No, actually, his idea is significantly superior to the current party-shuffle idea in that it avoids repetition and fits the desired behavior (favoring higher-rated songs) properly. You just are missing an important aspect to how it would work.
If you have 2 5* and 10 4*, and you want to give 2x preference to 5* songs, then you would select from the 5* queue 2 times out of seven, not 2 times out of 3.
IE, given 4* songs ordered as A-J and 5* songs ordered as A-B, you'd see a playlist like:
4A 4B 4C 5A 4D 4E 5B 4F 4G 4H 5A 4I 4J 5B
At which point your weighted playlist would essentially start over. See? For the one time each of the 10 4* songs got played, the 5* songs got played twice each. If the 4*/5* ratio weren't integral, you'd see the overall pattern change from one pass to the next through the 4* list. Also, of course,once you get through either list you could reshuffle the list completely, giving you a significantly randomized pattern, virtually no chance of near-term repeats (just at the shuffle boundaries), and still get weighted occurrences of each rating.
It's all in the mathematics of combinatorics. It's a known solution to a known problem. However, it takes a bit more programming and a bit more runtime cpu power to do this than the current approach of re-pick-at-random-from-weighted-pool that Party Shuffle uses.
Gonna set up a coke machine in a school board? Tax Coke.
Gonna set up a McDonalds's in the school cafeteria, tax McDonald's.
Um... You do realize that the reason those soda machines and McDonalds sit inside many a public high school is precisely because the school district gets a major cut of the "action", right? Is that really a good thing?
Americans must be really stupid if there is anyone (who doesn't have physical disabilities affecting their cognitive skills) who believes English is the only language.
Not only that, they don't ever get a drink at McDonalds! And how many Americans do you know who are both stupid enough to believe the world ends a mile away from their home AND don't regularly visit McDonalds? Huh?
Reading slides before, or after lecture is a nightmare. Slides are usually listed ideas, they are quite often riped off from context by the fact that they are listed and not supported by comments. Therefore I prefer studying from textbook or from my own notes.
From a "real world" perspective (I've never had a powerpoint-based university class, although several of my profs used pre-prepared overhead-projector slides, which I suppose is about the same thing but without the potential upsides of PowerPoint), I attend lots of meetings driven off Powerpoint or Keynote slides (yeah!) When you have access to the slides beforehand, the most successful route is printing them out up-front, and taking notes on the printouts directly. Maybe you kids can figure out how to do that on your laptops or tablet PCs to avoid killing a tree in the process.
If the gist of the lecture/presentation isn't clear from the slides, then you have a bad powerpoint lecturer; he should either take a class on effective presentations or give up trying to look technologically savvy and go from index cards instead. However, dismissing slides as inscrutable before you've tried to use them is just plain foolish on your part as well.
If the scools were doing their job of turning out people with command of the language, then sure, okay, teach 'em how to use a word processor as well.
Hmm. Well, to help someone achieve a command of the language, the first step is helping them enjoy writing. If you make writing a chore, then that is all it will ever be. It needs to be more than just a chore for you to end up with effective communicators.
If I sit down and write a story with pen on paper, I get incredibly frustrated. This is not because I'm not used to pen and paper; I didn't have a word processor at my disposal until senior year in high school. I get incredibly frustrated in writing because my hand simply can not keep up with my mind, and because I never get something right in the "first draft". Since the first draft is never perfect, I end up re-writing the exact same words in the exact same order (but without the cross-outs and insertions) at least a second time if not a third or fourth.
In fact, that desire to get something "perfect" the first time is well known as one of the largest obstacles to good writing.
With this little thing in front of me, I am able to type a lot faster than I could ever write, legibly, and as an extra added bonus do not need to type everything all over again when I decide that the third sentence I wrote really needs to be the second. Because of this, i get a lot less frustrated, to the point that I quite enjoy writing. As a direct result of that, I write more, and, dare I say, have a significantly better "command of the language" than I would have had if still confined to a #2 pencil and notepad (yeah, i know; if you think my writing is bad now you should have seen my writing in high school!)
Using a word processor can not be the end goal. I agree with you there. At the same time, though, learning to use a word processor (or, just having an opportunity to use a word processor) can be a significant and useful tool in teaching a love of writing and, thence, a heightened skill of communication.
From my personal school experience, you start with addition in first grade and reach fractions/decimals in sixth grade. Then in seventh grade you finally start learning some abstart concepts (in pre-algebra). I don't think 6 years is really neccessary to master basic arithmetic.
You know, you might enjoy looking at a classroom today and see if that's still the case.
My oldest kids are in the fourth grade right now. You know what they were doing for math homework last night? Solving two equations with two unknowns. Nothing overly complex, just doing addition/subtraction to isolate the variables and substitute, but... heck, I don't know exactly when I first started using variables in math, but I'm quite positive I wasn't doing multi-variable solutions in fourth grade! I think I first saw "x" as something other than "times" in the sixth grade, and that was only because I skipped ahead to an "advanced" class that year, while the other kids were working on, as you said, fractions and decimals (I had to do some extra work to get the fractions/decimals bit I'd skipped over). But they saw "X" (and every other letter and sometimes other shapes too) for the first time two years ago at least, in second grade!
