On the one hand you talk of good and bad teachers, on the other you seem to say that the only reason we need teachers rather than text books is that "students are too lazy or too stupid to learn on their own".
I certainly can't get as good a grasp from a book as I can from an attentive lecturer who can explain something in several different ways, all the while gauging the response of the students.
I've found that when lecturers choose to write by hand rather than use PowerPoint, it helps keep the pace at a level where one can fully absorb the information.
Although it's not an inherent problem of the technology, having long, complex equations on pre-made slides does make it all too easy even for very good lecturers to skip over pieces of explanation or leave the students concentrating on one part and therefore missing another. When the professor is limited to handwriting speed (and also a sequential structure) they tend to do a much better job of explaining each part as it is written.
Maybe the people would form a stable government, and I quite agree that they should be given the best opportunity to do so. There's no reason, though, to believe that US support is the only thing keeping most of the country in the dark ages. There are plenty of African countries that are at least as fucked up as Saudi Arabia without US sponsorship.
On the other hand, though, I'm continually surprised at just how heavy the average web page seems to be. My phone has a little bandwidth ticker in the corner, and often the front pages for company sites, or the pages for single newspaper articles come in at over 1MB. Switching off images seems to be a thing of the past, so I'd think most users are getting hit with that full page weight.
If the company's going to be doing all that in-house, then all those fixed costs are going to be spread over far more than 1TB. If the company's not doing it in-house, then they're going to be contracting out to a company who specialise in that kind of thing - same effect.
If you were paying $20/GB for the hardware plus two years of support, that's still only around $0.80/GB/month, though. Even adding your wages, network hardware, and the rest doesn't bring it close to the $30/GB/month figure.
That's still only about $0.80/GB/month though. Obviously there are then infrastructure costs and the like, but I find it very difficult to see where the majority of that remaining $29.20/month is going to - especially since it's within the company, so no profit margin to consider.
When I'm using my laptop at home it lives on a stand, hooked up to an external mouse and keyboard. I use Photoshop a lot, and I quite quickly adapted to using my left hand on the trackpad for navigation and my right on the mouse for actual tool work. I imagine it'd work well with quite a few design programs.
Niche as hell, sure, but it'd be enough to make me consider one. There's plenty of market out there for specialist input devices for video, audio and 3D work, so if this catches on in one of those markets then I'd say Apple are on to a decent cash cow.
For the data protection part, I was working on the assumption that they were treating it in a similar manner to that search data that AOL released a few years back (i.e. clustered by user but without a name attached), from which it was straightforward in many cases to extrapolate personal details. The act applies to "data which relate to a living individual who can be identified from those data". Anyway, it seems that I may have been mistaken there, so perhaps it doesn't apply.
In terms of wiretapping, I was considering the ISP to be an intermediate link between the user and the server. In the same way that I can reasonably expect the phone company not to eavesdrop on my calls to other businesses or individuals (at least without my consent), I expect my ISP not to eavesdrop on the contents of my packets while routing them to their destination.
Firstly, in the UK, the data protection act comes into play, especially considering the level of insight that browsing info can give about many of the items listed on the "Sensitive personal data" list.
Secondly, wiretapping legislation specifically forbids monitoring of telephone communications except in specific circumstances, whether they are encrypted or not. It's hardly a stretch to apply the same logic to internet communication.
One thing to add, which you may not have realised if you're not a UK user, is that it is absolutely possible for people to vote with their wallets in this case. Unlike the situation as I understand it in the US, we have a fairly good choice of DSL ISPs.
If a person is using TalkTalk, it means they have a BT (physical) phone line, although it may not be currently connected to BT equipment at the exchange. Since BT has long been required to open up their government-provided-monopoly infrastructure to others, it means that there will be a wide choice of ISPs and switching is relatively straightforward.
Also, on a purely personal note, this allows me a brilliant concrete example of why I advise people to pay a little more for a straightforward, unadulterated connection from Be or UKFSN's LLU service (no affiliation with either other than as a satisfied customer) and support those ISPs who don't pull crap like this.
