I've never liked that model. I had a teacher (high school calculus in fact) whose classroom time consisted of sitting at the desk while the kids were doing assigned problems (reading material at home). Anyone with a problem could ask for help, and *maybe* that problem would get solved on the board.
It was the most boring and uninspiring approach to mathematics I'd ever been part of. A class should do the opposite: it should be lively, and bring something new to the kids minds right then and there, to keep them interested and to make them think of the possibilities. At the end, the kid should be energized with new knowledge.
I believe pre-reading material before class is a strategic mistake. It's like reading the end of a mystery novel before the beginning. When you already know who the killer is, the story becomes flat and not very interesting. The same is true if you first read the cool new knowledge in a book chapter before the teacher gives it to you, *again*. It drains a lot of the fun (education-wise) out of the school time. A better system is to read the chapters *after* the class that covered it, if necessary.
A
petition may be a useful adjunct, so Apple knows why they're being boycotted, but
a petition without accompanying action is meaningless.
You don't understand what a petition is for.
A petition is a way of making customers aware that they should refuse to buy from Apple. One stands around a table for hours and asks each potential customer to sign the petition. If they do, they're probably going to think twice about entering the store or buying something. If they don't sign and argue, the activity around the table will probably attract some interest from passers by, some of which may even agre to sign.
It's all about having a document that a lot of people must sign, because the side effect of that is that a lot of people are being made aware of what's going on. The document itself is just an excuse, and whether Apple has read it or not is well nigh irrelevant.
If you wanted to tell Apple that you're boycotting them, you could do it in a private letter sent to their HQ. It would go straight to the bin, and nobody but you would know that you're boycotting them. Now that's pretty meaningless.
That literally makes no sense. We're not talking about an exodus due to an economic catastrophe, we're talking about a wealth tax. Simply taxing people doesn't make them move away. People will move away when they have no choice - due to religion, persecution, dire poverty etc. And even then, they try to recreate in the new place the world they left.
No, that's what a HIRED WORKER does. Sadly, most people don't understand
where the word PROFESSION comes from. It's applied indiscriminately
these days, but originally the only people with a profession were
lawyers, medical doctors and priests.
Having a profession meant you had a recognized body of specialized learning (what we would today call being a graduate), having recognition among your peers (some kind of licence to practice) , and having ethics (precisely the opposite of getting the job done - you think about the problem and its relation to the field and society as a whole, and then make a judgement call how to act).
Er, scratch that previous comment. Should have read the article. The people
are moving out because their share holdings are being taxed. So the French
wealth tax does have a negative effect.
That's not really the correct implication. People in the article moved out because of the anomaly that the EU has erased the borders.
How do you "move out" without "moving out"? You go live just across the border and use the fact that the border no longer matters. So you get the best of both worlds - being abroad for tax purposes and living as if you were still in your home country.
In truth, most people wouldn't move out because of a wealth tax - it would cut them off from their family and friends, and their culture. For example, if a wealth tax existed EU wide, the people in the article would stay put - the would be nowhere to go that didn't mean a *big* change.
Right now, the EU is a bit like America, if the federal government did not collect any federal taxes. If you didn't like your local (and only) taxes, you would move across the state line because they're Americans just like you.
So instead of having 20 separate privacy policies, now each
service is governed by the same. How is that bad?
Well, IANAL but a priori, it's rather obvious that if you have several privacy policies that aren't exactly the same, then when you replace them all with a single one, you must lose some rights that you had for some services, and possibly gain some other rights that you had for some other services. So you end up with a different mix from what you initially signed up for in a given service.
If you were happy with the original policies, you may not like the new ones.
Aw crap! That reads like a lawyer's explanation. When I die, I'll go straight to Hell, and the only computer languages allowed will be Javascript....
"Apple Best at Auditing Factories, Still Not
Doing Enough" - I interpret that to mean that Apple should lift its game and improve, not act like it's blameless.
"Apple May Be Terrible, But All Others Are Worse" - I interpret that to mean leave Apple alone and blame other companies first.
