Wow. I can't believe anyone would cast such a broad net with such a derogatory and inaccurate stereotype.
I'm one of those who has parked at coffee shops for hours. Sometimes it was as a student in an adult degree completion program. The coffee shop was much more condusive to my studies than home, where toddlers and pre-teens raised a continual ruckus. Unlike the "social misfits" of your stereotype, I likely came across as a typical middle-class working stiff who happened to be carrying a bag full of books and a laptop. I made sure to make at least one purchase per hour while there, and definately not something in the bottom pricing tier. I knew I was paying for my time, even though no time limits were posted (or enforced). It's like when I was back in high school and a group of friends and I used to hang out at Denny's late on Friday nights. We'd occupy one of their largest booths for an hour or two, but we made sure we not only ordered something substantive, but we also tipped heavily (each of us chipping in a couple of bucks so that the gal would end up with a $10-$20 tip each time we were there, and that was in the '80s). [That also had the unexpected benefit of getting us seated quickly on even the most crowded nights.] Anyway, back to dissecting your stereotype, and your solution...
So, you know how busy someone is by how they look, huh? What a gift! Had it not occurred to you that those you see as 'loitering' or 'Wi-Fi-squatting' (or whatever your preferred term may be) could actually be there doing something other than just mindless surfing? In my former position, I was on an on-call rotation. Whenever I was on-call and knew I needed to be online beceause there was testing going on, or because a major project was in process, I usually parked at a location with free Wi-Fi access, so I could monitor the situation and provide support as needed. Coffee shops were also another place where I enjoy grading student work (from my part-time teaching gig).
Sure, suggest that they segregate the building by Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi zones. That'll work about as well as smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. You won't be able to stop the signal bleed unless you want to pour major dollars into limiting technologies. McDonalds made this bed, and now they need to sleep in it.
If they want to reduce the time people sit in their booths and at their tables, they need to consider two things. First, they could key Wi-Fi access to a code on the receipt, with each receipts providing x minutes of access. It's not likely to be well-received, but they could do it. During the busiest times of the day, not many people will want to go through the line a second time to get another receipt. Second, and perhaps more importantly, McDonalds should stop trying to give the impression that it wants the "coffee shop consumer" in its restaurants. If their primary focus is on table turnover and sales, they should not be marketing products and inducements that encourage people to stay a while. Sure, it sounded great to offer free Wi-Fi to get all of those business people who may want to check email over lunch, but they didn't do their homework to understand how a road warrior will use Internet access. Sure, they wanted to move to upscale coffee drinks to convince some parents (mostly moms) that they could hang out there and zone a bit while their kids are in the Play Place. Heck, the Play Place itself is no good for turnover. Even with posted time limits, most users of the play place are occupying tables far longer than 10 minutes.
So, I'm sorry some grungy Mac-geek student sprawled over your favorite seating area at some coffee shop on numerous occasions, but lay off the attacks on the rest of us. You're already probably working for one of us.
If the NY case is any indication, I guess my other idea is shot. I've recommended mounting paint guns onto squad cars as a means of reducing the number of high-speed chases.
Squad pulls up behind car.
Officers run plates.
Officers turn on lights.
Suspect vehicle starts to pull away.
Officers fire paint pellets at vehicle.
Other officers and/or aerial units are alerted to watch for 'tagged' vehicle.
If officers cannot find vehicle, body shops and other auto retailers are alerted to watch for customers with 'tagged' vehicles.
Citizens are happy because of fewer chases and their costs (property damage, vehicle repairs, injury, death).
Citizens learn there's more to watch on TV than just car chases.
Hollywood producers learn new plot devices to replace 'the car chase'.
I die broke because no one remembers that it was my idea.
I'm not sure this would necessarily qualify as "unreasonable search and seizure". That was a protection designed to keep officials from searching your person (or your property) and pocketing your property without just cause. Would the court have ruled differently if the car were monitored by a series of surveillance cameras (assuming enough were in place to track the movements)?
I'm guessing that the judges involved thought about the places they go, and decided that they wouldn't want anyone knowing where they stopped.
I just don't know. It does not sound unreasonable, however, it could be reasonable to expect them to go through some approval process (akin to obtaining a warrant). The technology hold much potential to aid law enforcement, but, like any other technology, it could lend itself to abuses. I guess I was reared to believe if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to fear someone knowing where you are. It may be a simplistic view, but it is one that accompanies an implicit trust of government as an agent of and for the protection of the people. If you do not trust the government, then such an action would, logically, be deemed suspect.