To me that almost proves the grandparent right. You're probably above average in terms of drive use, and it looks like you'll still be OK with about 250GB. It doesn't matter that SSDs will only be at 800GB when spinning disks are at 5TB if all most people need is under 300GB.
You raise a fair point. I must admit, though, I'm now sitting here wondering how difficult it'd be to present a business case to attract that kind of investment...
In that case it sounds like there's a gap in the market waiting to be filled, and that means profit to be made. You could be the guy making that profit, not to mention getting the connection you wanted in the first place. It'll take a bit of work, but giving the middle finger to the entrenched pseudo-monopolies could be a rather satisfying way for a geek to make a living!
In a general sense I suppose I can see where you're coming from, although I don't think of myself as someone who would refrain from calling someone an asshole if I thought they deserved it. In this particular case, however, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that he has a mental problem based on his paranoid and delusional beliefs about aliens and the government.
To quote myself from when this discussion came up earlier:
For the sake of argument, let's say that we all agree that the crime occurred on US soil (and even that is by no means a unanimous opinion). The UK will only allow the extradition of they believe that he will receive a fair trial and (if found guilty) a reasonable punishment for the crimes he has been accused of.
This is a man with some psychological problems who appears to have made a very very stupid decision by breaking in to some poorly secured US government computers. There was little actual harm done. The consensus seems to be that in the UK he would receive a slap on the wrist, maybe some psychiatric treatment, perhaps some limitations on his future access to computers. At the time he faced a maximum of six months in a UK prison.
The US are calling him a terrorist, and lining him up for the distinct possibility of several decades, maybe even life, in a federal prison.
Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US, or do you think he would be made an example of? If the former, why? If the latter, do you think it is still fair to extradite him?
I have no idea whether the grandparent post's assertion that the US would pull out of the UN over it is true or not, but I can see a few parts that the US is in violation of. Articles 5 & 7 (7 especially) seem fairly clear cut, but if you read through, there are a few others that could be debated.
Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Extraordinary rendition. One could argue that carrying out US orders on non-US soil does not violate the letter of the treaty, but I would think most people would disagree.
Article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
I believe that homosexuals are not afforded equal protection in all matters (employment particularly). Even US governmental organisations (such as the military) are in violation of this one.
What does political correctness have to do with it? I happen to be of the opinion that intent should carry a reasonable amount of weight in sentencing, and I believe that there is a reasonable amount of legal precedent on my side in this one.
I'm saying that he should be punished based on a combination of his intent and the actual damage caused. His obsessive belief that the government is covering up proof of aliens points to paranoia and delusions, which seem relevant enough to be taken into account when considering whether he had malicious intent; the actual damages extended to auditing the systems and securing them to an extent that should already have been done.
I get the impression that you're not just arguing for the hell of it, so I'm genuinely interested to know what part of this you disagree with so vehemently.
For the sake of argument, let's say that we all agree that the crime occurred on US soil (and even that is by no means a unanimous opinion). The UK will only allow the extradition of they believe that he will receive a fair trial and (if found guilty) a reasonable punishment for the crimes he has been accused of.
This is a man with some psychological problems who appears to have made a very very stupid decision by breaking in to some poorly secured US government computers. There was little actual harm done. The consensus seems to be that in the UK he would receive a slap on the wrist, maybe some psychiatric treatment, perhaps some limitations on his future access to computers. At the time he faced a maximum of six months in a UK prison.
The US are calling him a terrorist, and lining him up for the distinct possibility of several decades, maybe even life, in a federal prison.
Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US, or do you think he would be made an example of? If the former, why? If the latter, do you think it is still fair to extradite him?
Quick question: is it worth getting the statutory £2 report from all of the companies (incidentally, the ICO only lists three) or will it be sufficient to go with one?
Not that it particularly matters at £2 per go, I suppose, but it'd still save some time if it turns out they're all working from shared info.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: if your teacher is using chalk in a room equipped with a large whiteboard, it may be a good time to double check their technological competence.
