So they plan to "clean up fragmentation" by introducing yet another incompatible OS? Just like Firefox (which I use) has become the one true browser? My guess is this OS will be stillborne given it doesn't have any major company (with buckets of dollars) supporting it and it introduces yet another development platform but eschews some standard tools such as Java. I tried to get more info off of mozilla.org but no mention of Boot2 gecko.
I'm not sure it does depend on the school. You'd think a place like Oxford would have a top-of-the-line course. Also, it might be that I'm not including some of the more rigorous stuff like financial derivatives and that type of thing in my evaluation.
I think some schools got into the MBA game simply because they felt they had to since all their "peer" schools had one - and will trade on their name until (or if) they can bring it to the level of their other degrees.
If a school doesn't teach derivatives, economic theory - with real math, not the "for dummies" version, then they are doing their students a disservice.
The thing is, those things are not what I call "Business Administration", although they were actually taught. They're a math course designed for you to get a job at an investment bank, rather than a course teaching you how to run a business. Isn't "how to run a business" what it says on the tin?
I would say it depends on your philosophy of what constitutes a thorough grounding in business fundamentals needed to run a business. I would argue that understanding the concepts, including the math, behind things such derivatives, valuation, supply and demand curves - if only to understand when someone is blowing smoke up you butt.,/P>
Understanding the concepts then enables you to apply them as well in diverse areas - rather than try to use some cookbook approach that may not address the application you need. To me, that's the real value of any education.
I'm not sure it does depend on the school. You'd think a place like Oxford would have a top-of-the-line course. Also, it might be that I'm not including some of the more rigorous stuff like financial derivatives and that type of thing in my evaluation.
I think some schools got into the MBA game simply because they felt they had to since all their "peer" schools had one - and will trade on their name until (or if) they can bring it to the level of their other degrees.
If a school doesn't teach derivatives, economic theory - with real math, not the "for dummies" version, then they are doing their students a disservice.
Things I learned on the management course: history of various firms (case studies, interesting in the Discovery channel way), different ways to illustrate BGOs. (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious: SWOT analysis, brainstorming, drawing a friggin chart, etc.) How to make things look more complicated than they really are. Don't know why, but many people think you're smart if you confuse them. The smart ones can tell from you explaining things in 2 sentences.
I guess it depends on the school - mine was every bit as rigorous as my BS in Engineering. The real value, however - is in the rolodex - the business contacts that you make while there. BTW - there's profit in confusion.
As for the moral evil of "maximizing their profit" the charge takes on a somewhat less damning aspect when compared to the grotesque and cruel way in which many district schools fail the children they're supposed to be educating.
while I am not one of the/. crowd that thinks profit is bad, the issue is what happens when the school is faced with the choice of providing educational accommodations at the cost of profit? Either they will eventually go out of business or demand more money to fix that "problem." Giving them more money, at the expense of other schools, is not a good solution.
Nice try but charter schools are in every way public schools which means, unlike magnet schools which are district schools, charters cannot be selective. It's a widely promulgated falsehood but it is a falsehood.
Also, being public schools federal funding which is available for the education of problematic kids is available to charters
Actually, it's quite true - state laws vary, but charter schools are allowed to limit enrollment, be more selective in their feeder population, and in some cases even have entrance requirements such as interviews, projects that must be met. They can give preference to current students, siblings, etc. for example. They do not need to be "schools of choice" that must admit kids from failing schools. They can be single sex as well. In addition, while they are subject to federal law that does not mean they must admit and provide services to any child that falls in their district and boundaries. So, despite their claims of being as open as conventional schools the truth is they are not.
That's not to say what they are doing isn't right or better - but it's simply not fair to say they are better under the same rules as conventional schools and as such are a success while the others are failing.
We value teachers. It's the public education system that doesn't value teachers as can be seen in the fact that good teachers receive compensation no different from bad teachers. The public education system doesn't differentiate between good and bad teachers and, in fact, resists attempts to measure differences in teaching skill. A further item of evidence to prove the indifference of the district-based public education system to teaching skill is the fact that it required state law to force districts to hire teachers who've received special training to deal with kids with serious problems. Previous to the passage of such law mandating properly-trained teachers any warm body with a teaching certificate could be stuck in a special education classroom. And were.
I think we agree on that point.
No, many teachers are afraid of accountability since they've never had to live up to any standards but their own, if they have any. Remember, teaching skill doesn't matter in and to the public education system. Care to guess what sort of teachers that situation selects for?
