We don't need "smarter education software." We need to remove computers from the classrooms. It's been going onto 30 years now and there hasn't been a SINGLE study showing computers help, and plenty showing they don't.
"Generally" is a big assumption, esp. for small-town operations where nepotism is important to getting the job.
You may want to verify this with your local librarian (be prepared to follow up with the software vendor).
The librarian is not a programmer, and has not audited the code. They know what the vendor tells them - nothing more. This is especially true for solutions that are either completely or partially hosted off-site.
Remember that libraries require a warrant. A request by a walk-in police officer (or husband or wife) is turned away.
Not in small towns, where the majority of people live. And how about your local school, where the librarian is a part-time teacher, doubling up as substitute teacher and lunch monitor?
Libraries make every effort (short of keeping no records) to protect the privacy of patrons.
I'm sure many do. However, if they're served with an order requiring them to NOT delete the records for an individual person of interest, guess what... most will not go to jail. Most such orders won't even be SEEN by the librarian - the IT person will silently (as required by the order) flip the right bits.
You asked "How is Iris like Siri?"
"One moment... I don't know."
"How is Iris different from Siri?"
You asked "How is Iris different from Siri?"
"One moment... Iris is backwards."
"Should this have been posted on slashdot?"
You asked "Should this have been posted on slashdot?"
"One moment... That is what idle.slashdot.org is for."
"Do I look lame talking to my phone when nobody's there?"
You asked "Do I look lame talking to my phone when nobody's there?"
"As opposed to the rest of the time?"
How about if it fell on some holy site that the 3 major religions are fighting over, and obliterated it completely, leaving nothing to fight over except a big smoking hole in the ground? "An act of God
Allah | FSM".
I wouldn't be shocked to see some organizations that require a fee for publication access go straight to universities and the like with a "Hey, your professors need to stop going to these completely open venues, or we're going to stop publishing every other professor you have!"
In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur.
Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.
When the book is processed in, which still happens by an actual human being everywhere I am aware of, they are supposed to notice any damage and note it in the book's record along with the date and note in the patron's record that they returned a damaged book.
They're not going to notice that some smart-a** removed the last page, so you end up not knowing how the story ends (happened once) or that some other fundy librarian had sliced out pages in a reference work (you know, the books that don't get checked out) that happened to contain material threatening to their beliefs.
Censorship - some librarians do it too.
If you have returned the book, it will be on the shelf (or waiting to be processed). Most places have a form you fill out and someone will go look for that book. If they find it on the shelf, you obviously returned it.
If the book in question doesn't exist, no amount of searching will find it. It won't be checked out, it won't be sitting on a shelf. Libraries are bureaucracies, same as anywhere else.
First, it's a good thing that you're not a librarian, because your reading comprehension needs some work. I never said that all libraries keep everything for years and years. I *did* say that they do keep records - and that obviously includes what's checked out and by whom.
Second, just because you delete a record doesn't mean it's gone. Ever hear of back-ups?
Third, how much control do you have over the company that you outsource the application to?
Fourth, None of this prevents them from also taking the book and looking for traces of the user - fingerprints, hair, dna, etc. Remember, 80% of that "dust" you see floating around in a beam of sunlight indoors is dead skin flakes.
Fifth, policies are set by muni governments. If some muni gets it in their head that keeping records of these things is a good idea, it's going to happen, whether you like it or not.
Apple also announced support for third-party development for the then upcoming iPhone via online web applications running in Safari on iPhone. The announcement implied that Apple, at least for the time being, had no plans to release an iPhone SDK, meaning that developers would have to use standard web protocols.
As far as I know, GNU still requires copyright assignment, so a system like that is not necessarily DOA.
... and this is why people are working on alternatives to GNU. BSD has a mostly GNU-free userland already, and once LLVM (which doesn't require copyright assignment) replaces GCC, that will be that. After all, who needs emacs?
Well, it wasn't easy to develop for until about year after launch, since they had no SDK at launch. Excellent spit and polish though on the software and hardware. Apple always nails that last 10%.
Well, refusing to accept the changes doesn't stop whoever submits them from claiming that you saw them and are infringing, even if you never looked at them. There are only so many ways to implement certain algorithms, and we've seen how this plays out too often.
