I'm not arguing that increasing taxes or changing regulations is the solution. I am simply pointing out the old mantra that you can't tax (or do anything) to business because they are the jobs creators is false. That is the formula for corporatism which is the politically correct term for fascism.
The reality is that it is the middle class that demands goods and services which creates jobs. Off-shoring middle class jobs actually has a negative impact to the economy (something Germany and Japan learned long ago). Importing workers because of a shortage artificially increases the supply of skilled workers, which depresses wages (again supply and demand) which discourages more from entering the field. Particularly in the Hertz case, where there is no shortage because they are actually laying off workers that are then replacing.
I do agree with your signature that guest worker programs create indentured servants. But it is better to be an indentured servant than an unemployed pauper.
In recent years, I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest w-fi. People expect it and will bail for the local coffee shop if it's not free in the hotel.
My guess is a lot of the offenders are in tourist traps where everything costs a lot.
I think you intended to say that all of the first class hotels you stayed at had free guest wifi, but your double negative said just the opposite. However, my experience, at least in the US is just the opposite. Big name, first class hotels charge for wifi. It is the middle tier hotels that give it away as part of the room cost. Same thing with parking and other amenities.
I think that Hawking and the scientific community are pretty much experts on the subject they wrote about: how scientific research is funded and who does it, and how Brexit would affect it. And in my opinion their prediction is head on: it would be a disaster. Research is pretty much an international affair, and doing it without EU grants and with less cooperation from EU scientists is clearly going to make it harder.
Do you really think if some project wanted Hawking or some other noted scientist or that they wanted to participate in some project that it is going to depend on whether or not the UK is part of the EU? As you state, research is an international affair. Even in times or war, scientists have been able to travel to where the research or symposium was. While it is unlikely that the UK will get EU grants, it is not unlikely that UK scientists will be prohibited from participating in EU funded projects. In addition, it is likely that there will be as much funding for UK projects because the UK funding will not be spread over the entire EU.
I originally was typing "I have great respect for Hawking's opinion" and in editing to the current version inadvertently left the "s" sorry if it offending anybody.
The USA is not part of the EU and our scientists don't seem to have a problem traveling to and from the UK (with the exception of cost). Why would it be different for an EU country unless one is assuming that the other EU countries will make it difficult out of retaliation. But, that has as much potential to harm them as it would the UK.
I have great respect for Hawkings and the scientific community, but their expertise is in the various scientific fields they represent, not geo-politics or other areas they like to delve into (like meta-physics and theology). Yes, they are smart, but simply being smart does not make one correct in fields they are not experts in.
As for the retaliation, we won't know if that would be the case until the UK actually left the EU. Kind of like the status of a certain cat in a box.
If your argument is that they don't have to follow the law directed specifically at them stating they are required to share information and resources in cases of terrorism, well there is really no point in discussing the issue further.
Assuming the FBI is privy to the NSA's capabilities.
This is a terrorism case, so the FBI and the NSA are supposed to cooperate.
In general, that would be correct. But, just like when the Enigma was developed, you wouldn't have let that secret out for a single case like this when you're fighting a larger war.
Replace "supposed to cooperate" with "legally required to cooperate." I don't believe there was any such law at the time that the Enigma was developed or in use. Of particular importance is that congress passed the law requiring cooperation in terrorism cases specifically because the lack of cooperation is what led to the 9-11 attack.
I don't dispute what you say other than post 9-11, there is supposed to be cooperation among the various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies whether the terrorism is domestic or not. Whether Apple is right or wrong or there is evidence on the phone or not, does not change that.
Now if you want to delve into conspiracy theories, some say the NSA can already get into the phone, maybe even has gotten into the phone, but the FBI needs Apple to do it because 1) the NSA doesn't want it known they can do this and 2) if there was incriminating data, it would be inadmissible because there wasn't a warrant.
