It's a Blowout Labor Day Mac Sale on newjersey.craigslist.org! If you miss this, you'd better be dead... or in jail... and if you're in jail, BREAK OUT!
Now you're talking about the real problem that needs to be dealt with: The ability for teachers to enforce rules.
Blocking a cell phone will do nothing to address that problem. It may alleviate one distraction (until the students figure out how to defeat the technology... let's not even get started talking about a schools limited funds being spent on a technology war with students, the school will lose and end up broke at the same time), but there are fifty other distractions that still must be dealt with. And the only way to deal with most of those other fifty distractions is through disciplinary action, which just so happens would help control the cell phone problem as well.
This is like giving kids paper that can't be written on because kids would use the paper to pass notes to each other.
Note passing, doodling, talking, sleeping, etc. are all just a much of a distraction as cell phones, but schools don't go out and buy expensive gadgets to stop these distractions... instead the teacher uses disciplinary action. Why can't the same be done for cell phones?
One answer is that disciplinary action doesn't generate a profit for the company making this piece of junk.
This is a pretty amazing story. In the Digital Age a distributor fells that they are allowed to invade an electronic device that you own, steal a copy of digital media that you own and force you to accept a refund for something that YOU own.
Let's imagine this happened thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter. A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they don't want to sell the book to you and must have it back. The publisher must now trespass onto your property, break into your house, steal your book, leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back. A crime has now been committed; namely trespassing, breaking and entering and theft.
Both of these scenarios are exactly the same, except that in today's scenario the book is in a DIGITAL format, which for some magical reason means that a publisher can trespass onto your property and steal something that you own.
In what other context, except the digital context, would behavior like this be tolerated or acceptable, and not to mention legal?
Matt Taibbi, in his article The Great American Bubble Machine, asserts that the next bubble will be the carbon trading scheme. Perhaps that's how the Government and Wall Street plan on keeping carbon credits artificially high. That is until the bubble bursts and they raid our tax dollar barrel... again.
FTA: The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.
Here's how it works: If the bill passes; there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billions worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.
The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.
I guess the bright side is that if using the Mueller's sundress photos as blackmail is successful than we'll never have to find out how he pulls it off.
"Retailers are in the clear if the employee who sold the game goes through a training program."
I wonder which politicians friend will be given the no-bid contract on administering the "training program"? Should bring in a nice fee... 50% of which can be funneled into back into a campaign fund.
"Santino the chimpanzee's anti-social behavior stunned both visitors and keepers at the Furuvik Zoo but fascinated researchers because it was so carefully prepared."
Which is more anti-social: Keeping a human-like animal locked in a cage or the caged animal throwing rocks at its captors?
'We wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want.'
These are weasel words. By using the words "would not" he leaves himself a loophole, since these words imply there is a conditional aspect to his statement.
If he really wanted to make a concrete statement then he would have said, "We will not share your information with anyone without your permission."
One of the many interesting things from this article is this paragrpah:
"The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that children have a constitutional right to counsel. But in Pennsylvania, as in at least 20 other states, children can waive counsel, and about half of the children that Judge Ciavarella sentenced had chosen to do so. Only Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina require juveniles to have representation when they appear before judges."
I'm surprised there was even an argument about juveniles having the right to legal representation and that the argument wasn't resolved by the Supreme Court until 1967.
You can almost guess how the prosecutors and/or judges got these kids to waive their right to an attorney: "If you get a lawyer it will look like you're guilty to the judge and that you have something to hide. So you'd be better off waiving your right to counsel."
Good job by commodore64. It looks like you're one step closer to having your way. A federal court has ruled that that it's legal for the federal government to install cameras on a farmer's private property.
>When it is examined, it's very common for the viewers not to identify suspects. Lighting is bad and >images are grainy, and criminals tend not to stare helpfully at the lens. Cameras break far too >often. The best camera systems can still be thwarted by sunglasses or hats. Even when they afford >quick identification -- think of the 2005 London transport bombers and the 9/11 terrorists -- police >are often able to identify suspects without the cameras. Cameras afford a false sense of security, >encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.
Except cameras don't catch people "redhanded". If they catch people at all it's almost always after the crime has been committed and the criminal has fled. Beyond that statistics show that public surveillance cameras do not reduce crime. Many studies of surveillance cameras have shown this to be the case.
I'm assuming you're a private citizen, so you most likely don't have the power or the resources to abuse this system in quite the same capacity that the government has the ability to. Government and is priorities constantly change.
It good to hear that at least one city council has worked up enough back-bone to stand up to law enforcement on this issue. I hope the Chicago City Council comes to a similar conclusion and convenience Mayor Daley that this is a waste of money and shut our surveillance system down in lieu of hiring more officers, if necessary. Unfortunately Mayor Daley pushes public surveillance pretty hard.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a Blowout Labor Day Mac Sale on newjersey.craigslist.org! If you miss this, you'd better be dead... or in jail... and if you're in jail, BREAK OUT!
Shut up and code :-)
Now you're talking about the real problem that needs to be dealt with: The ability for teachers to enforce rules.
Blocking a cell phone will do nothing to address that problem. It may alleviate one distraction (until the students figure out how to defeat the technology... let's not even get started talking about a schools limited funds being spent on a technology war with students, the school will lose and end up broke at the same time), but there are fifty other distractions that still must be dealt with. And the only way to deal with most of those other fifty distractions is through disciplinary action, which just so happens would help control the cell phone problem as well.
