You get return on good employees, and perhaps none on bad ones. No, they're not taxable in the property sense, but you can increase their value through training. As a composite, organizations get return on assets. This isn't to diminish an individual to the context of a machine, rather to amplify the fact that while many things are replaceable, good employees, happy ones (ok, disgruntled if they contribute as some people will never be happy) contribute to the success of corporate bodies. Shareholders contribute capital, in the monetary sense.
Employees don't really invest labor; they're wage slaves. Capitalists get return on their investments. There is a big distinction here. If you get wages as your income, you're contributing your labor against monetary return, and ostensibly but indirectly, the success of the organization that employees you. In many states and regions, you can be discharged at will. Shareholders (stockholders, bondholders, etc) can't be fired, but they can be bought out under certain conditions. Until then, there's a hope that their capital investment provides monetary return. Rarely to corporate shareholders give one whit about the employees, so long as the corporate machine produces return on their monetary investments, or a possible capital gain on the stock.
People work for money, but they also work where there hearts and minds are. Companies have to make sufficient returns to stay in business, or no one has a job.
The corporate mentality in the 'west' mandates return on shareholder assets. What's missing is that employees are an organization's best assets.
That said, the propaganda machines are simply turning out fodder for an easily duped press. Twenty years ago, Japanese companies were the best run, and we know the end of that story: stagnation and dissatisfaction at virtually all levels, and an economy full of bad debt.
India has a long way to go, as do we all. But calling then 'best' in the context of the article is to succumb to a clever marketing person's pitch to a gullible editor. Go there and find the truth. It's not what's described.
>>Isochronous can be contrasted with asynchronous, which refers to processes in which data streams can be broken by random intervals, and synchronous processes, in which data streams can be delivered only at specific intervals. Isochronous service is not as rigid as synchronous service, but not as lenient as asynchronous service.>> this is the citation from your link, and it's not quite correct.
Asynchronous data means literally without clock. Sender and receiver use timed or externally clocked framing.
Synchronous data sends the clock, hence the 'synch' prefix. Most modems, and many serial links use asynch. Synch links are largely seen in older IBM terminals. There are no framing bytes/bits/nibbles in synchronous data, where these are present in asynch data to help frame packets by creating gaps. This helps electrically/optically to frame-out the data portions from signalling and control. There is a variation, bi-synch, where each side can send their own clock autonomously of the other, allowing different rates or clocks to be applied to each side of the conversation.
In isochronous transmission, the data are timed within their own time domain, although that time domain may be represented by a standard framing context over a-, bi-, or sychronous transports. Isochronous data becomes broken, by a quality metric, when sufficient jitter or latency prevents correct interpretation of the data as perceived by the recipient. This means, jaggies, pixelation, drop-outs, and the other uglies of audio/video reception. A lot of this is older than dirt, but completely relevant when it comes to the realtime vs time-delayed content arguments. Realtime means NOW. Otherwise, it's your favorite version of download now, play later. Realtime then connotes isochronicity and all of the crap necessary to ensure a pleasant viewing experience. So, the dolts are trying to herd cats, as far as I'm concerned. Hence the post.
It all boils down to isochronous delivery: broadcasters have us trained to think that entertainment is event driven, like "Survivor" or another scheduled event. In fact, few shows need be delivered this way.
The telcos that would prioritize their own isochronous/realtime delivery system only get an advantage there. We can still download movies, sports, or whatever for use at our convenience. This means that the NCAA Final Four is probably hot property for QoS throttling, where downloads of Star Wars movies or even Buster Keaton aren't affected by a time domain.
Bottom line: only event-driven, realtime entertainment that isn't available for time delay consumption matters. The on-air broadcasters already know this.... and the telcos are just trying to find a way to shave (or add) a piece from the deals we make. They'll likely win, because they're thoroughly bribed the congress for years into doing it 'their way' vis-a-vis their ability to get the FCC to play along, and for net-neutrality legislation to be handily squashed.
The phrase 'Open" means nothing. It implies many things, ranging from whether you're RMS to Steve Jobs. Developer programs have been mutating for years, starting way back in the '80s. The real depth of the programs, and their usefulness is pretty simple. Take an example: Intersil releases their specs for their chipsets for WiFi. These chipsets have more WiFi code in BSD and LinuxLand than any other, bar none. Proxim/Lucent/Terabeam/others have huge and cool software basis in the open source world. By contrast, others that mandate you swear fealty and pay staggering amounts of money for code, pragmas, instruction sets, timing info, and so on, get left in the dust.
If you RTFA, you'll find quite a contrasting amount of difference between two top vendors. But read the licenses carefully. Then, where lucky, look up code that others have done before starting to conjure up apps, drivers, and so on. This is the beauty of being open: code, reuse code, share code, improve code, make closed source knotheads look like the idiots they are.
Server distros aren't driven by "market" conditions, rather the same OSS qualities that have made successes from other distros.
Ask an incorrect question and you're unlikely to get a correct answer.
The commercial distro version have lots of room. May the best distro win.
And said that it's a lifeblood for city residents. He also said that Bell South, once he intimated that this might be done, immediately slowed down on committments they'd made to the City to get restoration done.