Like I said, that is all conspiracy theory stuff. It could be 100% accurate, 0% accurate or somewhere in between. This part, though, I believe -- If the government doesn't get their way on this case, it won't be long until there is legislation banning encryption for the sake of national security. I think that is their long game.
I agree, but that just doesn't happen. All utilities buy from a surplus for peak times. During those times, utilities don't get to pick and choose where their electricity is coming from, nor do their customers. So, even if Oregon only allows their utilities to purchase from non-coal producers, those non-coal producers will still get electricity from coal to supplement their demand loads.
What they are proposing is like saying that Oregonians will only use oxygen produced by their own trees. It simply doesn't work that way as electrons, like oxygen molecules are fungible.
It is impossible to not use electricity from coal plants outside the state. Once the electrons hit the wire, they lose their identity as to where they come from. But lets say, they pay a utility to get electricity from a nuclear plant. If that outstate utility produces 30% of its power with coal, then you are still getting power via coal. The legislation does nothing but give the appearance of doing something, unless they are going to run new transmission lines directly to the outstate non-coal provider plants.
Oregon only has one coal fired power plant - Boardman and it was already slated to be shut down in 2020. So being coal free by 2035 is not going to happen by government mandate. But hey, politicians always like to take credit for things they really didn't do.
If writing the software is possible, then the FBI can do it themselves.
Right now, to get to the contents of a phone, the FBI must use the courts to get a warrant. This at least provides a little bit of a check on what they are doing. If they write their own code, this removes this last vestige of oversite and they will be free to get into any phone they please (just like the NSA that wrote their own software). Is that really what people want?
Electronics/sensors/cameras/etc. have all become so cheap (and continue to become so cheap) that the extra hardware you have to add to a car will be a small amount of the total price of the car. So there will be little difference in price between a self-driving and manual driving car. Those that buy new cars will continue to buy the new automated cars, and they will eventually filter down into the used car market over time.
It's not about cheap. Ford could have kept the Pinto from exploding by adding a shield to the fuel tank which would have cost $1. At that time, when multiplied by the number of Pinto's Ford planned to produce, the cost would to them would have been in the millions and the cost passed on to the consumer would have been 100 times greater.
Don't kid yourself about the price. If it were as you think, cars would not cost anywhere near where they do.
Maybe he knows something others are overlooking. Right now the FBI has to get a court order to get Apple to unlock a phone. If Apple disagrees, as they do in this case, they can challenge it. If Apple does create the software, that doesn't change anything other than making it easier for Apple to unlock the phone.
Now, lets say, that the government is thwarted in its efforts and creates its own software to do it. Or maybe, they won't but this pushes Congress to enact legislation banning encryption. Either way, the check and balance of the courts is no longer required and privacy is truly gone.
So, maybe he's right. Maybe in such a high profile case as this, where determining guilt is not truly the issue, nor is the shooters privacy (the phone belonged to their government employer), maybe, the risk of what may be the logical outcome far outweighs the risk that Apple is concerned about.
I agree, language arts are best taught by learning the vocabulary and then the rules. This mimics how a child learns a language. However, that doesn't work with computer languages, to well, which really are not a true language and instead are a descriptive algorithm. The other difference is that languages are taught are taught conversationally today whereas programming is written out. You need the proper "grammatical" rules in the programming language or it won't compile and run. That is not the case with a spoken language.
As for teaching the practical stuff first and expanding it with theory later, is nice in theory (no pun intended), but when the practical builds on the theory you really need both. Maybe that is why teaching language is considered an art versus a science.
Actually, computer programming is a subset of computer science. You cannot design and build computers without thought to how to design applications for and program them.
But by itself, teaching programming is not computer science any more than drivers ed would be automotive engineering.
In the US, it takes Congress to pass legislation which is the part that creates change. The person at the top sets the vision, but Congress makes it happen or in this case keeps it from happening. So, regardless of Obama, if your complaint is lack of change, that would be the Congress, which is predominately the Republican Party. There is an election coming up, where you have not only the opportunity to change the person at the top, but those who stymied any change for the last eight years.
