Actualy, you can have them home schooled as well. Though the cost problem is half the reason why we need a voucher system. All the money I pay to the public school system is better spent sending my kid somewhere where he might get a quality education.
Actualy, the school also has the right to enforce it's own policies including suspending or expeling the student, just as if my boss discovers that I smoke weed on the weekends when I'm not working (hypothetical example) he has an obligation to inform the police and a right to fire me.
Such is the fatal flaw of zero tollerance policies. They are blanket policies without context. As someone who dealt with one such incident, I do not criticize the school for taking action, merely for their failure to analyze the facts and context before trying to expel me.
I'd say it's equaly likely if not more likely that the lawers are the ones that fucked up something awful here. That was why I directed you to do some research into the duke case, a perfect example of a lawer (in this case a DA) forging ahead and making things worse and worse in the face of almost insurmountable evidence against his case. Lawyers are people too, they are just as suceptable to greedy screw you in the ass tactics and lousy judgement power grabs as everyone else, the difference is, when the lawyer is done, you'll have the kid and be paying child support to the lawyer.
The market generaly. Currency in it's simplest form is just another form of trade, but where trade often directly involves one service or product for another, currency involves exchange of a universaly desired product for another good or service. It's universaly desired because people see the need for a a way to obtain shoes from the shoe maker when they don't have any product or service the shoe maker requires. It's not to difficult to see working though without a governing body of some sort, it has potential for extremely sudden and dangerous flucuations of currency values. There is no real need for a governing body though, no government sets the exchange rates, but they exist, so it would be with currency.
but the idea that not one but TWO lawyers would screw up to this extent is unfathomable to me. lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's. am i to believe they forgot to even get his signature before filing the suit?
You need to do some research about the current and ongoing duke rape case then. For money, fame and votes, some lawyers will seem to do anything.
You're right, there is no actual law that says that schools MUST use filters, just like there is no law that says the drinking age MUST be 21. Unfortunately, we live in an age where most of the funding for the school systems comes from the federal level, and there are plenty of laws that say that if they DON'T use filters they WON'T get any federal money.
No, the government has no right to censor the internet but you can be damn sure they have a right to set policies and controls on what you can and can not do with government equipment in a given setting. Hint, the computer is government property, as is the entire location of the computer.
It's worth noting that the broad sweeping brush that schools use is due in part to a large number of parents who (unlike your case) stand up for their child when they've clearly done something wrong and deserving of punishment.
What he was claiming was that because someone is cheeper they are damaging the market. Is this not exactly the same as all companies - they are as cheep as they can afford to be in order to gain business from other companies? did he want to stop that - because it would have.
Well to be fair, you can indeed get in trouble with anti trust laws and the like for undercutting your competition by too much. See the prosecution of microsoft for IE.
I don't know, from my own experience (just a few years ago) I would say that I learned quite a bit from doing some assembly programming. Granted for sake of not being machine dependant we learned fake assembly (LC3) but it was still an interesting and rather useful lesson. One semester only to be sure but still useful.
Speaking from my own experience, I would say that learning assembly and very low level languages first was quite helpful and eye opening as well as to a degree entertaining that sort of deep down control gives a bit of a better understanding about what's going on as you get more abstracted. It also gives a good appreciation for a concept which so many of my fellow students found hard to grasp (why write a function when you can just code two lines in and do it on the fly).
Honestly from my own experience, it's because all the programming courses are taught too abstractly. There was one course I took my entire time in college where I felt the course was taught the way a programming course should be. It was a software engineering course, and the whole course focused on a single semester long project where every concept learned was applied to the end project. In this way we learned not only the concept, but it's application to a relevant project AND how and why it improved on the code we had previously written. As an example, in some earlier data strucures class, the question that always turned up from someone was why bother having a size variable in a data structure when your sizeOf function could just calculate it on the fly. The explination given was of course that as your structure increases in size, it becomes more costly to calculate that size on the fly, however nothing drove this point home until we were programing something using a prebuilt list structure and some people assumed that the sizeOf function just returned a variable as we had been taught it should. In truth it was calculating the size of the list every time it was called and a simple modification of that cut the run time of that part of the program down from about 15 minutes to about 2 seconds
Unfortunately the way that courses are taught now there are very few similar moments so no one sees the logic behind any one "improved" method because all of the abstract short exercises run equaly as fast or as well in both methods.
