Being able to run some Windows executables doesn't necessarily mean running things with deep hooks into the OS like IE nor does it necessarily mean running them under the same security model as any particular version of Windows.
It could just mean they'd run a good portion of the the better-behaved applications. Hell, it's even possible if one wanted to do so in a ground-up rewrite, to make the Windows registry routines read and write to completely private registry files for each application. Enforcing OS X's memory and file protections goes a long way, and the applications only know whether they successfully got read or write access to something. The application doesn't generally know or care why permissions are granted or withheld, so a completely different security model could be enforced around most applications that use only the published Windows APIs.
Not even that if it's got a price tag you haven't paid. The only right you get from software existing is, well, the right to have software existing in the same universe as you, which you may or may not know exists and may or may not be able to obtain.
This is exactly why the single is the big deal now. If an album was 12, 15, or 18 great songs then people would buy all the songs.
Some albums were a cohesive experience. "The Wall" by Pink Floyd isn't one song and 9 batches of bad rehearsal. Led Zeppelin's albums always fit pretty well together, too. Lots of rock bands did this at one time or another, and the easy listening people nearly always do.
As for the album as just a compilation of unrelated songs, sure, some bands and soloists have always done B-sides. Some of them did good B-sides, though. 5 great songs and 5 or more good songs is, to me, worth $10. One hit and 9 or more songs the proverbial million Shakespearian monkeys could each write and perform individually is definitely not. This is one reason the movie industry hasn't been hit by copyright infringement quite as hard -- it's called production values.
Another reason is that the movie industry has largely moved to market-based pricing instead of setting a minimum any disc should get (hey -- isn't that illegal anyway?). If a movie just came out and it's really hot on the market, it might be $30 on DVD and $45 on Blu-Ray. If it's a B monster flick from the 1960s, there's a good chance it's in the dollar bin. How many albums from the big four record companies are in a dollar bin, or even a $5.00 bin? Lots fewer than deserve that deep of a discount, I'll say.
Of course minors should not be treated by a different set of ethics than adults. That's your own strawman. Does it prove you know you are being dishonest? Thanks for yet another ad hominem attack against me, because I really appreciate how it helps discredit you.
Children should be treated a bit differently than a grown, educated, and professionally qualified person with the duty of supervising them. One child's word should not be taken over one teacher's word without some evidence to back it up. The child is not legally liable for lying, has no significant assets to lose if he was liable, and traditionally strikes out at authority figures like the teacher simply for the reason that it is a position of authority. That makes the single child less credible, and many teachers have been sacked for exactly the word of one student with nobody else corroborating and no evidence. That's not a difference in ethics, but a difference in the reliability of the people involved.
You still keep implying I'm a teacher, and that I'm pointing fingers at other groups within my own field. I am not a teacher, and I've made that quite clear. Sure, there are problem teachers. There would be fewer problem teachers if the job could be improved and retain better candidates. Notice I said "perhaps". That's a sure sign that I wasn't claiming to be certain. In my experience as a public school student many years ago, the parent-run school board was a big problem. It's not just for reasons of nepotism and favoritism, but because the parents -- even the ones willing to see past their own kids -- are typically clueless about how schools should work, yet are in charge of the district except on a few issues.
If the reality of life is nothing to complain about, then what else is there to try and change? I'm not going to give up on the real world and focus all my attention on the problems of some fantasy world. I'm sorry if you work for CCP or something, but the real world is all that's really worth struggling to change that makes a real difference at the end of the day.
Why in the world would you think a job as a teacher is not going to show up on reports for earnings of teachers? Again, I'm not sure how familiar you are with how this works, but many districts don't consider it an extra job. They, as I said, have additional pay available for teachers who agree to summer school in their original contract for the year. It's the same job with the same paychecks, and those paychecks just get slightly larger if one teachers summer school.
Algebra teachers do assign long work problems in which the reasoning behind the answer must be shown. The language is that of mathematics, but the "showing your work is mandatory" grading of high school mathematics very much takes a qualified person to properly grade. Further, it takes as much time and often teachers assign partial credit to partial solutions, just as a languages teacher would assign some credit to good supporting arguments in an essay question. Math classes often have many more exercises to grade than other classes as well.
As for PE, yes, on occasion a PE teacher will have to grade essay questions. Sports rules, workout guides, and more have been used for this. They also have to supervise the kids when they are physically active and directly competitive, deal with injuries, supervise kids when bullies have victims at their most vulnerable, must make the most day-to-day planning changes of any teachers due to weather and equipment availability, and are often the coaches for extra-curricular athletics. Some districts won't hire a PE teacher without agreement to work with sports teams as well, but I'm not sure how common that stipulation is.
You can say with certainty that something won't be included in reports, but I can't say I'm willing to bet it is? What kind of double standard is that? Aren't you the same person who pointed out that kids and adults should adhere to the same ethics and be treated under the same code of ethics? So what is it about me that you
My sister, cousin, and several of my friends are teachers. I know how much time they spend working outside the classroom, and you are full of it. One prep period is usually allowed a teacher. That's the length of one class, or about 50-55 minutes in a non-block schedule. They often have to eat their lunches with the kids one or two days a week and supervise them, and on the days they're not in that rotation they often get about as long as their students -- half an hour maybe -- for lunch. If an hour to an hour and a half a day worth of breaks is excessive, then a great many office people are given excessive breaks.
