I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections.
Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians. The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections. I care what vehicles are coming from the left. The ones coming from the right have to stop for me.
But you still have to care about what's coming from the right - namely pedestrians as you're still required to stop for them.
Between that and pollsters having questions and multiple-choice answers that were designed to give a desired answer...
Seriously, I had a Democrat pollster back 2005-2006 that asked a question regarding Bush and Iraq. The question was designed to give a very specific answer I didn't agree with, and I flat out told them that. But the kid doing the poll didn't have any way to record that in the poll. We discussed it for a few minutes. Last poll I ever got...
if you are in business and you deny someone on the basis of sexual orientation race religious affiliation etc you are denying someone the liberty of doing as they please in general society. you are standing against freedom. this is simple fucking common sense, nevermind the actual law of the land:
this is different than denying someone in your own house, or a church: those are private places. a mosque can deny you the right to draw muhammad on those premises, but no muslim can deny you the right to walk around in public with muhammad on your t shirt
they may of course scream "religious liberty" but what they mean, like you, is that they are whining they don't get to limit someone else's freedoms in public. that's not liberty
i would ask if you understand the difference, but you obviously do not. your intent is clearly malicious and you clearly do not have the intellectual capacity to understand simple concepts like public and private.
you're a dimwitted bigot, and whether you admit it or not, your low intelligence "opinions" stand against freedom and liberty and the founding principles of this country
And you obviously do not even comprehend what I and others are saying - you cannot impose your right over someone else's equal right just because you want them to enter into a contract with you. You cannot force them to. It's that simple.
At no point did I make an argument for using a religious basis for that.
So until you can actually understand the argument at hand refrain from commenting further because you're not making any points that you have not already repeated, and not contributing to the conversation.
Please also look up reverse discrimination and think of how it applies.
because who someone has sex with has nothing to do with a fucking cake purchase
but what someone does in a church is very much bound by the purpose of that church
you can't tell the fucking difference between a bakery and a church?
a muslim store owner cannot refuse to sell me a pencil because there is a picture of muhammad on my t shirt
Only because it's a public service. They could use that as a means of judging your character and saying "I don't like you " and thereby not enter into a contract with you to provide a private service - and that's perfectly legal.
you have no right to deny a business transaction to someone because of their sexual orientation
Correct, you don't. But you also don't have the right to force someone into a business transaction either.
your understanding of contracts is completely ignorant
if some guy is buying a cake from you, and you deny him the cake because he's gay, you are destroying someone else's rights, you are not exercising your rights
You cannot force someone to enter into a contract. And a simple reason of "I don't like the person" is sufficient and not discriminatory in any way.
There is a difference in service between someone coming in a picking a cake off the shelf, and a cake that is being pre-ordered to certain specifications for a specific date and time, possibly (though not necessarily) including delivery.
In the first, the cake is on the shelf and the buyer walks in, picks it up, and pays for it. No contract has been entered. For a bakery or restaurant this falls under public service as long as the doors are open to the public. If the doors are not open to the public then there is no public service and this service is hence not available. It has a different burden under the law than private services do.
In the second, a contract is used to ensure that both parties understand what is being provided, by whom, when, and how. This is a private service provided by the business, and the business is allowed to have a greater choice with whom it provides private services to since they are contracted services. If they for any reason (of which there are many legal reasons, and some illegal reasons) choose not to enter the contract then they do not have to provide the private service. Illegal reasons are the discriminatory reasons - race, sex, etc - while legal reasons are pretty much anything else, including "I don't like you".
You cannot force someone to enter into a contract, and a simple thing of "I don't like the other person" is sufficient and non-discriminatory. No reason must be provided for why you don't want to enter into the contract either.
And since you mentioned a bakery, I'll assume you mean the one in Oregon that went through this in the courts. Their failure was to try to argue religious reasons; they should have just stuck to basic contract law and avoided that whole part of the issue, even if the other side pushed. They never stated a reason when they denied the contract; nor were they required to. They went a step further and actually provided references of other bakeries in the area. They could have used any number of legal reasons to not enter the contract, and they should have. Because the case was really much simpler than what it was made out to be.