In a way, it's an 'up-the-telcos' soft of move. And who can blame him?
I'm for the citizens of NO, not incumbent telcos with rotten attitudes. Maybe/.ers should start a movement to create an alternate net down there that can't be touched by the law. Not renegade, rather to aid the people in NO that use the city WiFi as a lifeline.
Apple Corps represents a specific set of signed artists. They may add some, they may dump some. Their business is to sell media made by their contracted artists. Good for them.
Apple Computer sells computers, servers, operating systems, accessories, and resells licensed content from major media contract holders. They have no contracts of their own. They sell just about everything except the company mentioned in the above paragraph.
Are the contexts congruent? Vaguely. Apple Corps, in my opinion, is attempting to extort from Apple Computer.
Neither one of them have ANYTHING TO DO WITH APPLES THAT GROW ON TREES. Nothing at all. So, both have ficticious business names. One represents contracted artists and 'properties' that are manifested through various media. The other sells a variety of products, including reselling media of *artists they don't represent in any other way*.
The contexts? Vaguely congruent, but in a world where trademark law is not only squishy but undeniably insane, but the world will run out of words to trademark one day-- another problem. Is Apple Networks (I made this up) also going to be a litigation target? Although I'm hypothocating, it could. And it would be just as silly and attorney-enriching as the Corps vs Computer argument. Yes, as mentioned in other posts, there's the Orange, Pear, and perhaps Tomato arguments to be made, too. Go tangential and cite cybersquatting.
Turn another corner and get into replicas.... undoubtedly a bad thing to do. But Apple Computer doesn't seek to replicate anything that Apple Corps does. Therein lays the crux of the problem.
Apple's marketshare isn't 3%... in most measures
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 2
Instead, iTunes commands a dominant marketshare, an Apple product. The Beatles (and other artists represented by Apple Corps) used to have quite a marketshare. Time marches on for the Apple Corp catalog. Apple makes products in numerous markets. A specious 3% citation serves no purpose except to cough a number that looks like the damn lie of statistics. If you're quoting Gartner or another one of the wooly analyst firms, I'll question you still further.
Sure, there can be nominal confusion. But Apple Records is a brand, and so are any number of other labels-- distinct from other trademarks associated with their name. Capitol Records is confused with Washington DC? Maybe Smuckers should sue Def Jam? I don't think so. The entire trial and tribulation is for lawyers. The titans clash while we just go on our merry way. I'll buy Beatles music from iTunes when Apple removes DRM; I don't believe in their DRM methodologies. Otherwise, my Apple Corps vinyl (yes, I still have some) works, as do my CDs. And I have Apple computers, among many others.
The Real Pity Is: Titans fight, and we don't care
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.
The point is moot, but Apple Corps will try to extract some fake fealty from Apple Computer.
The lawyers win. We don't.
Maybe Disney should by Apple Corps.... all in the family, then.
The gaps in the safety net are horrid. Insurance company ethics (an oxymoron) are rife with abuse. Once the gap in safety nets are closed, it's a better system-- but without the huge problems in Canada Health and the NHS, as examples.
I've lived with both, and both uniformly stink. They're worse than none at all... as their quality is awful and in no way incentivised.
I'm absolutely in favor of covering all. To do so requires a different way of thinking, and personal responsibility that doesn't exist in the US. High costs are tough. The indigent or barely financially functional need a safety net that's better than what we have today.
Still, the Canadian/British models are uniformly awful. Ask them. They'll tell you all about it.
We need something other than what we have now.... but we have the most corrupt Congress in history to deal with, bought off by every lobbyist that walks by. Nothing will be done soon.
For a fact, you don't know what you're talking about.
I've lived in several countries with national health, and they're uniformly underfunded, overworked, and have deeper chasms than anything you'll find in the States. Go to one of the major hospitals in any city. Ask how many patients are foreign nationals. The number will shock you.
Canada's health system is laughable. The British NHS is far worse. Only in Sweden have I seen anything coming close to the quality of health care available in the USA. No, I'm not an anti-socialist, rather a realist.
In non-autism/Ausberger's patients, these skills are there. You have nothing to build on with Ausberger's; it's a learned trait.
Speculation says that very bright children's minds develop more slowly than others do, also paralleling children with autistic traits. Some how, the queues are missed because perhaps, the mind is too young when it needs to learn these things... facial expressions, body language, and other non-verbals. Often verbal development is very strong, and audio/aural articulation is very strong in those otherwise expressing (a subset of) autistic traits.
In my family, autism runs strong, and before they called it Ausberger's, it strongly described most of the males and some of the females that were our ancestors in the family. I have Ausberger's traits, but not as strong as my brothers, one of whom is more like the 'Rain Man' than any of us. His traits are much tougher to change, and although he had severe perceptual difficulties as a youth, he's now able to live in a 'normal' world.
