I would favour a technology class in the middle school. It really depends upon the state and it's laws, but here's a rough idea. An extra class period may or may not be needed.
From 6th grade to 8th grade, there's be a class where half of the days you'd have P.E. and the other half of the days you'd have a technology class. Depending on the student's level, it could range from typing all the way to programming. Learning how to do PowerPoint presentations would be inbetween somewhere.
During the other subject areas, you could still use a computer, like to type up an essay or do research, but mandating that a computer be necessary wouldn't be allowed.
I would imagine it would be useful to design one's hallway with LEDs at floor level to give a little bit of light to see. These would be motion activated and photo sensitive to turn on.
I question how efficient it would be though. Do LEDs suck up a lot of power when you have 16 to 32 used in a handheld flashlight?
I think most bicycle lights tend to have three LED lights, more or less. Maybe six. Imagine taking three or four 32-LED flashlights (128 LEDs in all) and putting them on the front of one's bike.
Let me explain. If you skim over the article, you will notice that it says, "Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish." It sounds like they are just trying to outlaw certain material that could lead to the real life act itself.
It is one thing to ban material that depicts an actual crime being committed (i.e., child pornography using an actual child), as opposed to something depicting it but not actually performing it (i.e., computer generated images of a child in a sex act). Although this article says violent pornography, I felt like comparing it to child pornography.
Then again, this is the U.K., where in my opinion, a lot of laws and such are backwards.
1. There are different ways someone can become low income. Someone could have started out that way, or the family just could have been middle class when something bad happened. Maybe someone got hurt and lost their job, mass layoffs, etc.
2. I have a hard time believing that. Nicest cars on the street, flashy cell phones, etc. Some of that stuff could have been acquired before becoming poor, or acquired by friends and family. It someone is truly poor, they aren't going to be making expensive purchases, or at least not often. It's all about budgeting. A low income family might be putting $20 per month away and then buy something nice at year's end. Also, some church groups will donate gift cards and other goods that could total $500-1000 for a family of four.
SLASHDOT BUG, PART OF MY POST HAD TO BE REMOVED HERE
Reply to post #15992253 by ZachPruckowski
People need to be asked for proof of income. An EBT card used by the welfare system for cash assistance and foodstamps would be one method. If someone is on disability or employment, have them bring in a statement. Also, just because someone drives a nice car, doesn't mean they are currently rich. It's possible they obtained that while they were better off, or someone gave it to them.
Anyone who doesn't want to furnish proof to get a lower price doesn't deserve to have it discounted in my opinion. If someone is truly poor, they will make sure they have the necessary documents to get it done because it means a lot more to save that little bit of money (what is it, like $50 in savings, more or less?) which could provide food or other things.
SLASHDOT BUG, PART OF MY POST HAD TO BE REMOVED HERE
One last thing. We could reason that telephony is a necessity due to the communication nature. Same with Internet, although that has other possibilities that aren't a necessity.
Television does provide some valuable information. The national news channels and the local news channels keep people up to date on important matters. It's a civics type of thing. The weather channels may provide information necessary if you happen to be an outside labourer. The broadcast channels are over the air, something free already, which can be coupled in with the above necessities are no harm to large t.v. service providers.
I was also mentioning t.v., but limiting it to the broadcast channels (which are free over the air anyways), plus major news channels (to keep people informed) plus gov channels (to keep people informed about their legislators) plus one channel of one's choice (just to be nice, but not necessary).
(I am not positive if it's digital being the reason for it being choppy and messed up. I think it is though.)
What we need are state laws mandating that any company which provides telephone and/or Internet access to more than 50,000 households must provide stuff like this... 1. 20% discount on the estimated telephone and Internet cost if someone can furnish proof they are low income (such as being on foodstamps, cash assistance, medical assistance, etc.) Estimated cost could be based on the price it would be if it (each part of the package) were bought seperately. 2. Maybe a basic package of broadcast channels + major news channels + gov channels + one channel of one's choice + VOIP + 512kbs Internet for a price of $30/month.
If television and communication companies want to keep their customers, here is what I think they need to reflect on.
1) I am sick and tired of poor quality television on cable. If I understand how it works, analog would be a better quality picture than digital. When digital loses some info, it really messes up the screen. This happens to much and makes me yearn for yesteryear's age of television.
2) Two tier pricing system based on the customer's income. The rising cost of these packages needs to be offset for those who are low income. These companies need to consider giving discounts to low income households for the cost of telephone (VOIP) and Internet service. I mean, come on. If water companies have a special rate for low income families, why can't communication companies do the same? I consider communication, i.e. phone and Internet, to be a bit on the necessity side of things as it would be so hard to live without. (Job applications tend to require phone access for example.)
