Where I live the per capita spending on students has risen over the years far ahead of inflation.
I don't know where you live, but regardless of any statistic you want to present, we're still cramming 40 kids in a classroom and they don't have books. Teachers have to go out and buy supplies with their own money because they have no budget from the school. So, yeah, if you can locate and eliminate the waste, by all means do it, but let's not pretend that these classrooms are just awash with money.
The very concept of "public school" is fairly recent.
What, exactly, is your point here? Yes, in the past, we didn't have public schools. Lots of people went uneducated. There were educated people in the past, but they were generally either rich or lucky, or both.
Even if true, how is this different from what Jews suffered in Europe for centuries?
Right, so I guess everything is perfectly fine as long as it's no worse than the treatment of Jews in Europe. By the logic, I suppose you think it'd be fine to murder millions of black people, since... hey, that's not different than the shitty treatment that the Jews suffered.
(Note, that I'm not putting forth my own theories here. I'm just obliterating yours.)
If that was your intention, it would help if you... you know... said anything that was even slightly relevant.
I think this story is an important one, but perhaps not for the reasons your imagining people care about this. I wouldn't necessarily berate anyone at Facebook for these statistics. Maybe they're not doing everything they should, but maybe they're doing everything they reasonable can do to hire minorities and women.
However, the fact that there's such a huge discrepancy in hiring of black people is an indication that there's some kind of problem. Before we even get into trying to figure out where the problem is, it's just meaningful in that, unless this is some kind of statistical fluke, it's a sign of *something*. It's like when you look at prison statistics, and find that there's a disproportionate amount of black people in prison. We can argue about whether the problem is in lawmaking or education or law enforcement, or some combination of things, but we should all be able to agree that it's a problem we'd like to see solved.
It kind of requires both things, though, right? I mean, yes, having parents who are interested and encouraging, who make sure their kids are doing what they're supposed to, who can tutor them while the kids do their homework-- all that stuff helps a ton. But even if you're a great parent, if you send your kid to an underfunded school with inexperienced, underprepared, and unsupported teachers and 45 kids per class, without good books to teaching materials, etc., then you're still going to struggle to get a good education.
And think about the kids who have to suffer through both sets of problems.
Black youth are given the same opportunities that every other youth is given. They can attend public school. They can use the resources of public libraries.
Yes, on that level, they have opportunities. Of course, they might live in an area where there's de facto segregation because it's a poor neighborhood and only black people live there. They might go to a shitty underfunded public school. They might get harassed by the police on a regular basis, charged with a felony in a situation where a white kid would get a slap on the wrist, and have their lives effectively ruined by a criminal record.
It's definitely not as bad for black people as it was 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, but let's not pretend that they get all the same opportunities, and they get given the benefit of all the same doubts.
Ah, thanks. I misread the quote somehow. For some reason, I thought it was saying it removed 80% of the material by removing nonfunctional material, rather than what it clearly says, which is that, of the nonfunctional material, it removed 80%.
Yeah, but I guess my question is, if it reduces the "nonfunctional material in the structure" by 80%, I'm assuming that's by volume, and that means the battery would take up 20% of its current size to achieve the same results. I'd assume (perhaps wrongly) that would mean thinner smartphones and laptops and whatnot. If you look at Apple's new Macbook (the one with the USB-C connector), the electronics take up very little space, and the device is mostly battery.
I would also guess that the 80% reduction in volume would also make a substantial reduction in weight, which means lighter smartphones, laptops, and electric cars. Or as an alternative, it would mean you could have a device/car with a similar weight and volume, while holding a much longer charge. Correct?
The summary highlights price, but also says, "Using fewer, thicker electrodes, the system reduces the conventional battery architecture's number of distinct layers, as well as the amount of nonfunctional material in the structure, by 80 percent." So I'm left wondering, does this also have a substantial improvement in terms of size/weight of the batteries?
Because from what I remember reading, a big part of the difficulty in engineering electric cars is that batteries are big and heavy. When you add enough batteries to power the car, you've also added a bunch of weight, which means that you now need to add even more batteries to compensate for the energy needed to move the weight of all the batteries you've added.
it's not public infrastructure, the city will rent out locations for the pylons in exchange for $$$ - like any billboard.
So they're selling ad space on the side of the equipment-- what's your point here? This is a scheme for providing municipal WiFi. Does the road stop being "public infrastructure" because billboards are setup alongside it? Does the subway stop being "public transportation" because there are ads in it?
What you're listing are reasons why it's more difficult than providing wireless usually is, which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. However, it can be done. It should be done. We could debate how quickly and how extensively it should be done, but it should be done.
