If the internet is used in a campaign of harassment that also includes punching them in the head (and if the threat to punch someone in the head came over the internet) I see no reason why the legal system should keep out of the internet-based aspects.
You seem to think that the online world is a magical separate space where the things we write have absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world.
That impression is wrong. Threats are still threats, harassment is still harassment (and, for that matter, libel is still libel, agreements are still agreements, etc.) Cyberspace is not "reality 2.0." The internet is a communication media that is part of the same real world where we have laws against threats, libel, harassment, assault (note nothing is said about battery) and the like.
When I get a good paper, I just email the student and say, "that was good, can you send me a digital copy?" And it happens often enough to make me happy.
An e-Ink based solution might work at some point, when I can do notation easily enough. We're probably about a year or two away from an acceptable model for me. iPad = active display = too expensive/vulnerable = non-starter.
You would be wrong. I can take out one or two papers, and comfortably read them while the rest are still in my bag. I can hold a drink in the other hand (and with the way that writing skills are going, that drink is a necessity) without worrying about spilling it. I don't have to worry about batteries.
Really, I know what I'm talking about here. I used to accept digital copies, but once you go back to paper, you realize what you were missing.
The beach has this thing called the sun. It's in this big room called the "outside world." The sun is a big fire disk that makes it hard to see laptop screens, but is otherwise nice to sit under. You should check it out.
No, he's right. It's a stupid claim that Google was "losing" in China. It was running in 2nd place, but with a good market share that, even if it didn't climb a single point, still made a Chinese presence profitable. You do not need to be number one in a given market to make a profit in that market; it's only hoi polloi who speak of Bing "killing" Google, who wonder about iPhone "killers," who think in terms of such crude zero-sum models. Google was making money in China, period.
I used to accept digital copies. I stopped, for a lot of reasons: unverifiable "I sent it, really, my email must not be working" excuses, file format incompatibilities, people emailing papers during the class sessions that they skipped so that they could finish them, etc.
The physical paper affords a lot of interactions as well - it's easy to gesture over a region of writing, circle it quickly, etc. Most digital versions of those gestures don't work (I could imagine - maybe - some of them working on a pad or tablet, but that's a stretch.) HCI research, trying to identify why an automation effort failed, observed the importance of physical writing in the care of hospital patients noted how much information was stored in the materials. Nurses could identify authors immediately from handwriting; density of writing often cued the dynamics of care; annotations connected writing to clarify the treatment plan, etc.
The biggest reason, however, is that I don't want to have to sit in an office to read and grade dozens of papers. I want to be able to do it on a plane, a train, a bus, on the beach, etc.
I think the reference is more to the nature of consultancy than to service: it's the short term engagements, as opposed to long-term ones ("marriage.")
The "nutty theory" doesn't accidentally correspond with the natural progression of a child's brain, because it (the theory) was developed by actually watching, talking to, and interacting with children, and not be isolating elements of performance out of the context of their real lives. Sometimes, a statistically rigorous analysis of leaf formation in controlled circumstances does not lead to an understanding of what a forest is, while simply taking a walk in forest does.
I am fairly pro-Waldorf myself, with an asterisk: I see digital media as something worth learning sooner than they'd like.
Bluntly, I'm waiting until the color e-Ink models are out at the end of the year. I'm not getting an ebook reader until then.
The primary interest a tablet form has for me is as an ebook reader, and passive lighting is non-negotiable. Not just for the comfort of my eyes: also for the "read outside in the sun" issue and battery life.
Not as consumer-grade goods, they didn't. The Atari VCS was widely available before home computers hit the appropriate price point for the consumer market.
Jesse Schell, in his famous DICE talk, explained why the iPhone succeeded and the iPad will flop. Paraphrased:
Convergence doesn't happen. Technologies diverge, for the most part. The PVR diverged from the desktop computer which diverged from the game console. The only reason why the iPhone, a case of convergence, was so successful was what he called the "pocket exception" - things that go in your pocket converge with each other.
The Swiss Army knife is an example of convergence: it has scissors, tweezers, knives, files, screwdrivers, etc. It does nothing perfectly and everything adequately. The iPhone is like that. But if someone got you a "Swiss Army" kitchen utensil, with a spatula and a ladle and tongs and a couple knives in a single sheath, you would think it was the stupidest thing in the world. "And that's why everyone hates the iPad."
Regulation makes it profitable, by making it costly (politically, economically, or otherwise) to fail to mitigate. How do you think you "find a way" to make something like this profitable?