Although I was reared to trust the government, my life experiences have pushed me more and more toward a distrust of any government.
When CDs first came out, I remember press citing that they were more expensive than tapes only because economies of scale and scope were not in place. In time, prices were supposed to come down. They did not. Instead, as more and more people stopped buying their (imo) overpriced tripe, they started charging more. The only new CDs I've bought in the past 13 years have been from bargain bins. I've purchased everything else from used book stores (hurray! Half Price Books), rummage sales, and online. Recently, I've been picking up some albums via Amazon MP3 for under $5. I think you're right. If they were to price new albums at the $5 mark, they would sell boatloads more than they do today.
In some ways, it's like repackaging all of those unwanted mail solicitations, stuffing them back into the postage-paid return envelope (the one intended for your subscription slip, check, or other payment), and dropping it into the mail. The company that sent the junk not only has to pay for the postage (more than the amount normally incurred for a one-sheet reply slip), but also to discard the additional junk mail in the envelope.
Definately not nice, but seemingly poetic justice.
Why not pursue a M.A. in another field (e.g., business, psychology)? It will broaden your exposure and your experience, potentially making you a more attractive candidate during your job search, and potentially giving you some fall-back career options should you ever find yourself downsized or outsourced.
Beyond that, get your experience. If it's easier to get your graduate degree now, then that's great for you. If not, consider landing that job now (if you can find one) so you can start gathering some real-world experience, and go back for your graduate degree later on (while you are still working). The latter option can be especially attractive if your future employer has a tuition-reimbursement benefit.
I don't think they're trying to be jerks. I think they wanted Sun's business. Period. They first hoped to gain it through and acquisition. That failed, so now they are resorting to an older tactic: offering incentives to lure customers away from the competition.
The reason I believe many people don't like the sound of this deal is due to the relatively high value of the incentives. If you consider what these companies pay for IBM and/or Sun gear, however, those incentives are a drop in the bucket. It's not an inconsequential amount by any means, but it's not a retirement account in the Bahamas either.
On the surface, saying "Who cares! They're only hurting themselves," sounds wonderful, but reality is not in synch with that simplistic view. Colleges thrive on reputation. Would anyone hire anyone from Stanford if they knew the school regularly churned out chumps who couldn't read a financial statement or couldn't string words together in a cohesive and coherent sentence?
When students earn a degree and place it on their walls and resumes, they become standard bearers for the college. Once upon a time, I was a music major at a small school in the University of Wisconsin system. At any one time, there were probably only three or four music majors at the school. It was a two-year school, granting AA&S degrees, and most students transferred to a four-year school to pursue a baccalaureate degree. The music prof was great, but he was also the toughest and most demanding prof I ever had--even when compared to some real sticklers in the physical sciences. One of the other guys in the program, a few years younger than me (I was a non-traditional student), did not seem to be taking his studies seriously and criticized the prof for being a hard case. This launched the prof into a bit of a tirade, but I'll never forget what he said. He knew that graduates under his tutelage would be going on to study at many different schools. If, when getting into their advanced theory and music history classes, they did not know the basics--and even more--then it would mark the end of days for the music program at that little U of W system school. He was a hard case to ensure he produced only the best, so that the program would be preserved for those yet coming down the path.
I took it to heart. When I started teaching network administration at a college near my home, at a school that had no real IT program, I made sure I gave 1000% and I expected as much from my students. When I took over, less than 15% of the students who completed the program reported working in IT. It was only slightly better after my first year, but four years later more than 80% of our graduates were working in IT. My hat goes off to my hard case music prof.
If I didn't care whether or not my students knew their stuff, then the college's reputation would suffer for it and the program would be left to die.
My problem with automatic checks is that there is always a chance that someone's seemingly original thought may actually reflect thoughts someone else already may have put down on paper. I remember being accused of copying someone else's work once. It was in the early '80s when the Internet as we know it was not part of general public awareness. When the instructor interrogated me on the sentence (one sentence in a paper at least five pages long), he insisted I copied it from some specific book or article. I had absolutely no clue what the guy was talking about. At the time, all I ever read was Fred Saberhagen, Tolkein, Piers Anthony, and Terry Brooks. After what seemed like forever (it was probably no more than ten minutes), he finally realized that I had no clue about his source, and I'm guessing he realized that whatever I wrote matched the way I wrote the rest of the paper and the way I used the spoken word. Yech! I haven't thought about that situation in a long time. I must be getting old.
