If you're planning to have something printed, just save it as PDF (this is a general advice, by the way, and equally applies to MSOffice).
Actually, you can save the presentation as PDF as well. You're not using any fancy distracting animations in there, right?
Yes, saving to pdf is a good way to avoid this; however you still need to check the pdf to ensure it actually translated properly from the original file. I have had a few instances where font points changed and other minor, but annoying glitches.
The best part of pdf is they are platform agnostic; work done on a Mac translate easily to PCs and vice versa. Unlike earlier versions of PowerPoint where the Mac broke the shapes into individual objects at random times.
Checking the output of important files goes for MS Office (or any other programs) as well; so it's not a knock on FOSS.
I do avoid automated graphics, I find it better to build slide by slide if you want to illustrate something; although there are cases where the "line at a time" approach is helpful.
Nonsense, OpenOffice Word has a ton of problems with mathematical formulas, also I've had problems with images that open fine on msword but don't under OpenOffice.
Otherwise it works well, I've moved from Word to OpenOffice.
That's been my experience as well. I use NeoOffice on my Mac; and while it is generally compatible I occasionally get some strange artifacts when opening PowerPoint files. Overall, however, NO/OO is compatible enough to be a viable alternative; you just need to verify the files will open properly if it is a "mission critical" file; such as one you are planning to have printed, or will be use as a presentation, from a machine that may not be running NO/OO.
With regards to escalating the battle to administration... how else is AISD admin going to learn about FOSS. Do you think the teacher will see the error of her ways re-educate the school system in what can be done with Linux et. al?
It was the right thing to escalate the issue.
How you communicate a message is often more important than the what's in the message. While I do not agree with the tone of the teacher's email; at this point neither side looks reasonable.
The school could very well respond by circling the wagons and making the issue the teacher's right to control what goes on in the classroom; and not be interested in, nor receptive to, the virtues of FOSS.
Do you think the email the school district got in response made them think:HMM - FOSS sounds like a greta idea to explore and there is a lot of helpful people that we can work with?"
1 The teacher is not a legal representative of the school district (unless it involves the safety of the child) and should direct any/suspected/ illegal activities to admin/legal/or ISD police force.
Actually, she is, and has a right and duty to maintain order in the classroom. She had no idea of what was on those disks and so confiscating them until the end of class was neither unreasonable nor inappropriate.
Had she decided, she could have given them to the administration as well and expressed her concerns there ( a better approach than an email, IMHO).
#2 Admin has a part to play in educating the teachers and staff on what is allowed on school grounds. Admin also plays a part in hosting inservices(sp?) where teachers/staff will be 'trained' on new policies ie pirating, software use, teaching techniques etc.
True, but that is irrelevant to what happened in the classroom; other than she may have been told students may not bring programs into class.
#3 This educator needed to be taken down a notch. If your going to spit off flaming bullet e-mails you better have your facts checked. Justbleepinggoogleit would have saved this teacher a lot of embarrasment.
Oh yea, that really is the way to win friends and influence people. While responding in kind may be gratifying, it does nothing to create an environment where you can advance your cause.
The teacher doesn't have to google it, doesn't have to cae about FOSS; FOSS advocates need to sell their position if they want to gain support.
A better approach is to try to understand where the other side is coming from, and address their concerns in a way that makes them feel you understand them and want to come to a reasonable agreement.
Yes, it is frustrating at times, and some people won't be reasonable (at which point you simply move on); but if you want to advance your cause you need to build support and acceptance.
At this point, all FOSS advocates are is another group with an agenda, and the first impression is not a very good one.
The administration is now put in the position of defending the teacher, and probably just wants to make the problem go away. The best way to do that is to politely listen, then ignore you from now on; and tell teachers simply to take the disks and not say anything else or email anyone.
Of course, there's always the "remember the children" card they can play as well; after all we all *know* what the internet is like and what kids can download - you really don't want *your* kid to be given a disk of who knows what in school, do you? Most parents do not understand FOSS, and starting a fight is not the way to educate them or get their support. Remember, many of the teachers live where they work, and are friends with other parents - it doesn't take much for them to get their viewpoint out to help build support for their side of the story.
School districts want to avoid confrontations with parents; so if a few complain about their kids bringing home disks; guess who loses that battle?
So to conclude my rather long winded reply, my point is simple:
Flaming people with whom you disagree is not the way to build support for FOSS
Ok, the teacher is misinformed and here email is a bit terse. Still, it was a chance to educate someone and make a friend; instead he chose to pen a rude reply and escalate the battle to the school's administration.
Maybe you missed the part where she stole his property? She would have been arrested had it been me or my kid.
Stole property? Hardly. Schools have a right, if not an obligation, to maintain order and a part of that can control distribution of material. Part of that is confiscating items; something that happens in schools every day. Students do not have a blank right to bring in any item to a school or to not have something taken form them by administrators or teachers.
You may not agree with her actions or viewpoint but she seems to be operating within limits accorded schools to maintain an environment conducive to learning.
Ok, the teacher is misinformed and here email is a bit terse. Still, it was a chance to educate someone and make a friend; instead he chose to pen a rude reply and escalate the battle to the school's administration.
I simply do not understand this attitude - FOSS advocates are trying to gain wider adoption of their software and ideas and yet seem to go out of their way to antagonize anyone who doesn't share their viewpoint.
