I was not aware US colleges had some sort of official tier.
There is no tier system. The submitter hasn't figured out that outside of academia, nobody really cares where you went to school only what you can actually do.
When McCain said his 5 million thing during the Saddleback Church event he was making a joke while trying not to define who is rich or not.
I saw the video, and I'm not convinced it was intended as a joke. The question wasn't a joke, and the interviewer specifically asked for a dollar amount. But hey, decide for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zovk-H5qmBE
do you think 2 years as the governor of a state is less than 4 years as a back bench Senator who didn't chair a subcommittee meeting?
I always find it hard to compare things that are different, so I won't.
I do find it interesting that the major issue McCain has raised against Obama is inexperience, and here he is picking someone that's inexperienced. Alaska has a population of approximately 670,000 people and this is how many people she has been in charge of for 2 years.
I wasn't aware that the Governor of any state was "in charge of" the population of that state. My understanding was it was the other way around (i.e. democracy). regardless of where you personally stand on issues at least you can know where she stands with no flip-flopping
That's funny. Reading the articles about her it sure sounds like she's "flip-flopped" on teaching creationism in schools. One minute it's "We should teach both", the next minute it's "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.". Sounds like a flip flop to me. We dont know what Obama stands for except that he for the most socialist policy that i have ever read
I guess you don't read much, huh? Obama has been very clear on how he differs from McCain. If you think he's anywhere near socialism, I'd suggest you read up on socialism. Of course all the "sophisticated" people in the northeast will try to strike her down because she isn't part of the "club"
I'm not really sure I fully understand this comment. Are you saying everyone in the northeast is "sophisticated" (whatever that means)? Or that only the NE "sophisticated" people believe this? Or that nobody outside the NE is "sophisticated"?
If you're saying some people are snobs and don't like other people that aren't snobs, you're right. I just don't understand what that has to do with the Northeast, being "sophisticated", or this election. America needs someone outside of CEO corporate washington to represent us.
And that person should be John McCain, who thiks people who make less than 5 million dollars/year aren't rich, and has so many houses he can't remember how many he has? Not exactly someone who's "one of us". She also wants to drill USA oil, not get oil from places where people want to wipe us off the face of the earth. She has tried but our friendly government has said no way. Hmm wonder why??
Maybe because it's a drop in the bucket, and the US doesn't have enough oil reserves to be independent? I'm really tired of the environment vs drilling argument, as it's the wrong argument. What people seem to have forgotten is that the US simply doesn't have enough oil to supply itself. We can't just say "Oh we'll drill for more and problem solved!".
Suppose the sun drifted into some cloud of dark matter a billion years ago and that messed things up?
You can suppose a lot of things if you're ignorant enough and try hard. We don't even know if this phenomenon is real, much less if it's caused by neutrinos. Where you got "dark matter" involved I don't really understand. (We also don't really know what dark matter even is). A few hundred years ago you could have convinced a scientist that you could manipulate gravity (with hidden electromagnets).
Maybe a really dumb scientist. Charlans existed a few hundred years ago, and so did magnets. There could be all kinds of fields at work in the universise that haven't been apparent to us simply because they're flat on the scale that we've experienced them.
That's certainly possible. Supposing they exist before you have any real evidence for them isn't science though. Going down the road of unobserved forces leads to stuff like epicycles (which does work if you believe in unobserved forces). You're right that we likely don't understand everything in physics. You're wrong that we should start speculating in ignorance about what those things might be. Science works best at filling in the gaps of knowledge, not supposing gaps that we don't even know are there.
This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites.
Which is exactly the wrong question here. The ad actually stated "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone". It doesn't say all "essential" parts of "The Internet" are on the iPhone.
It's very clear this is a misleading statement, as the iPhone can't possibly support everything on "The Internet". The most obvious retort is that with the "The Internet" doesn't consist of just websites accessible via a browser (or a few apps packaged into the iPhone). The statement is simply patently ridiculous, as "The Internet" isn't really a tangible thing, but rather a means of communication that's changing on a daily basis. It would be impossible for any single device to do that.
Those tests should be limited to those who pay for "all you can get". Otherwise it tells more about a states economical position then about their internet access.