On the one hand you talk of good and bad teachers, on the other you seem to say that the only reason we need teachers rather than text books is that "students are too lazy or too stupid to learn on their own".
I certainly can't get as good a grasp from a book as I can from an attentive lecturer who can explain something in several different ways, all the while gauging the response of the students.
I've found that when lecturers choose to write by hand rather than use PowerPoint, it helps keep the pace at a level where one can fully absorb the information.
Although it's not an inherent problem of the technology, having long, complex equations on pre-made slides does make it all too easy even for very good lecturers to skip over pieces of explanation or leave the students concentrating on one part and therefore missing another. When the professor is limited to handwriting speed (and also a sequential structure) they tend to do a much better job of explaining each part as it is written.
Maybe the people would form a stable government, and I quite agree that they should be given the best opportunity to do so. There's no reason, though, to believe that US support is the only thing keeping most of the country in the dark ages. There are plenty of African countries that are at least as fucked up as Saudi Arabia without US sponsorship.
Really? Why?
On the other hand, though, I'm continually surprised at just how heavy the average web page seems to be. My phone has a little bandwidth ticker in the corner, and often the front pages for company sites, or the pages for single newspaper articles come in at over 1MB. Switching off images seems to be a thing of the past, so I'd think most users are getting hit with that full page weight.
If the company's going to be doing all that in-house, then all those fixed costs are going to be spread over far more than 1TB. If the company's not doing it in-house, then they're going to be contracting out to a company who specialise in that kind of thing - same effect.
If you were paying $20/GB for the hardware plus two years of support, that's still only around $0.80/GB/month, though. Even adding your wages, network hardware, and the rest doesn't bring it close to the $30/GB/month figure.
That's still only about $0.80/GB/month though. Obviously there are then infrastructure costs and the like, but I find it very difficult to see where the majority of that remaining $29.20/month is going to - especially since it's within the company, so no profit margin to consider.
When I'm using my laptop at home it lives on a stand, hooked up to an external mouse and keyboard. I use Photoshop a lot, and I quite quickly adapted to using my left hand on the trackpad for navigation and my right on the mouse for actual tool work. I imagine it'd work well with quite a few design programs.
Niche as hell, sure, but it'd be enough to make me consider one. There's plenty of market out there for specialist input devices for video, audio and 3D work, so if this catches on in one of those markets then I'd say Apple are on to a decent cash cow.
For the data protection part, I was working on the assumption that they were treating it in a similar manner to that search data that AOL released a few years back (i.e. clustered by user but without a name attached), from which it was straightforward in many cases to extrapolate personal details. The act applies to "data which relate to a living individual who can be identified from those data". Anyway, it seems that I may have been mistaken there, so perhaps it doesn't apply.
In terms of wiretapping, I was considering the ISP to be an intermediate link between the user and the server. In the same way that I can reasonably expect the phone company not to eavesdrop on my calls to other businesses or individuals (at least without my consent), I expect my ISP not to eavesdrop on the contents of my packets while routing them to their destination.
Any chance of a link? I've heard nothing about this, but I'd be interested to read more.
Firstly, in the UK, the data protection act comes into play, especially considering the level of insight that browsing info can give about many of the items listed on the "Sensitive personal data" list.
Secondly, wiretapping legislation specifically forbids monitoring of telephone communications except in specific circumstances, whether they are encrypted or not. It's hardly a stretch to apply the same logic to internet communication.
One thing to add, which you may not have realised if you're not a UK user, is that it is absolutely possible for people to vote with their wallets in this case. Unlike the situation as I understand it in the US, we have a fairly good choice of DSL ISPs.
If a person is using TalkTalk, it means they have a BT (physical) phone line, although it may not be currently connected to BT equipment at the exchange. Since BT has long been required to open up their government-provided-monopoly infrastructure to others, it means that there will be a wide choice of ISPs and switching is relatively straightforward.
Also, on a purely personal note, this allows me a brilliant concrete example of why I advise people to pay a little more for a straightforward, unadulterated connection from Be or UKFSN's LLU service (no affiliation with either other than as a satisfied customer) and support those ISPs who don't pull crap like this.
