Actually, I sometimes think that would be the best way to show America the dangers.
Get a fairly large group together and hack the voting machines so that Lyndon LaRouche wins (or some other non-mainstream candidate). After the election, when everyone is scratching their heads, 'fess up and call it "Civil Disobedience."
Terrorism is targetted at hundreds upon thousands of individuals.
"Hundreds upon thousands"? Wow.
I dunno. It seems like the vast majority of terrorist attacks I've read about have killed tens of individuals via bombs (either planted in cars or carried). There are a few big name ones that have managed to kill hundreds, when there've been hundreds of people packed together in an airplane. There was a big name one a few years back which killed thousands.
"Hundreds upon thousands?" If that's their plan, they're not very good at it. Maybe we really do have nothing to worry about. (Yes, I'm being facetious)
Here's where I have the problem. The government needs to do this to catch the terrorists. Why? Were the older methods ineffective? Was the problem that the FBI didn't have the data? That's not what I understand from the 9/11 report.
Again, my biggest problem with things like this oversight. Where did these 1000 names come from? Why were they chosen? It's my data! Who's overseeing it to make sure it is not being given out to those who would take advantage of it?
Let's take a silly example: I'm a typical overworked underpaid FBI agent. I'm approached by somebody who says, "Hey, I'd really like the get a look at these 20 people's student loan information. I'll give you $10,000 for that information." All I need to do is create a request for, say, 1000 people (an appropriately large dataset) which contains those 20 people for "research." I now have that information, which I can sell back to the person.
Guess what? There have been people trying to kill "us" for more than 200 years. You get used to it.
I'm not necessarily against this, but I worry about the lines being drawn. The so-called "slippery slope."
Okay, we can assume that terrorists are bad people who are out to kill. How about murderers in general? How about bank robbers? Fraudsters are bad people, too. Taking gramma for her hard-earned retirement. Perhaps this should be allowed, too. How about copyright infringers?
Where did this list of 1000 people come from? Who decided who was on the list? What was the criteria? Do we have 1000 suspected student terrorists in this country? Or are these students who happen to be, say, muslims. Is being a muslim putting you on the list?
See, this is where I have a problem with things like this. We have systems in place to protect citizens for a reason. Why should we have to get rid of them to catch terrorists?
Many of the things that the Shuttle is good at are no longer necessary.
For example, the Shuttle can host people in orbit for up to two weeks (actually, I understand it's now up to a month). The ISS can host people in orbit indefinitely. Unmanned rockets can deliver supplies to the ISS cheaper than the Shuttle. This capsule will be able to deliver crewpeople to the ISS cheaper than the Shuttle.
I'm not sure how they'll handle "service missions" with these things (launch a space telescope and hope the gyros don't fail?).
The Shuttle is an example of a spacecraft which is a jack-of-all-trades. I think some congressman referred to it as a "Space-SUV." Goes anywhere (well, anywhere in LEO), does anything, expensive to run. This capsule is both more and less ambitious--it can go anywhere (even outside LEO), but all it can do is carry people. Hopefully, it will be less expensive to run.
Well, I'll admit to being snarky about the Wang comment...:^)
But, is your justification for not using laptops versus desktops merely price? "Why spend $700-900 on a laptop when a $300-500 desktop can do the same thing?" That's where I'm confused.
[...] This is not to say students don't need computers -- they do -- but that's what the computer lab is for.
On the other hand, does the lab have to sit in one place? Some schools are using Mobile Labs to turn any classroom into a computer lab. Bring in a cart with 30 or so laptops connecting via Wifi. Try that with 30 or so desktop machines...
Do you figure that computers are a distraction in the classroom and should not be part of a class?
Well, I think the advantages of laptops for students is pretty easy to understand. Is your theory that spending an extra $400 or $500 per computer to make using computers with course assignments more convenient is a bad thing?
Heck, the students are using them as glorified typewriters! We could get them old Wang word-processors for $10 a pop probably. Why do they need a full-blown personal computer, anyway?
[...] Another idea would be to pay more money to lure in math and science teachers who actually have bachelor's degrees in their math or science.
Rubbish.
