Keep offering email services. GMail is not an acceptable alternative in many situations. In the Canadian University where I'm a faculty member some groups refuse to send mail to gmail addresses because Google scans all mail (this violates privacy contracts on some research material). This will affect final year undergrads and grad students mostly and already occurs.
Gmail offers email addresses with *no advertising* to Universities and their students for free. If there is still scanning going on, it's probably for spam filtering, and I'll bet that most email providers will scan for viruses and spam anyway -- not just google.
In addition things like the US "patriot" act mean that provincial privacy laws in many cases make Universities very uneasy to send any private information to gmail addresses due to the server location in the US - our University has not yet refused gmail addresses but they are working up to some sort of policy which will probably do so.
If they're worried about privacy, may be they shouldn't be using email period (unless it's encrypted). Personally, I know that I would never email my thesis around, especially if it was hosted on some school server. I would be far more worried about a local student sysadmin getting a hold of it than the CIA getting a hold of it.
...our University has not yet refused gmail addresses but they are working up to some sort of policy which will probably do so.
Well, good luck with that. Gmail allows you to have your own google apps domain. Plus, they also allow you to use an intermediary server (like their Postini for instance, but you're free to plug in any server of your choice). So since that email would be coming and going from that intermediary server, there would be no way to tell that those emails had even touched gmail -- because their header information will contain information from that intermediary server only.
No, instead of banning things. I'd suggest you guys provide your students with free substitutes. Give your students a large ftp space, or an email address, where you can easily email/upload large attachments. Give your students a free lifetime email address, as soon as they accept a place in your school, and so that they can keep on using it and keep in touch with their friends long after they've graduated/dropped out. And give your students free email that manages not to get clogged up by spam.
If you do those things, there won't be any reason for them to keep on using US email providers.
The other thing that would be helpful is basic computer education. Yes, I know that most people in college already know how to work on the computers, however some, possibly older students, might be embarrassed to admit they don't know everything they feel that they should know.
Computer hygiene, that's what I would call it. There needs to be a massive educational campaign performed across the United States. This needs to be approached like a major Public Health issue.
It's good that we have good systems administrators, but that basic knowledge is too centralized. In this new networked world, everybody needs to know how to maintain and clean their computers, just like everybody needs to know how to go the bathroom and properly wash their hands.
So what I'm suggesting, since you already have the infrastructure and the manpower is that you start an outreach program. Get them young, preferably before they start posting stuff on myspace. And target all the adults that are computer phobic, basically survey people in the corporate/working world, and target all the ones that check on their survey that they're "not good with computers".
Now, I'm not saying this is going to be easy, and I'm not saying that this is even glamorous work, but this needs to be done. An outreach program, a PR campaign, a manifesto, a think tank, etc. Start these efforts locally, and as you slowly gain success -- expand them outwards.
Wouldn't this take stuff before people have the ability to filter what they say and speak it out loud?
Who knows? The military probably doesn't. After all, the military experimented with LSD long before it knew what it was. That's what so great about working with live soldiers. Our soldiers have no rights. They signed them away -- when they signed on the dotted line.
Did your small mind ever think I'm talking about the law here? The royalty were above it. Even our officials fall to it.
Yes, I do have a small mind, but I was still thinking about the law here. The thread you were replying to was conceding that lawyers were held to a higher standard, because they knew the law, they had extra rules to follow, and that was part of their professional responsibility.
It doesn't matter that this phrase of "being held to a higher standard" *reminds* you of dukes and kings. The same phrase, placed in a different context, will often mean/evoke something completely different -- sometimes even the complete opposite. We're not playing some memory game or some word association game here. We were having an argument, and for some reason, it reminded you of something else, and then you started running in that direction -- thinking -- that everybody else disagreed with you.
Yes, money can get you off, but only so many times. Ask OJ about it sometime.
You seem to be arguing with yourself here. You're the one who brought up dukes, princes, and kings. This is as relevant as the Chewbacca defense. It has nothing to do with what we were discussing. It's an emotive key phrase/keyword that triggers something within you it seems, and it sounds true enough of course, but this is really a lousy way of arguing a main position which is totally unrelated.
...or the fact when they didn't have a job they can still aford rent for a New York City appartment.
Obviously, you've never heard of rent control.