And honestly, the outcome is not one I find favourable either simply because of that - you cannot force someone into a contract. Doing so is trying to eviscerate someone else's rights for your own - which is just as wrong.
the amazing lie in national politics nowadays is "religious liberty"
i thought "religious liberty" means you can practice your religion how you want and government can't regulate that
that makes sense. i support that
but mindblowingly we have people telling us they are offended at, for example, gay marriage, so their "religious liberty" has to be preserved by allowing them to oppress others and respect other people's basic rights
The practice of one's "religious liberty" which you claim to support also means being able to live it in daily life. Operating one's business in line with one's religious liberty is simply living out their religious liberty.
Now, aside from the that issue, everyone - business and individual alike - has the right to enter or not enter into a contract. You cannot force someone to enter into a contract - that is actually illegal, and voids the contract (by law) as there is no mutual agreement. This is the challenge often used against EULA's - that there is no mutual agreement by both parties, that one side is dictating the terms in their entirety. The issue has been that various LGBT individuals have been trying to force companies into entering contracts that the company - for unspecified reasons - chose not to enter. One side wanted the contract, the other did not; there was no mutual agreement and no signed contract. The reasons for doing so were not stated.
If a reason that was illegal was given, then I'd 100% agree with you. But the reasons were not given, nor were they required to give a reason. Religious liberty does not even need to enter into the picture, and honestly I wouldn't want to do business with an individual that turned around and sued over such frivolity anyway - something completely orthogonal to sexuality or religion, and something 100% allowed by the law.
how dumbfoundingly ignorant about what liberty and freedom really is!
orwellian even: "my liberty means i have the right to deny you your liberty"
Stop. And think. Then reverse the question and you've got the problem with the line of thinking you're following and all its illogic fallacies. Neither side has the right to deny the other their right, both of which are equal.
The "right" issue should never have entered into the equation because it the real issue was much simpler, but completely ignored because it wouldn't survive at any level of the judicial system.
Inspecting the tail fins, and the top of the fuselage is far easier, quicker, and cheaper with a drone.
I agree that it might be easier, quicker and cheaper with a drone. However I don't really care. As a passenger I'm far more interested in whether it is just as effective as spotting problems as the human eyeballs it replaces. On the plus side images can be zoomed and you might see more detail than a human eye. On the downside the image is probably not going to be 3D and it sounds like the person taking the pictures with the drone will not be the engineer who inspects them.
It could probably be more effective since you could run a standard visual analysis run, then make another pass with IR/X-Ray/etc filters to check for defects that the human eye can't see, of course that's assuming you couldn't load the drone to do them all at the same time.
In fact, this kind of thing will probably be very beneficial to airlines running next-gen technologies like Carbon Fibre body/wings (e.g Boeing 787) as you need these kinds of analysis to see the problems long before they're visually apparent so you could fix them earlier when it's cheaper to do so.
Me too, for my CS degree. I met them in an honors-level course studying Ancient Greek. By the end of the course, we were translating passages from the Bible (which was the goal). By doing this, I was able to see with my own eyes just how ambiguous, slanted, and (in some very doctrinally-significant passages) flat-out wrong the English translations of the Bible are.
I have done the same; however, in translation of New Testament (since you really need Hebrew for the Old Testament) the only complaint I have is when translators push some doctrine into the translation, as is often the case when see the word "predestined". However, even then it's few and far between that that is done.
Thanks. FYI, I had a 2 semester foreign language requirement with my stem degree.
I did too - which I completed with 4 semesters of Ancient Greek for a minor (nearly a second major, 1 class short) that I enjoyed more than I did my CS major, in part because it was harder, even though I didn't do as well grade-wise.
Some of the schools I looked at considered the Computer Languages sufficient to satisfy the foreign language requirement for their CS students.
The drop of foreign language is especially pronounced in Engineering programs. But it all depends on the school and how much they're trying to cram in in the 4 year degree.
If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, 'Enough,' then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."
The USA provides education K-12, normally paid for by local taxes but increasingly being federally subsidized; but beyond that nothing is nor should be guaranteed.
The real problem, in this respect, is employers requiring a college level or higher degree where one is not really necessary. Yes, it's useful to help weed-out candidates, but it may also cost some really good potential employees. If students refused to play the "degree game", then colleges/etc would be forced to lower tuitions, and businesses would be forced to consider more people without degrees, and more people would get put to work.
