Liberty University, Grove City College..The list goes on. The most conservative colleges in America are thoroughly right-wing and already state colleges like University of Florida have right-wing funded professors who have a job because of a corporate fund.
Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University, Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis, University of California-Irvine, University of California-Los Angeles, University of California-San Diego, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Chicago, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor!
Give me a break!
I nearly choked on that one. The average cost of attendance for a public university is still around 6-8K a year for tuition. Private is now over 20K. I've seen the funding reports for public universities. If we factor in what the state gives it comes to about 13-14K a year. You're nearly $6,000 shy of the mark. I suggest you rewrite what you're talking about since you clearly don't know. Also in most cases barring the ivy leagues state universities are better in most areas of Science and liberal arts. So your argument is without merit.
I'm talking about public schools, not public universities.
Are you seriously talking about the voucher programs for public schooling in K-12? What they found was this was an idea dreamed up by wealthy suburban families that already paid for private school and still paid house taxes or some form of school tax.
Yes I am. Do you seriously believe all the bullshit the unions fed you to protect their jobs? Here, from the Wiki page:
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed for vouchers, as did the George W. Bush administration in the initial education-reform proposals leading up to the No Child Left Behind Act. This year, it is estimated that nearly 171,000 students will participate in 18 existing school choice programs in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these programs are offered to students in low-income families, low performing schools, or special-education programs.
So, you feel it's more important that a teacher, who is NOT teaching kids, to protect his/her job than it is to give a lower income child a chance at making it out of the lower income bracket? Or do you just want YOUR people poor, ignorant, gullible and dependent.
They make less with more education and capability than their private sector counterpart and the only reward is a pension which is once measured actually smaller than the reward for private sector pay bonus. So who is really cheating who in this equation?
I know the truth. See, I was a teacher. My wife is still a teacher. Sure, she doesn't make as much as others with Masters Degrees, but most people don't make what she makes for working 6 hrs a day, three days a week either. Teachers complain about making $40,000 for their masters degree job, and then take a really nice, three month vacation every year. They get every holiday and every weekend off. They get a nice benefit package that includes health insurance and a retirement package. If teachers were treated so badly, no one would become teachers, yet new, hopefuls graduate with education degrees every single day.
I think the major problem here is you are comparing humans to machines.
Seriously, you should probably see someone about that.
It's a cold hard world out there, but that's the natural order of things. Are you willing to give some of your money to support those buggy whip makers that were put out of business by the automobile? No? Then you understand.
Not true. There was a school voucher system, remember? Only as it turned out, the reality was that the vouchers were not enough for middle-and-low income people to send their children to private school. So the only people who actually got any advantage out of the voucher system were the parents who could (or could almost) afford to send their children to private school anyway.
Actually, there have been several school voucher systems, but never one at a national level. From the Wiki Page:
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed for vouchers, as did the George W. Bush administration in the initial education-reform proposals leading up to the No Child Left Behind Act. This year, it is estimated that nearly 171,000 students will participate in 18 existing school choice programs in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these programs are offered to students in low-income families, low performing schools, or special-education programs.
And, as I understood it, the national program was only to be available to students who were already attending a "failing" school. Rich kids don't go to failing schools.
However, you are correct that most of the time, a voucher will not pay the entire tuition for a student to attend a private school. Then again, many times, it does. Even with a voucher system, the poor and even the middle class will not be able to send their kids to the best prep-schools in the nation. They will have to find one within the voucher's budget.
This is proof you are a child of american media, you're spouting corporate talking points that have been drilled into your head since you were born.
No, I have a fucking job and I pay bills so I can have nice stuff. You do know your computer was made a whole bunch of corporations, right? Why are you using one? Why did you feed the corporate machines buy buying one? Hypocrite?
All governments in US and Canada are right wing conservative (liberals in canada are conservative, a corporate party that is has been propagandized as a fake left), in the US there IS NO LEFT AT ALL in politics.
Wait... did you just call Canada "right wing"? I'm curious, which countries in the world are NOT right wing? I want to know what you call "middle of the road".
Oh, and Ralph Nader is left of Mao, so using him as an source is moronic. Yeah, if Nader is your starting point, then sure, everyone is a right winger. But think about something for me here. If someone is middle of the road, then there will be people far to the right of him and far to the left of him. That's what being in the middle means. Can you name someone who is far to the left of Nader? I really want to know who that person is.
"They often do a much better job of educating students for less money spent per student."
Only if you think corporations and their think tanks would have NO grounds to fudge their 'studies' to have them say what they want to clueless people who lack critical thinking to believe. They wouldn't do things like oh I don't know, fudge science for political gain or screw up the economy and then socialize losses on the backs of the taxpayer right?
We're talking about schools you unemployed loser! "Corporate" Schools can't fudge college acceptance, entrance exams and college graduation rates.
I understand you hate people who have jobs and make money and all, but please, try to stay on topic. I wouldn't call a small Catholic private school with a maximum of 200 students total a corporate entity with their very own think tank.
