In my personal experience, students are the best judge of teachers, once they reach the JR High/Middle school and are exposed to more than one teacher at a time. Grade school kids usually have nothing to compare with "She who must be obeyed".
Looking back, students can identify the best teachers they ever had, those that got them interested in subjects, who got points across, who came prepared, and who usually had a closet full of source material accumulated over the years.
In a move that would surely bring the swat team today, we were handed a Civil war rifle to examine (inert), often instructed by "The general" in full period uniform (regardless of the period being discussed), and howled in laughter as a canoe paddle and coon skin cap was produced from under the desk and he paddled his desk chair across the room.
This kind of imaginative teaching is now gone. Instead we have dumbed down books and teachers instructed to follow it to the letter.
I suspect everyone can think back on their education and immediately identify a particular teacher that made an impression. Both good and bad. And more often than not that teacher will not have been the one teaching their favorite subject.
There is no evidence that paying more will produce better teachers. And shutting down infrastructure projects that will last 200 years to start another failed experiment in teaching seems foolhardy at best.
The best teachers I ever had weren't making that much money. The highest paid teachers I've had, A) seldom taught, B) did a horrible job, and C) used a lot of TAs to actually do the work while the prof was out D) selling his book.
More likely, he's a 1099 contractor/consultant. Since that isn't an employment relationship, your argument falls apart.
Not really. Work for hire applies to contractors and consultants too. Most contracts now contain boiler plate to make sure of it just because so many contractors have tried to pull the stunt of retaining rights.
Software that can run on Windows/Mac/Linux IS NOT cross platform. Nobody thinks of OpenOffice.ORG as cross platform. Its mostly the exact same code base.
Platform has historically referred predominantly to hardware. I suppose you might argue that different OSs constitute a platform, but things like wine or CrossOver Office pretty much demonstrate that as long as the hardware can execute the instructions set most code is transportable.
But if the hardware does not support the assembly level instructions, you, at best, can only emulate.
Assembly level code for an ARM would pretty much be the same, with shims to adapt to the UI and video chipset.
Whether Steve Jobs will let you run a binary blob on his ARM is totally a different matter.
Pitting one cellphone against another cellphone does not seem like cross platform. Looking at the specs the hardware is almost totally identical on many.
Similarly pitting one gaming console against others of the same ilk seems only slightly more impressive.
Ditto for general purpose computer gaming.
It will truly be cross platform when PC/Mac/Linux gamers can be in the mix with Play stations and iPhones with skill (and ping) being the only deciding factors.
Checkers and Chess, no problem. First Person shooters or team combat type games are a whole different story.
This is levels of magnitude harder than porting a game to yet another ARM processor with a slightly different video chipset.
I don't see anything but turn based games having much prospect of competing fairly across all platforms.
Read range is a function of power. Improvements in technology may increase read ranges for tags. Generally, the read range of a tag is limited to the distance from the reader over which the tag can draw enough energy from the reader field to power the tag. Tags may be read at longer ranges than they are designed for by increasing reader power.
The limit on read distance then becomes the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal reflected from the tag back to the reader. Researchers at two security conferences have demonstrated that passive Ultra-HighFID tags, not of the HighFID type used in US passports, normally read at ranges of up to 30 feet, can be read at ranges of 50 to 69 feet using suitable equipment
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
Furthermore, there is no reason to add yet another market sector that will profit from malware!
Many will remember that anti-virus companies demanded that Microsoft allow their packages to run in Vista with elevated privileges, thereby leaving open a security hole that Microsoft had intended to close permanently. The industry is simply "Too Lucrative to Fail".
Allowing anyone to obtain money only as long as a problem exists is the surest way to assure it will always exist.
I see nothing wrong with a nineteenth century understanding of evolution. More modern versions have added little, much of which have lead nowhere.
Further, you have it exactly wrong. TFA and the writeup both exhibit a very recent understanding of evolution, not a nineteenth century one. You need only examine the Evolution Wiki article to see this.
Fifty years after the arrival of rapid, cheap, global transportation is exactly the worst time to put forth a theory such as TFA mentions.
Culture arose due to pre-existing minor genetic differences, not the other way around. TFA has it exactly backwards.
Human culture may have purely localized and temporal affects on the concentration of some traits, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that such cultural concepts as beauty lead to more fit or more plentiful offspring. Observations on the street might suggest exactly the opposite is true.
The 4 or 5 thousand years of large scale human cultural clustering is simply not long enough to influence any lasting human trait, and certainly has not differentiated the species beyond that which could be attributed to environmental factors.
TFA has confused cause with effect, while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla of environment. You need only look to the social experiment named "North America" to see how quickly all of these supposed genetic traits disperse into a population and assume a statistical prevalence roughly matching their world wide prevalence.
Culturally influenced concentrations are easily erased, strictly localized, and, as travel reduces enforced sequestration, short lived. But they are in the end, simply concentrations, not natural selection.