This could come down to a basic question - what right does a teacher or school have to control student activities in the classroom. My guess is that, if push comes to shove, a court would give them broad latitude in such matters. The teacher has no idea what is on the disks; and the school would naturally be concerned about any lawsuits that might arise over that, so they have a legitimate interest in restricting such activities. All it takes is one CD-Rom with something objectionable to a parent or illegal to paint FOSS and it's supporters as somehow evil and a danger to kids. Not that that is right, but winning and losing these kinds of battles rarely hinges on what is right.
FOSS advocates should ask themselves why MS and Apple are successful in getting their products into schools and adopt their approach - working with teachers, teaching them how to use their products to further classroom activities; in short becoming a partner with them. I know a lot of teachers, and most of them just want to help their students learn, avoid hassles from parents and administrators, struggle with the myriad of laws and other things that impact their ability to teach and really care about the kids they teach. Sure, there are some who are useless but most are just trying to do a good job in a challenging environment.
You do not have to agree with or like the teacher's stance, but to further FOSS goals you need to understand it and determine the best way to overcome it. making an enemy is not, IMHO, the best way to further those goals.
I've found teachers open to FOSS if approached the right way. For example, explaining how OpenOffice/NeoOffice can be used for schoolwork by students so parents don't have to shell out cash for MS Office. Give them a disk, with written instructions on how to set it up to save in an MS format and you've made it easy for them to use and helped build credibility for FOSS
The problem is zealots see everything as a threat or challenge; and believe compromise and cooperation is selling out; and that any differing viewpoint or argument against their approach is either flamebait or a troll (as evidenced by/. moderations).
Most of the ones I know are local, so they wouldn't mean much to you. You might want to check out some of the smaller cities/towns in BC, Canada though if you're really interested as opposed to just playing Devil's Advocate.
Without knowing BC's experience, the case I've seen generally involve smaller business going out of business but prices staying lower tan before competition. While it hurts those business owners overall consumer's win; if enough really valued the small local store then they'd shop it instead of the cheaper chain. that tends not to happen; which tells me people prefer low price to personalized service at higher prices.
Disrupting, monitoring and tapping into the enemy's command and control systems, lines of communication, etc. is as old as warfare.
What make sit news is that you now can do it from well within your own borders, often undetected, combined with the increasing reliance on electronic networking for C3 makes the threat more serious.
As a result, countries are paying more attention to the offensive potential and defensive needs to protect their networks while making other's vulnerable.
Same game, just different playtoys.
Except the consumer gets screwed by this - essentially it's a way to make price comparison more difficult
Ah yes, but an alternate syndrome is where a big chain store busts into town, sells at cut-throat margins and drives the local stores out, then jack prices back up after all the competition has failed or fled.
That's not good for the consumer either, but it's been known to happen fairly often.
Ok, so how about some examples where a store comes in, sells at cut throat margins and then jacks prices up past what was charged before?
It's the long term behavior that counts - if retailers make a habit of dropping prices to end competition then jack them up other sellers will stay in the market because they know that the. price will rise.
That is simply not true. It is hard now to believe that even you seriously think that is true.
LARGE COMPANIES HAVE MORE MONEY. I normally dont like to yell, but that basic fact is one that you are completely overlooking. Small companies generally have very low cash reserves. They can only operate in the red for relatively short periods of time compared to large companies. The reason that large companies can continue to lower prices to push out small business is because they can outlast them. Smaller retailers already know the prices will eventually go up, but they simply cannot wait the big guys out.
Not only do big companies have larger cash reserves, they have more stores. If the larger corporation has 50 other stores, they can use the profit of those stores to cover the losses in the store that is currently in a price war. A small business cannot do that. It is so simple that it really shouldnt have to be explained.
Then how do you explain the overall lower cost of many items? If your scenario was accurate, we should see significant price increases as companies raise prices to make up for all the losses they incurred driving the small guy out.
The reason we haven't is competition - from other big stores as well as smaller retailers, online and B&M.
In the end the consumer benefits because prices remain lower than if there were only small retailers. Some retailers can't compete because their costs make them two expensive, but that is not true across the board.
If you look at WalMart, the big bad guy, their strategy is not to lower prices to the absolute lowest so they can stifle competition. They price at what their major competitors do, and are happy to make a bit more profit since they are very efficient.
It really is simple - competition benefits the consumer by lowering prices.
In addition signed contracts will scare off more legitimate customers and cost you more time than they are worth. Just make sure you are dealing with a company that is a viable business, write a good bid/estimate, use common sense and MOST IMPORTANTLY require a fractional payment up front (1/3 for large jobs and 1/2 for small jobs.).
While I agree with all of the rest of your excellent advice, I differ here.
A simple contract, that clearly spells out the deliverable, due dates, etc., helps both sides understand what is being done for what cost. As the work progress, you talk with the client to ensure they are getting what they expect and to keep the project on track. That way, there are no surprises and both sides are happy.
I've never had a client balk at signing a contract; in fact most want one and get nervous about starting work without one.
Be professional about it and clearly lay out what is to be done when, for what cost, and what support you get from the client and I suspect you'll have no trouble. Once you have a solid relationship you can work on spec but until then a contract helps both sides.