So, as for you entire post... it's Off Topic so there is no point in responding to any points.
I do have to ask one thing though, Mr. Antiestablishmentarian. I assume you posted your opinion using a computer with hundreds of parts. Can you name a single one of those parts that was NOT made by a corporation? Also, you do realize the website you are enjoying here is owned by a corporation, right? Maybe you should spend a few days living without stuff made by corporations before you hate on this so much. Maybe then you'll realize how much of a jackass you have just made of yourself.
And everyone knows that everyone in a labor union is a lazy freeloader! At least unemployed people have the decency to not sabotage our economy by involving themselves in the affairs of the wealthy!
Nice Red Herring! Wow! That is textbook! I'm impressed.
Let me help you out here. It's a red herring because the conservative case against unions is not that unions are made of lazy freeloaders, although, there are those that take advantage of the system. The case against unions is based on a resistance to paying more for labor than is necessary and paying for labor that is no longer needed.
Think of it this way: Let's say you are the server administrator in a mid-sized company. Your servers are all running Windows NT4 on Pentium III processors. In order to remain competitive you need to replace your systems with new, top of the line systems running a proper Server OS. Once word gets out, your old P-III's throw a fit and lock down all of your data, effectively shutting your company down. They demand that they stay in service until their power supplies give out and to be rebooted no less than two times per week with Microsoft patch Tuesdays off entirely. New systems that come online to replace those retired systems must also run Windows NT4, and may not have any more RAM installed than existing systems.
What do you do? Do you force your boss to pay more for outdated equipment or do you pull the plug on the whole damn server room and move your business to "the cloud" based on servers in India? What do you think your shareholders will tell you do?
If you didn't get it, here is the key. Pentium systems = Teacher's Union NT4 = Current Teaching methods RAM = Salary Shareholders = Taxpayers
Really? Bullshit. Teachers care about the quality of students' education, which is why they're fighting the attempt to remove teachers and just send students to some online video.
Really? Bullshit!
Have you ever taken an online course? I have taken both online and traditional classroom courses. I saw more videos and Power Point Presentations in the traditional, physically in the classroom courses than I ever saw online.
Right now corporations are trying to privatize education to limit political views so they can turn the world into a right wing aristocracy. Universities in Canada and around the world have become more and more dependent on corporate donors and this means freedom of inquiry will be stifled big time. Do you really think rich conservative right wingers want any criticism of capitalism or protection for the poor? There was a big thing at U of T about naming something after Tommy douglas (tommy was father of 'socialist healthcare' in canada which pisses off the corps and right wingers and they still hate him for it) and the administration said 'no' because they were worried about offending the ideals of their donors and the donors denying them future funds. This means universities will become hotbeds of corporatist and unchecked capitalist propaganda and damn the scientific evidence. No thanks.
Are you freaking kidding me?? Academia as a right wing institution. Dude! I really want some of what you're smoking, only not as much as it seems if you smoke too much, you turn stupid!
First, of all, there have been private schools for longer than there have been public ones. They often do a much better job of educating students for less money spent per student. Unfortunately, because they don't receive government funding, it costs the parents more to enroll their kids, meaning only the wealthy can afford it. Of course, those evil right wingers tried to set up a system where poor parents could send their kids to the schools only previously accessible to the rich, but your lefty Democratic brethren shot it down. Why? It would give parents a choice as to where to send their kids, provide competition in the education system and provide a more educated student population. They shot it down because the unions went into a frenzy because they thought it might cost teachers that couldn't compete their jobs. That's right! They shot it down to protect crappy teachers.
So don't give me that crap about "Do you really think rich conservative right wingers want any criticism of capitalism or protection for the poor?". You are lying your ass off when you say that. Let me give you some free advice; If you have to lie to make your point, your point is wrong!
Re:Is there a technical reason for no OTA updates?
on
iOS 5 Update Available
·
· Score: 2
When Android actually becomes decent and stable, perhaps we will say the same thing about it?
It is excellent and stable.
Perhaps when Android becomes somethign people desire to have on their phones, we will same the same thing about it.
Seeing as it is outselling IOS, I would say that it is something people want on their phones. Certainly more want Android than IOS.
Why do the Android phones all have such crappy screens?
What do you mean? My Evo3D has an awesome screen. Not only is bigger than any iPhone/iTouch screen you can buy, but it also does glasses free 3D.
Why did it take years to get Netflix on Android after it was on iPhone?
Ask Netflix. Why can't I get FREE navigation, like GoogleMaps on an iPhone? Why must I pay for something that Google will give me for free, if Apple would allow me to have it. Why must I have Apple's permission to run an application?
Why does Android only have about 5% of the games available that iOS does?
I can play Angry Birds, Need for Speed and tons and tons of other games. Oh, and Spiderman... in 3d!
Why do most Android phones have a talk time of 2 hours?
Because dual core 1.5 Ghz processors take some power. However, my Evo3D outlasts my buddies iPhone4. Or are you talking about the android phones released 2 years ago?
Why does the back button on Android have a completely random behavior?
