Define "lower" - a ratio is one item over another, so changing either both raises or lowers the ratio depending on which way you look at it.
The legislation allows the Fed to expand the money supply without limit. It leaves a cap on contracting the money supply.
As written in that legislation, the value that is being (potentially) lowered is the percentage of funds that must be held in reserve. That is an increase in the multiple of funds that can be loaned out.
As long as the Fed is responsible none of this is a problem - after all, it is a grant of authority that congress already has.
The thing that concerns me about reserve ratios in general is that as you say they do put depositors at risk. I'm fine with the bank not having every dollar sitting in a vault. I'm not sure that I like the idea that they can be leveraged to the tune of 94%, unless there are very hard limits on what that 94% can be invested in.
No idea if it made it into the final law, but it might be moot as it would become effective next year under previous legislation anyway. This site, albeit biased, has a decent description.
Basically in 2006 legislation was passed which allows the federal reserve discretion to set any reserve ratio between zero and an upper limit. That legislation was due to become effective in 2011, but the date was possibly moved up as part of the bailout.
So, the sky doesn't fall unless the federal reserve actually lowers the ratio, but there is no legislative control over this (well, short of repealing the law).
If you're hiring a CEO, you need almost no ability to do any kind of real work, but you need HUGE communications and leadership skills. However, a company made up 100% of ideal CEOs would fail rather quickly.
If you're hiring a direct contributor, then you really only need communication skills sufficient to follow orders and inform others of the status of your work and the problems you need help resolving. You also need to be able to get along with people well enough that everybody doesn't go postal. By far the ability to actual perform some particular job activity (preferably more than one) is the most essential skill.
I think a big mistake organizations make is trying to have a one-size-fits-all competency model. They get rid of anybody who might not make VP, and that means they get rid of lots of direct contributors, or they make their VPs people who are good direct contributors, which leads to task management rather than people management.
All jobs are different, and all jobs have different requirements. The requirements for a good trench digger are different than the requirements for a good surgeon. There is no real hierarchy of jobs, either, although there might be degrees of proficiency within a single job (a senior engineer and a junior engineer really do the same jobs, but to different levels of proficiency, except to the degree that a senior manager really holds an engineering and a management job - which makes it an entirely different job and not just a position for a really good junior engineer).
Most companies do not operate in this fashion, and this is why we all read Dilbert...
Wasn't eliminating the statutory limit on the reserve ratio one of the provisions of the bailout legislation back in 2008? I think it was buried somewhere in the middle of the 1000 page bill...
Of course, the multi-device coordination problem is better solved by communications between the devices (ready to do step 1, do step 1, doing step , done step 1, ready to go to step 2, etc). Think of the transactional model (begin transaction, do work, commit transaction, wait for ack).
The only problem with that is latency - if you want two devices to coordinate steps while moving from step to step in less time than it takes for packets to travel between them, then you need synchronized clocks.
Well, you could separate the distribution mechanism for time data vs correction data.
The corrections can be high-latency and knowing what the latency is doesn't matter at all. The time data needs to have known latency, and preferably low latency.
Software updates are just a very-high-latency mechanism for distributing this information. It would not be difficult to come up with a better approach. WAAS already operates under a similar concept - providing additional metadata useful in increasing the accuracy of the GPS signals.
BP was drilling in the Gulf in the quest for profit. It made the choices it made because it felt at the time that they had the best return on investment.
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but just about everybody is on a quest for profit. Why is it that you do something that pays you for a living rather than sit around and create artwork and beg for food? Why is it that missionaries devote their lives feeding the poor rather than doing something like polluting the earth which would be spiritually unprofitable? Whether motivated by dollars or the afterlife, most people do whatever it is that they think will get them (or their kids, or at least their ideological offspring) ahead in the end.
And hey, if their parents weren't so good at doing the same things, they wouldn't be around to be doing it themselves. So, it obviously has something going for it...
