Excel (indeed the whole Office suite), and OO.o has macro capability. While some may deride 'macro programming' as not 'real' programming, it presents some of the same concepts and thought processes as building something in (choose your favorite language).
Learning to design, code, test, deploy these can indeed teach kids the base concepts for programming.
To put this in perspective, a few months ago I saw a news item announcing good news: NHS patients with a specific serious heart problem had their operation waiting times cut by 6 months: the waiting time for the surgery was now just 18 months. I ask those Americans reading this: would you buy health insurance that had an 18 month waiting list for major heart surgery?
So what you're saying is that your current system is broken and underfunded, and you want everyone else in the world to help pay for it.
Evidently, your government is not spending their collected taxes wisely.
For instance, I know I don't pay anything towards machines for killing.
Really? Sweden does not have an Air Force? A Navy? An Army? Does not Sweden produce a very capable set of fighter jets, SAABs?
Does not Sweden still cling to the archaic concept of a draft? Are Swedish military personnel not currently deployed to such places as Afghanistan and Kosovo?
Thus in Sweden, I can live almost as well by not working as working.
IOW, an apparently otherwise intelligent young male, can live as a leech on the ass of everyone else, contributing nada. And brag about it. The only reason you don't pay anything towards a military is because you don't have a job, and thus pay no taxes.
Yeah...that sounds like my kind of paradise.
I get free medical care.
"Free", only because you are a leech with no job, and pay no taxes.
And my country is free of racial tension because we have strictly limited immigration from trouble makers.
IOW...instead of allowing immigration, and possibly helping some poor slob who wants a better life, you selfishly keep your 'paradise' for yourselves. Must maintain that Nordic racial purity. Keep out anyone you don't like the looks of.
From the article at LinuxWorld: The main thing a government unit considering open-source software wants to know is how it can save money.
Not necessarily. Another 'main thing' is...does it do what we need it to do?
In many instances, yes. General office funcions can be done with OO.o, back end and server functions with various flavors of Linux, webservers with Apache. There's a whole raft of free and OS tools available for various functions.
But also, in many instances, no, it won't. For instance, there are no good quality open source tools for GIS or CAD requirements.
Free or open source is good, but does not always fit the requirements of what is needed in a particular environment.
In any case, I care far more about open format, accessible documents, rather than worry about which tool is used to create that document.
In case 2, the broadcaster could simply circumvent the automatic skipping mechanism by semi-randomly shifting the commercial times, or by varying the length of commercial breaks.
No, they couldn't. At least not with today's current ad model.
The commercials are not simply put in randomly. There is a very strict heiarchy of what commercials go where in the sequence. Picture a 30 min TV show. Usually, 3 commercial blocks.
Just before the show, midway through, and end. The order of the commercials is actually quite important as regards audience retention. i.e. you're more likely to remember a product in a commercial in slot A than slot C. And yes...advertisers DO track that stuff, and are charged accordingly. Better placement = more $$ to air that commercial.
Also, a TV show is built around commercial breaks at specified minutes. Random insertion or different length breaks would destroy the flow of the show.
Finally, not all the commercials come from the same source. During a network show, some come from network HQ (See the new Fords!) and some come from the local broadcaster (Lo lo prices at Fred's Friendly Ford Farm out on Route 8!). No way to sync those two if commercial breaks are not preplanned.
I'm not talking about protocols either. EM interference from a multitude of devices, all within close proximity to the aircraft wiring, that were not in existence when the aircraft was designed and built.
my microwave is not anywhere near my tv, stereo, cordless phone, or cellular phone.
Turn your micro on next to your wireless router and see what happens.
I've never seen my cordless phone kill anyone because of interference.
Maybe not yet, but you might. The year is 2023. You're driving along in your new ToyNis SUV/minivan hybrid, with the Adaptive CruiseControl and the RoadSensing ABS system. The cruise uses a combination if IR and radar to know how close it is to the car in front, and adjust speed accordingly. The ABS uses an IR sensor to read the road condition directly under the tire, millisecond by millisecond. ToyNis has chosen to use a wireless method to beam the road info back to the central CPU.
