How about Students, give students an anonymous evaluation form to put their feelings of teachers on them, then when the time comes to get rid of unnecessary teachers, its easier to get rid of the ones where the students can't learn in.
Except your system doesn't identify teachers that students can't learn from, it identifies teachers student don't like. The two things aren't even remotely the same.
Maybe the baby boomers, but I don't know anyone in the 20-35 age group that pays for cable unless they want to watch sports. We all have internet access, hulu, and netflix.
That says more about the limited demographics of your friends than anything else. Virtually every 20-35 age group that I know has cable, for kids programming, and for TV shows because a computer screen sucks for TV. Maybe your friends in that age group grew up watching low quality videos on their computer screen and are thus ignorant of what TV actually looks like, or only watch a limited selection of major networks shows... But mine didn't.
IMO these sorts of niche channels will be the first to go under an internet video regime.
They only have a couple hours a day of original programming, the rest of the time is endless reruns and infomercials.
I can't speak for the golf channels - but if by original programming you mean first run, no channel can long sustain itself on nothing but first run material. Even CNN repeats itself and produces filler.
It should be very easy to package together advertising-supported cooking or golf shows on the internet in a much higher quality format than cable.
I love how many Slashdotters [mistakenly] think anything non technical 'should be easy'.
I have been surprised that Western shipbuilders are not designing new cargo ships with nuclear power. I would think that at this time, it would be considered the cheapest form of shipping down the road.
Well, the problem is that it's only the cheapest considerably down the road. The Pentagon (with it's deep pockets) only considers universal nuclear power to be a good deal when oil rises (and remains) above (IIRC) $125/150 a barrel.
America built a convertable (half cargo-half passenger), and that was ok EXCEPT for several issues.
1. The price of oil turned cheap.
2. Captains were insisting on more pay than the nuclear engineer.
3. It wasted space on passengers.
1. Oil was cheap when they started the design and stayed cheap. 2. Did little to effect the cost of operations. 3. In that era the virtually complete separation between passengers and cargo hadn't quite happened yet - it was still a few years in the future.
In other words, this sort of thing has been operating safely for about 50 years now.
By the US, sure. Decidedly not true of the Russians. If their accident rate has gone down in the last twenty odd years, it's because their operational rate is a small fraction of what it was before that.
Filtering the wheat from the chaff can often take as much or more effort as finding the information in the first place.
Assuming of course that you are skilled in identifying that strain of wheat in the first place. If it's a topic you are familiar with, this is fairly straightforward. If it's a topic you aren't familiar with... it's much, much more difficult.
The decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 provoked dire warnings from a handful of dissenters that the deregulation of Wall Street would someday wreak havoc on the nation's financial system.
Yep and no one forsaw this financial crisis, indeed.
Which neatly illustrates the problem with this (fast, broad, and lacking in scholarship) type of historical 'research'... It makes it trivial to find someone whose opinion supports your position, even if the prediction at the time was made by people considered to be clueless cranks. (I'm not saying this is the case here, merely using it as an example.)
As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
So, let me understand this - you've never actually worked for the CIA, instead rejecting their offer, yet you know exactly what goes inside the CIA based on the fact that you place money as a higher consideration and rejected their offer?
Not to mention the logical contradictions in your writeup - the applicants/hire cannot both be 'really smart' (as in your first paragraph) and 'pinheads' (third paragraph). I smell stereotyping and more than a little self aggrandizement.
Yup. Whether it's computer security, physical security, communications security - the more secure you are, the greater a pain in the ass it is. Whether it's checkpoints or check boxes, there's a balance between security and usefulness, and where the balance point lies varies greatly.
A real accidental leak would be something overheard at a bar where the speaker didn't know a reporter was listening.
That would qualify as a rumor, not a leak. Rumors come from unknown sources with unknown provenance - leaks come from known sources with a known provenance.
But when the guy says it straight out to a reporter, that isn't leaking, that's just an unofficial announcement.
A leak is something that is let slip, while an unofficial announcement is something done deliberately. Telling the difference between the two is a matter of examining context - and the context here is of an accident and followup. (Not to mention that Microsoft is extremely unlikely to make an unofficial announcement via a third party.)
I think the simplest solution is to tie ownership of patents to either pure research or production. I have no problem with Qualcomm licensing patents from its research. I have no problem with a manufacturing company patenting the hell out of its products. I have extreme problem with law firms and companies composed of 2 weasels in business suits and a lawyer owning patents.
In other words you would deny the owner of a patent of his most basic right - the ability to sell it. (And what is a sale but a permanent exclusive license?)
Yes, but how heavy were the parachute, parachute deployment system, and parachute shielding system that they were able to remove?
Much, much lighter than the rockets, legs, and fuel systems. A parachute system for a Soyuz size vehicle weighs a few hundred pounds. The fuel alone for a rocket landing system will probably weigh over a ton at minimum.