I could say the same thing about Apples back button... except it doesn't have one. Are Apple users too stupid to use more than one button? Apple seems to think so. We saw the same behavior with mice for years on Macs.
Why does that behavior change depending n who you buy your damn phone from?
It's called options. I have them. I am smart enough to compare and find the one with the features that most meet my needs. You know, like the ability to play Flash.
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system? I don't think it works that way.
When people complain about browsers needing excessive amounts of memory they usually refer to memory leaks, not to intelligent use of memory through caching.
The bit about how some people misinterpret the amount of free memory the OS reports is totally true, though.
I recall people complaining that their Vista system with 8GB of RAM had no free memory. This was true of systems running with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB RAM. This tells me that much of that was cache but that didn't stop people from claiming that Vista was a memory hog.
However, you do have a point about the browser. If I leave Firefox running on a page that refreshes itself, like Slashdot, over the weekend, when I come back to the machine, Firefox is using over up to a GB or RAM and everything else is swapped out to the HDD. It takes several minutes for the system to become spunky again, and it usually requires a force close of Firefox. Firefox has pages cached on its own and OS knows nothing about it. All it sees is that Firefox.exe "needs" 1GB RAM.
Let's say you have 8 GB RAM on your system. When you put your system to hibernate, it writes that 8 GB to disk and shuts down. When you "wake" the system back up, it looks for hibernation data. If it finds it, it loads it back into RAM from your disk. How long does it take your system to read 8GB of data from your HDD?
With non-volatile memory, you are able to remove power from your machine through power failure or "hibernation", but the data stays where it was, in RAM. When you return power to the machine, there is no need to reload the 8GB from the disk because it's already there. It can literally be instant power off and on since no data has to be written or read.
Don't turn this into an Apple versus M$ you dolt, a man died today!
Oh wait...
See, even trolls can't overcome the remarkable sadness on the news of his passing. Beyond the hardware, he inspired a lot of debates here and elsewhere that will have a lasting impact on people. I can't believe how awful this is to hear.
I'm a PC-Linux-Android guy. No flames intended. Both Gates and Jobs are the tip top of their field, yet reached there in their own way. Both played critical roles in the industry.
He was the reason many of us got into this industry, or even care about technology at all. He made the computer personal, and the smartphone fun. Bill Gates may have put a computer on every office desk, but it was Steve Jobs who put one in every dorm room and bedroom and living room. And then, years later, he repeated the trick, putting one in every bag and every pocket, thanks to the iPad and iPhone. If you use a computer or smartphone today, it is either one he created, or an imitation of his genius.
Next, stop patenting how people use things. The multi-touch (above) is an example. Could you imaging what the GUI would be like if Apple were able to patent the double-click?!!? How about if Ford patented where hands were placed on a steering wheel? Could Gibson patent a guitar chord or method for rock stars to bash a guitar on stage? Or how about "A handheld computing device is introduced comprising a motion detection sensor(s) and a motion control agent. The motion detection sensor(s) detect motion of the computing device in one or more of six (6) fields of motion and generate an indication of such motion. The motion control agent, responsive to the indications of motion received from the motion sensors, generate control signals to modify, one or more of the operating state and/or the displayed content of the computing device based, at least in part, on the received indications." Also known as an accelerometer. Yes, this patent was granted.
Stop patenting evolution. If I were to patent the web browser, someone else shouldn't be able to patent using graphics in a web browser. If were to hold the patent to the TV, someone else shouldn't be able to patent the wide-screen.
Stop patenting conventions. If something is accepted as an industry standard with the patent holder's blessing, USB for example, the patents should immediately expire. This would prevent patent holders like Apple, Intel and Rambus from pushing their patented solutions over better, open ones.
Stop overly-broad or vague patents. Patents should include a proposed use for the idea. For example, if I were to make the language vague enough, I could easily get the patent for the automobile. Someone could have seen the PAD on Star Trek and grabbed a patent for that. "Flat, rectangular, electronic device used to hold and present information". I've seen examples of patents filed years ago that were violated by products that were not what the patent holder was thinking of when he got the patent.
There are more. These are just off the top of my head.
No, of course he can't. Climate changes due to natural events and cycles. I don't think anyone denies that.
However, he can point out that according to the best figures we have, the climate is currently changing at a far greater rate than has occurred previously (outside of major extinction events), and that that pace of change cannot be explained by natural causes alone. We are seeing changes over decades-to-centuries time frames that would normally take millennia (or longer).
The river Thames rarely freezes today. I believe the last time was in 1963 and even then it was extremely rare. Of course, during the "little ice age" that started ending a couple of hundred years ago, it was a yearly occurrence as shown by the annual fairs that were held on the frozen river. So, in less than 200 years, the river has gone from freezing annually to almost never freezing. Note that this "little ice age" ended before the industrial revolution took off, and well before the SUV.
