It would probably be sellable at an Ikea as well, to decrease costs through commercial sales
I could see this as camping gear, DIY flatpack cabin, DIY garden guesthouse, flatpack survivalist supplies
I wonder how it holds up under snow and monsoon, since places needing such shelters can have snowy winters (Japan Fukushima) or hurricanes (Haiti) and monsoons (Burma)
There might actually be a real demand. A lot of places in the US have homeless "tent cities" where local homeless populations live, and there is definitely an effort to work to improve their lot.
The next time you are sexually harassed by a woman, feel free to point it out. If they don't follow the same procedure, sue them into oblivion.
People claiming they're harassed have a lot of power even though most people bringing harassment lawsuits are bogus, because we as a society have decided it's important enough to prevent real harassment that we're willing to pay the price of having lots of spurious lawsuits.
It is interesting that news stories never mention that Ellen Pao is a lawyer. I don't know what Kleiner Perkins was thinking when they hired her, and made her a junior partner. If you hire a carpenter, that carpenter is going to try to solve every problem with a hammer. If you hire a lawyer, that lawyer is going to try to solve every problem with a lawsuit. That's what they do.
Yes, what a shame it is that they hired someone who knew enough to assert her rights if she faced gender discrimination. Much better to hire someone from inside the tech industry who had acclimated to the gender discrimination properly already.
End Sarcasm.
Yes, a lawyer is more likely to sue you if you do something wrong. It doesn't make it wrong to hire a lawyer.
Someone's panties are all in a bunch, wouldn'tchaknow. Seriously, nobody's accusing you of anything; but, if it acts as a deterrent, or they happen to catch a thief, it keeps prices lower for you (or profits higher for the shareholders, which could also include you), and if the anti-cheating software happens to catch a cheat, that added proof that you actually did the work makes your degree that much more valuable.
So, where's the problem?
Leaving aside your sexist language, the problem is in the insult. The action assumes you are a thief and launches an investigation without any evidence, just because you bought a shopvac. It is a guilty until proven innocent approach.
Imagine that as you check out, the cashier says "I am going to look inside your shopvac in case you are a thief."
Saying it's because other people are thieves justifies looking in mine is saying that I might be guilty because other people are.
Having worked at Home Depot in my lesser years, no, the cashier was doing their job and making sure they scanned all of your items. About 20% of the theft in my store was sliding small items under the garden center gate, 10% was walkouts, and 70% was people shoving shit in shop vacs, so yeah, not blaming anyone for checking those.
When their job is to accuse me of stealing, it's an insult to every customer who buys a shopvac. That is the fundamental objection people have to requiring people to sign your receipt when you leave, for example, or to running college essays through anti-cheating software.
I can understand the reluctance to speak to Congress, or their henchmen.
I don't think you understand how federal programs work.
In order to bid on a government project, you have to comply with *a lot* of rules. If you don't want to, you don't have to big on the project. They're just such an awfully big buyer that a lot of people are willing to comply with the rules.
It's like any other moment in life when you're dealing with an annoying and overly demanding client. If you're very lucky you don't have to--but they do put the food on your table.
The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?
I see you are not familiar with the Cross Bronx "Expressway". The US would simply need to make the highway end on the Cross Bronx. Formal trade barriers are unnecessary.
Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.
Yeah, the cashier at home depot who looked inside my shopvac wanted to make sure it had all the parts, I'm sure.
One of the very first papers I read for a VLSI design course had one of the weirdest final sentences I have ever heard, from a geeky see-my-smarts cross between physics and car geeks. As I recall, it was something like this:
"And then, of course, there is the problem of gallium arsenide, which is the Wankel Engine of the semiconductor industry."
To which the class (a bunch of undergrads wading into the delightful bliss and head-scratching geekery of academic journals for the first time) collectively and perplexedly said "WTF?"
Wozniak, et. al. need to chill. It's just evolution.
That's what they said to the textile workers.