3) Some cable companies, well, one, which I won't name, need to stop cutting off Internet access to their customers to work on it WITHOUT prior notice. People get sick and tired of having it cut off when they are either gaming or surfing the web. One hour notice would be fine. A simple automated phone call the night before would do it. At the very least, reimburse the customers one free day for each 24 hours or less it goes out without warning.
This doesn't solve the original problem of the textbooks being expensive in the first place. If we simply throw money funding towards higher education, and say, "No!" to newer books that don't give us anything useful, problem solved.
Let us bring up the issue of protestors outside funerals. Should they ban protesting outside a funeral on public property? No, but I think they could always create a noise ordinance and arrest people for disturbing the peace. Peaceful assembling is the key.
There is a domain not registered. Someone registers it to cybersquat. This person plans on reselling it later on for a huge profit. However, let us introduce a new rule. A $30 additional fee aimed at preventing cybersquatting. 10 years after the initial registration date, whoever the current owner is will get this fee reimbursed.
I'd prefer it if the federal government did the following regarding education.
For k-12, provide school vouchers. Let each individual student decide where he or she wants to use the money. This isn't a replacement for local state funding. This is an addition if you know what I mean.
For higher education, provide financial aid, but do it differently. Set aside the money, and probably increase it from what it is now. Divide it equally among those who qualify for it. The debt for the student would work as follows. Graduate with honors, it becomes a grant. Graduate, but not with honors, it becomes a 0% interest loan. Don't graduate, and it becomes a loan with an interest rate equal to inflation plus 1 percentage point.
The problem lies with the definition. Once a tiered pricing thing is in place, how easy would it be for ICANN to keep constantly changing the rules? Also, why should ICANN make a profit off of this, or offset the cost of domains for everyone else?
dot-biz is so infested with spammers and scammers? I don't think tiered pricing would solve this. People who spam and perform scams are always going to find a way around. The victims and attempted-victims need to contact the proper authorities to report people who are breaking the law.
Concerning domain squatters, I guess that is a real problem because it denies some people the availability of registering the domain they want without paying a high price for it. I think the solution could be found in tiered pricing, but done carefully. I don't know the statistics for this, so let us do this hypothetically... - I assume more domains are registered to squatters than non-squatters. That squatters can go out there, register a bunch of names (for either to hold to sell to someone, or to forward to a site with advertisements if someone makes a typo). To discourage squatters, to register (not to renew) a brand new non-registered domain, we could charge like a fee. Maybe the fee would depend on the domain, how popular it could be. It could range from $20 to $500 for a new registration. However, after the 15 year mark, the person who owns the domain at that given point could then get this fee, whether or not they are the person who originally paid for it. That way it discourages people from registering domains just to maybe sell it. Not selling a domain after paying a fee would be a bigger loss to them than as now.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Please correct me on that above idea.
ICANN needs to publically itemize each and every thing they spend money on. This includes all expenses and any monetary comepensation they pay themselves. They need to readjust the cost of registering domains so they don't go over this, or at most, don't go over 110% of this. 100% of the cost, plus 10% as a safety buffer, a rainy day type thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. A bit of a grammar mess is what we have.
What I meant is as follows. The ICANN organization, the one that has to do with dot-org, dot-biz, and dot-info, needs money to keep themselves running. The ICANN organization needs money, but I'm not sure what they are considered. Are they non-profit, or are they for-profit? I am against them being for-profit, whatever that would be defined as. When I said low-profit, I mean someone slightly above non-profit, maybe 110% or less of what their non-profit income is considered.
Another example, to help clear up this grammar mess, is as follows. The U.S. government I think pulls in $3 trillion or so per year. I think the lowest amount they can survive on and perform necessary government actions (without any of the major services) would be $50 billion. This is 6000% of what they need to do the very basic stuff.
Shouldn't these be non-profit, or at the most, low-profit? Shouldn't ICANN only be charging enough to keep themselves running as is? How much are they going to be making off this? Is this kind of thing really necessary?
Assuming the worst is a horrible idea. It's innocent until proven guilty. If someone cannot be proven guilty, so be it. It's better to let someone innocent go free than to convict them of something they didn't do. Plus, the right steps to take is to charge someone with obstruction of justice, which is a crime in and of itself I believe.
When did no evidence become evidence against a defendant? Isn't destroying evidence a different crime in and of itself? Wouldn't she be charged with something else? It's considered obstruction of justice, but not evidence of the crime itself has been committed, correct? What if she truly is innocent of what she is being charged/sued/whatever for?
Slashdot Mirror
This is tricky. Does the government constitutionally need a warrant to search it's own property (financial aid info)?
I would favour a technology class in the middle school. It really depends upon the state and it's laws, but here's a rough idea. An extra class period may or may not be needed.
From 6th grade to 8th grade, there's be a class where half of the days you'd have P.E. and the other half of the days you'd have a technology class. Depending on the student's level, it could range from typing all the way to programming. Learning how to do PowerPoint presentations would be inbetween somewhere.