The point is that this level of warming has gone on for centuries and well before man could be blamed for it. Although, that won't stop man from believing that he has an effect. People are arrogant in that way. Men do a dance and it rains. Men believe that the dance CAUSED the rain and begins to repeat the dance whenever rain is needed. The climate warms, but instead of looking for natural causes, man looks at what HE is doing that could be causing it. It's the rain dance thing all over again.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
They turn it on, the drives get launched by the magnetic field and hit someone in the head, causing permanent brain damage. They then use the drive serial numbers to track them to you and sue you in the gutter.
Magnetic drill bits don't drill any better than non-magnetic drill bits. What's your point? You still need to drill the platters into small bits before you can be relatively certain no useful information can be retrieved.
I've been hit in the head several times and I have suffered no dain brammage.
Is our best option right now to pick up two hard drives, back up all our pictures and videos to the first, and then use a 3rd party app to mirror that drive to the second just in case one of them craps out?
What happens if that first drive craps out in the middle of the mirroring? Now you have NO backups. The only thing to save you here is if you still have everything you've ever taken on its original location, your primary computer.
Best bet? Two external drives. Back from your PC to one drive. Then repeat the backup on the second drive. Every so often, back up to optical media.
I set up an FTP site that contains all of my child's pictures that we want to keep. My parents hit the ftp site and download anything new. This adds a remote backup as well.
"A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back.". . . Sir Francis Bacon
Yeeeeeeeeah, no.
I see you are in the "little science" group.
From the wiki page on Sir Francis Bacon:
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Albans,[1] KC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, author and pioneer of the scientific method. He served both as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England. Although his political career ended in disgrace, he remained extremely influential through his works, especially as philosophical advocate and practitioner of the scientific method during the scientific revolution. Bacon has been called the father of empiricism.[2] His works established and popularised inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today. His dedication probably led to his death, bringing him into a rare historical group of scientists who were killed by their own experiments
Maybe you are right. What would the guy who authored and pioneered the scientific method know about science?
"Yeah. Those Christians sure are stupid, anti-science, freaks!"
You can be smart and stupid at the same time, of course you'd have to be smart enough to understand this.
Since the discussion is on science, scientific discoveries is the exact kinda smart we should be talking about. And re-read the post I was responding to:
In a perfect world, scientific/engineering degrees would be reserved for people who display rational, scientific thought in all areas of their life, and don't suspend it when it comes to 2000 years old fairy tales promoted by authority figures, yes.
Well, looking at these guys' discoveries, it would appear that a belief in "2000 year old fairy tales" and "rational, scientific though" are not mutually exclusive as the GGP was suggesting. Of course, you would have to read to know that.
In a perfect world, scientific/engineering degrees would be reserved for people who display rational, scientific thought in all areas of their life, and don't suspend it when it comes to 2000 years old fairy tales promoted by authority figures, yes.
Yeah. Those Christians sure are stupid, anti-science, freaks! I'm sure science would be better off without them trying to meddling with their voodoo discoveries.
Hmm . . . Christians have bombed federal buildings and abortion clinics in the U.S., and buildings in Norway.
By your logic, physics degrees should not be given to Christians because they might build nuclear bombs and drop them on people.
So a lone wolf "Christian" tries to bomb an abortion clinic because he truly believes that it will save the lives of hundreds of children and at the very most, kills a staff of 6 that work at the abortion clinic and is shunned by over 99% of Christians.
The most recent abortion protest death was not done by a pro-life activist, but was done TO a pro-life activist James Lawrence Pouillon.
Before that, it was George Tiller, an abortion doctor, who was murdered. Oh, yeah, George Tiller was also an usher at a church. Guess those terrorist Christians didn't know about his job. Oh wait. Yeah they did and none of the church people killed him. That's strange and disproves your entire point. Must be an error.
A group of Islamist followers get funding from other Muslims, and work and plan for years before hijacking four planes full of random, innocent men, women and children and fly them into buildings filled with more, random, innocent people to kill as many as humanly possible. They end up killing around 3,000, but make it perfectly clear that if they could have killed 300 million, they would jump at the chance. There is dancing in the streets overseas and their actions are supported by about 25% of Muslims IN THE US.
Yeah. It's the same thing.
(I must add that this is sarcasm. I have to add that because you really and truly believe that the two examples I've given are truly the very same thing. This proves that you are an idiot, or just really bad at math.)
According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, one in four American Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 believe that slaughtering random civilians in suicide bombings is justifiable, if it is “to defend Islam.”
Slashdot Mirror
Liberty University, Grove City College..The list goes on. The most conservative colleges in America are thoroughly right-wing and already state colleges like University of Florida have right-wing funded professors who have a job because of a corporate fund.
Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, New York University, Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Davis, University of California-Irvine, University of California-Los Angeles, University of California-San Diego, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Chicago, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor!
Give me a break!
I nearly choked on that one. The average cost of attendance for a public university is still around 6-8K a year for tuition. Private is now over 20K. I've seen the funding reports for public universities. If we factor in what the state gives it comes to about 13-14K a year. You're nearly $6,000 shy of the mark. I suggest you rewrite what you're talking about since you clearly don't know. Also in most cases barring the ivy leagues state universities are better in most areas of Science and liberal arts. So your argument is without merit.