It's evolution that will fundamentally change the way our economy has to work, and we're not even close to having a model in place for dealing with it. In fifty years AI will be able to do probably the majority of jobs humans do now. Fifty years after that AI will be able to do everything, and will be much better at problems like the management of government resources, manipulation of the population, and will probably be the intellectual leaders in every field of math and science, as we are still working to come to terms with a world where all of our AIs think faster than we do, and under their own direction.
It's like google that can think for itself. And wikipedia. And once we figure it out, Einstein or Edison with all of that knowledge. In a world where humans are almost useless from a task standpoint--and how could you be otherwise, compared to that? We will be children given chores to make us feel useful, even though we will never learn and consume massive resources, like a mentally disabled son. And that's if we're lucky and the AI's grow to be generous.
It's a very big company, much, much bigger than "The ABC," and the Australian site called itself "ABC," not "The ABC." Without previous knowledge of "The ABC," it was a logical belief. The fact that the trade symbols were different made me double-check.
But by all means, continue calling me names until you're tired of it.
I wondered what this "Xinhau" was. An Indian rip off of Xinhua? But, no, it's somebody who can't spell a word correctly when it's sitting in front of them. Reminds me of some of my students, in fact.
This one wasn't submitted for credit.:)
Xinhua is also a proper noun from outside my usual lexicon and is transliterated from a language I am unfamiliar with, so I am comfortable with getting it wrong once or twice in an informal context. I actually found "The ABC" more interesting, because it took me a little while to realize the site was The Australian Broadcasting Corporation rather than an Australian branch of the American company ABC.
In any event, please excuse the misspelling. But whether you do or not, I found the story interesting and wanted to share.
No amount of education is going to cram an understanding of calculus into the head of someone who is incapable of learning calculus.
Calculus is trivial. Anyone within a standard deviation or two of median intelligence should be able to learn it if they have a teacher who understands it. The widespread lack of understanding is just a reflection of how badly we fail, as a society, to educate.
Yes. He didn't say anything about whether he was working for hire or not, just that he had worked for different companies. That could either mean work for different companies on an IC basis or on an employee basis.
If someone does work as a contractor without a formal contract, by default the software / IP is the property of the contractor, and not the other company. He is hence perfectly within his rights to open source his software.
The situation is different if you are an employee.
That is the rule, hence "If you make a work *for-hire*" in my original post. There is a BIG distinction between making a work as a contractor and making one as an employee--and you don't need an employment contract to be working as an employee. Working for a company and not providing your own contract or being willing to take the time to provide one suggests employee, although there may be other facts supporting a finding that he made the work as an IC.
Just because a company goes bankrupt doesn't mean its IP is suddenly public domain--the creditors or another company (which either is the sucessor-in-interest or purchased them) will own the copyrights, including in the software you created as a work for-hire if you were employed by them.
If you open-sourced that software without permission, you put copyrighted work in the open source community without authorization. That means the creditors or other successor-in-interest to that failed startup can get an injunction against anyone using the software, for example. (They can also sue for copyright violation, although what they recover will depend on a variety of factors.)
If you want to open source software from a company you worked for that went bankrupt, you have to figure out who owns the software first, and get their permission. It may be a creditor, it may be an investor, it may be a new form of the company, it may be someone who bought the IP. If you make a work *for-hire*, then you don't own it just because you created it.
It also appears that the question was posted after the test was taken. In this case there is no security issue because the exam has already been administered. If they are not giving the same exam at the same time everywhere - or at least with enough of an overlap that nobody leaves before the exam starts anywhere else - then the problem is their own broken security model. It's not academic cheating if someone who has completed the exam discusses the questions in public and since they are minors they can't even sign a contract to enforce legal penalties.
This is more or less completely not the way standardized testing works.
Standardized testing works by using current test questions and possible test questions for the future and mixing them together, scoring some and not scoring others, and relies on being able to re-use questions. That re-use is how you normalize the difficulty of exams. You agree not to discuss the questions.
