Not being an electrical engineer, when I read this I thought it sounded link something Professor Fink would invent:
Apparatus and method for enhancing the performance of personal computers:
Abstract An accelerator board for use in replacing the microprocessor of a slow speed system board with a microprocessor operating at a higher clock speed. The clock signal of the accehhhhlerator board is derived from the clock signal of the system board by first deriving a sub-harmohhhhhnic frequency which is a common denominator of both the system board and the accelerator board clock signal glaven!, and using the sub-harmonic signal to control a phase locked loop oscillator to provide the desired clock speed for the accelerator board...
The law says that unsolicited telemarketing to cell phones is illegal. The law doesn't say it's illegal only if you are paying for minutes, it just says it's illegal. The telemarketer can argue 'till he's blue in the face, and that won't change the law.
Good point. Well it's good for once to have a law written for the protection of the consumer, rather than the business.
What if they call you on nights or weekends when you happen to have free minutes? I bet the law doesn't consider that, but a telemarketer could make a good argument in court with that defense...
That's interesting; I never knew it worked that way in Britain. I'm sure a handful of USA schools do that, and for national standardized tests (college admission tests) you certainly don't know your graders, but it's definitely not widespread.
Maybe you can ask to suspend the case until the Patriot Act is declared unconstitutional or is repealed.
That seems like a fairly good way to suspend ANY case you happen to be involved in...
Judge: So, how do you plead in regards to this speeding ticket?
You: Your honor, I cannot continue this dialog, or this case, or explain this reasoning any further, unless the Patriot Act is declared unconstitutional and/or repealed. Judge: What? You: Your honor, I cannot continue this dialog, or this --- Judge: I heard you the first time! Now answer me or I will hold you in contempt of this court! You: Your honor, I cannot be held in contempt of court, continue this dialog, or this case, or explain this reasoning any further, unless the Patriot Act is declared unconstitutional and/or repealed. Judge: Well, shit. Case dismissed.
Assure them that you have the documents they, and also that you have undeniable proof of the documents. Refuse to provide them, on ground that it would violate agreements you have with certain parties (don't mention who these parties are).
If all else fails, claim that you cannot provide the documents because it is a matter of national security.
2003 was a very good year for learning new stonewalling techniques...
Fire Hayden Christensen, whose single emotive capacity is sullen petulance, and whose attempts to put on the magisterial rage that must become Darth Vader's hallmark instead sound like a tenth-grader whose dad won't let him borrow the car. This is essentially the story of a guy who becomes Space Hitler, which is already hard enough to get people to take seriously without casting a scowly teen.
That really sums up well what I felt was wrong with AOTC...
Darth Vader was cold, ruthless, and calculating; a fantasticly cruel bad guy. Anakin's just a whiner and complainer. Not every whiny repressed teenager would turn into Darth Vader, even if he had Jedi powers. So I wonder what will be in Episode III to trigger the transformation...
The real answer is to adjust your teaching methods per student based on subjective analysis. A low objective mark on a paper or test would indicate that, ideally, the teacher needs to pay closer attention to the needs of that student, and teach him in a way he can learn. (VERY few teachers have the time and skill required for this, unfortunately).
You can't grade subjectively because those grades will be compared objectively down the line. You can't say "this is pretty good for kevin, I'll give him an A", but then say "josh's paper is way better than kevin's paper, but josh is a bright kid, so I'm giving him a C". Kevin will think he's mastered the english language while Josh will go insane trying to achieve perfection.
Grading, when used for anything other than helping the teacher learn about each students, just plains sucks, and is only used for competition.
Surfing on lava... surfing on a shield down stairs at Helm's Deep... what's with Hollywood's need to write out-of-character surf stunts into sci-fi/fantasy movies?
The World-Wide Web search engine that indexes the greatest number of web pages - over two billion by December 2001 and provides a free service that searches this index in less than a second.
The site's name is apparently derived from "googol", but note the difference in spelling.
The "Google" spelling is also used in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, in which one of Deep Thought's designers asks, "And are you not," said Fook, leaning anxiously foward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?"
Instead of relying on a single patent officer's research, they should accept comments on patents. Just like all the ones we post here about prior art or hidden loopholes that grant the patent too much power.
Call it distributed research... there are thousands and thousands of untapped geek-hours available to help the USPTO focus their research, and it would help to prevent patent disputes in the future.
The EFF has already set up a program to challenge existing patents, so why not set up a program to help stop these patents before they are ever granted?
During the process of establishing prior art, we could also make a list of "public domain patents" granted to the American people for things that have widespread prior art, to make it easier to stop patents in the future (just refer to the list, and if a new patent application overlaps at all with a "public domain patent", the entire appliaction is rejected and must be resubmitted).
"Look, they'll raise their prices first, and if demand drops off or they're afraid that their market share is shrinking, then they may lower their prices again."