You're driving along, and your two kids are in the back with a couple of 2004 model legacy laptops. Linksys WiFi cards installed, and they are playing Duke Nukem head to head. (Yes, it finally got released). Your wife is talking to her friend via a 2021 model Nokia phone/PDA/videocamera/nailpolisher.
The WiFi cards set up a harmonic with the phone frequency. Your wife drops the phone down by her feet, very close to the ABS transmitter. This harmonic in turn scrambles signal from the right front ABS sensor. It sends incorrect road info to the central CPU. The CPU thinks "OK...the right front wheel is on dry road surface"
You have to make a hard stop. The right front wheel skids on the ice, you crash and die.
Who is more responsible?
Linksys for not predicting that the freq they used could also affect a car ABS system built 20 years from now? Or ToyNis, for not testing that their equipment was not affected by emissions from legacy equipment in popular use?
If the airplane is designed to be used for 20 years, then *yes it should.* Otherwise, it should not be specced for a 20 year life span.
Ok...design shielding against any and all consumer products to be designed in 2023.
The military was shielding its cables back then, and I'd expect Boeing knew about it.
Well, since Boeing built many of those military aircraft, I'd expect they would have some idea about shielding against interference. Two things would seem to come into play. Weight and cost. It adds significant costs to harden all aircraft wiring against known and unknown interference. Evidently, they weren't willing to pay those costs back then.
Take an aircraft designed in 1975. Laptops were but a dream. Cellphones, CD players, GameBoys. Not even on the horizon. Much less what type of EM interference they would generate.
Making products forward compatible is incredibly hard. Making them backward compatible is much, much easier.
It seems hard to believe that cellular phones would be approved by the FCC for general use
Do your cell phone, WiFi, cordless phone, Bluetooth, microwave, TV, stereo ALL play well together? And all were 'approved' by the FCC.
Analogy: Should a wireless PCCard built today be designed so as to play nice with some unknown wireless device for your car built in 2023? Or should the future device be built so as not to interfere with, or accept interference from, the older equipment?
if consumer legal transmitting devices cause problems on planes then the planes should have thier certificate of airworthness revoked PERIOD
So an aircraft designed and built today, should be safe against a product that won't be invented for another 20 years? That uses previously unassigned freq range. That does things not conceived when the aircraft was built.
How about we do it the other way around. Have the people that make the cell phones, et al, make them safe and not interfere with older equipment. If they can't do that, revoke their FCC license for building and selling unsafe equipment.
...make flight systems safe in the presence of cell-phone caused interference?
Then, you have to make the aircraft systems safe in the presence of currently unused freqs and equipment that won't be designed for another 10-20 years.
It's like going to a playground and pushing viagra, drugs, porno and taking their lunch money while saying you'll be right back with a 100$ loan for them. Or if an old man came on the playground and started talking to your 10 year old kid about enlarging his penis, would you really have a problem with that?
Yes, I would. And that guy would get arrested.
If a few people set up a photo shoot in the schoolyard with a blonde midget and a horse, throw in a little rape action, and just for kicks toss in some hardcore bondage...
I will agree to pay this extra fee if, and only if, two things happen:
1. Prior to charging the public any extra fees (taxes), the telcos, and all associated parties, publish a plan to distribute $12,999,999,900 [a]. of the estimated $13b that will be collected No extra admin costs, no profit taking, no fund redirection. Each and every $$ collected must go towards the stated goals of the Universal Service Fund
2. All of the associated telco CEO's, and the FCC Chairman, agree to prison terms [b] not less than 6 months, and not greater than 24 months if it can be shown that they do not follow their published plan. Prison terms are collective, in that if one falls, they all fall. Make them accountable to, and responsible for, each other
[a] Each Telco may keep $1 profit each for administering the dispersal of our funds.
[b]Federal PMITA prison, not 'house arrest'.
From the FCC: The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.
