This ban will not achieve its goal. Students do all manner of distracting things in class for any number of reasons...whether it's law school or grade school. Banning the internet means simply that bored or distracted students will do something else like:
1. Doodle in notebook
2. Play games or text on cell phone
3. Play games, watch, or listen to ipod
4. Eyeball attractive members of the opposite sex
5. Stare into space
6. Sleep
The only thing that has any major effect on a student's attention is the relevancy and delivery of the lecture (as many, many posters have already pointed out.
Banning things for this reason only deprives the good students of a learning tool.
While there may someday (and already have been) cases of vigilantism gone wrong there are just as many case of it gone right
I gave you a specific, relevant, ongoing example of how internet vigilantism IS going wrong right now:
What troubles me is the implications of internet vigilantism. Look at Perverted Justice to see a prime example of how it can go wrong.
You did not counter that example in your argument at all. Dxplain how my example of cyber-vigilantism does not apply. Perverted Justice started out similar to the scenario in TFA. If you are going to throw around debate terminology "slippery slope fallacy" you have to have the chops to back it up.
Speaking of which, the slippery slope analogy only becomes a fallacy when the two instances in the analogy are not related. In TFA and in Perverted Justice's website, both groups are involved in catching alleged criminals. One group went too far, therefore it is logical that without counterbalance, other groups will go too far as well.
didn't say it was...my issue with this was the implications if unchecked...in case you missed it in my first post:
There is nothing wrong with helping the police catch thieves, but when vigilantism gets so much play in the media without a counterbalance, you will undoubtedly see citizens setting people up for the thrill of it. Perverted Justice is a perfect example.
now, you said:
they can arrest the "vigilantes" for filing a false report.
if you look at particular cases you will see that police are reluctant to prosecute vigilantes, especially when the newsmedia portrays their illegal, civil-rights infringing behavior in a positive light. Your idea that "oh, if vigilantes go to far they can be charged with crimes or sued" is just incorrect. In practice, there is very little legal protection for those wrongly targeted by vigilantes, especially online
"Internet vigilante group charged with 5 counts of murder"
I'm glad these thieves were caught. Law enforcement could take a few notes.
What troubles me is the implications of internet vigilantism. Look at Perverted Justice to see a prime example of how it can go wrong. When the NYtimes is reporting on this, it's just a matter of time before we see internet vigilante groups doing all kinds of suspect activity.
There is nothing wrong with helping the police catch thieves, but when vigilantism gets so much play in the media without a counterbalance, you will undoubtedly see citizens setting people up for the thrill of it. Perverted Justice is a perfect example. PWNing n00bs in World Of Warcraft gets old, so they try something with higher stakes...'hunting' bad guys in the real world via the net. It's the perfect escalation of a video game, and it WILL get out of control (more than it already has).
The idea that kids should learn how to deal with these people in face to face situations FIRST is just not logical.
I never said that, or made any statements that insinuate it either. Your logical fallacy is called the straw man.
You construct a widely exaggerated statement (kids should learn how to deal with inappropriate adults face to face first vs. over the net), then attribute it to me, then unleash an argument against it that sounds good but is actually completely meaningless, b/c I never said anything like that.
I said:
Health class is the area to address issues of adult/child abuse.
And that's exactly why your argument is a straw man. My point was that ALL age-inappropriate issues are essentially the same, the difference is the method of communication, therefore, internet issues should be addressed in the same arena as other issues: health class. I'm actually advocating the opposite of what you falsely attribute me of advocating.
I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls, but it feels good to just let loose with a torrent of simple, provable logic every now and again.
as to your point about cyber bullying...
Bullying is not a different situation because it is on a computer.
that holds a little more water, but I still think it's different. Adult/child sexual abuse is different than bullying b/c bullying is done between peers (by definition, if it was not between peers, then it would just be assault or abuse). It might be good to include a lesson on bullying in health class that covers the topic as you suggest, incorporating all forms of bullying. I'd buy that idea.
Teaching kids about the internet is a great idea. Unfortunately, being aware of adults seeking to trick them into sexual situations is NOT an internet issue, it is a social issue that has basic rules that should apply to all types of communication and interaction, no matter what the channel or method of communication might be (if you don't know what the basic rules are that I speak of, then you are probably a child molester). Health class is the area to address issues of adult/child abuse.
The real issues that teens and pre-teens need to be taught about in regards to the internet are:
1. If you post text, a picture, or video on the internet it will be there indefinitely, and everyone will potentially have access to it. This works for pics of all types, from sexually inappropriate things to pics from a party where people are drinking to social networking 'interests' lists. We've all heard stories of people getting turned down from a job b/c of a facebook profile. Young people need to know about this early.