You nailed it. The book was purchased. After that, its private commerce. In the US, that's the first sale doctrine. Authors and publishers get their cut on the first sale. After that (e.g. garage sales, used book stores), nothing goes back up the tree to the content producers.
As an adult student in a graduate program who has taken traditional on-campus courses, online-only courses, and hybrid courses that combine both worlds (on-campus and online), I can say that I really hope they are wrong about this one. You see, college administrators, in their constant desire to deliver education products (i.e., courses) at lower cost, believe that online education is the inevitable and long-foretold method of delivery that will save their colleges and universities from their online woes. They are either deluded, or simply wrong.
There are positive aspects to online learning environments--the anywhere-anytime factor, the erasure of geographic boundaries--but administrators fail to understand that the online learning environment is not for everyone. Anyone who has taken a course on communications knows that non-verbal communications (e.g., body posture, facial expression) is a significant part of successful communications. Without virtual telepresence technologies, it is nearly impossible to convey those nonverbal cues (emoticons aside;P). In addition, some persons are auditory learners, whose primary learning style is through listening, and often through asking questions verbally. It's not that they can't post questions online, but that they do not learn as well in that environment.
On a more personal note, although the online courses of which I've been a part have been touted as "anywhere-anytime" offerings, there were still specific deadlines, tied to specific time zones. The online courses often had numerous deadlines during the week for different assignments, including quotas for participation in online threaded discussions. If you were one who tends to get things in just under the wire, posting your online comments during the final evening before a due date for example, you might not receive any replies to your comments. The goal of a threaded discussion is to emulate the type of exchanges that occur in a classroom, but I have yet to see any instance where they come close. When in a classroom, I tend to scan the room to get a feel for how the other students are responding to the information. If I notice confused looks (and the instructor doesn't pick up on the cue), I will often stop and ask clarifying questions even if I am comfortable with the material. My peers have thanked me often for my willingness to do so. Unfortunately, in an online learning environment, those opportunities just aren't there.
I'm going to get off my soap box now before I ramble on all day long...
Maybe Kyocera realizes that it sells crap phones, and it is trying a new business model--selling phone concepts. All they need to do is sell this design concept to some other big player and their shareholders will see nice cash flows year to year.
I don't know if it will be technically as difficult as you suggest, but it can be a problem if they don't fully geocode addresses. The zip code where I live actually covers parts of three counties. Yes, good luck to them sorting all of that out.
This report is just an example of Social Science research gone bad. Someone picked up on the fact that some individuals use "Anonymous" logons for ill, and they made a generalization that this must apply to all persons who use "Anonymous" logons. That's a cardinal sin in social science research. While a goal of such research is to make generalizations about a group, such theories must be tested before they can be asserted as even mildly authoritative. Had they simply done a little more research (or hired an outside researcher who wasn't already looking for "the devil"), they also might have learned that ordinary people will often use anonymous logons for other reasons:
They don't want to hassle with registering on yet another site.
They are using a public computer and don't want to enter their account information there.
They are replying to another post on a highly sensitive topic, want to speak frankly, but don't want that thread tied to their primary user identity.
They fat-fingered their password too many times and just don't want to bother with the reset at the time.
They know that others in the physical world have learned their moniker and visit the same sites, and they want to make comments that might not be well-received by their real-world counterparts.
They could be making political commentary and want to protect themselves from government sanction. Hey, the founding fathers did it, and it seems that we (in the United States) may have more and more reason to do that as time progresses since our government is taking on more characteristics of Big Brother lately.
There might be dozens of other reasons why people would legitimately want to stay anonymous.
Oh, yes, I realize I posted this one while logged in. Let them mark me an enemy of the state if they so desire.
[I hereby raspberry those segments of United States government, or any other agencies for that matter, that conduct such shoddy research and make generalizations based on fear and incomplete information.]
The number of installed users != the number of sales.
Vista sales, per Microsfot's counts, have been pretty high. Those numbers don't include, however, the business customers who opted to exercise their downgrade rights and run XP. The stats presented here appear to reflect what people are running moreso than that which was purchased.