My evidence is anecdotal - but I've known many teachers who would like to see the bad ones go away and would be happy to have consistent and fair standards - and be rewarded for doing well. A lot of teachers love teaching - it's the system they hate. I'm surprised as many hang around as they do - but then again having a kid come back and thank them for that they did is pretty satisfying.
I grew up in a public school system with many great teachers. many were women - and would probably have been doctors or lawyers or engineers but those fields were largely closed to them at the time so they went into teaching. Society has changed (which is good) but it means that until we make teaching a profession that offers people the same rewards teaching won't be an attractive career choice. It's not just at the public school level either, when I went to university I had friends who were majoring in education simply because it was a way to get a degree as easily as
The basic fact is the public education system, as it's currently constituted, is beyond reform. I don't know if Gates has come to that realization yet although he seems to be headed in that direction with his enthusiasm for Khan Academy and the change of focus to the politics of public education. There seems to be a gradually building national consensus in favor of the view that the public education system is beyond redemption which is what's propelled charter school law adoption in forty states and, more recently, a burst of legislation to enact vouchers, tax credits, trim tenure and increase accountability. All those are the sorts of substantive changes that erode the foundation of the monopoly the public education system enjoys and as the catastrophes predicted by the supporters of the status quo fail to emerge they'll be the encouragement for more such law.
While much is broke about our educational system, charter schools, as currently operated, will do little to fix the structural problems. Rather, they will respond to market pressures in way start maximize their profit, which does not necessarily equate to improving the educational system.
For example, charter schools do not want to operate on the basis of providing an appropriate education to everyone within their district - they want to be free to pick and chose who can attend - essentially cherry picking the most capable / least problematic students. What happens to the others? Who now pays for the kid that needs a para-pro for feeding during the school year?Who tells the school they have to accept someone and allow them to attend unit the are 21? More to the point - what happens to those the charter school doesn't accept?
We really don't value teachers. We expect them to deal with all sorts of social and behavioral issues with students *and* the students to *achieve* and then blame the teachers when that happens. Is it any wonder teachers leave as soon as they can? Or that, in areas where their skills are more marketable working for a private company - they bolt at the first chance they get? Try hiring a math or science teacher in a lot of districts - and see how many people you get when they can make 2x in a private company and not have to deal with a bunch of students and parents every day. Sure, there are bad teachers - but there are plenty more who care about the kids and do whatever they can to help; but at some point they have to decide if it is really worth it.
Accountability is great - many teachers would love real accountability - but what they get instead is parents who say "What are you going to do about my kid who is failing math? It's not *his* or *her* fault she skips school, never turns in assignments, and is drugged out when they are here." i've even had college professors tell me they get kids who call Mommy and Daddy during a meeting because *they* aren't getting an A and what Mommy and Daddy to tell the prof to give them an A. Until we realize teachers are one small part of the solution it isn't going to get fixed.
I'd say - make the charter school splay by the same rules - take all comers, make all legally required accommodations (and get sued when a parent doesn't like what you did" and let them charge no more than what the voucher is worth - and reduce their payment based on scores. Let them take over an entire district - and see who long they last on vouchers and a population that can vote on how much to give them and vote themselves out of paying if they want.
Until the fundamental issues are fixed, all we are doing is creating a few pockets of success that rally have no relevance to the overall solution. Of course, it's easier to point to the system and say it's broke than it is to really try to fix it; which is why most politicians simply pick a favorite solution an push it.
There's a reason why the 9/11/2001 stock options positions have never been released, and probably never will.
Yes. And it's the same reason why neither the 8/11 or the 12/11 positions have been released: they're commercially sensitive confidential information that is in all likelihood not retained beyond the end of the day of trading, and which in any case would require a huge amount of effort to collate as almost all of those positions were held by thousands of brokers on behalf of hundreds of thousands of private clients, and only the brokers would know who the clients were.
Hey, this is/. Don't try to confuse the issue by bring up facts and logic.
until the back catalog of DVD movies / TV shows is available via streaming the DVD is likely, in some incarnation, here to stay
And that really isn't possible. That requires affordable agreements with EVERY studio. I can set up a studio myself and release something on DVD for $1. If I want to, I can say no streaming unless you pay me $1 billion. I probably won't succeed in even selling the DVD, but there ARE small studios out there putting out real films.
Add to that the issue of how will revenue from streaming be divided up and artist residuals paid and I think it will be awhile as well...
Maybe if they offered their entire DVD library via streaming. But even then, there are still many people who don't have streaming hooked up to their TV or are in a rural area where they have no access to broadband.