So, to summarize, somehow, what are native traits to non-Ausberger's/autistically-expressed individuals aren't present. Many of these seemingly normal abilities have to be learned because the learning stage for them isn't present or fails. It's not that it can't be learned, rather, it's easier to learn at the proper moment in the very young years than it is to learn it as a post-pubescent or even adult individual. The capacity to learn varies strongly among the autistically-expressed. In my case, not too tough. My father? He just learned to be very quiet in a strict household. When he actually spoke, it was better than Shakespeare, with the wit of Rodney Dangerfield and the expressiveness of Pascal. But he rarely spoke, choosing to write long letters, then emails, and hundreds of thousands of pages of elaborate documents. We all though it was just because he was Scottish. But he really had moderate Ausberger's.
I'm amazed that an otherwise erstwhile publication could get so sucked in. There are numerous other form factors and ideas for 'media centers'. No one has offered the model that will have a high-uptake by the public so far, and many have (and are) trying to capture the public's fancy. The early success of Tivo was an inspiration, but the Tivo model has numerous problems, well-documented in this very forum.
Integral electronics, set-top boxes, media center PCs, WiFi-controlled media centers, home IDFs, and other schemes have all been tried, and none have caught the public's fancy. The Viiv chipsets and DRM methods are costly and aren't particularly inspiring.
It's one more attempt to try to gain mindshare-before-marketshare that may have some success, but it's far too early to tell how home configurations in 2009 will look. The HDTV signaling standards are barelly inked (and more will likely be added to ATSC) before it's all over. The DRM methodologies aren't settled. The inter-device media sharing methods aren't finished; the content isn't locally cached yet.... there's lots of work to do.
Will there be a useful algorithmic relationship between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reimann moments? What will its geometry look like? Will it correlate further with physical matter relationships? Can it be fractalized into producing other moments?
Adam's 42 was what happens when you roll die (dice) together-- the meaning of life is that it's a craps shoot. But what of the symmetry of primes? These are juicy bits for numbers heads, algo-freaks, and the rest of us autistically-deranged-from-birth geeks.
While SP2 did a good job of doing the bare minimums (root/admin demotion and forcing firewalling), Microsoft has consistently demonstrated a casual approach to security, despite their claims to the contrary.
Don't short Symantec stock (but perhaps do it to McAfee if they continue to send out virus identifications that include Excel) or any of the rest. People will get email viruses, port 80/surfing bugs, and a myriad of other problems with Vista. It's been already demonstrated that the kernel code delta isn't that huge-- again, despite claims to the contrary that it's a NASA-level budgeted project. NASA continues to drop them in the drink, too.
Certainly there's something to be said for focus feedback in video games, but video games perhaps also cause the problem by having participants enroll in polyphasic activities that invite scatter-gather activities in the first place. So much information is put onto a screen, that distraction seems an almost inevitable result.
I find it a paradox that the cure is also perhaps the cause.
Listen to you, my data source is larger and more accurate than yours, and you try to dismiss it because it wasn't some official study? First you use the word "anecdote", which you clearly do not know the definition of, then when you are called on it, you make an implication of invasion of privacy? So, no, don't leave it aside. If you think that there is something unethical about a person reviewing documents that have been sent to them for review by the documents owners, as unethical say it. If you believe that stating "I know for a fact that there is a teacher in the US that makes $X a year" as unethical, say so. I call BS, and say that your behaviour shows a high level of dishonesty.
I won't doubt the nature of the query used to gather your data. I'll only add that your pool of data came from those that applied. Others can't or won't because they live in apartments, rented housing, and so on. The data you're applying the query and history from is of those that (presuming your wife is a primer or sub-prime lender employee) felt they had the chance to qualify for a mortgage. Lots of people don't apply, because they can't get them and know this.
As regards your question about being shot at, not personally, thankfully. Two classrooms down in 1994, prior to my retirement, a teacher was shot at. The student went through the remainder of a 9mm clip. Didn't hit humans, fortunately. She still works there. Over the several years I taught, I'd say there were forty+ weapons seized, including a half dozen firearms until Columbine, when zero tolerance helped that out.
As regards the fires, two to five a year. Some cigarettes thrown in waste bins, but arson was somewhat an annual affair.
And I'm not whining. I find your observations boorish and full of specious commentary with ego, rather than research-driven reasoning.
There's your research, not refined in any particular sort of way, and perhaps an invasion of privacy in some terms, but I'll leave that issue aside. Some teachers make a good and living wage. Others do not.
You can make tartar sauce at McDonalds as a food prep worker, and you can make sauces at Babbo's in NYC. The cost of living can be adjusted, and other weights applied, too. These refinements help show a less specious picture than the one you've tried to paint with the limited colors on your pallete. I lived there. I watched teacher's union negotiations. I watched and taught children, teens, and adults.
I maintain that teachers are underpaid. generally, and often you get what you pay for. There are many kinds of teachers, and providing a taxonomy of them doesn't defray the fact that there are those that are paid less for academic reasons, tenure (professional or merely time on the job) and other good reasons. Their roles in education are varied, and so is their pay.
It's my personal belief that post-secondary educators are generally overpaid in many positions, and their job is comparatively easier although tightly allied with varying skills sets representing evolution within academic disciplines.
Calling BS makes no sense here, but if it's satisfying, and helps bolster your opinion, it's probably a good thing for you. Too many parents drop their children off at school, and assume that their children are becoming prepared for life. Teachers aren't really parents, but are called in these situations to provide skills that are often what my generation and previous ones called the domain of parenting. Others are involved, and really care. Others are so busy trying to make ends meet that they simply can't marshall the personal time and resources to be good parents, and that's a bad thing.
