That said, you can surf the web right on the PS3 w/out linux at all.
As a new "slim" PS3 owner, I beg to differ - you can't really surf the web using the PS3 browser. Not well, anyway. I encounter stuff all the time that won't display properly (video from CBS.COM is a recent example). My wife would rather watch streaming video on her 15" laptop than try to get the PS3 browser to navigate to the right website and take the gamble that it might actually display on the 67" HDTV. My attempts to convince her otherwise usually end in me giving up 10 minutes later, with the PS3 browser disappointing me. But obviously, I personally won't be losing any functionality with this update, since the slim never had the "Install Other OS".
So... we have a bunch of people who didn't get degrees who are sure that degrees are worthless, a bunch of people who got degrees that are sure that degrees are essential, and a small number of people who cross over with "I wish I had gotten a degree" or "I know some people without degrees that are better than anyone else I know" stories. How enlightening - most people who felt a degree was important stuck out the work to get one, and are either happy with the result or are at least deluding themselves into believing they made the right choice, while most people who didn't think a degree was important didn't get one, and are either happy with the result or are at least deluding themselves into believing they made the right choice. Wow. This article is more about psychology than software development and education.
OK, I'm going to provide you with a link to a study by the CBO in 2004 that shows that medical liability costs have little to do with the cost of our healthcare, another study by the CBO in 2006 that shows that tort reform has almost no effect at all, and a smaller look at the result of tort reform in
Texas where they have capped medical liability. You do realize that most medical liability cases are brought to state courts, there are 50 states, each has its own laws, and therefore we can actually LOOK at what the effects of 35 states having enacted various different tort reforms are, right? That being the case, can you find me something that has analyzed that data and found any real, significant (i.e. > 3%?) positive effect from tort reform? I'd like some actual statistical analysis here. I'm very skeptical it would help.
Then eliminate medicare, and stop giving away services to the rest of the world. I guarantee the figures will look much more balanced.
Balanced? I'm not even sure what you might mean by that.
That's because Verizon's client is just for generating the authentication. It's a backwards system (why not just give subscribers a Boingo account?) but it's why the Verizon system is unique.
I'll have to try it out and give a report... Wonder how well it will work in a VM - I hate installing anything from a service provider directly on my PC (funny, it was Verizon DSL that first made me feel that way!)
If this is just Verizon branded Boingo, then (from the Boingo FAQ):
What is the Boingo software and why should I download it?
Boingo software turns the arduous ritual of logging in to Wi-Fi hotspots into a one-click love affair. The software automatically alerts you whenever youâ(TM)re in a Boingo hotspot and stores your username and password, so you can get online quickly and easily.
Boingo software is free!
Boingo software for your laptop is recommended, but not required.
Boingo software for your Wi-Fi enabled device is required.
How can Boingo software not be required for my laptop, but Boingo software IS required for my "Wi-Fi enabled device"?
I thought the Boingo software just made it "easy" to find Boingo member networks, and to automatically supply your user ID / password. If it's possible to just scan for the network, and then log in with a username / password, why wouldn't I be able to do that with my WiFi capable BlackBerry and "Hotspot" browser?
Maybe the religions you have been introduced to are incompatible with science. But, there is a lot of science that cannot be shown/demonstraited/repeated. Do you not know of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The imlications of the uncertainty principle are certainly repeatable and demonstrable.
Do you not know that many scientific discoveries were postulates before they could be proven?
I'm not really sure what you are getting at here - very little can be "proven" - in science, theories are given greater and greater credibility as they continue to be able to enable us to make accurate predictions, and as they survive tests that would falsify them (often, by looking for incorrect predictions). What do you mean by "postulates before they were proven"? What would you consider to have been proven?
What about all the postulates that are proven wrong? What about the particle theory of light and the wave theory of light, should you not study them, because one theory seems to contradict another?
See, this is part of the beauty of science - you can refine or replace theories that do not survive tests against reality (not sure why you use postulates - if they were assumed to be true, why would we test them?) But no, I would not continue to "study" a theory that had been proven false by repeated experiment. If I could not find a flaw in the experiment, I'd try to refine or replace the theory with a better theory.
Many people believe in religion as what it is claimed, faith is not something you can prove, but I believe that being kind to fellow human beings will bring me a reward, am I deluded?