2. Cyber bullying. For crying out loud, this is huge, and young people are the most vulnerable. Kids need to know that what gets put online has real consequences, and conversely, to not take rumors or gossip posted online seriously. We've all seen the story about the girl who killed herself b/c a neighbor (parent posing as a teen!) was saying hateful things about her.
3. What the internet is...a computer network. No more, no less. It's a powerful communications tool, just like a car is a powerful transportation tool. If you don't understand and respect what it can do, you or someone else will pay for it.
I know I kinda sound lame and schoolmarm-ish on that last one, but it's true...damn I'm getting old.
The Virginia school classes are nothing more than ignorant reactionary bs meant to calm the irrational fears of soccer moms who watch too much Dateline.
If your circle of friends is the only group that sends you news, and your circle of friends tends to think/agree with your point of view, you'll be even more insulated.
I absolutely agree. Ignore others on this thread that say "oh, i have tons of friends with different viewpoints"...Those guys haven't been to my small town in Indiana. Unadventurous, closed minded people work just as you describe with news. They filter it when they talk to each other about it. Since they do not question things or seek out a diversity of experience, the cycle perpetuates itself
Also, I honestly do not think you should be worried b/c this is not a new trend at all. Basically, boomer-aged media types are tripping over themselves to write stories about the 'new media' so they can be 'relevant.' The truth is, yes the internet is new media...a new medium of delivering the same information. Same content, new channel. Text, audio, and video via computer network...that's what 'new media' really is. The content is the same old stuff.
To address the article, it's a joke. We're all 'conduits for news'. Sending a link to someone via email is basically the same as telling someone verbally from a communications theory perspective. It's just a different channel. People have passed on information to one another since people existed.
In essence, they are replacing the professional filter -- reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com -- with a social one.
Not a chance in hell. Nobody is replacing anything. The professional filter (CNN, NYtimes, etc) is a pre-requisite for this 'social filter' they are describing. Without CNN or the NYtimes, who provides the professional news for the story that is in the link that one friend emails to another? This is all just hype from people who do not yet understand that the internet is just a channel for information. Sending a friend a link to an article about story X is the same as telling them about story X at the watercooler. The idea that the internet has created some new 'social filter' for news is silly.
Sure, it's "easy to imagine" such a system if you're an uneducated 'tard like yourself.
parent is a troll...i'm the grandparent poster, fyi...I'd even venture to say parent is a plant from the oil or auto industry...just read the post carefully and any moderators, I think, will see the trolling
Most of the posters whose comments generally supported my point were modded higher, so that's good. OTOH, I somehow became redundant. I didn't see any other posts that made the same point when I posted (i view at 3+), but them's the breaks./.'s moderators usually are fair to me.
> Marketing - this one can be reduced to about.40 per album on average. Look at how much marketing you see for artists in the racks at wal-mart, seriously there is almost none, for all the hundreds of albums (marketing for concerts doesn't count here). This is a major problem in the industry (right behind the RIAA). The main problem is that the people who make the decisions in the large companies are so disconnected with what people want, and their surveys (which cost money) are so poorly designed and executed, the end up hurting even more.
> Packaging - you're right, itcould definitely be done cheaper, but it's the retailers that resist it. They don't think consumers are willing to buy something 'non-traditional'...which is a complete joke. There are several packaging options that protect the CD just as well but are cheaper. This one is Wal-Mart's fault
> Publishing royalties - I guess this must be some kind of average b/c this number varies widely among the artists you'd see in the racks at Wal-Mart. Majors can afford to give up alot, smaller indie lables deserve much more
> Distribution - I'll agree with your unchanged, but there is room here for some innovation (I read in NYtimes that Wal-Mart saved millions by adding a switch to their long haul trucks that allows the driver to use the battery (ACC) without starting the engine)...Bush admin. gets the blame for the high oil prices;)
> Artists royalties, Label profit - again, this varies by over a dollar...the big guys definitely could deal with less than they're used to, indies deserve more
so yeah, depending on the artist, we could take it to just at 10 depending on the artist/label (much less for some)
the Mountain View, Calif.-based company will not discuss how often government agencies demand access to its customers' information or whether content on its new Web-based collaborative tools has been the subject of any reviews under the Patriot Act
Google isn't doing nearly enough to keeps its users informed about privacy issues. A press release saying "We're doing everything we can" isn't nearly good enough from the company that wants to organize all the world's information.