Metastudies are a troubling area. What's more, particularly with this kind of work, there's a huge risk of GIGO... Even where the "researchers" don't have an agenda.
It's just bunk. Pure bunk. It comes too late to save Jack Thomas (thankfully).
And its pretty clear the researchers DO have an agenda.
No scientist/researcher would ever use the term "Conclusively Proven".
When you see that phraseology, mindset, or pronouncement, run away like your hair is on fire. No assertions of this type are ever conclusively proven. All such conclusions are merely working theories. And this study offers nothing new than increasingly suspect meta-analysis from dissimilar studies.
Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities?
Maybe no so much for Twitter, but Buzz can generate "news items" form a variety of your other google services, and allow others to see and comment upon them.
As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.
Facebook would probably not try to exercise this patent outside of their narrow sphere. The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.
Combined with a couple dozen different patents it presents the appearance of an insurmountable roadblock, even if several of the pieces are fluff patents.
Even if we can't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example, we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage, by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.
Turning off the televisions at a sports bar? If you actively desire to piss people off, you could spit in their food without having to build anything.
As long as the TV was on, they wouldn't even notice. I saw one drunk refill another drunk's beer stein "under the table" and the drinker didn't notice till the second gulp.
Slashdot Mirror
In my personal experience, students are the best judge of teachers, once they reach the JR High/Middle school and are exposed to more than one teacher at a time. Grade school kids usually have nothing to compare with "She who must be obeyed".
Looking back, students can identify the best teachers they ever had, those that got them interested in subjects, who got points across, who came prepared, and who usually had a closet full of source material accumulated over the years.
In a move that would surely bring the swat team today, we were handed a Civil war rifle to examine (inert), often instructed by "The general" in full period uniform (regardless of the period being discussed), and howled in laughter as a canoe paddle and coon skin cap was produced from under the desk and he paddled his desk chair across the room.
This kind of imaginative teaching is now gone. Instead we have dumbed down books and teachers instructed to follow it to the letter.
I suspect everyone can think back on their education and immediately identify a particular teacher that made an impression. Both good and bad. And more often than not that teacher will not have been the one teaching their favorite subject.
There is no evidence that paying more will produce better teachers. And shutting down infrastructure projects that will last 200 years to start another failed experiment in teaching seems foolhardy at best.
The best teachers I ever had weren't making that much money. The highest paid teachers I've had, A) seldom taught, B) did a horrible job, and C) used a lot of TAs to actually do the work while the prof was out D) selling his book.
More likely, he's a 1099 contractor/consultant. Since that isn't an employment relationship, your argument falls apart.
Not really. Work for hire applies to contractors and consultants too. Most contracts now contain boiler plate to make sure of it just because so many contractors have tried to pull the stunt of retaining rights.
Software that can run on Windows/Mac/Linux IS NOT cross platform. Nobody thinks of OpenOffice.ORG as cross platform. Its mostly the exact same code base.
Platform has historically referred predominantly to hardware. I suppose you might argue that different OSs constitute a platform, but things like wine or CrossOver Office pretty much demonstrate that as long as the hardware can execute the instructions set most code is transportable.
But if the hardware does not support the assembly level instructions, you, at best, can only emulate.
Assembly level code for an ARM would pretty much be the same, with shims to adapt to the UI and video chipset.
Whether Steve Jobs will let you run a binary blob on his ARM is totally a different matter.
Pitting one cellphone against another cellphone does not seem like cross platform. Looking at the specs the hardware is almost totally identical on many.
Similarly pitting one gaming console against others of the same ilk seems only slightly more impressive.
Ditto for general purpose computer gaming.
It will truly be cross platform when PC/Mac/Linux gamers can be in the mix with Play stations and iPhones with skill (and ping) being the only deciding factors.
Checkers and Chess, no problem. First Person shooters or team combat type games are a whole different story.
This is levels of magnitude harder than porting a game to yet another ARM processor with a slightly different video chipset.
I don't see anything but turn based games having much prospect of competing fairly across all platforms.
Please re-read what I posted.
Reading distance is a function of the reader, its power, its sensitivity. It has nothing to do with the tag.
Any RIFD tag can be read at distances far greater than advertised.
The US State Department had no sooner stated that US passports could not be read at a distance of more than a foot when someone parked a van on a street and published their ability to read passport numbers at 30 feet as people walked down the street. http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/02/02/at-what-point-do-you-start-worrying-about-the-rfid-tag-in-your-passport/
There is no reason to suspect an implantable tag would not be similarly readable at distance.
Really? What could possibly tie you to IE6? Even Microsoft has STRONGLY recommended you move on.
Any XP user still using Internet explorer probably hasn't a clue that F1 does anything at all.
How did you get from "chip implant" to "track every move"? The read range for many RFID technologies is measured in centimeters, not meters.
