I'm of the opinion that spending billions of dollars on searching for ET life is silly, but in this article's [or the summary thereof] defense, it didn't say THIS planet was habitable. My reading was that they simply proved (presumably) that they were able to find out if water and CO2 exists on a planet.
âoeBulk e-mailâ in this context means the transmission of an e-mail message within a short time frame to more than a small set of recipients who may not have elected voluntarily to receive the e-mail. âoeShort time frameâ means an interval spanning as long as 2 days. âoeSmall set of recipientsâ means the size of individual-recipient address lists (To, CC, BCC fields) typical of most e-mails in common use, ranging from 1, to a few, to as many as may be involved in a large committee or work group (~20-30). Use of mailing lists and listservs to which recipients may voluntarily opt in and opt out is encouraged, and this type of e-mail distribution is not included in the meaning of âoebulk e-mailâ in this document.
There are also some permitted activities. Discussion of school policy changes is not one of them, whereas dissemination of information about school policy changes IS allowed. This doesn't fall into that category though.
Frankly, I don't see what's unconstitutional about this. Unless you think every student should be allowed to spam the college's internal e-mail system as much as he or she would like or something like that. Could it be done differently? Sure. But I don't see how it's unconstitutional.
He charged her with violating three school policies on sending un-solicited e-mails.
That doesn't sound like "freedom of speech." That sounds like "spam." The accusation isn't about what she said, it's about how she said it. My question is, why is the defense about what she said if the accusation is about how she said it?
I understand public/private school, government policy, Constitutional rights, etc. If she feels that is an issue, bring it up after she proves she didn't violate the school policy on technology abuse (un-solicited e-mails or whatever they call it). As far as I know, there's no freedom of speech violation in limiting the use of school e-mail.
If she thinks she is wrongfully being accused and the issue is actually that they didn't like what she said, then she should prove she didn't abuse what she is being accused of abusing and THEN accuse THEM of violating her Constitutional rights.
Thank you, I understand that it is a state school, and I understand there is a Constitution. And I understand that, in fact, the first 10 amendments to that Constitution are generally referred to as the "Bill of Rights."
I also understand that a government agency can't have policies contrary to them.
But public schools can have policies that aren't contrary to them. Freedom of speech does not mean you are allowed to use any technology you want to say anything you want. Those policies appear to have been left up to the schools or other organizations to decide. For example, the post office is a government agency, right? But I am not legally allowed to put non-stamped letters into a mailbox. It's illegal to use mailboxes without going through the policies and procedures of the US Postal Service. No!!!! My rights are being violated!!!
No, your rights aren't being violated... it's just that the 'Bill of Rights' is not synonymous with "Anarchy on Public Property."
If she had been talking to students about it and got in trouble for that, that would be different. She's not technically in trouble for what she said, she is technically in trouble for breaking a policy. So prove she didn't break the policy. If she's still in trouble, then yell about freedom of speech.
Think of it this way. I accuse you of stealing. You complain that your freedom of speech is being taken away. That makes no sense, you're not answering my accusation. Now, if you didn't steal, you prove you didn't steal, and THEN you complain about it, then you are accusing me, and now *I* have to answer for it. Right? From the article, it doesn't appear that's what this "FIRE" group is doing.
I don't understand the free speech thing. No, it's not SPAM. Whether or not she actually abused the policy is up for someone else to decide, not me. But what is all this talk about free speech? Since when does freedom of speech mean you can break a the rules you agreed (I assume you have to agree to abide by them in order to be accepted into the school) to follow?
If she actually broke the policy, then the agreed-to consequences for it should happen. If she didn't, the school is being stupid, and the SCHOOL should face consequences. But this doesn't have to do with "freedom of speech."
I agree, why not change the system... I'm all for that. I also do think, though, that the emphasis in schools is wrong. It has shifted from "teach the students reading, writing, arithmetic [and science]" to "make sure the students are enjoying themselves and are happy."
I don't know about you, but being "happy" wasn't what my parents were most interested in when it came to education. I think it was education that they were most interested in. If it's possible to do both, great. But if Joey doesn't WANT to learn English, Math, and Science, and just wants to do sports... well, too bad, that's not what public school money is for, is it?