I'm not sure why you need to be religious to hold this position.
Possibly, but isn't it worth testing the theory out during my short life-time. If it is a theory that proves to be false, I still believe that for the space of my human life that I will be better off. Do you refuse to use the equations for Newtonian Physics because they are only valid for objects around the mass of things we use everyday and not for very small or very large objects?
No, but I do realize they have limitations, and I don't reject relativistic physics because I'm a Classicist and the book of Newton says p=m0v.
So, you still maintain that there is not reason to follow religious beliefs because God hasn't knocked on your door?
I would say there are literally millions of religious beliefs you don't follow (e.g. from religions you don't follow) - I just follow a few less.
The golden rule do unto others as you would have done to you is bogus because your limited knowledge of religion cannot be met? Yes you are better off without religion and without science, because, you don't believe in science, you only believe in known science. You're not much better than the people who wouldn't believe the world was a sphere because you couldn't see the whole of it in your day.
It would seem to me that you want to claim the idea of treating others in the way you would like to be treated as a religious idea. Do you think it is impossible for rules of social behavior to be adopted by anyone unless they are religious?
I am very religious, I see no conflict between religion and the theory of evolution, Darwin was a Monk and prayed every day, how do you think he was able to get past the limited scientific views of his day and propose a theory that has since had so many proof? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't feel so strongly that we can successfully clone humans, full or parts to solve some of the defects in our physical bodies. Does that shock you that religious people not only believe in science, but that religion encourages that belief? I went to a religious university, the professors there said God wants us to learn these things, that is why we are here.
Absolutely. I just finished reading Blink, and although it is not the central idea in the book, Gladwell does touch on, and reference some studies that examine a connection between expressions made consciously on the face, and their influences on mood. If you're interested in more information, look for some of the work by Tomkins, Ekman, Friesan, and Levenson. Also, Gladwell has a website where he has some of the material from his New Yorker column that he put in Blink. In one quote about their experience when teaching themselves to make the micro-expressions they were trying to study, Ekman says "What we discovered is that that expression alone is sufficient to create marked changes in the autonomic nervous system. When this first occurred, we were stunned." Now, I'm not convinced that a smile alone is enough to cure depression, but I think it's interesting research, and I wouldn't be surprised if one's expression could help contribute to a positive mood.
I wouldn't say 'about a zillion to go.' I would say one big problem to go. That problem is platinum. We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. Platinum is a huge factor in the cost of the fuel cell and the larger problem is that we simply don't have the amount of it necessary to convert all of the vehicles of the world. I spent a few weeks at Los Alamos with a research group that had been given a hefty grant for finding a solution and all they were doing was shrugging their shoulders at it. It seems nearly hopeless.
I swear, if I had nickel for every alternative energy breakthrough that was announced with great fanfare but went nowhere, I could fund the infrastructure change myself. Do these things just end up fizzling? Are they hoaxes? Is some evil petroleum magnate in a bunker inside a volcano buying them all up and tossing the secrets into the magma? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but boy, I'd love a good investigative look back at all the alternative energy ideas of the last 30 years, just so we could present it to the media as a guide for what to look for.
but even if they were, i'm less than sanguine about reality reflecting the 25 year claims. Additionally, there is no consideration given to mechanical frailty. i.e. how well can a solar panel take a baseball from the neighbor's kids? large hailstones?
I think that this whole putting solar panels, batteries and inverters thing in your house is something you need to talk to your insurer about *- at the same time, it'd probably be good to talk about whether you were covered for damage to the panels. Insurance premium increases should also be considered in the cost. If the panels are damaged before their estimated 25-yr life, you can file a claim. I'd be more concerned about the panels just failing - but hopefully they have a good 25-yr warranty.
* - Note: I would be very worried if you didn't have such a discussion - they would probably consider this a risk.
