They'll be fun little novel gadgets, but students need to do real work which includes writing, typing, and other things you cannot do with your fingers.
Uh...what do you type with? Or should I even ask?
(Yes, I know what you mean. I just couldn't resist...)
I used a tablet PC throughout college, and it was the best technology investment I made. It was one of those convertible tablets that switched from keyboard mode to laptop mode, and a had a stylus for writing notes.
I gotta admit, this is one of those things that made me chuckle...
I had a former boss who moved to different division of the company and he had to get all new hardware. He got a tablet PC and became quite the evangelist. He absolutely adored it. I've heard plenty of other people who love their Tablet PCs.
From what I saw, though, the "tablet" part of the Tablet PC was the hard sell. "Why should I pay an extra $600 for a tablet PC when I can use a laptop just as easily?"
Way back when in my younger days at a college with mainframes, I remember there were various chat-room programs. People actually got a kick out of using these chat-room programs and would hang out there and waste time. But it also made them realize that they could actually use this computer for other things--like term papers and the like!
So, yeah, the kids may play games, check Facebook, send messages to classmates, watch YouTube, and work on their term papers.
Debt of Honor has the actual attack, but it's really only in the last several pages of the book. Executive Orders was the book that dealt with the aftermath.
My favorite line from the book is that Jack Ryan is registered as an Independent--not Republican or Democrat. "That's like asking what 2+2 is and finding out the answer is 'chartreuse.'"
I'm pretty sure that's also where the line, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" came from.
I gotta admit, that's the first thing that crossed my mind. Not so much the "They'll turn into rapists!" as the automatic, "Oh, there's no way I can let my kids have access to the Internet without filtering software because they'll see goatse.cx or tubgirl and be permanently scarred for life."
You might want to consider just giving them access to the Internet and see if it becomes a problem. I mean, they're 7 and 8 year-olds. What will be their reaction if, while looking for Minecraft cheats or something, they run across a porn site? I'm guessing that they might go "Gross!" and go back to looking for Minecraft cheats. They might go "Gross!" and look at more--because there's nothing 7 or 8 year-olds like more than gross stuff. But they'll eventually get bored with it and go back to looking for whatever they were looking for. And they'll probably learn that there are some sites they don't want to visit because there's gross stuff on it.
If it becomes a problem, sit down and have a talk with your kids about why this is a problem. If they still can't get it through their tiny little minds, then consider the filtering software.
'remove legislation which serves only to provide an advantage to 'large corporations' and 'rich people,''
Are you kidding?! Those large corporations and rich people are job creators--they're what allow the other 99% to be able to eat and have a place to sleep! We have to protect them because, if we don't, we'll have widespread unemployment! If you don't support these people, you'll be out on the street living in a cardboard box!
Look at China! They don't have these pesky environmental regulations and everybody's doing great over there! If we're going to compete with them, we need to get rid of these namby-pamby-NIMBY environmental regulations protecting the spotted owl and the sea slug!
Fair enough. Surface is a laptop......that is thinner and lighter than a MacBook Air. And if it has a iPad price point and not a MacBook Air price-point...
When I was a child, my mother said to me, "Clean the plate, because children are starving in China." So I would clean the plate, four, five, six times a day. Because somehow I felt that that would keep the children from starving in China.
But I was wrong. They kept starving. And I got fat.
So I would like to say to every one of you who is either skinny--or in some other way normal--When you walk out on the street, and you see a fat person, Do not scoff at that fat person. Oh no!
Take off your hat. Hold it over your heart. Lift your chin up high. And in a proud, happy voice say to him, "Hail to thee, fat person! You kept us out of war!"
The US regularly had/has females their crew, and the gender of an astronaut is pretty much a non-issue.
Well, at least starting 1983 they did. Of course, there's those pesky 22 years where there were no women, but that's another story...
According to legend, the issue was that all of engineers were male and none of them really knew how to create a system for handling women peeing. The more likely reason was that most astronauts were combat pilots and, at the time, women weren't allowed. Sally Ride was never in the military.
Your gun is stolen and used in a crime. The cops come looking for you.
Let's say they recover the gun and figure out it's yours--serial numbers and such. The cops come looking for you.
Personally, with all the scenarios you've noted, I'd say that if all the police have is that the bullets are stamped with your guns serial number, there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
While I agree, we have to remember that criminals are not necessarily the smartest people. The know the dangerous end of a gun and that's it. While they might be smart enough to ask whether or not firing pin had been filed, it's not like they have the knowledge or equipment to actually verify it when purchasing it.
It's easy to get around and is certainly not a panacea. But it would probably help solve some crimes.