So...if you choose to live in an area(rural or whatever) where the tellecommunications costs are higher, you can expect the government to subsidise your communications fees, by charging everyone a little more. Great.
Now..If I choose to live in a high cost area, can I expect the government to subsidise my mortgage payment? If I choose to drive an expensive car, can I expect the government to help me pay for it?
Why subsidise only one segment, and not the others? Not that there is any great hatred for spreading costs around...but why this segment of industry and not others?
Further: In addition, the 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner;
Nowhere in there does it say you and I must contribute. But of course that is what happens. The telcos contribute little if any, and instead simply pass the charges down to thee and me.
OBL and Al Qaeda is 'our' fault? Simply because we trained OBL and his minions? No. We trained them to, as you say, fight the evil Russians. Who attacked first. Not wanting the fUSSR to gain a greater foothold in that part of the world, we assisted. Training, weapons, tactics. If we had not, there was a very real possibility of the fUSSR actually taking over, and Afghanistan being another client state. Not in our best interests.
The fact that he and they later turned on us is not necessarily "our fault".
Same with Saddam the Insane. Not wanting Iran to possibly be in control of their own and Iraq's oil and land, and thereby have that much more influence in that part of the world, we helped Iraq. Iraq losing that conflict was a very real possibility. Later, when the worm turned, how can that be construed as "our fault"? If it had not been us that assisted, it would have been someone else. We wanted (needed) to maintain our presence in the region, and maybe, just maybe, Saddam would turn into a more moderate ruler. Sadly, this was not the case.
If you give a homeless bum a stick to defend himself from the other homeless bums, and he later beats you in the head with it...is that your fault?
I'm NOT saying that the US's motives were all sweetness and light. Far from it. But at the time in question, having either OBL or Saddam lose their respective battles would have been a BadThing(tm) for our aims in the region.
And no, simply staying out of it and leaving them to fight it out was also not in our best interests. Someone else (fUSSR?)would have stepped in, and then we would have been REALLY out in the cold.
Send soldiers to police a public demonstration in NYC, equip them with body armor, gas mask and non-lethal projecticles.
No, you don't send soldiers to a public demonstration in NYC. You send the police, and maybe the National Guard in really, really extreme cases.
Posse Comitatus prohibits the US military from performing general police functions within the borders of the US.
There are some things they can do, but mostly just assistance and transport.
Nobody is harmed. I haven't deprived anyone of anything.
But *you* have gained value, with no expense or effort on your part. Without compensation to the originator, you get use of, and potentially income from, someone else's efforts.
Fair? Only in your eyes.
I give my software away for as much as I feel like it's worth.
So you feel your software is worthless? Don't have to sell it for "ridiculously over-inflated prices". Turn a quality product, ad charge a minimal sum. If it's good, people will pay. If it's not good, maybe it IS worthless.
Note: This is NOT saying that all free software is 'worthless'. Far from it. Just the way you presented your statement makes it sound as if things YOU produce are indeed worthless.
Re:These are the same sorts of idiots that ban bik
on
Geocaching Crackdown?
·
· Score: 1
Please...tell me you haven't been reading that netkook Mike Vandeman.
And how do we identify Joe User, who obviously needs his system patches forced down his throat, from Mary User, who is cluefull, and needs to test the newest patch against some legacy code their business is running.
Slashdot Mirror
Well............they *do* make one hell of a pocket knife....
You're thinking of Switzerland, maybe?
Excel (indeed the whole Office suite), and OO.o has macro capability. While some may deride 'macro programming' as not 'real' programming, it presents some of the same concepts and thought processes as building something in (choose your favorite language).
Learning to design, code, test, deploy these can indeed teach kids the base concepts for programming.
To put this in perspective, a few months ago I saw a news item announcing good news: NHS patients with a specific serious heart problem had their operation waiting times cut by 6 months: the waiting time for the surgery was now just 18 months. I ask those Americans reading this: would you buy health insurance that had an 18 month waiting list for major heart surgery?