If you really believe that a teacher doesn't grade papers, you're kidding yourself. A "teacher's aide" isn't typically a student, either. They're typically full or part time employees of the school who help with special needs kids or with supervision of particularly large classes. They're service personnel more than educators. If you know of a middle school or high school class that doesn't have essay questions and topic papers that need grading by a teacher, then that teacher's not doing what they should.
Three to six credit hours is pretty common for a public school teacher to carry while working. For teachers who do not yet have a Masters, this is mandatory and at their own expense. This is typically done during the school year.
Conventions, cleaning the rooms, organizing materials, and staff orientation typically do take a week or two. Staff meetings over changes in curricula, student discipline, extra-curricular chaperone assignments, and changes to school policy do happen before or after classes and in the summer. Did you think the students were somehow included? Many smaller schools make sponsoring or at least chaperoning some extra-curricular activities mandatory. It's highly encouraged at bigger schools, and they might get some extra money but it's certainly not $30 an hour for the time involved.
Summer school differs from district to district. Some districts include these classes in the regular pay scale. Some pay extra, but at a rate published alongside the regular pay scale. You can bet the figures for yearly pay in the reported data include the pay in the averages, though. After all, that's part of the teacher's contracted work for which their taxes would be reported.
Yes, lots of jobs are crappy. Most government jobs that require a Bachelor's or Master's degree are not particularly crappy.
I don't think of kids in general as "pukes", but enough public school students are complete little anti-social twits that all the teachers have to deal with those kids in addition to the decent ones. You deal with jerks everywhere, but nowhere other than the public schools do you see the type of intimidation of adults by kids as when spoiled brats threaten to have mommy talk to the school board, which includes daddy.
The local school board and its usual fill of students' parents is perhaps the biggest problem in the public education system. If the community is not so interested as to have people run for the board who are for all of the kids and not just because their own kids are in the schools, then perhaps the local rule school district should be a thing of the past. Perhaps ballots for school board should disclose the name, grade, and school assignment of the candidates' children. The board members should at least recuse themselves from dealing with issues involving their own children or their children's teachers directly.
Most of the money spent per student does not go to the teachers. There is building maintenance, utilities, books, computers, legal defense funds, insurance, principals, secretaries, janitors, vice principals, guidance counselors, district superintendents, regional superintendents, state boards, bus payments and maintenance, bus fuel, and bus drivers. And that's even assuming things like sports equipment, cafeteria workers, cafeteria food, and more are covered by the modest fees involved or booster clubs.
It's difficult to qualify that statement isn't it? Consoles are better at some types of games, especially those where multiple players share the same unit. I find several types of games are downright clunky on consoles too though. Sometimes a mouse, keyboard, lots of storage and processing power, and higher-end graphics really are the right way to go. For lots of games, either a PC or a console work well.
If you need an example of a game that's downright clunky on a console, try any real-time strategy game with lots of keyboard shortcuts. Don't count on Total Annihilation, Warcraft 1/2/3, Supreme Commander, Starcraft, or the Command and Conquer series to play well on consoles any time soon. Lots of first-person shooters play better on a PC, although consoles are starting to catch up. Plus, you can play all sorts of free games on a PC that would just never make it to the consoles. Console makers tend to disable home-brew games whenever possible.
Yeah, part time. Let's see, 7:30 AM to 3:00 PM, then extra-curricular duties, lesson planning, grading papers, and taking the continuing education courses required of them at their own expense. Yeah, any job that takes only 70 hours a week out of 168 is definitely part-time. Then, of course, there's the three months of the year the kids are out. Only one and a half to two and a half months of which are, for teachers, typically taken up by meetings, room setup, conferences, and often teaching summer school. So they really only work that 70 hours about 45 weeks a year after you figure in breaks during the school year. Nobody else gets vacation, personal days, holidays, and sick days of course.
Then of course there's the fact that it's wonderful to deal with disrespectful pukes in the classroom, parents who think the school should favor their kids over order and education, crony school boards selected from the parents of the students with little or no training in education as bosses, and administrations willing to sacrifice any teacher's career to keep the district from getting a bogus lawsuit filed against it.
Hell, for $45k that's cake!
</sarcasm>
Jay P. Greene's little yellow article only accounts for time spent in the classroom. Who the fuck do you think does all the work for a teacher outside the classroom? Nine months at seven hours a day is only the time the teacher spends instructing the kids. Do you really think they just show up and wing the whole thing? He also has a nice little blurb about retirement benefits being so nice. Hell, I interviewed for a teaching position, and I'm sure I'd have plenty of retirement money saved after 40 years or so considering the district requires the teachers to place 11% of their pay directly into the fund. Where he sees over $30 an hour someone who knows any teachers personally can easily see about $14-$17 an hour, which is quite competitive with managing a shift at McDonald's but not so much with the nuclear engineers he's talking about. Oh, and since when does it take a Master's to fight fires? Most school districts require one or a set amount of work towards one of beginning teachers or require one within a few years of starting.
The nationwide average starting pay for a teacher with a Bachelor's degree is about $31k, BTW, if you can find a district that accepts a Bachelor's without at least 12 additional credit hours.
Oh, and at what point are most programmers, opticians, radiology techs, factory workers, and biologists regularly responsible for the health and safety of 30 minors (whom they often are not allowed to even discipline) at a time?
Gee, I remember hoping for the day I could buy a hard drive for $1 a megabyte to move data around at 16MBps. Flash drives might be more expensive than traditional Winchester-style drives, but these days it's all relatively cheap. Give it a few years and you'll forget about spinning hard drives about as fast as we forgot about ESDI and MFM.