When I hear education, I hear how the system needs more money,
Which, IMO, isn't a problem except that schools waste what they already have. It's just like the auto bailouts. You don't get a better company by covering up their mistakes by giving them more money to waste. Usually, with most businesses, if your product stinks, you lose money and are forced - based on your lack of money - to change the way you work. With government funded programs, unfortunately, that tends not to be the case.
Example : eugenics was very progressive in the 1930's... now the effects are known... not so much)
I don't think most people really know what eugenics is, or the beliefs that are behind that sort of thinking... nor how close most people are today to being just as firmly believing in eugenics and it's backing ideologies.
Interesting thought. As it is, though, you CAN advance quicker and be somewhat higher in some subjects, can't you? I wasn't in the public school system, so I odn't know firsthand, but isn't that sort of what AP classes are?
Being homeschooled, I WAS allowed to do it at my own pace. Or finish really quickly in the day and move on to other things like music, computers, etc.
In this way, a student who is good in English but needs math help does not get held back or even looked at strangely.
On the other hand, if you can't add, subtract, multiply, and divide... well, that's an issue. If you're talking about algebra, calculus, etc., that's different. But I think there SHOULD be a baseline level of knowledge. I've met people that really hate math and get confused, but they can learn multiplication tables.
Oh, but addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables aren't taught in school anymore, to my knowedge... I guess making kids recite stuff and memorize is too hard for them. They don't like it. Their attention spans run out. So let's change education.
Goodness, how do you EXPECT to learn algebra if you don't know what 2*5 is in the first place and have to work it out, or do it on a calculator? Not that I'm against calculators, but I am definitely glad I learned multiplication tables. Or, rather, was "made" to learn them. I didn't WANT to, either.
IMO, this is exactly the issue. We should figure out our education problem before we spend money and put more distractions into the schools. Yes, distractions. If you can't READ and you graduate from high school, having a computer isn't going to help you. And, by the way, paying a bureaucratic school system more money isn't going to help education either. Nor is making homeschooling illegal (California has been trying for a long time), making it harder for private schools, putting even more emphasis on arts, music, etc.
And, by the way, this coming from a homeschooled, private schooled, music and computer science major. I was very involved in music and even I think that arts/music/sports/extra-curricular activities are way too focused on in schools.
Oh, and we should start flunking kids that get to their senior year of high school and can't read. A high failure rate in a grade is better than a high passing rate of ignorant students. Stop making excuses for the kids and actually expect them to learn. After that, maybe we can talk about putting in broadband and computers.
I find it interesting that you are complaining about the last eight years in the US, yet the article is about Europe...
IMO, it shows the anti-US sentiment, apparently because of the US's more or less high position in the world, as opposed to many European countries that are trying to rival it with the EU, etc., but failing.
And yet, The UK and Europe have far worse "wire-tapping" sorts of things than the US. But it's not in vogue to complain about it anywhere but in the US, it seems.
Just for clarification, I put fun in quotes (albeit single quotes) for a fairly simple reason: it seems that many people in many culture think a fun computer game can't be made without violence/sex/comedy. Or a movie, for that matter.
Also note that, my own personal convictions aside, I did not solely mention vices in my post but something neutral like comedy as well (of course, comedy can certainly be based on non-neutral themes).
The idea itself isn't necessarily a bad one. Not all games have to be violent, and 'fun' computer games can be had without violence, sex, or comedy.
That said, it's the gameplay that makes it work or not work. It sounds like this one is going to be a flop (not to mention it sounds rather politically motivated, another thing that can potentially ruin a game...)
Really? So if I accidentally shoot someone while hunting, and that person gets hit in the arm and has to have surgery, I should get charged as heavily as if that person got hit in the head and died?
As far as this case goes... it's not murder, certainly. I don't think she should be (and isn't) held accountable for the death of the person. However, if she actually was messing with the girl's mind and thus had power over her and told her to kill herself, basically, and she does it... she actually DOES deserve harsher consequences than if the result was otherwise.