What if Shell had a breakthrough tomorrow that allowed them to create only new green energy production facilities? Sure, they'd hire thousands of new employees for their new green growth areas, but would people still applaud them when they lay off all of their oil production, refinery, and distribution employees that are no longer needed? They might offer to retrain some, but job cuts would be unavoidable.
Corporations exist to conduct business for the benefit of the shareholders. Therefore, Shell makes business decisions based on what they believe should be best for the company's health and the shareholder profits. If you want Shell to change, your best bet would be to get together with your friends and start buying Shell stock. Until you have a major block of shareholders who share your vision for a greener Shell, don't expect the giant to change course.
If you think about birthdays among people, they don't simply grow on the date of their birth. They are constantly growing and learning and developing. Birthdays are commemmorative events that celebrate when someone joined a specific family (or the human family in general). That's really not that different than what you described regarding open sources software.
Perhaps "anniversary" would be a better term. A marriage rarely has its beginnings at the altar or in front of the justice of the peace. The persons involved typically began interacting with each other, learning, and growing together before the date of the actual ceremony, yet we celebrate their anniversary on the date they made their public vows in front of witnesses. I can see a parallel between pre-release and beta editions culminating with a public 1.0 release (or whatever the given name or number of a product may be). I don't see it as a disservice to the open source community to mark such milestones. In fact, if they were to describe the development process similarly to how I described it here--as an ongoing, growing, developing thing--it might actually mean more to some people.
In any case, observing a birthday or anniversary holds powerful meaning regardless of the context (human or inanimate): it means the person or the thing survived the test of time. That's why so many businesses are quick to proclaim "...since 1933", "...established 2006", or similar sentiments that convey age. They understand that people tend to trust established brands, thinking (consciously or subconsciously), "if they've been around that long, they can't be too bad," or, "if they've been around that long, there's a good chance they'll still be around in a few years if I need to exercise my warranty rights."
So, for me, I'll say happy anniversary Linux. You've had a good start. I'm looking forward to what the next 50 years will bring.
I've found that, in some cases, designing roads to slow people down actually makes them more appealing for people who want to push the limits. I had a friend who used this rule of thumb for corners: twice the posted speed minus ten. Making challenges on the roadways will just make some people view driving more like a game than just being a way to get from point A to point B.
The origin of "atheist" is "a theos", "without god", whereas the formation of "agnostic" is from "a gnosis", "without knowledge".
Like many words, there are often cultural assumptions and definitions. I saw an earlier post making that point regarding whether atheists "don't believe in god" or whether they "believe there is no such thing as god". It is a subtle shift in meaning, but a significant one.
Most professed agnostics I know would fit the definition I know: they acknowledge that there must be someone or something out there, but they don't have a name they can attach to that "god".
I've seen so many of the posts on the "Symantec sucks" theme. Okay, if it does, then what tools do you recommend in an established Windows shop where moving to open source is not currently an option (a manufacturing shop where the production machines were coded by their manufacturers to run only on Windows)?
If there "may or may not be", doesn't that actually mean that you are agnostic (that you do not know) rather than being atheist (not believing that there is a god)?
You must remember that Visa and Mastercard understand and accept (as a cost of doing business) that there will be a certain percentage of fraud in any batch of transactions. To them, they feel that the cost of making the credit card system more secure (i.e., adding more security features) outweighs the desire to make it easy to use (e.g., upping the dollar amount under which you can make a credit card purchase without a signature).
I, too, live in a state where voter authentication is based on the list of registered voters and a signature. The check on blatant fraud is supposed to be the set of election judges who are present. The idea is that they will know if you really are the "John Doe" who lives at a specific address. Once one considers the origin of this system, it is easy to understand why it was developed that way. Once upon a time, when a majority of the population lived in smaller towns and communities, it was a reasonable assumption that key community leaders--those most likely to be election judges--would collectively be able to identify and contest any attempts at fraud. That system, however, is not scalable once a community grows beyond a few hundreds to a thousands and more.
That is where such antiquated voter authentication processes fail. Yes, your assessment is correct. In some jurisdictions where no identification is required at the polling place, it would be possible for someone to fraudulently vote in another's place. The only way this would be discovered (beyond the method already assumed in that system: an election judge knowing the party on whose line the fraudster is prepared to sign) is if the legitimate registered voter came in and found his or her line already signed, indicating that s/he had already voted. What happens next would depend on your jurisdiction. In any case, however, it would be a mess and would (further) undermine confidence in our electoral system.