During the other subject areas, you could still use a computer, like to type up an essay or do research, but mandating that a computer be necessary wouldn't be allowed.
I would imagine it would be useful to design one's hallway with LEDs at floor level to give a little bit of light to see. These would be motion activated and photo sensitive to turn on.
I question how efficient it would be though. Do LEDs suck up a lot of power when you have 16 to 32 used in a handheld flashlight?
I think most bicycle lights tend to have three LED lights, more or less. Maybe six. Imagine taking three or four 32-LED flashlights (128 LEDs in all) and putting them on the front of one's bike.
Let me explain. If you skim over the article, you will notice that it says, "Trial jurors had been told of his obsession with strangulation and how he looked at internet sites connected with the fetish." It sounds like they are just trying to outlaw certain material that could lead to the real life act itself.
It is one thing to ban material that depicts an actual crime being committed (i.e., child pornography using an actual child), as opposed to something depicting it but not actually performing it (i.e., computer generated images of a child in a sex act). Although this article says violent pornography, I felt like comparing it to child pornography.
Then again, this is the U.K., where in my opinion, a lot of laws and such are backwards.
Would a 32 LED flashlight be better or worse overall compared to a regular flashlight?
Wouldn't it be considered libel for newepaper? (Well, until the day we invent the talking newspaper.)
Reply to post #15992138 by Anonymous Coward
1. There are different ways someone can become low income. Someone could have started out that way, or the family just could have been middle class when something bad happened. Maybe someone got hurt and lost their job, mass layoffs, etc.
2. I have a hard time believing that. Nicest cars on the street, flashy cell phones, etc. Some of that stuff could have been acquired before becoming poor, or acquired by friends and family. It someone is truly poor, they aren't going to be making expensive purchases, or at least not often. It's all about budgeting. A low income family might be putting $20 per month away and then buy something nice at year's end. Also, some church groups will donate gift cards and other goods that could total $500-1000 for a family of four.
SLASHDOT BUG, PART OF MY POST HAD TO BE REMOVED HERE
Reply to post #15992253 by ZachPruckowski
People need to be asked for proof of income. An EBT card used by the welfare system for cash assistance and foodstamps would be one method. If someone is on disability or employment, have them bring in a statement. Also, just because someone drives a nice car, doesn't mean they are currently rich. It's possible they obtained that while they were better off, or someone gave it to them.
Anyone who doesn't want to furnish proof to get a lower price doesn't deserve to have it discounted in my opinion. If someone is truly poor, they will make sure they have the necessary documents to get it done because it means a lot more to save that little bit of money (what is it, like $50 in savings, more or less?) which could provide food or other things.
SLASHDOT BUG, PART OF MY POST HAD TO BE REMOVED HERE
One last thing. We could reason that telephony is a necessity due to the communication nature. Same with Internet, although that has other possibilities that aren't a necessity.
Television does provide some valuable information. The national news channels and the local news channels keep people up to date on important matters. It's a civics type of thing. The weather channels may provide information necessary if you happen to be an outside labourer. The broadcast channels are over the air, something free already, which can be coupled in with the above necessities are no harm to large t.v. service providers.
I was also mentioning t.v., but limiting it to the broadcast channels (which are free over the air anyways), plus major news channels (to keep people informed) plus gov channels (to keep people informed about their legislators) plus one channel of one's choice (just to be nice, but not necessary).
(I am not positive if it's digital being the reason for it being choppy and messed up. I think it is though.)
What we need are state laws mandating that any company which provides telephone and/or Internet access to more than 50,000 households must provide stuff like this...
1. 20% discount on the estimated telephone and Internet cost if someone can furnish proof they are low income (such as being on foodstamps, cash assistance, medical assistance, etc.) Estimated cost could be based on the price it would be if it (each part of the package) were bought seperately.
2. Maybe a basic package of broadcast channels + major news channels + gov channels + one channel of one's choice + VOIP + 512kbs Internet for a price of $30/month.
If television and communication companies want to keep their customers, here is what I think they need to reflect on.
1) I am sick and tired of poor quality television on cable. If I understand how it works, analog would be a better quality picture than digital. When digital loses some info, it really messes up the screen. This happens to much and makes me yearn for yesteryear's age of television.
2) Two tier pricing system based on the customer's income. The rising cost of these packages needs to be offset for those who are low income. These companies need to consider giving discounts to low income households for the cost of telephone (VOIP) and Internet service. I mean, come on. If water companies have a special rate for low income families, why can't communication companies do the same? I consider communication, i.e. phone and Internet, to be a bit on the necessity side of things as it would be so hard to live without. (Job applications tend to require phone access for example.)