Sort of like putting signs in the subway station that tells you when the next train is coming. I understand that there are some challenges, and it's great that they have it in a few stations now, but really it should have have been done several years ago.
First, you seem to be missing the point in that your suggested behavior is the behavior of an asshole. This is why we can't have nice things.
But besides that, this news story is about Google taking over LinkNYC, a project to provide free, public municipal WiFi to the NYC. So yeah, we're talking about public infrastructure, even if Google will be the contractor tasked with building and maintaining it.
Your view is, to be honest, myopic if not willfully ignorant. Your "freedom of speech" is not specifically dependent on a particular means. However, saying, "You don't need to have access to the Internet in order to express yourself" is a bit like saying, "You don't need to have access to roads, trains, or planes in order to travel." Yes, I suppose that's true, but failing to have access to that travel infrastructure sure does hinder your ability to travel.
It's also worth noting that the First Amendment specifies "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Now a lot of people assume that "freedom of the press" refers to "the press" as in "the fourth estate". However, at the time, referring to "the press" would also have implied simply, "the use of a printing press". This means that the amendment acknowledges that any "freedom of speech" is inhibited by denying access to the technology to disseminate your message.
But let's set all of that aside, because I'm ultimately not talking about a US Constitutional interpretation, arguing that the Federal government is somehow obligated by the First Amendment to provide Internet access to all citizens. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the "freedom of speech" is not a right granted by the Constitution, but an inalienable right of all people. All people should have the freedom and ability to voice their opinions and views. Regardless of any legal or Constitutional obligations, we have a moral obligation to avoid culturally segregating massive numbers of people, preventing them from speaking their mind in public forums, and preventing them from hearing the viewpoints of others.
And in that sense, and to that end, I think it is a very good idea to provide public Internet access to those who can't afford it. Even if it's not a "free speech" issue in the sense of "The Supreme Court should rule on the Constitutionality of [whatever]", it's a "free speech" issue in the sense of "morally, these people should not be shut out of the conversation."
I'll make sure to stream data from/dev/urandom while i'm not actively using the connection, so they can have more information about me.
Great! I can't wait for our public communications infrastructure to be saturated by your random bits because a few jackasses are afraid that someone might catch on that they're looking at porn.
As a NYC resident, I appreciate the idea of free WiFi. I especially like the idea of having some kind of free Internet access for people who can't afford it, since... really... it's getting more and more of a disadvantage to not have access. I think Internet access should be considered linked to issues of economic opportunity, of public safety, and of free speech rights (your freedom of speech is hindered by not having access to telecommunications infrastructure).
But if I'm honest, the biggest thing I'd like to see for my own benefit is some kind of Internet access for the subway. Some subway stations get cell phone reception, depending on your carrier. Reception in the tunnels themselves is a bit of a rarity. Given that subway rides can take a couple of hours, it'd be nice to expect some kind of wireless access during that time.
See I do have a backup of my laptop on a local NAS, but that's actually my sort of "safeguard" backup, in case my primary plan fails somehow. My primarily plan is, I keep everything of importance in my Dropbox folder. Anything sensitive is encrypted, but it's all in Dropbox, which is synced as soon as I alter a file.
In this day and age, you should be able to be absolutely blasé about hard drive failures. At any moment, you should be able to say, "Fine, wipe my hard drive. I might lose an hour of work while I reinstall the OS, but on the other hand, give me a spare computer and I'll work from there. I don't need to 'restore from backup'. I have access on any computer that I trust."
I'm suspicious that it was done intentionally, to prod us into posting links on social media and driving more traffic to the site. And why would I want to link my social media sites to Slashdot? I'd want to link directly to the article anyway.
Apple did not have the right to make that decision for the artists
Here's the thing, though: Apple does not have the right to make that decision for the artists. However, under current law, those artists' record labels may have the right to make that decision for their artists, and if the record labels signed off on the whole thing, it's not Apple's fault that the artists are unhappy and feel blindsided.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the deal here is, but if I were you, I'd review your agreement with Ditto Music, and contact them to find out if there has been any agreement between them and Apple. Either way, whether you'd like your music included or would not like it included, it's most likely that Apple would negotiate their deal with Ditto and not you. I'm sure you made some agreement with Ditto for the distribution of your album, and depending on your agreement, I suppose it's possible that it included the right to negotiate this kind of deal with Apple on your behalf.
That may well be true, but if they brought examples of their work that were far superior to any of the other interviewees, and you use Adobe and they used Adobe, you'd also give them the job. And that's how it works, typically.
