Chipmunk BASIC works on Intel Macs, Linux, and 64-bit versions of Windows, including (tested this morning) Windows 8.1, so it should run under 10 as well. The 'B' in BASIC stands for 'Beginners', so why not?
It's not irrelevant when your country originally had to start installing metal detectors at school, not because of school massacres, but because students were bringing knives and guns to protect themselves from other students.
Let me re-express myself - if you can't collect performance metrics that you can have confidence in, how do you tell if you're doing any good, just wasting time and resources, or actively doing harm? How do you determine who needs more attention to a particular subject, and give it to them? Grading the students is also a good way of grading the teacher. It's a good way of finding out which teachers can't teach.
Your argument is a total non-argument because (1) you already have HUGE inequities in the justice system, such as white vs. non-white, rich vs. poor, etc. (2) the jury is fully entitled to take the personality of the accused into account, as the jury is the final determiner of the actual facts of the case, after considering all the evidence. If they find that one of the facts is that justice is better served in one individual case by finding someone not guilty, they are entirely within their rights and the law.
First, airspace above prisons is generally a no-fly zone. Second, GPS spoofing is not the primary way this device works. Third, the 6 mile max beam is not sent straight up in the air - it's pointing downward or horizontally, or at a very slight angle up, so it won't affect airplane GPS, even if it's flying directly overhead. Fourth, as I pointed out before, these devices are NOT being used around airports. Also, the FAA would have NO problem with the airport operating a jammer on the frequencies used to control drones. So come off it, read the article - the word airport does not occur even once.
Don't be obtuse - the point was that few of the people who can use a computer will ever need to know anything beyond the on-off button and how to make sure it has power or the battery is charged.
How about that for the last quarter-century, every attempt to introduce computers into primary school has not resulted in an increase in learning, just another distraction at the expense of basic skills?
Didn't you get the memo? Teachers are no longer experts in education - their job is to teach to the test, not teach. And the "experts" are now companies with a vested interest in intermediating themselves into the system (see Pearson as an example) purely for profit, no evidence needed that it works or not because teaching to the test is all that Pearson et al push.
How dare someone try to teach something useful to our children? Like collaboration on problem solving tasks? This is a terrible precedent! Don't they know that such education should be limited to the existing technical elite and jealously guarded so we can protect our jobs?
How about teaching them to get along with each other instead of perpetuating the bullying and pecking order first?
Not everyone needs to know how to code. What everyone does need to understand is information. How do I find the information I need to solve a problem? How do I discern the quality of that information? I'm I looking at different information or multiple views of the same information. How does visualizing information in different ways help us solve problems.
Now I just want to homeschool the kids (that I hope, in vain, one day to have) and teach them basics so that they will, like one-eyed men among the blind, know how to read and write and do math in their heads like Americans used to, or like the Indians to whom our jobs get outsourced.
The one-eyed man in a country of the blind will not only not be king, they will either get killed trying to do something that blind people can do without seeing, or they will be locked up in the loony bin or burned at the stake for "having visions".
It's not even computer literacy. Especially since pair programming won't feed their inner geek, is impossible to fairly grade (who did more work, etc) and will lead to kids who can't grasp the concept pairing with the little egomaniacal sh*ts and hating it after hearing "like this, dummy" too many times.
Jury nullification is legal, and a necessary part of the whole "trial by your peers" concept of justice. Why should anyone be against it unless they don't like the idea of jury trials? And if they're so stupid as to not understand the concepts of nullification, trial, etc., they shouldn't even be on a jury (and they'll be the first to try to duck it).
Don't be silly. It wouldn't WORK on an aircraft. It needs multiple stationary base stations for pinpointing the transmitter. RTFA for more info. I doubt that the Federal Dept. of Corrections runs too many jails at 30,000 feet.
The whole idea that Jury Nullification is valid is offset by the oath you take when serving on a jury. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" As Jury Nullification is not law, serving on a jury with the intent to nullify is perjury.
Since jury nullification is part of the legal process, you can take the oath knowing that, worse comes to worse, you can nullify the laws in question without breaking your oath. Now, if jury nullification were illegal, you might have a point, but even if it were, how are you going to force a jury not to vote to nullify a law? Threaten them? It's been tried, and the jury told the judge that they could not, in good conscience, convict because the law (in this case a law prohibiting on-demand abortion) was unconscionable and unjust. After the 3rd attempt to retry the case to secure a conviction failed, the government backed down and free abortion on demand is now legal at any stage of pregnancy, no reason required.
