For a start, unless Apple Care was free then an insurance policy covering the whole fleet would be much, much, much cheaper. Get a policy with new-for-old and some spare units, and it would be faster than waiting for Apple to do the repair too.
Where do you get that? Any insurance policy will cost some money, and Apple's may well be cheaper for the school. I suspect school boards and administrations look at things like that. Nor does the school have to wait for Apple to repair the device. Apple can accept the device back, repair it on Apple's own schedule, and send out a working one like anyone else.
A teacher's union is likely to agree to terms under which administration can get rid of a bad teacher. The administration has to find some way to convince the teachers that teachers will be fired for being bad teachers, not for being disliked by the principal, saying inconvenient things, etc.
For stuff I buy, it would be a really expensive insurance policy, which is why I never buy extended warranties. A large organization that can negotiate rates on a large number of devices might wind up with a reasonable insurance policy.
That's one thing the support contract does. It makes explicit that part of the TCO that relates to durability and reliability. If you spend $X on a device, and $Y/year on its support, and figure it will last Z years, then you've got a lot of the total cost right there. Again, you as a customer don't really care whether Apple repairs the iPads or grinds them up for unicorn food so the farts can reinforce the reality distortion field, you care about what it will cost you to keep them running.
That's what Apple told developers. Remember when Microsoft told developers what was going to happen? Lots of programs still caused lots of UAC alerts in Vista. Developers don't listen.
To take one obvious issue, relativity is self-consistent. It can logically be true. It does require ditching or modifying concepts like time, space, and simultaneity, but that's perfectly logical. Einstein fit his physical inference to the mathematics, and then had a theory of physics based on that math. Physics has been based on assumptions and mathematics before and since.
The basic thing is that relativity has made a good many predictions about the physical world, and has been confirmed time and again. The mathematics is used to determine the predictions of the theory. Nobody's claiming that relativity's true because the math works, because that could be true of any number of things. People claim relativity's true because it explains and has predicted a lot of things, and nobody's come up with anything that contradicts it.
Until you realize this, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
He took the initiative, presumably in providing funding. I don't know for sure, but that's perfectly believable. He doesn't claim any invention credit for anything in that quote, just that he pushed high-tech projects in Congress.
Not being in the medical business, I often don't know if a practice is healthy or unhealthy. I like to listen to the people who know medicine to help find out.
Thank you for an excellent demonstration of what I was saying. Just keep up that attitude, and gun control will be designed and implemented by people who don't quite know what they're doing, but are going to err on the side of getting rid of more guns and more carrying.
I'm seeing kids who have been in a school shooting who want to take action, and the "criticism" you speak of is very often accusations of being crisis actors, at fault for the shooting, and being told to shut up. There's likely to be intelligent and informed criticism of what they want to do, but it gets lost in the noise, so nobody's going to notice it.
Violent people are a lot more likely than non-violent people to pull the trigger. The non-violent ones are also more likely to misjudge the range where they have to shoot if they're going to. Having a gun handy might have saved her, but it's hardly a sure thing. You have to balance this against what happens if gun permits are easier to get, because that's likely to cost lives also.
Has there been research into what people in the middle of shootings actually want? I doubt that most people wish they, themselves, have guns. I think they probably wish for the shooting to stop somehow. Having a gun during a shooting marks one as a target, and it's hard to use in what the shooter considers a target-rich environment. There was at least one person carrying a gun at the Giffords shooting, but he couldn't get a clear shot.
You're naive. There's plenty more corrupt organizations out there. The US Federal Government is one of the less corrupt governments around. You pay what you're required to, and you get certain services.
Historically, taxes have gone up and down. If the government was always getting more, we wouldn't get any of that "down" stuff. Learn some history.
You have zero justification for violating the law because you choose to call some spending wasted. There's going to be some level of waste in any large organization (and most small ones), and people have a tendency to pick out spending they don't like and call it waste without further justification.
"Theft" is not a useful word here. In a democracy, taxes are voluntarily imposed by the people of the country, so it's us enforcing our own rules on ourselves. If you don't like them, you're free to campaign against them. You don't actually have to pay taxes, but apparently you think it worthwhile to live in something like mainstream society and accept the benefits thereof.