I think those are the key points - until the back catalog of DVD movies / TV shows is available via streaming the DVD is likely, in some incarnation, here to stay. Even then, there is a sizable segment of the market for whom streaming is simply not an option. In addition, until there is a good way to save streamed material for times when there is no access available DVD's will still be a preferred medium.
In addition, the fight over bandwidth caps and who can pays for usage will delay the adoption of streaming (and app d/l) until the big players work out a payment scheme that satisfies all of them. Right now, the ISPs have the upper hand since they can simply make it cost ineffective to stream any significant amount of content, or more importantly, replace cable and its revenue. Once the major ISPs own enough content providers to shift revenue from access to content I think we'll see a large shift in how content is delivered.
It doesn't change the fact that he didn't host copyrighted material. I come from a world where this was not a crime, it is sad to see people who is starting to accept this activity as a crime.
I'm not sure what world you come from, but in this one knowingly or deliberately aiding or contributing to the commission of a crime makes you an accessory; which is a crime. In this case, he seems to have met both requirements to be be an accessory and as such can be charged.
Again, being charged in the US is, IMHO, a bit of a stretch but not surprising.
In general, an accessory gets a lighter sentence but that is not always the case.
He wasn't just running a "link site," he was actively profiting from providing links to material - which no doubt puts him into the criminal copyright violation realm. When his site was seized, he reopened under a new name and registrar.
Since he used a US registrar that provided a way to argue he is subject to US laws. You can disagree with that, but that looks like what has happened.
He didn't help himself by sticking a finger in ICE's eye by reopening under a new name. Sometimes the smart thing to do is go to ground and hope your oo small to be worth the trouble to prosecute.
When your process is so complex that procurement types have to go to classes just to understand it and has so many rules that no one really understands it you get a system that heavily favors companies that understand the rules better than the people running the system. They know exactly what to do to meet the letter of the law and how to protest if they lose a bid so inmany cases the government is at their mercy. Combine that with a contracting officer's fear of even accidentally violating the rules and winding up in trouble and you have a system that always goes the "safe" route
The lesson I take from this is that the local retail is doomed unless we figure out how to address the online tax advantage.
While that is an advantage, it's offset by shipping costs to some extent - wether they are charged directly of factored into the cost of the items. Should shipping be deducted form taxes to keep the playing field "fair?"
Borders is a high profile example of a brick and morter shop that can't compete in an environment where its primary competition has an unnatural advantage.
There is no "unnatural advantage" - it is an outgrowth of our tax code; which some B&M stores take advantage of as well. Mos sates even have a use tax residences are supposed to (but generally don't) pay. Amazon's real advantage is the vast selection they offer - unless it was a popular item Borders didn't have it in stock and often quoted a week or more to get something - when Amazon would deliver it in a day or two. Borders bender figured out the online model and is suffering for it.
Amazon doesn't pay sales tax. Sure, it had some missteps along the way, like having Amazon run its web sites. But if Borders can't compete, do you think Mom and Pop retailers will? This impacts not or future local retailing environment, but local employment, too. Sure, online stores can be more efficient, but even a local preference for local retail won't compensate for a 5-10% price penalty.
As a friend of mine in sales said "There's no loyalty 5 cents off a case can't overcome." If people wanted to keep mom and pop shops in business they'd buy there even if it is more expensive. I do that for stores that actually have (gasp) service. But I don't want to have to pay a hidden "tax" to keep inefficient operations in business - I'd rather have that extra money to spend elsewhere.
What's next - a tax on free software because it hurts small mom and pop computer stores who are trying to sell commercial software?
I wonder how many of these violations have to do with kids complaining about doing work with no pay. When I was in school I worked in a lab and gained valuable skills like working with people from various backgrounds, writing assembly language programs to interface devices, playing with equipment that is available no where else but in a research lab, learning to disassemble and fix such equipment, learning to build novel equipment, learning to solve problems on the fly. Writing reports for NASA.
You know what? Unlike the NCAA slaves, um, student athletes, I got paid a fair wage. There was never any question that I was there for the experience, that was priceless, but we are in America and in America people are generally paid for their work. And scholarships are not grants. Scholarships pay for education, not being an entertainer.
However, a scholarship, plus the stipend, training table meals, books, fees, tutors and the opportunity to actually get a degree essentially for playing a sport isn't bad remuneration. Yes, many fail to see the big picture and that is their own, and the school's, failing to put academics first. may have the mistaken belief they will have a pro career that makes them rich. many, however, actually do graduate and become productive members of society. Those who graduate from schools where football is a religion have the added benefit of a network of former fans and alumni to tap into for jobs.