3) Some cable companies, well, one, which I won't name, need to stop cutting off Internet access to their customers to work on it WITHOUT prior notice. People get sick and tired of having it cut off when they are either gaming or surfing the web. One hour notice would be fine. A simple automated phone call the night before would do it. At the very least, reimburse the customers one free day for each 24 hours or less it goes out without warning.
This doesn't solve the original problem of the textbooks being expensive in the first place. If we simply throw money funding towards higher education, and say, "No!" to newer books that don't give us anything useful, problem solved.
Let us bring up the issue of protestors outside funerals. Should they ban protesting outside a funeral on public property? No, but I think they could always create a noise ordinance and arrest people for disturbing the peace. Peaceful assembling is the key.
I meant my idea would only apply to new domains.
Only on new domains.
Why is it considered subscription only when the PDF file is there and completely viewable?
Would this work?
There is a domain not registered. Someone registers it to cybersquat. This person plans on reselling it later on for a huge profit. However, let us introduce a new rule. A $30 additional fee aimed at preventing cybersquatting. 10 years after the initial registration date, whoever the current owner is will get this fee reimbursed.
I'd prefer it if the federal government did the following regarding education.
For k-12, provide school vouchers. Let each individual student decide where he or she wants to use the money. This isn't a replacement for local state funding. This is an addition if you know what I mean.
For higher education, provide financial aid, but do it differently. Set aside the money, and probably increase it from what it is now. Divide it equally among those who qualify for it. The debt for the student would work as follows. Graduate with honors, it becomes a grant. Graduate, but not with honors, it becomes a 0% interest loan. Don't graduate, and it becomes a loan with an interest rate equal to inflation plus 1 percentage point.
The problem lies with the definition. Once a tiered pricing thing is in place, how easy would it be for ICANN to keep constantly changing the rules? Also, why should ICANN make a profit off of this, or offset the cost of domains for everyone else?
dot-biz is so infested with spammers and scammers? I don't think tiered pricing would solve this. People who spam and perform scams are always going to find a way around. The victims and attempted-victims need to contact the proper authorities to report people who are breaking the law.
Concerning domain squatters, I guess that is a real problem because it denies some people the availability of registering the domain they want without paying a high price for it. I think the solution could be found in tiered pricing, but done carefully. I don't know the statistics for this, so let us do this hypothetically...
-
I assume more domains are registered to squatters than non-squatters. That squatters can go out there, register a bunch of names (for either to hold to sell to someone, or to forward to a site with advertisements if someone makes a typo). To discourage squatters, to register (not to renew) a brand new non-registered domain, we could charge like a fee. Maybe the fee would depend on the domain, how popular it could be. It could range from $20 to $500 for a new registration. However, after the 15 year mark, the person who owns the domain at that given point could then get this fee, whether or not they are the person who originally paid for it. That way it discourages people from registering domains just to maybe sell it. Not selling a domain after paying a fee would be a bigger loss to them than as now.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Please correct me on that above idea.
ICANN needs to publically itemize each and every thing they spend money on. This includes all expenses and any monetary comepensation they pay themselves. They need to readjust the cost of registering domains so they don't go over this, or at most, don't go over 110% of this. 100% of the cost, plus 10% as a safety buffer, a rainy day type thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. A bit of a grammar mess is what we have.
What I meant is as follows. The ICANN organization, the one that has to do with dot-org, dot-biz, and dot-info, needs money to keep themselves running. The ICANN organization needs money, but I'm not sure what they are considered. Are they non-profit, or are they for-profit? I am against them being for-profit, whatever that would be defined as. When I said low-profit, I mean someone slightly above non-profit, maybe 110% or less of what their non-profit income is considered.
Another example, to help clear up this grammar mess, is as follows. The U.S. government I think pulls in $3 trillion or so per year. I think the lowest amount they can survive on and perform necessary government actions (without any of the major services) would be $50 billion. This is 6000% of what they need to do the very basic stuff.
Shouldn't these be non-profit, or at the most, low-profit? Shouldn't ICANN only be charging enough to keep themselves running as is? How much are they going to be making off this? Is this kind of thing really necessary?
Assuming the worst is a horrible idea. It's innocent until proven guilty. If someone cannot be proven guilty, so be it. It's better to let someone innocent go free than to convict them of something they didn't do. Plus, the right steps to take is to charge someone with obstruction of justice, which is a crime in and of itself I believe.
When did no evidence become evidence against a defendant? Isn't destroying evidence a different crime in and of itself? Wouldn't she be charged with something else? It's considered obstruction of justice, but not evidence of the crime itself has been committed, correct? What if she truly is innocent of what she is being charged/sued/whatever for?
Think it through logically.
1) How easy is their website access? Are you going to spend 15 minutes poking around trying to figure out how to contact them?
2) How good is their customer support?
3) Better Business Bureau complaints?