As far as a receipt is concerned, I think the best method for that would be to (combined with a strong authentication method) provide each ballot a unique identifier and a timestamp; the voting location would also have a unique identifier. Using the ballot number, timestamp, and any other unique identifiers (plus I'm assuming there would be need to have a PIN or passcode, so no one else could pick up a receipt and view the ballot), the voter would go online and verify all selections. If any do not match the voter's intent, that voter would be issued a certificate/code for a new ballot. This would require that voting machines would be availbe for a period of time after the election (perhaps up to 14 days), but it would allow voters to review their ballot without immediately tying the ballot to their identity.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I can't believe anyone would cast such a broad net with such a derogatory and inaccurate stereotype.
I'm one of those who has parked at coffee shops for hours. Sometimes it was as a student in an adult degree completion program. The coffee shop was much more condusive to my studies than home, where toddlers and pre-teens raised a continual ruckus. Unlike the "social misfits" of your stereotype, I likely came across as a typical middle-class working stiff who happened to be carrying a bag full of books and a laptop. I made sure to make at least one purchase per hour while there, and definately not something in the bottom pricing tier. I knew I was paying for my time, even though no time limits were posted (or enforced). It's like when I was back in high school and a group of friends and I used to hang out at Denny's late on Friday nights. We'd occupy one of their largest booths for an hour or two, but we made sure we not only ordered something substantive, but we also tipped heavily (each of us chipping in a couple of bucks so that the gal would end up with a $10-$20 tip each time we were there, and that was in the '80s). [That also had the unexpected benefit of getting us seated quickly on even the most crowded nights.] Anyway, back to dissecting your stereotype, and your solution...
So, you know how busy someone is by how they look, huh? What a gift! Had it not occurred to you that those you see as 'loitering' or 'Wi-Fi-squatting' (or whatever your preferred term may be) could actually be there doing something other than just mindless surfing? In my former position, I was on an on-call rotation. Whenever I was on-call and knew I needed to be online beceause there was testing going on, or because a major project was in process, I usually parked at a location with free Wi-Fi access, so I could monitor the situation and provide support as needed. Coffee shops were also another place where I enjoy grading student work (from my part-time teaching gig).
Sure, suggest that they segregate the building by Wi-Fi and non-Wi-Fi zones. That'll work about as well as smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. You won't be able to stop the signal bleed unless you want to pour major dollars into limiting technologies. McDonalds made this bed, and now they need to sleep in it.
If they want to reduce the time people sit in their booths and at their tables, they need to consider two things. First, they could key Wi-Fi access to a code on the receipt, with each receipts providing x minutes of access. It's not likely to be well-received, but they could do it. During the busiest times of the day, not many people will want to go through the line a second time to get another receipt. Second, and perhaps more importantly, McDonalds should stop trying to give the impression that it wants the "coffee shop consumer" in its restaurants. If their primary focus is on table turnover and sales, they should not be marketing products and inducements that encourage people to stay a while. Sure, it sounded great to offer free Wi-Fi to get all of those business people who may want to check email over lunch, but they didn't do their homework to understand how a road warrior will use Internet access. Sure, they wanted to move to upscale coffee drinks to convince some parents (mostly moms) that they could hang out there and zone a bit while their kids are in the Play Place. Heck, the Play Place itself is no good for turnover. Even with posted time limits, most users of the play place are occupying tables far longer than 10 minutes.
So, I'm sorry some grungy Mac-geek student sprawled over your favorite seating area at some coffee shop on numerous occasions, but lay off the attacks on the rest of us. You're already probably working for one of us.
I'm not sure this would necessarily qualify as "unreasonable search and seizure". That was a protection designed to keep officials from searching your person (or your property) and pocketing your property without just cause. Would the court have ruled differently if the car were monitored by a series of surveillance cameras (assuming enough were in place to track the movements)?
I'm guessing that the judges involved thought about the places they go, and decided that they wouldn't want anyone knowing where they stopped.