Think of a cult leader that has a mental sway over someone as opposed to a wacko that has no charisma at all. If a wacko is going around saying the world would be better without this person or that person, that's one thing; if it's a cult leader (or a parent, a spouse, etc) that has some mental/psychological leverage, it's a lot different.
Not to say that I believe in some weird mental phenomena and psychic powers... but intent has something to do with it, too. I could jokingly tell someone they should kill themselves, and I could seriously try to get them to do it with just words. There IS a big difference. Which is why people like Kevorkian should not be allowed to do the sick things they want to do, and why doctors should not be allowed to encourage suicide (or, IMO, help it.. unfortunately, Washington (state) thinks otherwise).
Interesting that defending a false allegation automatically means that it is "my departing government." I don't think I said anything one way or the other...
That aside, in your post that calls me naive, I don't believe you have given one piece of evidence. All you did was say that we won't see it. I have not seen oil companies get oil from Iraq (and by the way, if they do, doesn't that mean they have to buy it form Iraq? Isn't that good for the Iraqi economy? Iran's leaders have gotten rich enough from oil [not the people though, certainly, speaking of injustice and horrible "governments"])., and I haven't seen the federal side of the US gain anything as far as oil. So again, I ask... who got the oil? Where is it, or where did it go? Or are you presuming that the current administration must have been after the oil, and thus they must just be waiting for a better time to exploit it?
And by the way, the media is NOT in with the current administration, so I'm sure if there was a story to be had about oil going somewhere...
Lastly, regarding gas prices and oil companies, I keep seeing people say that the price of crude oil doesn't affect oil prices. When crude oil was up at $145/barrel gas, for me, was around $4.80/gal. Crude oil is now at somehwere around $51/barrel and gas, for me, is around $2/gal. That's a pretty high correlation, and hard to believe it relates solely to the market at large and not the price of oil. I also did some computations of how many gallons you actually get out of a barrel of oil.
This was when the price was $110 (it was coming down but people were saying that this wouldn't mean a drop in gas prices because big oil companies are out to kill the US economy by getting unfair profit... something like that). 1 barrel = 42 gallons. At $110 (itâ(TM)s almost at $100 right now, but weâ(TM)ll say $110) thatâ(TM)s about $2.6 per gallon. Oil companies have to buy crude oil at $2.6 per gallon. Thatâ(TM)s unrefined, and thus before the cost of refining it. Taxes on gas in California = 36 cents (18 federal, 18 state). Now we are up to basically $3/gallon, all of which goes to government or crude oil costs; no profit yet. Sales tax on gas in California is 6.2% or so. Thatâ(TM)s another 15 cents or thereabouts: $3.15. So, at $4/gallon, that leaves 85 cents per gallon that oil companies are getting, gross income. Not profit, but 85 cents per gallon gross. The government is getting more than 10% of what oil companies get already
And by the way, I do know that America enjoys lower gas prices than most other countries. I don't see that as unfair though. Most people think any benefits to being in America are "unfair," whereas any bad things that happen to America are "fair," unless they affect the rest of the world (e.g., the economic crisis)... then it's unfair that it happened to the rest of the world. I, for one, take a slightly bigger view of the world than viewing America as though they were Microsoft and the rest of the world as though they were Apple or Google...
Exactly. Robots, machines, whatever you want to call them, do not have ANY moral substance. Humans do. Humans may refuse to do certain things (or may not). Machines won't refuse.
Bottom line is... I'd rather be up against convincing a human maniac than a robot programmed to ACT like a maniac. One still has a rational (hopefully) thought process somewhere in there, and has a moral element. The other can't think and has has no moral element whatsoever (partially, of course, due to not being able to have a rational thought in the first place).
There's a reason that "mind control" scares so many people. Total "mind control" is what you have over machines, is it not?
I am not sure why, but I find it comical that "Facebook" said something... although it would have been funnier had it said "blah blah blah," posted Facebook on the Associated Press's wall.
And while it is true they need a "google docs" account, you can do that with any e-mail address, not just a gmail address...