The seriousness of discussing them goes up as the professionalism required goes up. Talking about Bar exam questions can be a *massive* deal. Talking about LSAT questions can be a big deal. Talking about SAT questions can be an issue that affects your college admissions prospects.
As a practical matter, a very small bit of discussion is normal, mostly just with people who took the test right after it. Good testing authorities only care if you cross the line--like describing a test question to an unfiltered audience or in an online forum or test prep book, for example. Posting a question to twitter is not okay. Posting comments that reveal something about the particular test is technically not okay, but you have to actually look at the circumstances and make a judgment call. (A lot depends on whether everyone has finished the particular test yet, for example.)
That being said, there is *also* a financial incentive for testing companies to go after people who are too egregious. Test companies license old tests and sell them as prep materials.
I disagree. Someone who has experience as an officer may have better knowledge and be more sensitive to anti-officer bias. They should not be able to spin the media toward anti-victim-bias, and the way their media people victimize victims of police shootings is criminal, but I have no problem with certain reasonable edits to an article that is going to attract a lot of people who have already prejudged the incident.
Put another way, everyone on one side of the issue edits the articles, so why shouldn't the people on the other side be able to?
Slashdot Mirror
It would probably be sellable at an Ikea as well, to decrease costs through commercial sales
I could see this as camping gear, DIY flatpack cabin, DIY garden guesthouse, flatpack survivalist supplies
I wonder how it holds up under snow and monsoon, since places needing such shelters can have snowy winters (Japan Fukushima) or hurricanes (Haiti) and monsoons (Burma)
There might actually be a real demand. A lot of places in the US have homeless "tent cities" where local homeless populations live, and there is definitely an effort to work to improve their lot.
Yes, a lawyer is more likely to sue you if you do something wrong. It doesn't make it wrong to hire a lawyer.
It doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it dumb.
An engineer is more likely to hold your private key hostage. It doesn't make it wrong to hire an engineer.
The next time you are sexually harassed by a woman, feel free to point it out. If they don't follow the same procedure, sue them into oblivion.
People claiming they're harassed have a lot of power even though most people bringing harassment lawsuits are bogus, because we as a society have decided it's important enough to prevent real harassment that we're willing to pay the price of having lots of spurious lawsuits.
It is interesting that news stories never mention that Ellen Pao is a lawyer. I don't know what Kleiner Perkins was thinking when they hired her, and made her a junior partner. If you hire a carpenter, that carpenter is going to try to solve every problem with a hammer. If you hire a lawyer, that lawyer is going to try to solve every problem with a lawsuit. That's what they do.
Yes, what a shame it is that they hired someone who knew enough to assert her rights if she faced gender discrimination. Much better to hire someone from inside the tech industry who had acclimated to the gender discrimination properly already.
End Sarcasm.
Yes, a lawyer is more likely to sue you if you do something wrong. It doesn't make it wrong to hire a lawyer.
Someone's panties are all in a bunch, wouldn'tchaknow. Seriously, nobody's accusing you of anything; but, if it acts as a deterrent, or they happen to catch a thief, it keeps prices lower for you (or profits higher for the shareholders, which could also include you), and if the anti-cheating software happens to catch a cheat, that added proof that you actually did the work makes your degree that much more valuable.
So, where's the problem?
Leaving aside your sexist language, the problem is in the insult. The action assumes you are a thief and launches an investigation without any evidence, just because you bought a shopvac. It is a guilty until proven innocent approach.
Imagine that as you check out, the cashier says "I am going to look inside your shopvac in case you are a thief."
Saying it's because other people are thieves justifies looking in mine is saying that I might be guilty because other people are.
Having worked at Home Depot in my lesser years, no, the cashier was doing their job and making sure they scanned all of your items. About 20% of the theft in my store was sliding small items under the garden center gate, 10% was walkouts, and 70% was people shoving shit in shop vacs, so yeah, not blaming anyone for checking those.