That seems fair, as long as farmers have to show the same proof to plant any other crop.
I'm not aware of any evidence that shows that natural corn doesn't have negative health effects. Sure, people have been eating it for centuries, but for all we know maybe that's why we don't live to the age of 150.
I'm generally fine with taking an evidence-based approach to health, but we're holding GM foods to a standard that no other food product in the world could stand up to. More traditional foods are grandfathered in as safe merely because they are traditional.
Just look at all the controversy in the diet world - it exists because these kinds of questions are very difficult to actually answer via controlled studies. If you could lock up people in cages for 50 years and feed them controlled diets you might be able to get somewhere, but that seems a bit unethical in my book.
Yup. This is why the free software movement has RMS as its spokesman - anybody more normal wouldn't want to love such an uncompromised life. I actually admire RMS for his stands, but he isn't really representative of most free software developers, even if most admire him.
Who has time to just protest oil drilling operations, or whatever, full time, usually only living on donations/etc? The only people willing to do this are those who are absolutely the most devoted to the cause, and they end up becoming the de facto spokespeople for the movement.
Sure, media/politics has a lot to do with it as well. However, often it just boils down to devotion. Somebody who is willing to live like a caveman is obviously a much more devoted environmentalist than somebody who merely wants reasonably safe drinking water, so they're going to tend to rise to the top.
I think most fighter jets actually have pressurized cabins as well (which means pilots can fly around with their masks not fully clipped in).
The purpose of the masks is to provide supplementary oxygen if they end up flying around with holes in their canopy, which is a much bigger risk when somebody is shooting at you. It probably helps with their breathing as well under high G-loads (if you have lots of O2 in the air, you don't need to get as much breath into your lungs).
The fact that my PC has had more than a few power failures and the drives aren't paper weights?
A drive that doesn't park its heads on power loss will instead suffer a head crash. Unless something has changed quite a bit, a head crash usually results in the loss of the read/write heads, and a small part of the media itself. The rest of the media is probably fine (well, aside from being covered in shavings of whatever got carved out of the crash area), but you'd need to mount it in a new drive to read it since your heads are gone.
Now, they might or might not park the heads in a manner that is most suitable for shipping/etc, but drives clearly park them someplace other than on the media itself...
Well, maybe huge industrial uses, but the typical MRI or NMR just vents it to the atmosphere. It just isn't enough to try to collect. I'm not sure whether major industrial uses or lots of dewars all over the country constitute the majority of use.
This raises a question in my mind. Just why do credit/debit cards expire, anyway?
Everybody validates every transaction online, if they have half a brain. If a merchant doesn't and the account is closed, then they're on the hook for the transaction regardless of the date on the card.
So, why should a credit card ever expire? If you want to put an expiration or renewal policy on the account, sure, go ahead and do it. But, why put that date on the card itself? We wouldn't mail out so many cards if we didn't constantly have to churn our accounts every few years.
On the other hand, on my one account it seems like I get a new card at least annually when I get one of those letters informing me that some merchant has lost my account number (along with a million others no doubt). That of course brings up my next question - why on earth do we have an authentication system that relies on a shared secret that is embossed on the front of the card and shared with anybody who ever does business with me? I guess it made sense in 1965, but RSA isn't even patented any longer, and you can accomplish something similar with symmetric ciphers that are unlikely to ever be broken as long as the only parties that need to be able to authenticate are your card and the central bank...
Unless that codification and authoritative sanctioning has happened, any other rights you might claim or believe in are impotent.
Not if he can do it without getting caught, or can effectively resist the enforcement of the law. Granted, the latter is very difficult in most modern societies, but the former is quite practical.
People are morally bound to do what is morally right - not necessarily what is legally right. Of course, there can be consequences for getting caught doing things that are legally wrong. However, there are no personal consequences at all for not getting caught doing something that is merely legally wrong.