If anything, the federal law enforcement should be watching Google to ensure they aren't violating their user's privacy.
Part of me is hopeful that eventually the misguided people in government who think you can fight terrorism with a database will learn and change. Not everyone in the government is as evil as Bush/Rove/Cheney. If databases stopped terrorism, we wouldn't have had 9/11...at least one person on each of the 9/11 planes was on the terrorist watch list (in the database).
blah blah blah...I don't sympathize. All the stuff you list that you do for your employees are things that you are SUPPOSED to do as an owner/upper management. The fact that you think you are going above and beyond the call of duty by doing basic management functions is a major problem.
My advice to you is find a few of your most talented younger employees and see if they can help you streamline the way you operate on a day to day basis. See if they can help you clean out the uneccesary, process-oriented BS in your proceedures and focus on what will make you money.
Also, please take a vacation. Judging from your post, you are pretty stressed out.
I think your heart is in the right place, you just need to rethink some things so that all of your effort isn't wasted.
private companies owning the lines as it is one more barrier to improper spying by the government
Not a chance. Several major private companies are falling over themselves trying to help the government spy on it's on citizens. Look at Google in China, and the major cell phone operators here in the states.
If the public owns the lines, they are subject to government oversight. If the government doesn't properly control privacy, it can be held accountable much more easily than a private corporation can.
yeah, i don't know how i got +5 insightful either, esp. considering I only got +1 mod point, but i'd take it
anyhow, I was intending to be funny...i'm an american (as you might have guessed), so i only know about British schools from the media.
I'll take your point, but with one caveat, I'm assuming you're at least 25, therefore, it's been 7 yrs since you were in the ed. system (unless you're a teacher)...so isn't it possible policies about 'brainwashing' have changed?
But yhey are spewing propaganda to British school children. To quote the article:
2. Make the case for ending human space flight. Outline the advantages of using satellites and the disadvantages and dangers of manned missions. Include an explanation as to why manned missions have continued despite the cost and loss of life.
The thought of British authorities trying to use the horrible danger of human spaceflight to brainwash students to be frightened of the idea reminds me of Reefer Madness
This lame article, and the lame ideas behind it boil down to two things: younger people are more tech-savvy and independent minded. That's it. Older people need to understand that this is how it always goes with the young/old divide and show some leadership by adapting to new technology, not bitching and moaning about it.
parent post seems like a troll to me...(or possibly a graduate of Bob Jones University)
disclaimer: I am a "millenial", whatever the hell that means;)
yeah right...the guy who posted this is a lame IT sysad with a bad marriage, ED, and an axe to grind, for example:
Not at all surprised to see that 59 % of "millenial" workers think they can install whatever they want, given that more of them are spoiled gimme-gimmes
seriously, 'spoiled gimme-gimmes'...every generation accuses the younger generation of being spoiled. This is true, oh since the beginning of humans on this planet. Truth is, yes younger people benefit from the experience of older people (3 yrs + older than them), but that doesn't make them spoiled. EVERYONE gets that benefit. Old-timers got it, just as us younger folk are getting it now (heh). Also, being 'spoiled' has nothing to do with circumventing draconian and unproductive IT regulations about what program can be installed.
secondly, no young person I've ever met would say this:
Nobody should allow their phones to ring in class or during a date -- unless they're dope dealers, pimps, doctors, or on-call IT staff. That's why I prefer the company of mature women: they say a lot less, but what they say actually counts!
this reminds me of the 90's, before cell phones got cheaper, when old-timers would say the same thing about anyone with a beeper. The whole cell phone thing boils down to one issue, people who don't use cell phones (for whatever reason) have to justify missing out on the tremendous benefit they provide.
Let me repeat: This lame article, and the lame ideas behind it boil down to one thing: younger people are more tech-savvy. That's it. Older people, get on the ball or shut the fuck up.
worked technical support for several years. The worst part of the whole ordeal was dealing with all of the unpredictability on the other end.
Saving money on doing tech. support has nothing to do with Apple's response to iphone hacks! Anyone who would have the capability to hack an iphone would know that if you hack it, you can't get support for it.
Apple is concerned with money. More specifically, they got big bucks from AT&T to make it exclusive. AT&T have a vested interest to make sure that their investment is worth it. Apple has to prove to AT&T that all possible measures are being taken to ensure that if someone buys an iphone, they use AT&T service. That's what's in play here. Tech support is irrelevant.