You know, that's how it should work, in all cases except a monopoly, where the product can be priced artificially high. So it's ironic that in an anti-trust (anti-monopoly) suit, the punishment is price-related rather than a true penalty like splitting the OS and Apps.
"We can't be subjecting people to laws they are not even allowed to know about now can we? This sounds more like the behavior of a certain former leader the US just ejected from Iraq. Say it ain't so."
It also sounds like a game of Calvin Ball gone horribly wrong.
Better than nothing, but it really should be just the cost of shipping, and the cost of expected replacements should be worked into the price of the original product. It would have an insignificant effect on the original purchase price.
Software companies used to do this. If your CD got too scratched up or even if you lost a CD, you jsut had to send in the first page of the manual or something to prove you owned it, alogn with the damaged CD, and they'd send you a replacement.
How come movie companies don't do this; replace damaged discs?
Did I buy the disc, or did I buy a license to make personal use of the movie on the disc, and the disc is just the transport mechanism?
"You could argue that Bush was underfunding, or had bad budget priorities, but you cannot argue that he "cut funding" to health care, education, etc overall if he proposes spending more."
I guess to make a more accurate argument than "he cut funding," I'd have to look for a good budget example where though the total budget was increased, specific programs that I liked were cut/reduced in favor of programs I don't like.
I hate watching politicians (whichever side) argue different arguments with each other: "I raised overall education spending" vs. "You cut $100 million in after-school program funding". They're both right, but neither of them address the core issue, of exactly what has changed. The first guy can't go into detail because there was some painful cutting of programs that his opponents think are important which the public might be sad to hear about, while the second guy won't admit that overall funding went up and actually went to some good new causes. You almost have to listen to what they tell you about, and then read between the lines to figure out exactly what happened.
When you only present facts that support your side of the argument, as politicians and campaigners do today, you surrender your right to criticize the other side of the argument because it would mean you have to acknowledge facts that hurt your argument. No one really wants to come to agreement; they just want to be voted in so they can have everything their own way for four years.
"I'm also disturbed by the fact that when I point out that the NEA forces its members to give money to the Democratic Party, the typical answer is something like "I like the Democrats, so this is good"."
I'd be disturbed from that too. I hate machiavellian bastards too who support wrongfuls acts done by their team but condemn it when their opponents do it.
The worst is when politicians behave all political (however well masked), and then when someone calls them on it, the politicians just scream back that the accuser is playing politics. Everyone's playing politics. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
So though I say give the NEA a break if some things they do seem political, I'd say the same about any organization that seemed to mean well (even if I disagreed with their beliefs). I don't accuse groups I dislike of having hidden political agendas, I simply try to argue against and debunk their stances.
"at a private school it would be very unlikely that my kids could fall in with a crowd that did not value education."
I totally agree... so that proves that private school vouchers are not the answer to the question of how to educate all those kids who aren't learning so much in public school. Private schools do well, but only because they are generally teaching better-than-average students. Fill up private schools with troubled kids from public school, and I'd bet the private school doesn't do any better than the public school.
Slashdot Mirror
The law says that unsolicited telemarketing to cell phones is illegal. The law doesn't say it's illegal only if you are paying for minutes, it just says it's illegal. The telemarketer can argue 'till he's blue in the face, and that won't change the law.
Good point. Well it's good for once to have a law written for the protection of the consumer, rather than the business.
linkified: http://www.panix.com/~eck/telemarket.html
What if they call you on nights or weekends when you happen to have free minutes? I bet the law doesn't consider that, but a telemarketer could make a good argument in court with that defense...
That's interesting; I never knew it worked that way in Britain. I'm sure a handful of USA schools do that, and for national standardized tests (college admission tests) you certainly don't know your graders, but it's definitely not widespread.
That seems like a fairly good way to suspend ANY case you happen to be involved in...
Assure them that you have the documents they, and also that you have undeniable proof of the documents. Refuse to provide them, on ground that it would violate agreements you have with certain parties (don't mention who these parties are).
If all else fails, claim that you cannot provide the documents because it is a matter of national security.
2003 was a very good year for learning new stonewalling techniques...
Darth Vader was cold, ruthless, and calculating; a fantasticly cruel bad guy. Anakin's just a whiner and complainer. Not every whiny repressed teenager would turn into Darth Vader, even if he had Jedi powers. So I wonder what will be in Episode III to trigger the transformation...
The real answer is to adjust your teaching methods per student based on subjective analysis. A low objective mark on a paper or test would indicate that, ideally, the teacher needs to pay closer attention to the needs of that student, and teach him in a way he can learn. (VERY few teachers have the time and skill required for this, unfortunately).
You can't grade subjectively because those grades will be compared objectively down the line. You can't say "this is pretty good for kevin, I'll give him an A", but then say "josh's paper is way better than kevin's paper, but josh is a bright kid, so I'm giving him a C". Kevin will think he's mastered the english language while Josh will go insane trying to achieve perfection.