Maybe the problem is with how it is taught? Back in the day, high school math teachers tended to have a degree in mathematics (and biology in biology and chemistry in chemistry, etc.). Then in the 1970s this notion of certifying teachers came into being. With certification you were taught many things, like classroom management, child psychology, etc., but no longer was being a math or science teacher based on a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.
For anecdotal evidence, I had an excellent organic chemistry teacher in high school. When my state passed new teacher certification rules, she was grandfathered in (or would that be grandmothered?). She often quipped that since she didn't have a certificate, it made no sense that she could teach us as freshman in college, but not seniors in high school. BTW, she finished her dissertation the year after I graduated and continued teaching in high school, without a certificate for an additional 20 years.
Anecdote #2. I have a very good friend who is now a retired teacher. Math was her worst subject. However, the school system needed somebody to teach junior high math and she had a teaching certificate, so that is what she was hired to do. She would often say how grateful she was for the instructor's guide for the lesson plans, because without it she would be lost.
In short, if you want kids to learn math and science, they need teachers that know math and science. My wife is a teacher, so I type this with some trepidation, but maybe instead of dumbing down the subject matter taught to students, we should quit dumbing down the requirements to teach them in the first place. If you want kids to learn, then need teachers who have mastered the subject matter.
How do you promote STEM without promoting algebra? There are many things taught in school that many people never use. When was the last time you needed to dissect a frog? Or how about the last time you need to diagram a sentence? Maybe we should go back to just teaching girls Home Ec and boys Shop, because if you keep dumbing down education, that is all that is going to be left to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not arguing that increasing taxes or changing regulations is the solution. I am simply pointing out the old mantra that you can't tax (or do anything) to business because they are the jobs creators is false. That is the formula for corporatism which is the politically correct term for fascism.
The reality is that it is the middle class that demands goods and services which creates jobs. Off-shoring middle class jobs actually has a negative impact to the economy (something Germany and Japan learned long ago). Importing workers because of a shortage artificially increases the supply of skilled workers, which depresses wages (again supply and demand) which discourages more from entering the field. Particularly in the Hertz case, where there is no shortage because they are actually laying off workers that are then replacing.
I do agree with your signature that guest worker programs create indentured servants. But it is better to be an indentured servant than an unemployed pauper.
But, but, but, they're job creators! You can't tax, regulate or do anything because they are what's good for America.
Just shows that they new from the start that this was a controversial and unethical move they were making.
In recent years, I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest w-fi. People expect it and will bail for the local coffee shop if it's not free in the hotel.
My guess is a lot of the offenders are in tourist traps where everything costs a lot.
I think you intended to say that all of the first class hotels you stayed at had free guest wifi, but your double negative said just the opposite. However, my experience, at least in the US is just the opposite. Big name, first class hotels charge for wifi. It is the middle tier hotels that give it away as part of the room cost. Same thing with parking and other amenities.
I think that Hawking and the scientific community are pretty much experts on the subject they wrote about: how scientific research is funded and who does it, and how Brexit would affect it. And in my opinion their prediction is head on: it would be a disaster. Research is pretty much an international affair, and doing it without EU grants and with less cooperation from EU scientists is clearly going to make it harder.
Do you really think if some project wanted Hawking or some other noted scientist or that they wanted to participate in some project that it is going to depend on whether or not the UK is part of the EU? As you state, research is an international affair. Even in times or war, scientists have been able to travel to where the research or symposium was. While it is unlikely that the UK will get EU grants, it is not unlikely that UK scientists will be prohibited from participating in EU funded projects. In addition, it is likely that there will be as much funding for UK projects because the UK funding will not be spread over the entire EU.
I have great respect for Hawkings
Then would it kill ya to get his name right?
I originally was typing "I have great respect for Hawking's opinion" and in editing to the current version inadvertently left the "s" sorry if it offending anybody.