Of course, you'd then also have a number of companies complaining that they can't get qualified workers so the H1-B visa program should be expanded...which is why this really all comes down to how do you properly help a free market regulate itself to encourage the employment qualifications that avoid all the above issues?
Not an easy question to resolve. But guaranteeing a college education will not resolve it, only make it worse as a college level education will simply become the new High School Diploma.
It may be that people majoring in subjects like philosophy and art history are not being required to take a truly liberal education at these schools and are being allowed to skip calculus, finance, economics and other subjects that should be required of any liberal arts degree.That would not qualify as being a wide ranging (liberal) education and would, to my point of view at least, require the university to stop proclaiming itself a liberal arts school.
Typically, the non-STEM students are allowed to take "lower" matches - like Business Math, Math 101 - that provide cursory overview of the subject; and STEM students are often opted out of several areas (usually foreign languages) to keep them in the 4 year graduation time frame.
I have to question anyone who gets a BA in Philosophy and can't find a job thinks that getting a PhD or Masters will some how improve their odds of getting a job. So while I might be in favor forgiving loans on Bachelor's degrees, I don't agree that loans for post-grad should be forgiven or allowed to be defaulted. You're a kid when you enter college, but an adult when you enter grad school and should accept that responsibility.
Well, there are some degrees - Philosophy, among them - that are only useful in a university setting, so yes, it may increase chances. However, one still has to consider the likelihood of entering that field - what the demand/supply is like.
Other fields - Attorney, Medical - require it to go further in the field, but they're few and far between.
Unfortunately, from 2000 onward there were many that went from a BA to a Master to a Phd because of the job market, but that didn't really help their employability. Ultimately, each year of school equates to 1 year of experience (per H.R. department standards) so if you skip the B.A. and are able to get employed, then after 4 years you're essentially H.R equivalent to someone that spent those same 4 years getting their B.A; add 2 years for a Masters, and 3-5 years for a Phd.
...the relevant back-door code just have to have an EXPORT license required of it such that the binary can be shipped but the code itself can't be reviewed.
Put it in a required portion, and you have a great calamity set up. Of course, it'll also be evident that something is being hidden.
As others have said, that's incorrect except in the case of trying to use it for a business purpose such as marketing where they are trying to use the individual (or other trademark) to promote their brand. There is no real exception for news media as news media are not suppose to be promoting a brand with the photos - just reporting what is happening, which any individual can do as well.
If a celeb just happens to be in the background, completely unrelated to the point of the picture, then they probably do not. But, as always, consult a lawyer first.
He's a celebrity. They have lost some of their rights to publicity due to that status. That doesn't apply to individual high school students - especially if they were the only one in the photo.
That doesn't apply in this case, and what you're thinking of is not in relation to this, but in relation to slander.
Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs, so if anyone wants to contest that they are SOL. The privacy concern is legitimate if and only if the pictures were taken in an area where there was an expectation of privacy. A sporting event with people in the stands cheering certainly doesn't seem like a private event...
Does he? Who's equipment did he use? His own? the schools?
If he used his own, then yes I'd agree he fully owns everything, even if he was using his equipment on behalf of the school newspaper/etc.
But if he used the school's (except by permission for his own personal use, etc), then there's a case that could be made that the school owns the work. It's harder since he likely wasn't PAID for it (which is typically required) but the case could be made.
Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?
There is nothing legally preventing you from tweeting the score, and they can't prevent you from recording or photographing anything (legally) unless you otherwise agree - usually as part of buying a ticket, the ticket being the contract; however, it could be argued that the contract is too one-sided so it non-enforceable.
They can control what is broadcast via the networks to the degree that is it not over the public airwaves, which per FCC are public and anyone can record.
While all that's true, he didn't have a release from the athletes to post their likeness online. That's usually part of the standard parent signature form in athletics (I assume - I'm no athlete) but that would only affect photos taken under authority of the school. So the school has no standing, but the students and their parents might.
Doesn't need one at a PUBLIC event. He only needs it if doing photos in private, restricted areas - e.g the locker room.