Grading, when used for anything other than helping the teacher learn about each students, just plains sucks, and is only used for competition.
Thanks, I think it's hilarious too. But I must give credit where credit is due.
Surfing on lava... surfing on a shield down stairs at Helm's Deep... what's with Hollywood's need to write out-of-character surf stunts into sci-fi/fantasy movies?
I think the patent process should be revamped...
Instead of relying on a single patent officer's research, they should accept comments on patents. Just like all the ones we post here about prior art or hidden loopholes that grant the patent too much power.
Call it distributed research... there are thousands and thousands of untapped geek-hours available to help the USPTO focus their research, and it would help to prevent patent disputes in the future.
The EFF has already set up a program to challenge existing patents, so why not set up a program to help stop these patents before they are ever granted?
During the process of establishing prior art, we could also make a list of "public domain patents" granted to the American people for things that have widespread prior art, to make it easier to stop patents in the future (just refer to the list, and if a new patent application overlaps at all with a "public domain patent", the entire appliaction is rejected and must be resubmitted).
What do we think?
"Look, they'll raise their prices first, and if demand drops off or they're afraid that their market share is shrinking, then they may lower their prices again."
You know, that's how it should work, in all cases except a monopoly, where the product can be priced artificially high. So it's ironic that in an anti-trust (anti-monopoly) suit, the punishment is price-related rather than a true penalty like splitting the OS and Apps.
Yes, but this would give everyone a good reason NOT to RTFA...
Wait a minute...no one R'sTFA anyway.
Then how do you explain the slashdot effect?
"We can't be subjecting people to laws they are not even allowed to know about now can we? This sounds more like the behavior of a certain former leader the US just ejected from Iraq. Say it ain't so."
It also sounds like a game of Calvin Ball gone horribly wrong.
Yeah... I love how they charge us money to take it, but when we try to use what we bought they tell us we don't own it.
"Maybe we should have open sourced movies now? ;)"
check out the creative commons license.
Sorry, must have hit the wrong reply link; I meant to reply to this post.
"Maybe we should have open sourced movies now? ;)"
check out the creative commons license.
Better than nothing, but it really should be just the cost of shipping, and the cost of expected replacements should be worked into the price of the original product. It would have an insignificant effect on the original purchase price.
Software companies used to do this. If your CD got too scratched up or even if you lost a CD, you jsut had to send in the first page of the manual or something to prove you owned it, alogn with the damaged CD, and they'd send you a replacement.
How come movie companies don't do this; replace damaged discs?
Did I buy the disc, or did I buy a license to make personal use of the movie on the disc, and the disc is just the transport mechanism?
"You could argue that Bush was underfunding, or had bad budget priorities, but you cannot argue that he "cut funding" to health care, education, etc overall if he proposes spending more."
I guess to make a more accurate argument than "he cut funding," I'd have to look for a good budget example where though the total budget was increased, specific programs that I liked were cut/reduced in favor of programs I don't like.
I hate watching politicians (whichever side) argue different arguments with each other: "I raised overall education spending" vs. "You cut $100 million in after-school program funding". They're both right, but neither of them address the core issue, of exactly what has changed. The first guy can't go into detail because there was some painful cutting of programs that his opponents think are important which the public might be sad to hear about, while the second guy won't admit that overall funding went up and actually went to some good new causes. You almost have to listen to what they tell you about, and then read between the lines to figure out exactly what happened.
When you only present facts that support your side of the argument, as politicians and campaigners do today, you surrender your right to criticize the other side of the argument because it would mean you have to acknowledge facts that hurt your argument. No one really wants to come to agreement; they just want to be voted in so they can have everything their own way for four years.
"I'm also disturbed by the fact that when I point out that the NEA forces its members to give money to the Democratic Party, the typical answer is something like "I like the Democrats, so this is good"."
I'd be disturbed from that too. I hate machiavellian bastards too who support wrongfuls acts done by their team but condemn it when their opponents do it.
The worst is when politicians behave all political (however well masked), and then when someone calls them on it, the politicians just scream back that the accuser is playing politics. Everyone's playing politics. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
So though I say give the NEA a break if some things they do seem political, I'd say the same about any organization that seemed to mean well (even if I disagreed with their beliefs). I don't accuse groups I dislike of having hidden political agendas, I simply try to argue against and debunk their stances.
"at a private school it would be very unlikely that my kids could fall in with a crowd that did not value education."
I totally agree... so that proves that private school vouchers are not the answer to the question of how to educate all those kids who aren't learning so much in public school. Private schools do well, but only because they are generally teaching better-than-average students. Fill up private schools with troubled kids from public school, and I'd bet the private school doesn't do any better than the public school.