Also, the prosecution of the case amplifies the message and creates precedent. It may deter parents (and step-parents and boyfriends/girlfriends/aunts/uncles) of kids who they may actually not really love from doing these things, as well. The owner of the gun was a step-father; he may have subconsciously disliked or resented the child.
When the disparity is like that, eventually the political process will produce a government will respond to it. A society with that kind of disparity is unsustainable, and for decades, the market did nothing to change it.
Look, I agree that this is a crackpot law, and I have serious doubts about the viability of Venezuela's economy under Chavez. And, yes, he's a blowhard, a showboater, and a bit of a demogogue.
But Venezuela is nowhere near becoming the next NK, and is still very much a democracy. When a country with a lot of wealth has 70% of its population living in poverty, a redistributionist left-wing regime is going to be the inevitable result in a democracy, and for a (close) majority of Venezuelans, Chavez really has improved life (and not withdrawn civil liberties that meant anything to them.) This is as much a testament to the failure of the previous regimes as anything else, yet it still remains true.
And Venezuela is nowhere near NK as a society - it is still dynamic, pretty open, and democratic. I'm not a big fan of Chavez-styled left-flavored populism - I prefer Evo Morales' approach - but keep it in perspective.
WMF is a non-profit, not a charity. Most (but not all) charities are non-profits, but "charity" implies an organization with a charter to provide help to the less fortunate. WMF is more like an educational or research organization.
I was going to explain how philanthropy really works, and then explain Gates' tax liability and the position that both he and Warren Buffet have about income taxes (that they both believe that marginal rates are too low) but you are in a bubble of irrational hatred.
No, wealth is created socially. It implies a value on something produced by someone else - it assumes the possibility of exchange. By its very nature, it refers to something outside the individual.
One might learn a great deal by observing how actual barter works in hunter-gather and small agricultural cultures, to see just how non-individualistic it is.
Slashdot Mirror
If the internet is used in a campaign of harassment that also includes punching them in the head (and if the threat to punch someone in the head came over the internet) I see no reason why the legal system should keep out of the internet-based aspects.
You seem to think that the online world is a magical separate space where the things we write have absolutely no bearing on the rest of the world.
That impression is wrong. Threats are still threats, harassment is still harassment (and, for that matter, libel is still libel, agreements are still agreements, etc.) Cyberspace is not "reality 2.0." The internet is a communication media that is part of the same real world where we have laws against threats, libel, harassment, assault (note nothing is said about battery) and the like.
I'm waiting for a color e-Ink, essentially.
When I get a good paper, I just email the student and say, "that was good, can you send me a digital copy?" And it happens often enough to make me happy.
I find your ideas intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
An e-Ink based solution might work at some point, when I can do notation easily enough. We're probably about a year or two away from an acceptable model for me. iPad = active display = too expensive/vulnerable = non-starter.
You would be wrong. I can take out one or two papers, and comfortably read them while the rest are still in my bag. I can hold a drink in the other hand (and with the way that writing skills are going, that drink is a necessity) without worrying about spilling it. I don't have to worry about batteries.
Really, I know what I'm talking about here. I used to accept digital copies, but once you go back to paper, you realize what you were missing.
The beach has this thing called the sun. It's in this big room called the "outside world." The sun is a big fire disk that makes it hard to see laptop screens, but is otherwise nice to sit under. You should check it out.
No, he's right. It's a stupid claim that Google was "losing" in China. It was running in 2nd place, but with a good market share that, even if it didn't climb a single point, still made a Chinese presence profitable. You do not need to be number one in a given market to make a profit in that market; it's only hoi polloi who speak of Bing "killing" Google, who wonder about iPhone "killers," who think in terms of such crude zero-sum models. Google was making money in China, period.
I used to accept digital copies. I stopped, for a lot of reasons: unverifiable "I sent it, really, my email must not be working" excuses, file format incompatibilities, people emailing papers during the class sessions that they skipped so that they could finish them, etc.
The physical paper affords a lot of interactions as well - it's easy to gesture over a region of writing, circle it quickly, etc. Most digital versions of those gestures don't work (I could imagine - maybe - some of them working on a pad or tablet, but that's a stretch.) HCI research, trying to identify why an automation effort failed, observed the importance of physical writing in the care of hospital patients noted how much information was stored in the materials. Nurses could identify authors immediately from handwriting; density of writing often cued the dynamics of care; annotations connected writing to clarify the treatment plan, etc.