I was traveling a bit recently, and a lot of the WiFi hotspots in airports, restaurants and hotels were free (or included with whatever purchase you were already making). Most of the ones that weren't could be accessed with Boingo, so I looked into it a little. It seems that their "innovation" is that they are a network of networks. The actual WiFi service provider that you use might be AT&T or Wayport, but a Boingo subscription gets you access to all of them. I think the patent is intended to cover their method of identifying Boingo-member networks and listing those. They have special software you can download for that, though you don't need it. You can simply use the advertised SSIDs of the WiFi hotspots themselves. Their "innovation" is looking up the SSIDs in the network database for you, to automatically identify which networks are part of Boingo, consolidating the list, and then letting you have preferences as to which networks show up on the top of the list. I prefer open standards myself. I also prefer to places that offer their WiFi for free - so I decided not to subscribe and they can keep their patented technology.
These seem like extreme examples, but it's basically the same thing. The students are being introduced to a concept which is, to some extent, alien to them. To work with that concept, they need to put some kind of handle on it, something that conveniently and unambiguously refers to "that thing we learned about last week". Whether it's a word they've never seen before, or a symbol they've never seen before makes little difference - but I really think it's sensible to include this right from the start.
You may be right that it is a good idea to introduce the notation relatively soon, but I think that while the notation may be necessary, it is certainly not sufficient by itself - and there are people working as teachers in high schools who either know only the notation (and not the ideas), or are capable of only sharing the notation. That's clearly bad. That's just a handle with nothing attached.
Personally, I tend to like the notation, too. I just thought his point was that the notation is not the idea - and the idea is the more important of the two.
Of course, once you get beyond the simple stuff, math without the notation would be like writing a program in English - sounds great at first, until you realize how imprecise common English is.
What I took away from Lockhart's essay was that the concept is more important than the notation - not that the notation isn't valuable at all, just that it isn't necessary for simple problems, and by sharing the joy of the simple problems, you can get students to think. Learning the notation can come along a little later when you need it's compactness. Forcing the notation and letting the students experience little or none of the joy associated with the insights behind solving the problems is what he is was decrying. I think it's true, though, that there are some students that are intrigued by the symbolic language, and get drawn in that way - we are all individuals! (except me)
I have had some great life teachers, but the vast majority of them were either young and still full of energy, or professionals when were teaching for the fun of it after having lived a life in academia/industry. On the other hand, I struggle to think of one 'good' teacher I had who was a life long teacher near retirement age.
Although in general, my experience was like yours, I'm pretty sure that two of the best teachers I had were life long teachers near retirement age. One was a math teacher. He asked us questions, sometimes things that sounded basic and simple, and gave us the chance to come up with answers - then he questioned our answers and pushed us to understand deeper. He loved the subject, and it showed. So, they do exist, though I can't say they were common.
Eh, not entirely true. I'm running Ubuntu 6.06 (previous LTS - just 3yo now) on an old laptop, and I had problems with a USB WiFi adapter purchased w/o research 2 yrs ago. Had to resort to ndiswrapper, wasn't intuitive or easy to do, and it kept crashing the whole box every half hour or so (dumped it for an older PCMCIA card adapter instead). So, 2-3 years might be pushing it. Great strides continue to be made, though. I'd try the challenge on 9.04 if someone'd front the money - I just have no desire for an all-in-one, another USB WiFi adapter, or a USB TV tuner.
Oh, and I just spent HOURS fixing someone else's Windows 2000 desktop and Windows XP laptop to talk to their networked ink-jet printer and USB all-in-one laser printer, and yes I ended up at the DOS prompt trying to figure out why the boxes couldn't talk to each other, so it's not always cake in the Windows world, either. One major difference is that if a device configuration doesn't work on Windows, the user thinks he/she is to blame for not being tech savvy, so they call the local computer geek to fix it. If it doesn't work on Linux, well, then it must be Linux.
I'm not equating them at all, merely pointing out the fact that an illegal act is not necessary to create reasonable suspicion. A bloody baseball bat is no more illegal than this taking of a picture. I'm saying that this is not an issue of a clear black-and-white difference in kind, but a subtle matter of degree.
Ah, I see I misunderstood what you were saying.
I'm not defending the actions of any of the people in this person's account of the events, but am refuting the overly simplistic views of the GP.
Still, I think you misinterpreted Uberbah, too. Sure, Uberbah said "Taking a photo of an open ATM in a public area is not a crime," but then in the next sentence said "As the cops had no probable suspicion much less probable cause, he was not properly detained." I don't think that was meant to imply that a crime was necessary for 'proper detention', only that taking a picture was both not a crime, and also that it was also not something that would make a reasonable person suspicious. But hey, I could be wrong. Thanks for clarifying!