So what you're saying is that your current system is broken and underfunded, and you want everyone else in the world to help pay for it.
Evidently, your government is not spending their collected taxes wisely.
For instance, I know I don't pay anything towards machines for killing.
Really? Sweden does not have an Air Force? A Navy? An Army? Does not Sweden produce a very capable set of fighter jets, SAABs?
Does not Sweden still cling to the archaic concept of a draft ?
Are Swedish military personnel not currently deployed to such places as Afghanistan and Kosovo?
Thus in Sweden, I can live almost as well by not working as working.
IOW, an apparently otherwise intelligent young male, can live as a leech on the ass of everyone else, contributing nada. And brag about it.
The only reason you don't pay anything towards a military is because you don't have a job, and thus pay no taxes.
Yeah...that sounds like my kind of paradise.
I get free medical care.
"Free", only because you are a leech with no job, and pay no taxes.
And my country is free of racial tension because we have strictly limited immigration from trouble makers.
IOW...instead of allowing immigration, and possibly helping some poor slob who wants a better life, you selfishly keep your 'paradise' for yourselves. Must maintain that Nordic racial purity. Keep out anyone you don't like the looks of.
From the article at LinuxWorld:
The main thing a government unit considering open-source software wants to know is how it can save money.
Not necessarily. Another 'main thing' is...does it do what we need it to do? In many instances, yes. General office funcions can be done with OO.o, back end and server functions with various flavors of Linux, webservers with Apache. There's a whole raft of free and OS tools available for various functions.
But also, in many instances, no, it won't. For instance, there are no good quality open source tools for GIS or CAD requirements. Free or open source is good, but does not always fit the requirements of what is needed in a particular environment.
In any case, I care far more about open format, accessible documents, rather than worry about which tool is used to create that document.
Cellular phones are designed to be carried by people who are going to get on planes.
Exactly. So design the (newer) damn phones so they won't screw with (legacy) aircraft equipment.
In case 2, the broadcaster could simply circumvent the automatic skipping mechanism by semi-randomly shifting the commercial times, or by varying the length of commercial breaks.
No, they couldn't. At least not with today's current ad model.
The commercials are not simply put in randomly. There is a very strict heiarchy of what commercials go where in the sequence. Picture a 30 min TV show. Usually, 3 commercial blocks. Just before the show, midway through, and end. The order of the commercials is actually quite important as regards audience retention. i.e. you're more likely to remember a product in a commercial in slot A than slot C. And yes...advertisers DO track that stuff, and are charged accordingly. Better placement = more $$ to air that commercial.
Also, a TV show is built around commercial breaks at specified minutes. Random insertion or different length breaks would destroy the flow of the show.
Finally, not all the commercials come from the same source. During a network show, some come from network HQ (See the new Fords!) and some come from the local broadcaster (Lo lo prices at Fred's Friendly Ford Farm out on Route 8!). No way to sync those two if commercial breaks are not preplanned.
I'm not talking about protocols either. EM interference from a multitude of devices, all within close proximity to the aircraft wiring, that were not in existence when the aircraft was designed and built.
my microwave is not anywhere near my tv, stereo, cordless phone, or cellular phone.
Turn your micro on next to your wireless router and see what happens.
I've never seen my cordless phone kill anyone because of interference.
Maybe not yet, but you might.
The year is 2023. You're driving along in your new ToyNis SUV/minivan hybrid, with the Adaptive CruiseControl and the RoadSensing ABS system. The cruise uses a combination if IR and radar to know how close it is to the car in front, and adjust speed accordingly. The ABS uses an IR sensor to read the road condition directly under the tire, millisecond by millisecond. ToyNis has chosen to use a wireless method to beam the road info back to the central CPU.
You're driving along, and your two kids are in the back with a couple of 2004 model legacy laptops. Linksys WiFi cards installed, and they are playing Duke Nukem head to head. (Yes, it finally got released). Your wife is talking to her friend via a 2021 model Nokia phone/PDA/videocamera/nailpolisher.