Since the cause of autism is unknown, but the incidence of it is up the last few decades, it seems quite likely that at least one of the assertions regarding what supposedly doesn't cause it may be wrong. Maybe the experiments that have "proved" MMR to be safe didn't reproduce the right conditions or test against the (unidentified) group most at risk of side effects.
Maybe what is defined as autism has changed, resulting in more "diagnosis" than before without any actual change in the population.
The boy is 13 years old, handsome, has some artistic talent, and wears a diaper because he's totally incontinent. His mom swears up and down that she can trace the changes in him to the very day he got his 18 month MMR. Even if it's anecdotal, a story like that puts the fear into you when you have your own baby.
Even if it wasn't anecdotal, it's NOT EVIDENCE. Correlation != Causation. This is what 99% of the world appears to forget.
And the other 1% can make a fortune off of not forgetting that.
The problem with that logic, is that it takes a lot more time and investment to open and close up shop than it does to change prices on a website. If an online retailer (or Walmart for that matter) uses low prices, sometimes so low that they aren't even making a profit but are willing to take it on the chin to clear out the market, and then jacks them back up, there will not be a return of the local small retailers. It's not like they just throw all their stuff in storage and wait for the day when they can come back and be competitive, if you're run out of business you're not popping back next week when the market is more favorable.
It's the long term behavior that counts - if retailers make a habit of dropping prices to end competition then jack them up other sellers will stay in the market because they know that the. price will rise.
OTOH, if the low price stick then they won't enter because they can't compete. What we've seen is low prices tend to be sticky; favoring economies of scale over small local shops.
Exactly. Protecting the Dealers from other dealers is the reason for MAP Pricing.
Except the consumer gets screwed by this - essentially it's a way to make price comparison more difficult. As a result, some places don't advertise price but require a call or email to get a quote.
I worked in pro audio for 5 years. MAP is very prevailent in that market. I live in North Dakota. Its not like I sell 1000 dollar speakers every day like Musician's Friend does. So if I'm a dealer and the 1000 dollar speaker costs me 800 dollars. plus 70 dollar shipping. I'm making 130 dollars per speaker.
If there is no MAP. then The online retailer is able to then sell the speaker for say 850 dollars and and then sell more, getting better pricing so that the speaker may only costs them 700 dollars. well now they're able to sell it for less than what the smaller local dealer can and still make a profit. and make up the extra amount in gross sales. Isn't this reminding you of Wal-Mart?
If it means consumers pay less then it is a good deal - the manufacturers don't want to piss off they big buyers by not offering steep discounts but don't want to offer the same pricing to the little guy.
They could offer the same price to the little guy but they don't want to take the revenue hit so they use MAP to "protect" them while hurting the consumer.
These companys want to keep their local dealers open. They want to have a place for you to take your unit back to for support. if they don't have MAP there is no reason for that local dealer to even been selling the product if they can't even be competitive with the pricing.
If they really want then don't give the big sellers a sizable discount - stay a specialty product selling through dealers only.
Some companies, such as Stihl and Snapper, do this. Of course, their prices are not that much more than for a similar product at Home Depot; they simply chose not to get into the price death spiral and instead sell on quality.
As the CEO of Snapper said - "My tombstone will say 'He turned down WalMart.' - whether or not that was smart remains to be seen"
Make sense?
It depends on the business model - I don't think one that gives better pricing to Big Box / large online stores and tries to keep a dealer network in place via MAP is a viable long term strategy.
The big guys will find ways to sell for less (MAP only controls advertised, not selling price); squeezing the dealers.
and if you can't compete go out of business that's how it is supposed to work. Goods should be as cheap as possible that still keep them selling.
No, that may work in some businesses but in others it results in higher prices and worse service.
As the GP points out;
These companys want to keep their local dealers open. They want to have a place for you to take your unit back to for support. if they don't have MAP there is no reason for that local dealer to even been selling the product if they can't even be competitive with the pricing.
Once all the small companies go out of business the big guys can raise their prices above where they were when they had competition.
And then small guys come back in to compete - so either the big guys keep prices low to keep out the little guy or they raise prices and open themselves to competition.
Conversely, if enough consumers want the extra service they will pay a higher local price - but that should not prevent others from offering a better price.
the kicker is many stores now have the click on cart to see price to get around MAP restrictions.
DRAWBACK: A lot of these script-kiddies are probably deadbeat non-payers as well. Surely they are not going to buy 10,000 items that they won last week for a dollar each. Instead they'll just refuse to pay and leave sellers to eat the losses in Ebay fees.
Ideally, eBay will be able to discover these folks and either void the sale or hold it pending their payment of all the other $1 items they bought; and don't let them charge back the PayPal charges and work with the CC companies if the charge back the card used to pay. They no pay, then void all the sales including the eBay deals.
If they threaten sellers with negative feedback; void the feedback.
EBay holds some pretty strong cards; and the TOS for the specials gives them a lot of wiggle room.
On a lighter note, buying with no intent to pay may constitute fraud; and selling scripts to enable such may invoke RICO.
Agreed. It is also very important to ensure you use teh uni-directional Ethernet cable properly. It uses a special extruding and annealing process to line up all the electronic data pipes properly so that you get maximum data throughput in the download direction while limiting upstream traffic within ISP limits. If you install it backwards, as one of my cow orkers did, you'll severely limit your connection speeds since you are now throttling the download speed. His connection went from 2400 baud dialup speeds to past T1 after I simply reversed the cable.