Look at military spending as percentage of GDP. That's what makes a superpower these days. The US economy is so much larger than most others that a relatively small percentage of GDP adds up to a huge raw number.
The US spends far less of the country's total buying power on defense than many other countries, and much of that is spent helping defend allies around the globe. Those allies tend to be happy for the help, although the specific methods employed often come into question.
There are more types of resource leaks than just memory leaks. A memory leak is when your program keeps hold of memory it's not using. An object leak is when your program keeps hold of objects it's not using. A file descriptor leak is when your program fails to reuse the descriptors for files it has closed and will not reopen. Many other types of leaks could be considered.
Exercises:
1. Determine which issue this scenario describes.
2. Figure out which issue can be handled by automatic memory management.
3. Discuss whether, and if so why, the answers to Exercises 1 and 2 mean there is some conceptual discord between the wording of the scenario and the use of the term "memory leak".
So that's why the Soviets and Chinese have so much wealth compared to the West?
Many things cause poverty. War, famine, pestilence, isolationism, caste systems, illiteracy, and overpopulation are a few.
With capitalism, those who fail to manage their assets can wind up poor. With communism or socialism, mismanagement of assets makes everyone poor. Here we're talking about not just monetary assets but intelligence, bodily fitness, labor, skills, reputation, and social connections. People who do better with any or all of those things can be rewarded in capitalist societies, while there is little incentive for them to try in forced communist societies.
Marx, BTW, was not in favor of a new aristocracy sweeping the people up into forced communism. The whole idea was that the proletariat would rise up on their own to share in the bounty of their work. It was not that they would be delivered from a czar into the hands of an oppressive and exclusive ruling party and have things metered out to them in a new form of feudalism.
So really, capitalism doesn't prevent poverty, but it does not cause it. Communism across too broad a population or without voluntary participation only seems to eliminate it by bringing everyone (except those in power) down to the same disastrously low economic level. Capitalism plus charity could achieve what communism is supposed to in the same perfect world in which communism would fulfill its supposed promise. In a perfect world, though, we'd all be well prepared to care for ourselves and the effort would be minimal to do so anyway.
It's too bad we don't live in a perfect world. Here the only completely sure way to end a life of poverty is to die, but a lot of people still manage to raise their own standard of living when given the chance.
it only says they're gaining the right to use Microsoft IP in embedded Linux devices. It doesn't say they were using the property already or that there was any infringement. Kyocera could make this deal and start using Microsoft IP that they were not using beforehand and Microsoft could word it exactly the same way. Kyocera could gain the permission to use Microsoft tech combined with Linux and still not plan on using it, and Microsoft could still word it the same way.
Guess what Texas, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan have in common besides being "fly-over" states? They're all in the top ten states as ranked by population.
Illinois (12,831,970) alone has the population of Maryland (5,600,388) and Virginia (7,078,515) combined. Ohio (11,478,006) has more people than Washington (6,395,798) and Oregon (3,700,758) combined.
Sam Walton was much richer than Bill Gates, and he started Wal-Mart in Arkansas. There are 56 of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Texas, 33 in Illinois, 28 in Ohio, 22 in Michigan, and 20 in Minnesota. That's 159 of the biggest 500 companies, or over 30%.
We're not just talking about some nameless holding companies, either. That McDonald's burger you had for lunch? Illinois company. The Motorola phone in your buddy's pocket? Illinois company. Boeing, State Farm, Walgreen, Caterpillar, ADM, Sears, Allstate, CDW, OfficeMax? Illinois. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Halliburton? Texas. Dell? Texas. J.C. Penney? Texas. Blockbuster? Texas. Target? Minnesota. Best Buy? Minnesota. General Mills? Minnesota. 3M? Minnesota. GM, Ford, Delphi? All Michigan. So are Dow Chemical, Lear, and Kellogg. How every different your economy, landscape, and grocery stores would look without the "fly-over" states. You'd probably have to fly over them in a French plane, eating imported beef and bread from Brazil and typing your attacks on the Midwest and South on a Chinese PC, if you could find anyone to fuel the damn thing.
Well, one of the benefits of fuzzing is that you don't need the source or even a version of the binary with debugging info intact. A customer or third party can fuzz-test a binary distribution just fine. It's how a good deal of the third-party security reports about Internet Explorer and other closed-source applications come about. That's not to say it helps someone fix problems, but finding them in the first place doesn't require source.
Look up 'fuzzing' in the context of security testing, if you didn't already know the word. It's the shorthand term for testing all those edge cases to see where the code breaks. It's been particularly useful on web browsers, which are so large and complex that complete code audits are painful. There are automated tools in distribution for fuzzing different types of software now, so this type of testing is getting much easier to perform.
The problem is that those people don't get the support they deserve because the public doesn't vote what they think, and largely don't think before they vote at all. For thoughtful, honest people to be put in power we need to have honest, thoughtful people voting them into power.
Cash and equivalents are a good measurement of how much money the company thinks they might need for operations, acquisitions, and miscellaneous expenses in the short to mid term. Adobe's not planning on getting much bigger very quickly right now with cash reserves like that. Even if Adobe acquired someone through stock swap, the total market cap wouldn't grow (stock for stock) so Apple wouldn't need to care. Apple does need to care if Adobe goes out and purchases someone for cash, though.
Apple wouldn't need to buy 100% of Adobe to take them in-house. They'd only have to buy enough of the company that they could sway the vote towards merger. A cash infusion into Adobe that outsizes all of the company's liquid and long-term assets combined could be very useful in that regard. If I was an Adobe shareholder I'd be thrilled to have all the company's liabilities and assets converted to cash, and wouldn't mind then just trading my Adobe stock for Apple stock at equal cash value after collecting a nice fat dividend. There's a chance it wouldn't work, but it'd be much cheaper than buying 100% of the stock up front.