A teacher has to enjoy what they're teaching. A teacher has to be able to communicate not only the facts about what their teaching but their enjoyment of the subject matter. Whether they have a bachelors, masters, or PhD in the subject matter is inconsequential.
Do you need to know calculus to teach arithmetic, algebra, or geometry? Heck, if I had a bachelors degree in mathematics, I'd be bored stuff teaching kids algebra! I wouldn't be using my college education one damn bit!
My father was a high school math teacher for 21 years because he loved teaching math. He has a masters degree, which he got while teaching. He never used the math he learned getting his masters in the classroom. But most of his former students consider him to have been a good math teacher because he communicate his interest in math as well as the facts. He didn't suddenly become a better teacher because he had a masters degree.
You don't have to be a genius to be a high school teacher--it's high school! But you have to be able to interest others in what you're interested in. That's the hard part.
I program computers for a living. I didn't get a computer until I was in 8th grade. What does that tell you?
Absolutely nothing. I program computers for a living. I first used a computer when I was four--my father would take my into the terminal room and stick me in front of a computer and I'd play hangman while he worked on computer programs for a class. I started writing programs when I was in 4th grade.
I know people who program computers for a living who saw their first computer when they hit college. I know people who program computers who have lived with them their whole life.
When you first saw or used a computer says absolutely nothing.
I come down on the pro-laptop side, personally. First, laptops are useful for students because students don't have a fixed work area. They may work in the library, they may work in the classroom, they may work in the lab, they may work at home. Unlike you and me who have desks, chairs, cubicles, offices, etc. Also, in regards to the computer lab, how many computers do you have in the lab? If 30 students in the "Public Speaking" class need to use PowerPoint at the same time that 30 students in the Biology class need to do lab reports at the same time that 30 students in the History class need to do their term paper, do you need 90 desktops? How much space is that going to take up? Do we need to build a gymnasium-sized computer lab to hold all these desktop machines? What about the students who are working on a cooperative project and are talking versus those students who are working on solo projects and would prefer peace-and-quiet?
I mean, how can you be against portable computing? "By God, those kids should have to trek to the computer lab like we used to! Through 15 feet of snow! Uphill! Both ways!"
Now, that said, does this mean that the computers should be given to students as their own? Should they be checked out of the library like books and must be returned by the end of the day? Should they be assigned in class--like a textbook--and returned when the class or the assignment that requires it is completed?
I'm all for laptops versus desktops in schools. Now whether they should be given to every student or not--that is the question.
Since Apple brags about bundling their iLife suite, why isn't it bundled in OS X? Every mac gets one of each, so the only logical explanation is that they want to hit their customers for multiple upgrades. As a customer I don't like that.
Umm...do we have to explain the difference between an operating system and applications again?
I'll admit, it's a marketing thing. iLife is not part of the operating system. It is bundled on Macs in the same way that Quicken, Comic Life and Board Games are bundled on Macs. It's funny money, in that Apple pays itself for each copy of iLife which ships on a Mac, but that's how accounting works. Because you got Quicken 2006, should Apple upgrade your copy of Quicken when the next version comes out? And if they do this, will you then complain how Apple's Mac OS X updates costs $249 instead of $129?
Also, iLife tends to be updated every year. Mac OS X tends to be updated every 18 to 24 months.
Agreed. If you buy the $129 version, legally you get one. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from installing it on as many machines as you want other than a potential guilty conscience.
As an aside, that was one thing that struck me about the pricing. I buy the Family Pack because I know I will be installing it on multiple machines (desktop, laptop, maybe a work machine, etc.). It's an extra $70 for five licenses. According to Amazon, each extra license will be $89.95 for a whopping $459.75 to upgrade five machines to Home Basic.
Actually, from what I understand, the make-up guy screwed up. In the original series, you have dark and swarthy Klingons with beards and arched eyebrows and you have the more clean-cut Klingons.
I see. And, by extension, Spock is American--he was born in Boston, Massachusetts.
James Kirk is American. He was born in Riverside, Iowa. Religious preferences were never given. William Shatner--the actor who played James Kirk--is Canadian. He was born in Montreal, Quebec. And, yes, he is Jewish.
I'll grant you, it's a fun question. It depends on how well it's done, of course. From what I saw of Star Trek: Enterprise's "In the Mirror, Darkly", it can work on exterior scenes and it will be good. At the very least, it will get rid of the "Oh, it's the blue planet this week. Last week it was the green planet."