Not sure that I agree. That said, part of the rationale behind this is to be able to trace the bullet to the gun via sales information without having to actually have the gun. So if the guy my wife was cheating with is found dead and the bullets at the scene are stamped with the serial number of a gun that I purchased shortly after finding out my wife was cheating on me, that might inspire some more investigation as to where I was the night of the murder.
Problem is, if Apple did not block it they might be held legally liable for continued distribution and at least contributing to willful infringement of the patent.
Doubt it. About the worst that would happen is that Apple would have to pay the 30% that they made off of sales of the app. Apple wouldn't be liable for anything else.
Perhaps a little too safe, but as Apple has zero stake in the app it really makes no sense not to be as safe as possible.
See, this bothers me.
So an Apple developer makes a name for themselves with their iPhone app and ports it to Android. Traitors! After all that Apple did for these developers, they turn around and stab Apple in the back! Bastards! And yet, Apple, Inc.--with billions of dollars in the bank--is afraid they might lose 30% of their take in one app (which they'd by liable for anyway) and figures they'll play it "safe" and cut off the developers' cash flow and it's perfectly understandable.
So if Apple will put me in a stranglehold like that, why should I develop exclusively for iOS again?
Here's an app that's made a name for itself--and Apple--among a group of people. They're exclusively Apple developers--there's no Android version. And now Apple has cut off their air supply--if they can't sell their app, how are they supposed to make money to fight this? At least if I had an Android version, I might have some money coming in to help me fight this.
If you want the appearance of "safe" applications the only way to go is the App Store model as all other Internet distribution models have failed to keep the customer "safe".
New iOS versions don't typically make existing software stop working.
Same with Android. But some will exacerbate bugs in the original software (eg, that infrequent crash suddenly becomes more frequent, etc). This is true for iOS and Android.
You're right that the solution is to "freeze" the iPad on whatever version it is running now--it ain't broke, so don't fix it. However, she may have a problem if the hardware breaks. If she's using an iPad 1, for example, she can't buy a new one of those. And the new machine she buys might have a different version of the OS than the one she left on her iPad 1 which might cause problems.
Really, we're supposed to be pandering to emotional fears of what may happen in the future? To make an exception to the law on the basis of it?
It's an interesting point which I somewhat agree with. Under the eyes of the law, the "counterfeit Angry Birds" and this software are one and the same, no matter how much her daughter needs this software. And this is how it should be.
The question is, does Apple have a legal obligation to remove the software from the store. Keep in mind that, in iOS, the only way to distribute your software and, hence, make money is via Apple's App Store. If Apple does not carry the software, there will be no money coming in and they're out of business. Normally, if I want to prevent you from selling your infringing product here in the US, I have to go to a court and have a judge rule on this--somewhat like what Apple and Samsung are doing to each other. In this case, the patent holder just has to make threatening noises in Apple's direction and the product is gone along with the company.
Remember that nothing has been decided in this case. It is still a case of "He said, she said." The courts have yet to make a ruling. Meanwhile, we have the very real case of someone who depends on this software essentially being told that they're living on borrowed time. Not a good situation.
Assuming that Apple did not receive a legal document requiring them to remove this application, I think Apple is out-of-line on this one and, yes, it is a different case than a counterfeit Angry Birds because of what the application does.
Acura and Lexus drivers are just posers that cant afford Caddilac, Mercedes, or BMW.
The quote I always remember--I think it was from Guy Kawasaki--is that driving a Mercedes shows how much you make, driving an Acura shows how much you know. And driving a Porsche shows how well you can lie on a car loan application.
Because the species are INVASIVE! We're being invaded by these Japanese species which will kill all of our native species or, worse yet, mate with them and create some hybrid borg-like plant and we'll all die!
Right, just when you are drowning in debt it's time to spend billions on a massive program to do something with no commercial value whatsoever.
I'm a bit confused. So everything that a government does should have a "commercial value"? If it has "commercial value," why should governments even be involved? Shouldn't private industry be able to do it?
So are you saying that it's okay for the government to have projects like the Space Shuttle, which was going to have it's launches subsidized by carrying private satellites into orbit? After all, putting satellites into orbit has "commercial value." So the government should lock out private enterprise--can't have that annoying competition after all--and do these things themselves so that they can make money?
You're not going to be successful if you're doing it in front of a mirror. What you really need is to buy my video on how to look smart. It's only $49.95. Call now--operators are standing by!
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want to students to create content or consume content?
Both, actually.
Lots of my time, way back when, was spent consuming books on subjects that I was going to then have to create a paper about.
They'll be fun little novel gadgets, but students need to do real work which includes writing, typing, and other things you cannot do with your fingers.
Uh...what do you type with? Or should I even ask?
(Yes, I know what you mean. I just couldn't resist...)