It's my belief that of the list of alternate 'public' professions, you've named many that have valuable skills that aren't well compensated, especially police. Farmers are usually screwed in the US, and many more municipal/public safety workers aren't well paid, either.
But there's no self-righteousness here. If you prefer to watch the reality, go in, sit down, and watch what happens in a grade school or high school. Sit in the back of the classroom, quietly, and your jaw will likely drop. Do this, daily, for a week and your attitude is very likely to change.
I taught lots of skills. Math, and electronics. I had to deal with children in high school that really couldn't read well, for numerous reasons-- many of them that didn't have to do with basic intelligence. And I tried to get them, according to state standards, out of my classes at the end of a term with the syllabus understood and usable. This, despite dyslexia, autism, learning disabilities, ADD, drugs, chronic absenteeism, and the need for various kinds of remediation. Some kids were 'normal' and some far above normal in each of the aforementioned categories. I do/did the best I could. It was exhausting, and an intense intellectual challenge. I took/take my responsibilities very seriously. Others do, too.
We get shot at, but we're not cops. We put our fires, but we're not firemen. We take out garbage, but we're not garbage collectors. We encourage good nutrition, when lunch is a bag of Fritos and a Pepsi. We're counselors. We teach skills. We embue character.
And we do this because we love/loved it. Not for the money. When it came time to educate other teachers about software, some were interested, some lacked the skills because they used typewriters and slide rules in college. Some, like me, used fountain pens before the Bic ever clicked. Some saw the merits in computing skills and remediation software, others found less use and inconsistent effort, no matter what the software was.
It takes time for academia to move forward. Not Internet time, but regular time. I've pushed for faster advances, but the reality is that things don't always move as quickly as we'd like, and that's the crux of my original response.
Being an ex-teacher, and knowing well what they're paid for, and the hours that go in, let me add some things in that aren't otherwise revealed in your anecdotal research.
There are five categories of teachers: aids, those lacking masters or other needed credentials for a 'full license', fully licensed (usually with master degrees), administrators who teach, and special license teachers. In post K-12, there are part-timers, full-timers, tenured, research (e.g. non-teaching but supervisory), administrative, and a slew of small 'other' categories. They all teach, have different skills, and only the top couple of tiers make comparatively decent money.
The hours in a day are variable. Many spend ten or more if they supervise or sponsor clubs or other extra-curricular activities. They often work weekends doing the same thing, often for additional if low pay.
They get a few holidays that the rest of us don't. Most of my summers were spent teaching, or taking classes to stay up in my profession. I didn't get to slack but for a couple of weeks, which is less than my professional peers did. I got a nice holiday break in the winter; that part was good. Others in my profession, do, too.
And, I put up and dealt daily with extraordinary discipline problems, not to count the developmentally disabled and disadvantaged individuals, each with their own circumstances. It's what I was paid for. Today, the problems are more severe and the regulatory/compliance environment problems are exacerbated by parents that don't have time for their children, or let WoW or an Xbox or Family Guy babysit them while they deal with their own stressed out, post-divorce lives. Add in the sociopaths, the drug-enabled, and the litigation prone, and it's a mess. I feel for both students and teachers who are there to learn and teach. It's not easy. Yes, other professions have their stress and they're also crappier jobs, and those that are entirely thankless. But teachers and students are the next generation and embody the hopes of the current ones, and ones past. My hat is off to them, a phase that translates to my respect for their difficult job.
Time goes on, and attitudes will change. Quality usually becomes apparent and lives a long life. Linux and other free/OSS sources become more usable as time goes by, and MacOS and others also continue to evolve.
Getting the word out is the hardest part. Once adopted, academia doesn't change that much. But there must be a huge mass near as academia has a time warp around it sometimes. I don't have a CS degree because no one in this state offered one that didn't involve arcaic IBM mainframes during my college years. Think punch cards, and other useless drivel. So I learned assembler because it was useful. Now, I'm a black belt, but my skills aren't what are needed for a broad-based computer usage approach. Remediation software, skills development, and so on are useful at K-12, and in post secondary, programming skills can be invaluable. My son takes a coding class that's really wonderful, and he's very enthusiastic about it. Despite that, his goals are in another discipline, where his skills will be useful, but indirectly. I see the changes, and I see the stonewalling. Time will change these things.
I have been, and the wages you see are a median that's not broadly reflected. We/they work long hours, with a wide variety of students, some willing, some incapable of learning. So much for pimping teachers.
I'll agree that computer skills need to evolve in teachers; and various academic disciplines are slowly (but surely) evolving standards for skills and remediation. It takes time, and someone that gives a sh*t without much penuniary interest to do the grunt work. It takes all of the things that makes OSS successful, including creativity, and collaboration.
But it's not this year. And it's going to take time. In the end, OSS wins for the same reason that it will in other segments.