No, it's not a race to the bottom. Academics aren't paid for the books they write, they are paid for teaching and research. Books are a way to gain prestige, but aren't a condition of employment, and the money (or lack of money) that the book earns is irrelevant, and not a condition for the book's existence.
A race to the bottom occurs when one's livelihood depends on a shrinking and uncertain income, which is patently not the case for academics and academic textbooks.
Prizes aren't (shouldn't be) offered to pay for the regular development of goods, they are offered as an incentive to make totally new things happen and raise the profile of said things, and when the economic value of the result is unknown. The donation model on the other hand is proposed for regular payment for known types of goods.
An open source textbook (that's actually used and recommended for coursework nation-wide, not just the professor's lecture notes) is a new thing. A prize makes sense to speed up its creation, but once such a textbook is available, there is no reason at all to pay for or speed up the creation of a second one on the same subject matter. The whole point is that when there's one, it can be adapted and changed for any related courses. So there shouldn't be an ongoing (eg annual say) prize, and there's no race to the bottom.
Music recordings have a known value (a few cents per play), and they are commodities. So a prize is not a good idea to pay for them, and donations make a lot more sense in this case.
I guess even top Google engineers make boneheaded analogies.
FTFBP:
So soft-fail revocation checks are like a seat-belt that snaps when you crash. Even though it
works 99% of the time, it's worthless because it only works when you don't need it.
A seat-belt isn't there to protect you if you drive at 200mph into the side of a building. If that's what you're doing, your day is going to be ruined no matter what.
Seat-belts are there to protect against the low hanging fruit of accidents. If you're driving 20mph and the neighbour's cat suddenly runs across the road, you break and the seat belt stops you and your passengers from getting a nasty bruise.
That's what it's for, and it works exceedingly well at doing that. If we get rid of seat-belts because they don't help in the 1% of cases, like when someone crashes into a building, then all we're doing is increasing dramatically the global accident rate on trivial incidents, like the cat example.
Right, you're saying that only about 20% of the sites that fail the security check are legitimate? So it makes sense to ignore the check in the remaining 80% of sites that contain malware and phishing setups. That's crazy.
Sounds complicated and fairly limited. They'd be better off encrypting the package, and using a salt that changes with each download. That'd work really well for dumb filters that match binary signatures.
polymorphic on device _and_ spread through bluetooth would be newsworthy
Does bluetooth transmit processes for running remotely?
The way viruses worked in the ol' DOS days is that the front section of an executable file was overwritten and the virus code was appended at the end of the file. Then instead of the OS loading the program straightaway, the virus code was loaded, which then loaded the program seamlessly.
That kind of thing wouldn't really be possible with data sent over the network, unless it was directly executable code on the target machine.
With current
client/server specializations (consumer device == always client, company hardware == always server), a virus couldn't spread far unless it could inject executable code both ways, from client to server and from server to client.
I guess server to client is the easiest, it could be injected javascript in an infected web page. But client to server would require an exploit, and then figuring out where to put the malicious code so that it shows up on the next client's web browser.
What was the ratio of Soviet T-34s to German Panzers on the eastern front?
I'm having difficulty finding stats on the net. Apparently, there were about 40,000 T-34s produced throughout WWII, but it would be nice to see some yearly breakdowns.
Quite nice, but this obviously only applies where weapons range is irrelevant, such as with ballistic missiles. For an actual battle where weapons have a finite range, I'd expect kill rate to be proportional to the area of weapons contact between the opposing armies.
Take for example a 2D battle field with two blob like armies clashing.
The battle front will occur along the common part of their perimeters a small distance inwards of either side.
So if x,y are the areas of the blobs and sqrt(x), sqrt(y) are the approximate perimeters, shouldn't that result in
He might not have been *monitored* at all. It's quite possible that a disgruntled neighbor/colleague/customer/acquaintance simply decided to accuse him anonymously. That would explain fast turnaround much more simply.
1) Authorities don't know about man.