I used a tablet PC throughout college, and it was the best technology investment I made. It was one of those convertible tablets that switched from keyboard mode to laptop mode, and a had a stylus for writing notes.
I gotta admit, this is one of those things that made me chuckle...
I had a former boss who moved to different division of the company and he had to get all new hardware. He got a tablet PC and became quite the evangelist. He absolutely adored it. I've heard plenty of other people who love their Tablet PCs.
From what I saw, though, the "tablet" part of the Tablet PC was the hard sell. "Why should I pay an extra $600 for a tablet PC when I can use a laptop just as easily?"
Agreed. That said...
Way back when in my younger days at a college with mainframes, I remember there were various chat-room programs. People actually got a kick out of using these chat-room programs and would hang out there and waste time. But it also made them realize that they could actually use this computer for other things--like term papers and the like!
So, yeah, the kids may play games, check Facebook, send messages to classmates, watch YouTube, and work on their term papers.
How about if rather than using a generic keyboard, you used a keyboard optimized for entering engineering equations? Might this be a software issue?
I think my cell phone needs a list more like this one..
Debt of Honor has the actual attack, but it's really only in the last several pages of the book. Executive Orders was the book that dealt with the aftermath.
My favorite line from the book is that Jack Ryan is registered as an Independent--not Republican or Democrat. "That's like asking what 2+2 is and finding out the answer is 'chartreuse.'"
I'm pretty sure that's also where the line, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" came from.
I gotta admit, that's the first thing that crossed my mind. Not so much the "They'll turn into rapists!" as the automatic, "Oh, there's no way I can let my kids have access to the Internet without filtering software because they'll see goatse.cx or tubgirl and be permanently scarred for life."
You might want to consider just giving them access to the Internet and see if it becomes a problem. I mean, they're 7 and 8 year-olds. What will be their reaction if, while looking for Minecraft cheats or something, they run across a porn site? I'm guessing that they might go "Gross!" and go back to looking for Minecraft cheats. They might go "Gross!" and look at more--because there's nothing 7 or 8 year-olds like more than gross stuff. But they'll eventually get bored with it and go back to looking for whatever they were looking for. And they'll probably learn that there are some sites they don't want to visit because there's gross stuff on it.
If it becomes a problem, sit down and have a talk with your kids about why this is a problem. If they still can't get it through their tiny little minds, then consider the filtering software.
'remove legislation which serves only to provide an advantage to 'large corporations' and 'rich people,''
Are you kidding?! Those large corporations and rich people are job creators--they're what allow the other 99% to be able to eat and have a place to sleep! We have to protect them because, if we don't, we'll have widespread unemployment! If you don't support these people, you'll be out on the street living in a cardboard box!
Look at China! They don't have these pesky environmental regulations and everybody's doing great over there! If we're going to compete with them, we need to get rid of these namby-pamby-NIMBY environmental regulations protecting the spotted owl and the sea slug!
(In case you're missing it, I'm being facetious)
Fair enough. Surface is a laptop... ...that is thinner and lighter than a MacBook Air. And if it has a iPad price point and not a MacBook Air price-point...
Googarolla.
When I was a child, my mother said to me, "Clean the plate, because children are starving in China." So I would clean the plate, four, five, six times a day. Because somehow I felt that that would keep the children from starving in China.
But I was wrong. They kept starving. And I got fat.
So I would like to say to every one of you who is either skinny--or in some other way normal--When you walk out on the street, and you see a fat person, Do not scoff at that fat person. Oh no!
Take off your hat. Hold it over your heart.
Lift your chin up high. And in a proud, happy voice say to him,
"Hail to thee, fat person!
You kept us out of war!"
(With Apologies to Alan Sherman...)
The US regularly had/has females their crew, and the gender of an astronaut is pretty much a non-issue.
Well, at least starting 1983 they did. Of course, there's those pesky 22 years where there were no women, but that's another story...
According to legend, the issue was that all of engineers were male and none of them really knew how to create a system for handling women peeing. The more likely reason was that most astronauts were combat pilots and, at the time, women weren't allowed. Sally Ride was never in the military.
[...] these cops know their "clientele" pretty well from past repeat offenses.
Ah yes. Round up the usual suspects...
Your gun is stolen and used in a crime. The cops come looking for you.
Let's say they recover the gun and figure out it's yours--serial numbers and such. The cops come looking for you.
Personally, with all the scenarios you've noted, I'd say that if all the police have is that the bullets are stamped with your guns serial number, there's plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
While I agree, we have to remember that criminals are not necessarily the smartest people. The know the dangerous end of a gun and that's it. While they might be smart enough to ask whether or not firing pin had been filed, it's not like they have the knowledge or equipment to actually verify it when purchasing it.
It's easy to get around and is certainly not a panacea. But it would probably help solve some crimes.