Slashdot Mirror
You get return on good employees, and perhaps none on bad ones. No, they're not taxable in the property sense, but you can increase their value through training. As a composite, organizations get return on assets. This isn't to diminish an individual to the context of a machine, rather to amplify the fact that while many things are replaceable, good employees, happy ones (ok, disgruntled if they contribute as some people will never be happy) contribute to the success of corporate bodies. Shareholders contribute capital, in the monetary sense.
Employees don't really invest labor; they're wage slaves. Capitalists get return on their investments. There is a big distinction here. If you get wages as your income, you're contributing your labor against monetary return, and ostensibly but indirectly, the success of the organization that employees you. In many states and regions, you can be discharged at will. Shareholders (stockholders, bondholders, etc) can't be fired, but they can be bought out under certain conditions. Until then, there's a hope that their capital investment provides monetary return. Rarely to corporate shareholders give one whit about the employees, so long as the corporate machine produces return on their monetary investments, or a possible capital gain on the stock.
People work for money, but they also work where there hearts and minds are. Companies have to make sufficient returns to stay in business, or no one has a job.
The corporate mentality in the 'west' mandates return on shareholder assets. What's missing is that employees are an organization's best assets.
That said, the propaganda machines are simply turning out fodder for an easily duped press. Twenty years ago, Japanese companies were the best run, and we know the end of that story: stagnation and dissatisfaction at virtually all levels, and an economy full of bad debt.
India has a long way to go, as do we all. But calling then 'best' in the context of the article is to succumb to a clever marketing person's pitch to a gullible editor. Go there and find the truth. It's not what's described.
>>Isochronous can be contrasted with asynchronous, which refers to processes in which data streams can be broken by random intervals, and synchronous processes, in which data streams can be delivered only at specific intervals. Isochronous service is not as rigid as synchronous service, but not as lenient as asynchronous service.>> this is the citation from your link, and it's not quite correct.
Asynchronous data means literally without clock. Sender and receiver use timed or externally clocked framing.
Synchronous data sends the clock, hence the 'synch' prefix. Most modems, and many serial links use asynch. Synch links are largely seen in older IBM terminals. There are no framing bytes/bits/nibbles in synchronous data, where these are present in asynch data to help frame packets by creating gaps. This helps electrically/optically to frame-out the data portions from signalling and control. There is a variation, bi-synch, where each side can send their own clock autonomously of the other, allowing different rates or clocks to be applied to each side of the conversation.
In isochronous transmission, the data are timed within their own time domain, although that time domain may be represented by a standard framing context over a-, bi-, or sychronous transports. Isochronous data becomes broken, by a quality metric, when sufficient jitter or latency prevents correct interpretation of the data as perceived by the recipient. This means, jaggies, pixelation, drop-outs, and the other uglies of audio/video reception. A lot of this is older than dirt, but completely relevant when it comes to the realtime vs time-delayed content arguments. Realtime means NOW. Otherwise, it's your favorite version of download now, play later. Realtime then connotes isochronicity and all of the crap necessary to ensure a pleasant viewing experience. So, the dolts are trying to herd cats, as far as I'm concerned. Hence the post.
It all boils down to isochronous delivery: broadcasters have us trained to think that entertainment is event driven, like "Survivor" or another scheduled event. In fact, few shows need be delivered this way.
The telcos that would prioritize their own isochronous/realtime delivery system only get an advantage there. We can still download movies, sports, or whatever for use at our convenience. This means that the NCAA Final Four is probably hot property for QoS throttling, where downloads of Star Wars movies or even Buster Keaton aren't affected by a time domain.
Bottom line: only event-driven, realtime entertainment that isn't available for time delay consumption matters. The on-air broadcasters already know this.... and the telcos are just trying to find a way to shave (or add) a piece from the deals we make. They'll likely win, because they're thoroughly bribed the congress for years into doing it 'their way' vis-a-vis their ability to get the FCC to play along, and for net-neutrality legislation to be handily squashed.
The phrase 'Open" means nothing. It implies many things, ranging from whether you're RMS to Steve Jobs. Developer programs have been mutating for years, starting way back in the '80s. The real depth of the programs, and their usefulness is pretty simple. Take an example: Intersil releases their specs for their chipsets for WiFi. These chipsets have more WiFi code in BSD and LinuxLand than any other, bar none. Proxim/Lucent/Terabeam/others have huge and cool software basis in the open source world. By contrast, others that mandate you swear fealty and pay staggering amounts of money for code, pragmas, instruction sets, timing info, and so on, get left in the dust.
If you RTFA, you'll find quite a contrasting amount of difference between two top vendors. But read the licenses carefully. Then, where lucky, look up code that others have done before starting to conjure up apps, drivers, and so on. This is the beauty of being open: code, reuse code, share code, improve code, make closed source knotheads look like the idiots they are.
Server distros aren't driven by "market" conditions, rather the same OSS qualities that have made successes from other distros. Ask an incorrect question and you're unlikely to get a correct answer. The commercial distro version have lots of room. May the best distro win.
And said that it's a lifeblood for city residents. He also said that Bell South, once he intimated that this might be done, immediately slowed down on committments they'd made to the City to get restoration done.
/.ers should start a movement to create an alternate net down there that can't be touched by the law. Not renegade, rather to aid the people in NO that use the city WiFi as a lifeline.