I bet Jobs personally at least sympathizes with those who want to hack iphones so they can use them with any phone services. The deal with AT&T may not have been his call in the end.
off-topic, Parent post is a troll in disguise...basically he's ranting about frustrations of doing tech support and somehow managed to loosely connect it to the topic
One is compelled to wonder _exactly_ what sort of behavior they are talking about here that might indicate the kids will become criminals later in life.
Absolutely. This news is horrible for several reasons, but your point is likely to be ignored over the din of the privacy issues (which are grave, of course).
The fact is, predicting the kind of choices people will make based on the way they act in school is sort of like a psychology approved version of astrology. You can't.
As a former teacher, I can say that even the sharpest, most well-trained, professional teachers struggle with separating personal conflict that naturally arises between teacher/student and serious issues of behavior. In the context of the classroom, the observer of the behavior is biased. It's the same principle that leads some research that has found (and since been proven wrong) that girls are better students than boys at a certain age. It's a child development issue, boys at a certain age learn best kinestetically (by doing) while girls at the same age learn more verbally (sitting in a chair being talked to). However, elementary teachers (mostly women) report that boys have more learning disabilities at that age b/c they are less likely to sit still and be quiet.
So, in the best case scenario, the best teachers are biased...but consider a worst case scenario! What about the average elementary or middle school teacher? We can expect to see
1. boys and girls who are centrally kinestetic learners to be targeted by ignorant teachers
2. gifted and talented students who exhibit 'non-standard' behavior that some teachers interpret at 'disruptive' will be targeted
3. teachers and administrators will exaggerate student behavior to weed out students that they find difficult
4. students will ues the fact that a particular student has had DNA taken to ostracize them (and don't think for one minute that police and administrators will be able to keep it confidential...not even half the time...that kind of information travels fast around a school, especially a smaller school)
5. in 40 years when the results of this kind of policy is analized, it won't have any predictive effect on behavior choices...socio-economic factors tell us as much as possible now, and crime rates will not be effected
The point is however, if you can't tell the difference, what does it matter?
Let's get one thing clear, there IS a difference between a computer and a human being. Since there is a real difference, then we will always be able to discern the difference at some level in some way.
If we use our imaginations (or recall our favorite scifi movies) one could imagine a machine that has only the most minute differences, but they are still there. Once you make a machine that is completely undistinguishable from a human then you have rendered your efforts vain...we already can make plenty of humans the old fashioned way, so what's the point?
Turing's question that gave rise to the study of artificial intelligence:
When Turing starts his classic paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", he does so with the claim:
"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'"
--Turing, 1950, p1
This is a fun question, but it's ultimately pointless. It makes for good discussions in a philosophy classroom or whathaveyou, but attempts to answer that question definitively devolve into a pointless circular argument about language (much like this thread on slashdot).
There are only two core relevant questions when it comes to machine 'intelligence': What task do we need machines to perform, and what level of 'intelligence' will allow it to do the task?
Can you find a term as short and simple as that that describes the internet, even as partially as that?
hmmm...yeah, how about "computer network".. how's that for short and simple.
It's an easy concept to understand, for virtually anyone...far clearer than the ridiculous "tube" analogy (i believe someone posted the full text of the original context of the 'tubes' analogy below)
In fact, the concept of the internet shouldn't be more dumbed-down than "computer network"...some older folks might have to learn what the terms mean, but if a person can't bend their mind around that concept, well, we don't need them influencing politics anyway
I don't need a "firsthand account" from anyone to know what happened in the Texas primary last night...Obama won
Hillary won the popular vote, yes, but as we all know from the 2000 election, the popular vote doesn't matter in the end. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DELEGATES, and Obama has won the majority of Texas delegates, when the caucus is figured into the equation.
Let me repeat, Obama won the majority of delegates from Texas, therefore, in all the ways that matter, HE WON TEXAS.
The newsmedia gave Hillary the 'victory' checkmark for Texas b/c it makes a better 'story' and allows them to tie everything up in a nice bow before it gets too late into the evening. I don't want to hear any more bitching about a pro-Obama bias from the media.
But Slashdot should be better than this...AI, virusses, bacteria, censorship, anything remotely threatening it gets the fear mongering going
/. does not engage in fear mongering...it does not pander to "all the soccer moms of the world" that you mentioned or anyone else. (some dupes here and there, but that's offtopic)
Here's the difference: the issues of AI, censorship, etc. are real issues that are not well understood by most people and underreported or misunderstood by the media./. and other media NEED to bring legitimate issues to attention. That is not fear mongering.