Oh trust me, in this case it isn't the insurance companies causing the problem. Most of them don't even cover eye glasses anyway, and if people didn't need eye exams that would mean that they wouldn't be paying for them. The insurance company would probably be happy to pay Walmart to have one of these devices in every store in America.
In this case the rent-seekers are the ophthalmologists.
NPR had a good 2-part series on health care costs. A doctor said that he was asked how bad a patient's vision should be before recommending surgery for glacoma. The answer depended on how many other doctors were performing this surgery in the town. If he was the only one, then only the worst got treated. If there were 5 people doing the surgery in the same town, then you might get it at 20/40. Gotta do something to collect fees...
Yes, but many of these people won't get checked out for retinopathy. Instead they'll just suffer with blurry vision. There is no reason that a prescription shouldn't be free and eyeglasses shouldn't be $15 at Walmart. A machine can do the former just fine, and the latter is just some metal and plastic. Sure, it won't be as good as what we currently spend $200 on, but does it have to be? Nobody is saying that we need to prevent doctors from offering the $200 exam to those who need it.
If somebody invented the belt today it would be classified as a girth adjustment device and you'd need to have a calibrated waist measurement to buy one. After all, sudden weight gain or loss can be a symptom of serious problems.
Yup - by forcing people to see an eye doctor to get updated glasses, we're not giving them an opportunity to catch some serious health problem like retinopathy. Instead we're giving them the opportunity to get in a car crash as they just try to get by with blurry vision that could be fixed by spending $20 on glasses.
Medicine is filled with these kinds of false dichotomies. Preventing somebody from getting care doesn't mean that they'll line up to pay a specialist $200 to fix their ails. Instead it just means that they'll suffer, or find care via some shady source since they're unable to afford access to a drug that at least has documented safety and efficacy data.
Well, I can see why there would be regulation on the manufacture and labeling of medical oxygen, since it needs to be fit for purpose and the reading on the pressure gauge being right could be a matter of life or death if somebody doesn't bring enough with them.
However, I agree completely that regulating the SALE of medical oxygen is just crazy.
Frankly, I don't think there should be any need to regulate the sale of any drug or medical device, with the exception of those that could cause disproportionate harm to others if misused. So, I'd probably require a prescription for antibiotics, or maybe for all but a few already-widely-used antibiotics. If you want to mess up your own body go ahead, just don't ask me to pay for it.
Glasses are just nuts. If you just put a bunch of lenses on a shelf somebody with an IQ of 60 could probably figure out which one to use. Most eyedoctors have automated machines that will get you close to a prescription, and if you stuck one of these on a shelf at walmart and then had people use trial-and-error to refine the prescription they'd leave with perfectly adequate vision. Glasses would be dirt cheap, and I'd rather have people driving around with six-month-old non-prescription lenses than 6-year-old prescription lenses because they can't afford to update them.
Yup - by doing this the people that already own acmeco.com, acmeco.net, acmeco.org, acmeco.edu, acmeco.co.uk, acmeco.tv, acmeco.biz, acmeco.name, and the 387 other TLD variations on this have to also go out now and buy the same thing but in every character set in use anywhere on the planet.
Don't worry - I'm sure they'll announce a waiting period so that "legitimate" domain holders can buy their 10k new domain names each before the squatters take them.
What is the point of having a new tld if it is just going to be a clone of all the other ones, anyway? Shouldn't we prevent owning the same domain in more than one TLD, so that each actually gets used for its rightful purpose? Well, that would make sense except the whole point of TLDs seems to be a license to print money.
Welcome to the new US justice system. We don't call it presumption of guilt, we call it contempt of court. We don't call it denying access to a jury, we call it administrative law.
The US Constitution is a relic of a time that passed 50 years ago...
Sounds fine to me. Then there would be no expectation of employees reading email from phones, and those who don't let their employers control their phones are not at a competitive disadvantage to those who do.