I don't know. This is kind of true. Being an expert in Adobe products won't "get you the job" by itself... unless you happen to walk into a job where they're looking for an Adobe expert, in which case, it might.
But also, in all honesty, if you want a job doing design work and you only know how to use Adobe tools, that's probably totally fine. Can't use GIMP? That's fine. Nobody uses GIMP. I mean, yes, some people use it, but go around to professional design firms and ad agencies, and they all are using Adobe. Knowing Adobe isn't enough-- you need to have a work ethic and a design sense and whatever else, but it's not like you really need to know other tools.
I haven't read the entire article, but the beginning (and the summary) seems to imply that the purpose of education is to further your career, and I feel that belief is a bigger mistake than training on industry-standard tools. Ideally, if you go to college, you shouldn't just be learning how to use Adobe, but you shouldn't just be learning how to use graphic design tools (open source or otherwise). You should be learning about things, and not just how to do things. Like, you should learn about history and science and literature and art. There should be trade schools and vocational schools that teach you how to use Photoshop or GIMP, but a real college should teach you about the concepts design and aesthetics.
I then took stock, realised that I was spending so much on being close to the centre and was so stressed out by the downsides (noise, antisocial behaviour, general crowding) that I wasn't actually enjoying the supposed benefits.
This reminds me of NYC. For lots of people, "living in New York" means living in Manhattan. But you do that for a few years, you get over it, and an awful lot of people realize that the other boroughs can be far more pleasant. After a while, Manhattan starts to look like a tourist trap filled with douchebags.
Yeah, I think it should really boil down to a question of whether it can be shown that TWC is refusing the peering agreement as a method of throttling, or whether their refusal is justified. Unfortunately, I have doubts about the average person understanding the technology well enough to serve on a jury for this kind of thing.
Ok, so let me ask you two questions: 1) Do you have any information on your computer that you would not like to share with the world? 2) Did you build the entire computer from scratch?
If your answers were "yes" and "no", respectively, then to some extent, you're trusting your hardware vendor to have not included some kind of... well, who knows what they could theoretically include. A chip that serves as a keylogger, but that will send the info out through the NIC without involving the OS. If they designed and manufactured all the hardware, they might have done any number of things.
Slashdot Mirror
Where I live the per capita spending on students has risen over the years far ahead of inflation.
I don't know where you live, but regardless of any statistic you want to present, we're still cramming 40 kids in a classroom and they don't have books. Teachers have to go out and buy supplies with their own money because they have no budget from the school. So, yeah, if you can locate and eliminate the waste, by all means do it, but let's not pretend that these classrooms are just awash with money.
The very concept of "public school" is fairly recent.
What, exactly, is your point here? Yes, in the past, we didn't have public schools. Lots of people went uneducated. There were educated people in the past, but they were generally either rich or lucky, or both.
Even if true, how is this different from what Jews suffered in Europe for centuries?
Right, so I guess everything is perfectly fine as long as it's no worse than the treatment of Jews in Europe. By the logic, I suppose you think it'd be fine to murder millions of black people, since... hey, that's not different than the shitty treatment that the Jews suffered.
(Note, that I'm not putting forth my own theories here. I'm just obliterating yours.)
If that was your intention, it would help if you... you know... said anything that was even slightly relevant.
I think this story is an important one, but perhaps not for the reasons your imagining people care about this. I wouldn't necessarily berate anyone at Facebook for these statistics. Maybe they're not doing everything they should, but maybe they're doing everything they reasonable can do to hire minorities and women.
However, the fact that there's such a huge discrepancy in hiring of black people is an indication that there's some kind of problem. Before we even get into trying to figure out where the problem is, it's just meaningful in that, unless this is some kind of statistical fluke, it's a sign of *something*. It's like when you look at prison statistics, and find that there's a disproportionate amount of black people in prison. We can argue about whether the problem is in lawmaking or education or law enforcement, or some combination of things, but we should all be able to agree that it's a problem we'd like to see solved.
And think about the kids who have to suffer through both sets of problems.
Black youth are given the same opportunities that every other youth is given. They can attend public school. They can use the resources of public libraries.
Yes, on that level, they have opportunities. Of course, they might live in an area where there's de facto segregation because it's a poor neighborhood and only black people live there. They might go to a shitty underfunded public school. They might get harassed by the police on a regular basis, charged with a felony in a situation where a white kid would get a slap on the wrist, and have their lives effectively ruined by a criminal record.