The WiFi cards set up a harmonic with the phone frequency. Your wife drops the phone down by her feet, very close to the ABS transmitter. This harmonic in turn scrambles signal from the right front ABS sensor. It sends incorrect road info to the central CPU. The CPU thinks "OK...the right front wheel is on dry road surface"
You have to make a hard stop. The right front wheel skids on the ice, you crash and die.
Who is more responsible?
Linksys for not predicting that the freq they used could also affect a car ABS system built 20 years from now?
Or ToyNis, for not testing that their equipment was not affected by emissions from legacy equipment in popular use?
If the airplane is designed to be used for 20 years, then *yes it should.* Otherwise, it should not be specced for a 20 year life span.
Ok...design shielding against any and all consumer products to be designed in 2023.
The military was shielding its cables back then, and I'd expect Boeing knew about it.
Well, since Boeing built many of those military aircraft, I'd expect they would have some idea about shielding against interference. Two things would seem to come into play. Weight and cost. It adds significant costs to harden all aircraft wiring against known and unknown interference. Evidently, they weren't willing to pay those costs back then.
Take an aircraft designed in 1975. Laptops were but a dream. Cellphones, CD players, GameBoys. Not even on the horizon. Much less what type of EM interference they would generate.
Making products forward compatible is incredibly hard. Making them backward compatible is much, much easier.
It seems hard to believe that cellular phones would be approved by the FCC for general use
Do your cell phone, WiFi, cordless phone, Bluetooth, microwave, TV, stereo ALL play well together? And all were 'approved' by the FCC.
Analogy: Should a wireless PCCard built today be designed so as to play nice with some unknown wireless device for your car built in 2023? Or should the future device be built so as not to interfere with, or accept interference from, the older equipment?
if consumer legal transmitting devices cause problems on planes then the planes should have thier certificate of airworthness revoked PERIOD
So an aircraft designed and built today, should be safe against a product that won't be invented for another 20 years? That uses previously unassigned freq range. That does things not conceived when the aircraft was built.
How about we do it the other way around. Have the people that make the cell phones, et al, make them safe and not interfere with older equipment. If they can't do that, revoke their FCC license for building and selling unsafe equipment.
...make flight systems safe in the presence of cell-phone caused interference?
Then, you have to make the aircraft systems safe in the presence of currently unused freqs and equipment that won't be designed for another 10-20 years.
or its wiring harness
Wiring runs under the cabin floor. Where do you put your phone? Backpack or handbag. Where do you put that bag? On the floor under the seat.
Less than 30cm easy.
It's like going to a playground and pushing viagra, drugs, porno and taking their lunch money while saying you'll be right back with a 100$ loan for them. Or if an old man came on the playground and started talking to your 10 year old kid about enlarging his penis, would you really have a problem with that?
Yes, I would. And that guy would get arrested.
If a few people set up a photo shoot in the schoolyard with a blonde midget and a horse, throw in a little rape action, and just for kicks toss in some hardcore bondage...
That would be a little different, wouldn't it?
Asking is one thing, showing them is another.
Phone service, fine.
That is pretty much a necessity.
This being tacked onto our cable modem service is a different story. Is cable internet a necessity? No. Very nice to have, but a necessity?
How much of this actual money will go into infrastructure out to the hinterlands? Far less than $13B, I'd expect.
I will agree to pay this extra fee if, and only if, two things happen:
1. Prior to charging the public any extra fees (taxes), the telcos, and all associated parties, publish a plan to distribute $12,999,999,900 [a]. of the estimated $13b that will be collected
No extra admin costs, no profit taking, no fund redirection. Each and every $$ collected must go towards the stated goals of the Universal Service Fund
2. All of the associated telco CEO's, and the FCC Chairman, agree to prison terms [b] not less than 6 months, and not greater than 24 months if it can be shown that they do not follow their published plan.
Prison terms are collective, in that if one falls, they all fall. Make them accountable to, and responsible for, each other
[a] Each Telco may keep $1 profit each for administering the dispersal of our funds.