And Republicans are pressing their advantages everywhere they can to create a one-party state using voter suppression and flagrant gerrymandering, not to mention refusing to hold legally mandated special elections.
Saying that gun control killed her is saying that, had she had a permit, she would have lived. There's a whole lot of assumptions tied up in that. Most people are not going to be able to pull a gun out of their purse fast and, without hesitation, hit an incoming attacker. Holding a gun marks you as a prime target for incoming fire.
I take it that, if I come up with a case of someone who was killed by a gun that could have been controlled, you'll drop your argument about that one woman?
And maybe it's better to meet gun control advocates and talk with them rather than slinging insults at school shooting survivors. Gun advocates as a group are doing themselves no favors.
IIRC, over half of shooters do not have a diagnosable mental health condition. I'm willing to agree that they have something mentally wrong with them, but that in itself doesn't help.
There's a lot of mentally ill people around, most of them as harmless as anyone else. Denying them guns will do little good, and will encourage people not to seek treatment. Given a depressive person with a gun, I'd rather the person was getting drug, talk, and cognitive therapy.
So, what you're saying is that she would have carried a gun in her purse, and would have been able to get it out, and would not have hesitated for a second, and would have hit the ex? That's a lot of assumptions. Are you also sure that she would have taken sufficiently good care of the gun that it didn't hurt anyone by accident? Why did the ex use a knife? Did the ex have some difficulty getting a gun?
Probably not, but good luck. Let us know if you succeed.
I had a friend who paid for computer equipment and software with checks with forms on the back that stated that the store agreed to take it back if it didn't live up to certain reasonable standards. He never had trouble with it.
Targeted ads can be a benefit. Government surveillance can make us safer. My current life is rather dull for some observers. Surveillance and privacy are trade-offs, like everything else.
Stallman is ignored by idiots, sure. Smart people pay attention to him. They don't necessarily agree with him, but he's called enough bad things in advance to be paid attention to.
Slashdot Mirror
That stuff hasn't gone away. You can still get instructions on installing your unix server (probably a Linux server nowadays).
Where do you get that? Any insurance policy will cost some money, and Apple's may well be cheaper for the school. I suspect school boards and administrations look at things like that. Nor does the school have to wait for Apple to repair the device. Apple can accept the device back, repair it on Apple's own schedule, and send out a working one like anyone else.
A teacher's union is likely to agree to terms under which administration can get rid of a bad teacher. The administration has to find some way to convince the teachers that teachers will be fired for being bad teachers, not for being disliked by the principal, saying inconvenient things, etc.
For stuff I buy, it would be a really expensive insurance policy, which is why I never buy extended warranties. A large organization that can negotiate rates on a large number of devices might wind up with a reasonable insurance policy.
That's one thing the support contract does. It makes explicit that part of the TCO that relates to durability and reliability. If you spend $X on a device, and $Y/year on its support, and figure it will last Z years, then you've got a lot of the total cost right there. Again, you as a customer don't really care whether Apple repairs the iPads or grinds them up for unicorn food so the farts can reinforce the reality distortion field, you care about what it will cost you to keep them running.
That's what Apple told developers. Remember when Microsoft told developers what was going to happen? Lots of programs still caused lots of UAC alerts in Vista. Developers don't listen.
To take one obvious issue, relativity is self-consistent. It can logically be true. It does require ditching or modifying concepts like time, space, and simultaneity, but that's perfectly logical. Einstein fit his physical inference to the mathematics, and then had a theory of physics based on that math. Physics has been based on assumptions and mathematics before and since.
The basic thing is that relativity has made a good many predictions about the physical world, and has been confirmed time and again. The mathematics is used to determine the predictions of the theory. Nobody's claiming that relativity's true because the math works, because that could be true of any number of things. People claim relativity's true because it explains and has predicted a lot of things, and nobody's come up with anything that contradicts it.
Until you realize this, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
He took the initiative, presumably in providing funding. I don't know for sure, but that's perfectly believable. He doesn't claim any invention credit for anything in that quote, just that he pushed high-tech projects in Congress.
Not being in the medical business, I often don't know if a practice is healthy or unhealthy. I like to listen to the people who know medicine to help find out.