However today we are a more consertive people (in the terms of consertive that is not political). We don't expect or plan for that life style we want prefer a more settled lifestyle, as we relize that the Siendfield life style in real life would often do more harm then good.
I guess "Sex and the City" must be doing really badly right now.
The latest add shows what they think of the real average family, a bunch of mizerable people who are boring and a bunch of bumpkins.
That I completely agree with. Real comedians make fun of themselves. They make fun of their *core* selves. They don't try to hide who they are (by hiding behind somebody else). Bill Gates would have done far better if he had made fun of himself (or his company) in an office environment for instance, or at some posh charity function.
But everybody should be held to the same standard.
That's nice.
Where is this wonderful world you live in where every medical doctor, structural engineer, and lawyer, does the same job and should be held to the same standard as any gardener?
I don't see why. In fact, I don't see why we require premedical students to take chemistry at all, or even biology, for that matter. Come to think of it, what is the point of requiring a bachelor's degree in order to pursue an MD- the two are only tangentially related. Why not make the MD degree a trade certificate, something perhaps akin to a license to drive a truck? That way we could confine the premedical curricula to only those topics students really need to know on a daily basis as mature, practicing, guts 'n' glory clinicians.
You can. In South America, you can directly get into an MD program from high school. And if you jumped a couple of grades, a Medical School will accept you as young as 16 years old. If you just take these two steps, then come back to the US to get re-certified, the US re-certification should take you two years, so if all goes well -- that's a net gain of four years you'll have -- over the other US-trained doctors.
Having solved all other problems within their country, Israel turns it's attention and taxpayer dollars towards the onerous problem of DOG SHIT.
As I said, you've got to be kidding me. Isn't DNA analysis still kind of expensive?
Not that this is the way I'd like my tax money to be spent, but this is probably just a city investment in fostering a local budding biotech industry. A private company might even provide such a service at a loss -- just so that it could get the press -- and the credit for having done it first.
And for as low as $35 (retail price) per test, it's also bound to get cheaper with time and with bulk. Eventually, may be ten to twenty years from now, this kind of tech may even take the form of an hand-held device that gives you nearly-instantaneous results -- which could be used at security check points and high risk security areas.
I'm using Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP Pro. It doesn't crash for me now that I've added the NoScript extension, but it crashes again and closes down my browser as soon as I disable NoScript.
a woman posts a link to a municipal government website, so the mayor sends her a cease-and-desist letter and then launches a police investigation on her to intimidate the woman and coerce her into removing the link. and you see nothing wrong here?
I think I found her site, and her site is actually worse than the police department's web site (if you can believe it). It kept on making my firefox crash, the only way I could see it was with Internet Explorer. Otherwise, her site is pretty interesting content-wise, it's no wonder the city hates her guts.
I don't really agree with him anyway---not because I think he's wrong, but because I think he's naive.
I personally do not think he's naive.
His explanation for evolution is that the overwhelming majority biologists and scientists "believe" in it. Is that really how he was taught Science?
And then, he goes on to say that creationism shouldn't be approached as a misconception, but as a world view. Why? He seems to confuse evolution as world view that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in -- in one paragraph, and then in another, he wants to approach creationism as a world view as well.
And of course, to him, it's the "theory of evolution", not the concept of evolution, nor is just straight -- evolution. So on one hand, he doesn't think relevant to mention testable ideas or the scientific method when arguing *for* evolution, but on the other hand, he likes to place the code word "theory" in front of "evolution" when we all know -- damn well that he wouldn't even think of doing the same thing for other theories -- like the "theory of gravity" for instance.
No. His clarification is the blog post that you linked to, which was authored and posted by him. Part of his original statement was the sound file posted at the top of that blog post, in which he was speaking to a reporter. The second link you're referring to is not only a further clarification on his original clarification, but it's just a second-hand quote published by the Public Relations arm of his employer.
In other words, that second-hand clarification doesn't really count (in my personal view at least). Public Relations departments do not speak for their employees. They speak for their company/organization, in this case they speak for The Royal Society. Public Relations departments do not clarify. They confuse, they censor, they edit, they rewrite, and sometimes, yes, they'll even lie.