One of the problems with this argument is it ignores the very simple concept of "opportunity cost". That is, what else could we have done with the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the space program over the last few decades?
If it's commercially useful technologies you want, for instance, I strongly suspect you'd get a whole lot more of them by simply giving the National Science Foundation a whole lot more money to fund scientific research, rather than funding the development of technologies specifically related to space flight, only a small fraction of which will find commercial applicability elsewhere.
The key contribution NASA makes is in taking the research and turning it into useful objects - once people see what can be done they start seeing other things that can be done as well. Research is once, but researchers often are interested in research, not developing something that actually is useful. That's why they are researchers, not engineers.
And while S in NASA gets a lot of play, the first A is pretty impressive as well. NASA does a lot or aeronautical research that has direct application to aviation; research that most people don't even know NASA does. Then there's the whole sounding rocket program as well. (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/) Most people would recognize Cape Kennedy in a heartbeat but never heard of Wallops Island.
The ultimate spinoff, of course, was model rocketry. NASA engineers like Barrowman, Galloway, et. al. hoped foster a whole sport and generation of engineers, scientist, and astronauts (Jay Apt for one.).
While the [Supreme Court]wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.
Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.
As you pointed out, it was a 1st amendment ruling so your argument that a "shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules" can't do that does not follow from the ruling.
|
I'd go so far as to say the ruling applies to 1st amendment rights in the common spaces of the shopping center, not individual stores. The SC likened shopping center to a town commons, so a store could stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights to pass out literature in their store, for example.
Are they spending a lot of money for a fancy computer system that will tell them to watch out for crime in the crime ridden part of town?
While your comment makes a good sound bite, that's not the idea behind predictive analytics. You want to look for factors that can forecast a certain type of event or events before they occur. If you find the right ones you can take action to prevent undesirable outcomes.
For example, you could listen for the number, duration, and frequency of brakes being applied hard at intersections as a predictor of accidents. That would allow you to redesign the intersection to improve safety; even if no accidents have occurred.
This is not a new idea, but as computer power increases you can do more sophisticated modeling and analysis. In some ways, you are trying to do with machines what humans do instinctively - look for patterns that signify something is about to occur.
lagniappe = small gift given by a merchant, apparently. Are you in Louisiana because that's apparently the only place in the entire world that you're likely to run into that word.
Ha, I new my MBA would come in handy. This has two main points:
"This is an important initiative...
Point 1:
"We think this will make more money for our shareholders and executive's bonuses..."
"...as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."
Point 2:
"...We can also make the resale market less lucrative since you won't get a full game experience so a used game is worth less. We can then sell you a pass to unlock those features, which gets us back to Point 1."
Left unsaid was:
"If we can drive some of the used game dealers out of business that's just a bit of lagniappe."
It would be ironic as all
heck to have money from the corn mafia to be uses for something I've dreamed
of for years. Roughly laid out, here's the idea that's been in my head
since the dangers of HFCS have come to light:
- have a large clinic
set up with 101 beds and 101 Chiropractors.
- Have 101 people show
up.
- Ask them about their consumption of HFCS products (especially soda
which is double bad with all that CO2).
- Have each Chiropractors
inspect each patient's spine in utmost detail, taking note of each and every
subluxation, even minor ones which have yet to cause health issues.
-
Yes, that means 101 inspections per patient with a different doctor, but
some Docs may miss things.
- Cross reference the numbers & severity with
the HFCS consumption.
- If and when (yes WHEN) the numbers are in and
HFCS is shown to promote subluxation growth, publish the results in a
journal such as Nature so the general public will learn of the
dangers.
Of course setting up such a vast and detailed study would
cost lots of money, that's why we need government funding for such sweeping
science.
Take care,
Bob
Actually, what you describe isn't remotely related to science; but a simple and often made error in statistical analysis. You don't even have to add in Chiropractic to make it bad science.
He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.
And you're giving money to those Godless heathens in the Middle East (or Norway, whatever) instead of paying to support American farmers.
Why do you hate America?
Sarah? Is that you or did you give Michelle your user id and pw again?
While the banks could do this, the real solution is for more people to be made aware of the problem and issue charge backs. That would get banks attention and they would take action against the problem charges. of course, getting people to realize they've been scammed and requesting a charge back is easier said than done.