Google Docs seems just as good, already in place, and better integrated with things like OpenOffice/MS Office, already has spreadsheet/powerpoint capability, etc. I fail to see the point or the hype.
And Google Docs allows you to have collaborators and just viewers...
I completely agree that computer science is related to math. I personally actually like math and physics and whatnot, to the extent that I'm reading a textbook (I guess) on spacetime physics for fun. But I think you have to admit that many aspects of computer science *today* are very far removed from actual mathematical calculations or even mathematical ability (e.g., you don't have to take calculus to write a PHP script). You don't have to have any electrical engineering knowledge to "build" a computer, either, really. You have to be able to plug this into that, maybe know some basic specs about the components, etc.
I'm pretty sure that the console uses more than 100 watts, especially if you take into consideration the screen you are using. Either way, 100 watts is very low, it has to be higher than that.
if I read the article, I could probably tell you that how much, but I didn't.
Well, to be redundant with my subject... that's a lot of smart programmers. I don't think most programmers go through all that higher level math, and I'm not sure most mathematicians know how to program. No wonder it's expensive.
How is I misunderstood? It's not a different market. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that when you buy a Mac, you only get an "operating system." As though an "operating system" is some theoretically stripped down software that does only one thing - interact with hardware. Operating systems don't include anything from what yo ucall a "different market"... like a text editor. Or a web browser. Or a telnet application. Or...
As for flying in court, I would love to see you try to accuse MS of being a monopoly because it is bundling software from a different market. What in the world is a "market?" Who defines the crossover between these never before mentioned software "markets?"
MS bundling free software undermines what? How in the world is bundling free antivirus software (given, of course, my aforementioned pre-conditions, such as: you are not forced to use it) undermining anything?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm of the opinion that spending billions of dollars on searching for ET life is silly, but in this article's [or the summary thereof] defense, it didn't say THIS planet was habitable. My reading was that they simply proved (presumably) that they were able to find out if water and CO2 exists on a planet.
She's allowed to send e-mail to professors and to students. But she has to follow the policies, correct?
Read the bulk e-mail policy here. Specifically:
âoeBulk e-mailâ in this context means the transmission of an e-mail message within a short time frame to more than a small set of recipients who may not have elected voluntarily to receive the e-mail. âoeShort time frameâ means an interval spanning as long as 2 days. âoeSmall set of recipientsâ means the size of individual-recipient address lists (To, CC, BCC fields) typical of most e-mails in common use, ranging from 1, to a few, to as many as may be involved in a large committee or work group (~20-30). Use of mailing lists and listservs to which recipients may voluntarily opt in and opt out is encouraged, and this type of e-mail distribution is not included in the meaning of âoebulk e-mailâ in this document.
There are also some permitted activities. Discussion of school policy changes is not one of them, whereas dissemination of information about school policy changes IS allowed. This doesn't fall into that category though.
Frankly, I don't see what's unconstitutional about this. Unless you think every student should be allowed to spam the college's internal e-mail system as much as he or she would like or something like that. Could it be done differently? Sure. But I don't see how it's unconstitutional.
Cited allegations can be found here (pdf)
He charged her with violating three school policies on sending un-solicited e-mails.
That doesn't sound like "freedom of speech." That sounds like "spam." The accusation isn't about what she said, it's about how she said it. My question is, why is the defense about what she said if the accusation is about how she said it?
I understand public/private school, government policy, Constitutional rights, etc. If she feels that is an issue, bring it up after she proves she didn't violate the school policy on technology abuse (un-solicited e-mails or whatever they call it). As far as I know, there's no freedom of speech violation in limiting the use of school e-mail.
If she thinks she is wrongfully being accused and the issue is actually that they didn't like what she said, then she should prove she didn't abuse what she is being accused of abusing and THEN accuse THEM of violating her Constitutional rights.
Thank you, I understand that it is a state school, and I understand there is a Constitution. And I understand that, in fact, the first 10 amendments to that Constitution are generally referred to as the "Bill of Rights."
I also understand that a government agency can't have policies contrary to them.