The USA is not part of the EU and our scientists don't seem to have a problem traveling to and from the UK (with the exception of cost). Why would it be different for an EU country unless one is assuming that the other EU countries will make it difficult out of retaliation. But, that has as much potential to harm them as it would the UK.
I have great respect for Hawkings and the scientific community, but their expertise is in the various scientific fields they represent, not geo-politics or other areas they like to delve into (like meta-physics and theology). Yes, they are smart, but simply being smart does not make one correct in fields they are not experts in.
As for the retaliation, we won't know if that would be the case until the UK actually left the EU. Kind of like the status of a certain cat in a box.
If your argument is that they don't have to follow the law directed specifically at them stating they are required to share information and resources in cases of terrorism, well there is really no point in discussing the issue further.
Assuming the FBI is privy to the NSA's capabilities.
This is a terrorism case, so the FBI and the NSA are supposed to cooperate.
In general, that would be correct. But, just like when the Enigma was developed, you wouldn't have let that secret out for a single case like this when you're fighting a larger war.
Replace "supposed to cooperate" with "legally required to cooperate." I don't believe there was any such law at the time that the Enigma was developed or in use. Of particular importance is that congress passed the law requiring cooperation in terrorism cases specifically because the lack of cooperation is what led to the 9-11 attack.
I don't dispute what you say other than post 9-11, there is supposed to be cooperation among the various law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies whether the terrorism is domestic or not. Whether Apple is right or wrong or there is evidence on the phone or not, does not change that.
Now if you want to delve into conspiracy theories, some say the NSA can already get into the phone, maybe even has gotten into the phone, but the FBI needs Apple to do it because 1) the NSA doesn't want it known they can do this and 2) if there was incriminating data, it would be inadmissible because there wasn't a warrant.
Like I said, that is all conspiracy theory stuff. It could be 100% accurate, 0% accurate or somewhere in between. This part, though, I believe -- If the government doesn't get their way on this case, it won't be long until there is legislation banning encryption for the sake of national security. I think that is their long game.
Assuming the FBI is privy to the NSA's capabilities.
This is a terrorism case, so the FBI and the NSA are supposed to cooperate.
Pretty hard when it is AMD that is dropping support for the binary.
I agree, but that just doesn't happen. All utilities buy from a surplus for peak times. During those times, utilities don't get to pick and choose where their electricity is coming from, nor do their customers. So, even if Oregon only allows their utilities to purchase from non-coal producers, those non-coal producers will still get electricity from coal to supplement their demand loads.
What they are proposing is like saying that Oregonians will only use oxygen produced by their own trees. It simply doesn't work that way as electrons, like oxygen molecules are fungible.
It is impossible to not use electricity from coal plants outside the state. Once the electrons hit the wire, they lose their identity as to where they come from. But lets say, they pay a utility to get electricity from a nuclear plant. If that outstate utility produces 30% of its power with coal, then you are still getting power via coal. The legislation does nothing but give the appearance of doing something, unless they are going to run new transmission lines directly to the outstate non-coal provider plants.
Oregon only has one coal fired power plant - Boardman and it was already slated to be shut down in 2020. So being coal free by 2035 is not going to happen by government mandate. But hey, politicians always like to take credit for things they really didn't do.
If writing the software is possible, then the FBI can do it themselves.
Right now, to get to the contents of a phone, the FBI must use the courts to get a warrant. This at least provides a little bit of a check on what they are doing. If they write their own code, this removes this last vestige of oversite and they will be free to get into any phone they please (just like the NSA that wrote their own software). Is that really what people want?
Electronics/sensors/cameras/etc. have all become so cheap (and continue to become so cheap) that the extra hardware you have to add to a car will be a small amount of the total price of the car. So there will be little difference in price between a self-driving and manual driving car. Those that buy new cars will continue to buy the new automated cars, and they will eventually filter down into the used car market over time.