Isn't that kind of the point? Access should be measured by what's affordable, not the super-expensive $2000/month fiber optic connection you COULD get if you could afford it. This isn't a race or a competition, it's a comparison of where broadband speeds are the highest. That's going to include economic conditions.
If you merely encrypt things more than once, using two or more different encryption methods, the chances there will ever be a successful mathematical attack are very, very small.
Maybe. The fact that nobody really does this is a strong indication that this isn't as good a solution as you might think it is though.
The encryption algorithm itself is likely the strongest part of your whole system anyway. Most of the time the attacks on the system don't completely break it open and make it useless. The weak parts are the software implementation of the system, key exchange, and simply the human beings involved. The encryption algorithm is just one part of the entire system. I have an enormous amount of respect for Bruce Schneier, but his writing is designed to get him business, not to give easy answers to big problems.
So if you can't attack his ideas, attack his motivation? I don't know that anyone has come up with easy answers to the big problems of security. Are you really implying that there exists simple solutions that a select few know about, but are (for some reason) keeping secret from everyone else?
This is simply an argument to try to divert blame. I don't really care that the other side is a willing victim. Fraud is fraud, and I have a hard time believing that the Nigerian goverment is really doing all that much about it. Nigeria is a Kleptocracy, so corruption is endemic in the society. I'm sure a few well placed bribes keeps the cops away. It's not really that hard to find these guys after all since the money eventually has to go somewhere.
Vista has established a reputation as "the operating system you don't want". People hate it. People that haven't tried it hate it. Some people sit around and worry that someday someone will make them upgrade to Vista. An ad campaign simply can't compete with people talking to others about how much they hate Vista.
It's funny, but I've never heard people openly talk about how much they hate a Microsoft product before. Personally I think Microsoft has made a LOT crappier products than Vista. Outlook, IE6, and Exchange are a lot worse than Vista.
I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about the differences between "accuracy" and "consistency". I think the important thing here is really about "scope", i.e. accuracy/consistency across a single competition. The judging needs to be consistent across any single event, or combination of events that will determine a winner. To ensure fairness, the scope may encompass all the heats/races among a single competition, or maybe individual heats/races (depending on the rules of course). If the scope is consistent among all attempts at world records at all events, then we can determine world records.
I run a business out of my house which entails some 30-40 people passing through each week.My homeowners insurance explicitly excludes home-run business liability.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. The OP isn't hosting a business, so I don't really see how your situation applies.
So can someone tell me how anyone outside of NVidia (who isn't quoted here) would know they need a "license" (patents I'm assuming) for a technology that nobody knows anything about, is completely unreleased, and likely doesn't even exist?
This story is complete nonsense. We're all dumber after having read it.
Every Linux feature (symbol) has a nice description about it, you can easily choose if you want it or not.
Yes, I've built a kernel before, many in fact. I gave it up after deciding that understanding how each kernel piece goes together and understanding all the dependencies was just too much work. Why read every single patch?
Because it just might be a critical security patch? Or maybe it's a critical stability patch? Or maybe it's just a patch that might DECREASE stability and security? Who knows? People who's job it is to know (which isn't me, and from what it sounds like isn't you either) When you upgrade your kernel, new features are marked with *NEW*
And are the new features compatible with the rest of the OS? It's not going to say in the release notes. I'm sorry, but spending 10 minutes building Linux in every version bump is not a *huge* effort.
You're right, spending 10 minutes on building a kernel isn't a *huge* effort. But 10 minutes is also going to get you a very poor understanding of what went into this release. People who maintain kernels for a distribution will have an in-depth understanding of the kernel, the relevant patches, and which releases are "good" releases (and compatible with the distribution). They also do testing testing testing. That's what you need to do to compete with a distribution built kernel. I'd call that a *huge* effort.
If you like doing it, great. Just don't try to tell me you're going to get some greater stability and security without going through a lot of effort.
That about sums it up. After a lengthy court battle the RIAA settled for what I'd guess is a few hours of lawyers fees. Essentially the RIAA figured they couldn't win and decided to pack it up in fear the arguments against them would be ruled valid.
disabling build of unneeded functionality improves stability and security.
I'd have to disagree here. It only improves stability and security if you're willing to keep up with all the endless patches and devote a lot of time towards understanding each patch (and possibly back porting it yourself). Do YOU want read every single kernel patch and decide if it's relevant to you? I don't. That job is best left to people devoted to kernel maintenance, like a team of people at (insert distribution).