But public schools can have policies that aren't contrary to them. Freedom of speech does not mean you are allowed to use any technology you want to say anything you want. Those policies appear to have been left up to the schools or other organizations to decide. For example, the post office is a government agency, right? But I am not legally allowed to put non-stamped letters into a mailbox. It's illegal to use mailboxes without going through the policies and procedures of the US Postal Service. No!!!! My rights are being violated!!!
No, your rights aren't being violated... it's just that the 'Bill of Rights' is not synonymous with "Anarchy on Public Property."
If she had been talking to students about it and got in trouble for that, that would be different. She's not technically in trouble for what she said, she is technically in trouble for breaking a policy. So prove she didn't break the policy. If she's still in trouble, then yell about freedom of speech.
Think of it this way. I accuse you of stealing. You complain that your freedom of speech is being taken away. That makes no sense, you're not answering my accusation. Now, if you didn't steal, you prove you didn't steal, and THEN you complain about it, then you are accusing me, and now *I* have to answer for it. Right? From the article, it doesn't appear that's what this "FIRE" group is doing.
I don't understand the free speech thing. No, it's not SPAM. Whether or not she actually abused the policy is up for someone else to decide, not me. But what is all this talk about free speech? Since when does freedom of speech mean you can break a the rules you agreed (I assume you have to agree to abide by them in order to be accepted into the school) to follow?
If she actually broke the policy, then the agreed-to consequences for it should happen. If she didn't, the school is being stupid, and the SCHOOL should face consequences. But this doesn't have to do with "freedom of speech."
I agree, why not change the system... I'm all for that. I also do think, though, that the emphasis in schools is wrong. It has shifted from "teach the students reading, writing, arithmetic [and science]" to "make sure the students are enjoying themselves and are happy."
I don't know about you, but being "happy" wasn't what my parents were most interested in when it came to education. I think it was education that they were most interested in. If it's possible to do both, great. But if Joey doesn't WANT to learn English, Math, and Science, and just wants to do sports... well, too bad, that's not what public school money is for, is it?
When I hear education, I hear how the system needs more money,
Which, IMO, isn't a problem except that schools waste what they already have. It's just like the auto bailouts. You don't get a better company by covering up their mistakes by giving them more money to waste. Usually, with most businesses, if your product stinks, you lose money and are forced - based on your lack of money - to change the way you work. With government funded programs, unfortunately, that tends not to be the case.
Example : eugenics was very progressive in the 1930's ... now the effects are known ... not so much)
I don't think most people really know what eugenics is, or the beliefs that are behind that sort of thinking... nor how close most people are today to being just as firmly believing in eugenics and it's backing ideologies.
Interesting thought. As it is, though, you CAN advance quicker and be somewhat higher in some subjects, can't you? I wasn't in the public school system, so I odn't know firsthand, but isn't that sort of what AP classes are?
Being homeschooled, I WAS allowed to do it at my own pace. Or finish really quickly in the day and move on to other things like music, computers, etc.
In this way, a student who is good in English but needs math help does not get held back or even looked at strangely.
On the other hand, if you can't add, subtract, multiply, and divide... well, that's an issue. If you're talking about algebra, calculus, etc., that's different. But I think there SHOULD be a baseline level of knowledge. I've met people that really hate math and get confused, but they can learn multiplication tables.
Oh, but addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables aren't taught in school anymore, to my knowedge... I guess making kids recite stuff and memorize is too hard for them. They don't like it. Their attention spans run out. So let's change education.
Goodness, how do you EXPECT to learn algebra if you don't know what 2*5 is in the first place and have to work it out, or do it on a calculator? Not that I'm against calculators, but I am definitely glad I learned multiplication tables. Or, rather, was "made" to learn them. I didn't WANT to, either.
IMO, this is exactly the issue. We should figure out our education problem before we spend money and put more distractions into the schools. Yes, distractions. If you can't READ and you graduate from high school, having a computer isn't going to help you. And, by the way, paying a bureaucratic school system more money isn't going to help education either. Nor is making homeschooling illegal (California has been trying for a long time), making it harder for private schools, putting even more emphasis on arts, music, etc.