Fear mongering is to exaggerate or completely fabricate threats that play on the irrational fears of ignorant people (sorry soccer moms, it's true)
It requires looking several cars ahead and easing off the gas well ahead of the ripple location but if more people drove like this I bet most of those stupid sudden stop points could be eliminated.
I've observed that almost anything out of the ordinary causes a braking ripple. Any sort of flashing light (even if it's completely irrelevant to the driving situation), any debris on the side of the road, a person pulled over by the cops in the oncomming lanes 300 feet away...anything that catches attention will cause a brake ripple.
I used to drive from Boulder, Colorado west on I-70 to the mountains to work. That part of I-70 is one of the most dangerous stretches of road, not only b/c of the mountains, but b/c waves and waves of weekend warriors drive that stretch all at the same time. Friday night and Saturday morning were as bad as any traffic I've ever seen.
I tried to do like the parent said, and look way ahead in order to not have to use MY brake.
The main problem is, driving efficiently in a high-traffic situation requires (some) analytical thinking...the kind of thinking that so much of American culture discourages people from doing. Ignorant driving is a symptom of a greater problem...many Americans just don't use (or don't have) the mental tools necessary to operate at a high level in our society. I have no idea how to fix this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
This ban will not achieve its goal. Students do all manner of distracting things in class for any number of reasons...whether it's law school or grade school. Banning the internet means simply that bored or distracted students will do something else like:
1. Doodle in notebook
2. Play games or text on cell phone
3. Play games, watch, or listen to ipod
4. Eyeball attractive members of the opposite sex
5. Stare into space
6. Sleep
The only thing that has any major effect on a student's attention is the relevancy and delivery of the lecture (as many, many posters have already pointed out.
Banning things for this reason only deprives the good students of a learning tool.
You did not counter that example in your argument at all. Dxplain how my example of cyber-vigilantism does not apply. Perverted Justice started out similar to the scenario in TFA. If you are going to throw around debate terminology "slippery slope fallacy" you have to have the chops to back it up.
Speaking of which, the slippery slope analogy only becomes a fallacy when the two instances in the analogy are not related. In TFA and in Perverted Justice's website, both groups are involved in catching alleged criminals. One group went too far, therefore it is logical that without counterbalance, other groups will go too far as well.
now, you said:
if you look at particular cases you will see that police are reluctant to prosecute vigilantes, especially when the newsmedia portrays their illegal, civil-rights infringing behavior in a positive light. Your idea that "oh, if vigilantes go to far they can be charged with crimes or sued" is just incorrect. In practice, there is very little legal protection for those wrongly targeted by vigilantes, especially online
"Internet vigilante group charged with 5 counts of murder"
I'm glad these thieves were caught. Law enforcement could take a few notes.
What troubles me is the implications of internet vigilantism. Look at Perverted Justice to see a prime example of how it can go wrong. When the NYtimes is reporting on this, it's just a matter of time before we see internet vigilante groups doing all kinds of suspect activity.
There is nothing wrong with helping the police catch thieves, but when vigilantism gets so much play in the media without a counterbalance, you will undoubtedly see citizens setting people up for the thrill of it. Perverted Justice is a perfect example. PWNing n00bs in World Of Warcraft gets old, so they try something with higher stakes...'hunting' bad guys in the real world via the net. It's the perfect escalation of a video game, and it WILL get out of control (more than it already has).
I never said that, or made any statements that insinuate it either. Your logical fallacy is called the straw man.
You construct a widely exaggerated statement (kids should learn how to deal with inappropriate adults face to face first vs. over the net), then attribute it to me, then unleash an argument against it that sounds good but is actually completely meaningless, b/c I never said anything like that.
I said:
And that's exactly why your argument is a straw man. My point was that ALL age-inappropriate issues are essentially the same, the difference is the method of communication, therefore, internet issues should be addressed in the same arena as other issues: health class. I'm actually advocating the opposite of what you falsely attribute me of advocating.
I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls, but it feels good to just let loose with a torrent of simple, provable logic every now and again.
as to your point about cyber bullying...
that holds a little more water, but I still think it's different. Adult/child sexual abuse is different than bullying b/c bullying is done between peers (by definition, if it was not between peers, then it would just be assault or abuse). It might be good to include a lesson on bullying in health class that covers the topic as you suggest, incorporating all forms of bullying. I'd buy that idea.
thanks for your comment
Teaching kids about the internet is a great idea. Unfortunately, being aware of adults seeking to trick them into sexual situations is NOT an internet issue, it is a social issue that has basic rules that should apply to all types of communication and interaction, no matter what the channel or method of communication might be (if you don't know what the basic rules are that I speak of, then you are probably a child molester). Health class is the area to address issues of adult/child abuse.