Other interesting places might be to liven up some of the space battles. "The Doomsday Machine" could be interesting, where we see the planet eater actually eat a planet. You could also see better/more consistent hand-phaser fire and transporter effects. You could actually see a shuttlecraft land on a planet. If they really want to improve the PCness of the old episodes, they could add women in the background not wearing the miniskirt (just to imply that not all women dressed that way).
Of course, they could also change some things around. For example, in "The Enterprise Incident", the Romulan's start using Klingon ship designs. As I understand it, this happened because someone broke the Romulan model ship. Wikipedia says that the model makers had just done new Klingon ships and wanted to show them off. In any event, they could put the Romulan ships back in and edit out the couple of lines that refer to this. Of course, this would screw up some continuity, as there are references in TNG to the Romulan/Klingon alliance that fell through--no doubt inspired by that phrase in "The Enterprise Incident."
And, as has been mentioned in other posts, they could add the DS9 crew into "The Trouble With Tribbles."
Oh Geez. Lighten up. From what I read, it's not like they showed them sodomizing each other or anything like that. They showed them holding competitors products.
I always get a chuckle out of things like this. Like the time the Internet Explorer guys left an Internet Explorer icon at the front door of Netscape. Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, it's nice to see that in a serious business there's room for a laugh.
Hell, I'm a Mac user. I chuckled over the "Switch" parodies and the few "I'm a Mac" parodies that I've seen.
This isn't quite so horrible, but back in Junior High School I developed a taste for mustard on french fries to defend against food theft.
Students would go to the cafeteria in groups, get their lunch, and return to the class area to eat. So as you were returning, another group would be coming in. And, of course, some kids coming in would grab french fries off kids going out. A sort of "Yoink!" snatch, grab, stuff in mouth kind of thing.
After about the third time this happened, I started adding mustard to my french fries. It was actually pretty tasty. Sure enough, a few days later, some kid reaches over and grabs my french fries as I'm leaving and he's entering the cafeteria. As the door closes behind me, I hear "Eww! Mustard!"
But then, there have been 8 ships in the USA Navy with the name Enterprise as well as 14 Enterprise ships for Britian's Royal Navy. Its certainly not exclusive to the Trek 'oh Stars
Actually, back when NASA showed Enterprise for the first time, they invited the cast of Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry and played the theme from the original series during the roll-out.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I sometimes think that would be the best way to show America the dangers.
Get a fairly large group together and hack the voting machines so that Lyndon LaRouche wins (or some other non-mainstream candidate). After the election, when everyone is scratching their heads, 'fess up and call it "Civil Disobedience."
Good luck to any of those neighbors trying to sell their house down the block from a sexual offender. You'll be real popular in the neighborhood.
I dunno. It seems like the vast majority of terrorist attacks I've read about have killed tens of individuals via bombs (either planted in cars or carried). There are a few big name ones that have managed to kill hundreds, when there've been hundreds of people packed together in an airplane. There was a big name one a few years back which killed thousands.
"Hundreds upon thousands?" If that's their plan, they're not very good at it. Maybe we really do have nothing to worry about.
(Yes, I'm being facetious)
Here's where I have the problem. The government needs to do this to catch the terrorists. Why? Were the older methods ineffective? Was the problem that the FBI didn't have the data? That's not what I understand from the 9/11 report.
Again, my biggest problem with things like this oversight. Where did these 1000 names come from? Why were they chosen? It's my data! Who's overseeing it to make sure it is not being given out to those who would take advantage of it?
Let's take a silly example: I'm a typical overworked underpaid FBI agent. I'm approached by somebody who says, "Hey, I'd really like the get a look at these 20 people's student loan information. I'll give you $10,000 for that information." All I need to do is create a request for, say, 1000 people (an appropriately large dataset) which contains those 20 people for "research." I now have that information, which I can sell back to the person.
What's going to stop that?
I'm not necessarily against this, but I worry about the lines being drawn. The so-called "slippery slope."
Okay, we can assume that terrorists are bad people who are out to kill. How about murderers in general? How about bank robbers? Fraudsters are bad people, too. Taking gramma for her hard-earned retirement. Perhaps this should be allowed, too. How about copyright infringers?