When their job is to accuse me of stealing, it's an insult to every customer who buys a shopvac. That is the fundamental objection people have to requiring people to sign your receipt when you leave, for example, or to running college essays through anti-cheating software.
I can understand the reluctance to speak to Congress, or their henchmen.
I don't think you understand how federal programs work.
In order to bid on a government project, you have to comply with *a lot* of rules. If you don't want to, you don't have to big on the project. They're just such an awfully big buyer that a lot of people are willing to comply with the rules.
It's like any other moment in life when you're dealing with an annoying and overly demanding client. If you're very lucky you don't have to--but they do put the food on your table.
The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?
I see you are not familiar with the Cross Bronx "Expressway". The US would simply need to make the highway end on the Cross Bronx. Formal trade barriers are unnecessary.
Water often looses. See the Netherlands. In fact: hire the Dutch to design your wall.
No, hire Vogons to read poetry to it.
This causes the Tsunami to turn immediately and hurl itself in the other direction.
Ever since the checker at Fry's caught that one of my items (the smallest yet most expensive item on my ticket) was not in my bag, I'm more than happy to let them check. It's not always a loss-prevention, treat you like a criminal, measure. In fact, having talked to the checkers quite a bit when the store is slow, I've learned that they catch people leaving without what they paid for much more often than the other way round. At least at Fry's, it truly is a customer service initiative. And yes, cashiers do face consequences for not making sure the customer leaves their register with all of their purchases.
Yeah, the cashier at home depot who looked inside my shopvac wanted to make sure it had all the parts, I'm sure.
One of the very first papers I read for a VLSI design course had one of the weirdest final sentences I have ever heard, from a geeky see-my-smarts cross between physics and car geeks. As I recall, it was something like this:
"And then, of course, there is the problem of gallium arsenide, which is the Wankel Engine of the semiconductor industry."
To which the class (a bunch of undergrads wading into the delightful bliss and head-scratching geekery of academic journals for the first time) collectively and perplexedly said "WTF?"
Wozniak, et. al. need to chill. It's just evolution.
That's what they said to the textile workers.
It's evolution that will fundamentally change the way our economy has to work, and we're not even close to having a model in place for dealing with it. In fifty years AI will be able to do probably the majority of jobs humans do now. Fifty years after that AI will be able to do everything, and will be much better at problems like the management of government resources, manipulation of the population, and will probably be the intellectual leaders in every field of math and science, as we are still working to come to terms with a world where all of our AIs think faster than we do, and under their own direction.
It's like google that can think for itself. And wikipedia. And once we figure it out, Einstein or Edison with all of that knowledge. In a world where humans are almost useless from a task standpoint--and how could you be otherwise, compared to that? We will be children given chores to make us feel useful, even though we will never learn and consume massive resources, like a mentally disabled son. And that's if we're lucky and the AI's grow to be generous.
It's a very big company, much, much bigger than "The ABC," and the Australian site called itself "ABC," not "The ABC." Without previous knowledge of "The ABC," it was a logical belief. The fact that the trade symbols were different made me double-check.
But by all means, continue calling me names until you're tired of it.
I wondered what this "Xinhau" was. An Indian rip off of Xinhua? But, no, it's somebody who can't spell a word correctly when it's sitting in front of them. Reminds me of some of my students, in fact.
This one wasn't submitted for credit. :)
Xinhua is also a proper noun from outside my usual lexicon and is transliterated from a language I am unfamiliar with, so I am comfortable with getting it wrong once or twice in an informal context. I actually found "The ABC" more interesting, because it took me a little while to realize the site was The Australian Broadcasting Corporation rather than an Australian branch of the American company ABC.
In any event, please excuse the misspelling. But whether you do or not, I found the story interesting and wanted to share.
Kind Regards,
Etherwalk
No amount of education is going to cram an understanding of calculus into the head of someone who is incapable of learning calculus.
Calculus is trivial. Anyone within a standard deviation or two of median intelligence should be able to learn it if they have a teacher who understands it. The widespread lack of understanding is just a reflection of how badly we fail, as a society, to educate.