And, by the way, this coming from a homeschooled, private schooled, music and computer science major. I was very involved in music and even I think that arts/music/sports/extra-curricular activities are way too focused on in schools.
Oh, and we should start flunking kids that get to their senior year of high school and can't read. A high failure rate in a grade is better than a high passing rate of ignorant students. Stop making excuses for the kids and actually expect them to learn. After that, maybe we can talk about putting in broadband and computers.
This doesn't have to do with Windows as much as it has to do with Dell.
Basically, Dell said (in the EULA) that they would refund money if you don't agree to the terms. So that's what the guy did.
If anything, this just shows how few people read license agreements than anything else. And shows that, once again, 'customer support' still stinks :)
I find it interesting that you are complaining about the last eight years in the US, yet the article is about Europe...
IMO, it shows the anti-US sentiment, apparently because of the US's more or less high position in the world, as opposed to many European countries that are trying to rival it with the EU, etc., but failing.
And yet, The UK and Europe have far worse "wire-tapping" sorts of things than the US. But it's not in vogue to complain about it anywhere but in the US, it seems.
Just for clarification, I put fun in quotes (albeit single quotes) for a fairly simple reason: it seems that many people in many culture think a fun computer game can't be made without violence/sex/comedy. Or a movie, for that matter.
Also note that, my own personal convictions aside, I did not solely mention vices in my post but something neutral like comedy as well (of course, comedy can certainly be based on non-neutral themes).
The idea itself isn't necessarily a bad one. Not all games have to be violent, and 'fun' computer games can be had without violence, sex, or comedy.
That said, it's the gameplay that makes it work or not work. It sounds like this one is going to be a flop (not to mention it sounds rather politically motivated, another thing that can potentially ruin a game...)
Really? So if I accidentally shoot someone while hunting, and that person gets hit in the arm and has to have surgery, I should get charged as heavily as if that person got hit in the head and died?
As far as this case goes... it's not murder, certainly. I don't think she should be (and isn't) held accountable for the death of the person. However, if she actually was messing with the girl's mind and thus had power over her and told her to kill herself, basically, and she does it... she actually DOES deserve harsher consequences than if the result was otherwise.
Think of a cult leader that has a mental sway over someone as opposed to a wacko that has no charisma at all. If a wacko is going around saying the world would be better without this person or that person, that's one thing; if it's a cult leader (or a parent, a spouse, etc) that has some mental/psychological leverage, it's a lot different.
Not to say that I believe in some weird mental phenomena and psychic powers... but intent has something to do with it, too. I could jokingly tell someone they should kill themselves, and I could seriously try to get them to do it with just words. There IS a big difference. Which is why people like Kevorkian should not be allowed to do the sick things they want to do, and why doctors should not be allowed to encourage suicide (or, IMO, help it.. unfortunately, Washington (state) thinks otherwise).
If a tree falls in a forest and hits a piano (or bard)...
This is off-topic, but oh well!
Interesting that defending a false allegation automatically means that it is "my departing government." I don't think I said anything one way or the other...
That aside, in your post that calls me naive, I don't believe you have given one piece of evidence. All you did was say that we won't see it. I have not seen oil companies get oil from Iraq (and by the way, if they do, doesn't that mean they have to buy it form Iraq? Isn't that good for the Iraqi economy? Iran's leaders have gotten rich enough from oil [not the people though, certainly, speaking of injustice and horrible "governments"])., and I haven't seen the federal side of the US gain anything as far as oil. So again, I ask... who got the oil? Where is it, or where did it go? Or are you presuming that the current administration must have been after the oil, and thus they must just be waiting for a better time to exploit it?
And by the way, the media is NOT in with the current administration, so I'm sure if there was a story to be had about oil going somewhere...
Lastly, regarding gas prices and oil companies, I keep seeing people say that the price of crude oil doesn't affect oil prices. When crude oil was up at $145/barrel gas, for me, was around $4.80/gal. Crude oil is now at somehwere around $51/barrel and gas, for me, is around $2/gal. That's a pretty high correlation, and hard to believe it relates solely to the market at large and not the price of oil. I also did some computations of how many gallons you actually get out of a barrel of oil.