Don't bother to buy any of the special oxygen blocking gels that people tout for covering the connectors to prevent corrosion and maximize conductivity. They actually are harmful - you need a little bi-metallic corrosion between the connectors to ensure a nice, tight electrical bond; that's why your speeds go up after you've warmed up the cable and let it break in. I never disconnect my Ethernet cable from my MacBook for that very reason. I always disconnect at my router and carefully wrap the cable around my MacBook for travel.
I hope this helps. HAND.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I don't think that question is as important as "will they be more able to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary with this device, or without it?".
But what about at a range of 2-5 feet, which is where this device would be most useful? At that range, accuracy doesn't matter nearly as much as just being able to get the gun up into firing position, something that would be even easier with this device than with a typical handgun.
If I were teaching people to use this device, I think I'd encourage them to use it point-blank, kind of like a bang-stick.
We're in agreement here - the best use is like a bang stick. My main issue is the overall effectiveness of this as a home defense tool - especially if marketed to elderly who can't use a normal weapon. I think it is more hype than substance; and unless it has a good safety is probably as much a danger as a useful tool; especially if young children visit granny and find the "toy" that doesn't look like a gun.
Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it.
Most defensive shootings occur at ranges where proficiency is not a major factor; typically less than five feet. Point and shoot is fine. Also, 95% of defensive handgun uses don't involve actually shooting at all. The threat of shooting is almost always sufficient to stop aggression. I think the biggest drawback of this device is that it doesn't look like a gun.
I agree - the biggest deterrent is the threat of defense - and that needs something that looks serious.
As I recall, the number of actual defensive shootings, especially in a home environment where I see this weapon likely to be used are so small that they are statistically insignificant relative to overall crimes of force.
I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close.
But an unarmed attacker will have to get that close to you in order to attack you.
No rational person would expect a device like this would give anyone a fighting chance against an attacker armed with a more typical firearm. What this kind of gun does is give the elderly a chance against the young, strong unarmed attacker, who has a huge force advantage over the typical 80 year-old.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I think this is more about hype and fear than substance.
I think a pump shotgun is a better self defense weapon - there's the psychological effect of someone hearing the unmistakable sound of a round being chambered, and its a stand off weapon. While you still need to aim it is not necessary to be as accurate and you can use a nightstand / bed to steady your aim as well. Much better stopping power as well.
Shotguns are also large and heavy, and the notion that you don't have to be accurate is a myth. At self-defense ranges, with a shotgun of legal barrel length, there is practically no pattern expansion. The greater stopping power argument certainly applies to a large shotty, but if you scale back to a weapon with weight and recoil that is manageable for an 80 year-old woman, that advantage erodes significantly.
Well, I did not say you don't have to aim; just that you do not have to be as accurate. For a defense weapon, you clearly want as short of a barrel as is legal and no choke to get the best expansion possible; it also gives you a better chance at a hitting stand off shot across say a room than a handgun. Plus, it has less of a chance of penetrating walls than a bullet if you miss; so you have less of a chance of injuring an innocent bystander or family member.
In addition, buckshot even with minor expansion has a good chance of penetrating vital organs and not simply leaving a flesh wound, which is the goal.
If you are looking for home defense I'd say a likely engagement distance is 7 - 10 feet - at that point the attackers intentions are clear and it's time to fire. Even a small expansion (what's it likely to be 4 - 6 inches if I recall correctly) increase the chances of a hit over a single bullet. Even if all you do is slow them down you have increased the odds in you favor for a second shot.
Of course, the above is based on my experience - which has shown me I'm much better with a shotgun at short range than a handgun. (and even better with an automatic rifle but that's another story)
Either way, I think we can agree that training is key - you don't just buy one and leave it under the bed. Plus, you have to be willing to pull the trigger no matter what the weapon.
Finally, I'd have to say that from a tactical perspective, racking your shotgun is foolish. Ye
Actually, I'd bet the whole purpose to get the medical device certification is for marketing. Late night TV, mailers all designed to get people worked up and find a doctor who will prescribe the gun. It opens a market to people who can't afford a gun but can be convinced they need one.
Quite frankly, those who can afford a gun and want one will probably look at this for what it is - a gimmick. Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it. You have to aim and be accurate; if your pumped up from fear it makes that difficult, and the palm pistol doesn't look like it is very easy to aim. I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close. Plus you get one shot. So you have someone who is already incapable of using a regular weapon who now needs to get close to an attacker, position the weapon to a place that will cause serious enough damage to incapacitate them, and is probably already scared to death. Overall, I don't see it as an effective self defense weapon; especially for the market they claim to target.
Personally, I think a pump shotgun is a better self defense weapon - there's the psychological effect of someone hearing the unmistakable sound of a round being chambered, and its a stand off weapon. While you still need to aim it is not necessary to be as accurate and you can use a nightstand / bed to steady your aim as well. Much better stopping power as well.
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
It's not just socialized medicine - as a device company and private plans will often cover it as well. I wonder if I can get one for my $15 copay?
Slashdot - where -1 Flamebait means I don't like what you said but can't think of a rational response
Slashdot Mirror
If you're planning to have something printed, just save it as PDF (this is a general advice, by the way, and equally applies to MSOffice).
Actually, you can save the presentation as PDF as well. You're not using any fancy distracting animations in there, right?