Where did this list of 1000 people come from? Who decided who was on the list? What was the criteria? Do we have 1000 suspected student terrorists in this country? Or are these students who happen to be, say, muslims. Is being a muslim putting you on the list?
See, this is where I have a problem with things like this. We have systems in place to protect citizens for a reason. Why should we have to get rid of them to catch terrorists?
I think market forces have accomplished this far more effectively than government regulation could.
Many of the things that the Shuttle is good at are no longer necessary.
For example, the Shuttle can host people in orbit for up to two weeks (actually, I understand it's now up to a month). The ISS can host people in orbit indefinitely. Unmanned rockets can deliver supplies to the ISS cheaper than the Shuttle. This capsule will be able to deliver crewpeople to the ISS cheaper than the Shuttle.
I'm not sure how they'll handle "service missions" with these things (launch a space telescope and hope the gyros don't fail?).
The Shuttle is an example of a spacecraft which is a jack-of-all-trades. I think some congressman referred to it as a "Space-SUV." Goes anywhere (well, anywhere in LEO), does anything, expensive to run. This capsule is both more and less ambitious--it can go anywhere (even outside LEO), but all it can do is carry people. Hopefully, it will be less expensive to run.
But, is your justification for not using laptops versus desktops merely price? "Why spend $700-900 on a laptop when a $300-500 desktop can do the same thing?" That's where I'm confused.
On the other hand, does the lab have to sit in one place? Some schools are using Mobile Labs to turn any classroom into a computer lab. Bring in a cart with 30 or so laptops connecting via Wifi. Try that with 30 or so desktop machines...
Do you figure that computers are a distraction in the classroom and should not be part of a class?
Well, I think the advantages of laptops for students is pretty easy to understand. Is your theory that spending an extra $400 or $500 per computer to make using computers with course assignments more convenient is a bad thing?
Heck, the students are using them as glorified typewriters! We could get them old Wang word-processors for $10 a pop probably. Why do they need a full-blown personal computer, anyway?
A teacher has to enjoy what they're teaching. A teacher has to be able to communicate not only the facts about what their teaching but their enjoyment of the subject matter. Whether they have a bachelors, masters, or PhD in the subject matter is inconsequential.
Do you need to know calculus to teach arithmetic, algebra, or geometry? Heck, if I had a bachelors degree in mathematics, I'd be bored stuff teaching kids algebra! I wouldn't be using my college education one damn bit!
My father was a high school math teacher for 21 years because he loved teaching math. He has a masters degree, which he got while teaching. He never used the math he learned getting his masters in the classroom. But most of his former students consider him to have been a good math teacher because he communicate his interest in math as well as the facts. He didn't suddenly become a better teacher because he had a masters degree.
You don't have to be a genius to be a high school teacher--it's high school! But you have to be able to interest others in what you're interested in. That's the hard part.
I know people who program computers for a living who saw their first computer when they hit college. I know people who program computers who have lived with them their whole life.
When you first saw or used a computer says absolutely nothing.
I come down on the pro-laptop side, personally. First, laptops are useful for students because students don't have a fixed work area. They may work in the library, they may work in the classroom, they may work in the lab, they may work at home. Unlike you and me who have desks, chairs, cubicles, offices, etc. Also, in regards to the computer lab, how many computers do you have in the lab? If 30 students in the "Public Speaking" class need to use PowerPoint at the same time that 30 students in the Biology class need to do lab reports at the same time that 30 students in the History class need to do their term paper, do you need 90 desktops? How much space is that going to take up? Do we need to build a gymnasium-sized computer lab to hold all these desktop machines? What about the students who are working on a cooperative project and are talking versus those students who are working on solo projects and would prefer peace-and-quiet?
I mean, how can you be against portable computing? "By God, those kids should have to trek to the computer lab like we used to! Through 15 feet of snow! Uphill! Both ways!"
Now, that said, does this mean that the computers should be given to students as their own? Should they be checked out of the library like books and must be returned by the end of the day? Should they be assigned in class--like a textbook--and returned when the class or the assignment that requires it is completed?
I'm all for laptops versus desktops in schools. Now whether they should be given to every student or not--that is the question.