In any case, looks like the 2.2 exchange client for android is open source, and I could probably hack out those features in an hour or two if I had to...:)
Yup, the owner of the phone should have a number of options:
1. Disable remote install / remote wipe / force password / etc. 2. Do #1, but also report to REMOTE-ENTITY that all of the above are enabled and working fine. 3. Grant access to REMOTE-ENTITY to do remote install/wipe/etc.
If an employer wants to give somebody a phone on their dime they should have the right to manage it as they see fit. If I want to check my work email from a phone that I own then my employer should not have this kind of power. The problem is that some employers will just make employees do this anyway - lots of people at work have been whining about having to type in n-digit PINs every time they want to use their phone.
Looks like it is time to write an open-source exchange client, with debug-only features like changing whatever is the equivalent of user_agent and the capabilities bits reported to the server, and separate features that actually enable or disable those capabilities. Go ahead and release it for every major phone OS and employers will rethink their approach....
As another has pointed out - a few hundred k records is a trivial problem for a database. You could probably do this in MS Access (though I wouldn't recommend it).
It isn't like Arlington has to deal with 10k bodies drifting in and out of the cemetery every hour or something like that. This is just a big table indexed for easy searching by name/location, and it gets a couple of inserts per day.
If this takes more than a day or two to put together, somebody is doing something wrong.
Obviously the impact of scholarships would be much lower than the impact of loans to the general student population. This would also concentrate financial aid among those who would most benefit from it, and also those who are most likely to repay it in the form of taxes.
Believe it or not there is a solution somewhere between poor kids don't have any eduction and spending billions of dollars on college administrator salaries...
Yup - I'd go a step further. What this article is saying is that only 20% of the apps on android really leverage the fact that they're running on android and make use of the resulting convergences.
Lots of apps in the market are contact managers, and shockingly enough they need access to your contacts. Lots of those apps are email programs, and those need access to your email and your contacts! Lots of apps show information relevant to your location, and they need to know your location. News at 11!
Slashdot Mirror
Define "lower" - a ratio is one item over another, so changing either both raises or lowers the ratio depending on which way you look at it.
The legislation allows the Fed to expand the money supply without limit. It leaves a cap on contracting the money supply.
As written in that legislation, the value that is being (potentially) lowered is the percentage of funds that must be held in reserve. That is an increase in the multiple of funds that can be loaned out.
As long as the Fed is responsible none of this is a problem - after all, it is a grant of authority that congress already has.
The thing that concerns me about reserve ratios in general is that as you say they do put depositors at risk. I'm fine with the bank not having every dollar sitting in a vault. I'm not sure that I like the idea that they can be leveraged to the tune of 94%, unless there are very hard limits on what that 94% can be invested in.
No idea if it made it into the final law, but it might be moot as it would become effective next year under previous legislation anyway. This site, albeit biased, has a decent description.
Basically in 2006 legislation was passed which allows the federal reserve discretion to set any reserve ratio between zero and an upper limit. That legislation was due to become effective in 2011, but the date was possibly moved up as part of the bailout.
So, the sky doesn't fall unless the federal reserve actually lowers the ratio, but there is no legislative control over this (well, short of repealing the law).
Well, the truth lies somewhere in-between.
If you're hiring a CEO, you need almost no ability to do any kind of real work, but you need HUGE communications and leadership skills. However, a company made up 100% of ideal CEOs would fail rather quickly.
If you're hiring a direct contributor, then you really only need communication skills sufficient to follow orders and inform others of the status of your work and the problems you need help resolving. You also need to be able to get along with people well enough that everybody doesn't go postal. By far the ability to actual perform some particular job activity (preferably more than one) is the most essential skill.
I think a big mistake organizations make is trying to have a one-size-fits-all competency model. They get rid of anybody who might not make VP, and that means they get rid of lots of direct contributors, or they make their VPs people who are good direct contributors, which leads to task management rather than people management.