Not sure that I agree. That said, part of the rationale behind this is to be able to trace the bullet to the gun via sales information without having to actually have the gun. So if the guy my wife was cheating with is found dead and the bullets at the scene are stamped with the serial number of a gun that I purchased shortly after finding out my wife was cheating on me, that might inspire some more investigation as to where I was the night of the murder.
Problem is, if Apple did not block it they might be held legally liable for continued distribution and at least contributing to willful infringement of the patent.
Doubt it. About the worst that would happen is that Apple would have to pay the 30% that they made off of sales of the app. Apple wouldn't be liable for anything else.
Perhaps a little too safe, but as Apple has zero stake in the app it really makes no sense not to be as safe as possible.
See, this bothers me.
So an Apple developer makes a name for themselves with their iPhone app and ports it to Android. Traitors! After all that Apple did for these developers, they turn around and stab Apple in the back! Bastards! And yet, Apple, Inc.--with billions of dollars in the bank--is afraid they might lose 30% of their take in one app (which they'd by liable for anyway) and figures they'll play it "safe" and cut off the developers' cash flow and it's perfectly understandable.
So if Apple will put me in a stranglehold like that, why should I develop exclusively for iOS again?
Here's an app that's made a name for itself--and Apple--among a group of people. They're exclusively Apple developers--there's no Android version. And now Apple has cut off their air supply--if they can't sell their app, how are they supposed to make money to fight this? At least if I had an Android version, I might have some money coming in to help me fight this.
If you want the appearance of "safe" applications the only way to go is the App Store model as all other Internet distribution models have failed to keep the customer "safe".
FTFY.
After all, there've never been any privacy breaches on iOS, right?
New iOS versions don't typically make existing software stop working.
Same with Android. But some will exacerbate bugs in the original software (eg, that infrequent crash suddenly becomes more frequent, etc). This is true for iOS and Android.
You're right that the solution is to "freeze" the iPad on whatever version it is running now--it ain't broke, so don't fix it. However, she may have a problem if the hardware breaks. If she's using an iPad 1, for example, she can't buy a new one of those. And the new machine she buys might have a different version of the OS than the one she left on her iPad 1 which might cause problems.
Really, we're supposed to be pandering to emotional fears of what may happen in the future? To make an exception to the law on the basis of it?
It's an interesting point which I somewhat agree with. Under the eyes of the law, the "counterfeit Angry Birds" and this software are one and the same, no matter how much her daughter needs this software. And this is how it should be.
The question is, does Apple have a legal obligation to remove the software from the store. Keep in mind that, in iOS, the only way to distribute your software and, hence, make money is via Apple's App Store. If Apple does not carry the software, there will be no money coming in and they're out of business. Normally, if I want to prevent you from selling your infringing product here in the US, I have to go to a court and have a judge rule on this--somewhat like what Apple and Samsung are doing to each other. In this case, the patent holder just has to make threatening noises in Apple's direction and the product is gone along with the company.
Remember that nothing has been decided in this case. It is still a case of "He said, she said." The courts have yet to make a ruling. Meanwhile, we have the very real case of someone who depends on this software essentially being told that they're living on borrowed time. Not a good situation.
Assuming that Apple did not receive a legal document requiring them to remove this application, I think Apple is out-of-line on this one and, yes, it is a different case than a counterfeit Angry Birds because of what the application does.
Acura and Lexus drivers are just posers that cant afford Caddilac, Mercedes, or BMW.
The quote I always remember--I think it was from Guy Kawasaki--is that driving a Mercedes shows how much you make, driving an Acura shows how much you know. And driving a Porsche shows how well you can lie on a car loan application.
Better yet, how about we send a manned mission to fix the problem? Hey, it worked with Hubble...
They will probably appear to be more blurry, as they will most likely need to be scaled.
Because the species are INVASIVE! We're being invaded by these Japanese species which will kill all of our native species or, worse yet, mate with them and create some hybrid borg-like plant and we'll all die!
Film at 11.
Right, just when you are drowning in debt it's time to spend billions on a massive program to do something with no commercial value whatsoever.
I'm a bit confused. So everything that a government does should have a "commercial value"? If it has "commercial value," why should governments even be involved? Shouldn't private industry be able to do it?
So are you saying that it's okay for the government to have projects like the Space Shuttle, which was going to have it's launches subsidized by carrying private satellites into orbit? After all, putting satellites into orbit has "commercial value." So the government should lock out private enterprise--can't have that annoying competition after all--and do these things themselves so that they can make money?
You're not going to be successful if you're doing it in front of a mirror. What you really need is to buy my video on how to look smart. It's only $49.95. Call now--operators are standing by!
What if you pointed the Kinect's camera at another Kinect's camera...?