The real issues that teens and pre-teens need to be taught about in regards to the internet are:
1. If you post text, a picture, or video on the internet it will be there indefinitely, and everyone will potentially have access to it. This works for pics of all types, from sexually inappropriate things to pics from a party where people are drinking to social networking 'interests' lists. We've all heard stories of people getting turned down from a job b/c of a facebook profile. Young people need to know about this early.
2. Cyber bullying. For crying out loud, this is huge, and young people are the most vulnerable. Kids need to know that what gets put online has real consequences, and conversely, to not take rumors or gossip posted online seriously. We've all seen the story about the girl who killed herself b/c a neighbor (parent posing as a teen!) was saying hateful things about her.
3. What the internet is...a computer network. No more, no less. It's a powerful communications tool, just like a car is a powerful transportation tool. If you don't understand and respect what it can do, you or someone else will pay for it.
I know I kinda sound lame and schoolmarm-ish on that last one, but it's true...damn I'm getting old.
The Virginia school classes are nothing more than ignorant reactionary bs meant to calm the irrational fears of soccer moms who watch too much Dateline.
I absolutely agree. Ignore others on this thread that say "oh, i have tons of friends with different viewpoints"...Those guys haven't been to my small town in Indiana. Unadventurous, closed minded people work just as you describe with news. They filter it when they talk to each other about it. Since they do not question things or seek out a diversity of experience, the cycle perpetuates itself
Also, I honestly do not think you should be worried b/c this is not a new trend at all. Basically, boomer-aged media types are tripping over themselves to write stories about the 'new media' so they can be 'relevant.' The truth is, yes the internet is new media...a new medium of delivering the same information. Same content, new channel. Text, audio, and video via computer network...that's what 'new media' really is. The content is the same old stuff.
To address the article, it's a joke. We're all 'conduits for news'. Sending a link to someone via email is basically the same as telling someone verbally from a communications theory perspective. It's just a different channel. People have passed on information to one another since people existed.
Not a chance in hell. Nobody is replacing anything. The professional filter (CNN, NYtimes, etc) is a pre-requisite for this 'social filter' they are describing. Without CNN or the NYtimes, who provides the professional news for the story that is in the link that one friend emails to another? This is all just hype from people who do not yet understand that the internet is just a channel for information. Sending a friend a link to an article about story X is the same as telling them about story X at the watercooler. The idea that the internet has created some new 'social filter' for news is silly.
parent is a troll...i'm the grandparent poster, fyi...I'd even venture to say parent is a plant from the oil or auto industry...just read the post carefully and any moderators, I think, will see the trolling
Most of the posters whose comments generally supported my point were modded higher, so that's good. OTOH, I somehow became redundant. I didn't see any other posts that made the same point when I posted (i view at 3+), but them's the breaks.
The transportation system described in TFA would be possible today, if it weren't for collusion from the oil and auto industry.
It's easy to imagine centralized computer control of vehicles, if industry had been doing R&D on it for the last 40 years.
IAIMI (music reviewer)
.40 per album on average. Look at how much marketing you see for artists in the racks at wal-mart, seriously there is almost none, for all the hundreds of albums (marketing for concerts doesn't count here). This is a major problem in the industry (right behind the RIAA). The main problem is that the people who make the decisions in the large companies are so disconnected with what people want, and their surveys (which cost money) are so poorly designed and executed, the end up hurting even more.
;)
decent ideas...I'd add the following:
> Marketing - this one can be reduced to about
> Packaging - you're right, itcould definitely be done cheaper, but it's the retailers that resist it. They don't think consumers are willing to buy something 'non-traditional'...which is a complete joke. There are several packaging options that protect the CD just as well but are cheaper. This one is Wal-Mart's fault
> Publishing royalties - I guess this must be some kind of average b/c this number varies widely among the artists you'd see in the racks at Wal-Mart. Majors can afford to give up alot, smaller indie lables deserve much more
> Distribution - I'll agree with your unchanged, but there is room here for some innovation (I read in NYtimes that Wal-Mart saved millions by adding a switch to their long haul trucks that allows the driver to use the battery (ACC) without starting the engine)...Bush admin. gets the blame for the high oil prices
> Artists royalties, Label profit - again, this varies by over a dollar...the big guys definitely could deal with less than they're used to, indies deserve more
so yeah, depending on the artist, we could take it to just at 10 depending on the artist/label (much less for some)
Google isn't doing nearly enough to keeps its users informed about privacy issues. A press release saying "We're doing everything we can" isn't nearly good enough from the company that wants to organize all the world's information.