Sometimes juries have the guts to tell the courts to shove it.
If you read the article, this is for drones of 55 lbs and less. The jamming is highly directional. The drone will do what it's programmed to do when it experiences a LoS - it will either return home or hover until the battery dies, or land. Considering that the Federal Bureau of Prisons wants these, they would love to ask you why you're operating a drone around a prison - and with this system, they can tell where the controller is.
Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?
There are no planes involved in the system. It's ground-based, highly directional, and the US Dept. of Justice wants them for the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. So now if someone wants to smuggle a phone into jail, they'll have to hide it by pulling a goat-guy. The range is 6 miles.
It's a ground-based system with a maximum range of 6 miles, highly directional antennas, and the Department of Justice wants them on behalf of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. In other words, not more drones delivering contraband. And because it can track where the controller is, one more stupid crook before the courts.
Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
The US government wants to buy things like this, so "approvde for use within the USA" is NOT going to be an issue:
The Airbus system follows a recent Layer 8 post that detailed the US Federal Bureau of Prisons looking for such as system to protect federal prison guards and prisoners from incoming threatening drones.
The group, which is an agency of the Department of Justice issued a Request for Information in November specifically targeting what it called a fully integrated system that will allow for the detection, tracking, interdiction, engagement and neutralization of small -- less the 55lb -- unmanned aerial system.
You don't even need to read the article - just look at the picture - to know this is a ground-based system. There is no "that aircraft screwing with their GPS."
You'll change your tune when you have to deal with someone suffering from dementia - they can't remember where they put something becomes someone stole it. Lights of cars passing outside become people with flashlights trying to look in the windows. The phone is bugged. Someone steals the cats every 5 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Chipmunk BASIC works on Intel Macs, Linux, and 64-bit versions of Windows, including (tested this morning) Windows 8.1, so it should run under 10 as well. The 'B' in BASIC stands for 'Beginners', so why not?
It's not irrelevant when your country originally had to start installing metal detectors at school, not because of school massacres, but because students were bringing knives and guns to protect themselves from other students.
Let me re-express myself - if you can't collect performance metrics that you can have confidence in, how do you tell if you're doing any good, just wasting time and resources, or actively doing harm? How do you determine who needs more attention to a particular subject, and give it to them? Grading the students is also a good way of grading the teacher. It's a good way of finding out which teachers can't teach.
Your argument is a total non-argument because (1) you already have HUGE inequities in the justice system, such as white vs. non-white, rich vs. poor, etc. (2) the jury is fully entitled to take the personality of the accused into account, as the jury is the final determiner of the actual facts of the case, after considering all the evidence. If they find that one of the facts is that justice is better served in one individual case by finding someone not guilty, they are entirely within their rights and the law.
First, airspace above prisons is generally a no-fly zone. Second, GPS spoofing is not the primary way this device works. Third, the 6 mile max beam is not sent straight up in the air - it's pointing downward or horizontally, or at a very slight angle up, so it won't affect airplane GPS, even if it's flying directly overhead. Fourth, as I pointed out before, these devices are NOT being used around airports. Also, the FAA would have NO problem with the airport operating a jammer on the frequencies used to control drones. So come off it, read the article - the word airport does not occur even once.
You shouldn't even need to whet their appetite. Computers are everywhere - if they want to learn how to program, they will.
C a total fad? I think not.
Don't be obtuse - the point was that few of the people who can use a computer will ever need to know anything beyond the on-off button and how to make sure it has power or the battery is charged.
How about that for the last quarter-century, every attempt to introduce computers into primary school has not resulted in an increase in learning, just another distraction at the expense of basic skills?
Didn't you get the memo? Teachers are no longer experts in education - their job is to teach to the test, not teach. And the "experts" are now companies with a vested interest in intermediating themselves into the system (see Pearson as an example) purely for profit, no evidence needed that it works or not because teaching to the test is all that Pearson et al push.
How dare someone try to teach something useful to our children? Like collaboration on problem solving tasks? This is a terrible precedent! Don't they know that such education should be limited to the existing technical elite and jealously guarded so we can protect our jobs?