Or just call it the Magic Fridge.
I'll admit, it's a marketing thing. iLife is not part of the operating system. It is bundled on Macs in the same way that Quicken, Comic Life and Board Games are bundled on Macs. It's funny money, in that Apple pays itself for each copy of iLife which ships on a Mac, but that's how accounting works. Because you got Quicken 2006, should Apple upgrade your copy of Quicken when the next version comes out? And if they do this, will you then complain how Apple's Mac OS X updates costs $249 instead of $129?
Also, iLife tends to be updated every year. Mac OS X tends to be updated every 18 to 24 months.
Agreed. If you buy the $129 version, legally you get one. Of course, there is nothing stopping you from installing it on as many machines as you want other than a potential guilty conscience.
As an aside, that was one thing that struck me about the pricing. I buy the Family Pack because I know I will be installing it on multiple machines (desktop, laptop, maybe a work machine, etc.). It's an extra $70 for five licenses. According to Amazon, each extra license will be $89.95 for a whopping $459.75 to upgrade five machines to Home Basic.
Actually, from what I understand, the make-up guy screwed up. In the original series, you have dark and swarthy Klingons with beards and arched eyebrows and you have the more clean-cut Klingons.
Actually, here's a pretty entertaining link.
I see. And, by extension, Spock is American--he was born in Boston, Massachusetts.
James Kirk is American. He was born in Riverside, Iowa. Religious preferences were never given. William Shatner--the actor who played James Kirk--is Canadian. He was born in Montreal, Quebec. And, yes, he is Jewish.
I'm not sure why that's sad...
Actually, what would be kind of funny is to go through the old episodes and change he color of the crewman who dies to get rid of this joke.
I know. Sacrilege!
I'll grant you, it's a fun question. It depends on how well it's done, of course. From what I saw of Star Trek: Enterprise's "In the Mirror, Darkly", it can work on exterior scenes and it will be good. At the very least, it will get rid of the "Oh, it's the blue planet this week. Last week it was the green planet."
Other interesting places might be to liven up some of the space battles. "The Doomsday Machine" could be interesting, where we see the planet eater actually eat a planet. You could also see better/more consistent hand-phaser fire and transporter effects. You could actually see a shuttlecraft land on a planet. If they really want to improve the PCness of the old episodes, they could add women in the background not wearing the miniskirt (just to imply that not all women dressed that way).
Of course, they could also change some things around. For example, in "The Enterprise Incident", the Romulan's start using Klingon ship designs. As I understand it, this happened because someone broke the Romulan model ship. Wikipedia says that the model makers had just done new Klingon ships and wanted to show them off. In any event, they could put the Romulan ships back in and edit out the couple of lines that refer to this. Of course, this would screw up some continuity, as there are references in TNG to the Romulan/Klingon alliance that fell through--no doubt inspired by that phrase in "The Enterprise Incident."
And, as has been mentioned in other posts, they could add the DS9 crew into "The Trouble With Tribbles."
Oh Geez. Lighten up. From what I read, it's not like they showed them sodomizing each other or anything like that. They showed them holding competitors products.
I always get a chuckle out of things like this. Like the time the Internet Explorer guys left an Internet Explorer icon at the front door of Netscape. Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, it's nice to see that in a serious business there's room for a laugh.
Hell, I'm a Mac user. I chuckled over the "Switch" parodies and the few "I'm a Mac" parodies that I've seen.
This isn't quite so horrible, but back in Junior High School I developed a taste for mustard on french fries to defend against food theft.
Students would go to the cafeteria in groups, get their lunch, and return to the class area to eat. So as you were returning, another group would be coming in. And, of course, some kids coming in would grab french fries off kids going out. A sort of "Yoink!" snatch, grab, stuff in mouth kind of thing.
After about the third time this happened, I started adding mustard to my french fries. It was actually pretty tasty. Sure enough, a few days later, some kid reaches over and grabs my french fries as I'm leaving and he's entering the cafeteria. As the door closes behind me, I hear "Eww! Mustard!"
After that, I never lost a french fry.
And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.
(There. That has hopefully put an end to this)
Well, one of them is that when Neal first sets foot on the moon, he says, "I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto."