My social security number is 486-65-4324. I was jealous of my collegue, Bob Andrews, who has 777-66-6667, which is made of only 2 different types of digits AND is PRIME!
I'm sure Mr. Andrews will appreciate you posting his name and SSN in a public forum.
I worked in the insurance industry for a number of years, and apparently APL is quite popular in insurance applications because of its compact handling of vector and matrix arithmetic. While powerful, I found that APL programs were very frustrating to understand and to maintain. Because of APL's compact and cryptic syntax, it took a lot of time and effort to figure out what a particular routine was doing. Combine that with a lack of good documentation, and you had a recipe for disaster!
APL makes C programs look downright verbose. At least in C you can make a program readable if you try. In APL it is downright impossible!!!
If I understand correctly, there was a huge shopping area or something underneath the towers. I'm sure food would not be hard to find in that situation.
Yes, there is a shopping mall below the WTC complex, as well as a PATH station and a NYC Subway station. I haven't heard anything on the news about how it held up under the weight of the collapse. It would seem that if it did hold, rescue workers could approach the site from below via the train tubes.
Does anybody have any details about exactly what this "technology" is? Does it require the cell phone to be on and powered, or can it find cell phones without a charged battery?
I also heard on CNN that they can use this "technology" with Palm Pilots as well, but they were very sketchy on the details.
Don't life insurance companies have an interest in having this called an 'act of war?' The last time I checked, my life insurance policy won't pay out because of acts of war, $DIEITY, etc.
I don't know if legally this counts as an act of war, as there wasn't a war declared and Manhattan isn't a recognized war zone. I would think that the insurance companies would have to go to court for it to stand up.
That being said, from what I've read on CNN, it seems like the insurance companies are going to pay life insurance claims.
I've heard rumors about the advertising rates on some of the major networks...mind you, just rumors, but it's been said that the rates are nearing Superbowl-level slots for primetime on some of the news channels.
Haven't you noticed that none of the major news networks have been running commercials during their coverage of these events? How are they getting "rates near Superbowl-level" if there are no ads?????
First the insurance companies, next the TV stations...who else will try to profit out of this?
This is a very ignorant statement considering insurers are going to bear the brunt of the monetary cost (as well as the cost in lives - many insurance companies have offices in the WTC complex). As far as the TV stations go, they are probably losing money, too, because many haven't been running ads since Tuesday morning.
If you are going to bash the networks and insurers, at least you should bash them based on facts rather than ignorance.
Just my thoughts/$.02 worth.
I think you are overvaluing the worth of your thoughts!
What happens if you are a customer who was sold a system with one of those "other" operating systems. You'd scream bloody murder if the OS running your systems was going to be trashed in favor of something else.
If that happens you can be sure that Microsoft is going to try and sweep in to pick through the carnage...
When Dilbert first came out, I thought to myself, "Gee, the Adventureland/Voodoo Castle/Pirate's Cove/The Count guy has got a comic strip now. Pretty neat!"
Boy was I bummed when it turned out to be a different Scott Adams...
Here's a smart idea. Let's give millions and millions of VC dollars to a some 20 year old CEO and see how quickly he can spend it. Great idea. Why didn't I think of it?
Next thing you know they'll be throwing millions at the kid down the street with the lemonade stand. I better go talk to the little pip sqeak to see if I can get in on some pre-IPO shares.
Most of the posts so mention reasons like "I love to code" and "It feels good to give back" and the like. That may explain why Joe Random Hacker contributes, but it doesn't explain why large companies like IBM, Sun, HP, and AOL Time Warner are putting a lot of time, money, and manpower into open source development. These companies are motivated by profits, not by feel-good platitudes. So why are they doing it?
Because helping to develop open source software makes good business sense for them.
Why does it make good business sense? One reason is that they are giving something away so that they can leverage that free product to sell something else. These companies make money off of selling products and services related to open source products. In order to maximize the size of their market, it makes sense for them to help with Linux development, for instance. The better Linux is, the more people will use it. More people using it means more people will buy their products and services.
There are nay-sayers who say that this isn't a sustainable business model, but other very successful companies do this all the time. They give away something so that they can sell more of something else. Ask yourself why Microsoft gives away its browser for free. For Microsoft it is better not to charge for their browser so they will increase their browser market share. They are trading current dollars for future profits from the sale of browser-related software and services. AOL does the same thing with their on-line service. They give away tons of those CD with their software because they know that they can make it back from selling online access and content.
The other way in which open source development makes business sense is in the control. When IBM wants a particular piece of software or hardware to work with Linux, they simply add the necessary code to the operating system and contribute it to the community. The new code gets propogated into all new updates of Linux, and now more people are able to use their for-profit product. On the other hand, because IBM doesn't have control over Windows, they have to beg and plead for them to add a feature to Windows they they may want. In short, they have no control over the code.
Finally, contributing to Open Source is great from a marketting standpoint. All of the Joe Random Hackers out there appreciate the fact that this big company is pitching in to help. This gives them a "warm and fuzzy" feeling about the company. On the other hand, companies that attack the open source movement (Microsoft) are scorned by the Joe Random Hackers of the world.
This is one reason why Ben and Jerry's has been so successful. When you by a pint of Cherry Garcia, you aren't just buying a tasty snack, you are buying into a whole philosophy of business. People are willing to spend a couple extra bucks for this "warm and fuzzy" feeling.
Anyway, it's nice to say that people contribute to the open source movement because it feels right, but that alone doesn't explain why.
The writer of this article sounds so surprised that "ethics" are missing from tech journalism, as if this is some sort of new trend.
Every new organization, be it on-line or print or radio or TV, has some "angle" that they are working. This has been going on since the rise of the newspapers.
Remember the "Spanish American War"? This war was manufactered by the major newspapers at the time. This was the time period when the term "Yellow Journalism" came into vogue. It's silly to think that the "new media" would be immune from this sort of thing.
What's going to happen when more and more U.S. companies start to do this? As demand for overshore programmers increases, it'll become harder and harder for U.S. companies to find overseas labor. Because of this higher demand, smart Russian programmers are going to realize this, and they are going to demand more than just $1000 a month.
Eventually, Russian programmers are going to get paid American salaries!
I know a few experts in science and mathematics who have mentioned to me that they would be more than happy to teach middle school and high school; however the requirement by my state that all teachers have a teaching certificate keeps them out of the field.
I don't know what the certification rules are in your state, but where I grew up, there was a non-traditional method of certification which was geared towards people like you mention in your post.
Basically, you started out by teaching under the close supervision of a "certified" teacher at the school (sort of like student teaching). While you were working, you were required to take some college courses in education. I don't remember exactly how many credits you needed, but it was much less than a going back for a bachelor's degree. After completing the required courses, you could get your "regular" certification.
This alternative method of certification was designed specifically to attract people with "real world" experience into the classrooms without having to jump through all of the hoops that a regular teacher has to go through.
I think the main problem, as the article points out, is that somebody who has talent in math or science can make a lot more money in other fields (as a software engineer, for instance), than they can as a teacher. Plus, teaching generally is not considered to be a prestigious profession. They are overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated by the public.
Why is a government organization spending money to create a service that people can already get for free via the private sector? It seems like the only people that gain are the politicians (and maybe the advertisers since they have a another couple thousand email accounts that they can feel free to spam). They can pat themselves on the back for "narrowing the digital divide", when in fact they are doing no such thing.
If they really want to make a different, why not provide vocational training for the disadvantaged so they can actually learn a skill to help them better themselves. Now, that would be money better spent.
What Motivates the Mob?
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First, a general comment about the article. Maybe I need to re-read it again, but I got the impression that the authors were dancing from one topic to another without really tying them together. It may make for interesting prose, but it really detracts from their arguments.
The main question that I'm left with after reading this article is, "What Motivates the Mob?" They talk about how the "mob" is going to produce all of this wonderful software, but is the mob going to be motivated enough to produce all of the software that society needs.
They claim that 26,000 programmers could write the Space Shuttle software in one year, but how are you going to convince 26,000 programmers to work on such a project? You may be able to convince a few programmers to contribute, but how are you going to convince that many people that they should work on this type of project?
It seems like each member of the programming "mob" is going to gravitate towards working on projects that interest him or her. It would also seem like most programmers would be most likely to work on something that they would actually use themselves. From what I can tell, most "open source" projects start when some programmer(s) says to themselves "I could really use X, so why not write it myself." Then other programmers come along and say "I could really use X, but only if it had Y, so I'll add that piece." And so forth....
Most successful open-source projects seem to be things that a large number of programmers find useful (i.e. Operating Systems, editors, web servers, other software infrastructure, games, etc). Is there enough interest among programmers to write Space Shuttle Control Software? I think not. It would seem like this would either have to be done by some company for money (i.e. Lockheed Martin), or not at all.
If you look on SourceForge, there are hundreds if not thousands of "open source" projects which haven't gotten off the ground because there just isn't the interest in them. The "mob" programming philosophy doesn't seem to be working in this case.
His example about the construction of medieval cathedrals was a successful "mob" project because the people all had a common interest in (or fear of) the divine that motivated them to construct such a structure. There are countless other structures which had to be built by one controlling entity, because the "mob" just wasn't motivated to help out building them.
Finally, let me say that I don't necessary disagree with his premise that "mob" programming can be successful. I think that the success of Linux, et. al. is a strong testament to what the "mob" can do. I just don't think that "mob" programming is going to be the end-all and be-all of programming.
I've noticed that, with respect to the Internet, whenever anyone acts rude, posts flame-bait, does something malicious, or acts in any way anti-social, they are called a "15 year old hacker" or a "script kiddie". Does anyone really believe that all this anti-social behavior associated with the net is really the result of 15 year olds? If so, where is your proof?
From what I can tell, a lot of this anti-social behavior comes from people of ALL ages. Look at the Linux Today editor who "astroturfed". Look at the people responsible for the ILoveYou and Melissa virii. Look at the guy who was responsible for the "original" Internet worm. THEY AREN'T 15 YEAR OLDS!!! Yet, somehow it's the 15 year olds who get blamed by Jon Katz, et. al.
When the building in Oklahoma City was bombed, common wisdom (or lack thereof) always blames the Arabs for the attack, even though they have no evidence. Why? Because they fit the American "stereotype" of what a terrorist is like. Likewise, whenever something anti-social occurs in "cyberspace", commmon wisdom blames the "15 year old hacker". Why? Because they also fit into this convienent stereotype.
Occasionaly, there is a case of a 15 year old who DOES get into trouble, and they always get the press, and they are always held up as "the example". Yet, when a 30 year old gets in trouble, you don't see anyone parading around saying how Generation X is filled with anti-social outcasts.
Why does this happen? Because on the Internet, you have no basis for judging people other than their actions, so it's easy to come to the conclusion that so-and-so MUST be a 15 year old hacker, even though you have NO BASIS for reaching that conclusion other than the fact their actions fit your stereotype.
Just my 2 cents...
Obviously, everyone has their own criteria about what makes a good place to live.
Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of things that are near the top of my list for me:
1. Good job market. This is pretty obvious, but I'm surprised not too many people are saying it. I want to live in a place where I have options as far as jobs go. This helps to two ways. First, there are more companies competing for my services, so I'm likely to get a higher salary/better benefits/etc. Second, if for some reason I need to switch jobs, I can switch without a lot of problems. If you live in a place that only has a handful of high tech companies, it's much harder to move to a different job.
Good ratio of salary to cost-of-living. It doesn't matter if you get paid more in a particular area if you're spending all your money on housing/food/taxes/etc.
Quality of life. This is where every person basically has to decide for themselves what's important. When you are coming out of school, things like night life are important. However, as you get older, things like quality of schools and health care have more importance.
I've lived in a few different places, and I've found that Baltimore is definitely a great city for high-tech. There are plenty of high-tech companies in and around the area (lots of game companies in particular), the cost of living is great (especially compared to D.C.), there are a lot of cultural and recreational activities, the education and health care systems are top-notch (Johns Hopkins/U of MD), and because it isn't a "trendy" city it isn't overbuilt.
This explains why Torricelli is trying to pass the School Website
Protection Act. He wants to make sure all those 15 year olds don't take away any of his power!
The problem with these sorts of list is that everyone has a different criteria as far as what makes a game great. I wouldn't lose much sleep if your favorite game isn't on the list.
That being said, I'm surprised that a lot of very influential games weren't able to crack the Top 50:
[Pac Man, Asteroids, Space Invaders, Pitfall, Pole Position, NetHack, Donkey Kong (which spawned literally hundreds of spin-off games), Space Quest, Missile Command, Lode Runner, Super Mario Bros.]
As you can see from my list, I think there should have been more early console and coin-op games on the list. The list totally ignores a huge segment of the gaming world.
Actually, I've got a (small) collection of old computers. I do it mostly for the nostalgia factor. Most of the machines I have are things that I used to play around with when I was growing up during the 80's. I even got a working Atari 2600 with a whole slew of games. Playing Pitfall on that old thing brings back lots of fond memories!!
I wouldn't be surprised if the market for old tech toys takes off in a couple years. It seems like everything from my youth, from those metal lunch boxes to Star Wars action figures, is collectable nowadays. If I had only saved some of my junk...
If you are interested in buying old computers, don't bother with eBay. I found that most of the stuff on there is overpriced. You get the best deals from thrift stores, flea markets, Salvation Amry, etc. Also, being able to repair stuff really comes in handy. If you have a little bit of knowledge, you can turn a non-working computer into a working one without much effort.
There are already laws on the books dealing with harassment, electronic or otherwise. If a teacher is receiving "blatant threats", then the authorities can and will step in. We don't need another law on the books for this - particular one that can be so easily abused by the authorities.
Also, is it me, or does 10 years in Federal prison sound like a lot for defacing a school's home page? I mean, there are murderers/rapists/child abusers who get less than that.
When I was in high school, I pulled a little prank involving one of the school's computers. I was caught and I got a bunch of detentions, I was banned from the computer room for a month, and I learned my lesson. I never pulled any more stupid stunts after that. If this law was around when I was in school, I'd be just getting out of prison about now. Talk about using a machine gun to kill a fly. Whatever happened to common sense???
Slashdot Mirror
My social security number is 486-65-4324. I was jealous of my collegue, Bob Andrews, who has 777-66-6667, which is made of only 2 different types of digits AND is PRIME! I'm sure Mr. Andrews will appreciate you posting his name and SSN in a public forum.
APL makes C programs look downright verbose. At least in C you can make a program readable if you try. In APL it is downright impossible!!!
Yes, there is a shopping mall below the WTC complex, as well as a PATH station and a NYC Subway station. I haven't heard anything on the news about how it held up under the weight of the collapse. It would seem that if it did hold, rescue workers could approach the site from below via the train tubes.
I also heard on CNN that they can use this "technology" with Palm Pilots as well, but they were very sketchy on the details.
I don't know if legally this counts as an act of war, as there wasn't a war declared and Manhattan isn't a recognized war zone. I would think that the insurance companies would have to go to court for it to stand up.
That being said, from what I've read on CNN, it seems like the insurance companies are going to pay life insurance claims.
I've heard rumors about the advertising rates on some of the major networks...mind you, just rumors, but it's been said that the rates are nearing Superbowl-level slots for primetime on some of the news channels.
Haven't you noticed that none of the major news networks have been running commercials during their coverage of these events? How are they getting "rates near Superbowl-level" if there are no ads?????
First the insurance companies, next the TV stations...who else will try to profit out of this?
This is a very ignorant statement considering insurers are going to bear the brunt of the monetary cost (as well as the cost in lives - many insurance companies have offices in the WTC complex). As far as the TV stations go, they are probably losing money, too, because many haven't been running ads since Tuesday morning.
If you are going to bash the networks and insurers, at least you should bash them based on facts rather than ignorance.
Just my thoughts/$.02 worth.
I think you are overvaluing the worth of your thoughts!
You can donate money to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund online by clicking here...
If that happens you can be sure that Microsoft is going to try and sweep in to pick through the carnage...
Boy was I bummed when it turned out to be a different Scott Adams...
Next thing you know they'll be throwing millions at the kid down the street with the lemonade stand. I better go talk to the little pip sqeak to see if I can get in on some pre-IPO shares.
Because helping to develop open source software makes good business sense for them.
Why does it make good business sense? One reason is that they are giving something away so that they can leverage that free product to sell something else. These companies make money off of selling products and services related to open source products. In order to maximize the size of their market, it makes sense for them to help with Linux development, for instance. The better Linux is, the more people will use it. More people using it means more people will buy their products and services.
There are nay-sayers who say that this isn't a sustainable business model, but other very successful companies do this all the time. They give away something so that they can sell more of something else. Ask yourself why Microsoft gives away its browser for free. For Microsoft it is better not to charge for their browser so they will increase their browser market share. They are trading current dollars for future profits from the sale of browser-related software and services. AOL does the same thing with their on-line service. They give away tons of those CD with their software because they know that they can make it back from selling online access and content.
The other way in which open source development makes business sense is in the control. When IBM wants a particular piece of software or hardware to work with Linux, they simply add the necessary code to the operating system and contribute it to the community. The new code gets propogated into all new updates of Linux, and now more people are able to use their for-profit product. On the other hand, because IBM doesn't have control over Windows, they have to beg and plead for them to add a feature to Windows they they may want. In short, they have no control over the code.
Finally, contributing to Open Source is great from a marketting standpoint. All of the Joe Random Hackers out there appreciate the fact that this big company is pitching in to help. This gives them a "warm and fuzzy" feeling about the company. On the other hand, companies that attack the open source movement (Microsoft) are scorned by the Joe Random Hackers of the world.
This is one reason why Ben and Jerry's has been so successful. When you by a pint of Cherry Garcia, you aren't just buying a tasty snack, you are buying into a whole philosophy of business. People are willing to spend a couple extra bucks for this "warm and fuzzy" feeling.
Anyway, it's nice to say that people contribute to the open source movement because it feels right, but that alone doesn't explain why.
Every new organization, be it on-line or print or radio or TV, has some "angle" that they are working. This has been going on since the rise of the newspapers.
Remember the "Spanish American War"? This war was manufactered by the major newspapers at the time. This was the time period when the term "Yellow Journalism" came into vogue. It's silly to think that the "new media" would be immune from this sort of thing.
The Feds should be going after Microsoft!!!!
Eventually, Russian programmers are going to get paid American salaries!
Gotta love the free market!!!
I know a few experts in science and mathematics who have mentioned to me that they would be more than happy to teach middle school and high school; however the requirement by my state that all teachers have a teaching certificate keeps them out of the field.
I don't know what the certification rules are in your state, but where I grew up, there was a non-traditional method of certification which was geared towards people like you mention in your post.
Basically, you started out by teaching under the close supervision of a "certified" teacher at the school (sort of like student teaching). While you were working, you were required to take some college courses in education. I don't remember exactly how many credits you needed, but it was much less than a going back for a bachelor's degree. After completing the required courses, you could get your "regular" certification.
This alternative method of certification was designed specifically to attract people with "real world" experience into the classrooms without having to jump through all of the hoops that a regular teacher has to go through.
I think the main problem, as the article points out, is that somebody who has talent in math or science can make a lot more money in other fields (as a software engineer, for instance), than they can as a teacher. Plus, teaching generally is not considered to be a prestigious profession. They are overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated by the public.
If they really want to make a different, why not provide vocational training for the disadvantaged so they can actually learn a skill to help them better themselves. Now, that would be money better spent.
The main question that I'm left with after reading this article is, "What Motivates the Mob?" They talk about how the "mob" is going to produce all of this wonderful software, but is the mob going to be motivated enough to produce all of the software that society needs.
They claim that 26,000 programmers could write the Space Shuttle software in one year, but how are you going to convince 26,000 programmers to work on such a project? You may be able to convince a few programmers to contribute, but how are you going to convince that many people that they should work on this type of project?
It seems like each member of the programming "mob" is going to gravitate towards working on projects that interest him or her. It would also seem like most programmers would be most likely to work on something that they would actually use themselves. From what I can tell, most "open source" projects start when some programmer(s) says to themselves "I could really use X, so why not write it myself." Then other programmers come along and say "I could really use X, but only if it had Y, so I'll add that piece." And so forth....
Most successful open-source projects seem to be things that a large number of programmers find useful (i.e. Operating Systems, editors, web servers, other software infrastructure, games, etc). Is there enough interest among programmers to write Space Shuttle Control Software? I think not. It would seem like this would either have to be done by some company for money (i.e. Lockheed Martin), or not at all.
If you look on SourceForge, there are hundreds if not thousands of "open source" projects which haven't gotten off the ground because there just isn't the interest in them. The "mob" programming philosophy doesn't seem to be working in this case.
His example about the construction of medieval cathedrals was a successful "mob" project because the people all had a common interest in (or fear of) the divine that motivated them to construct such a structure. There are countless other structures which had to be built by one controlling entity, because the "mob" just wasn't motivated to help out building them.
Finally, let me say that I don't necessary disagree with his premise that "mob" programming can be successful. I think that the success of Linux, et. al. is a strong testament to what the "mob" can do. I just don't think that "mob" programming is going to be the end-all and be-all of programming.
From what I can tell, a lot of this anti-social behavior comes from people of ALL ages. Look at the Linux Today editor who "astroturfed". Look at the people responsible for the ILoveYou and Melissa virii. Look at the guy who was responsible for the "original" Internet worm. THEY AREN'T 15 YEAR OLDS!!! Yet, somehow it's the 15 year olds who get blamed by Jon Katz, et. al.
When the building in Oklahoma City was bombed, common wisdom (or lack thereof) always blames the Arabs for the attack, even though they have no evidence. Why? Because they fit the American "stereotype" of what a terrorist is like. Likewise, whenever something anti-social occurs in "cyberspace", commmon wisdom blames the "15 year old hacker". Why? Because they also fit into this convienent stereotype.
Occasionaly, there is a case of a 15 year old who DOES get into trouble, and they always get the press, and they are always held up as "the example". Yet, when a 30 year old gets in trouble, you don't see anyone parading around saying how Generation X is filled with anti-social outcasts.
Why does this happen? Because on the Internet, you have no basis for judging people other than their actions, so it's easy to come to the conclusion that so-and-so MUST be a 15 year old hacker, even though you have NO BASIS for reaching that conclusion other than the fact their actions fit your stereotype. Just my 2 cents...
Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of things that are near the top of my list for me:
1. Good job market. This is pretty obvious, but I'm surprised not too many people are saying it. I want to live in a place where I have options as far as jobs go. This helps to two ways. First, there are more companies competing for my services, so I'm likely to get a higher salary/better benefits/etc. Second, if for some reason I need to switch jobs, I can switch without a lot of problems. If you live in a place that only has a handful of high tech companies, it's much harder to move to a different job.
Good ratio of salary to cost-of-living. It doesn't matter if you get paid more in a particular area if you're spending all your money on housing/food/taxes/etc.
Quality of life. This is where every person basically has to decide for themselves what's important. When you are coming out of school, things like night life are important. However, as you get older, things like quality of schools and health care have more importance.
I've lived in a few different places, and I've found that Baltimore is definitely a great city for high-tech. There are plenty of high-tech companies in and around the area (lots of game companies in particular), the cost of living is great (especially compared to D.C.), there are a lot of cultural and recreational activities, the education and health care systems are top-notch (Johns Hopkins/U of MD), and because it isn't a "trendy" city it isn't overbuilt.
This explains why Torricelli is trying to pass the School Website Protection Act. He wants to make sure all those 15 year olds don't take away any of his power!
Forget the fact that you have to pay hundreds of dollars for a reader before you get any content....
Forget the fact that reading this stuff gives you a headache....
Forget the fact it's a pain in the neck to flip between pages....
Forget the fact that there's so few books available in eBook format....
Forget the fact that the competing "technology"(paper books) is superior....
We'll just restrict people's use of the content, charge them more, and boom, it will take off like a rocket!
Excuse me while I go out and buy some stock in this outfit...
That being said, I'm surprised that a lot of very influential games weren't able to crack the Top 50:
[Pac Man, Asteroids, Space Invaders, Pitfall, Pole Position, NetHack, Donkey Kong (which spawned literally hundreds of spin-off games), Space Quest, Missile Command, Lode Runner, Super Mario Bros.]
As you can see from my list, I think there should have been more early console and coin-op games on the list. The list totally ignores a huge segment of the gaming world.
I wouldn't be surprised if the market for old tech toys takes off in a couple years. It seems like everything from my youth, from those metal lunch boxes to Star Wars action figures, is collectable nowadays. If I had only saved some of my junk...
If you are interested in buying old computers, don't bother with eBay. I found that most of the stuff on there is overpriced. You get the best deals from thrift stores, flea markets, Salvation Amry, etc. Also, being able to repair stuff really comes in handy. If you have a little bit of knowledge, you can turn a non-working computer into a working one without much effort.
Thank goodness that the FDA approved this. My Sony DV camera was giving me a sour stomach.
I may be mistaken, but isn't being able to read a pre-requisite to using a computer?
Computers also teach students to disregard mathematical education.
Actually, classes in computer programming go hand in hand with mathematics. Both subjects develop problem solving and critical thinking skills.
There are already laws on the books dealing with harassment, electronic or otherwise. If a teacher is receiving "blatant threats", then the authorities can and will step in. We don't need another law on the books for this - particular one that can be so easily abused by the authorities. Also, is it me, or does 10 years in Federal prison sound like a lot for defacing a school's home page? I mean, there are murderers/rapists/child abusers who get less than that. When I was in high school, I pulled a little prank involving one of the school's computers. I was caught and I got a bunch of detentions, I was banned from the computer room for a month, and I learned my lesson. I never pulled any more stupid stunts after that. If this law was around when I was in school, I'd be just getting out of prison about now. Talk about using a machine gun to kill a fly. Whatever happened to common sense???