In a way, it's an 'up-the-telcos' soft of move. And who can blame him?
I'm for the citizens of NO, not incumbent telcos with rotten attitudes. Maybe
Apple Corps represents a specific set of signed artists. They may add some, they may dump some. Their business is to sell media made by their contracted artists. Good for them.
Apple Computer sells computers, servers, operating systems, accessories, and resells licensed content from major media contract holders. They have no contracts of their own. They sell just about everything except the company mentioned in the above paragraph.
Are the contexts congruent? Vaguely. Apple Corps, in my opinion, is attempting to extort from Apple Computer.
Neither one of them have ANYTHING TO DO WITH APPLES THAT GROW ON TREES. Nothing at all. So, both have ficticious business names. One represents contracted artists and 'properties' that are manifested through various media. The other sells a variety of products, including reselling media of *artists they don't represent in any other way*.
The contexts? Vaguely congruent, but in a world where trademark law is not only squishy but undeniably insane, but the world will run out of words to trademark one day-- another problem. Is Apple Networks (I made this up) also going to be a litigation target? Although I'm hypothocating, it could. And it would be just as silly and attorney-enriching as the Corps vs Computer argument. Yes, as mentioned in other posts, there's the Orange, Pear, and perhaps Tomato arguments to be made, too. Go tangential and cite cybersquatting.
Turn another corner and get into replicas.... undoubtedly a bad thing to do. But Apple Computer doesn't seek to replicate anything that Apple Corps does. Therein lays the crux of the problem.
Instead, iTunes commands a dominant marketshare, an Apple product. The Beatles (and other artists represented by Apple Corps) used to have quite a marketshare. Time marches on for the Apple Corp catalog. Apple makes products in numerous markets. A specious 3% citation serves no purpose except to cough a number that looks like the damn lie of statistics. If you're quoting Gartner or another one of the wooly analyst firms, I'll question you still further.
Sure, there can be nominal confusion. But Apple Records is a brand, and so are any number of other labels-- distinct from other trademarks associated with their name. Capitol Records is confused with Washington DC? Maybe Smuckers should sue Def Jam? I don't think so. The entire trial and tribulation is for lawyers. The titans clash while we just go on our merry way. I'll buy Beatles music from iTunes when Apple removes DRM; I don't believe in their DRM methodologies. Otherwise, my Apple Corps vinyl (yes, I still have some) works, as do my CDs. And I have Apple computers, among many others.
We know the difference. The whole world knows the difference. Apple Corp==music catalog. Apple Computer==computers, software, and media/content.
The point is moot, but Apple Corps will try to extract some fake fealty from Apple Computer.
The lawyers win. We don't.
Maybe Disney should by Apple Corps.... all in the family, then.
See the other post on this topic.
The gaps in the safety net are horrid. Insurance company ethics (an oxymoron) are rife with abuse. Once the gap in safety nets are closed, it's a better system-- but without the huge problems in Canada Health and the NHS, as examples.
I've lived with both, and both uniformly stink. They're worse than none at all... as their quality is awful and in no way incentivised.
This goes way offtopic.
I'm absolutely in favor of covering all. To do so requires a different way of thinking, and personal responsibility that doesn't exist in the US. High costs are tough. The indigent or barely financially functional need a safety net that's better than what we have today.
Still, the Canadian/British models are uniformly awful. Ask them. They'll tell you all about it.
We need something other than what we have now.... but we have the most corrupt Congress in history to deal with, bought off by every lobbyist that walks by. Nothing will be done soon.
For a fact, you don't know what you're talking about.
I've lived in several countries with national health, and they're uniformly underfunded, overworked, and have deeper chasms than anything you'll find in the States. Go to one of the major hospitals in any city. Ask how many patients are foreign nationals. The number will shock you.
Canada's health system is laughable. The British NHS is far worse. Only in Sweden have I seen anything coming close to the quality of health care available in the USA. No, I'm not an anti-socialist, rather a realist.
In non-autism/Ausberger's patients, these skills are there. You have nothing to build on with Ausberger's; it's a learned trait.
Speculation says that very bright children's minds develop more slowly than others do, also paralleling children with autistic traits. Some how, the queues are missed because perhaps, the mind is too young when it needs to learn these things... facial expressions, body language, and other non-verbals. Often verbal development is very strong, and audio/aural articulation is very strong in those otherwise expressing (a subset of) autistic traits.
In my family, autism runs strong, and before they called it Ausberger's, it strongly described most of the males and some of the females that were our ancestors in the family. I have Ausberger's traits, but not as strong as my brothers, one of whom is more like the 'Rain Man' than any of us. His traits are much tougher to change, and although he had severe perceptual difficulties as a youth, he's now able to live in a 'normal' world.
So, to summarize, somehow, what are native traits to non-Ausberger's/autistically-expressed individuals aren't present. Many of these seemingly normal abilities have to be learned because the learning stage for them isn't present or fails. It's not that it can't be learned, rather, it's easier to learn at the proper moment in the very young years than it is to learn it as a post-pubescent or even adult individual. The capacity to learn varies strongly among the autistically-expressed. In my case, not too tough. My father? He just learned to be very quiet in a strict household. When he actually spoke, it was better than Shakespeare, with the wit of Rodney Dangerfield and the expressiveness of Pascal. But he rarely spoke, choosing to write long letters, then emails, and hundreds of thousands of pages of elaborate documents. We all though it was just because he was Scottish. But he really had moderate Ausberger's.