There is a reason controversial topics are rarely ever put to rest by the PR spokesperson. If a dicy personal statement needs to be clarified, it needs to be clarified by the original primary source. And in this case, it was! The Professor clarified in writing what he said in that recorded interview with the (slightly hostile) reporter. In other words, that blog post was already that Professor's own personal attempt at doing damage control (much to the horror of The Royal Society's PR spokesperson -- I'm sure).
Best Buy has never paid on commission. Circuit City used to, but doesn't now.
Best Buy used to pay 'bonuses' on quotas, not commissions. Same difference thought.
Their sales people used to be pushy as hell to try to up-sell you on their worthless extended-warranties. Thankfully, Best Buy has stopped giving those 'bonus' incentives a couple of years ago, and their sales people have behaved as normal human beings ever since.
I think that was his entire point. What if it did NOT work, and it's just part of some feel-good PR campaign? It took us close to ten years to find out that our anti-scud missiles were really ineffective and that our laser-guided smart bombs only really hit one in five of its targets.
This kind of disinformation can really trip up a War. If from home we keep on investing money into cool-sounding technologies that do not work, at the expense of the tactics that really do work and work well, then we could seriously jeopardize the overall outcome of those Wars.
Yes, on AT&T and T-Mobile at least, as a platform it's pretty awesome, but from what I hear -- the sound quality is not so good. Hopefully, the sound quality will improve in future versions.
A page of google search results is nothing but a link farm with some ads. This is like the old pot calling the kettle black. An individual does a single web page with topic-specific related links...that's the same thing google does, just they generate their's on the fly based on search words.
You Sir, are a genius! Google should just sue that Webmaster because he's not putting Google in his listings (for free). In fact, after a bit of research on his site, I find that his web site is not even listing any web site of mine! That bastard!
That Webmaster is basically committing the same crime he's claiming that Google is doing.
While their action is despicable, the breathalyzer vendor didn't agree to provide their source code as part of the purchase, and shouldn't be forced to do so after the fact because the state didn't buy a device suitable for the task.
If you base your entire living on being a professional witness, and accept the extra income that comes with it -- you better make sure that you're also open to the cross-examination that comes with it. Besides, this is a discovery process, it's pretty normal. Even when the government has no possible self-interest in a case -- it will often force both parties in a dispute to open their skeleton closets to each other.
How about outlawing automated trading programs?
sounds like a solution to me.
And what? Require traders to fill out a captcha every time? Or would you protect people from themselves by -- penalizing them/putting them in jail/making them pay large fines -- for using trade automation? How could enforce such a law anyway? It's not like Ebay can even stop all the automated third-party sniping tools that are being used on its site?
Besides, everyone can blame the evils of trade automation, but hysteria can still happen without trade automation. And may be it did in this case. I certainly know a relative or two who would make immediate trades based on unverified little blurbs they might have happened to catch on TV. Trade automation only makes hysteria more efficient. Outlawing it wouldn't solve the root of the problem. And may be, this decision should just be left to the individual investor/trader who decides to take the risk to use it -- or not.
So port them? I doubt it'd be super hard for a motivated user to port them...
You're wrong. Some plugins and extensions have been ported to Webkit, but the thing keeps on crashing. I'm sure this will change, but Webkit is just not a stable platform to extend right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Gmail offers email addresses with *no advertising* to Universities and their students for free. If there is still scanning going on, it's probably for spam filtering, and I'll bet that most email providers will scan for viruses and spam anyway -- not just google.
If they're worried about privacy, may be they shouldn't be using email period (unless it's encrypted). Personally, I know that I would never email my thesis around, especially if it was hosted on some school server. I would be far more worried about a local student sysadmin getting a hold of it than the CIA getting a hold of it.
Well, good luck with that. Gmail allows you to have your own google apps domain. Plus, they also allow you to use an intermediary server (like their Postini for instance, but you're free to plug in any server of your choice). So since that email would be coming and going from that intermediary server, there would be no way to tell that those emails had even touched gmail -- because their header information will contain information from that intermediary server only.
No, instead of banning things. I'd suggest you guys provide your students with free substitutes. Give your students a large ftp space, or an email address, where you can easily email/upload large attachments. Give your students a free lifetime email address, as soon as they accept a place in your school, and so that they can keep on using it and keep in touch with their friends long after they've graduated/dropped out. And give your students free email that manages not to get clogged up by spam.