... that has no posted prohibition of photography. I can't even prevent people from hunting on or hiking across my property without tacking an orange sign to a tree every 50ft, but they can prohibit photography by thinking it? Nice. Still the owner (or, likely lessor) of the private property on which he stood (REI) said they did not call the police, so it's likely they didn't care. Who else would have that standing to complain?
2. Photographing people without asking permission first
Is not a criminal offense. Recording their voices IS, in many places, but not photography, to my knowledge. Feel free to cite something that proves otherwise, I'm always interested in learning (preferably the easy way that doesn't involve courts). Sure, publishing it could get you in civil trouble, in certain circumstances, but taking it is not a criminal offense.
3. Photographing proprietary equipment that contains large amounts of untraceable cash.
Is not illegal. It's not even immoral. Either the equipment is a secret, and they should hide it, or it's patented and they're already told everyone. What, people will be surprised to learn that ATMs contain large amounts of cash? Gasp!
And lastly...
4. He lost his place in line.
Well we agree there, that was a stupid move. But I applaud that, too, since I'm most likely behind him, and that's one less person in the way. Unfortunately, the customer service attendant probably stopped helping people to watch the spectacle, so you're right, it's proven, he's a jerk.
If this occurred within a bank, I'd expect one of the bank security guards to walk over to him, inform him that photography is prohibited and politely ask him to leave the premises. The difference of course is that the bank guards DO represent the owner (or lessor) of the property - where Loomis guards working for BoA do not represent REI. In no case would I expect the guards to do more than escort him off the property. If he refused to leave, they could call the police. The company could sue and after many attorney's fees, he'd probably be ordered by the court to destroy the images and pay the plaintiff's court costs. The security guards, on the other hand, do not have the authority to compel him to answer questions, produce ID, or to detain him, unless they are making some sort of citizens arrest. For that, they'd want to be sure they personally witnessed him commit some sort of felony, which taking a photograph does not constitute (yet). But if no one speaks out, someday soon it will be. And then journalists won't be able to take the picture of the insides of the Diebold voting machine with the obvious tampering. Which is perhaps where all this is leading, anyway.
Oh, and if we take iPhones away from people for being jerks, AT&T wireless will be the next to need a bailout. The 3 remaining iPhone owners won't generate enough revenue.
--
The above is the rant of a madman, not legal advice.
Neither is walking down the street with a blood-covered baseball bat. But, I think the cops might be able to properly detain you because of it.
Forgive me if I would side with an officer that thought a bloody baseball bat was enough to create "reasonable suspicion" of a crime, but against an officer that thought a photograph was. Since "reasonable suspicion" is what's required to "properly detain" someone, this would be an improper detention. You can't seriously be equating carrying a bloody weapon with carrying a camera, can you?
In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
If REI takes the appropriate actions after the fact, they can earn back our respect, and perhaps even more. A company that stands up for the rights of its customers is one with which I want to do business. On the other hand, a company that supports the violation of its customers' rights, by its employees, or by the employees or representatives of companies with which they do business, is not a company that I will support. Our local REI is 3 miles further away than the local EMS - right now, I'm disinclined to go the extra distance. I'll watch for their response, though. If REI can adequately explain why they didn't ask the Loomis guards to leave after they were harassing a customer, or why they banned their own customer for being harassed by the Loomis guards, then I might. Now's their time to shine.
I'd hope they'd reduce the price to $30. XP is hitting the "Extended Support" lifecycle phase in less than 5 months (or, so I read here). According to this, Extended Support means "Non-security hotfix support", "No-charge incident support", "Warranty claims", "Design changes and feature requests" will all require "extended hotfix agreement, purchased within 90 days of mainstream support ending." So, it would have to be worth less than a MS OS with "Mainstream Support". Since I'm not in the market, I don't know if they've been advertising that to the consumers - perhaps there's some special arrangement I haven't heard of?
On the other hand, I'm not sure I can point to anyone ever getting those services even during the "Mainstream Support" phase, and at least you can say that it's had a LONG test phase.