If Apple did buy Adobe by purchasing all the stock, they'd end up paying much more than current cash value for the stock. That's likely going to be much more expensive than covering Adobe's assets and liabilities then swapping the stock straight.
Bringing the company 100% in-house isn't even necessary. Apple could buy just a controlling interest of the stock. They could offer $5 or $10 billion for all the product lines they really want and leave Adobe to develop other things using the new cash. The CS3 line is probably all Apple would want. Flex and whatever else could stay with Adobe, and they could design new things or acquire some smaller companies themselves with those kinds of resources. Maybe even Acrobat would be left behind.
No matter how, my question remains if it's a good idea. I don't think it is. Why would Apple want to eliminate a third-party vendor who is actually doing good work on their platform? Most of the software Apple develops is to cover a soft spot on their platform. The Adobe design tools are the most popular design tools on the market, and they're being developed by a third party. Why give that up when you're trying to get people to buy your hardware and OS?
This is a bit off the topic, but communism actually can work reasonably well when it's practiced on a small scale by willing participants who all know one another directly. It tends to fall apart when strangers from across wide areas with different values, resources, and interests are forced into it. It also tends to fall apart when combined with idealized notions the participants don't really buy into, like mutually interchangeable sexual partners, no labor-saving devices, or unusual cult-like religions.
Small self-sufficient communes function about as well as large extended families do. You piss some people off, and they get over it. They piss you off, and you get over it. Some people leave and stop talking to the group. The Amish live in a nearly communist situation, and they're just fine. They have buy-in from their members.
There's a commune not far from where I live of non-Amish Protestant Christians who interact as capitalists with the outside but share the wealth internally. They have a dairy, a restaurant, a few stores, and a few other things supporting their church, school, and faith-centered drug rehab center. There's a communal foster home for troubled teens near here, too. They have a school, several homes, farmland, livestock, and accept donations. The foster parents take care of their own kids and the foster kids, and the money and farm work is all shared among the households. It works, because that's the way they all want it and the struggles are shared among them.
The Soviet Union, for example, tried to combine by force several nations of people with their own languages, cultures, natural resource differences, religions, and industries. A restaurant manager in Minsk didn't see the struggles of a construction worker in Vladivostok, and the two likely didn't agree to be communist/socialist in the first place. It's a very different type of thing. The scale's different. The agreement is different or nonexistent. The common bonds outside the economics are thinner. It's just not the sort of thing that's going to stretch to that situation. Anything you're forcing millions of people to do is not likely to gain much appreciation for the perpetrators or their ideals.
Capitalism, though, is a very naturalistic market type. You want something, and you need to do something to get it. You give something up in order to get it, or you decide it's not worth the trouble. There's no enlightened common interest necessary. In fact, enlightened self-interest isn't always a big hit either. Capitalism can largely function on pure greed, even though helping yourself through helping others is more sustainable. That is the reason capitalism is so successful -- it's simple, and it doesn't overestimate the goodwill of man for his fellows. The funny thing is, with computer modeling and research into complexity and chaos theory, there's just now more to learn about how and why capitalism works than ever. It's like the KISS principal, genetic algorithms, neural nets, network effects, and feedback loops all applied to moving goods and services around in the real world. We're just starting to understand the value of those methods in software, but the markets have been doing it for centuries with decent results.
Now, if we really want to help people in poor countries, we should seriously look into getting education, skills, and capital investment up. That way they can participate in capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalists in relatively peaceful and secure areas don't invest much in areas where their assets will just be burned, seized by warlords, or looted. Getting those areas that lack investment stable is a prerequisite for getting investment into them, but getting investment into them is also a prerequisite for getting them prosperous and therefore stable. Gradual investment in progressively more market-centered areas is probably the best route. Start with water, food and medicine. Then do housing, utilities, and schools. Then transportation, security, and local self-sufficiency. Then big business inve
If you want numbers, go get them. They're a public company, and their numbers (at the end of each quarter anyway) are therefore public record.
Adobe, OTOH, has less than $600 million in cash and not quite $1.4 billion in short-term investments, and $5.667 billion in total assets.
It seems to me that if Apple was desperate enough to buy Adobe, it could probably cut a check. Why it'd want to is beyond me, though.
Isn't Apple hurting enough for system sales due to lack of third-party developers? When you're building a platform, after-market products mean a great deal. Adobe is one of the shining examples of third-party development on Apple's systems. Why would Apple want to make all the things Adobe adds to their software stack more stuff to market as a vertical internal to their product catalog? Wouldn't that reinforce the "only if Apple sees fit will your software needs be met" syndrome?
I see little reason to think that we'll see any social arguments about this genetic modification that we don't already see about a) steroids, hormones, and precursors or b) genetic modifications in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Being able to run some Windows executables doesn't necessarily mean running things with deep hooks into the OS like IE nor does it necessarily mean running them under the same security model as any particular version of Windows.
It could just mean they'd run a good portion of the the better-behaved applications. Hell, it's even possible if one wanted to do so in a ground-up rewrite, to make the Windows registry routines read and write to completely private registry files for each application. Enforcing OS X's memory and file protections goes a long way, and the applications only know whether they successfully got read or write access to something. The application doesn't generally know or care why permissions are granted or withheld, so a completely different security model could be enforced around most applications that use only the published Windows APIs.