All jobs are different, and all jobs have different requirements. The requirements for a good trench digger are different than the requirements for a good surgeon. There is no real hierarchy of jobs, either, although there might be degrees of proficiency within a single job (a senior engineer and a junior engineer really do the same jobs, but to different levels of proficiency, except to the degree that a senior manager really holds an engineering and a management job - which makes it an entirely different job and not just a position for a really good junior engineer).
Most companies do not operate in this fashion, and this is why we all read Dilbert...
Wasn't eliminating the statutory limit on the reserve ratio one of the provisions of the bailout legislation back in 2008? I think it was buried somewhere in the middle of the 1000 page bill...
Of course, the multi-device coordination problem is better solved by communications between the devices (ready to do step 1, do step 1, doing step , done step 1, ready to go to step 2, etc). Think of the transactional model (begin transaction, do work, commit transaction, wait for ack).
The only problem with that is latency - if you want two devices to coordinate steps while moving from step to step in less time than it takes for packets to travel between them, then you need synchronized clocks.
Well, you could separate the distribution mechanism for time data vs correction data.
The corrections can be high-latency and knowing what the latency is doesn't matter at all. The time data needs to have known latency, and preferably low latency.
Software updates are just a very-high-latency mechanism for distributing this information. It would not be difficult to come up with a better approach. WAAS already operates under a similar concept - providing additional metadata useful in increasing the accuracy of the GPS signals.
BP was drilling in the Gulf in the quest for profit. It made the choices it made because it felt at the time that they had the best return on investment.
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but just about everybody is on a quest for profit. Why is it that you do something that pays you for a living rather than sit around and create artwork and beg for food? Why is it that missionaries devote their lives feeding the poor rather than doing something like polluting the earth which would be spiritually unprofitable? Whether motivated by dollars or the afterlife, most people do whatever it is that they think will get them (or their kids, or at least their ideological offspring) ahead in the end.
And hey, if their parents weren't so good at doing the same things, they wouldn't be around to be doing it themselves. So, it obviously has something going for it...
That seems fair, as long as farmers have to show the same proof to plant any other crop.
I'm not aware of any evidence that shows that natural corn doesn't have negative health effects. Sure, people have been eating it for centuries, but for all we know maybe that's why we don't live to the age of 150.
I'm generally fine with taking an evidence-based approach to health, but we're holding GM foods to a standard that no other food product in the world could stand up to. More traditional foods are grandfathered in as safe merely because they are traditional.
Just look at all the controversy in the diet world - it exists because these kinds of questions are very difficult to actually answer via controlled studies. If you could lock up people in cages for 50 years and feed them controlled diets you might be able to get somewhere, but that seems a bit unethical in my book.
Yup. This is why the free software movement has RMS as its spokesman - anybody more normal wouldn't want to love such an uncompromised life. I actually admire RMS for his stands, but he isn't really representative of most free software developers, even if most admire him.
Who has time to just protest oil drilling operations, or whatever, full time, usually only living on donations/etc? The only people willing to do this are those who are absolutely the most devoted to the cause, and they end up becoming the de facto spokespeople for the movement.
Sure, media/politics has a lot to do with it as well. However, often it just boils down to devotion. Somebody who is willing to live like a caveman is obviously a much more devoted environmentalist than somebody who merely wants reasonably safe drinking water, so they're going to tend to rise to the top.
I think most fighter jets actually have pressurized cabins as well (which means pilots can fly around with their masks not fully clipped in).
The purpose of the masks is to provide supplementary oxygen if they end up flying around with holes in their canopy, which is a much bigger risk when somebody is shooting at you. It probably helps with their breathing as well under high G-loads (if you have lots of O2 in the air, you don't need to get as much breath into your lungs).
Disclaimer: IANAFP.
The fact that my PC has had more than a few power failures and the drives aren't paper weights?