The biggest reason, however, is that I don't want to have to sit in an office to read and grade dozens of papers. I want to be able to do it on a plane, a train, a bus, on the beach, etc.
I think the reference is more to the nature of consultancy than to service: it's the short term engagements, as opposed to long-term ones ("marriage.")
The "nutty theory" doesn't accidentally correspond with the natural progression of a child's brain, because it (the theory) was developed by actually watching, talking to, and interacting with children, and not be isolating elements of performance out of the context of their real lives. Sometimes, a statistically rigorous analysis of leaf formation in controlled circumstances does not lead to an understanding of what a forest is, while simply taking a walk in forest does.
I am fairly pro-Waldorf myself, with an asterisk: I see digital media as something worth learning sooner than they'd like.
Are you telling me your Blackberry doesn't fit in your pocket? (Or that the phrase "for the most part" means "always and without exceptions?")
Bluntly, I'm waiting until the color e-Ink models are out at the end of the year. I'm not getting an ebook reader until then.
The primary interest a tablet form has for me is as an ebook reader, and passive lighting is non-negotiable. Not just for the comfort of my eyes: also for the "read outside in the sun" issue and battery life.
Not as consumer-grade goods, they didn't. The Atari VCS was widely available before home computers hit the appropriate price point for the consumer market.
Jesse Schell, in his famous DICE talk, explained why the iPhone succeeded and the iPad will flop. Paraphrased:
Convergence doesn't happen. Technologies diverge, for the most part. The PVR diverged from the desktop computer which diverged from the game console. The only reason why the iPhone, a case of convergence, was so successful was what he called the "pocket exception" - things that go in your pocket converge with each other.
The Swiss Army knife is an example of convergence: it has scissors, tweezers, knives, files, screwdrivers, etc. It does nothing perfectly and everything adequately. The iPhone is like that. But if someone got you a "Swiss Army" kitchen utensil, with a spatula and a ladle and tongs and a couple knives in a single sheath, you would think it was the stupidest thing in the world. "And that's why everyone hates the iPad."
Regulation makes it profitable, by making it costly (politically, economically, or otherwise) to fail to mitigate. How do you think you "find a way" to make something like this profitable?
Knowing that you can also go to prison.
Also, the prosecution of the case amplifies the message and creates precedent. It may deter parents (and step-parents and boyfriends/girlfriends/aunts/uncles) of kids who they may actually not really love from doing these things, as well. The owner of the gun was a step-father; he may have subconsciously disliked or resented the child.
When the disparity is like that, eventually the political process will produce a government will respond to it. A society with that kind of disparity is unsustainable, and for decades, the market did nothing to change it.
Look, I agree that this is a crackpot law, and I have serious doubts about the viability of Venezuela's economy under Chavez. And, yes, he's a blowhard, a showboater, and a bit of a demogogue.
But Venezuela is nowhere near becoming the next NK, and is still very much a democracy. When a country with a lot of wealth has 70% of its population living in poverty, a redistributionist left-wing regime is going to be the inevitable result in a democracy, and for a (close) majority of Venezuelans, Chavez really has improved life (and not withdrawn civil liberties that meant anything to them.) This is as much a testament to the failure of the previous regimes as anything else, yet it still remains true.
And Venezuela is nowhere near NK as a society - it is still dynamic, pretty open, and democratic. I'm not a big fan of Chavez-styled left-flavored populism - I prefer Evo Morales' approach - but keep it in perspective.
"The masses" never cared in the first place, this was and continues to be a complete non-issue to the vast majority of people.
WMF is a non-profit, not a charity. Most (but not all) charities are non-profits, but "charity" implies an organization with a charter to provide help to the less fortunate. WMF is more like an educational or research organization.
Nope, my name's not Rob. Out me to your heart's content. And then take your meds.
"You could out me further?"
What, you think I'm on some corporate payroll? That is the most freaking hysterical thing I've heard in ages.
I reiterate: get help.
You are insane. Really, get help.
I was going to explain how philanthropy really works, and then explain Gates' tax liability and the position that both he and Warren Buffet have about income taxes (that they both believe that marginal rates are too low) but you are in a bubble of irrational hatred.
No, wealth is created socially. It implies a value on something produced by someone else - it assumes the possibility of exchange. By its very nature, it refers to something outside the individual.
One might learn a great deal by observing how actual barter works in hunter-gather and small agricultural cultures, to see just how non-individualistic it is.