Copyright assignment is a non-starter nowadays to any half-savvy developer.
That leaves an unlimited license, but again, if you're the "owner" of the product and you have a specific way you want to implement it inside your own processes, why bother with the hassles of accepting outside contributions when too often it's just quicker to do it inside?
Redeeming your own property isn't the same as a second-hand sale:-) And you don't even need to take back physical possession - they can rip it up in front of you.
Maybe it's because they want to fix the issues without having someone complain that their code was used to "fix" the issues at a later date, and be able to single-handedly keep a version out of the App Store, same as what happened with VLC (VideoLan Player)?
Except if you have any relationship to that foreign agent in anyway. If you've contacted him, or even if he's contacted someone you've contacted. You are subject to FISA as well.
... does that include checking out the same book they did? Speaking of which, library books make great ways to pass coded messages back and forth. All you need is some vinegar or a light pencil, or even a pin.
I used to work for a company that makes library software and this is actually a very important issue in that field. While keeping a list of who has what is unavoidable, the librarians are very adamant that there should be no borrowing history stored. When you return the book they make a point to delete all records that show you ever had it.
So, you check out a book, find that it's damaged, and return it - and they have no way of telling who took it out before you. They have 50 other customers with the same complaint. Too bad they didn't have a history so that they could find out if all 50 books had a common reader in the past...
Or the update to the main inventory doesn't take place, and you're dinged with a claim that you never returned the book.
Or (as happened to me) the software filed the return as being a different book (one that doesn't even exist), and I get a note 6 months later telling me to either return the book, pay for a replacement, or face jail time. Fortunately, I was able to prove that the book in question was returned, and that the book that they said I returned doesn't exist, but it took a LOT of shouting (a most effective tactic in a library, because EVERYONE can hear you:-)
The libraries can be ordered under a FISA warrant to hand over your entire history. Not just the books you've checked out, but also all other media (dvds, periodicals), any search requests you made while logged into their system either locally or remotely, any library-hosted events you attended, and any and all other information they have on you... all while being required to NOT tell you that they've handed over the info even if you ask.
Jesus was pretty clear that His followers should love and respect individuals. He was also pretty clear that His followers shouldn't judge
Jeebus disagrees with you (Matt.10:34ff)
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need "smarter education software." We need to remove computers from the classrooms. It's been going onto 30 years now and there hasn't been a SINGLE study showing computers help, and plenty showing they don't.
And to fire teachers who cannot teach.
"Generally" is a big assumption, esp. for small-town operations where nepotism is important to getting the job.
The librarian is not a programmer, and has not audited the code. They know what the vendor tells them - nothing more. This is especially true for solutions that are either completely or partially hosted off-site.
Not in small towns, where the majority of people live. And how about your local school, where the librarian is a part-time teacher, doubling up as substitute teacher and lunch monitor?
I'm sure many do. However, if they're served with an order requiring them to NOT delete the records for an individual person of interest, guess what ... most will not go to jail. Most such orders won't even be SEEN by the librarian - the IT person will silently (as required by the order) flip the right bits.
1. Absolutely not true for libraries that still use manual check-in and check-out.
2. Impossible to verify for libraries that use 3rd-party solutions hosted elsewhere.
3. Absolutely not true for libraries that have been served a warrant NOT to delete the records for a particular individual.
DR. SBAITSO, I presume?
You asked "How is Iris like Siri?" ... I don't know."
"One moment
"How is Iris different from Siri?" ... Iris is backwards."
You asked "How is Iris different from Siri?"
"One moment
"Should this have been posted on slashdot?" ... That is what idle.slashdot.org is for."
You asked "Should this have been posted on slashdot?"
"One moment
"Do I look lame talking to my phone when nobody's there?"
You asked "Do I look lame talking to my phone when nobody's there?"
"As opposed to the rest of the time?"
I forgot - the world ended Friday.
"It's not a lie or a scam, it's religion!"
How about if it fell on some holy site that the 3 major religions are fighting over, and obliterated it completely, leaving nothing to fight over except a big smoking hole in the ground? "An act of God Allah | FSM".
Obviously all libraries running the programs that are discussed in the main article DO share data well beyond their doors :-)
So you pay him or her for the "service" of ripping up "their" cheque. Again, problem solved.