Does anyone know if MS will continue to update products like IE and WMP for XP once it goes into Extended Support? That must be a conflict for them, knowing how they want to push people to the newer OSes, but realizing how much uproar there would be if a new version of WMP came out that wouldn't work on a brand new computer. And, considering how much they claimed IE was an integral part of the OS, any new IE updates might constitute "design changes and feature requests" for the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, you can surf the web right on the PS3 w/out linux at all.
As a new "slim" PS3 owner, I beg to differ - you can't really surf the web using the PS3 browser. Not well, anyway. I encounter stuff all the time that won't display properly (video from CBS.COM is a recent example). My wife would rather watch streaming video on her 15" laptop than try to get the PS3 browser to navigate to the right website and take the gamble that it might actually display on the 67" HDTV. My attempts to convince her otherwise usually end in me giving up 10 minutes later, with the PS3 browser disappointing me. But obviously, I personally won't be losing any functionality with this update, since the slim never had the "Install Other OS".
So... we have a bunch of people who didn't get degrees who are sure that degrees are worthless, a bunch of people who got degrees that are sure that degrees are essential, and a small number of people who cross over with "I wish I had gotten a degree" or "I know some people without degrees that are better than anyone else I know" stories. How enlightening - most people who felt a degree was important stuck out the work to get one, and are either happy with the result or are at least deluding themselves into believing they made the right choice, while most people who didn't think a degree was important didn't get one, and are either happy with the result or are at least deluding themselves into believing they made the right choice. Wow. This article is more about psychology than software development and education.
There are probably some other questions where you can swap a gender pronoun and see similar differences.
You want to improve things, fix your tort laws.
OK, I'm going to provide you with a link to a study by the CBO in 2004 that shows that medical liability costs have little to do with the cost of our healthcare, another study by the CBO in 2006 that shows that tort reform has almost no effect at all, and a smaller look at the result of tort reform in Texas where they have capped medical liability. You do realize that most medical liability cases are brought to state courts, there are 50 states, each has its own laws, and therefore we can actually LOOK at what the effects of 35 states having enacted various different tort reforms are, right? That being the case, can you find me something that has analyzed that data and found any real, significant (i.e. > 3%?) positive effect from tort reform? I'd like some actual statistical analysis here. I'm very skeptical it would help.
Then eliminate medicare, and stop giving away services to the rest of the world. I guarantee the figures will look much more balanced.
Balanced? I'm not even sure what you might mean by that.
That's because Verizon's client is just for generating the authentication. It's a backwards system (why not just give subscribers a Boingo account?) but it's why the Verizon system is unique.
I'll have to try it out and give a report... Wonder how well it will work in a VM - I hate installing anything from a service provider directly on my PC (funny, it was Verizon DSL that first made me feel that way!)
What is the Boingo software and why should I download it?
How can Boingo software not be required for my laptop, but Boingo software IS required for my "Wi-Fi enabled device"?
I thought the Boingo software just made it "easy" to find Boingo member networks, and to automatically supply your user ID / password. If it's possible to just scan for the network, and then log in with a username / password, why wouldn't I be able to do that with my WiFi capable BlackBerry and "Hotspot" browser?
Maybe the religions you have been introduced to are incompatible with science. But, there is a lot of science that cannot be shown/demonstraited/repeated. Do you not know of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The imlications of the uncertainty principle are certainly repeatable and demonstrable.
Do you not know that many scientific discoveries were postulates before they could be proven?
I'm not really sure what you are getting at here - very little can be "proven" - in science, theories are given greater and greater credibility as they continue to be able to enable us to make accurate predictions, and as they survive tests that would falsify them (often, by looking for incorrect predictions). What do you mean by "postulates before they were proven"? What would you consider to have been proven?
What about all the postulates that are proven wrong? What about the particle theory of light and the wave theory of light, should you not study them, because one theory seems to contradict another?
See, this is part of the beauty of science - you can refine or replace theories that do not survive tests against reality (not sure why you use postulates - if they were assumed to be true, why would we test them?) But no, I would not continue to "study" a theory that had been proven false by repeated experiment. If I could not find a flaw in the experiment, I'd try to refine or replace the theory with a better theory.
Many people believe in religion as what it is claimed, faith is not something you can prove, but I believe that being kind to fellow human beings will bring me a reward, am I deluded?
I'm not sure why you need to be religious to hold this position.