Need to know? None. All critical skills remain the same - communication, writing, math.
Should know? Basic familiarity, tools, and typing so that they can use the tools available via technology when its appropriate to use, and the knowing when to and when not to use it.
Technology does not magically solve problems. If you don't know how to write, using Word or OO/LO Writer isn't going to help you and it won't necessarily make you a better writer either. It's not different than a calculator making you a better mathematician versus just helping you along - you have to know how to do the math either way and when to use which formula, something a calculator can't teach you. All these things are beyond the purview and ability of technology.
So honestly, you could remove computers, the Internet, etc from the classroom and probably be more effective in teaching the requisite skills to move through life. What technology will be used in life will change over time and teaching it in the classroom won't change that or better prepare students for what technology they will actually use in the work force and life - exception being the specific vocational training for vary specific vocations and the requisite technology associated therein, even then an automotive mechanic should be able to diagnose a vehicle without a computer, etc.
TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.
Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?
The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.
It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty of it.
There's a balance to be struck between the two positions; though I do favor the Originalism position more and give more weight to it. There's a lot to be learned from history and Originalism forces you to look back at history, learn from it, and apply it to today. The "Living Document" position does not, and sets up the repetition of history as a result since they ignore history, ignore lessons learned from history, and just try to do their own thing.
Because I'm being reponsible to the needs of the project, I end up being unable to do the tasks (stories) assigned during the development period (sprint). If I was irresponsible I would do just my parts in the sprint and tell all the competing needs to bugger off.
So the stories spill from one sprint to another. There's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the methodology of Agile, and also points that the project manager is not properly managing the project - whether not having enough people on the project to handle the work required for the sprint durations, or overloading the sprints in hopes of getting work done faster than they should, or the people involved in the project are not accurately breaking down stories into suitable chunks.
I've got to agree with JohnFen. As a Program Manager, while Waterfall techniques could frequently end up with late or over budget, or both, projects, at the end of every project (I oversaw 5 multimillion dollar projects using Waterfall methods) we at least had a working application that met the original specifications.
Now, after two similarly sized Agile projects, all I can say is it seems to be an excuse for developers to skip QA/QC procedures "because we're already into the next scrum" and end up with a mess that doesn't come close to matching the original specification at the end blaming changing requirements and "developmental issues" during the scrum process. I just turned down a contract that explicitly required Agile coding because I don't have any confidence that the end user will be satisfied with the results.
Having participated in both; I can see benefits either way. However, allowing the developers to do what you've said is a fault in the management of the project. QA/QC/QE is part of Agile. If need be, you just add tasks (stories) in Agile to do it and make sure they get done - if not, you're not managing the project correctly.
Agile itself is about being responsive to the needs of the project, and that includes all the QA/QC/QE stuff, as well as Security, Bugs, Changing Requirements, etc.
Now, if you're working in an organization that will enforce that the requirements will not change (do any such organizations exist?!!) then Waterfall is probably better than Agile.
Disney (they own ESPN) has always negotiated the contract such that if you want to purchase ESPN you must purchase ALL of ESPN's channels. Oh, and if you offer it on your base tier package then you must offer all of it on the base tier package.
Don't like it? Fine no Disney/ABC/ESPN channels for you! And no Marvel or Star Wars titles. And no Muppets while we're at it. You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?
Yes, it gives me a point on which to teach them about responsible use of finances and how they can't have everything in life.
Do tell me why, then, an Information Service was even defined if nothing was supposed to be classified under it.
Even the name ISP sort of gives it away: Information ServiceProvider
NetFlix and Hulu would be Information Services, aka Content Provider.
Generic ISPs are not Information Services, but Communications Services. They content of the communications just happens to be data instead of voice.
The problem is that the ISPs also have a Content-Provider side of the business - e.g. uVerse TV, Xfinity, Cable TV Services, Disney (since it's owned by one of the cable companies), and more. So there is an inherent conflict of interest.
Slashdot Mirror
I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections.
Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians. The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections. I care what vehicles are coming from the left. The ones coming from the right have to stop for me.
But you still have to care about what's coming from the right - namely pedestrians as you're still required to stop for them.