How dare you? I know who my father is!
Not even that if it's got a price tag you haven't paid. The only right you get from software existing is, well, the right to have software existing in the same universe as you, which you may or may not know exists and may or may not be able to obtain.
"You are not allowed to claim that you wrote any of the code in CentOS." ... that you didn't actually write. ;-)
This is exactly why the single is the big deal now. If an album was 12, 15, or 18 great songs then people would buy all the songs.
Some albums were a cohesive experience. "The Wall" by Pink Floyd isn't one song and 9 batches of bad rehearsal. Led Zeppelin's albums always fit pretty well together, too. Lots of rock bands did this at one time or another, and the easy listening people nearly always do.
As for the album as just a compilation of unrelated songs, sure, some bands and soloists have always done B-sides. Some of them did good B-sides, though. 5 great songs and 5 or more good songs is, to me, worth $10. One hit and 9 or more songs the proverbial million Shakespearian monkeys could each write and perform individually is definitely not. This is one reason the movie industry hasn't been hit by copyright infringement quite as hard -- it's called production values.
Another reason is that the movie industry has largely moved to market-based pricing instead of setting a minimum any disc should get (hey -- isn't that illegal anyway?). If a movie just came out and it's really hot on the market, it might be $30 on DVD and $45 on Blu-Ray. If it's a B monster flick from the 1960s, there's a good chance it's in the dollar bin. How many albums from the big four record companies are in a dollar bin, or even a $5.00 bin? Lots fewer than deserve that deep of a discount, I'll say.
Of course minors should not be treated by a different set of ethics than adults. That's your own strawman. Does it prove you know you are being dishonest? Thanks for yet another ad hominem attack against me, because I really appreciate how it helps discredit you.
Children should be treated a bit differently than a grown, educated, and professionally qualified person with the duty of supervising them. One child's word should not be taken over one teacher's word without some evidence to back it up. The child is not legally liable for lying, has no significant assets to lose if he was liable, and traditionally strikes out at authority figures like the teacher simply for the reason that it is a position of authority. That makes the single child less credible, and many teachers have been sacked for exactly the word of one student with nobody else corroborating and no evidence. That's not a difference in ethics, but a difference in the reliability of the people involved.
You still keep implying I'm a teacher, and that I'm pointing fingers at other groups within my own field. I am not a teacher, and I've made that quite clear. Sure, there are problem teachers. There would be fewer problem teachers if the job could be improved and retain better candidates. Notice I said "perhaps". That's a sure sign that I wasn't claiming to be certain. In my experience as a public school student many years ago, the parent-run school board was a big problem. It's not just for reasons of nepotism and favoritism, but because the parents -- even the ones willing to see past their own kids -- are typically clueless about how schools should work, yet are in charge of the district except on a few issues.
If the reality of life is nothing to complain about, then what else is there to try and change? I'm not going to give up on the real world and focus all my attention on the problems of some fantasy world. I'm sorry if you work for CCP or something, but the real world is all that's really worth struggling to change that makes a real difference at the end of the day.
Why in the world would you think a job as a teacher is not going to show up on reports for earnings of teachers? Again, I'm not sure how familiar you are with how this works, but many districts don't consider it an extra job. They, as I said, have additional pay available for teachers who agree to summer school in their original contract for the year. It's the same job with the same paychecks, and those paychecks just get slightly larger if one teachers summer school.
Algebra teachers do assign long work problems in which the reasoning behind the answer must be shown. The language is that of mathematics, but the "showing your work is mandatory" grading of high school mathematics very much takes a qualified person to properly grade. Further, it takes as much time and often teachers assign partial credit to partial solutions, just as a languages teacher would assign some credit to good supporting arguments in an essay question. Math classes often have many more exercises to grade than other classes as well.
As for PE, yes, on occasion a PE teacher will have to grade essay questions. Sports rules, workout guides, and more have been used for this. They also have to supervise the kids when they are physically active and directly competitive, deal with injuries, supervise kids when bullies have victims at their most vulnerable, must make the most day-to-day planning changes of any teachers due to weather and equipment availability, and are often the coaches for extra-curricular athletics. Some districts won't hire a PE teacher without agreement to work with sports teams as well, but I'm not sure how common that stipulation is.
You can say with certainty that something won't be included in reports, but I can't say I'm willing to bet it is? What kind of double standard is that? Aren't you the same person who pointed out that kids and adults should adhere to the same ethics and be treated under the same code of ethics? So what is it about me that you
My sister, cousin, and several of my friends are teachers. I know how much time they spend working outside the classroom, and you are full of it. One prep period is usually allowed a teacher. That's the length of one class, or about 50-55 minutes in a non-block schedule. They often have to eat their lunches with the kids one or two days a week and supervise them, and on the days they're not in that rotation they often get about as long as their students -- half an hour maybe -- for lunch. If an hour to an hour and a half a day worth of breaks is excessive, then a great many office people are given excessive breaks.
If you really believe that a teacher doesn't grade papers, you're kidding yourself. A "teacher's aide" isn't typically a student, either. They're typically full or part time employees of the school who help with special needs kids or with supervision of particularly large classes. They're service personnel more than educators. If you know of a middle school or high school class that doesn't have essay questions and topic papers that need grading by a teacher, then that teacher's not doing what they should.
Three to six credit hours is pretty common for a public school teacher to carry while working. For teachers who do not yet have a Masters, this is mandatory and at their own expense. This is typically done during the school year.