Yes, saving to pdf is a good way to avoid this; however you still need to check the pdf to ensure it actually translated properly from the original file. I have had a few instances where font points changed and other minor, but annoying glitches. The best part of pdf is they are platform agnostic; work done on a Mac translate easily to PCs and vice versa. Unlike earlier versions of PowerPoint where the Mac broke the shapes into individual objects at random times. Checking the output of important files goes for MS Office (or any other programs) as well; so it's not a knock on FOSS. I do avoid automated graphics, I find it better to build slide by slide if you want to illustrate something; although there are cases where the "line at a time" approach is helpful.
Nonsense, OpenOffice Word has a ton of problems with mathematical formulas, also I've had problems with images that open fine on msword but don't under OpenOffice. Otherwise it works well, I've moved from Word to OpenOffice.
That's been my experience as well. I use NeoOffice on my Mac; and while it is generally compatible I occasionally get some strange artifacts when opening PowerPoint files. Overall, however, NO/OO is compatible enough to be a viable alternative; you just need to verify the files will open properly if it is a "mission critical" file; such as one you are planning to have printed, or will be use as a presentation, from a machine that may not be running NO/OO.
With regards to escalating the battle to administration... how else is AISD admin going to learn about FOSS. Do you think the teacher will see the error of her ways re-educate the school system in what can be done with Linux et. al? It was the right thing to escalate the issue.
How you communicate a message is often more important than the what's in the message. While I do not agree with the tone of the teacher's email; at this point neither side looks reasonable. The school could very well respond by circling the wagons and making the issue the teacher's right to control what goes on in the classroom; and not be interested in, nor receptive to, the virtues of FOSS.
Do you think the email the school district got in response made them think :HMM - FOSS sounds like a greta idea to explore and there is a lot of helpful people that we can work with?"
1 The teacher is not a legal representative of the school district (unless it involves the safety of the child) and should direct any /suspected/ illegal activities to admin/legal/or ISD police force.
Actually, she is, and has a right and duty to maintain order in the classroom. She had no idea of what was on those disks and so confiscating them until the end of class was neither unreasonable nor inappropriate.
Had she decided, she could have given them to the administration as well and expressed her concerns there ( a better approach than an email, IMHO).
#2 Admin has a part to play in educating the teachers and staff on what is allowed on school grounds. Admin also plays a part in hosting inservices(sp?) where teachers/staff will be 'trained' on new policies ie pirating, software use, teaching techniques etc.
True, but that is irrelevant to what happened in the classroom; other than she may have been told students may not bring programs into class.
#3 This educator needed to be taken down a notch. If your going to spit off flaming bullet e-mails you better have your facts checked. Justbleepinggoogleit would have saved this teacher a lot of embarrasment.
Oh yea, that really is the way to win friends and influence people. While responding in kind may be gratifying, it does nothing to create an environment where you can advance your cause.
The teacher doesn't have to google it, doesn't have to cae about FOSS; FOSS advocates need to sell their position if they want to gain support.
A better approach is to try to understand where the other side is coming from, and address their concerns in a way that makes them feel you understand them and want to come to a reasonable agreement.
Yes, it is frustrating at times, and some people won't be reasonable (at which point you simply move on); but if you want to advance your cause you need to build support and acceptance.
At this point, all FOSS advocates are is another group with an agenda, and the first impression is not a very good one.
The administration is now put in the position of defending the teacher, and probably just wants to make the problem go away. The best way to do that is to politely listen, then ignore you from now on; and tell teachers simply to take the disks and not say anything else or email anyone.
Of course, there's always the "remember the children" card they can play as well; after all we all *know* what the internet is like and what kids can download - you really don't want *your* kid to be given a disk of who knows what in school, do you? Most parents do not understand FOSS, and starting a fight is not the way to educate them or get their support. Remember, many of the teachers live where they work, and are friends with other parents - it doesn't take much for them to get their viewpoint out to help build support for their side of the story.
School districts want to avoid confrontations with parents; so if a few complain about their kids bringing home disks; guess who loses that battle?
So to conclude my rather long winded reply, my point is simple:
Flaming people with whom you disagree is not the way to build support for FOSS
Ok, the teacher is misinformed and here email is a bit terse. Still, it was a chance to educate someone and make a friend; instead he chose to pen a rude reply and escalate the battle to the school's administration.
Maybe you missed the part where she stole his property? She would have been arrested had it been me or my kid.
Stole property? Hardly. Schools have a right, if not an obligation, to maintain order and a part of that can control distribution of material. Part of that is confiscating items; something that happens in schools every day. Students do not have a blank right to bring in any item to a school or to not have something taken form them by administrators or teachers. You may not agree with her actions or viewpoint but she seems to be operating within limits accorded schools to maintain an environment conducive to learning.
Ok, the teacher is misinformed and here email is a bit terse. Still, it was a chance to educate someone and make a friend; instead he chose to pen a rude reply and escalate the battle to the school's administration.
I simply do not understand this attitude - FOSS advocates are trying to gain wider adoption of their software and ideas and yet seem to go out of their way to antagonize anyone who doesn't share their viewpoint.