Slashdot Mirror
So they plan to "clean up fragmentation" by introducing yet another incompatible OS? Just like Firefox (which I use) has become the one true browser? My guess is this OS will be stillborne given it doesn't have any major company (with buckets of dollars) supporting it and it introduces yet another development platform but eschews some standard tools such as Java. I tried to get more info off of mozilla.org but no mention of Boot2 gecko.
I'm not sure it does depend on the school. You'd think a place like Oxford would have a top-of-the-line course. Also, it might be that I'm not including some of the more rigorous stuff like financial derivatives and that type of thing in my evaluation.
I think some schools got into the MBA game simply because they felt they had to since all their "peer" schools had one - and will trade on their name until (or if) they can bring it to the level of their other degrees.
If a school doesn't teach derivatives, economic theory - with real math, not the "for dummies" version, then they are doing their students a disservice.
The thing is, those things are not what I call "Business Administration", although they were actually taught. They're a math course designed for you to get a job at an investment bank, rather than a course teaching you how to run a business. Isn't "how to run a business" what it says on the tin?
I would say it depends on your philosophy of what constitutes a thorough grounding in business fundamentals needed to run a business. I would argue that understanding the concepts, including the math, behind things such derivatives, valuation, supply and demand curves - if only to understand when someone is blowing smoke up you butt.,/P>
Understanding the concepts then enables you to apply them as well in diverse areas - rather than try to use some cookbook approach that may not address the application you need. To me, that's the real value of any education.
I'm not sure it does depend on the school. You'd think a place like Oxford would have a top-of-the-line course. Also, it might be that I'm not including some of the more rigorous stuff like financial derivatives and that type of thing in my evaluation.
I think some schools got into the MBA game simply because they felt they had to since all their "peer" schools had one - and will trade on their name until (or if) they can bring it to the level of their other degrees.
If a school doesn't teach derivatives, economic theory - with real math, not the "for dummies" version, then they are doing their students a disservice.
Things I learned on the management course: history of various firms (case studies, interesting in the Discovery channel way), different ways to illustrate BGOs. (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious: SWOT analysis, brainstorming, drawing a friggin chart, etc.) How to make things look more complicated than they really are. Don't know why, but many people think you're smart if you confuse them. The smart ones can tell from you explaining things in 2 sentences.
I guess it depends on the school - mine was every bit as rigorous as my BS in Engineering. The real value, however - is in the rolodex - the business contacts that you make while there. BTW - there's profit in confusion.
As for the moral evil of "maximizing their profit" the charge takes on a somewhat less damning aspect when compared to the grotesque and cruel way in which many district schools fail the children they're supposed to be educating.
while I am not one of the /. crowd that thinks profit is bad, the issue is what happens when the school is faced with the choice of providing educational accommodations at the cost of profit? Either they will eventually go out of business or demand more money to fix that "problem." Giving them more money, at the expense of other schools, is not a good solution.
Nice try but charter schools are in every way public schools which means, unlike magnet schools which are district schools, charters cannot be selective. It's a widely promulgated falsehood but it is a falsehood.
Also, being public schools federal funding which is available for the education of problematic kids is available to charters
Actually, it's quite true - state laws vary, but charter schools are allowed to limit enrollment, be more selective in their feeder population, and in some cases even have entrance requirements such as interviews, projects that must be met. They can give preference to current students, siblings, etc. for example. They do not need to be "schools of choice" that must admit kids from failing schools. They can be single sex as well. In addition, while they are subject to federal law that does not mean they must admit and provide services to any child that falls in their district and boundaries. So, despite their claims of being as open as conventional schools the truth is they are not.
That's not to say what they are doing isn't right or better - but it's simply not fair to say they are better under the same rules as conventional schools and as such are a success while the others are failing.
We value teachers. It's the public education system that doesn't value teachers as can be seen in the fact that good teachers receive compensation no different from bad teachers. The public education system doesn't differentiate between good and bad teachers and, in fact, resists attempts to measure differences in teaching skill. A further item of evidence to prove the indifference of the district-based public education system to teaching skill is the fact that it required state law to force districts to hire teachers who've received special training to deal with kids with serious problems. Previous to the passage of such law mandating properly-trained teachers any warm body with a teaching certificate could be stuck in a special education classroom. And were.
I think we agree on that point.
No, many teachers are afraid of accountability since they've never had to live up to any standards but their own, if they have any. Remember, teaching skill doesn't matter in and to the public education system. Care to guess what sort of teachers that situation selects for?
My evidence is anecdotal - but I've known many teachers who would like to see the bad ones go away and would be happy to have consistent and fair standards - and be rewarded for doing well. A lot of teachers love teaching - it's the system they hate. I'm surprised as many hang around as they do - but then again having a kid come back and thank them for that they did is pretty satisfying.