How about teaching them to get along with each other instead of perpetuating the bullying and pecking order first?
Not everyone needs to know how to code. What everyone does need to understand is information. How do I find the information I need to solve a problem? How do I discern the quality of that information? I'm I looking at different information or multiple views of the same information. How does visualizing information in different ways help us solve problems.
Faux News FTW !!! :-)
Now I just want to homeschool the kids (that I hope, in vain, one day to have) and teach them basics so that they will, like one-eyed men among the blind, know how to read and write and do math in their heads like Americans used to, or like the Indians to whom our jobs get outsourced.
The one-eyed man in a country of the blind will not only not be king, they will either get killed trying to do something that blind people can do without seeing, or they will be locked up in the loony bin or burned at the stake for "having visions".
It's not even computer literacy. Especially since pair programming won't feed their inner geek, is impossible to fairly grade (who did more work, etc) and will lead to kids who can't grasp the concept pairing with the little egomaniacal sh*ts and hating it after hearing "like this, dummy" too many times.
You still don't get it. This will not interfere with airliner GPS systems. RTFA more carefully, please. Also, many airports are private.
Jury nullification is legal, and a necessary part of the whole "trial by your peers" concept of justice. Why should anyone be against it unless they don't like the idea of jury trials? And if they're so stupid as to not understand the concepts of nullification, trial, etc., they shouldn't even be on a jury (and they'll be the first to try to duck it).
Don't be silly. It wouldn't WORK on an aircraft. It needs multiple stationary base stations for pinpointing the transmitter. RTFA for more info. I doubt that the Federal Dept. of Corrections runs too many jails at 30,000 feet.
The whole idea that Jury Nullification is valid is offset by the oath you take when serving on a jury. "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" As Jury Nullification is not law, serving on a jury with the intent to nullify is perjury.
Since jury nullification is part of the legal process, you can take the oath knowing that, worse comes to worse, you can nullify the laws in question without breaking your oath. Now, if jury nullification were illegal, you might have a point, but even if it were, how are you going to force a jury not to vote to nullify a law? Threaten them? It's been tried, and the jury told the judge that they could not, in good conscience, convict because the law (in this case a law prohibiting on-demand abortion) was unconscionable and unjust. After the 3rd attempt to retry the case to secure a conviction failed, the government backed down and free abortion on demand is now legal at any stage of pregnancy, no reason required.
Sometimes juries have the guts to tell the courts to shove it.
If you read the article, this is for drones of 55 lbs and less. The jamming is highly directional. The drone will do what it's programmed to do when it experiences a LoS - it will either return home or hover until the battery dies, or land. Considering that the Federal Bureau of Prisons wants these, they would love to ask you why you're operating a drone around a prison - and with this system, they can tell where the controller is.
Does this mean that these planes will jam at distances greater than these?
There are no planes involved in the system. It's ground-based, highly directional, and the US Dept. of Justice wants them for the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. So now if someone wants to smuggle a phone into jail, they'll have to hide it by pulling a goat-guy. The range is 6 miles.
This is NOT being incorporated into airplanes.
It's a ground-based system with a maximum range of 6 miles, highly directional antennas, and the Department of Justice wants them on behalf of the US Federal Bureau of Prisons. In other words, not more drones delivering contraband. And because it can track where the controller is, one more stupid crook before the courts.
Which is exactly why this system is unlikely to be approved for use within the USA.
The US government wants to buy things like this, so "approvde for use within the USA" is NOT going to be an issue:
The Airbus system follows a recent Layer 8 post that detailed the US Federal Bureau of Prisons looking for such as system to protect federal prison guards and prisoners from incoming threatening drones.
The group, which is an agency of the Department of Justice issued a Request for Information in November specifically targeting what it called a fully integrated system that will allow for the detection, tracking, interdiction, engagement and neutralization of small -- less the 55lb -- unmanned aerial system.
You don't even need to read the article - just look at the picture - to know this is a ground-based system. There is no "that aircraft screwing with their GPS."
Makes sense ...
You'll change your tune when you have to deal with someone suffering from dementia - they can't remember where they put something becomes someone stole it. Lights of cars passing outside become people with flashlights trying to look in the windows. The phone is bugged. Someone steals the cats every 5 minutes.