Between that and pollsters having questions and multiple-choice answers that were designed to give a desired answer...
Seriously, I had a Democrat pollster back 2005-2006 that asked a question regarding Bush and Iraq. The question was designed to give a very specific answer I didn't agree with, and I flat out told them that. But the kid doing the poll didn't have any way to record that in the poll. We discussed it for a few minutes. Last poll I ever got...
if you are in business and you deny someone on the basis of sexual orientation race religious affiliation etc you are denying someone the liberty of doing as they please in general society. you are standing against freedom. this is simple fucking common sense, nevermind the actual law of the land:
http://civilrights.findlaw.com...
this is different than denying someone in your own house, or a church: those are private places. a mosque can deny you the right to draw muhammad on those premises, but no muslim can deny you the right to walk around in public with muhammad on your t shirt
they may of course scream "religious liberty" but what they mean, like you, is that they are whining they don't get to limit someone else's freedoms in public. that's not liberty
i would ask if you understand the difference, but you obviously do not. your intent is clearly malicious and you clearly do not have the intellectual capacity to understand simple concepts like public and private.
you're a dimwitted bigot, and whether you admit it or not, your low intelligence "opinions" stand against freedom and liberty and the founding principles of this country
And you obviously do not even comprehend what I and others are saying - you cannot impose your right over someone else's equal right just because you want them to enter into a contract with you. You cannot force them to. It's that simple.
At no point did I make an argument for using a religious basis for that.
So until you can actually understand the argument at hand refrain from commenting further because you're not making any points that you have not already repeated, and not contributing to the conversation.
Please also look up reverse discrimination and think of how it applies.
because who someone has sex with has nothing to do with a fucking cake purchase
but what someone does in a church is very much bound by the purpose of that church
you can't tell the fucking difference between a bakery and a church?
a muslim store owner cannot refuse to sell me a pencil because there is a picture of muhammad on my t shirt
Only because it's a public service. They could use that as a means of judging your character and saying "I don't like you " and thereby not enter into a contract with you to provide a private service - and that's perfectly legal.
you have no right to deny a business transaction to someone because of their sexual orientation
Correct, you don't. But you also don't have the right to force someone into a business transaction either.
your understanding of contracts is completely ignorant
if some guy is buying a cake from you, and you deny him the cake because he's gay, you are destroying someone else's rights, you are not exercising your rights
You cannot force someone to enter into a contract. And a simple reason of "I don't like the person" is sufficient and not discriminatory in any way.
There is a difference in service between someone coming in a picking a cake off the shelf, and a cake that is being pre-ordered to certain specifications for a specific date and time, possibly (though not necessarily) including delivery.
In the first, the cake is on the shelf and the buyer walks in, picks it up, and pays for it. No contract has been entered. For a bakery or restaurant this falls under public service as long as the doors are open to the public. If the doors are not open to the public then there is no public service and this service is hence not available. It has a different burden under the law than private services do.
In the second, a contract is used to ensure that both parties understand what is being provided, by whom, when, and how. This is a private service provided by the business, and the business is allowed to have a greater choice with whom it provides private services to since they are contracted services. If they for any reason (of which there are many legal reasons, and some illegal reasons) choose not to enter the contract then they do not have to provide the private service. Illegal reasons are the discriminatory reasons - race, sex, etc - while legal reasons are pretty much anything else, including "I don't like you".
You cannot force someone to enter into a contract, and a simple thing of "I don't like the other person" is sufficient and non-discriminatory. No reason must be provided for why you don't want to enter into the contract either.
And since you mentioned a bakery, I'll assume you mean the one in Oregon that went through this in the courts. Their failure was to try to argue religious reasons; they should have just stuck to basic contract law and avoided that whole part of the issue, even if the other side pushed. They never stated a reason when they denied the contract; nor were they required to. They went a step further and actually provided references of other bakeries in the area. They could have used any number of legal reasons to not enter the contract, and they should have. Because the case was really much simpler than what it was made out to be.