A drive that doesn't park its heads on power loss will instead suffer a head crash. Unless something has changed quite a bit, a head crash usually results in the loss of the read/write heads, and a small part of the media itself. The rest of the media is probably fine (well, aside from being covered in shavings of whatever got carved out of the crash area), but you'd need to mount it in a new drive to read it since your heads are gone.
Now, they might or might not park the heads in a manner that is most suitable for shipping/etc, but drives clearly park them someplace other than on the media itself...
Well, maybe huge industrial uses, but the typical MRI or NMR just vents it to the atmosphere. It just isn't enough to try to collect. I'm not sure whether major industrial uses or lots of dewars all over the country constitute the majority of use.
This raises a question in my mind. Just why do credit/debit cards expire, anyway?
Everybody validates every transaction online, if they have half a brain. If a merchant doesn't and the account is closed, then they're on the hook for the transaction regardless of the date on the card.
So, why should a credit card ever expire? If you want to put an expiration or renewal policy on the account, sure, go ahead and do it. But, why put that date on the card itself? We wouldn't mail out so many cards if we didn't constantly have to churn our accounts every few years.
On the other hand, on my one account it seems like I get a new card at least annually when I get one of those letters informing me that some merchant has lost my account number (along with a million others no doubt). That of course brings up my next question - why on earth do we have an authentication system that relies on a shared secret that is embossed on the front of the card and shared with anybody who ever does business with me? I guess it made sense in 1965, but RSA isn't even patented any longer, and you can accomplish something similar with symmetric ciphers that are unlikely to ever be broken as long as the only parties that need to be able to authenticate are your card and the central bank...
Unless that codification and authoritative sanctioning has happened, any other rights you might claim or believe in are impotent.
Not if he can do it without getting caught, or can effectively resist the enforcement of the law. Granted, the latter is very difficult in most modern societies, but the former is quite practical.
People are morally bound to do what is morally right - not necessarily what is legally right. Of course, there can be consequences for getting caught doing things that are legally wrong. However, there are no personal consequences at all for not getting caught doing something that is merely legally wrong.
Oh trust me, in this case it isn't the insurance companies causing the problem. Most of them don't even cover eye glasses anyway, and if people didn't need eye exams that would mean that they wouldn't be paying for them. The insurance company would probably be happy to pay Walmart to have one of these devices in every store in America.
In this case the rent-seekers are the ophthalmologists.
NPR had a good 2-part series on health care costs. A doctor said that he was asked how bad a patient's vision should be before recommending surgery for glacoma. The answer depended on how many other doctors were performing this surgery in the town. If he was the only one, then only the worst got treated. If there were 5 people doing the surgery in the same town, then you might get it at 20/40. Gotta do something to collect fees...
Yes, but many of these people won't get checked out for retinopathy. Instead they'll just suffer with blurry vision. There is no reason that a prescription shouldn't be free and eyeglasses shouldn't be $15 at Walmart. A machine can do the former just fine, and the latter is just some metal and plastic. Sure, it won't be as good as what we currently spend $200 on, but does it have to be? Nobody is saying that we need to prevent doctors from offering the $200 exam to those who need it.
If somebody invented the belt today it would be classified as a girth adjustment device and you'd need to have a calibrated waist measurement to buy one. After all, sudden weight gain or loss can be a symptom of serious problems.
Yup - by forcing people to see an eye doctor to get updated glasses, we're not giving them an opportunity to catch some serious health problem like retinopathy. Instead we're giving them the opportunity to get in a car crash as they just try to get by with blurry vision that could be fixed by spending $20 on glasses.
Medicine is filled with these kinds of false dichotomies. Preventing somebody from getting care doesn't mean that they'll line up to pay a specialist $200 to fix their ails. Instead it just means that they'll suffer, or find care via some shady source since they're unable to afford access to a drug that at least has documented safety and efficacy data.
Well, I can see why there would be regulation on the manufacture and labeling of medical oxygen, since it needs to be fit for purpose and the reading on the pressure gauge being right could be a matter of life or death if somebody doesn't bring enough with them.