I just don't know. It does not sound unreasonable, however, it could be reasonable to expect them to go through some approval process (akin to obtaining a warrant). The technology hold much potential to aid law enforcement, but, like any other technology, it could lend itself to abuses. I guess I was reared to believe if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to fear someone knowing where you are. It may be a simplistic view, but it is one that accompanies an implicit trust of government as an agent of and for the protection of the people. If you do not trust the government, then such an action would, logically, be deemed suspect.
Although I was reared to trust the government, my life experiences have pushed me more and more toward a distrust of any government.
When CDs first came out, I remember press citing that they were more expensive than tapes only because economies of scale and scope were not in place. In time, prices were supposed to come down. They did not. Instead, as more and more people stopped buying their (imo) overpriced tripe, they started charging more. The only new CDs I've bought in the past 13 years have been from bargain bins. I've purchased everything else from used book stores (hurray! Half Price Books), rummage sales, and online. Recently, I've been picking up some albums via Amazon MP3 for under $5. I think you're right. If they were to price new albums at the $5 mark, they would sell boatloads more than they do today.
In some ways, it's like repackaging all of those unwanted mail solicitations, stuffing them back into the postage-paid return envelope (the one intended for your subscription slip, check, or other payment), and dropping it into the mail. The company that sent the junk not only has to pay for the postage (more than the amount normally incurred for a one-sheet reply slip), but also to discard the additional junk mail in the envelope.
Definately not nice, but seemingly poetic justice.
Why not pursue a M.A. in another field (e.g., business, psychology)? It will broaden your exposure and your experience, potentially making you a more attractive candidate during your job search, and potentially giving you some fall-back career options should you ever find yourself downsized or outsourced.
Beyond that, get your experience. If it's easier to get your graduate degree now, then that's great for you. If not, consider landing that job now (if you can find one) so you can start gathering some real-world experience, and go back for your graduate degree later on (while you are still working). The latter option can be especially attractive if your future employer has a tuition-reimbursement benefit.
I don't think they're trying to be jerks. I think they wanted Sun's business. Period. They first hoped to gain it through and acquisition. That failed, so now they are resorting to an older tactic: offering incentives to lure customers away from the competition.
The reason I believe many people don't like the sound of this deal is due to the relatively high value of the incentives. If you consider what these companies pay for IBM and/or Sun gear, however, those incentives are a drop in the bucket. It's not an inconsequential amount by any means, but it's not a retirement account in the Bahamas either.
Astronauts that have heat-shielded spacesuits and pop-out hang-glider wings gliding back to terra firma.
On the surface, saying "Who cares! They're only hurting themselves," sounds wonderful, but reality is not in synch with that simplistic view. Colleges thrive on reputation. Would anyone hire anyone from Stanford if they knew the school regularly churned out chumps who couldn't read a financial statement or couldn't string words together in a cohesive and coherent sentence?
When students earn a degree and place it on their walls and resumes, they become standard bearers for the college. Once upon a time, I was a music major at a small school in the University of Wisconsin system. At any one time, there were probably only three or four music majors at the school. It was a two-year school, granting AA&S degrees, and most students transferred to a four-year school to pursue a baccalaureate degree. The music prof was great, but he was also the toughest and most demanding prof I ever had--even when compared to some real sticklers in the physical sciences. One of the other guys in the program, a few years younger than me (I was a non-traditional student), did not seem to be taking his studies seriously and criticized the prof for being a hard case. This launched the prof into a bit of a tirade, but I'll never forget what he said. He knew that graduates under his tutelage would be going on to study at many different schools. If, when getting into their advanced theory and music history classes, they did not know the basics--and even more--then it would mark the end of days for the music program at that little U of W system school. He was a hard case to ensure he produced only the best, so that the program would be preserved for those yet coming down the path.
I took it to heart. When I started teaching network administration at a college near my home, at a school that had no real IT program, I made sure I gave 1000% and I expected as much from my students. When I took over, less than 15% of the students who completed the program reported working in IT. It was only slightly better after my first year, but four years later more than 80% of our graduates were working in IT. My hat goes off to my hard case music prof.
If I didn't care whether or not my students knew their stuff, then the college's reputation would suffer for it and the program would be left to die.