It's definitely not as bad for black people as it was 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, but let's not pretend that they get all the same opportunities, and they get given the benefit of all the same doubts.
Ah, thanks. I misread the quote somehow. For some reason, I thought it was saying it removed 80% of the material by removing nonfunctional material, rather than what it clearly says, which is that, of the nonfunctional material, it removed 80%.
Yeah, but I guess my question is, if it reduces the "nonfunctional material in the structure" by 80%, I'm assuming that's by volume, and that means the battery would take up 20% of its current size to achieve the same results. I'd assume (perhaps wrongly) that would mean thinner smartphones and laptops and whatnot. If you look at Apple's new Macbook (the one with the USB-C connector), the electronics take up very little space, and the device is mostly battery.
I would also guess that the 80% reduction in volume would also make a substantial reduction in weight, which means lighter smartphones, laptops, and electric cars. Or as an alternative, it would mean you could have a device/car with a similar weight and volume, while holding a much longer charge. Correct?
Any of those things seem like a huge deal.
The summary highlights price, but also says, "Using fewer, thicker electrodes, the system reduces the conventional battery architecture's number of distinct layers, as well as the amount of nonfunctional material in the structure, by 80 percent." So I'm left wondering, does this also have a substantial improvement in terms of size/weight of the batteries?
Because from what I remember reading, a big part of the difficulty in engineering electric cars is that batteries are big and heavy. When you add enough batteries to power the car, you've also added a bunch of weight, which means that you now need to add even more batteries to compensate for the energy needed to move the weight of all the batteries you've added.
I would like to point out Windows 8.1 can run on a 16 GB partition with 1 GB of ram.
It can. Theoretically. Just don't install applications or updates, and you might have space enough to run the system and store a few documents.
it's not public infrastructure, the city will rent out locations for the pylons in exchange for $$$ - like any billboard.
So they're selling ad space on the side of the equipment-- what's your point here? This is a scheme for providing municipal WiFi. Does the road stop being "public infrastructure" because billboards are setup alongside it? Does the subway stop being "public transportation" because there are ads in it?
Go crawl back in your troll hole.
What you're listing are reasons why it's more difficult than providing wireless usually is, which is probably why it hasn't been done yet. However, it can be done. It should be done. We could debate how quickly and how extensively it should be done, but it should be done.
Sort of like putting signs in the subway station that tells you when the next train is coming. I understand that there are some challenges, and it's great that they have it in a few stations now, but really it should have have been done several years ago.
First, you seem to be missing the point in that your suggested behavior is the behavior of an asshole. This is why we can't have nice things.
But besides that, this news story is about Google taking over LinkNYC, a project to provide free, public municipal WiFi to the NYC. So yeah, we're talking about public infrastructure, even if Google will be the contractor tasked with building and maintaining it.
Your view is, to be honest, myopic if not willfully ignorant. Your "freedom of speech" is not specifically dependent on a particular means. However, saying, "You don't need to have access to the Internet in order to express yourself" is a bit like saying, "You don't need to have access to roads, trains, or planes in order to travel." Yes, I suppose that's true, but failing to have access to that travel infrastructure sure does hinder your ability to travel.
It's also worth noting that the First Amendment specifies "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Now a lot of people assume that "freedom of the press" refers to "the press" as in "the fourth estate". However, at the time, referring to "the press" would also have implied simply, "the use of a printing press". This means that the amendment acknowledges that any "freedom of speech" is inhibited by denying access to the technology to disseminate your message.
But let's set all of that aside, because I'm ultimately not talking about a US Constitutional interpretation, arguing that the Federal government is somehow obligated by the First Amendment to provide Internet access to all citizens. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the "freedom of speech" is not a right granted by the Constitution, but an inalienable right of all people. All people should have the freedom and ability to voice their opinions and views. Regardless of any legal or Constitutional obligations, we have a moral obligation to avoid culturally segregating massive numbers of people, preventing them from speaking their mind in public forums, and preventing them from hearing the viewpoints of others.
And in that sense, and to that end, I think it is a very good idea to provide public Internet access to those who can't afford it. Even if it's not a "free speech" issue in the sense of "The Supreme Court should rule on the Constitutionality of [whatever]", it's a "free speech" issue in the sense of "morally, these people should not be shut out of the conversation."
I'll make sure to stream data from /dev/urandom while i'm not actively using the connection, so they can have more information about me.
Great! I can't wait for our public communications infrastructure to be saturated by your random bits because a few jackasses are afraid that someone might catch on that they're looking at porn.