I grew up in a public school system with many great teachers. many were women - and would probably have been doctors or lawyers or engineers but those fields were largely closed to them at the time so they went into teaching. Society has changed (which is good) but it means that until we make teaching a profession that offers people the same rewards teaching won't be an attractive career choice. It's not just at the public school level either, when I went to university I had friends who were majoring in education simply because it was a way to get a degree as easily as
The basic fact is the public education system, as it's currently constituted, is beyond reform. I don't know if Gates has come to that realization yet although he seems to be headed in that direction with his enthusiasm for Khan Academy and the change of focus to the politics of public education. There seems to be a gradually building national consensus in favor of the view that the public education system is beyond redemption which is what's propelled charter school law adoption in forty states and, more recently, a burst of legislation to enact vouchers, tax credits, trim tenure and increase accountability. All those are the sorts of substantive changes that erode the foundation of the monopoly the public education system enjoys and as the catastrophes predicted by the supporters of the status quo fail to emerge they'll be the encouragement for more such law.
While much is broke about our educational system, charter schools, as currently operated, will do little to fix the structural problems. Rather, they will respond to market pressures in way start maximize their profit, which does not necessarily equate to improving the educational system.
For example, charter schools do not want to operate on the basis of providing an appropriate education to everyone within their district - they want to be free to pick and chose who can attend - essentially cherry picking the most capable / least problematic students. What happens to the others? Who now pays for the kid that needs a para-pro for feeding during the school year?Who tells the school they have to accept someone and allow them to attend unit the are 21? More to the point - what happens to those the charter school doesn't accept?
We really don't value teachers. We expect them to deal with all sorts of social and behavioral issues with students *and* the students to *achieve* and then blame the teachers when that happens. Is it any wonder teachers leave as soon as they can? Or that, in areas where their skills are more marketable working for a private company - they bolt at the first chance they get? Try hiring a math or science teacher in a lot of districts - and see how many people you get when they can make 2x in a private company and not have to deal with a bunch of students and parents every day. Sure, there are bad teachers - but there are plenty more who care about the kids and do whatever they can to help; but at some point they have to decide if it is really worth it.
Accountability is great - many teachers would love real accountability - but what they get instead is parents who say "What are you going to do about my kid who is failing math? It's not *his* or *her* fault she skips school, never turns in assignments, and is drugged out when they are here." i've even had college professors tell me they get kids who call Mommy and Daddy during a meeting because *they* aren't getting an A and what Mommy and Daddy to tell the prof to give them an A. Until we realize teachers are one small part of the solution it isn't going to get fixed.
I'd say - make the charter school splay by the same rules - take all comers, make all legally required accommodations (and get sued when a parent doesn't like what you did" and let them charge no more than what the voucher is worth - and reduce their payment based on scores. Let them take over an entire district - and see who long they last on vouchers and a population that can vote on how much to give them and vote themselves out of paying if they want.
Until the fundamental issues are fixed, all we are doing is creating a few pockets of success that rally have no relevance to the overall solution. Of course, it's easier to point to the system and say it's broke than it is to really try to fix it; which is why most politicians simply pick a favorite solution an push it.
There's a reason why the 9/11/2001 stock options positions have never been released, and probably never will.
Yes. And it's the same reason why neither the 8/11 or the 12/11 positions have been released: they're commercially sensitive confidential information that is in all likelihood not retained beyond the end of the day of trading, and which in any case would require a huge amount of effort to collate as almost all of those positions were held by thousands of brokers on behalf of hundreds of thousands of private clients, and only the brokers would know who the clients were.
Hey, this is /. Don't try to confuse the issue by bring up facts and logic.
And that really isn't possible. That requires affordable agreements with EVERY studio. I can set up a studio myself and release something on DVD for $1. If I want to, I can say no streaming unless you pay me $1 billion. I probably won't succeed in even selling the DVD, but there ARE small studios out there putting out real films.
Add to that the issue of how will revenue from streaming be divided up and artist residuals paid and I think it will be awhile as well...
Maybe if they offered their entire DVD library via streaming. But even then, there are still many people who don't have streaming hooked up to their TV or are in a rural area where they have no access to broadband.
I think those are the key points - until the back catalog of DVD movies / TV shows is available via streaming the DVD is likely, in some incarnation, here to stay. Even then, there is a sizable segment of the market for whom streaming is simply not an option. In addition, until there is a good way to save streamed material for times when there is no access available DVD's will still be a preferred medium.