My problem with automatic checks is that there is always a chance that someone's seemingly original thought may actually reflect thoughts someone else already may have put down on paper. I remember being accused of copying someone else's work once. It was in the early '80s when the Internet as we know it was not part of general public awareness. When the instructor interrogated me on the sentence (one sentence in a paper at least five pages long), he insisted I copied it from some specific book or article. I had absolutely no clue what the guy was talking about. At the time, all I ever read was Fred Saberhagen, Tolkein, Piers Anthony, and Terry Brooks. After what seemed like forever (it was probably no more than ten minutes), he finally realized that I had no clue about his source, and I'm guessing he realized that whatever I wrote matched the way I wrote the rest of the paper and the way I used the spoken word. Yech! I haven't thought about that situation in a long time. I must be getting old.
You nailed it. The book was purchased. After that, its private commerce. In the US, that's the first sale doctrine. Authors and publishers get their cut on the first sale. After that (e.g. garage sales, used book stores), nothing goes back up the tree to the content producers.
As an adult student in a graduate program who has taken traditional on-campus courses, online-only courses, and hybrid courses that combine both worlds (on-campus and online), I can say that I really hope they are wrong about this one. You see, college administrators, in their constant desire to deliver education products (i.e., courses) at lower cost, believe that online education is the inevitable and long-foretold method of delivery that will save their colleges and universities from their online woes. They are either deluded, or simply wrong.
;P). In addition, some persons are auditory learners, whose primary learning style is through listening, and often through asking questions verbally. It's not that they can't post questions online, but that they do not learn as well in that environment.
There are positive aspects to online learning environments--the anywhere-anytime factor, the erasure of geographic boundaries--but administrators fail to understand that the online learning environment is not for everyone. Anyone who has taken a course on communications knows that non-verbal communications (e.g., body posture, facial expression) is a significant part of successful communications. Without virtual telepresence technologies, it is nearly impossible to convey those nonverbal cues (emoticons aside
On a more personal note, although the online courses of which I've been a part have been touted as "anywhere-anytime" offerings, there were still specific deadlines, tied to specific time zones. The online courses often had numerous deadlines during the week for different assignments, including quotas for participation in online threaded discussions. If you were one who tends to get things in just under the wire, posting your online comments during the final evening before a due date for example, you might not receive any replies to your comments. The goal of a threaded discussion is to emulate the type of exchanges that occur in a classroom, but I have yet to see any instance where they come close. When in a classroom, I tend to scan the room to get a feel for how the other students are responding to the information. If I notice confused looks (and the instructor doesn't pick up on the cue), I will often stop and ask clarifying questions even if I am comfortable with the material. My peers have thanked me often for my willingness to do so. Unfortunately, in an online learning environment, those opportunities just aren't there.
I'm going to get off my soap box now before I ramble on all day long...
Maybe Kyocera realizes that it sells crap phones, and it is trying a new business model--selling phone concepts. All they need to do is sell this design concept to some other big player and their shareholders will see nice cash flows year to year.
I don't know if it will be technically as difficult as you suggest, but it can be a problem if they don't fully geocode addresses. The zip code where I live actually covers parts of three counties. Yes, good luck to them sorting all of that out.
There might be dozens of other reasons why people would legitimately want to stay anonymous.
Oh, yes, I realize I posted this one while logged in. Let them mark me an enemy of the state if they so desire.
[I hereby raspberry those segments of United States government, or any other agencies for that matter, that conduct such shoddy research and make generalizations based on fear and incomplete information.]
The number of installed users != the number of sales.
Vista sales, per Microsfot's counts, have been pretty high. Those numbers don't include, however, the business customers who opted to exercise their downgrade rights and run XP. The stats presented here appear to reflect what people are running moreso than that which was purchased.
What if Shell had a breakthrough tomorrow that allowed them to create only new green energy production facilities? Sure, they'd hire thousands of new employees for their new green growth areas, but would people still applaud them when they lay off all of their oil production, refinery, and distribution employees that are no longer needed? They might offer to retrain some, but job cuts would be unavoidable.
Corporations exist to conduct business for the benefit of the shareholders. Therefore, Shell makes business decisions based on what they believe should be best for the company's health and the shareholder profits. If you want Shell to change, your best bet would be to get together with your friends and start buying Shell stock. Until you have a major block of shareholders who share your vision for a greener Shell, don't expect the giant to change course.
If you think about birthdays among people, they don't simply grow on the date of their birth. They are constantly growing and learning and developing. Birthdays are commemmorative events that celebrate when someone joined a specific family (or the human family in general). That's really not that different than what you described regarding open sources software.