Although I might consider mainlining it again, for the moment the effort just is not worth it. The current model is workable for those that use it.
It sounds like your FS serves mostly a niche that isn't served by the mainline FSs. Call me a "purist", but I just don't have the time or inclination to re-compile my kernel. I did it many years ago to save a few kilobytes of memory when it was at a premium, but these days, why? If you don't care about keeping up on kernel patches and have some specific needs that aren't supplied by the mainstream kernel, then re-compiling is fine. But if not, then the mainstream kernels (vendor provided) wind up being a lot easier to work with.
Kind of. Russia has more PRODUCTION than the Saudi's. When it comes to reserves though, nobody beats Saudi Arabia. Canada comes close if you count currently economically recoverable oil sands.
But you're right that the production capacity gives them a big sword to rattle around, at least until they run out (which will happen a lot sooner since they have smaller reserves)
Apple packs in a bunch of esoteric features that few people will ever use and charges $2000, getting by mostly on appearance and trendiness.
Agreed. I just don't think those equate to over-indulgence. Apple is the brand of "I'm better than you." or "I'm different than you." Why do you think the Mac vs PC commercials need to make fun of the PC guy so much? Over-indulgence STARTS at 10x the price, not a simple factor of two.
I'm not sure where you think you are, but this is a discussion forum, not a peer reviewed journal. I don't have any "proof", it just seems obvious. Sometimes people just tell you what they think based on experience. That's something. You might not want that something, I certainly do not want that something, but that's our subjective opinions. Apparantly, 8 people did want it and that was their subjective opinions.
You seem to be engaged in an argument with yourself. I don't dispute that some insane person wants to waste a lot of money. If you truly want to take subjectivity to this extreme where nobody can question anythings value, then I guess this discussion is over.
Can you come up with an actual, i.e., not a made up reason, why this specific app and only this specific app should be pulled? I won't be holding my breath.
Because it makes the Apple brand look bad. People spending $1000 on an app that does nothing but be expensive underscores the idea that the iPhone is a useless toy for people to show off extravagance. A $1000 app that does nothing thumbs it's nose at this idea (while cashing out on it at the same time)
While I think the above is true, and find it extremely amusing that people actually BOUGHT this app, it's not too hard to understand why Apple chose not to associate themselves with this application. Apple doesn't want to be a brand of over-indulgence.
Having a greater number of transistors on a chip does not make a processor "smarter" or capable of doing something a less populated processor can.
I'm not sure what "smarter" means in this context, but unless the chip designer is an idiot, it's going to make the processor more capable. The real story here is that a person or group of programmers have designed a better algorithm for playing the game. This is a human achievement, not a machine one.
Of course it's a human achievement. Who do you think designed the machine? I'd say the hardware had as much to do with it as the software. Without the achievements in chip design over the past 30 years the program wouldn't have any hope of running. You're right though that the news is the success of the software.
It seems to me the only thing that's "changed" here is there's been a high-profile case where something couldn't be done because someone said you couldn't get COBOL programmers anymore. (Which is likely one of dozens of reasons it can't be done, technology wise).
This isn't anything new. Old systems are abandoned all the time because they've become impossible, or cost prohibitive to maintain. So it's hard for me to understand why COBOL is going to make a resurgence simply because some journalists discovered what's been going on for the last decade or more.
Um, speaking as someone whose mother is a teacher, sister is a teacher, and sister-in-law is a teacher, you are paid for your summer break.
Speaking as someone whose mother was a teacher, and whose father was a school administrator, I can tell you (at least in Minneapolis) that the paycheck is for work performed over the school year, not during the summer. Teachers have the option to take all their pay during the school year, or spread it out over the year (to more easily plan presumably). The only thing that's continuous is the benefits.
Anyway, your families experiences and my families experiences are irrelevant. "Teachers" aren't a single entity with a single set of rules, and the only one that matters here is the GP's.
Slashdot Mirror
I was not aware US colleges had some sort of official tier.
There is no tier system. The submitter hasn't figured out that outside of academia, nobody really cares where you went to school only what you can actually do.
When McCain said his 5 million thing during the Saddleback Church event he was making a joke while trying not to define who is rich or not.