And honestly, the outcome is not one I find favourable either simply because of that - you cannot force someone into a contract. Doing so is trying to eviscerate someone else's rights for your own - which is just as wrong.
the amazing lie in national politics nowadays is "religious liberty"
i thought "religious liberty" means you can practice your religion how you want and government can't regulate that
that makes sense. i support that
but mindblowingly we have people telling us they are offended at, for example, gay marriage, so their "religious liberty" has to be preserved by allowing them to oppress others and respect other people's basic rights
The practice of one's "religious liberty" which you claim to support also means being able to live it in daily life. Operating one's business in line with one's religious liberty is simply living out their religious liberty.
Now, aside from the that issue, everyone - business and individual alike - has the right to enter or not enter into a contract. You cannot force someone to enter into a contract - that is actually illegal, and voids the contract (by law) as there is no mutual agreement. This is the challenge often used against EULA's - that there is no mutual agreement by both parties, that one side is dictating the terms in their entirety. The issue has been that various LGBT individuals have been trying to force companies into entering contracts that the company - for unspecified reasons - chose not to enter. One side wanted the contract, the other did not; there was no mutual agreement and no signed contract. The reasons for doing so were not stated.
If a reason that was illegal was given, then I'd 100% agree with you. But the reasons were not given, nor were they required to give a reason. Religious liberty does not even need to enter into the picture, and honestly I wouldn't want to do business with an individual that turned around and sued over such frivolity anyway - something completely orthogonal to sexuality or religion, and something 100% allowed by the law.
how dumbfoundingly ignorant about what liberty and freedom really is!
orwellian even: "my liberty means i have the right to deny you your liberty"
Stop. And think. Then reverse the question and you've got the problem with the line of thinking you're following and all its illogic fallacies. Neither side has the right to deny the other their right, both of which are equal.
The "right" issue should never have entered into the equation because it the real issue was much simpler, but completely ignored because it wouldn't survive at any level of the judicial system.
Inspecting the tail fins, and the top of the fuselage is far easier, quicker, and cheaper with a drone.
I agree that it might be easier, quicker and cheaper with a drone. However I don't really care. As a passenger I'm far more interested in whether it is just as effective as spotting problems as the human eyeballs it replaces. On the plus side images can be zoomed and you might see more detail than a human eye. On the downside the image is probably not going to be 3D and it sounds like the person taking the pictures with the drone will not be the engineer who inspects them.
It could probably be more effective since you could run a standard visual analysis run, then make another pass with IR/X-Ray/etc filters to check for defects that the human eye can't see, of course that's assuming you couldn't load the drone to do them all at the same time.
In fact, this kind of thing will probably be very beneficial to airlines running next-gen technologies like Carbon Fibre body/wings (e.g Boeing 787) as you need these kinds of analysis to see the problems long before they're visually apparent so you could fix them earlier when it's cheaper to do so.
Me too, for my CS degree. I met them in an honors-level course studying Ancient Greek. By the end of the course, we were translating passages from the Bible (which was the goal). By doing this, I was able to see with my own eyes just how ambiguous, slanted, and (in some very doctrinally-significant passages) flat-out wrong the English translations of the Bible are.
I have done the same; however, in translation of New Testament (since you really need Hebrew for the Old Testament) the only complaint I have is when translators push some doctrine into the translation, as is often the case when see the word "predestined". However, even then it's few and far between that that is done.
Thanks. FYI, I had a 2 semester foreign language requirement with my stem degree.
I did too - which I completed with 4 semesters of Ancient Greek for a minor (nearly a second major, 1 class short) that I enjoyed more than I did my CS major, in part because it was harder, even though I didn't do as well grade-wise.
Some of the schools I looked at considered the Computer Languages sufficient to satisfy the foreign language requirement for their CS students.
The drop of foreign language is especially pronounced in Engineering programs. But it all depends on the school and how much they're trying to cram in in the 4 year degree.
If people groaning under the weight of student loans simply said, 'Enough,' then all the pieties about debt that have become absorbed into all the pieties about higher education might be brought into alignment with reality. Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."
The USA provides education K-12, normally paid for by local taxes but increasingly being federally subsidized; but beyond that nothing is nor should be guaranteed.
The real problem, in this respect, is employers requiring a college level or higher degree where one is not really necessary. Yes, it's useful to help weed-out candidates, but it may also cost some really good potential employees. If students refused to play the "degree game", then colleges/etc would be forced to lower tuitions, and businesses would be forced to consider more people without degrees, and more people would get put to work.