It's not about cheap. Ford could have kept the Pinto from exploding by adding a shield to the fuel tank which would have cost $1. At that time, when multiplied by the number of Pinto's Ford planned to produce, the cost would to them would have been in the millions and the cost passed on to the consumer would have been 100 times greater.
Don't kid yourself about the price. If it were as you think, cars would not cost anywhere near where they do.
Maybe he knows something others are overlooking. Right now the FBI has to get a court order to get Apple to unlock a phone. If Apple disagrees, as they do in this case, they can challenge it. If Apple does create the software, that doesn't change anything other than making it easier for Apple to unlock the phone.
Now, lets say, that the government is thwarted in its efforts and creates its own software to do it. Or maybe, they won't but this pushes Congress to enact legislation banning encryption. Either way, the check and balance of the courts is no longer required and privacy is truly gone.
So, maybe he's right. Maybe in such a high profile case as this, where determining guilt is not truly the issue, nor is the shooters privacy (the phone belonged to their government employer), maybe, the risk of what may be the logical outcome far outweighs the risk that Apple is concerned about.
I agree, language arts are best taught by learning the vocabulary and then the rules. This mimics how a child learns a language. However, that doesn't work with computer languages, to well, which really are not a true language and instead are a descriptive algorithm. The other difference is that languages are taught are taught conversationally today whereas programming is written out. You need the proper "grammatical" rules in the programming language or it won't compile and run. That is not the case with a spoken language.
As for teaching the practical stuff first and expanding it with theory later, is nice in theory (no pun intended), but when the practical builds on the theory you really need both. Maybe that is why teaching language is considered an art versus a science.
Actually, computer programming is a subset of computer science. You cannot design and build computers without thought to how to design applications for and program them.
But by itself, teaching programming is not computer science any more than drivers ed would be automotive engineering.
In the US, it takes Congress to pass legislation which is the part that creates change. The person at the top sets the vision, but Congress makes it happen or in this case keeps it from happening. So, regardless of Obama, if your complaint is lack of change, that would be the Congress, which is predominately the Republican Party. There is an election coming up, where you have not only the opportunity to change the person at the top, but those who stymied any change for the last eight years.
Maybe the problem is with how it is taught? Back in the day, high school math teachers tended to have a degree in mathematics (and biology in biology and chemistry in chemistry, etc.). Then in the 1970s this notion of certifying teachers came into being. With certification you were taught many things, like classroom management, child psychology, etc., but no longer was being a math or science teacher based on a demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.
For anecdotal evidence, I had an excellent organic chemistry teacher in high school. When my state passed new teacher certification rules, she was grandfathered in (or would that be grandmothered?). She often quipped that since she didn't have a certificate, it made no sense that she could teach us as freshman in college, but not seniors in high school. BTW, she finished her dissertation the year after I graduated and continued teaching in high school, without a certificate for an additional 20 years.
Anecdote #2. I have a very good friend who is now a retired teacher. Math was her worst subject. However, the school system needed somebody to teach junior high math and she had a teaching certificate, so that is what she was hired to do. She would often say how grateful she was for the instructor's guide for the lesson plans, because without it she would be lost.
In short, if you want kids to learn math and science, they need teachers that know math and science. My wife is a teacher, so I type this with some trepidation, but maybe instead of dumbing down the subject matter taught to students, we should quit dumbing down the requirements to teach them in the first place. If you want kids to learn, then need teachers who have mastered the subject matter.
How do you promote STEM without promoting algebra? There are many things taught in school that many people never use. When was the last time you needed to dissect a frog? Or how about the last time you need to diagram a sentence? Maybe we should go back to just teaching girls Home Ec and boys Shop, because if you keep dumbing down education, that is all that is going to be left to them.
IBM is laying off 1/3 of it's workforce at the time kids are told to pursue education for careers in STEM. Seems one of those things is incorrect.
However, not only was that analysis fundamentally flawed...
That's not possible. I read it on /.