These new and improved methods were not concieved in a vaccum with no point of reference and no problem to solve, why should they be taught that way?
2Ghz dual core Mac OS X 13.3 inch display (remember not everyone wants a 15 inch screen) 512 MB 667 MHz (2 DIMMs) 60 GB SATA HDD 5400 RPM DVD±RW/CD±RW Dual Layer GMA950 64MB memory (shared) iSight Firewire/USB2.0 DVI out digital audio in and out 802.11g and bluetooth 55WHr battery 5.2 lbs
To add to the specs that you provided the dell also weighs 6.18 lbs assuming a 6 cell battery and a DVD combo drive so we can add more weight for the battery you chose, it also has a media card reader (not in the macbook) but only comes with 10/100 ethernet and no bluetooth. The does not appear to be audio in, but perhaps I'm missing it.
Now to do what you did:
2x 1 gig DIMMs for mackbook at pricewatch $166
We'll use your HDD $143.38
sell 512 RAM: figure since it's SO DIMMS and 256s maybe about -$40 sell 60 GB 5400 RPM SATA: the best price I can find is an ebay buy it now for 260 so figure maybe -$150
So macbook is now: $1418
Your computer has a larger screen, a media reader, a better graphics card and a larger capacity battery (batttery life is another matter).
Mine is smaller and lighter, has gigabit ethernet, bluetooth, audio in and an iSight
If only people were as familiar with the PATRIOT ACT, we might be able to have a reasonable discussion about the arious new laws affecting our lives these days.
Because history has shown time and time again that consolodating power over many into the hands of a few always provides the greatest protection against violations of civil rights.
Slashdot Mirror
But you can be damn sure that if you get a ticket for reckless driving, the school can take away your parking permit.
Actualy, you can have them home schooled as well. Though the cost problem is half the reason why we need a voucher system. All the money I pay to the public school system is better spent sending my kid somewhere where he might get a quality education.
Actualy, the school also has the right to enforce it's own policies including suspending or expeling the student, just as if my boss discovers that I smoke weed on the weekends when I'm not working (hypothetical example) he has an obligation to inform the police and a right to fire me.
Such is the fatal flaw of zero tollerance policies. They are blanket policies without context. As someone who dealt with one such incident, I do not criticize the school for taking action, merely for their failure to analyze the facts and context before trying to expel me.
Underage drinking is illegal. Schools have the right to punish students for illegal conduct as it is disruptive to the school environment.
I'd say it's equaly likely if not more likely that the lawers are the ones that fucked up something awful here. That was why I directed you to do some research into the duke case, a perfect example of a lawer (in this case a DA) forging ahead and making things worse and worse in the face of almost insurmountable evidence against his case. Lawyers are people too, they are just as suceptable to greedy screw you in the ass tactics and lousy judgement power grabs as everyone else, the difference is, when the lawyer is done, you'll have the kid and be paying child support to the lawyer.
The market generaly. Currency in it's simplest form is just another form of trade, but where trade often directly involves one service or product for another, currency involves exchange of a universaly desired product for another good or service. It's universaly desired because people see the need for a a way to obtain shoes from the shoe maker when they don't have any product or service the shoe maker requires. It's not to difficult to see working though without a governing body of some sort, it has potential for extremely sudden and dangerous flucuations of currency values. There is no real need for a governing body though, no government sets the exchange rates, but they exist, so it would be with currency.
I said nothing of the sort, I merely stated that your assertation that it is inconcieveable for a lawer to fuck up this badly is wrong.
Not that it wasn't an interesting lesson in the word history but what is the effective difference between "I think" and "It seems to me"?
but the idea that not one but TWO lawyers would screw up to this extent is unfathomable to me. lawyers live by dotting i's and crossing t's. am i to believe they forgot to even get his signature before filing the suit?
You need to do some research about the current and ongoing duke rape case then. For money, fame and votes, some lawyers will seem to do anything.
You're right, there is no actual law that says that schools MUST use filters, just like there is no law that says the drinking age MUST be 21. Unfortunately, we live in an age where most of the funding for the school systems comes from the federal level, and there are plenty of laws that say that if they DON'T use filters they WON'T get any federal money.