If anything, the federal law enforcement should be watching Google to ensure they aren't violating their user's privacy.
Part of me is hopeful that eventually the misguided people in government who think you can fight terrorism with a database will learn and change. Not everyone in the government is as evil as Bush/Rove/Cheney. If databases stopped terrorism, we wouldn't have had 9/11...at least one person on each of the 9/11 planes was on the terrorist watch list (in the database).
blah blah blah...I don't sympathize. All the stuff you list that you do for your employees are things that you are SUPPOSED to do as an owner/upper management. The fact that you think you are going above and beyond the call of duty by doing basic management functions is a major problem.
My advice to you is find a few of your most talented younger employees and see if they can help you streamline the way you operate on a day to day basis. See if they can help you clean out the uneccesary, process-oriented BS in your proceedures and focus on what will make you money.
Also, please take a vacation. Judging from your post, you are pretty stressed out.
I think your heart is in the right place, you just need to rethink some things so that all of your effort isn't wasted.
Not at all!!! Most of my friends only download 10 or so songs from iTunes.
They usually buy cd's at Musicland or FMV and rip them to iTunes.
They would still pay the $20 a month fee just in case Brittany Spears, Nickleback, and Metallica release new albums all in the same month.
They never use myTunes, and love DRM because it's the only fair thing for consumers.
Not a chance. Several major private companies are falling over themselves trying to help the government spy on it's on citizens. Look at Google in China, and the major cell phone operators here in the states.
If the public owns the lines, they are subject to government oversight. If the government doesn't properly control privacy, it can be held accountable much more easily than a private corporation can.
yeah, i don't know how i got +5 insightful either, esp. considering I only got +1 mod point, but i'd take it
anyhow, I was intending to be funny...i'm an american (as you might have guessed), so i only know about British schools from the media.
I'll take your point, but with one caveat, I'm assuming you're at least 25, therefore, it's been 7 yrs since you were in the ed. system (unless you're a teacher)...so isn't it possible policies about 'brainwashing' have changed?
The thought of British authorities trying to use the horrible danger of human spaceflight to brainwash students to be frightened of the idea reminds me of Reefer Madness
parent post seems like a troll to me...(or possibly a graduate of Bob Jones University)
yeah right...the guy who posted this is a lame IT sysad with a bad marriage, ED, and an axe to grind, for example:
seriously, 'spoiled gimme-gimmes'...every generation accuses the younger generation of being spoiled. This is true, oh since the beginning of humans on this planet. Truth is, yes younger people benefit from the experience of older people (3 yrs + older than them), but that doesn't make them spoiled. EVERYONE gets that benefit. Old-timers got it, just as us younger folk are getting it now (heh). Also, being 'spoiled' has nothing to do with circumventing draconian and unproductive IT regulations about what program can be installed.
secondly, no young person I've ever met would say this:
this reminds me of the 90's, before cell phones got cheaper, when old-timers would say the same thing about anyone with a beeper. The whole cell phone thing boils down to one issue, people who don't use cell phones (for whatever reason) have to justify missing out on the tremendous benefit they provide.
Let me repeat: This lame article, and the lame ideas behind it boil down to one thing: younger people are more tech-savvy. That's it. Older people, get on the ball or shut the fuck up.
Saving money on doing tech. support has nothing to do with Apple's response to iphone hacks! Anyone who would have the capability to hack an iphone would know that if you hack it, you can't get support for it.
Apple is concerned with money. More specifically, they got big bucks from AT&T to make it exclusive. AT&T have a vested interest to make sure that their investment is worth it. Apple has to prove to AT&T that all possible measures are being taken to ensure that if someone buys an iphone, they use AT&T service. That's what's in play here. Tech support is irrelevant.
I bet Jobs personally at least sympathizes with those who want to hack iphones so they can use them with any phone services. The deal with AT&T may not have been his call in the end.
off-topic, Parent post is a troll in disguise...basically he's ranting about frustrations of doing tech support and somehow managed to loosely connect it to the topic
Absolutely. This news is horrible for several reasons, but your point is likely to be ignored over the din of the privacy issues (which are grave, of course).
The fact is, predicting the kind of choices people will make based on the way they act in school is sort of like a psychology approved version of astrology. You can't.