Conventions, cleaning the rooms, organizing materials, and staff orientation typically do take a week or two. Staff meetings over changes in curricula, student discipline, extra-curricular chaperone assignments, and changes to school policy do happen before or after classes and in the summer. Did you think the students were somehow included? Many smaller schools make sponsoring or at least chaperoning some extra-curricular activities mandatory. It's highly encouraged at bigger schools, and they might get some extra money but it's certainly not $30 an hour for the time involved.
Summer school differs from district to district. Some districts include these classes in the regular pay scale. Some pay extra, but at a rate published alongside the regular pay scale. You can bet the figures for yearly pay in the reported data include the pay in the averages, though. After all, that's part of the teacher's contracted work for which their taxes would be reported.
Yes, lots of jobs are crappy. Most government jobs that require a Bachelor's or Master's degree are not particularly crappy.
I don't think of kids in general as "pukes", but enough public school students are complete little anti-social twits that all the teachers have to deal with those kids in addition to the decent ones. You deal with jerks everywhere, but nowhere other than the public schools do you see the type of intimidation of adults by kids as when spoiled brats threaten to have mommy talk to the school board, which includes daddy.
The local school board and its usual fill of students' parents is perhaps the biggest problem in the public education system. If the community is not so interested as to have people run for the board who are for all of the kids and not just because their own kids are in the schools, then perhaps the local rule school district should be a thing of the past. Perhaps ballots for school board should disclose the name, grade, and school assignment of the candidates' children. The board members should at least recuse themselves from dealing with issues involving their own children or their children's teachers directly.
Most of the money spent per student does not go to the teachers. There is building maintenance, utilities, books, computers, legal defense funds, insurance, principals, secretaries, janitors, vice principals, guidance counselors, district superintendents, regional superintendents, state boards, bus payments and maintenance, bus fuel, and bus drivers. And that's even assuming things like sports equipment, cafeteria workers, cafeteria food, and more are covered by the modest fees involved or booster clubs.
A large portion of the
It's difficult to qualify that statement isn't it? Consoles are better at some types of games, especially those where multiple players share the same unit. I find several types of games are downright clunky on consoles too though. Sometimes a mouse, keyboard, lots of storage and processing power, and higher-end graphics really are the right way to go. For lots of games, either a PC or a console work well.
If you need an example of a game that's downright clunky on a console, try any real-time strategy game with lots of keyboard shortcuts. Don't count on Total Annihilation, Warcraft 1/2/3, Supreme Commander, Starcraft, or the Command and Conquer series to play well on consoles any time soon. Lots of first-person shooters play better on a PC, although consoles are starting to catch up. Plus, you can play all sorts of free games on a PC that would just never make it to the consoles. Console makers tend to disable home-brew games whenever possible.
Yeah, part time. Let's see, 7:30 AM to 3:00 PM, then extra-curricular duties, lesson planning, grading papers, and taking the continuing education courses required of them at their own expense. Yeah, any job that takes only 70 hours a week out of 168 is definitely part-time. Then, of course, there's the three months of the year the kids are out. Only one and a half to two and a half months of which are, for teachers, typically taken up by meetings, room setup, conferences, and often teaching summer school. So they really only work that 70 hours about 45 weeks a year after you figure in breaks during the school year. Nobody else gets vacation, personal days, holidays, and sick days of course.
Then of course there's the fact that it's wonderful to deal with disrespectful pukes in the classroom, parents who think the school should favor their kids over order and education, crony school boards selected from the parents of the students with little or no training in education as bosses, and administrations willing to sacrifice any teacher's career to keep the district from getting a bogus lawsuit filed against it.
Hell, for $45k that's cake!
</sarcasm>
Jay P. Greene's little yellow article only accounts for time spent in the classroom. Who the fuck do you think does all the work for a teacher outside the classroom? Nine months at seven hours a day is only the time the teacher spends instructing the kids. Do you really think they just show up and wing the whole thing? He also has a nice little blurb about retirement benefits being so nice. Hell, I interviewed for a teaching position, and I'm sure I'd have plenty of retirement money saved after 40 years or so considering the district requires the teachers to place 11% of their pay directly into the fund. Where he sees over $30 an hour someone who knows any teachers personally can easily see about $14-$17 an hour, which is quite competitive with managing a shift at McDonald's but not so much with the nuclear engineers he's talking about. Oh, and since when does it take a Master's to fight fires? Most school districts require one or a set amount of work towards one of beginning teachers or require one within a few years of starting.
The nationwide average starting pay for a teacher with a Bachelor's degree is about $31k, BTW, if you can find a district that accepts a Bachelor's without at least 12 additional credit hours.
For a little more realistic picture, try on for size any one of these pages. This blog post at Education and Technology is especially nice for the comments.
Oh, and at what point are most programmers, opticians, radiology techs, factory workers, and biologists regularly responsible for the health and safety of 30 minors (whom they often are not allowed to even discipline) at a time?
Gee, I remember hoping for the day I could buy a hard drive for $1 a megabyte to move data around at 16MBps. Flash drives might be more expensive than traditional Winchester-style drives, but these days it's all relatively cheap. Give it a few years and you'll forget about spinning hard drives about as fast as we forgot about ESDI and MFM.
Oh, and get off o' my lawn, you damn kids.
Look at military spending as percentage of GDP. That's what makes a superpower these days. The US economy is so much larger than most others that a relatively small percentage of GDP adds up to a huge raw number.
Try Truth and Politics for some interesting charts and numbers. Take a look at this PDF from the Library of Congress's Congressional Research Division for comparisons to other countries including charts to rank by total dollars and an alphabetical list.