They're not going to notice that some smart-a** removed the last page, so you end up not knowing how the story ends (happened once) or that some other fundy librarian had sliced out pages in a reference work (you know, the books that don't get checked out) that happened to contain material threatening to their beliefs.
Censorship - some librarians do it too.
If the book in question doesn't exist, no amount of searching will find it. It won't be checked out, it won't be sitting on a shelf. Libraries are bureaucracies, same as anywhere else.
First, it's a good thing that you're not a librarian, because your reading comprehension needs some work. I never said that all libraries keep everything for years and years. I *did* say that they do keep records - and that obviously includes what's checked out and by whom.
Second, just because you delete a record doesn't mean it's gone. Ever hear of back-ups?
Third, how much control do you have over the company that you outsource the application to?
Fourth, None of this prevents them from also taking the book and looking for traces of the user - fingerprints, hair, dna, etc. Remember, 80% of that "dust" you see floating around in a beam of sunlight indoors is dead skin flakes.
Fifth, policies are set by muni governments. If some muni gets it in their head that keeping records of these things is a good idea, it's going to happen, whether you like it or not.
Hope this helps clarify the situation :-)
Apple originally didn't intend for Jane Q. Developer to actually write applications for the iPhone - she was supposed to use only html5 and javascript for "web apps" in Safari. Jobs idea was that only companies like Google would develop real applications (and pay a big fat fee).
It was only after people began jailbreaking their iPhones that Apple gave in and created the App Store.
Well, refusing to accept the changes doesn't stop whoever submits them from claiming that you saw them and are infringing, even if you never looked at them. There are only so many ways to implement certain algorithms, and we've seen how this plays out too often.
Copyright assignment is a non-starter nowadays to any half-savvy developer.
That leaves an unlimited license, but again, if you're the "owner" of the product and you have a specific way you want to implement it inside your own processes, why bother with the hassles of accepting outside contributions when too often it's just quicker to do it inside?
First, they can't do that without undermining the multi-billion-dollar investments they've already made.
Second, why would someone who's got an Android phone swap out the OS for WinPhone7? Even for free? WinPhone7 isn't even in the game.
Redeeming your own property isn't the same as a second-hand sale :-) And you don't even need to take back physical possession - they can rip it up in front of you.
Maybe it's because they want to fix the issues without having someone complain that their code was used to "fix" the issues at a later date, and be able to single-handedly keep a version out of the App Store, same as what happened with VLC (VideoLan Player)?
Have them pay with a cheque, then redeem their own cheque immediately for cash. Problem solved.
Except if you have any relationship to that foreign agent in anyway. If you've contacted him, or even if he's contacted someone you've contacted. You are subject to FISA as well.
1. [citation needed] ... yet.
.... that you are aware of.
2.
3.
4. no, they give it up for free (as per the article).
So, you check out a book, find that it's damaged, and return it - and they have no way of telling who took it out before you. They have 50 other customers with the same complaint. Too bad they didn't have a history so that they could find out if all 50 books had a common reader in the past ...
Or the update to the main inventory doesn't take place, and you're dinged with a claim that you never returned the book.
Or (as happened to me) the software filed the return as being a different book (one that doesn't even exist), and I get a note 6 months later telling me to either return the book, pay for a replacement, or face jail time. Fortunately, I was able to prove that the book in question was returned, and that the book that they said I returned doesn't exist, but it took a LOT of shouting (a most effective tactic in a library, because EVERYONE can hear you :-)
The libraries can be ordered under a FISA warrant to hand over your entire history. Not just the books you've checked out, but also all other media (dvds, periodicals), any search requests you made while logged into their system either locally or remotely, any library-hosted events you attended, and any and all other information they have on you ... all while being required to NOT tell you that they've handed over the info even if you ask.
Jeebus disagrees with you (Matt.10:34ff)
"Love and respect individuals"? Jesus said to do that only if they agreed with his message. Otherwise, they're the enemy. And you had to love him more than your own kids. Same message as Jim Jones and cult that killed their own kids with cyanide-laced flavor-aide before killing themselves.
You have a right to keep drinking the purple kook-aid. You don't have a right to indoctrinate kids to do the same.