As a former teacher, I can say that even the sharpest, most well-trained, professional teachers struggle with separating personal conflict that naturally arises between teacher/student and serious issues of behavior. In the context of the classroom, the observer of the behavior is biased. It's the same principle that leads some research that has found (and since been proven wrong) that girls are better students than boys at a certain age. It's a child development issue, boys at a certain age learn best kinestetically (by doing) while girls at the same age learn more verbally (sitting in a chair being talked to). However, elementary teachers (mostly women) report that boys have more learning disabilities at that age b/c they are less likely to sit still and be quiet.
So, in the best case scenario, the best teachers are biased...but consider a worst case scenario! What about the average elementary or middle school teacher? We can expect to see
1. boys and girls who are centrally kinestetic learners to be targeted by ignorant teachers
2. gifted and talented students who exhibit 'non-standard' behavior that some teachers interpret at 'disruptive' will be targeted
3. teachers and administrators will exaggerate student behavior to weed out students that they find difficult
4. students will ues the fact that a particular student has had DNA taken to ostracize them (and don't think for one minute that police and administrators will be able to keep it confidential...not even half the time...that kind of information travels fast around a school, especially a smaller school)
5. in 40 years when the results of this kind of policy is analized, it won't have any predictive effect on behavior choices...socio-economic factors tell us as much as possible now, and crime rates will not be effected
IWAT (i was a teacher)
Let's get one thing clear, there IS a difference between a computer and a human being. Since there is a real difference, then we will always be able to discern the difference at some level in some way.
If we use our imaginations (or recall our favorite scifi movies) one could imagine a machine that has only the most minute differences, but they are still there. Once you make a machine that is completely undistinguishable from a human then you have rendered your efforts vain...we already can make plenty of humans the old fashioned way, so what's the point?
Turing's question that gave rise to the study of artificial intelligence:
This is a fun question, but it's ultimately pointless. It makes for good discussions in a philosophy classroom or whathaveyou, but attempts to answer that question definitively devolve into a pointless circular argument about language (much like this thread on slashdot).
There are only two core relevant questions when it comes to machine 'intelligence': What task do we need machines to perform, and what level of 'intelligence' will allow it to do the task?
hmmm...yeah, how about "computer network"
It's an easy concept to understand, for virtually anyone...far clearer than the ridiculous "tube" analogy (i believe someone posted the full text of the original context of the 'tubes' analogy below)
In fact, the concept of the internet shouldn't be more dumbed-down than "computer network"...some older folks might have to learn what the terms mean, but if a person can't bend their mind around that concept, well, we don't need them influencing politics anyway
I don't need a "firsthand account" from anyone to know what happened in the Texas primary last night...Obama won
Hillary won the popular vote, yes, but as we all know from the 2000 election, the popular vote doesn't matter in the end. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DELEGATES, and Obama has won the majority of Texas delegates, when the caucus is figured into the equation.
Let me repeat, Obama won the majority of delegates from Texas, therefore, in all the ways that matter, HE WON TEXAS.
The newsmedia gave Hillary the 'victory' checkmark for Texas b/c it makes a better 'story' and allows them to tie everything up in a nice bow before it gets too late into the evening. I don't want to hear any more bitching about a pro-Obama bias from the media.
Here's the difference: the issues of AI, censorship, etc. are real issues that are not well understood by most people and underreported or misunderstood by the media.
Fear mongering is to exaggerate or completely fabricate threats that play on the irrational fears of ignorant people (sorry soccer moms, it's true)
Big difference
I've observed that almost anything out of the ordinary causes a braking ripple. Any sort of flashing light (even if it's completely irrelevant to the driving situation), any debris on the side of the road, a person pulled over by the cops in the oncomming lanes 300 feet away...anything that catches attention will cause a brake ripple.
I used to drive from Boulder, Colorado west on I-70 to the mountains to work. That part of I-70 is one of the most dangerous stretches of road, not only b/c of the mountains, but b/c waves and waves of weekend warriors drive that stretch all at the same time. Friday night and Saturday morning were as bad as any traffic I've ever seen.
I tried to do like the parent said, and look way ahead in order to not have to use MY brake.
The main problem is, driving efficiently in a high-traffic situation requires (some) analytical thinking...the kind of thinking that so much of American culture discourages people from doing. Ignorant driving is a symptom of a greater problem...many Americans just don't use (or don't have) the mental tools necessary to operate at a high level in our society. I have no idea how to fix this problem.
i know...irony...i write a post about how everyone should have basic internet skills, and then I fuck up the html tags for the blockquote...