The US spends far less of the country's total buying power on defense than many other countries, and much of that is spent helping defend allies around the globe. Those allies tend to be happy for the help, although the specific methods employed often come into question.
This section totals 15 points.
Background:
There are more types of resource leaks than just memory leaks. A memory leak is when your program keeps hold of memory it's not using. An object leak is when your program keeps hold of objects it's not using. A file descriptor leak is when your program fails to reuse the descriptors for files it has closed and will not reopen. Many other types of leaks could be considered.
Exercises:
1. Determine which issue this scenario describes.
2. Figure out which issue can be handled by automatic memory management.
3. Discuss whether, and if so why, the answers to Exercises 1 and 2 mean there is some conceptual discord between the wording of the scenario and the use of the term "memory leak".
So that's why the Soviets and Chinese have so much wealth compared to the West?
Many things cause poverty. War, famine, pestilence, isolationism, caste systems, illiteracy, and overpopulation are a few.
With capitalism, those who fail to manage their assets can wind up poor. With communism or socialism, mismanagement of assets makes everyone poor. Here we're talking about not just monetary assets but intelligence, bodily fitness, labor, skills, reputation, and social connections. People who do better with any or all of those things can be rewarded in capitalist societies, while there is little incentive for them to try in forced communist societies.
Marx, BTW, was not in favor of a new aristocracy sweeping the people up into forced communism. The whole idea was that the proletariat would rise up on their own to share in the bounty of their work. It was not that they would be delivered from a czar into the hands of an oppressive and exclusive ruling party and have things metered out to them in a new form of feudalism.
So really, capitalism doesn't prevent poverty, but it does not cause it. Communism across too broad a population or without voluntary participation only seems to eliminate it by bringing everyone (except those in power) down to the same disastrously low economic level. Capitalism plus charity could achieve what communism is supposed to in the same perfect world in which communism would fulfill its supposed promise. In a perfect world, though, we'd all be well prepared to care for ourselves and the effort would be minimal to do so anyway.
It's too bad we don't live in a perfect world. Here the only completely sure way to end a life of poverty is to die, but a lot of people still manage to raise their own standard of living when given the chance.
it only says they're gaining the right to use Microsoft IP in embedded Linux devices. It doesn't say they were using the property already or that there was any infringement. Kyocera could make this deal and start using Microsoft IP that they were not using beforehand and Microsoft could word it exactly the same way. Kyocera could gain the permission to use Microsoft tech combined with Linux and still not plan on using it, and Microsoft could still word it the same way.
Bigger names demand bigger cuts. The studios/labels/A&R people want big hits from small names so they keep more of the money.
Guess what Texas, Illinois, Ohio and Michigan have in common besides being "fly-over" states? They're all in the top ten states as ranked by population.
Illinois (12,831,970) alone has the population of Maryland (5,600,388) and Virginia (7,078,515) combined. Ohio (11,478,006) has more people than Washington (6,395,798) and Oregon (3,700,758) combined.
Sam Walton was much richer than Bill Gates, and he started Wal-Mart in Arkansas. There are 56 of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Texas, 33 in Illinois, 28 in Ohio, 22 in Michigan, and 20 in Minnesota. That's 159 of the biggest 500 companies, or over 30%.
We're not just talking about some nameless holding companies, either. That McDonald's burger you had for lunch? Illinois company. The Motorola phone in your buddy's pocket? Illinois company. Boeing, State Farm, Walgreen, Caterpillar, ADM, Sears, Allstate, CDW, OfficeMax? Illinois. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Halliburton? Texas. Dell? Texas. J.C. Penney? Texas. Blockbuster? Texas. Target? Minnesota. Best Buy? Minnesota. General Mills? Minnesota. 3M? Minnesota. GM, Ford, Delphi? All Michigan. So are Dow Chemical, Lear, and Kellogg. How every different your economy, landscape, and grocery stores would look without the "fly-over" states. You'd probably have to fly over them in a French plane, eating imported beef and bread from Brazil and typing your attacks on the Midwest and South on a Chinese PC, if you could find anyone to fuel the damn thing.
Well, one of the benefits of fuzzing is that you don't need the source or even a version of the binary with debugging info intact. A customer or third party can fuzz-test a binary distribution just fine. It's how a good deal of the third-party security reports about Internet Explorer and other closed-source applications come about. That's not to say it helps someone fix problems, but finding them in the first place doesn't require source.
Look up 'fuzzing' in the context of security testing, if you didn't already know the word. It's the shorthand term for testing all those edge cases to see where the code breaks. It's been particularly useful on web browsers, which are so large and complex that complete code audits are painful. There are automated tools in distribution for fuzzing different types of software now, so this type of testing is getting much easier to perform.
The problem is that those people don't get the support they deserve because the public doesn't vote what they think, and largely don't think before they vote at all. For thoughtful, honest people to be put in power we need to have honest, thoughtful people voting them into power.
Maybe he'll end up with the other two Microsoft moles at that patent troll that's suing Red Hat and Novell.
Paying someone to argue would have been cheaper.
Cash and equivalents are a good measurement of how much money the company thinks they might need for operations, acquisitions, and miscellaneous expenses in the short to mid term. Adobe's not planning on getting much bigger very quickly right now with cash reserves like that. Even if Adobe acquired someone through stock swap, the total market cap wouldn't grow (stock for stock) so Apple wouldn't need to care. Apple does need to care if Adobe goes out and purchases someone for cash, though.