I'm talking about public schools, not public universities.
Are you seriously talking about the voucher programs for public schooling in K-12? What they found was this was an idea dreamed up by wealthy suburban families that already paid for private school and still paid house taxes or some form of school tax.
Yes I am. Do you seriously believe all the bullshit the unions fed you to protect their jobs? Here, from the Wiki page:
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed for vouchers, as did the George W. Bush administration in the initial education-reform proposals leading up to the No Child Left Behind Act. This year, it is estimated that nearly 171,000 students will participate in 18 existing school choice programs in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these programs are offered to students in low-income families, low performing schools, or special-education programs.
So, you feel it's more important that a teacher, who is NOT teaching kids, to protect his/her job than it is to give a lower income child a chance at making it out of the lower income bracket? Or do you just want YOUR people poor, ignorant, gullible and dependent.
They make less with more education and capability than their private sector counterpart and the only reward is a pension which is once measured actually smaller than the reward for private sector pay bonus. So who is really cheating who in this equation?
I know the truth. See, I was a teacher. My wife is still a teacher. Sure, she doesn't make as much as others with Masters Degrees, but most people don't make what she makes for working 6 hrs a day, three days a week either. Teachers complain about making $40,000 for their masters degree job, and then take a really nice, three month vacation every year. They get every holiday and every weekend off. They get a nice benefit package that includes health insurance and a retirement package. If teachers were treated so badly, no one would become teachers, yet new, hopefuls graduate with education degrees every single day.
I think the major problem here is you are comparing humans to machines.
Seriously, you should probably see someone about that.
It's a cold hard world out there, but that's the natural order of things. Are you willing to give some of your money to support those buggy whip makers that were put out of business by the automobile? No? Then you understand.
Not true. There was a school voucher system, remember? Only as it turned out, the reality was that the vouchers were not enough for middle-and-low income people to send their children to private school. So the only people who actually got any advantage out of the voucher system were the parents who could (or could almost) afford to send their children to private school anyway.
Actually, there have been several school voucher systems, but never one at a national level. From the Wiki Page:
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pushed for vouchers, as did the George W. Bush administration in the initial education-reform proposals leading up to the No Child Left Behind Act. This year, it is estimated that nearly 171,000 students will participate in 18 existing school choice programs in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Most of these programs are offered to students in low-income families, low performing schools, or special-education programs.
And, as I understood it, the national program was only to be available to students who were already attending a "failing" school. Rich kids don't go to failing schools.
However, you are correct that most of the time, a voucher will not pay the entire tuition for a student to attend a private school. Then again, many times, it does. Even with a voucher system, the poor and even the middle class will not be able to send their kids to the best prep-schools in the nation. They will have to find one within the voucher's budget.
This is proof you are a child of american media, you're spouting corporate talking points that have been drilled into your head since you were born.
No, I have a fucking job and I pay bills so I can have nice stuff. You do know your computer was made a whole bunch of corporations, right? Why are you using one? Why did you feed the corporate machines buy buying one? Hypocrite?
All governments in US and Canada are right wing conservative (liberals in canada are conservative, a corporate party that is has been propagandized as a fake left), in the US there IS NO LEFT AT ALL in politics.
Wait... did you just call Canada "right wing"? I'm curious, which countries in the world are NOT right wing? I want to know what you call "middle of the road".
Oh, and Ralph Nader is left of Mao, so using him as an source is moronic. Yeah, if Nader is your starting point, then sure, everyone is a right winger. But think about something for me here. If someone is middle of the road, then there will be people far to the right of him and far to the left of him. That's what being in the middle means. Can you name someone who is far to the left of Nader? I really want to know who that person is.
"They often do a much better job of educating students for less money spent per student."
Only if you think corporations and their think tanks would have NO grounds to fudge their 'studies' to have them say what they want to clueless people who lack critical thinking to believe. They wouldn't do things like oh I don't know, fudge science for political gain or screw up the economy and then socialize losses on the backs of the taxpayer right?
Grayson grilling the fed about secret (at the time) trillion dollar bailouts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ
More info here about corporate corruption:
http://www.dailybail.com/
We're talking about schools you unemployed loser! "Corporate" Schools can't fudge college acceptance, entrance exams and college graduation rates.
I understand you hate people who have jobs and make money and all, but please, try to stay on topic. I wouldn't call a small Catholic private school with a maximum of 200 students total a corporate entity with their very own think tank.
So, as for you entire post... it's Off Topic so there is no point in responding to any points.
I do have to ask one thing though, Mr. Antiestablishmentarian. I assume you posted your opinion using a computer with hundreds of parts. Can you name a single one of those parts that was NOT made by a corporation? Also, you do realize the website you are enjoying here is owned by a corporation, right? Maybe you should spend a few days living without stuff made by corporations before you hate on this so much. Maybe then you'll realize how much of a jackass you have just made of yourself.
And everyone knows that everyone in a labor union is a lazy freeloader! At least unemployed people have the decency to not sabotage our economy by involving themselves in the affairs of the wealthy!