This could come down to a basic question - what right does a teacher or school have to control student activities in the classroom. My guess is that, if push comes to shove, a court would give them broad latitude in such matters. The teacher has no idea what is on the disks; and the school would naturally be concerned about any lawsuits that might arise over that, so they have a legitimate interest in restricting such activities. All it takes is one CD-Rom with something objectionable to a parent or illegal to paint FOSS and it's supporters as somehow evil and a danger to kids. Not that that is right, but winning and losing these kinds of battles rarely hinges on what is right.
FOSS advocates should ask themselves why MS and Apple are successful in getting their products into schools and adopt their approach - working with teachers, teaching them how to use their products to further classroom activities; in short becoming a partner with them. I know a lot of teachers, and most of them just want to help their students learn, avoid hassles from parents and administrators, struggle with the myriad of laws and other things that impact their ability to teach and really care about the kids they teach. Sure, there are some who are useless but most are just trying to do a good job in a challenging environment.
You do not have to agree with or like the teacher's stance, but to further FOSS goals you need to understand it and determine the best way to overcome it. making an enemy is not, IMHO, the best way to further those goals.
I've found teachers open to FOSS if approached the right way. For example, explaining how OpenOffice/NeoOffice can be used for schoolwork by students so parents don't have to shell out cash for MS Office. Give them a disk, with written instructions on how to set it up to save in an MS format and you've made it easy for them to use and helped build credibility for FOSS
The problem is zealots see everything as a threat or challenge; and believe compromise and cooperation is selling out; and that any differing viewpoint or argument against their approach is either flamebait or a troll (as evidenced by /. moderations).
Most of the ones I know are local, so they wouldn't mean much to you. You might want to check out some of the smaller cities/towns in BC, Canada though if you're really interested as opposed to just playing Devil's Advocate.
Without knowing BC's experience, the case I've seen generally involve smaller business going out of business but prices staying lower tan before competition. While it hurts those business owners overall consumer's win; if enough really valued the small local store then they'd shop it instead of the cheaper chain. that tends not to happen; which tells me people prefer low price to personalized service at higher prices.
There's a $25 Developer Marketplace fee on top of teh phone. Tempting, though...
Disrupting, monitoring and tapping into the enemy's command and control systems, lines of communication, etc. is as old as warfare. What make sit news is that you now can do it from well within your own borders, often undetected, combined with the increasing reliance on electronic networking for C3 makes the threat more serious. As a result, countries are paying more attention to the offensive potential and defensive needs to protect their networks while making other's vulnerable. Same game, just different playtoys.
Except the consumer gets screwed by this - essentially it's a way to make price comparison more difficult
Ah yes, but an alternate syndrome is where a big chain store busts into town, sells at cut-throat margins and drives the local stores out, then jack prices back up after all the competition has failed or fled.
That's not good for the consumer either, but it's been known to happen fairly often.
Ok, so how about some examples where a store comes in, sells at cut throat margins and then jacks prices up past what was charged before?
It's the long term behavior that counts - if retailers make a habit of dropping prices to end competition then jack them up other sellers will stay in the market because they know that the. price will rise.
That is simply not true. It is hard now to believe that even you seriously think that is true.
LARGE COMPANIES HAVE MORE MONEY. I normally dont like to yell, but that basic fact is one that you are completely overlooking. Small companies generally have very low cash reserves. They can only operate in the red for relatively short periods of time compared to large companies. The reason that large companies can continue to lower prices to push out small business is because they can outlast them. Smaller retailers already know the prices will eventually go up, but they simply cannot wait the big guys out.
Not only do big companies have larger cash reserves, they have more stores. If the larger corporation has 50 other stores, they can use the profit of those stores to cover the losses in the store that is currently in a price war. A small business cannot do that. It is so simple that it really shouldnt have to be explained.
Then how do you explain the overall lower cost of many items? If your scenario was accurate, we should see significant price increases as companies raise prices to make up for all the losses they incurred driving the small guy out. The reason we haven't is competition - from other big stores as well as smaller retailers, online and B&M. In the end the consumer benefits because prices remain lower than if there were only small retailers. Some retailers can't compete because their costs make them two expensive, but that is not true across the board. If you look at WalMart, the big bad guy, their strategy is not to lower prices to the absolute lowest so they can stifle competition. They price at what their major competitors do, and are happy to make a bit more profit since they are very efficient. It really is simple - competition benefits the consumer by lowering prices.
In addition signed contracts will scare off more legitimate customers and cost you more time than they are worth. Just make sure you are dealing with a company that is a viable business, write a good bid/estimate, use common sense and MOST IMPORTANTLY require a fractional payment up front (1/3 for large jobs and 1/2 for small jobs.).
While I agree with all of the rest of your excellent advice, I differ here. A simple contract, that clearly spells out the deliverable, due dates, etc., helps both sides understand what is being done for what cost. As the work progress, you talk with the client to ensure they are getting what they expect and to keep the project on track. That way, there are no surprises and both sides are happy. I've never had a client balk at signing a contract; in fact most want one and get nervous about starting work without one. Be professional about it and clearly lay out what is to be done when, for what cost, and what support you get from the client and I suspect you'll have no trouble. Once you have a solid relationship you can work on spec but until then a contract helps both sides.
Since the cause of autism is unknown, but the incidence of it is up the last few decades, it seems quite likely that at least one of the assertions regarding what supposedly doesn't cause it may be wrong. Maybe the experiments that have "proved" MMR to be safe didn't reproduce the right conditions or test against the (unidentified) group most at risk of side effects.