Ah, not true. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/goodtogo/
Read range is a function of power. Improvements in technology may increase read ranges for tags. Generally, the read range of a tag is limited to the distance from the reader over which the tag can draw enough energy from the reader field to power the tag. Tags may be read at longer ranges than they are designed for by increasing reader power.
The limit on read distance then becomes the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal reflected from the tag back to the reader. Researchers at two security conferences have demonstrated that passive Ultra-HighFID tags, not of the HighFID type used in US passports, normally read at ranges of up to 30 feet, can be read at ranges of 50 to 69 feet using suitable equipment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification
How bad must the supermarket lines be for anyone to answer in the affirmative?
Why would a prosperous country like Germany have so few supermarkets that there were lines at all, other than the day before a holiday?
Now street muggers would have to carry scalpels? If your money is in your wallet they take the wallet. When your money is in your arm...???
Taxes are already being paid on online transactions and a cut of every bill from your ISP.
The government can't handle the internet due to incompetence, not lack of money,
Furthermore, there is no reason to add yet another market sector that will profit from malware!
Many will remember that anti-virus companies demanded that Microsoft allow their packages to run in Vista with elevated privileges, thereby leaving open a security hole that Microsoft had intended to close permanently. The industry is simply "Too Lucrative to Fail".
Allowing anyone to obtain money only as long as a problem exists is the surest way to assure it will always exist.
Or your hand-me-down gaming computers...
Variation and Selection are sufficient conditions for evolution.
Not without Isolation.
And Isolation is quickly disintegrating.
I see nothing wrong with a nineteenth century understanding of evolution. More modern versions have added little, much of which have lead nowhere.
Further, you have it exactly wrong. TFA and the writeup both exhibit a very recent understanding of evolution, not a nineteenth century one. You need only examine the Evolution Wiki article to see this.
Fifty years after the arrival of rapid, cheap, global transportation is exactly the worst time to put forth a theory such as TFA mentions.
Exactly my thoughts.
Culture arose due to pre-existing minor genetic differences, not the other way around. TFA has it exactly backwards.
Human culture may have purely localized and temporal affects on the concentration of some traits, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that such cultural concepts as beauty lead to more fit or more plentiful offspring. Observations on the street might suggest exactly the opposite is true.
The 4 or 5 thousand years of large scale human cultural clustering is simply not long enough to influence any lasting human trait, and certainly has not differentiated the species beyond that which could be attributed to environmental factors.
TFA has confused cause with effect, while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla of environment. You need only look to the social experiment named "North America" to see how quickly all of these supposed genetic traits disperse into a population and assume a statistical prevalence roughly matching their world wide prevalence.
Culturally influenced concentrations are easily erased, strictly localized, and, as travel reduces enforced sequestration, short lived. But they are in the end, simply concentrations, not natural selection.
My point was that anyone using the term "settled science" knows very little about science, and has a political point of view to push.
Thanks for proving my point.
But isn't something like gravity conclusively proven?
Where?
Metastudies are a troubling area. What's more, particularly with this kind of work, there's a huge risk of GIGO... Even where the "researchers" don't have an agenda.
It's just bunk. Pure bunk. It comes too late to save Jack Thomas (thankfully).
And its pretty clear the researchers DO have an agenda.
No scientist/researcher would ever use the term "Conclusively Proven".
When you see that phraseology, mindset, or pronouncement, run away like your hair is on fire. No assertions of this type are ever conclusively proven. All such conclusions are merely working theories. And this study offers nothing new than increasingly suspect meta-analysis from dissimilar studies.
"Conclusively Proven", "Settled Science", = Hidden agenda.
Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities?
Not used Buzz yet I see...
http://answers.oreilly.com/topic/1069-google-buzz-5-things-you-need-to-know/
Maybe no so much for Twitter, but Buzz can generate "news items" form a variety of your other google services, and allow others to see and comment upon them.
It is illegal to point security cameras at public spaces without special permission.
Says who?
And Where?
This is certainly not true anywhere in North America.
As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.
Facebook would probably not try to exercise this patent outside of their narrow sphere. The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.
Combined with a couple dozen different patents it presents the appearance of an insurmountable roadblock, even if several of the pieces are fluff patents.
Even if we can't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example, we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage, by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.
Yeah, thats exactly what I said...
Turning off the televisions at a sports bar? If you actively desire to piss people off, you could spit in their food without having to build anything.
As long as the TV was on, they wouldn't even notice. I saw one drunk refill another drunk's beer stein "under the table" and the drinker didn't notice till the second gulp.
Why would Google have to be IN China for the "scientists" to use it as a search engine?
Just because Google has no offices or data centers in China would not mean it would be unavailable there.
Censored perhaps, but how difficult would it be for "Scientists" to get around that, or be exempted from it?
Were no charges contemplated against these public disrobing?
If not, was it because such is not illegal in a publicly viewable area in these countries?
And if not illegal, then what's the problem here?
How much expectation of privacy does someone have laying on public beach nude or whanking off in full view of the neighborhood?