Right now, Google has been hit with a class action lawsuit on behalf of pretty much every author ever, because it's a class action, if you are a member of the class you are bound by the settlement terms unless you opt out of the class before the deadline in May.
True - but the dodgy part is this: It is not clear that organization that is representing itself as the legal representatives of the class is in fact legally qualified to do so.
No, however an issue is folk like you spouting off without knowing what they are talking about, muddying the waters.
No, the problem is Google apologists like yourself who spin the situation to avoid discussing the dodgy parts.
All the rest of the noise and turmoil is bullshit and a tempest in a teapot, since part of the settlement will be you can opt-out of Google's publish on demand system if your works would count as 'orphaned works' and if your books are still published, then Google doesn't get the rights to sell you anything, without your explicit permission.
Here's another of the dodgy parts that apologists like yourself try to spin and handwave away. Copyright law currently assumes that unless permission is explicitly granted, then the works cannot be republished. This travesty of a settlement not only stands that principle on it's head, it grants Google a monopoly over the ability to seize the works of others.
This sort of highlights the flaws in our current copyright system. Not that this settlement is possible, but that there are actually works out there that would be covered by 'orphaned works' clause of it. The point of copyright was never to be "we give you exclusive rights to making copies of this book for a limited time period, then you remove it from our culture forever by burying it".
Exclusive rights over something means you can do whatever you like with it. Not "whatever you like so long as we like what you like and no business comes along that doesn't like what you like".
Congress could easily put the orphaned book deal into law, whereby anyone could declare a book orphaned to a government agency that would look the book up in what's currently being published.
Or, in other words, all it takes is one person to decide that they want to override your legal rights and then complain to the appropriate agency to have some faceless bureaucrat to override your legal rights.
If it's not [currently published, whatever that means], you would pay a royalty to that agency, who would keep the money in escrow in case the copyright owner comes forward.
In other words, a faceless bureaucrat can override the rights holders legal right to negotiate royalties or to deny the right to reprint outright.
If and when they do [step forward], they could make a deal with you to keep publishing, or politely ask you to stop.
In other words, the rights holder is now forced to live with the fait accompli of the faceless bureaucrat and hope they can come to deal with the person or company that republished his work without his permission.
Such a law would be a much better deal than a specific settlement between one company and the guilds.
Such a law would be a travesty, just like this 'settlement'.
Amegy's decision to ban the use of social networking sites in its hiring process demonstrates its respect for prospective employees' privacy.
Bullshit. If it's publicly posted, it's not private.
It also sends a message to the employers and recruiters using social networks to snoop into job seekers' personal lives that their actions border on discrimination and could get them in a lot of legal trouble.
Bullshit. If it's public, it's not snooping. (Or anywhere near discriminatory.)
Reminds me of my local Fox News station that carried an official statement from the government about how people shouldn't panic. Then immediately followed it with a report of the number of cases around the country, then an interview with one of the victims saying how awful it was to vomit for hours on end. And then all the places and all the ways you can catch the flu, and what you should do if you do.
Fair and balanced once again.
Let's see... they report the government's position, and follow it with factual reports and peoples impressions of the experience. You can't get much more balanced than that.
It's nothing new. Mass media been catering to the lowest possible denominator in order to increase [reader|listener|viewer]ship for about as long as mass media have been around. The happy golden time when the media reported facts honestly and fairly is a myth, not history.
Bull. I work at the second-largest newspaper in Alaska and pick wire stories based on what people are interested in and what folks need to stay informed.
So what? That doesn't invalidate what the grandparent said one bit. Whether you are a biased source, or pick from a menu provided by a biased source - the bias is still present.
Because microwave ovens, lasers, LEDs, solar cells, and satellites wouldn't be around if it weren't for pure research in the fields of physics, chemistry, and material science.
Microwave ovens were discovered by accident during radar research. Lasers were developed by a commercial R&D firm based on theories, not research. The photoelectric effect was discovered by accident. Satellites weren't discovered per se but the ability to launch them was deliberately pursued for military reasons.
So that leaves just LED's - which were discovered twice, once by accident once, by basic research.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all very nice - but has zip point nada to do with my comment.
Except your system doesn't identify teachers that students can't learn from, it identifies teachers student don't like. The two things aren't even remotely the same.
That says more about the limited demographics of your friends than anything else. Virtually every 20-35 age group that I know has cable, for kids programming, and for TV shows because a computer screen sucks for TV. Maybe your friends in that age group grew up watching low quality videos on their computer screen and are thus ignorant of what TV actually looks like, or only watch a limited selection of major networks shows... But mine didn't.
Yeah, right. Nobody is canceling premium packages to save a few bucks a month.