Possibly, but isn't it worth testing the theory out during my short life-time. If it is a theory that proves to be false, I still believe that for the space of my human life that I will be better off. Do you refuse to use the equations for Newtonian Physics because they are only valid for objects around the mass of things we use everyday and not for very small or very large objects?
No, but I do realize they have limitations, and I don't reject relativistic physics because I'm a Classicist and the book of Newton says p=m0v.
So, you still maintain that there is not reason to follow religious beliefs because God hasn't knocked on your door?
I would say there are literally millions of religious beliefs you don't follow (e.g. from religions you don't follow) - I just follow a few less.
The golden rule do unto others as you would have done to you is bogus because your limited knowledge of religion cannot be met? Yes you are better off without religion and without science, because, you don't believe in science, you only believe in known science. You're not much better than the people who wouldn't believe the world was a sphere because you couldn't see the whole of it in your day.
It would seem to me that you want to claim the idea of treating others in the way you would like to be treated as a religious idea. Do you think it is impossible for rules of social behavior to be adopted by anyone unless they are religious?
I am very religious, I see no conflict between religion and the theory of evolution, Darwin was a Monk and prayed every day, how do you think he was able to get past the limited scientific views of his day and propose a theory that has since had so many proof? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't feel so strongly that we can successfully clone humans, full or parts to solve some of the defects in our physical bodies. Does that shock you that religious people not only believe in science, but that religion encourages that belief? I went to a religious university, the professors there said God wants us to learn these things, that is why we are here.
I've managed to avoid the problem with SSNv4 using private SSN domains, and SSNT (SSN Translation).
Absolutely. I just finished reading Blink, and although it is not the central idea in the book, Gladwell does touch on, and reference some studies that examine a connection between expressions made consciously on the face, and their influences on mood. If you're interested in more information, look for some of the work by Tomkins, Ekman, Friesan, and Levenson. Also, Gladwell has a website where he has some of the material from his New Yorker column that he put in Blink. In one quote about their experience when teaching themselves to make the micro-expressions they were trying to study, Ekman says "What we discovered is that that expression alone is sufficient to create marked changes in the autonomic nervous system. When this first occurred, we were stunned." Now, I'm not convinced that a smile alone is enough to cure depression, but I think it's interesting research, and I wouldn't be surprised if one's expression could help contribute to a positive mood.
Save your energy. Most Slashdot posters are not "car" people and simply don't get it. No amount of argument will penetrate their opinions.
Perhaps you need to come up with a completely nonsensical car analogy to explain it to us? Seems to work for every other topic...
I wouldn't say 'about a zillion to go.' I would say one big problem to go. That problem is platinum. We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. Platinum is a huge factor in the cost of the fuel cell and the larger problem is that we simply don't have the amount of it necessary to convert all of the vehicles of the world. I spent a few weeks at Los Alamos with a research group that had been given a hefty grant for finding a solution and all they were doing was shrugging their shoulders at it. It seems nearly hopeless.
I thought Argonne (sister DoE lab) came up with a breakthrough for reducing the amount of platinum needed (over 2 years ago)? I haven't heard much about that since, though.
I swear, if I had nickel for every alternative energy breakthrough that was announced with great fanfare but went nowhere, I could fund the infrastructure change myself. Do these things just end up fizzling? Are they hoaxes? Is some evil petroleum magnate in a bunker inside a volcano buying them all up and tossing the secrets into the magma? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but boy, I'd love a good investigative look back at all the alternative energy ideas of the last 30 years, just so we could present it to the media as a guide for what to look for.
Who cares if someone sees my password, the HR people in Bozeman already know it!
but even if they were, i'm less than sanguine about reality reflecting the 25 year claims. Additionally, there is no consideration given to mechanical frailty. i.e. how well can a solar panel take a baseball from the neighbor's kids? large hailstones?
I think that this whole putting solar panels, batteries and inverters thing in your house is something you need to talk to your insurer about *- at the same time, it'd probably be good to talk about whether you were covered for damage to the panels. Insurance premium increases should also be considered in the cost. If the panels are damaged before their estimated 25-yr life, you can file a claim. I'd be more concerned about the panels just failing - but hopefully they have a good 25-yr warranty.