In addition, the fight over bandwidth caps and who can pays for usage will delay the adoption of streaming (and app d/l) until the big players work out a payment scheme that satisfies all of them. Right now, the ISPs have the upper hand since they can simply make it cost ineffective to stream any significant amount of content, or more importantly, replace cable and its revenue. Once the major ISPs own enough content providers to shift revenue from access to content I think we'll see a large shift in how content is delivered.
As Deep Throat said: "Follow the money..."
It doesn't change the fact that he didn't host copyrighted material. I come from a world where this was not a crime, it is sad to see people who is starting to accept this activity as a crime.
I'm not sure what world you come from, but in this one knowingly or deliberately aiding or contributing to the commission of a crime makes you an accessory; which is a crime. In this case, he seems to have met both requirements to be be an accessory and as such can be charged.
Again, being charged in the US is, IMHO, a bit of a stretch but not surprising.
In general, an accessory gets a lighter sentence but that is not always the case.
He wasn't just running a "link site," he was actively profiting from providing links to material - which no doubt puts him into the criminal copyright violation realm. When his site was seized, he reopened under a new name and registrar.
Since he used a US registrar that provided a way to argue he is subject to US laws. You can disagree with that, but that looks like what has happened.
He didn't help himself by sticking a finger in ICE's eye by reopening under a new name. Sometimes the smart thing to do is go to ground and hope your oo small to be worth the trouble to prosecute.
When your process is so complex that procurement types have to go to classes just to understand it and has so many rules that no one really understands it you get a system that heavily favors companies that understand the rules better than the people running the system. They know exactly what to do to meet the letter of the law and how to protest if they lose a bid so inmany cases the government is at their mercy. Combine that with a contracting officer's fear of even accidentally violating the rules and winding up in trouble and you have a system that always goes the "safe" route
Why Android tablets cost twice as much as a netbooks running Win7?
It's a price you pay to *not* have to run Win7.
The lesson I take from this is that the local retail is doomed unless we figure out how to address the online tax advantage.
While that is an advantage, it's offset by shipping costs to some extent - wether they are charged directly of factored into the cost of the items. Should shipping be deducted form taxes to keep the playing field "fair?"
Borders is a high profile example of a brick and morter shop that can't compete in an environment where its primary competition has an unnatural advantage.
There is no "unnatural advantage" - it is an outgrowth of our tax code; which some B&M stores take advantage of as well. Mos sates even have a use tax residences are supposed to (but generally don't) pay. Amazon's real advantage is the vast selection they offer - unless it was a popular item Borders didn't have it in stock and often quoted a week or more to get something - when Amazon would deliver it in a day or two. Borders bender figured out the online model and is suffering for it.
Amazon doesn't pay sales tax. Sure, it had some missteps along the way, like having Amazon run its web sites. But if Borders can't compete, do you think Mom and Pop retailers will? This impacts not or future local retailing environment, but local employment, too. Sure, online stores can be more efficient, but even a local preference for local retail won't compensate for a 5-10% price penalty.
As a friend of mine in sales said "There's no loyalty 5 cents off a case can't overcome." If people wanted to keep mom and pop shops in business they'd buy there even if it is more expensive. I do that for stores that actually have (gasp) service. But I don't want to have to pay a hidden "tax" to keep inefficient operations in business - I'd rather have that extra money to spend elsewhere.
What's next - a tax on free software because it hurts small mom and pop computer stores who are trying to sell commercial software?
I wonder how many of these violations have to do with kids complaining about doing work with no pay. When I was in school I worked in a lab and gained valuable skills like working with people from various backgrounds, writing assembly language programs to interface devices, playing with equipment that is available no where else but in a research lab, learning to disassemble and fix such equipment, learning to build novel equipment, learning to solve problems on the fly. Writing reports for NASA. You know what? Unlike the NCAA slaves, um, student athletes, I got paid a fair wage. There was never any question that I was there for the experience, that was priceless, but we are in America and in America people are generally paid for their work. And scholarships are not grants. Scholarships pay for education, not being an entertainer.
However, a scholarship, plus the stipend, training table meals, books, fees, tutors and the opportunity to actually get a degree essentially for playing a sport isn't bad remuneration. Yes, many fail to see the big picture and that is their own, and the school's, failing to put academics first. may have the mistaken belief they will have a pro career that makes them rich. many, however, actually do graduate and become productive members of society. Those who graduate from schools where football is a religion have the added benefit of a network of former fans and alumni to tap into for jobs.