No, the government has no right to censor the internet but you can be damn sure they have a right to set policies and controls on what you can and can not do with government equipment in a given setting. Hint, the computer is government property, as is the entire location of the computer.
It's worth noting that the broad sweeping brush that schools use is due in part to a large number of parents who (unlike your case) stand up for their child when they've clearly done something wrong and deserving of punishment.
Problem is, as most developers will tell you, it's the last 5% of the code that's the hardest to write.
What if you're suing the government?
What he was claiming was that because someone is cheeper they are damaging the market. Is this not exactly the same as all companies - they are as cheep as they can afford to be in order to gain business from other companies? did he want to stop that - because it would have.
Well to be fair, you can indeed get in trouble with anti trust laws and the like for undercutting your competition by too much. See the prosecution of microsoft for IE.
I don't know, from my own experience (just a few years ago) I would say that I learned quite a bit from doing some assembly programming. Granted for sake of not being machine dependant we learned fake assembly (LC3) but it was still an interesting and rather useful lesson. One semester only to be sure but still useful.
Speaking from my own experience, I would say that learning assembly and very low level languages first was quite helpful and eye opening as well as to a degree entertaining that sort of deep down control gives a bit of a better understanding about what's going on as you get more abstracted. It also gives a good appreciation for a concept which so many of my fellow students found hard to grasp (why write a function when you can just code two lines in and do it on the fly).
Honestly from my own experience, it's because all the programming courses are taught too abstractly. There was one course I took my entire time in college where I felt the course was taught the way a programming course should be. It was a software engineering course, and the whole course focused on a single semester long project where every concept learned was applied to the end project. In this way we learned not only the concept, but it's application to a relevant project AND how and why it improved on the code we had previously written. As an example, in some earlier data strucures class, the question that always turned up from someone was why bother having a size variable in a data structure when your sizeOf function could just calculate it on the fly. The explination given was of course that as your structure increases in size, it becomes more costly to calculate that size on the fly, however nothing drove this point home until we were programing something using a prebuilt list structure and some people assumed that the sizeOf function just returned a variable as we had been taught it should. In truth it was calculating the size of the list every time it was called and a simple modification of that cut the run time of that part of the program down from about 15 minutes to about 2 seconds
Unfortunately the way that courses are taught now there are very few similar moments so no one sees the logic behind any one "improved" method because all of the abstract short exercises run equaly as fast or as well in both methods.
These new and improved methods were not concieved in a vaccum with no point of reference and no problem to solve, why should they be taught that way?
A happy user willing to spread the wealth to others introducing them to your program? Do you know how much advertising costs?
presumeably if you are buying a mac, your purpose is to be able to run OS X no?
Ok let's try this:
Macbook:
2Ghz dual core
Mac OS X
13.3 inch display (remember not everyone wants a 15 inch screen)
512 MB 667 MHz (2 DIMMs)
60 GB SATA HDD 5400 RPM
DVD±RW/CD±RW Dual Layer
GMA950 64MB memory (shared)
iSight
Firewire/USB2.0
DVI out
digital audio in and out
802.11g and bluetooth
55WHr battery
5.2 lbs
To add to the specs that you provided the dell also weighs 6.18 lbs assuming a 6 cell battery and a DVD combo drive so we can add more weight for the battery you chose, it also has a media card reader (not in the macbook) but only comes with 10/100 ethernet and no bluetooth. The does not appear to be audio in, but perhaps I'm missing it.
Now to do what you did:
2x 1 gig DIMMs for mackbook at pricewatch $166
We'll use your HDD $143.38
sell 512 RAM: figure since it's SO DIMMS and 256s maybe about -$40
sell 60 GB 5400 RPM SATA: the best price I can find is an ebay buy it now for 260 so figure maybe -$150
So macbook is now: $1418
Your computer has a larger screen, a media reader, a better graphics card and a larger capacity battery (batttery life is another matter).
Mine is smaller and lighter, has gigabit ethernet, bluetooth, audio in and an iSight
Both come with a 1 year waranty
If only people were as familiar with the PATRIOT ACT, we might be able to have a reasonable discussion about the arious new laws affecting our lives these days.
Oh who am I kidding, this is slashdot.
Because history has shown time and time again that consolodating power over many into the hands of a few always provides the greatest protection against violations of civil rights.
It's not a crime, but you will lose your license. It's called implied consent and you agreed to it when you got your license.