2) Someone with a grudge against man sees tweet, and reports it to authorities.
3) Authorities learn about tweet, Arab name, bomb action word, and decide to arrest the man.
If that's the case, it *must* show up in the statistics. You should see a spread of experience in hiring statistics, with a bulge around the moderately experienced hires, and a regular tapering off on either extremes, highly experienced and no experience.
So look at the statistics, or if you can't find any, see your coworkers and plot their experience vs hiring date.
Nope, it's more like saying that the police attacked indiscriminately and extremely violently a peaceful Superbowl crowd while chasing a single killer hiding at the stadium. When the crowd went apeshit crazy and rioted, it's the police's fault.
Slashdot Mirror
It was the most boring and uninspiring approach to mathematics I'd ever been part of. A class should do the opposite: it should be lively, and bring something new to the kids minds right then and there, to keep them interested and to make them think of the possibilities. At the end, the kid should be energized with new knowledge.
I believe pre-reading material before class is a strategic mistake. It's like reading the end of a mystery novel before the beginning. When you already know who the killer is, the story becomes flat and not very interesting. The same is true if you first read the cool new knowledge in a book chapter before the teacher gives it to you, *again*. It drains a lot of the fun (education-wise) out of the school time. A better system is to read the chapters *after* the class that covered it, if necessary.
You don't understand what a petition is for.
A petition is a way of making customers aware that they should refuse to buy from Apple. One stands around a table for hours and asks each potential customer to sign the petition. If they do, they're probably going to think twice about entering the store or buying something. If they don't sign and argue, the activity around the table will probably attract some interest from passers by, some of which may even agre to sign.
It's all about having a document that a lot of people must sign, because the side effect of that is that a lot of people are being made aware of what's going on. The document itself is just an excuse, and whether Apple has read it or not is well nigh irrelevant.
If you wanted to tell Apple that you're boycotting them, you could do it in a private letter sent to their HQ. It would go straight to the bin, and nobody but you would know that you're boycotting them. Now that's pretty meaningless.
That literally makes no sense. We're not talking about an exodus due to an economic catastrophe, we're talking about a wealth tax. Simply taxing people doesn't make them move away. People will move away when they have no choice - due to religion, persecution, dire poverty etc. And even then, they try to recreate in the new place the world they left.
Having a profession meant you had a recognized body of specialized learning (what we would today call being a graduate), having recognition among your peers (some kind of licence to practice) , and having ethics (precisely the opposite of getting the job done - you think about the problem and its relation to the field and society as a whole, and then make a judgement call how to act).
... Three dots and you're out (of the subject).
That's not really the correct implication. People in the article moved out because of the anomaly that the EU has erased the borders.
How do you "move out" without "moving out"? You go live just across the border and use the fact that the border no longer matters. So you get the best of both worlds - being abroad for tax purposes and living as if you were still in your home country.
In truth, most people wouldn't move out because of a wealth tax - it would cut them off from their family and friends, and their culture. For example, if a wealth tax existed EU wide, the people in the article would stay put - the would be nowhere to go that didn't mean a *big* change.
Right now, the EU is a bit like America, if the federal government did not collect any federal taxes. If you didn't like your local (and only) taxes, you would move across the state line because they're Americans just like you.
Well, IANAL but a priori, it's rather obvious that if you have several privacy policies that aren't exactly the same, then when you replace them all with a single one, you must lose some rights that you had for some services, and possibly gain some other rights that you had for some other services. So you end up with a different mix from what you initially signed up for in a given service. If you were happy with the original policies, you may not like the new ones.
Aw crap! That reads like a lawyer's explanation. When I die, I'll go straight to Hell, and the only computer languages allowed will be Javascript....
"Apple Best at Auditing Factories, Still Not Doing Enough" - I interpret that to mean that Apple should lift its game and improve, not act like it's blameless.
"Apple May Be Terrible, But All Others Are Worse" - I interpret that to mean leave Apple alone and blame other companies first.