Thank you for an excellent demonstration of what I was saying. Just keep up that attitude, and gun control will be designed and implemented by people who don't quite know what they're doing, but are going to err on the side of getting rid of more guns and more carrying.
I'm seeing kids who have been in a school shooting who want to take action, and the "criticism" you speak of is very often accusations of being crisis actors, at fault for the shooting, and being told to shut up. There's likely to be intelligent and informed criticism of what they want to do, but it gets lost in the noise, so nobody's going to notice it.
Violent people are a lot more likely than non-violent people to pull the trigger. The non-violent ones are also more likely to misjudge the range where they have to shoot if they're going to. Having a gun handy might have saved her, but it's hardly a sure thing. You have to balance this against what happens if gun permits are easier to get, because that's likely to cost lives also.
Has there been research into what people in the middle of shootings actually want? I doubt that most people wish they, themselves, have guns. I think they probably wish for the shooting to stop somehow. Having a gun during a shooting marks one as a target, and it's hard to use in what the shooter considers a target-rich environment. There was at least one person carrying a gun at the Giffords shooting, but he couldn't get a clear shot.
You're naive. There's plenty more corrupt organizations out there. The US Federal Government is one of the less corrupt governments around. You pay what you're required to, and you get certain services.
Historically, taxes have gone up and down. If the government was always getting more, we wouldn't get any of that "down" stuff. Learn some history.
You have zero justification for violating the law because you choose to call some spending wasted. There's going to be some level of waste in any large organization (and most small ones), and people have a tendency to pick out spending they don't like and call it waste without further justification.
"Theft" is not a useful word here. In a democracy, taxes are voluntarily imposed by the people of the country, so it's us enforcing our own rules on ourselves. If you don't like them, you're free to campaign against them. You don't actually have to pay taxes, but apparently you think it worthwhile to live in something like mainstream society and accept the benefits thereof.
And Republicans are pressing their advantages everywhere they can to create a one-party state using voter suppression and flagrant gerrymandering, not to mention refusing to hold legally mandated special elections.
I'd say her ex killed her.
Saying that gun control killed her is saying that, had she had a permit, she would have lived. There's a whole lot of assumptions tied up in that. Most people are not going to be able to pull a gun out of their purse fast and, without hesitation, hit an incoming attacker. Holding a gun marks you as a prime target for incoming fire.
I take it that, if I come up with a case of someone who was killed by a gun that could have been controlled, you'll drop your argument about that one woman?
And maybe it's better to meet gun control advocates and talk with them rather than slinging insults at school shooting survivors. Gun advocates as a group are doing themselves no favors.
If your house is invaded by 2-4 armed criminals, your best chance of survival is almost certainly to not be armed.
IIRC, over half of shooters do not have a diagnosable mental health condition. I'm willing to agree that they have something mentally wrong with them, but that in itself doesn't help.
There's a lot of mentally ill people around, most of them as harmless as anyone else. Denying them guns will do little good, and will encourage people not to seek treatment. Given a depressive person with a gun, I'd rather the person was getting drug, talk, and cognitive therapy.
I have no idea where what you're saying applies, but it isn't on this planet. You might as well blame gun violence on unicorns.
Many democracies have more trust in government than we do. Such trust is very convenient for dictators, but it doesn't foster them.
The CDC should promote healthy practices in general.
So, what you're saying is that she would have carried a gun in her purse, and would have been able to get it out, and would not have hesitated for a second, and would have hit the ex? That's a lot of assumptions. Are you also sure that she would have taken sufficiently good care of the gun that it didn't hurt anyone by accident? Why did the ex use a knife? Did the ex have some difficulty getting a gun?
Probably not, but good luck. Let us know if you succeed.
I had a friend who paid for computer equipment and software with checks with forms on the back that stated that the store agreed to take it back if it didn't live up to certain reasonable standards. He never had trouble with it.
It's more complicated than that.
Targeted ads can be a benefit. Government surveillance can make us safer. My current life is rather dull for some observers. Surveillance and privacy are trade-offs, like everything else.
Stallman is ignored by idiots, sure. Smart people pay attention to him. They don't necessarily agree with him, but he's called enough bad things in advance to be paid attention to.