Nice Red Herring! Wow! That is textbook! I'm impressed.
Let me help you out here. It's a red herring because the conservative case against unions is not that unions are made of lazy freeloaders, although, there are those that take advantage of the system. The case against unions is based on a resistance to paying more for labor than is necessary and paying for labor that is no longer needed.
Think of it this way:
Let's say you are the server administrator in a mid-sized company. Your servers are all running Windows NT4 on Pentium III processors. In order to remain competitive you need to replace your systems with new, top of the line systems running a proper Server OS. Once word gets out, your old P-III's throw a fit and lock down all of your data, effectively shutting your company down. They demand that they stay in service until their power supplies give out and to be rebooted no less than two times per week with Microsoft patch Tuesdays off entirely. New systems that come online to replace those retired systems must also run Windows NT4, and may not have any more RAM installed than existing systems.
What do you do? Do you force your boss to pay more for outdated equipment or do you pull the plug on the whole damn server room and move your business to "the cloud" based on servers in India? What do you think your shareholders will tell you do?
If you didn't get it, here is the key.
Pentium systems = Teacher's Union
NT4 = Current Teaching methods
RAM = Salary
Shareholders = Taxpayers
Really? Bullshit. Teachers care about the quality of students' education, which is why they're fighting the attempt to remove teachers and just send students to some online video.
Really? Bullshit!
Have you ever taken an online course? I have taken both online and traditional classroom courses. I saw more videos and Power Point Presentations in the traditional, physically in the classroom courses than I ever saw online.
"This isn't a coal mine or dangerous factory job. "
You should really get informed.
http://www.ivorytowerblues.com/
Right now corporations are trying to privatize education to limit political views so they can turn the world into a right wing aristocracy. Universities in Canada and around the world have become more and more dependent on corporate donors and this means freedom of inquiry will be stifled big time. Do you really think rich conservative right wingers want any criticism of capitalism or protection for the poor? There was a big thing at U of T about naming something after Tommy douglas (tommy was father of 'socialist healthcare' in canada which pisses off the corps and right wingers and they still hate him for it) and the administration said 'no' because they were worried about offending the ideals of their donors and the donors denying them future funds. This means universities will become hotbeds of corporatist and unchecked capitalist propaganda and damn the scientific evidence. No thanks.
Are you freaking kidding me?? Academia as a right wing institution. Dude! I really want some of what you're smoking, only not as much as it seems if you smoke too much, you turn stupid!
First, of all, there have been private schools for longer than there have been public ones. They often do a much better job of educating students for less money spent per student. Unfortunately, because they don't receive government funding, it costs the parents more to enroll their kids, meaning only the wealthy can afford it. Of course, those evil right wingers tried to set up a system where poor parents could send their kids to the schools only previously accessible to the rich, but your lefty Democratic brethren shot it down. Why? It would give parents a choice as to where to send their kids, provide competition in the education system and provide a more educated student population. They shot it down because the unions went into a frenzy because they thought it might cost teachers that couldn't compete their jobs. That's right! They shot it down to protect crappy teachers.
So don't give me that crap about "Do you really think rich conservative right wingers want any criticism of capitalism or protection for the poor?". You are lying your ass off when you say that. Let me give you some free advice; If you have to lie to make your point, your point is wrong!
When Android actually becomes decent and stable, perhaps we will say the same thing about it?
It is excellent and stable.
Perhaps when Android becomes somethign people desire to have on their phones, we will same the same thing about it.
Seeing as it is outselling IOS, I would say that it is something people want on their phones. Certainly more want Android than IOS.
Why do the Android phones all have such crappy screens?
What do you mean? My Evo3D has an awesome screen. Not only is bigger than any iPhone/iTouch screen you can buy, but it also does glasses free 3D.
Why did it take years to get Netflix on Android after it was on iPhone?
Ask Netflix. Why can't I get FREE navigation, like GoogleMaps on an iPhone? Why must I pay for something that Google will give me for free, if Apple would allow me to have it.
Why must I have Apple's permission to run an application?
Why does Android only have about 5% of the games available that iOS does?
I can play Angry Birds, Need for Speed and tons and tons of other games. Oh, and Spiderman... in 3d!
Why do most Android phones have a talk time of 2 hours?
Because dual core 1.5 Ghz processors take some power. However, my Evo3D outlasts my buddies iPhone4. Or are you talking about the android phones released 2 years ago?
Why does the back button on Android have a completely random behavior?
I could say the same thing about Apples back button... except it doesn't have one. Are Apple users too stupid to use more than one button? Apple seems to think so. We saw the same behavior with mice for years on Macs.
Why does that behavior change depending n who you buy your damn phone from?
It's called options. I have them. I am smart enough to compare and find the one with the features that most meet my needs. You know, like the ability to play Flash.
Any other questions I can answer for you?
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system? I don't think it works that way.
When people complain about browsers needing excessive amounts of memory they usually refer to memory leaks, not to intelligent use of memory through caching.