FTA: But China and Japan were well behind the curve at 20% and 12%.
Ahh, but what if you test the Chinese and Japanese dollars for opium, hmmmm? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
This is like giving kids paper that can't be written on because kids would use the paper to pass notes to each other.
Note passing, doodling, talking, sleeping, etc. are all just a much of a distraction as cell phones, but schools don't go out and buy expensive gadgets to stop these distractions... instead the teacher uses disciplinary action. Why can't the same be done for cell phones?
One answer is that disciplinary action doesn't generate a profit for the company making this piece of junk.
June - Cloud Computing
July - Risks of Cloud Computing
This is a pretty amazing story. In the Digital Age a distributor fells that they are allowed to invade an electronic device that you own, steal a copy of digital media that you own and force you to accept a refund for something that YOU own.
Let's imagine this happened thirty years ago, or even ten years ago for that matter. A book store sells a book to you and for whatever the publisher decides they don't want to sell the book to you and must have it back. The publisher must now trespass onto your property, break into your house, steal your book, leave a cash refund on your table and then leave your property without any one noticing just to get the book back. A crime has now been committed; namely trespassing, breaking and entering and theft.
Both of these scenarios are exactly the same, except that in today's scenario the book is in a DIGITAL format, which for some magical reason means that a publisher can trespass onto your property and steal something that you own.
In what other context, except the digital context, would behavior like this be tolerated or acceptable, and not to mention legal?
Matt Taibbi, in his article The Great American Bubble Machine, asserts that the next bubble will be the carbon trading scheme. Perhaps that's how the Government and Wall Street plan on keeping carbon credits artificially high. That is until the bubble bursts and they raid our tax dollar barrel... again.
http://www.correntewire.com/great_american_bubble_machine_0
FTA:
The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.
Here's how it works: If the bill passes; there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billions worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.
The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of an electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.
Goldman wants this bill.
The War on Drugs has been lost. Time to move on.
The WSJ published an article that didn't contain the word Socialist and the name Obama? Am I dreaming?
They're one in the same. Different heads of the same beast.
If this were Chicago the system would eventually become overwhelmed by police crimes.
I guess the bright side is that if using the Mueller's sundress photos as blackmail is successful than we'll never have to find out how he pulls it off.
"Retailers are in the clear if the employee who sold the game goes through a training program."
I wonder which politicians friend will be given the no-bid contract on administering the "training program"? Should bring in a nice fee... 50% of which can be funneled into back into a campaign fund.
"Santino the chimpanzee's anti-social behavior stunned both visitors and keepers at the Furuvik Zoo but fascinated researchers because it was so carefully prepared."
Which is more anti-social: Keeping a human-like animal locked in a cage or the caged animal throwing rocks at its captors?
'We wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want.'
These are weasel words. By using the words "would not" he leaves himself a loophole, since these words imply there is a conditional aspect to his statement.
If he really wanted to make a concrete statement then he would have said, "We will not share your information with anyone without your permission."
One of the many interesting things from this article is this paragrpah:
"The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that children have a constitutional right to counsel. But in Pennsylvania, as in at least 20 other states, children can waive counsel, and about half of the children that Judge Ciavarella sentenced had chosen to do so. Only Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina require juveniles to have representation when they appear before judges."
I'm surprised there was even an argument about juveniles having the right to legal representation and that the argument wasn't resolved by the Supreme Court until 1967.
You can almost guess how the prosecutors and/or judges got these kids to waive their right to an attorney: "If you get a lawyer it will look like you're guilty to the judge and that you have something to hide. So you'd be better off waiving your right to counsel."
I would care if I were an alcohol marketer and wanted to send targeted email advertisements to them.
Good job by commodore64. It looks like you're one step closer to having your way. A federal court has ruled that that it's legal for the federal government to install cameras on a farmer's private property.
Camera convicted him but raised battle over privacy
Farmers beware: Big Brother may be watching.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/camera-convicted-him-raised-battle-over-privacy
From the same article you quoted:
>When it is examined, it's very common for the viewers not to identify suspects. Lighting is bad and >images are grainy, and criminals tend not to stare helpfully at the lens. Cameras break far too >often. The best camera systems can still be thwarted by sunglasses or hats. Even when they afford >quick identification -- think of the 2005 London transport bombers and the 9/11 terrorists -- police >are often able to identify suspects without the cameras. Cameras afford a false sense of security, >encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.
Yes, it it. If that happens. But so far it looks like that's not the case:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/cctv_cameras.html
A bank is a very small, controlled area. Comparing a bank to surveilling an entire city 24-hours a day are tow entirely different matters.
Except cameras don't catch people "redhanded". If they catch people at all it's almost always after the crime has been committed and the criminal has fled. Beyond that statistics show that public surveillance cameras do not reduce crime. Many studies of surveillance cameras have shown this to be the case.
CCTV Cameras
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/cctv_cameras.html
I'm assuming you're a private citizen, so you most likely don't have the power or the resources to abuse this system in quite the same capacity that the government has the ability to. Government and is priorities constantly change.
It good to hear that at least one city council has worked up enough back-bone to stand up to law enforcement on this issue. I hope the Chicago City Council comes to a similar conclusion and convenience Mayor Daley that this is a waste of money and shut our surveillance system down in lieu of hiring more officers, if necessary. Unfortunately Mayor Daley pushes public surveillance pretty hard.