* - Note: I would be very worried if you didn't have such a discussion - they would probably consider this a risk.
I was traveling a bit recently, and a lot of the WiFi hotspots in airports, restaurants and hotels were free (or included with whatever purchase you were already making). Most of the ones that weren't could be accessed with Boingo, so I looked into it a little. It seems that their "innovation" is that they are a network of networks. The actual WiFi service provider that you use might be AT&T or Wayport, but a Boingo subscription gets you access to all of them. I think the patent is intended to cover their method of identifying Boingo-member networks and listing those. They have special software you can download for that, though you don't need it. You can simply use the advertised SSIDs of the WiFi hotspots themselves. Their "innovation" is looking up the SSIDs in the network database for you, to automatically identify which networks are part of Boingo, consolidating the list, and then letting you have preferences as to which networks show up on the top of the list. I prefer open standards myself. I also prefer to places that offer their WiFi for free - so I decided not to subscribe and they can keep their patented technology.
These seem like extreme examples, but it's basically the same thing. The students are being introduced to a concept which is, to some extent, alien to them. To work with that concept, they need to put some kind of handle on it, something that conveniently and unambiguously refers to "that thing we learned about last week". Whether it's a word they've never seen before, or a symbol they've never seen before makes little difference - but I really think it's sensible to include this right from the start.
You may be right that it is a good idea to introduce the notation relatively soon, but I think that while the notation may be necessary, it is certainly not sufficient by itself - and there are people working as teachers in high schools who either know only the notation (and not the ideas), or are capable of only sharing the notation. That's clearly bad. That's just a handle with nothing attached.
Personally, I tend to like the notation, too. I just thought his point was that the notation is not the idea - and the idea is the more important of the two.
Of course, once you get beyond the simple stuff, math without the notation would be like writing a program in English - sounds great at first, until you realize how imprecise common English is.
Learning the notation can come along a little later when you need it's compactness.
Of course, I meant "its compactness." Stupid apostrophe. Grammar Nazis, I apologize. I will now hang my head in shame.
What I took away from Lockhart's essay was that the concept is more important than the notation - not that the notation isn't valuable at all, just that it isn't necessary for simple problems, and by sharing the joy of the simple problems, you can get students to think. Learning the notation can come along a little later when you need it's compactness. Forcing the notation and letting the students experience little or none of the joy associated with the insights behind solving the problems is what he is was decrying. I think it's true, though, that there are some students that are intrigued by the symbolic language, and get drawn in that way - we are all individuals! (except me)
I have had some great life teachers, but the vast majority of them were either young and still full of energy, or professionals when were teaching for the fun of it after having lived a life in academia/industry. On the other hand, I struggle to think of one 'good' teacher I had who was a life long teacher near retirement age.
Although in general, my experience was like yours, I'm pretty sure that two of the best teachers I had were life long teachers near retirement age. One was a math teacher. He asked us questions, sometimes things that sounded basic and simple, and gave us the chance to come up with answers - then he questioned our answers and pushed us to understand deeper. He loved the subject, and it showed. So, they do exist, though I can't say they were common.
Oh, and I just spent HOURS fixing someone else's Windows 2000 desktop and Windows XP laptop to talk to their networked ink-jet printer and USB all-in-one laser printer, and yes I ended up at the DOS prompt trying to figure out why the boxes couldn't talk to each other, so it's not always cake in the Windows world, either. One major difference is that if a device configuration doesn't work on Windows, the user thinks he/she is to blame for not being tech savvy, so they call the local computer geek to fix it. If it doesn't work on Linux, well, then it must be Linux.
I'm not equating them at all, merely pointing out the fact that an illegal act is not necessary to create reasonable suspicion. A bloody baseball bat is no more illegal than this taking of a picture. I'm saying that this is not an issue of a clear black-and-white difference in kind, but a subtle matter of degree.
Ah, I see I misunderstood what you were saying.
I'm not defending the actions of any of the people in this person's account of the events, but am refuting the overly simplistic views of the GP.
Still, I think you misinterpreted Uberbah, too. Sure, Uberbah said "Taking a photo of an open ATM in a public area is not a crime," but then in the next sentence said "As the cops had no probable suspicion much less probable cause, he was not properly detained." I don't think that was meant to imply that a crime was necessary for 'proper detention', only that taking a picture was both not a crime, and also that it was also not something that would make a reasonable person suspicious. But hey, I could be wrong. Thanks for clarifying!