Of course, you'd then also have a number of companies complaining that they can't get qualified workers so the H1-B visa program should be expanded...which is why this really all comes down to how do you properly help a free market regulate itself to encourage the employment qualifications that avoid all the above issues?
Not an easy question to resolve. But guaranteeing a college education will not resolve it, only make it worse as a college level education will simply become the new High School Diploma.
It may be that people majoring in subjects like philosophy and art history are not being required to take a truly liberal education at these schools and are being allowed to skip calculus, finance, economics and other subjects that should be required of any liberal arts degree.That would not qualify as being a wide ranging (liberal) education and would, to my point of view at least, require the university to stop proclaiming itself a liberal arts school.
Typically, the non-STEM students are allowed to take "lower" matches - like Business Math, Math 101 - that provide cursory overview of the subject; and STEM students are often opted out of several areas (usually foreign languages) to keep them in the 4 year graduation time frame.
I have to question anyone who gets a BA in Philosophy and can't find a job thinks that getting a PhD or Masters will some how improve their odds of getting a job. So while I might be in favor forgiving loans on Bachelor's degrees, I don't agree that loans for post-grad should be forgiven or allowed to be defaulted. You're a kid when you enter college, but an adult when you enter grad school and should accept that responsibility.
Well, there are some degrees - Philosophy, among them - that are only useful in a university setting, so yes, it may increase chances. However, one still has to consider the likelihood of entering that field - what the demand/supply is like.
Other fields - Attorney, Medical - require it to go further in the field, but they're few and far between.
Unfortunately, from 2000 onward there were many that went from a BA to a Master to a Phd because of the job market, but that didn't really help their employability. Ultimately, each year of school equates to 1 year of experience (per H.R. department standards) so if you skip the B.A. and are able to get employed, then after 4 years you're essentially H.R equivalent to someone that spent those same 4 years getting their B.A; add 2 years for a Masters, and 3-5 years for a Phd.
...the relevant back-door code just have to have an EXPORT license required of it such that the binary can be shipped but the code itself can't be reviewed.
Put it in a required portion, and you have a great calamity set up. Of course, it'll also be evident that something is being hidden.
If he's using photos of individually identified people and posting them commercially he does. The only exception to that is for news media.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...
As others have said, that's incorrect except in the case of trying to use it for a business purpose such as marketing where they are trying to use the individual (or other trademark) to promote their brand. There is no real exception for news media as news media are not suppose to be promoting a brand with the photos - just reporting what is happening, which any individual can do as well.
If a celeb just happens to be in the background, completely unrelated to the point of the picture, then they probably do not. But, as always, consult a lawyer first.
He's a celebrity. They have lost some of their rights to publicity due to that status. That doesn't apply to individual high school students - especially if they were the only one in the photo.
That doesn't apply in this case, and what you're thinking of is not in relation to this, but in relation to slander.
Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs, so if anyone wants to contest that they are SOL. The privacy concern is legitimate if and only if the pictures were taken in an area where there was an expectation of privacy. A sporting event with people in the stands cheering certainly doesn't seem like a private event...
Does he? Who's equipment did he use? His own? the schools?
If he used his own, then yes I'd agree he fully owns everything, even if he was using his equipment on behalf of the school newspaper/etc.
But if he used the school's (except by permission for his own personal use, etc), then there's a case that could be made that the school owns the work. It's harder since he likely wasn't PAID for it (which is typically required) but the case could be made.
Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?
There is nothing legally preventing you from tweeting the score, and they can't prevent you from recording or photographing anything (legally) unless you otherwise agree - usually as part of buying a ticket, the ticket being the contract; however, it could be argued that the contract is too one-sided so it non-enforceable.
They can control what is broadcast via the networks to the degree that is it not over the public airwaves, which per FCC are public and anyone can record.
While all that's true, he didn't have a release from the athletes to post their likeness online. That's usually part of the standard parent signature form in athletics (I assume - I'm no athlete) but that would only affect photos taken under authority of the school. So the school has no standing, but the students and their parents might.
Doesn't need one at a PUBLIC event. He only needs it if doing photos in private, restricted areas - e.g the locker room.