If you do those things, there won't be any reason for them to keep on using US email providers.
Computer hygiene, that's what I would call it. There needs to be a massive educational campaign performed across the United States. This needs to be approached like a major Public Health issue.
It's good that we have good systems administrators, but that basic knowledge is too centralized. In this new networked world, everybody needs to know how to maintain and clean their computers, just like everybody needs to know how to go the bathroom and properly wash their hands.
So what I'm suggesting, since you already have the infrastructure and the manpower is that you start an outreach program. Get them young, preferably before they start posting stuff on myspace. And target all the adults that are computer phobic, basically survey people in the corporate/working world, and target all the ones that check on their survey that they're "not good with computers".
Now, I'm not saying this is going to be easy, and I'm not saying that this is even glamorous work, but this needs to be done. An outreach program, a PR campaign, a manifesto, a think tank, etc. Start these efforts locally, and as you slowly gain success -- expand them outwards.
Who knows? The military probably doesn't. After all, the military experimented with LSD long before it knew what it was. That's what so great about working with live soldiers. Our soldiers have no rights. They signed them away -- when they signed on the dotted line.
Yes, I do have a small mind, but I was still thinking about the law here. The thread you were replying to was conceding that lawyers were held to a higher standard, because they knew the law, they had extra rules to follow, and that was part of their professional responsibility.
It doesn't matter that this phrase of "being held to a higher standard" *reminds* you of dukes and kings. The same phrase, placed in a different context, will often mean/evoke something completely different -- sometimes even the complete opposite. We're not playing some memory game or some word association game here. We were having an argument, and for some reason, it reminded you of something else, and then you started running in that direction -- thinking -- that everybody else disagreed with you.
You seem to be arguing with yourself here. You're the one who brought up dukes, princes, and kings. This is as relevant as the Chewbacca defense. It has nothing to do with what we were discussing. It's an emotive key phrase/keyword that triggers something within you it seems, and it sounds true enough of course, but this is really a lousy way of arguing a main position which is totally unrelated.
Obviously, you've never heard of rent control.
I guess "Sex and the City" must be doing really badly right now.
That I completely agree with. Real comedians make fun of themselves. They make fun of their *core* selves. They don't try to hide who they are (by hiding behind somebody else). Bill Gates would have done far better if he had made fun of himself (or his company) in an office environment for instance, or at some posh charity function.
Yeah, that's another question they should have asked in their survey. They should have asked about showers.
Just like everybody else who does research, they surround themselves with the right people, and they ask for help.
That's nice.
Where is this wonderful world you live in where every medical doctor, structural engineer, and lawyer, does the same job and should be held to the same standard as any gardener?
You can. In South America, you can directly get into an MD program from high school. And if you jumped a couple of grades, a Medical School will accept you as young as 16 years old. If you just take these two steps, then come back to the US to get re-certified, the US re-certification should take you two years, so if all goes well -- that's a net gain of four years you'll have -- over the other US-trained doctors.
Not that this is the way I'd like my tax money to be spent, but this is probably just a city investment in fostering a local budding biotech industry. A private company might even provide such a service at a loss -- just so that it could get the press -- and the credit for having done it first. And for as low as $35 (retail price) per test, it's also bound to get cheaper with time and with bulk. Eventually, may be ten to twenty years from now, this kind of tech may even take the form of an hand-held device that gives you nearly-instantaneous results -- which could be used at security check points and high risk security areas.
I'm using Firefox 3.0.1 on Windows XP Pro. It doesn't crash for me now that I've added the NoScript extension, but it crashes again and closes down my browser as soon as I disable NoScript.
I think I found her site, and her site is actually worse than the police department's web site (if you can believe it). It kept on making my firefox crash, the only way I could see it was with Internet Explorer. Otherwise, her site is pretty interesting content-wise, it's no wonder the city hates her guts.
[Warning: use IE to open, not firefox] http://sheboyganshenanigans.com/?cat=6
And also, I found another site that dared linking to the Sheboygan PD.
http://www.ratemycop.com/index.php?st=WI&dept=8376 (ah, the wonders of the internet)
Oops. That one was just a redirect. Try this one http://www.sheboyganpolice.com/surveyresults_interface/Results/submission_form.asp
No, no. This is the link that they don't want you guys finding out.