Apple wouldn't need to buy 100% of Adobe to take them in-house. They'd only have to buy enough of the company that they could sway the vote towards merger. A cash infusion into Adobe that outsizes all of the company's liquid and long-term assets combined could be very useful in that regard. If I was an Adobe shareholder I'd be thrilled to have all the company's liabilities and assets converted to cash, and wouldn't mind then just trading my Adobe stock for Apple stock at equal cash value after collecting a nice fat dividend. There's a chance it wouldn't work, but it'd be much cheaper than buying 100% of the stock up front.
If Apple did buy Adobe by purchasing all the stock, they'd end up paying much more than current cash value for the stock. That's
likely going to be much more expensive than covering Adobe's assets and liabilities then swapping the stock straight.
Bringing the company 100% in-house isn't even necessary. Apple could buy just a controlling interest of the stock. They could offer $5 or $10 billion for all the product lines they really want and leave Adobe to develop other things using the new cash. The CS3 line is probably all Apple would want. Flex and whatever else could stay with Adobe, and they could design new things or acquire some smaller companies themselves with those kinds of resources. Maybe even Acrobat would be left behind.
No matter how, my question remains if it's a good idea. I don't think it is. Why would Apple want to eliminate a third-party vendor who is actually doing good work on their platform? Most of the software Apple develops is to cover a soft spot on their platform. The Adobe design tools are the most popular design tools on the market, and they're being developed by a third party. Why give that up when you're trying to get people to buy your hardware and OS?
This is a bit off the topic, but communism actually can work reasonably well when it's practiced on a small scale by willing participants who all know one another directly. It tends to fall apart when strangers from across wide areas with different values, resources, and interests are forced into it. It also tends to fall apart when combined with idealized notions the participants don't really buy into, like mutually interchangeable sexual partners, no labor-saving devices, or unusual cult-like religions.
Small self-sufficient communes function about as well as large extended families do. You piss some people off, and they get over it. They piss you off, and you get over it. Some people leave and stop talking to the group. The Amish live in a nearly communist situation, and they're just fine. They have buy-in from their members.
There's a commune not far from where I live of non-Amish Protestant Christians who interact as capitalists with the outside but share the wealth internally. They have a dairy, a restaurant, a few stores, and a few other things supporting their church, school, and faith-centered drug rehab center. There's a communal foster home for troubled teens near here, too. They have a school, several homes, farmland, livestock, and accept donations. The foster parents take care of their own kids and the foster kids, and the money and farm work is all shared among the households. It works, because that's the way they all want it and the struggles are shared among them.
The Soviet Union, for example, tried to combine by force several nations of people with their own languages, cultures, natural resource differences, religions, and industries. A restaurant manager in Minsk didn't see the struggles of a construction worker in Vladivostok, and the two likely didn't agree to be communist/socialist in the first place. It's a very different type of thing. The scale's different. The agreement is different or nonexistent. The common bonds outside the economics are thinner. It's just not the sort of thing that's going to stretch to that situation. Anything you're forcing millions of people to do is not likely to gain much appreciation for the perpetrators or their ideals.
Capitalism, though, is a very naturalistic market type. You want something, and you need to do something to get it. You give something up in order to get it, or you decide it's not worth the trouble. There's no enlightened common interest necessary. In fact, enlightened self-interest isn't always a big hit either. Capitalism can largely function on pure greed, even though helping yourself through helping others is more sustainable. That is the reason capitalism is so successful -- it's simple, and it doesn't overestimate the goodwill of man for his fellows. The funny thing is, with computer modeling and research into complexity and chaos theory, there's just now more to learn about how and why capitalism works than ever. It's like the KISS principal, genetic algorithms, neural nets, network effects, and feedback loops all applied to moving goods and services around in the real world. We're just starting to understand the value of those methods in software, but the markets have been doing it for centuries with decent results.
Now, if we really want to help people in poor countries, we should seriously look into getting education, skills, and capital investment up. That way they can participate in capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalists in relatively peaceful and secure areas don't invest much in areas where their assets will just be burned, seized by warlords, or looted. Getting those areas that lack investment stable is a prerequisite for getting investment into them, but getting investment into them is also a prerequisite for getting them prosperous and therefore stable. Gradual investment in progressively more market-centered areas is probably the best route. Start with water, food and medicine. Then do housing, utilities, and schools. Then transportation, security, and local self-sufficiency. Then big business inve
$7.1 billion,/a> or so cash and cash equivalents, another $6.6 billion in short-term investments, 1.4 in accounts receivable.
If you want numbers, go get them. They're a public company, and their numbers (at the end of each quarter anyway) are therefore public record.
Adobe, OTOH, has less than $600 million in cash and not quite $1.4 billion in short-term investments, and $5.667 billion in total assets.
It seems to me that if Apple was desperate enough to buy Adobe, it could probably cut a check. Why it'd want to is beyond me, though.
Isn't Apple hurting enough for system sales due to lack of third-party developers? When you're building a platform, after-market products mean a great deal. Adobe is one of the shining examples of third-party development on Apple's systems. Why would Apple want to make all the things Adobe adds to their software stack more stuff to market as a vertical internal to their product catalog? Wouldn't that reinforce the "only if Apple sees fit will your software needs be met" syndrome?
I see little reason to think that we'll see any social arguments about this genetic modification that we don't already see about a) steroids, hormones, and precursors or b) genetic modifications in general.
Isn't this linked to the Wired article from over three years ago about experiments at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in which researchers were messing with PPAR-delta and got similar results? Where's the reference to earlier work on the subject?