The bit about how some people misinterpret the amount of free memory the OS reports is totally true, though.
I recall people complaining that their Vista system with 8GB of RAM had no free memory. This was true of systems running with 2 GB RAM and 16 GB RAM. This tells me that much of that was cache but that didn't stop people from claiming that Vista was a memory hog.
However, you do have a point about the browser. If I leave Firefox running on a page that refreshes itself, like Slashdot, over the weekend, when I come back to the machine, Firefox is using over up to a GB or RAM and everything else is swapped out to the HDD. It takes several minutes for the system to become spunky again, and it usually requires a force close of Firefox. Firefox has pages cached on its own and OS knows nothing about it. All it sees is that Firefox.exe "needs" 1GB RAM.
What has memory to do with reboot.
Powerless hybernation is much more interesting.
Hibernation is SSSSSSLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW.
Let's say you have 8 GB RAM on your system. When you put your system to hibernate, it writes that 8 GB to disk and shuts down. When you "wake" the system back up, it looks for hibernation data. If it finds it, it loads it back into RAM from your disk. How long does it take your system to read 8GB of data from your HDD?
With non-volatile memory, you are able to remove power from your machine through power failure or "hibernation", but the data stays where it was, in RAM. When you return power to the machine, there is no need to reload the 8GB from the disk because it's already there. It can literally be instant power off and on since no data has to be written or read.
Don't turn this into an Apple versus M$ you dolt, a man died today!
Oh wait...
See, even trolls can't overcome the remarkable sadness on the news of his passing. Beyond the hardware, he inspired a lot of debates here and elsewhere that will have a lasting impact on people. I can't believe how awful this is to hear.
I'm a PC-Linux-Android guy. No flames intended. Both Gates and Jobs are the tip top of their field, yet reached there in their own way. Both played critical roles in the industry.
Again, no flames or trolling intended.
HERE is the original quote:
He was the reason many of us got into this industry, or even care about technology at all. He made the computer personal, and the smartphone fun. Bill Gates may have put a computer on every office desk, but it was Steve Jobs who put one in every dorm room and bedroom and living room. And then, years later, he repeated the trick, putting one in every bag and every pocket, thanks to the iPad and iPhone. If you use a computer or smartphone today, it is either one he created, or an imitation of his genius.
Bill Gates put a computer on every desk. Steve Jobs put one in every pocket, purse, dorm room and bedroom.
His contribution will be sorely missed.
One step closer to making another Steve Jobs, so we can have another tech company with vision.
Too soon.
So what is the solution?
Well, there are several solutions.
First, stop the patenting of the obvious. For example, multi-touch on a touch screen. Or a patent for a rectangle smart phone with icons.
Next, stop patenting how people use things. The multi-touch (above) is an example. Could you imaging what the GUI would be like if Apple were able to patent the double-click?!!? How about if Ford patented where hands were placed on a steering wheel? Could Gibson patent a guitar chord or method for rock stars to bash a guitar on stage? Or how about "A handheld computing device is introduced comprising a motion detection sensor(s) and a motion control agent. The motion detection sensor(s) detect motion of the computing device in one or more of six (6) fields of motion and generate an indication of such motion. The motion control agent, responsive to the indications of motion received from the motion sensors, generate control signals to modify, one or more of the operating state and/or the displayed content of the computing device based, at least in part, on the received indications." Also known as an accelerometer. Yes, this patent was granted.
Stop patenting evolution. If I were to patent the web browser, someone else shouldn't be able to patent using graphics in a web browser. If were to hold the patent to the TV, someone else shouldn't be able to patent the wide-screen.
Stop patenting conventions. If something is accepted as an industry standard with the patent holder's blessing, USB for example, the patents should immediately expire. This would prevent patent holders like Apple, Intel and Rambus from pushing their patented solutions over better, open ones.
Stop overly-broad or vague patents. Patents should include a proposed use for the idea. For example, if I were to make the language vague enough, I could easily get the patent for the automobile. Someone could have seen the PAD on Star Trek and grabbed a patent for that. "Flat, rectangular, electronic device used to hold and present information". I've seen examples of patents filed years ago that were violated by products that were not what the patent holder was thinking of when he got the patent.
There are more. These are just off the top of my head.
No, of course he can't. Climate changes due to natural events and cycles. I don't think anyone denies that.
However, he can point out that according to the best figures we have, the climate is currently changing at a far greater rate than has occurred previously (outside of major extinction events), and that that pace of change cannot be explained by natural causes alone. We are seeing changes over decades-to-centuries time frames that would normally take millennia (or longer).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
The river Thames rarely freezes today. I believe the last time was in 1963 and even then it was extremely rare. Of course, during the "little ice age" that started ending a couple of hundred years ago, it was a yearly occurrence as shown by the annual fairs that were held on the frozen river. So, in less than 200 years, the river has gone from freezing annually to almost never freezing. Note that this "little ice age" ended before the industrial revolution took off, and well before the SUV.