I personally do not think he's naive.
His explanation for evolution is that the overwhelming majority biologists and scientists "believe" in it. Is that really how he was taught Science?
And then, he goes on to say that creationism shouldn't be approached as a misconception, but as a world view. Why? He seems to confuse evolution as world view that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in -- in one paragraph, and then in another, he wants to approach creationism as a world view as well.
And of course, to him, it's the "theory of evolution", not the concept of evolution, nor is just straight -- evolution. So on one hand, he doesn't think relevant to mention testable ideas or the scientific method when arguing *for* evolution, but on the other hand, he likes to place the code word "theory" in front of "evolution" when we all know -- damn well that he wouldn't even think of doing the same thing for other theories -- like the "theory of gravity" for instance.
No. His clarification is the blog post that you linked to, which was authored and posted by him. Part of his original statement was the sound file posted at the top of that blog post, in which he was speaking to a reporter. The second link you're referring to is not only a further clarification on his original clarification, but it's just a second-hand quote published by the Public Relations arm of his employer.
In other words, that second-hand clarification doesn't really count (in my personal view at least). Public Relations departments do not speak for their employees. They speak for their company/organization, in this case they speak for The Royal Society. Public Relations departments do not clarify. They confuse, they censor, they edit, they rewrite, and sometimes, yes, they'll even lie.
There is a reason controversial topics are rarely ever put to rest by the PR spokesperson. If a dicy personal statement needs to be clarified, it needs to be clarified by the original primary source. And in this case, it was! The Professor clarified in writing what he said in that recorded interview with the (slightly hostile) reporter. In other words, that blog post was already that Professor's own personal attempt at doing damage control (much to the horror of The Royal Society's PR spokesperson -- I'm sure).
You must have very little traffic, or lots of storage space, I take it.
Best Buy used to pay 'bonuses' on quotas, not commissions. Same difference thought.
Their sales people used to be pushy as hell to try to up-sell you on their worthless extended-warranties. Thankfully, Best Buy has stopped giving those 'bonus' incentives a couple of years ago, and their sales people have behaved as normal human beings ever since.
May be, the parent was confusing it with something like the Garmin Forerunner 405.
That one can share its data wirelessly either to a PC/web or directly to other 405 watches.
I think that was his entire point. What if it did NOT work, and it's just part of some feel-good PR campaign? It took us close to ten years to find out that our anti-scud missiles were really ineffective and that our laser-guided smart bombs only really hit one in five of its targets.
This kind of disinformation can really trip up a War. If from home we keep on investing money into cool-sounding technologies that do not work, at the expense of the tactics that really do work and work well, then we could seriously jeopardize the overall outcome of those Wars.
Yes, on AT&T and T-Mobile at least, as a platform it's pretty awesome, but from what I hear -- the sound quality is not so good. Hopefully, the sound quality will improve in future versions.
You Sir, are a genius! Google should just sue that Webmaster because he's not putting Google in his listings (for free). In fact, after a bit of research on his site, I find that his web site is not even listing any web site of mine! That bastard!
That Webmaster is basically committing the same crime he's claiming that Google is doing.
If you base your entire living on being a professional witness, and accept the extra income that comes with it -- you better make sure that you're also open to the cross-examination that comes with it. Besides, this is a discovery process, it's pretty normal. Even when the government has no possible self-interest in a case -- it will often force both parties in a dispute to open their skeleton closets to each other.
And what? Require traders to fill out a captcha every time? Or would you protect people from themselves by -- penalizing them/putting them in jail/making them pay large fines -- for using trade automation? How could enforce such a law anyway? It's not like Ebay can even stop all the automated third-party sniping tools that are being used on its site?
Besides, everyone can blame the evils of trade automation, but hysteria can still happen without trade automation. And may be it did in this case. I certainly know a relative or two who would make immediate trades based on unverified little blurbs they might have happened to catch on TV. Trade automation only makes hysteria more efficient. Outlawing it wouldn't solve the root of the problem. And may be, this decision should just be left to the individual investor/trader who decides to take the risk to use it -- or not.
You're wrong. Some plugins and extensions have been ported to Webkit, but the thing keeps on crashing. I'm sure this will change, but Webkit is just not a stable platform to extend right now.