I saw the video, and I'm not convinced it was intended as a joke. The question wasn't a joke, and the interviewer specifically asked for a dollar amount. But hey, decide for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zovk-H5qmBE
do you think 2 years as the governor of a state is less than 4 years as a back bench Senator who didn't chair a subcommittee meeting?
I always find it hard to compare things that are different, so I won't.
I do find it interesting that the major issue McCain has raised against Obama is inexperience, and here he is picking someone that's inexperienced.
Alaska has a population of approximately 670,000 people and this is how many people she has been in charge of for 2 years.
I wasn't aware that the Governor of any state was "in charge of" the population of that state. My understanding was it was the other way around (i.e. democracy).
regardless of where you personally stand on issues at least you can know where she stands with no flip-flopping
That's funny. Reading the articles about her it sure sounds like she's "flip-flopped" on teaching creationism in schools. One minute it's "We should teach both", the next minute it's "It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.". Sounds like a flip flop to me.
We dont know what Obama stands for except that he for the most socialist policy that i have ever read
I guess you don't read much, huh? Obama has been very clear on how he differs from McCain. If you think he's anywhere near socialism, I'd suggest you read up on socialism.
Of course all the "sophisticated" people in the northeast will try to strike her down because she isn't part of the "club"
I'm not really sure I fully understand this comment. Are you saying everyone in the northeast is "sophisticated" (whatever that means)? Or that only the NE "sophisticated" people believe this? Or that nobody outside the NE is "sophisticated"?
If you're saying some people are snobs and don't like other people that aren't snobs, you're right. I just don't understand what that has to do with the Northeast, being "sophisticated", or this election.
America needs someone outside of CEO corporate washington to represent us.
And that person should be John McCain, who thiks people who make less than 5 million dollars/year aren't rich, and has so many houses he can't remember how many he has? Not exactly someone who's "one of us".
She also wants to drill USA oil, not get oil from places where people want to wipe us off the face of the earth. She has tried but our friendly government has said no way. Hmm wonder why??
Maybe because it's a drop in the bucket, and the US doesn't have enough oil reserves to be independent? I'm really tired of the environment vs drilling argument, as it's the wrong argument. What people seem to have forgotten is that the US simply doesn't have enough oil to supply itself. We can't just say "Oh we'll drill for more and problem solved!".
Suppose the sun drifted into some cloud of dark matter a billion years ago and that messed things up?
You can suppose a lot of things if you're ignorant enough and try hard. We don't even know if this phenomenon is real, much less if it's caused by neutrinos. Where you got "dark matter" involved I don't really understand. (We also don't really know what dark matter even is).
A few hundred years ago you could have convinced a scientist that you could manipulate gravity (with hidden electromagnets).
Maybe a really dumb scientist. Charlans existed a few hundred years ago, and so did magnets.
There could be all kinds of fields at work in the universise that haven't been apparent to us simply because they're flat on the scale that we've experienced them.
That's certainly possible. Supposing they exist before you have any real evidence for them isn't science though. Going down the road of unobserved forces leads to stuff like epicycles (which does work if you believe in unobserved forces). You're right that we likely don't understand everything in physics. You're wrong that we should start speculating in ignorance about what those things might be. Science works best at filling in the gaps of knowledge, not supposing gaps that we don't even know are there.
This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites.
Which is exactly the wrong question here. The ad actually stated "Which is why all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone". It doesn't say all "essential" parts of "The Internet" are on the iPhone.
It's very clear this is a misleading statement, as the iPhone can't possibly support everything on "The Internet". The most obvious retort is that with the "The Internet" doesn't consist of just websites accessible via a browser (or a few apps packaged into the iPhone). The statement is simply patently ridiculous, as "The Internet" isn't really a tangible thing, but rather a means of communication that's changing on a daily basis. It would be impossible for any single device to do that.
Those tests should be limited to those who pay for "all you can get". Otherwise it tells more about a states economical position then about their internet access.
Isn't that kind of the point? Access should be measured by what's affordable, not the super-expensive $2000/month fiber optic connection you COULD get if you could afford it. This isn't a race or a competition, it's a comparison of where broadband speeds are the highest. That's going to include economic conditions.
If you merely encrypt things more than once, using two or more different encryption methods, the chances there will ever be a successful mathematical attack are very, very small.