To me that almost proves the grandparent right. You're probably above average in terms of drive use, and it looks like you'll still be OK with about 250GB. It doesn't matter that SSDs will only be at 800GB when spinning disks are at 5TB if all most people need is under 300GB.
You raise a fair point. I must admit, though, I'm now sitting here wondering how difficult it'd be to present a business case to attract that kind of investment...
In that case it sounds like there's a gap in the market waiting to be filled, and that means profit to be made. You could be the guy making that profit, not to mention getting the connection you wanted in the first place. It'll take a bit of work, but giving the middle finger to the entrenched pseudo-monopolies could be a rather satisfying way for a geek to make a living!
In a general sense I suppose I can see where you're coming from, although I don't think of myself as someone who would refrain from calling someone an asshole if I thought they deserved it. In this particular case, however, I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that he has a mental problem based on his paranoid and delusional beliefs about aliens and the government.
To quote myself from when this discussion came up earlier:
For the sake of argument, let's say that we all agree that the crime occurred on US soil (and even that is by no means a unanimous opinion). The UK will only allow the extradition of they believe that he will receive a fair trial and (if found guilty) a reasonable punishment for the crimes he has been accused of.
This is a man with some psychological problems who appears to have made a very very stupid decision by breaking in to some poorly secured US government computers. There was little actual harm done. The consensus seems to be that in the UK he would receive a slap on the wrist, maybe some psychiatric treatment, perhaps some limitations on his future access to computers. At the time he faced a maximum of six months in a UK prison.
The US are calling him a terrorist, and lining him up for the distinct possibility of several decades, maybe even life, in a federal prison.
Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US, or do you think he would be made an example of? If the former, why? If the latter, do you think it is still fair to extradite him?
I have no idea whether the grandparent post's assertion that the US would pull out of the UN over it is true or not, but I can see a few parts that the US is in violation of. Articles 5 & 7 (7 especially) seem fairly clear cut, but if you read through, there are a few others that could be debated.
Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Extraordinary rendition. One could argue that carrying out US orders on non-US soil does not violate the letter of the treaty, but I would think most people would disagree.
Article 7 - All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
I believe that homosexuals are not afforded equal protection in all matters (employment particularly). Even US governmental organisations (such as the military) are in violation of this one.
What does political correctness have to do with it? I happen to be of the opinion that intent should carry a reasonable amount of weight in sentencing, and I believe that there is a reasonable amount of legal precedent on my side in this one.
I'm saying that he should be punished based on a combination of his intent and the actual damage caused. His obsessive belief that the government is covering up proof of aliens points to paranoia and delusions, which seem relevant enough to be taken into account when considering whether he had malicious intent; the actual damages extended to auditing the systems and securing them to an extent that should already have been done.
I get the impression that you're not just arguing for the hell of it, so I'm genuinely interested to know what part of this you disagree with so vehemently.
For the sake of argument, let's say that we all agree that the crime occurred on US soil (and even that is by no means a unanimous opinion). The UK will only allow the extradition of they believe that he will receive a fair trial and (if found guilty) a reasonable punishment for the crimes he has been accused of.
This is a man with some psychological problems who appears to have made a very very stupid decision by breaking in to some poorly secured US government computers. There was little actual harm done. The consensus seems to be that in the UK he would receive a slap on the wrist, maybe some psychiatric treatment, perhaps some limitations on his future access to computers. At the time he faced a maximum of six months in a UK prison.
The US are calling him a terrorist, and lining him up for the distinct possibility of several decades, maybe even life, in a federal prison.
Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US, or do you think he would be made an example of? If the former, why? If the latter, do you think it is still fair to extradite him?
It doesn't.
Yes.
Things that a document format is not in any way appropriate for.
Quick question: is it worth getting the statutory £2 report from all of the companies (incidentally, the ICO only lists three) or will it be sufficient to go with one?
Not that it particularly matters at £2 per go, I suppose, but it'd still save some time if it turns out they're all working from shared info.
Holy crap, that was quick!