'once erstwhile' was what i was thinking. This is what one gets when one reads /. before the first cup of java (not a trademark).
I'm amazed that an otherwise erstwhile publication could get so sucked in. There are numerous other form factors and ideas for 'media centers'. No one has offered the model that will have a high-uptake by the public so far, and many have (and are) trying to capture the public's fancy. The early success of Tivo was an inspiration, but the Tivo model has numerous problems, well-documented in this very forum.
Integral electronics, set-top boxes, media center PCs, WiFi-controlled media centers, home IDFs, and other schemes have all been tried, and none have caught the public's fancy. The Viiv chipsets and DRM methods are costly and aren't particularly inspiring.
It's one more attempt to try to gain mindshare-before-marketshare that may have some success, but it's far too early to tell how home configurations in 2009 will look. The HDTV signaling standards are barelly inked (and more will likely be added to ATSC) before it's all over. The DRM methodologies aren't settled. The inter-device media sharing methods aren't finished; the content isn't locally cached yet.... there's lots of work to do.
And so, fie.
Will there be a useful algorithmic relationship between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Reimann moments? What will its geometry look like? Will it correlate further with physical matter relationships? Can it be fractalized into producing other moments?
;)>
Adam's 42 was what happens when you roll die (dice) together-- the meaning of life is that it's a craps shoot. But what of the symmetry of primes? These are juicy bits for numbers heads, algo-freaks, and the rest of us autistically-deranged-from-birth geeks.
And I eagerly await the answers
Not.
While SP2 did a good job of doing the bare minimums (root/admin demotion and forcing firewalling), Microsoft has consistently demonstrated a casual approach to security, despite their claims to the contrary.
Don't short Symantec stock (but perhaps do it to McAfee if they continue to send out virus identifications that include Excel) or any of the rest. People will get email viruses, port 80/surfing bugs, and a myriad of other problems with Vista. It's been already demonstrated that the kernel code delta isn't that huge-- again, despite claims to the contrary that it's a NASA-level budgeted project. NASA continues to drop them in the drink, too.
Certainly there's something to be said for focus feedback in video games, but video games perhaps also cause the problem by having participants enroll in polyphasic activities that invite scatter-gather activities in the first place. So much information is put onto a screen, that distraction seems an almost inevitable result.
I find it a paradox that the cure is also perhaps the cause.
Listen to you, my data source is larger and more accurate than yours, and you try to dismiss it because it wasn't some official study? First you use the word "anecdote", which you clearly do not know the definition of, then when you are called on it, you make an implication of invasion of privacy? So, no, don't leave it aside. If you think that there is something unethical about a person reviewing documents that have been sent to them for review by the documents owners, as unethical say it. If you believe that stating "I know for a fact that there is a teacher in the US that makes $X a year" as unethical, say so. I call BS, and say that your behaviour shows a high level of dishonesty.
I won't doubt the nature of the query used to gather your data. I'll only add that your pool of data came from those that applied. Others can't or won't because they live in apartments, rented housing, and so on. The data you're applying the query and history from is of those that (presuming your wife is a primer or sub-prime lender employee) felt they had the chance to qualify for a mortgage. Lots of people don't apply, because they can't get them and know this.
As regards your question about being shot at, not personally, thankfully. Two classrooms down in 1994, prior to my retirement, a teacher was shot at. The student went through the remainder of a 9mm clip. Didn't hit humans, fortunately. She still works there. Over the several years I taught, I'd say there were forty+ weapons seized, including a half dozen firearms until Columbine, when zero tolerance helped that out.
As regards the fires, two to five a year. Some cigarettes thrown in waste bins, but arson was somewhat an annual affair.
And I'm not whining. I find your observations boorish and full of specious commentary with ego, rather than research-driven reasoning.
There's your research, not refined in any particular sort of way, and perhaps an invasion of privacy in some terms, but I'll leave that issue aside. Some teachers make a good and living wage. Others do not.
You can make tartar sauce at McDonalds as a food prep worker, and you can make sauces at Babbo's in NYC. The cost of living can be adjusted, and other weights applied, too. These refinements help show a less specious picture than the one you've tried to paint with the limited colors on your pallete. I lived there. I watched teacher's union negotiations. I watched and taught children, teens, and adults.
I maintain that teachers are underpaid. generally, and often you get what you pay for. There are many kinds of teachers, and providing a taxonomy of them doesn't defray the fact that there are those that are paid less for academic reasons, tenure (professional or merely time on the job) and other good reasons. Their roles in education are varied, and so is their pay.
It's my personal belief that post-secondary educators are generally overpaid in many positions, and their job is comparatively easier although tightly allied with varying skills sets representing evolution within academic disciplines.