[b]Federal PMITA prison, not 'house arrest'.
Fair enough. You choose to live in an area where telco services may be more costly than in another area. Fine.
Then you pay the extra costs of where you choose to live.
You have a larger, more expensive home than I do. Why should I pay part of your costs?
From the FCC:
The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.
So...if you choose to live in an area(rural or whatever) where the tellecommunications costs are higher, you can expect the government to subsidise your communications fees, by charging everyone a little more.
Great.
Now..If I choose to live in a high cost area, can I expect the government to subsidise my mortgage payment?
If I choose to drive an expensive car, can I expect the government to help me pay for it?
Why subsidise only one segment, and not the others? Not that there is any great hatred for spreading costs around...but why this segment of industry and not others?
Further:
In addition, the 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner;
Nowhere in there does it say you and I must contribute. But of course that is what happens. The telcos contribute little if any, and instead simply pass the charges down to thee and me.
I mean, c'mon. What ads, for any product, have you seen that did not stretch the truth.
Best
Fastest (they ALL can't be the 'fastest')
Make you more appealing to women (beer)
Run faster and jump higher if you buy my sneakers.
Gimme a break!
It would be interesting to see the actual equations they are using to estimate the impact speed.
Easy. Distance v time.
How far does it travel from separation to wing, and how long does it take to get there.
...express permission. Anything else, and you leave too many people (including yourself) hanging out in the breeze.
Hold on, Hoss.
OBL and Al Qaeda is 'our' fault? Simply because we trained OBL and his minions? No.
We trained them to, as you say, fight the evil Russians. Who attacked first. Not wanting the fUSSR to gain a greater foothold in that part of the world, we assisted. Training, weapons, tactics. If we had not, there was a very real possibility of the fUSSR actually taking over, and Afghanistan being another client state. Not in our best interests.
The fact that he and they later turned on us is not necessarily "our fault".
Same with Saddam the Insane. Not wanting Iran to possibly be in control of their own and Iraq's oil and land, and thereby have that much more influence in that part of the world, we helped Iraq. Iraq losing that conflict was a very real possibility. Later, when the worm turned, how can that be construed as "our fault"? If it had not been us that assisted, it would have been someone else. We wanted (needed) to maintain our presence in the region, and maybe, just maybe, Saddam would turn into a more moderate ruler. Sadly, this was not the case.
If you give a homeless bum a stick to defend himself from the other homeless bums, and he later beats you in the head with it...is that your fault?
I'm NOT saying that the US's motives were all sweetness and light. Far from it. But at the time in question, having either OBL or Saddam lose their respective battles would have been a BadThing(tm) for our aims in the region.
And no, simply staying out of it and leaving them to fight it out was also not in our best interests. Someone else (fUSSR?)would have stepped in, and then we would have been REALLY out in the cold.
Send soldiers to police a public demonstration in NYC, equip them with body armor, gas mask and non-lethal projecticles.
No, you don't send soldiers to a public demonstration in NYC.
You send the police, and maybe the National Guard in really, really extreme cases.
Posse Comitatus prohibits the US military from performing general police functions within the borders of the US.
There are some things they can do, but mostly just assistance and transport.
Nobody is harmed. I haven't deprived anyone of anything.
But *you* have gained value, with no expense or effort on your part. Without compensation to the originator, you get use of, and potentially income from, someone else's efforts.
Fair? Only in your eyes.
I give my software away for as much as I feel like it's worth.
So you feel your software is worthless? Don't have to sell it for "ridiculously over-inflated prices". Turn a quality product, ad charge a minimal sum. If it's good, people will pay. If it's not good, maybe it IS worthless.
Note: This is NOT saying that all free software is 'worthless'. Far from it. Just the way you presented your statement makes it sound as if things YOU produce are indeed worthless.
Please...tell me you haven't been reading that netkook Mike Vandeman.
And how do we identify Joe User, who obviously needs his system patches forced down his throat, from Mary User, who is cluefull, and needs to test the newest patch against some legacy code their business is running.