Maybe. The fact that nobody really does this is a strong indication that this isn't as good a solution as you might think it is though.
The encryption algorithm itself is likely the strongest part of your whole system anyway. Most of the time the attacks on the system don't completely break it open and make it useless. The weak parts are the software implementation of the system, key exchange, and simply the human beings involved. The encryption algorithm is just one part of the entire system.
I have an enormous amount of respect for Bruce Schneier, but his writing is designed to get him business, not to give easy answers to big problems.
So if you can't attack his ideas, attack his motivation? I don't know that anyone has come up with easy answers to the big problems of security. Are you really implying that there exists simple solutions that a select few know about, but are (for some reason) keeping secret from everyone else?
This is simply an argument to try to divert blame. I don't really care that the other side is a willing victim. Fraud is fraud, and I have a hard time believing that the Nigerian goverment is really doing all that much about it. Nigeria is a Kleptocracy, so corruption is endemic in the society. I'm sure a few well placed bribes keeps the cops away. It's not really that hard to find these guys after all since the money eventually has to go somewhere.
Vista has established a reputation as "the operating system you don't want". People hate it. People that haven't tried it hate it. Some people sit around and worry that someday someone will make them upgrade to Vista. An ad campaign simply can't compete with people talking to others about how much they hate Vista.
It's funny, but I've never heard people openly talk about how much they hate a Microsoft product before. Personally I think Microsoft has made a LOT crappier products than Vista. Outlook, IE6, and Exchange are a lot worse than Vista.
I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about the differences between "accuracy" and "consistency". I think the important thing here is really about "scope", i.e. accuracy/consistency across a single competition. The judging needs to be consistent across any single event, or combination of events that will determine a winner. To ensure fairness, the scope may encompass all the heats/races among a single competition, or maybe individual heats/races (depending on the rules of course). If the scope is consistent among all attempts at world records at all events, then we can determine world records.
I run a business out of my house which entails some 30-40 people passing through each week.My homeowners insurance explicitly excludes home-run business liability.
That's interesting, but irrelevant. The OP isn't hosting a business, so I don't really see how your situation applies.
Suppose somebody gets hurt? Are you ready to handle a big personal liability lawsuit?
Oh please. If you're constantly worried about being sued you might as well just never get out of bed in the morning.
The reality here is this is a LAN party, not a frat-boy keg party. The risks are low.
If you're really concerned about it, most homeowners policies have a personal liability coverage in them.
So can someone tell me how anyone outside of NVidia (who isn't quoted here) would know they need a "license" (patents I'm assuming) for a technology that nobody knows anything about, is completely unreleased, and likely doesn't even exist?
This story is complete nonsense. We're all dumber after having read it.
Every Linux feature (symbol) has a nice description about it, you can easily choose if you want it or not.
Yes, I've built a kernel before, many in fact. I gave it up after deciding that understanding how each kernel piece goes together and understanding all the dependencies was just too much work.
Why read every single patch?
Because it just might be a critical security patch? Or maybe it's a critical stability patch? Or maybe it's just a patch that might DECREASE stability and security? Who knows? People who's job it is to know (which isn't me, and from what it sounds like isn't you either)
When you upgrade your kernel, new features are marked with *NEW*
And are the new features compatible with the rest of the OS? It's not going to say in the release notes.
I'm sorry, but spending 10 minutes building Linux in every version bump is not a *huge* effort.
You're right, spending 10 minutes on building a kernel isn't a *huge* effort. But 10 minutes is also going to get you a very poor understanding of what went into this release. People who maintain kernels for a distribution will have an in-depth understanding of the kernel, the relevant patches, and which releases are "good" releases (and compatible with the distribution). They also do testing testing testing. That's what you need to do to compete with a distribution built kernel. I'd call that a *huge* effort.
If you like doing it, great. Just don't try to tell me you're going to get some greater stability and security without going through a lot of effort.
That about sums it up. After a lengthy court battle the RIAA settled for what I'd guess is a few hours of lawyers fees. Essentially the RIAA figured they couldn't win and decided to pack it up in fear the arguments against them would be ruled valid.
disabling build of unneeded functionality improves stability and security.