Somebody tweet Sheldon Cooper about this! I'm sure he'll have a radio pulse cannon that shoots decryption algorithms ready by the morning.
No, it's not a race to the bottom. Academics aren't paid for the books they write, they are paid for teaching and research. Books are a way to gain prestige, but aren't a condition of employment, and the money (or lack of money) that the book earns is irrelevant, and not a condition for the book's existence.
A race to the bottom occurs when one's livelihood depends on a shrinking and uncertain income, which is patently not the case for academics and academic textbooks.
An open source textbook (that's actually used and recommended for coursework nation-wide, not just the professor's lecture notes) is a new thing. A prize makes sense to speed up its creation, but once such a textbook is available, there is no reason at all to pay for or speed up the creation of a second one on the same subject matter. The whole point is that when there's one, it can be adapted and changed for any related courses. So there shouldn't be an ongoing (eg annual say) prize, and there's no race to the bottom.
Music recordings have a known value (a few cents per play), and they are commodities. So a prize is not a good idea to pay for them, and donations make a lot more sense in this case.
Hi, I'm looking for a browser with a comfy chair theme, and maybe some extra pillows? It should also go ZING! when it loads a page...
A seat-belt isn't there to protect you if you drive at 200mph into the side of a building. If that's what you're doing, your day is going to be ruined no matter what.
Seat-belts are there to protect against the low hanging fruit of accidents. If you're driving 20mph and the neighbour's cat suddenly runs across the road, you break and the seat belt stops you and your passengers from getting a nasty bruise.
That's what it's for, and it works exceedingly well at doing that. If we get rid of seat-belts because they don't help in the 1% of cases, like when someone crashes into a building, then all we're doing is increasing dramatically the global accident rate on trivial incidents, like the cat example.
Right, you're saying that only about 20% of the sites that fail the security check are legitimate? So it makes sense to ignore the check in the remaining 80% of sites that contain malware and phishing setups. That's crazy.
Does bluetooth transmit processes for running remotely? The way viruses worked in the ol' DOS days is that the front section of an executable file was overwritten and the virus code was appended at the end of the file. Then instead of the OS loading the program straightaway, the virus code was loaded, which then loaded the program seamlessly.
That kind of thing wouldn't really be possible with data sent over the network, unless it was directly executable code on the target machine. With current client/server specializations (consumer device == always client, company hardware == always server), a virus couldn't spread far unless it could inject executable code both ways, from client to server and from server to client.
I guess server to client is the easiest, it could be injected javascript in an infected web page. But client to server would require an exploit, and then figuring out where to put the malicious code so that it shows up on the next client's web browser.
Right, cause slashdot honours real engineers like Steve Jobs all the time...
soi-disant: literally "oneself saying", but it's best to translate as self proclaimed.
Roger Wilco, eJanitor!
Interesting. Which book is that comment from?
What was the ratio of Soviet T-34s to German Panzers on the eastern front? I'm having difficulty finding stats on the net. Apparently, there were about 40,000 T-34s produced throughout WWII, but it would be nice to see some yearly breakdowns.
Take for example a 2D battle field with two blob like armies clashing. The battle front will occur along the common part of their perimeters a small distance inwards of either side. So if x,y are the areas of the blobs and sqrt(x), sqrt(y) are the approximate perimeters, shouldn't that result in
dx/dt = -A sqrt(y), dy/dt = -B sqrt(x) ?
Don't be silly, this comment was about the Russians who beat Hitler on the Eastern Front. America != Allies.
1) Authorities don't know about man.
2) Someone with a grudge against man sees tweet, and reports it to authorities.
3) Authorities learn about tweet, Arab name, bomb action word, and decide to arrest the man.
So look at the statistics, or if you can't find any, see your coworkers and plot their experience vs hiring date.
Nope, it's more like saying that the police attacked indiscriminately and extremely violently a peaceful Superbowl crowd while chasing a single killer hiding at the stadium. When the crowd went apeshit crazy and rioted, it's the police's fault.