One of the problems with this argument is it ignores the very simple concept of "opportunity cost". That is, what else could we have done with the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the space program over the last few decades? If it's commercially useful technologies you want, for instance, I strongly suspect you'd get a whole lot more of them by simply giving the National Science Foundation a whole lot more money to fund scientific research, rather than funding the development of technologies specifically related to space flight, only a small fraction of which will find commercial applicability elsewhere.
The key contribution NASA makes is in taking the research and turning it into useful objects - once people see what can be done they start seeing other things that can be done as well. Research is once, but researchers often are interested in research, not developing something that actually is useful. That's why they are researchers, not engineers.
And while S in NASA gets a lot of play, the first A is pretty impressive as well. NASA does a lot or aeronautical research that has direct application to aviation; research that most people don't even know NASA does. Then there's the whole sounding rocket program as well. (http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/) Most people would recognize Cape Kennedy in a heartbeat but never heard of Wallops Island.
The ultimate spinoff, of course, was model rocketry. NASA engineers like Barrowman, Galloway, et. al. hoped foster a whole sport and generation of engineers, scientist, and astronauts (Jay Apt for one.).
While the [Supreme Court]wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.
Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.
As you pointed out, it was a 1st amendment ruling so your argument that a "shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules" can't do that does not follow from the ruling.
|
I'd go so far as to say the ruling applies to 1st amendment rights in the common spaces of the shopping center, not individual stores. The SC likened shopping center to a town commons, so a store could stop you from exercising your 1st amendment rights to pass out literature in their store, for example.
Are they spending a lot of money for a fancy computer system that will tell them to watch out for crime in the crime ridden part of town?
While your comment makes a good sound bite, that's not the idea behind predictive analytics. You want to look for factors that can forecast a certain type of event or events before they occur. If you find the right ones you can take action to prevent undesirable outcomes.
For example, you could listen for the number, duration, and frequency of brakes being applied hard at intersections as a predictor of accidents. That would allow you to redesign the intersection to improve safety; even if no accidents have occurred.
This is not a new idea, but as computer power increases you can do more sophisticated modeling and analysis. In some ways, you are trying to do with machines what humans do instinctively - look for patterns that signify something is about to occur.
Hell, I had to translate your translation:
lagniappe = small gift given by a merchant, apparently. Are you in Louisiana because that's apparently the only place in the entire world that you're likely to run into that word.
No, but I have been there.
Ha, I new my MBA would come in handy. This has two main points:
"This is an important initiative ...
Point 1:
"We think this will make more money for our shareholders and executive's bonuses ..."
"...as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."
Point 2:
"...We can also make the resale market less lucrative since you won't get a full game experience so a used game is worth less. We can then sell you a pass to unlock those features, which gets us back to Point 1."
Left unsaid was:
"If we can drive some of the used game dealers out of business that's just a bit of lagniappe."
It would be ironic as all heck to have money from the corn mafia to be uses for something I've dreamed of for years. Roughly laid out, here's the idea that's been in my head since the dangers of HFCS have come to light: - have a large clinic set up with 101 beds and 101 Chiropractors. - Have 101 people show up. - Ask them about their consumption of HFCS products (especially soda which is double bad with all that CO2). - Have each Chiropractors inspect each patient's spine in utmost detail, taking note of each and every subluxation, even minor ones which have yet to cause health issues. - Yes, that means 101 inspections per patient with a different doctor, but some Docs may miss things. - Cross reference the numbers & severity with the HFCS consumption. - If and when (yes WHEN) the numbers are in and HFCS is shown to promote subluxation growth, publish the results in a journal such as Nature so the general public will learn of the dangers. Of course setting up such a vast and detailed study would cost lots of money, that's why we need government funding for such sweeping science. Take care, Bob
Actually, what you describe isn't remotely related to science; but a simple and often made error in statistical analysis. You don't even have to add in Chiropractic to make it bad science.
He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.
And you're giving money to those Godless heathens in the Middle East (or Norway, whatever) instead of paying to support American farmers. Why do you hate America?
Sarah? Is that you or did you give Michelle your user id and pw again?
While the banks could do this, the real solution is for more people to be made aware of the problem and issue charge backs. That would get banks attention and they would take action against the problem charges. of course, getting people to realize they've been scammed and requesting a charge back is easier said than done.
If you really want to appreciate the power of PowerPoint, get the whole Army presentation: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/Afghanistan_Dynamic_Planning.pdf
No, Stalin; because nobody can make bullet points like him.