I'd have to disagree here. It only improves stability and security if you're willing to keep up with all the endless patches and devote a lot of time towards understanding each patch (and possibly back porting it yourself). Do YOU want read every single kernel patch and decide if it's relevant to you? I don't. That job is best left to people devoted to kernel maintenance, like a team of people at (insert distribution).
Although I might consider mainlining it again, for the moment the effort just is not worth it. The current model is workable for those that use it.
It sounds like your FS serves mostly a niche that isn't served by the mainline FSs. Call me a "purist", but I just don't have the time or inclination to re-compile my kernel. I did it many years ago to save a few kilobytes of memory when it was at a premium, but these days, why? If you don't care about keeping up on kernel patches and have some specific needs that aren't supplied by the mainstream kernel, then re-compiling is fine. But if not, then the mainstream kernels (vendor provided) wind up being a lot easier to work with.
Else, what's the diff except it costs much less and is more discrete.
Good argument. Then you'd also agree that I can put a GPS on anyones car without permission, including the police, elected officials, or you?
They have more than the Saudis.
Kind of. Russia has more PRODUCTION than the Saudi's. When it comes to reserves though, nobody beats Saudi Arabia. Canada comes close if you count currently economically recoverable oil sands.
But you're right that the production capacity gives them a big sword to rattle around, at least until they run out (which will happen a lot sooner since they have smaller reserves)
Apple packs in a bunch of esoteric features that few people will ever use and charges $2000, getting by mostly on appearance and trendiness.
Agreed. I just don't think those equate to over-indulgence. Apple is the brand of "I'm better than you." or "I'm different than you." Why do you think the Mac vs PC commercials need to make fun of the PC guy so much? Over-indulgence STARTS at 10x the price, not a simple factor of two.
To whom? Where is your support for this?
I'm not sure where you think you are, but this is a discussion forum, not a peer reviewed journal. I don't have any "proof", it just seems obvious. Sometimes people just tell you what they think based on experience.
That's something. You might not want that something, I certainly do not want that something, but that's our subjective opinions. Apparantly, 8 people did want it and that was their subjective opinions.
You seem to be engaged in an argument with yourself. I don't dispute that some insane person wants to waste a lot of money. If you truly want to take subjectivity to this extreme where nobody can question anythings value, then I guess this discussion is over.
Can you come up with an actual, i.e., not a made up reason, why this specific app and only this specific app should be pulled? I won't be holding my breath.
Because it makes the Apple brand look bad. People spending $1000 on an app that does nothing but be expensive underscores the idea that the iPhone is a useless toy for people to show off extravagance. A $1000 app that does nothing thumbs it's nose at this idea (while cashing out on it at the same time)
While I think the above is true, and find it extremely amusing that people actually BOUGHT this app, it's not too hard to understand why Apple chose not to associate themselves with this application. Apple doesn't want to be a brand of over-indulgence.
Having a greater number of transistors on a chip does not make a processor "smarter" or capable of doing something a less populated processor can.
I'm not sure what "smarter" means in this context, but unless the chip designer is an idiot, it's going to make the processor more capable.
The real story here is that a person or group of programmers have designed a better algorithm for playing the game. This is a human achievement, not a machine one.
Of course it's a human achievement. Who do you think designed the machine? I'd say the hardware had as much to do with it as the software. Without the achievements in chip design over the past 30 years the program wouldn't have any hope of running. You're right though that the news is the success of the software.
It seems to me the only thing that's "changed" here is there's been a high-profile case where something couldn't be done because someone said you couldn't get COBOL programmers anymore. (Which is likely one of dozens of reasons it can't be done, technology wise).
This isn't anything new. Old systems are abandoned all the time because they've become impossible, or cost prohibitive to maintain. So it's hard for me to understand why COBOL is going to make a resurgence simply because some journalists discovered what's been going on for the last decade or more.
Um, speaking as someone whose mother is a teacher, sister is a teacher, and sister-in-law is a teacher, you are paid for your summer break.
Speaking as someone whose mother was a teacher, and whose father was a school administrator, I can tell you (at least in Minneapolis) that the paycheck is for work performed over the school year, not during the summer. Teachers have the option to take all their pay during the school year, or spread it out over the year (to more easily plan presumably). The only thing that's continuous is the benefits.
Anyway, your families experiences and my families experiences are irrelevant. "Teachers" aren't a single entity with a single set of rules, and the only one that matters here is the GP's.