between earth and a space station, and a second set going between the space station and moon. Each type of shuttle designed for its own specialized use (earth vs. moon landings).
As you mentioned, though, it may be cheaper for a single use craft to put the payloads into space. Wether this same single-use craft could also safely deliver its cargo to the moon or you would need a separate delivery vehicle, I don't know.
WRT the space elevator, I don't know much about it beyond a general clue of what it is, but is it really feasible at this time or in the semi-near future?
Maybe I need to pull my head out of the SF clouds, but it seems like we really need both.
Creating a moonbase will require a lot of material and a lot of manpower. How are you going to deliver that?
My answer would be to use shuttles, but you're going to need two different kinds.
The first kind we already have. Its good for ferrying people and supplies from earth to space (orbit).
The second kind would be for ferrying people and supplies from space (orbit) to the moon.
Why two kinds? Because you can't land a shuttle on the moon (no atmosphere) and the kind of rocket-assisted landings used on the moon are nearly impossible on the earth (too much gravity).
So unless we can come up with a vehicle that can handle both types of landings (completely different design criteria), we'll need both kinds of shuttles. That means we need a space station before we can have a moonbase, IMO.
Problem is, once you mine a few tons of minerals, how do you get them back to earth?
You need to control the descent so you don't drop it on somebody's head and the cargo doesn't burn up on entry into the atmosphere. That's going to add a lot to the cost.
They'd have to be mining something with a lot of value/weight. Any guesses as to what would fit that category?
AFAIK mining operations would be to support other operations occuring in space. IOW it would have to be part of a space-based-infrastructure which means a huge investment over decades.
With TV you almost have to prerecord all your shows and then zip (zap?) through them to eliminate the commercials.
I wish that actually worked. Ever notice while watching a show that more and more of the screen real estate is being used for continuous advertising? It started with networks putting their logo in the bottom right corner continuously during the shows on up to 1/3 of the screen being taken over by advertising just before or after a "real" commercial break. Its so much fun to get to an intense part of a show and have Joe Shmo appear on the bottom of the screen!
Ultimately, it's still my choice...
And one big choice we have is what advertising to be influenced by. Unfortunately it takes a certain level of awareness and some effort not to let "the messages" filter in passively. The bottom line is if we didn't let the advertising influence our decisions, it would disappear on its own.
Your argument is flawed. I am not forced to look at ads on billboards
I'm impressed! Unfortunately I'm not able to walk down the sidewalk or drive with my eyes closed. Its just not safe.
I am, however, capable of using earplugs while at home.
-Mike
That reminds me of a story (yeah I'm old and I can't remember it all quite right).
The factory floor was brought to a screeching halt because of a machine malfunction. Nobody on the floor knew how to fix it and the business was losing $1000s an hr for every hour the machinery was down. So the plant manager calls in an expert. The expert walks in, looks around for a few minutes, pushes a button and pulls a lever and everything starts working again. He then writes out his bill and gives it to the manager. Amazed, the manager says, "How can you possibly charge us $250 for pushing a button and pulling a lever? It only took you a few minutes!" The expert apologises and writes out a new bill.
Pushing Button $20
Pulling Lever $30
Knowing which button to push and lever to pull $200
The moral being that even though it may only take you a few seconds to do something on a computer, it may be very difficult or impossible for someone without your knowledge.
What I want to know is why did they delete them?
The fact that people feel they need to delete all the music files on their computer is downright scary.
Why scary?
Its not illegal to have music files on your computer! Did they delete "legal" and "illegal" ones alike? If so that means the RIAA has scared people into believing they aren't allowed to have music on their computer.
To me it means the RIAA, MPAA, FTC, courts and elected officials have us afraid to fully use technology in a way that is beneficial to us. We're now afraid we may be dragged into court and fined $millions for having music on our computer. We're being told more and more what we can't do, and not what we can do.
Sorry for the ranting, but its sickening to me to think that so many people may be deleting "legal" music from their computer all because of FUD.
Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness?
With all the fast food jokes etc., it seems the real significance of this deal (if true) is being missed.
With the Peps deal, the goal was to sell 100 million songs by March(?) of next year. This was seen as being extremely ambitious.
Now we up that by an order of magnitude. Now we're talking a complete change in the landscape. Apple is no longer a front-runner in the online music business, Apple is the online music buisiness.
Plus, as you alluded, suddenly AAC has a huge foothold, possibly overshadowing WMA, at least for the short term.
I just hope this turns out to be true, but I'm not holding my breath.
That's OK. I thought they'd finally been carted off to see a psychiatrist.
My point was simply that you can't have drivers from two different applications (iTunes and MusicMatch) for the same device (the iPod) being loaded into the system. If it doen's simply crash the system, it would be quite the show to see which one would gain control of the iPod when its plugged in.
So IMO it would be bad for Apple not to disable MusicMatch after giving the user fair warning.
It doesn't. But for some stupid reason my amp doesn't let me output both to the speakers at the same time.
I wonder why? Must be some kind of CD player conspiracy.
It couldn't possibly be bad for a single device to have two different drivers trying to control it. I'm sure everything works perfectly fine that way -at least as well as when my wife and I both try to drive the car at the same time.
CRASH!
I agree. However the down side of doing this is I end up with a folder full of PDFs with cryptic names, most of which I'll never look at again. I just wish the file didn't get saved unless I told the viewing app to save it.
What amazes me is the Member Rating is also 5 stars. Who are these "members"?
That's still not big enough. The dock indicates I have 15 applications running. Push F9 and see I have 27 windows open. I'd need a surround monitor for that.
But now Apple has depricated Resource Forks in favor of bundles. Bundles are essentially just folders and each "fork" is a separate file in the folder. That way it it can reside on pretty much any file system.
See for more info.