As a NYC resident, I appreciate the idea of free WiFi. I especially like the idea of having some kind of free Internet access for people who can't afford it, since... really... it's getting more and more of a disadvantage to not have access. I think Internet access should be considered linked to issues of economic opportunity, of public safety, and of free speech rights (your freedom of speech is hindered by not having access to telecommunications infrastructure).
But if I'm honest, the biggest thing I'd like to see for my own benefit is some kind of Internet access for the subway. Some subway stations get cell phone reception, depending on your carrier. Reception in the tunnels themselves is a bit of a rarity. Given that subway rides can take a couple of hours, it'd be nice to expect some kind of wireless access during that time.
I can retriever previous versions through Dropbox. If that fails somehow, I have my NAS backups.
See I do have a backup of my laptop on a local NAS, but that's actually my sort of "safeguard" backup, in case my primary plan fails somehow. My primarily plan is, I keep everything of importance in my Dropbox folder. Anything sensitive is encrypted, but it's all in Dropbox, which is synced as soon as I alter a file.
In this day and age, you should be able to be absolutely blasé about hard drive failures. At any moment, you should be able to say, "Fine, wipe my hard drive. I might lose an hour of work while I reinstall the OS, but on the other hand, give me a spare computer and I'll work from there. I don't need to 'restore from backup'. I have access on any computer that I trust."
I'm suspicious that it was done intentionally, to prod us into posting links on social media and driving more traffic to the site. And why would I want to link my social media sites to Slashdot? I'd want to link directly to the article anyway.
Apple did not have the right to make that decision for the artists
Here's the thing, though: Apple does not have the right to make that decision for the artists. However, under current law, those artists' record labels may have the right to make that decision for their artists, and if the record labels signed off on the whole thing, it's not Apple's fault that the artists are unhappy and feel blindsided.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the deal here is, but if I were you, I'd review your agreement with Ditto Music, and contact them to find out if there has been any agreement between them and Apple. Either way, whether you'd like your music included or would not like it included, it's most likely that Apple would negotiate their deal with Ditto and not you. I'm sure you made some agreement with Ditto for the distribution of your album, and depending on your agreement, I suppose it's possible that it included the right to negotiate this kind of deal with Apple on your behalf.
That may well be true, but if they brought examples of their work that were far superior to any of the other interviewees, and you use Adobe and they used Adobe, you'd also give them the job. And that's how it works, typically.
I don't know. This is kind of true. Being an expert in Adobe products won't "get you the job" by itself... unless you happen to walk into a job where they're looking for an Adobe expert, in which case, it might.
But also, in all honesty, if you want a job doing design work and you only know how to use Adobe tools, that's probably totally fine. Can't use GIMP? That's fine. Nobody uses GIMP. I mean, yes, some people use it, but go around to professional design firms and ad agencies, and they all are using Adobe. Knowing Adobe isn't enough-- you need to have a work ethic and a design sense and whatever else, but it's not like you really need to know other tools.
I haven't read the entire article, but the beginning (and the summary) seems to imply that the purpose of education is to further your career, and I feel that belief is a bigger mistake than training on industry-standard tools. Ideally, if you go to college, you shouldn't just be learning how to use Adobe, but you shouldn't just be learning how to use graphic design tools (open source or otherwise). You should be learning about things, and not just how to do things. Like, you should learn about history and science and literature and art. There should be trade schools and vocational schools that teach you how to use Photoshop or GIMP, but a real college should teach you about the concepts design and aesthetics.
I then took stock, realised that I was spending so much on being close to the centre and was so stressed out by the downsides (noise, antisocial behaviour, general crowding) that I wasn't actually enjoying the supposed benefits.
This reminds me of NYC. For lots of people, "living in New York" means living in Manhattan. But you do that for a few years, you get over it, and an awful lot of people realize that the other boroughs can be far more pleasant. After a while, Manhattan starts to look like a tourist trap filled with douchebags.
Yeah, I think it should really boil down to a question of whether it can be shown that TWC is refusing the peering agreement as a method of throttling, or whether their refusal is justified. Unfortunately, I have doubts about the average person understanding the technology well enough to serve on a jury for this kind of thing.
Ok, so let me ask you two questions: 1) Do you have any information on your computer that you would not like to share with the world? 2) Did you build the entire computer from scratch?
If your answers were "yes" and "no", respectively, then to some extent, you're trusting your hardware vendor to have not included some kind of... well, who knows what they could theoretically include. A chip that serves as a keylogger, but that will send the info out through the NIC without involving the OS. If they designed and manufactured all the hardware, they might have done any number of things.