I can't speak for the golf channels - but if by original programming you mean first run, no channel can long sustain itself on nothing but first run material. Even CNN repeats itself and produces filler.
I love how many Slashdotters [mistakenly] think anything non technical 'should be easy'.
Well, the problem is that it's only the cheapest considerably down the road. The Pentagon (with it's deep pockets) only considers universal nuclear power to be a good deal when oil rises (and remains) above (IIRC) $125/150 a barrel.
1. Oil was cheap when they started the design and stayed cheap.
2. Did little to effect the cost of operations.
3. In that era the virtually complete separation between passengers and cargo hadn't quite happened yet - it was still a few years in the future.
By the US, sure. Decidedly not true of the Russians. If their accident rate has gone down in the last twenty odd years, it's because their operational rate is a small fraction of what it was before that.
Assuming of course that you are skilled in identifying that strain of wheat in the first place. If it's a topic you are familiar with, this is fairly straightforward. If it's a topic you aren't familiar with... it's much, much more difficult.
Which neatly illustrates the problem with this (fast, broad, and lacking in scholarship) type of historical 'research'... It makes it trivial to find someone whose opinion supports your position, even if the prediction at the time was made by people considered to be clueless cranks. (I'm not saying this is the case here, merely using it as an example.)
As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
So, let me understand this - you've never actually worked for the CIA, instead rejecting their offer, yet you know exactly what goes inside the CIA based on the fact that you place money as a higher consideration and rejected their offer?
Not to mention the logical contradictions in your writeup - the applicants/hire cannot both be 'really smart' (as in your first paragraph) and 'pinheads' (third paragraph). I smell stereotyping and more than a little self aggrandizement.
Yup. Whether it's computer security, physical security, communications security - the more secure you are, the greater a pain in the ass it is. Whether it's checkpoints or check boxes, there's a balance between security and usefulness, and where the balance point lies varies greatly.
The question is - which people?
That would qualify as a rumor, not a leak. Rumors come from unknown sources with unknown provenance - leaks come from known sources with a known provenance.
A leak is something that is let slip, while an unofficial announcement is something done deliberately. Telling the difference between the two is a matter of examining context - and the context here is of an accident and followup. (Not to mention that Microsoft is extremely unlikely to make an unofficial announcement via a third party.)
In other words you would deny the owner of a patent of his most basic right - the ability to sell it. (And what is a sale but a permanent exclusive license?)
Much, much lighter than the rockets, legs, and fuel systems. A parachute system for a Soyuz size vehicle weighs a few hundred pounds. The fuel alone for a rocket landing system will probably weigh over a ton at minimum.
It's not FUD, it's facts. If you had a clue, you'd know that.
It is that I *do* understand what a class action lawsuit is.
True - but the dodgy part is this: It is not clear that organization that is representing itself as the legal representatives of the class is in fact legally qualified to do so.
No, the problem is Google apologists like yourself who spin the situation to avoid discussing the dodgy parts.
Here's another of the dodgy parts that apologists like yourself try to spin and handwave away. Copyright law currently assumes that unless permission is explicitly granted, then the works cannot be republished. This travesty of a settlement not only stands that principle on it's head, it grants Google a monopoly over the ability to seize the works of others.
Exclusive rights over something means you can do whatever you like with it. Not "whatever you like so long as we like what you like and no business comes along that doesn't like what you like".
Or, in other words, all it takes is one person to decide that they want to override your legal rights and then complain to the appropriate agency to have some faceless bureaucrat to override your legal rights.
In other words, a faceless bureaucrat can override the rights holders legal right to negotiate royalties or to deny the right to reprint outright.
In other words, the rights holder is now forced to live with the fait accompli of the faceless bureaucrat and hope they can come to deal with the person or company that republished his work without his permission.
Such a law would be a travesty, just like this 'settlement'.
If the topic under discussion was race and gender rather than the contents of social media, you'd have a point.
Bullshit. If it's publicly posted, it's not private.
Bullshit. If it's public, it's not snooping. (Or anywhere near discriminatory.)
Let's see... they report the government's position, and follow it with factual reports and peoples impressions of the experience. You can't get much more balanced than that.
It's nothing new. Mass media been catering to the lowest possible denominator in order to increase [reader|listener|viewer]ship for about as long as mass media have been around. The happy golden time when the media reported facts honestly and fairly is a myth, not history.
So what? That doesn't invalidate what the grandparent said one bit. Whether you are a biased source, or pick from a menu provided by a biased source - the bias is still present.
Microwave ovens were discovered by accident during radar research. Lasers were developed by a commercial R&D firm based on theories, not research. The photoelectric effect was discovered by accident. Satellites weren't discovered per se but the ability to launch them was deliberately pursued for military reasons.
So that leaves just LED's - which were discovered twice, once by accident once, by basic research.