So let's recap: 1. Inside a private business
... that has no posted prohibition of photography. I can't even prevent people from hunting on or hiking across my property without tacking an orange sign to a tree every 50ft, but they can prohibit photography by thinking it? Nice. Still the owner (or, likely lessor) of the private property on which he stood (REI) said they did not call the police, so it's likely they didn't care. Who else would have that standing to complain?
2. Photographing people without asking permission first
Is not a criminal offense. Recording their voices IS, in many places, but not photography, to my knowledge. Feel free to cite something that proves otherwise, I'm always interested in learning (preferably the easy way that doesn't involve courts). Sure, publishing it could get you in civil trouble, in certain circumstances, but taking it is not a criminal offense.
3. Photographing proprietary equipment that contains large amounts of untraceable cash.
Is not illegal. It's not even immoral. Either the equipment is a secret, and they should hide it, or it's patented and they're already told everyone. What, people will be surprised to learn that ATMs contain large amounts of cash? Gasp!
And lastly... 4. He lost his place in line.
Well we agree there, that was a stupid move. But I applaud that, too, since I'm most likely behind him, and that's one less person in the way. Unfortunately, the customer service attendant probably stopped helping people to watch the spectacle, so you're right, it's proven, he's a jerk.
If this occurred within a bank, I'd expect one of the bank security guards to walk over to him, inform him that photography is prohibited and politely ask him to leave the premises. The difference of course is that the bank guards DO represent the owner (or lessor) of the property - where Loomis guards working for BoA do not represent REI. In no case would I expect the guards to do more than escort him off the property. If he refused to leave, they could call the police. The company could sue and after many attorney's fees, he'd probably be ordered by the court to destroy the images and pay the plaintiff's court costs. The security guards, on the other hand, do not have the authority to compel him to answer questions, produce ID, or to detain him, unless they are making some sort of citizens arrest. For that, they'd want to be sure they personally witnessed him commit some sort of felony, which taking a photograph does not constitute (yet). But if no one speaks out, someday soon it will be. And then journalists won't be able to take the picture of the insides of the Diebold voting machine with the obvious tampering. Which is perhaps where all this is leading, anyway.
Oh, and if we take iPhones away from people for being jerks, AT&T wireless will be the next to need a bailout. The 3 remaining iPhone owners won't generate enough revenue.
--
The above is the rant of a madman, not legal advice.
Neither is walking down the street with a blood-covered baseball bat. But, I think the cops might be able to properly detain you because of it.
Forgive me if I would side with an officer that thought a bloody baseball bat was enough to create "reasonable suspicion" of a crime, but against an officer that thought a photograph was. Since "reasonable suspicion" is what's required to "properly detain" someone, this would be an improper detention. You can't seriously be equating carrying a bloody weapon with carrying a camera, can you?
In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
If REI takes the appropriate actions after the fact, they can earn back our respect, and perhaps even more. A company that stands up for the rights of its customers is one with which I want to do business. On the other hand, a company that supports the violation of its customers' rights, by its employees, or by the employees or representatives of companies with which they do business, is not a company that I will support. Our local REI is 3 miles further away than the local EMS - right now, I'm disinclined to go the extra distance. I'll watch for their response, though. If REI can adequately explain why they didn't ask the Loomis guards to leave after they were harassing a customer, or why they banned their own customer for being harassed by the Loomis guards, then I might. Now's their time to shine.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I can point to anyone ever getting those services even during the "Mainstream Support" phase, and at least you can say that it's had a LONG test phase.
Does anyone know if MS will continue to update products like IE and WMP for XP once it goes into Extended Support? That must be a conflict for them, knowing how they want to push people to the newer OSes, but realizing how much uproar there would be if a new version of WMP came out that wouldn't work on a brand new computer. And, considering how much they claimed IE was an integral part of the OS, any new IE updates might constitute "design changes and feature requests" for the OS.
I'd like to promote the idea of video taping searches.
"Sorry, the security camera wasn't working yesterday when you claim your laptop was stolen."
See, we pay the maintenance people even less than the security people...