Maybe what is defined as autism has changed, resulting in more "diagnosis" than before without any actual change in the population.
Even if it wasn't anecdotal, it's NOT EVIDENCE. Correlation != Causation. This is what 99% of the world appears to forget.
And the other 1% can make a fortune off of not forgetting that.
The problem with that logic, is that it takes a lot more time and investment to open and close up shop than it does to change prices on a website. If an online retailer (or Walmart for that matter) uses low prices, sometimes so low that they aren't even making a profit but are willing to take it on the chin to clear out the market, and then jacks them back up, there will not be a return of the local small retailers. It's not like they just throw all their stuff in storage and wait for the day when they can come back and be competitive, if you're run out of business you're not popping back next week when the market is more favorable.
It's the long term behavior that counts - if retailers make a habit of dropping prices to end competition then jack them up other sellers will stay in the market because they know that the. price will rise. OTOH, if the low price stick then they won't enter because they can't compete. What we've seen is low prices tend to be sticky; favoring economies of scale over small local shops.
Exactly. Protecting the Dealers from other dealers is the reason for MAP Pricing.
Except the consumer gets screwed by this - essentially it's a way to make price comparison more difficult. As a result, some places don't advertise price but require a call or email to get a quote.
I worked in pro audio for 5 years. MAP is very prevailent in that market. I live in North Dakota. Its not like I sell 1000 dollar speakers every day like Musician's Friend does. So if I'm a dealer and the 1000 dollar speaker costs me 800 dollars. plus 70 dollar shipping. I'm making 130 dollars per speaker.
If there is no MAP. then The online retailer is able to then sell the speaker for say 850 dollars and and then sell more, getting better pricing so that the speaker may only costs them 700 dollars. well now they're able to sell it for less than what the smaller local dealer can and still make a profit. and make up the extra amount in gross sales. Isn't this reminding you of Wal-Mart?
If it means consumers pay less then it is a good deal - the manufacturers don't want to piss off they big buyers by not offering steep discounts but don't want to offer the same pricing to the little guy. They could offer the same price to the little guy but they don't want to take the revenue hit so they use MAP to "protect" them while hurting the consumer.
These companys want to keep their local dealers open. They want to have a place for you to take your unit back to for support. if they don't have MAP there is no reason for that local dealer to even been selling the product if they can't even be competitive with the pricing.
If they really want then don't give the big sellers a sizable discount - stay a specialty product selling through dealers only. Some companies, such as Stihl and Snapper, do this. Of course, their prices are not that much more than for a similar product at Home Depot; they simply chose not to get into the price death spiral and instead sell on quality. As the CEO of Snapper said - "My tombstone will say 'He turned down WalMart.' - whether or not that was smart remains to be seen"
Make sense?
It depends on the business model - I don't think one that gives better pricing to Big Box / large online stores and tries to keep a dealer network in place via MAP is a viable long term strategy. The big guys will find ways to sell for less (MAP only controls advertised, not selling price); squeezing the dealers.
and if you can't compete go out of business that's how it is supposed to work. Goods should be as cheap as possible that still keep them selling.
No, that may work in some businesses but in others it results in higher prices and worse service. As the GP points out; These companys want to keep their local dealers open. They want to have a place for you to take your unit back to for support. if they don't have MAP there is no reason for that local dealer to even been selling the product if they can't even be competitive with the pricing. Once all the small companies go out of business the big guys can raise their prices above where they were when they had competition.
And then small guys come back in to compete - so either the big guys keep prices low to keep out the little guy or they raise prices and open themselves to competition. Conversely, if enough consumers want the extra service they will pay a higher local price - but that should not prevent others from offering a better price. the kicker is many stores now have the click on cart to see price to get around MAP restrictions.
From TFA:
Meanwhile, bot scripts are being offered on RentACoder for $20 and even free of charge here and there.
How can I sell my scripts if there is someone giving them out for free? This is outrageous!
Consulting services. The new FOSS model!!!
DRAWBACK: A lot of these script-kiddies are probably deadbeat non-payers as well. Surely they are not going to buy 10,000 items that they won last week for a dollar each. Instead they'll just refuse to pay and leave sellers to eat the losses in Ebay fees.
Ideally, eBay will be able to discover these folks and either void the sale or hold it pending their payment of all the other $1 items they bought; and don't let them charge back the PayPal charges and work with the CC companies if the charge back the card used to pay. They no pay, then void all the sales including the eBay deals. If they threaten sellers with negative feedback; void the feedback. EBay holds some pretty strong cards; and the TOS for the specials gives them a lot of wiggle room. On a lighter note, buying with no intent to pay may constitute fraud; and selling scripts to enable such may invoke RICO.
I for one, think that a few grey lines make a display look distinguished.
True. It least their displays aren't going bald like the PC guy.
Gold is passe now.
Platinum coated Low Oxygen titanium with iridium tips are what is needed now.
Also be sure that your Ethernet cables are of quality. http://www.usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/3429.asp# is the only cable that is worthwhile for any performance computing.
using a lesser cable will cause muddyness.