Oh come on. You could have said Shroedinger's child and gotten modded way funnier.
A dose of literature in the slashdot bits, every now and again, isn't a terrible thing.
Yes. He didn't say anything about whether he was working for hire or not, just that he had worked for different companies. That could either mean work for different companies on an IC basis or on an employee basis.
What I'm wondering is whether the limit is 2.71828 or so.
e is just the highest anyone can count, because if you start reciting it you will never get to 3.
Nobody with basic math skills is wondering that. How can you have 1.5 children per household?
One of them is a Cheshire child.
Old doesn't necessarily mean unsafe or unreliable. Plenty of people drive 10 year old cars that are not putting them in danger.
The average care on the road is *more* than ten years old. A lot of old cars still work perfectly well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ji...
Nope.
If someone does work as a contractor without a formal contract, by default the software / IP is the property of the contractor, and not the other company. He is hence perfectly within his rights to open source his software.
The situation is different if you are an employee.
That is the rule, hence "If you make a work *for-hire*" in my original post. There is a BIG distinction between making a work as a contractor and making one as an employee--and you don't need an employment contract to be working as an employee. Working for a company and not providing your own contract or being willing to take the time to provide one suggests employee, although there may be other facts supporting a finding that he made the work as an IC.
Just because a company goes bankrupt doesn't mean its IP is suddenly public domain--the creditors or another company (which either is the sucessor-in-interest or purchased them) will own the copyrights, including in the software you created as a work for-hire if you were employed by them.
If you open-sourced that software without permission, you put copyrighted work in the open source community without authorization. That means the creditors or other successor-in-interest to that failed startup can get an injunction against anyone using the software, for example. (They can also sue for copyright violation, although what they recover will depend on a variety of factors.)
If you want to open source software from a company you worked for that went bankrupt, you have to figure out who owns the software first, and get their permission. It may be a creditor, it may be an investor, it may be a new form of the company, it may be someone who bought the IP. If you make a work *for-hire*, then you don't own it just because you created it.
It also appears that the question was posted after the test was taken. In this case there is no security issue because the exam has already been administered. If they are not giving the same exam at the same time everywhere - or at least with enough of an overlap that nobody leaves before the exam starts anywhere else - then the problem is their own broken security model. It's not academic cheating if someone who has completed the exam discusses the questions in public and since they are minors they can't even sign a contract to enforce legal penalties.
This is more or less completely not the way standardized testing works.
Standardized testing works by using current test questions and possible test questions for the future and mixing them together, scoring some and not scoring others, and relies on being able to re-use questions. That re-use is how you normalize the difficulty of exams. You agree not to discuss the questions.
The seriousness of discussing them goes up as the professionalism required goes up. Talking about Bar exam questions can be a *massive* deal. Talking about LSAT questions can be a big deal. Talking about SAT questions can be an issue that affects your college admissions prospects.
As a practical matter, a very small bit of discussion is normal, mostly just with people who took the test right after it. Good testing authorities only care if you cross the line--like describing a test question to an unfiltered audience or in an online forum or test prep book, for example. Posting a question to twitter is not okay. Posting comments that reveal something about the particular test is technically not okay, but you have to actually look at the circumstances and make a judgment call. (A lot depends on whether everyone has finished the particular test yet, for example.)
That being said, there is *also* a financial incentive for testing companies to go after people who are too egregious. Test companies license old tests and sell them as prep materials.
I disagree. Someone who has experience as an officer may have better knowledge and be more sensitive to anti-officer bias. They should not be able to spin the media toward anti-victim-bias, and the way their media people victimize victims of police shootings is criminal, but I have no problem with certain reasonable edits to an article that is going to attract a lot of people who have already prejudged the incident.
Put another way, everyone on one side of the issue edits the articles, so why shouldn't the people on the other side be able to?
Yes, DiSKiLLeR, why don't we take death more seriously?