However, I agree completely that regulating the SALE of medical oxygen is just crazy.
Frankly, I don't think there should be any need to regulate the sale of any drug or medical device, with the exception of those that could cause disproportionate harm to others if misused. So, I'd probably require a prescription for antibiotics, or maybe for all but a few already-widely-used antibiotics. If you want to mess up your own body go ahead, just don't ask me to pay for it.
Glasses are just nuts. If you just put a bunch of lenses on a shelf somebody with an IQ of 60 could probably figure out which one to use. Most eyedoctors have automated machines that will get you close to a prescription, and if you stuck one of these on a shelf at walmart and then had people use trial-and-error to refine the prescription they'd leave with perfectly adequate vision. Glasses would be dirt cheap, and I'd rather have people driving around with six-month-old non-prescription lenses than 6-year-old prescription lenses because they can't afford to update them.
Yup - by doing this the people that already own acmeco.com, acmeco.net, acmeco.org, acmeco.edu, acmeco.co.uk, acmeco.tv, acmeco.biz, acmeco.name, and the 387 other TLD variations on this have to also go out now and buy the same thing but in every character set in use anywhere on the planet.
Don't worry - I'm sure they'll announce a waiting period so that "legitimate" domain holders can buy their 10k new domain names each before the squatters take them.
What is the point of having a new tld if it is just going to be a clone of all the other ones, anyway? Shouldn't we prevent owning the same domain in more than one TLD, so that each actually gets used for its rightful purpose? Well, that would make sense except the whole point of TLDs seems to be a license to print money.
Welcome to the new US justice system. We don't call it presumption of guilt, we call it contempt of court. We don't call it denying access to a jury, we call it administrative law.
The US Constitution is a relic of a time that passed 50 years ago...
Sounds fine to me. Then there would be no expectation of employees reading email from phones, and those who don't let their employers control their phones are not at a competitive disadvantage to those who do.
In any case, looks like the 2.2 exchange client for android is open source, and I could probably hack out those features in an hour or two if I had to... :)
Yup, the owner of the phone should have a number of options:
1. Disable remote install / remote wipe / force password / etc.
2. Do #1, but also report to REMOTE-ENTITY that all of the above are enabled and working fine.
3. Grant access to REMOTE-ENTITY to do remote install/wipe/etc.
If an employer wants to give somebody a phone on their dime they should have the right to manage it as they see fit. If I want to check my work email from a phone that I own then my employer should not have this kind of power. The problem is that some employers will just make employees do this anyway - lots of people at work have been whining about having to type in n-digit PINs every time they want to use their phone.
Looks like it is time to write an open-source exchange client, with debug-only features like changing whatever is the equivalent of user_agent and the capabilities bits reported to the server, and separate features that actually enable or disable those capabilities. Go ahead and release it for every major phone OS and employers will rethink their approach....
As another has pointed out - a few hundred k records is a trivial problem for a database. You could probably do this in MS Access (though I wouldn't recommend it).
It isn't like Arlington has to deal with 10k bodies drifting in and out of the cemetery every hour or something like that. This is just a big table indexed for easy searching by name/location, and it gets a couple of inserts per day.
If this takes more than a day or two to put together, somebody is doing something wrong.
Obviously the impact of scholarships would be much lower than the impact of loans to the general student population. This would also concentrate financial aid among those who would most benefit from it, and also those who are most likely to repay it in the form of taxes.
Believe it or not there is a solution somewhere between poor kids don't have any eduction and spending billions of dollars on college administrator salaries...
Yup - I'd go a step further. What this article is saying is that only 20% of the apps on android really leverage the fact that they're running on android and make use of the resulting convergences.
Lots of apps in the market are contact managers, and shockingly enough they need access to your contacts. Lots of those apps are email programs, and those need access to your email and your contacts! Lots of apps show information relevant to your location, and they need to know your location. News at 11!