Agreed. It is also very important to ensure you use teh uni-directional Ethernet cable properly. It uses a special extruding and annealing process to line up all the electronic data pipes properly so that you get maximum data throughput in the download direction while limiting upstream traffic within ISP limits. If you install it backwards, as one of my cow orkers did, you'll severely limit your connection speeds since you are now throttling the download speed. His connection went from 2400 baud dialup speeds to past T1 after I simply reversed the cable. Don't bother to buy any of the special oxygen blocking gels that people tout for covering the connectors to prevent corrosion and maximize conductivity. They actually are harmful - you need a little bi-metallic corrosion between the connectors to ensure a nice, tight electrical bond; that's why your speeds go up after you've warmed up the cable and let it break in. I never disconnect my Ethernet cable from my MacBook for that very reason. I always disconnect at my router and carefully wrap the cable around my MacBook for travel. I hope this helps. HAND.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I don't think that question is as important as "will they be more able to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary with this device, or without it?".
But what about at a range of 2-5 feet, which is where this device would be most useful? At that range, accuracy doesn't matter nearly as much as just being able to get the gun up into firing position, something that would be even easier with this device than with a typical handgun.
If I were teaching people to use this device, I think I'd encourage them to use it point-blank, kind of like a bang-stick.
We're in agreement here - the best use is like a bang stick. My main issue is the overall effectiveness of this as a home defense tool - especially if marketed to elderly who can't use a normal weapon. I think it is more hype than substance; and unless it has a good safety is probably as much a danger as a useful tool; especially if young children visit granny and find the "toy" that doesn't look like a gun.
Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it.
Most defensive shootings occur at ranges where proficiency is not a major factor; typically less than five feet. Point and shoot is fine. Also, 95% of defensive handgun uses don't involve actually shooting at all. The threat of shooting is almost always sufficient to stop aggression. I think the biggest drawback of this device is that it doesn't look like a gun.
I agree - the biggest deterrent is the threat of defense - and that needs something that looks serious. As I recall, the number of actual defensive shootings, especially in a home environment where I see this weapon likely to be used are so small that they are statistically insignificant relative to overall crimes of force.
I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close.
But an unarmed attacker will have to get that close to you in order to attack you.
No rational person would expect a device like this would give anyone a fighting chance against an attacker armed with a more typical firearm. What this kind of gun does is give the elderly a chance against the young, strong unarmed attacker, who has a huge force advantage over the typical 80 year-old.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary? I think this is more about hype and fear than substance.
I think a pump shotgun is a better self defense weapon - there's the psychological effect of someone hearing the unmistakable sound of a round being chambered, and its a stand off weapon. While you still need to aim it is not necessary to be as accurate and you can use a nightstand / bed to steady your aim as well. Much better stopping power as well.
Shotguns are also large and heavy, and the notion that you don't have to be accurate is a myth. At self-defense ranges, with a shotgun of legal barrel length, there is practically no pattern expansion. The greater stopping power argument certainly applies to a large shotty, but if you scale back to a weapon with weight and recoil that is manageable for an 80 year-old woman, that advantage erodes significantly.
Well, I did not say you don't have to aim; just that you do not have to be as accurate. For a defense weapon, you clearly want as short of a barrel as is legal and no choke to get the best expansion possible; it also gives you a better chance at a hitting stand off shot across say a room than a handgun. Plus, it has less of a chance of penetrating walls than a bullet if you miss; so you have less of a chance of injuring an innocent bystander or family member. In addition, buckshot even with minor expansion has a good chance of penetrating vital organs and not simply leaving a flesh wound, which is the goal. If you are looking for home defense I'd say a likely engagement distance is 7 - 10 feet - at that point the attackers intentions are clear and it's time to fire. Even a small expansion (what's it likely to be 4 - 6 inches if I recall correctly) increase the chances of a hit over a single bullet. Even if all you do is slow them down you have increased the odds in you favor for a second shot. Of course, the above is based on my experience - which has shown me I'm much better with a shotgun at short range than a handgun. (and even better with an automatic rifle but that's another story) Either way, I think we can agree that training is key - you don't just buy one and leave it under the bed. Plus, you have to be willing to pull the trigger no matter what the weapon.
Finally, I'd have to say that from a tactical perspective, racking your shotgun is foolish. Ye
Actually, I'd bet the whole purpose to get the medical device certification is for marketing. Late night TV, mailers all designed to get people worked up and find a doctor who will prescribe the gun. It opens a market to people who can't afford a gun but can be convinced they need one. Quite frankly, those who can afford a gun and want one will probably look at this for what it is - a gimmick. Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it. You have to aim and be accurate; if your pumped up from fear it makes that difficult, and the palm pistol doesn't look like it is very easy to aim. I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close. Plus you get one shot. So you have someone who is already incapable of using a regular weapon who now needs to get close to an attacker, position the weapon to a place that will cause serious enough damage to incapacitate them, and is probably already scared to death. Overall, I don't see it as an effective self defense weapon; especially for the market they claim to target. Personally, I think a pump shotgun is a better self defense weapon - there's the psychological effect of someone hearing the unmistakable sound of a round being chambered, and its a stand off weapon. While you still need to aim it is not necessary to be as accurate and you can use a nightstand / bed to steady your aim as well. Much better stopping power as well.
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
It's not just socialized medicine - as a device company and private plans will often cover it as well. I wonder if I can get one for my $15 copay? Slashdot - where -1 Flamebait means I don't like what you said but can't think of a rational response
After all, when's the last time you saw a text-based ATM?
Yesterday