Calling BS makes no sense here, but if it's satisfying, and helps bolster your opinion, it's probably a good thing for you. Too many parents drop their children off at school, and assume that their children are becoming prepared for life. Teachers aren't really parents, but are called in these situations to provide skills that are often what my generation and previous ones called the domain of parenting. Others are involved, and really care. Others are so busy trying to make ends meet that they simply can't marshall the personal time and resources to be good parents, and that's a bad thing.
It's my belief that of the list of alternate 'public' professions, you've named many that have valuable skills that aren't well compensated, especially police. Farmers are usually screwed in the US, and many more municipal/public safety workers aren't well paid, either.
But there's no self-righteousness here. If you prefer to watch the reality, go in, sit down, and watch what happens in a grade school or high school. Sit in the back of the classroom, quietly, and your jaw will likely drop. Do this, daily, for a week and your attitude is very likely to change.
I taught lots of skills. Math, and electronics. I had to deal with children in high school that really couldn't read well, for numerous reasons-- many of them that didn't have to do with basic intelligence. And I tried to get them, according to state standards, out of my classes at the end of a term with the syllabus understood and usable. This, despite dyslexia, autism, learning disabilities, ADD, drugs, chronic absenteeism, and the need for various kinds of remediation. Some kids were 'normal' and some far above normal in each of the aforementioned categories. I do/did the best I could. It was exhausting, and an intense intellectual challenge. I took/take my responsibilities very seriously. Others do, too.
We get shot at, but we're not cops.
We put our fires, but we're not firemen.
We take out garbage, but we're not garbage collectors.
We encourage good nutrition, when lunch is a bag of Fritos and a Pepsi.
We're counselors.
We teach skills.
We embue character.
And we do this because we love/loved it. Not for the money. When it came time to educate other teachers about software, some were interested, some lacked the skills because they used typewriters and slide rules in college. Some, like me, used fountain pens before the Bic ever clicked. Some saw the merits in computing skills and remediation software, others found less use and inconsistent effort, no matter what the software was.
It takes time for academia to move forward. Not Internet time, but regular time. I've pushed for faster advances, but the reality is that things don't always move as quickly as we'd like, and that's the crux of my original response.
Being an ex-teacher, and knowing well what they're paid for, and the hours that go in, let me add some things in that aren't otherwise revealed in your anecdotal research.
There are five categories of teachers: aids, those lacking masters or other needed credentials for a 'full license', fully licensed (usually with master degrees), administrators who teach, and special license teachers. In post K-12, there are part-timers, full-timers, tenured, research (e.g. non-teaching but supervisory), administrative, and a slew of small 'other' categories. They all teach, have different skills, and only the top couple of tiers make comparatively decent money.
The hours in a day are variable. Many spend ten or more if they supervise or sponsor clubs or other extra-curricular activities. They often work weekends doing the same thing, often for additional if low pay.
They get a few holidays that the rest of us don't. Most of my summers were spent teaching, or taking classes to stay up in my profession. I didn't get to slack but for a couple of weeks, which is less than my professional peers did. I got a nice holiday break in the winter; that part was good. Others in my profession, do, too.
And, I put up and dealt daily with extraordinary discipline problems, not to count the developmentally disabled and disadvantaged individuals, each with their own circumstances. It's what I was paid for. Today, the problems are more severe and the regulatory/compliance environment problems are exacerbated by parents that don't have time for their children, or let WoW or an Xbox or Family Guy babysit them while they deal with their own stressed out, post-divorce lives. Add in the sociopaths, the drug-enabled, and the litigation prone, and it's a mess. I feel for both students and teachers who are there to learn and teach. It's not easy. Yes, other professions have their stress and they're also crappier jobs, and those that are entirely thankless. But teachers and students are the next generation and embody the hopes of the current ones, and ones past. My hat is off to them, a phase that translates to my respect for their difficult job.
Time goes on, and attitudes will change. Quality usually becomes apparent and lives a long life. Linux and other free/OSS sources become more usable as time goes by, and MacOS and others also continue to evolve.
Getting the word out is the hardest part. Once adopted, academia doesn't change that much. But there must be a huge mass near as academia has a time warp around it sometimes. I don't have a CS degree because no one in this state offered one that didn't involve arcaic IBM mainframes during my college years. Think punch cards, and other useless drivel. So I learned assembler because it was useful. Now, I'm a black belt, but my skills aren't what are needed for a broad-based computer usage approach. Remediation software, skills development, and so on are useful at K-12, and in post secondary, programming skills can be invaluable. My son takes a coding class that's really wonderful, and he's very enthusiastic about it. Despite that, his goals are in another discipline, where his skills will be useful, but indirectly. I see the changes, and I see the stonewalling. Time will change these things.
I have been, and the wages you see are a median that's not broadly reflected. We/they work long hours, with a wide variety of students, some willing, some incapable of learning. So much for pimping teachers.
I'll agree that computer skills need to evolve in teachers; and various academic disciplines are slowly (but surely) evolving standards for skills and remediation. It takes time, and someone that gives a sh*t without much penuniary interest to do the grunt work. It takes all of the things that makes OSS successful, including creativity, and collaboration.
But it's not this year. And it's going to take time. In the end, OSS wins for the same reason that it will in other segments.
More involvement is better, and teachers, curriculum people, and others need to get that message. Don't be bashful.