Need to know? None. All critical skills remain the same - communication, writing, math.
Should know? Basic familiarity, tools, and typing so that they can use the tools available via technology when its appropriate to use, and the knowing when to and when not to use it.
Technology does not magically solve problems. If you don't know how to write, using Word or OO/LO Writer isn't going to help you and it won't necessarily make you a better writer either. It's not different than a calculator making you a better mathematician versus just helping you along - you have to know how to do the math either way and when to use which formula, something a calculator can't teach you. All these things are beyond the purview and ability of technology.
So honestly, you could remove computers, the Internet, etc from the classroom and probably be more effective in teaching the requisite skills to move through life. What technology will be used in life will change over time and teaching it in the classroom won't change that or better prepare students for what technology they will actually use in the work force and life - exception being the specific vocational training for vary specific vocations and the requisite technology associated therein, even then an automotive mechanic should be able to diagnose a vehicle without a computer, etc.
TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.
Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?
The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.
It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty of it.
There's a balance to be struck between the two positions; though I do favor the Originalism position more and give more weight to it. There's a lot to be learned from history and Originalism forces you to look back at history, learn from it, and apply it to today. The "Living Document" position does not, and sets up the repetition of history as a result since they ignore history, ignore lessons learned from history, and just try to do their own thing.
Because I'm being reponsible to the needs of the project, I end up being unable to do the tasks (stories) assigned during the development period (sprint). If I was irresponsible I would do just my parts in the sprint and tell all the competing needs to bugger off.
So the stories spill from one sprint to another. There's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the methodology of Agile, and also points that the project manager is not properly managing the project - whether not having enough people on the project to handle the work required for the sprint durations, or overloading the sprints in hopes of getting work done faster than they should, or the people involved in the project are not accurately breaking down stories into suitable chunks.
I've got to agree with JohnFen. As a Program Manager, while Waterfall techniques could frequently end up with late or over budget, or both, projects, at the end of every project (I oversaw 5 multimillion dollar projects using Waterfall methods) we at least had a working application that met the original specifications. Now, after two similarly sized Agile projects, all I can say is it seems to be an excuse for developers to skip QA/QC procedures "because we're already into the next scrum" and end up with a mess that doesn't come close to matching the original specification at the end blaming changing requirements and "developmental issues" during the scrum process. I just turned down a contract that explicitly required Agile coding because I don't have any confidence that the end user will be satisfied with the results.
Having participated in both; I can see benefits either way. However, allowing the developers to do what you've said is a fault in the management of the project. QA/QC/QE is part of Agile. If need be, you just add tasks (stories) in Agile to do it and make sure they get done - if not, you're not managing the project correctly.
Agile itself is about being responsive to the needs of the project, and that includes all the QA/QC/QE stuff, as well as Security, Bugs, Changing Requirements, etc.
Now, if you're working in an organization that will enforce that the requirements will not change (do any such organizations exist?!!) then Waterfall is probably better than Agile.
Disney (they own ESPN) has always negotiated the contract such that if you want to purchase ESPN you must purchase ALL of ESPN's channels. Oh, and if you offer it on your base tier package then you must offer all of it on the base tier package. Don't like it? Fine no Disney/ABC/ESPN channels for you! And no Marvel or Star Wars titles. And no Muppets while we're at it. You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?
Yes, it gives me a point on which to teach them about responsible use of finances and how they can't have everything in life.
Wrong, maybe I would subscribe and watch TV if and only if it was something I found entertaining, convenient and at a correct price.
Give me a service I want to buy and then I can be a customer again, but I voted with my money, so don't you fucking tell me what I can and cannot say.
Mod parent up!
Do tell me why, then, an Information Service was even defined if nothing was supposed to be classified under it.
Even the name ISP sort of gives it away: Information Service Provider
NetFlix and Hulu would be Information Services, aka Content Provider.
Generic ISPs are not Information Services, but Communications Services. They content of the communications just happens to be data instead of voice.
The problem is that the ISPs also have a Content-Provider side of the business - e.g. uVerse TV, Xfinity, Cable TV Services, Disney (since it's owned by one of the cable companies), and more. So there is an inherent conflict of interest.