Perhaps "anniversary" would be a better term. A marriage rarely has its beginnings at the altar or in front of the justice of the peace. The persons involved typically began interacting with each other, learning, and growing together before the date of the actual ceremony, yet we celebrate their anniversary on the date they made their public vows in front of witnesses. I can see a parallel between pre-release and beta editions culminating with a public 1.0 release (or whatever the given name or number of a product may be). I don't see it as a disservice to the open source community to mark such milestones. In fact, if they were to describe the development process similarly to how I described it here--as an ongoing, growing, developing thing--it might actually mean more to some people.
In any case, observing a birthday or anniversary holds powerful meaning regardless of the context (human or inanimate): it means the person or the thing survived the test of time. That's why so many businesses are quick to proclaim "...since 1933", "...established 2006", or similar sentiments that convey age. They understand that people tend to trust established brands, thinking (consciously or subconsciously), "if they've been around that long, they can't be too bad," or, "if they've been around that long, there's a good chance they'll still be around in a few years if I need to exercise my warranty rights."
So, for me, I'll say happy anniversary Linux. You've had a good start. I'm looking forward to what the next 50 years will bring.
A new villian for the Fantastic Four--Collossal Cosmic Space Bat!
I've found that, in some cases, designing roads to slow people down actually makes them more appealing for people who want to push the limits. I had a friend who used this rule of thumb for corners: twice the posted speed minus ten. Making challenges on the roadways will just make some people view driving more like a game than just being a way to get from point A to point B.
How long ago was that issue? I have a box that is running the same OS version.
The origin of "atheist" is "a theos", "without god", whereas the formation of "agnostic" is from "a gnosis", "without knowledge".
Like many words, there are often cultural assumptions and definitions. I saw an earlier post making that point regarding whether atheists "don't believe in god" or whether they "believe there is no such thing as god". It is a subtle shift in meaning, but a significant one.
Most professed agnostics I know would fit the definition I know: they acknowledge that there must be someone or something out there, but they don't have a name they can attach to that "god".
I've seen so many of the posts on the "Symantec sucks" theme. Okay, if it does, then what tools do you recommend in an established Windows shop where moving to open source is not currently an option (a manufacturing shop where the production machines were coded by their manufacturers to run only on Windows)?
If there "may or may not be", doesn't that actually mean that you are agnostic (that you do not know) rather than being atheist (not believing that there is a god)?
You must remember that Visa and Mastercard understand and accept (as a cost of doing business) that there will be a certain percentage of fraud in any batch of transactions. To them, they feel that the cost of making the credit card system more secure (i.e., adding more security features) outweighs the desire to make it easy to use (e.g., upping the dollar amount under which you can make a credit card purchase without a signature).
I, too, live in a state where voter authentication is based on the list of registered voters and a signature. The check on blatant fraud is supposed to be the set of election judges who are present. The idea is that they will know if you really are the "John Doe" who lives at a specific address. Once one considers the origin of this system, it is easy to understand why it was developed that way. Once upon a time, when a majority of the population lived in smaller towns and communities, it was a reasonable assumption that key community leaders--those most likely to be election judges--would collectively be able to identify and contest any attempts at fraud. That system, however, is not scalable once a community grows beyond a few hundreds to a thousands and more.
That is where such antiquated voter authentication processes fail. Yes, your assessment is correct. In some jurisdictions where no identification is required at the polling place, it would be possible for someone to fraudulently vote in another's place. The only way this would be discovered (beyond the method already assumed in that system: an election judge knowing the party on whose line the fraudster is prepared to sign) is if the legitimate registered voter came in and found his or her line already signed, indicating that s/he had already voted. What happens next would depend on your jurisdiction. In any case, however, it would be a mess and would (further) undermine confidence in our electoral system.
As far as a receipt is concerned, I think the best method for that would be to (combined with a strong authentication method) provide each ballot a unique identifier and a timestamp; the voting location would also have a unique identifier. Using the ballot number, timestamp, and any other unique identifiers (plus I'm assuming there would be need to have a PIN or passcode, so no one else could pick up a receipt and view the ballot), the voter would go online and verify all selections. If any do not match the voter's intent, that voter would be issued a certificate/code for a new ballot. This would require that voting machines would be availbe for a period of time after the election (perhaps up to 14 days), but it would allow voters to review their ballot without immediately tying the ballot to their identity.