This was when the price was $110 (it was coming down but people were saying that this wouldn't mean a drop in gas prices because big oil companies are out to kill the US economy by getting unfair profit... something like that). 1 barrel = 42 gallons. At $110 (itâ(TM)s almost at $100 right now, but weâ(TM)ll say $110) thatâ(TM)s about $2.6 per gallon. Oil companies have to buy crude oil at $2.6 per gallon. Thatâ(TM)s unrefined, and thus before the cost of refining it. Taxes on gas in California = 36 cents (18 federal, 18 state). Now we are up to basically $3/gallon, all of which goes to government or crude oil costs; no profit yet. Sales tax on gas in California is 6.2% or so. Thatâ(TM)s another 15 cents or thereabouts: $3.15. So, at $4/gallon, that leaves 85 cents per gallon that oil companies are getting, gross income. Not profit, but 85 cents per gallon gross. The government is getting more than 10% of what oil companies get already
And by the way, I do know that America enjoys lower gas prices than most other countries. I don't see that as unfair though. Most people think any benefits to being in America are "unfair," whereas any bad things that happen to America are "fair," unless they affect the rest of the world (e.g., the economic crisis)... then it's unfair that it happened to the rest of the world. I, for one, take a slightly bigger view of the world than viewing America as though they were Microsoft and the rest of the world as though they were Apple or Google...
How much oil (or money, for that matter) have we gotten from there, again? (I am still surprised that people still bring this up.)
Exactly. Robots, machines, whatever you want to call them, do not have ANY moral substance. Humans do. Humans may refuse to do certain things (or may not). Machines won't refuse.
Bottom line is... I'd rather be up against convincing a human maniac than a robot programmed to ACT like a maniac. One still has a rational (hopefully) thought process somewhere in there, and has a moral element. The other can't think and has has no moral element whatsoever (partially, of course, due to not being able to have a rational thought in the first place).
There's a reason that "mind control" scares so many people. Total "mind control" is what you have over machines, is it not?
I am not sure why, but I find it comical that "Facebook" said something... although it would have been funnier had it said "blah blah blah," posted Facebook on the Associated Press's wall.
And while it is true they need a "google docs" account, you can do that with any e-mail address, not just a gmail address...
Google Docs seems just as good, already in place, and better integrated with things like OpenOffice/MS Office, already has spreadsheet/powerpoint capability, etc. I fail to see the point or the hype.
And Google Docs allows you to have collaborators and just viewers...
I sit partially corrected.
On the other hand, there is still the issue of the screen used.
I completely agree that computer science is related to math. I personally actually like math and physics and whatnot, to the extent that I'm reading a textbook (I guess) on spacetime physics for fun. But I think you have to admit that many aspects of computer science *today* are very far removed from actual mathematical calculations or even mathematical ability (e.g., you don't have to take calculus to write a PHP script). You don't have to have any electrical engineering knowledge to "build" a computer, either, really. You have to be able to plug this into that, maybe know some basic specs about the components, etc.
I'm pretty sure that the console uses more than 100 watts, especially if you take into consideration the screen you are using. Either way, 100 watts is very low, it has to be higher than that.
if I read the article, I could probably tell you that how much, but I didn't.
Well, to be redundant with my subject... that's a lot of smart programmers. I don't think most programmers go through all that higher level math, and I'm not sure most mathematicians know how to program. No wonder it's expensive.
How is I misunderstood? It's not a different market. Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that when you buy a Mac, you only get an "operating system." As though an "operating system" is some theoretically stripped down software that does only one thing - interact with hardware. Operating systems don't include anything from what yo ucall a "different market" ... like a text editor. Or a web browser. Or a telnet application. Or ...
As for flying in court, I would love to see you try to accuse MS of being a monopoly because it is bundling software from a different market. What in the world is a "market?" Who defines the crossover between these never before mentioned software "markets?"
MS bundling free software undermines what? How in the world is bundling free antivirus software (given, of course, my aforementioned pre-conditions, such as: you are not forced to use it) undermining anything?