The point is that this level of warming has gone on for centuries and well before man could be blamed for it. Although, that won't stop man from believing that he has an effect. People are arrogant in that way. Men do a dance and it rains. Men believe that the dance CAUSED the rain and begins to repeat the dance whenever rain is needed. The climate warms, but instead of looking for natural causes, man looks at what HE is doing that could be causing it. It's the rain dance thing all over again.
Arab men don't look at/for porn. It is forbidden by the dominant religion over there.
Must be some sort of mistake... or an Israeli plot.
The air has been exceptionally cold up there? Where is all that global warming everyone is speaking about?
Mr. Republican/Tea party member, the correct term is "Climate Change".
Enjoy the rest of your science bashing day.
Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I highlighted the relevant part.
They turn it on, the drives get launched by the magnetic field and hit someone in the head, causing permanent brain damage. They then use the drive serial numbers to track them to you and sue you in the gutter.
Magnetic drill bits don't drill any better than non-magnetic drill bits. What's your point? You still need to drill the platters into small bits before you can be relatively certain no useful information can be retrieved.
I've been hit in the head several times and I have suffered no dain brammage.
Is our best option right now to pick up two hard drives, back up all our pictures and videos to the first, and then use a 3rd party app to mirror that drive to the second just in case one of them craps out?
What happens if that first drive craps out in the middle of the mirroring? Now you have NO backups. The only thing to save you here is if you still have everything you've ever taken on its original location, your primary computer.
Best bet? Two external drives. Back from your PC to one drive. Then repeat the backup on the second drive. Every so often, back up to optical media.
I set up an FTP site that contains all of my child's pictures that we want to keep. My parents hit the ftp site and download anything new. This adds a remote backup as well.
"A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back.". . . Sir Francis Bacon
Yeeeeeeeeah, no.
I see you are in the "little science" group.
From the wiki page on Sir Francis Bacon:
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Albans,[1] KC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, author and pioneer of the scientific method. He served both as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England. Although his political career ended in disgrace, he remained extremely influential through his works, especially as philosophical advocate and practitioner of the scientific method during the scientific revolution.
Bacon has been called the father of empiricism.[2] His works established and popularised inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method. His demand for a planned procedure of investigating all things natural marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, much of which still surrounds conceptions of proper methodology today. His dedication probably led to his death, bringing him into a rare historical group of scientists who were killed by their own experiments
Maybe you are right. What would the guy who authored and pioneered the scientific method know about science?
"Yeah. Those Christians sure are stupid, anti-science, freaks!"
You can be smart and stupid at the same time, of course you'd have to be smart enough to understand this.
Since the discussion is on science, scientific discoveries is the exact kinda smart we should be talking about. And re-read the post I was responding to:
In a perfect world, scientific/engineering degrees would be reserved for people who display rational, scientific thought in all areas of their life, and don't suspend it when it comes to 2000 years old fairy tales promoted by authority figures, yes.
Well, looking at these guys' discoveries, it would appear that a belief in "2000 year old fairy tales" and "rational, scientific though" are not mutually exclusive as the GGP was suggesting. Of course, you would have to read to know that.
In a perfect world, scientific/engineering degrees would be reserved for people who display rational, scientific thought in all areas of their life, and don't suspend it when it comes to 2000 years old fairy tales promoted by authority figures, yes.
In your perfect world, we wouldn't have things like logarithms, The Big Bang theory or Bucky Balls.
Yeah. Those Christians sure are stupid, anti-science, freaks! I'm sure science would be better off without them trying to meddling with their voodoo discoveries.
Hmm . . . Christians have bombed federal buildings and abortion clinics in the U.S., and buildings in Norway.
By your logic, physics degrees should not be given to Christians because they might build nuclear bombs and drop them on people.
So a lone wolf "Christian" tries to bomb an abortion clinic because he truly believes that it will save the lives of hundreds of children and at the very most, kills a staff of 6 that work at the abortion clinic and is shunned by over 99% of Christians.
The most recent abortion protest death was not done by a pro-life activist, but was done TO a pro-life activist James Lawrence Pouillon.
Before that, it was George Tiller, an abortion doctor, who was murdered. Oh, yeah, George Tiller was also an usher at a church. Guess those terrorist Christians didn't know about his job. Oh wait. Yeah they did and none of the church people killed him. That's strange and disproves your entire point. Must be an error.
A group of Islamist followers get funding from other Muslims, and work and plan for years before hijacking four planes full of random, innocent men, women and children and fly them into buildings filled with more, random, innocent people to kill as many as humanly possible. They end up killing around 3,000, but make it perfectly clear that if they could have killed 300 million, they would jump at the chance. There is dancing in the streets overseas and their actions are supported by about 25% of Muslims IN THE US.
Yeah. It's the same thing.
(I must add that this is sarcasm. I have to add that because you really and truly believe that the two examples I've given are truly the very same thing. This proves that you are an idiot, or just really bad at math.)
Source:
According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, one in four American Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 believe that slaughtering random civilians in suicide bombings is justifiable, if it is “to defend Islam.”