The kicker is, they aren't just going off some advanced teacher's whims here; this is straight out of a 4th-grade Houghton-Mifflin text book!
Anyways, you'll find, I think, that schools today are spending a lot less time on multiplication tables and such (my kids still had to do a timed test of mixed multiplication to 12X12 to meet standard last year, but I suspect they didn't have to do them in the lightening-fast timings I had been required to recite at their age), and a lot more time on math theory, including what they not inaccurately term "Algebra" in their syllabus (yeah, when I saw that on their 2nd grade plans I thought, who do they think they're kidding? But, well, yeah, they're doing Algebra!)
That having been said, they still get points docked for not showing their work and for using a calculator to do the math. But, I have to say, they aren't wasting their time dwelling on trying to forge human calculators able to multiply random four-digit numbers in their heads any more. And that is a good thing.
At my High School, pre-calc was the highest class offered, and its not required to graduate or get addmitted to college.
For our non-US friends, the US public school system varies widely. The biggest differences often come between rural schools and suburban schools (urban schools have their own set of quirks). Rural schools generally end up with significantly less ability to handle either "slow" or "advanced" students due simply to their scale and the unlikelihood of the "advanced" students getting shipped off daily to a "magnet" type of school. Suburban schools tend to do a lot better here, offering significantly more choices. This isn't an absolute. In fact, there are some schools in Omaha, Nebraska (not exactly "rural", but also not ritzy upscale suburbia either) that thoroughly trounce any other public school I've seen in the US in terms of both choice and quality of education.
Personally, when I went to high school (in California of all places, not exactly known for its stellar academic standards), I ended up taking Calculus "A-B" Junior year, and took "Calculus B-C" at a local community college Senior year. This translated, oddly enough, to Calculus 1, 2, and 4 when matched up against my university curriculum (I forget what Calc 3 had in it precisely, but the match-up of topics in the others was very exact).
"Pre-calculus" courses, in general, are time-fillers, IMHO. For that matter, the same with pre-Algebra classes. I ended up skipping both of them because they seemed redundant, and certainly didn't feel disadvantaged for that choice. Your mileage may, of course, always vary, but if you're taking a high school course that is not required and isn't going to help you and that is not broadening your horizons, seeking out different options might be a better choice.
My basic math skills came in handy - would have been nice if the store employee had some.
I'd argue that you didn't use your mastery of basic multiplication or addition and subtraction here, but rather your understanding of fractions and laws of multiplication.
The original complaint (well, a few parents back anyway) was that rote grinding through basic arithmetic for several years of school is a waste. I don't completely agree with that, but I don't think the clerk's inability to understand distribution properties really speaks to that particular issue.
Replace early-childhood multiplication tables and long-division drills with a calculator, push basic number theory further "upstream", and I think, in all actuality, that the clerk might end up more able to solve this problem rather than less, due to more time dealing with the difference between ".8*.5*x" and ".3*x" than "70-50".
Since we'll still need oil for lubrication, and due to the law of supply & demand, oil for hings/bearing/drivetrain/etc will probably shoot up to $10+ per quart.
I think you missed a bit of the supply/demand lesson. When supply remains the same, and demand goes down, prices go down (not directly proportionately, but they do go down).
look at everything in their home...every item that is there had at least one (if not many) instance where oil was involved in it existing there.
Correct. However, cutting a key "cut" of oil off the refinery does indeed reduce the amount of oil going into that refinery. Gasoline is a primary driver of refinery output, which is why you see so much "reformulated" gasolines (ie, not "natural" distillery cuts from the oil stack, but the product of enzymatically reducing heavier oils and recombining them into about the right hydrocarbon mixture.
While plastics are themselves a large consumer of oil, cutting oil demand by, say, half, would make for significantly cheaper plastics, significantly cheaper home heating oils, and significantly cheaper lubricant oils. AND, for a bonus, it puts off, perhaps indefinitely, the peak oil crisis which is rapidly approaching (consumption of oil is increasing dramatically faster than production of oil, and spare capacity is approaching zero).
It's not often that you get someone arguing that reducing gasoline consumption would be a bad thing.
There are fewer people "like me" and a lot more "like them" and the world has become a less fun place to live in as a result.
Ann Coulter, is that you? Or is this Rush talking?
Seems to be the crux of the problem right here: you feel you are superior to everyone around you, and so blame "their" upbringing.
Personally, I know losers who were brought up a variety of different ways. The biggest losers, however, to me are the losers who feel they are superior and live their life with a stick firmly stuck up their rectum and an inability to find or tolerate the slightest bit of enjoyment in their own lives or in others. If I may paint generalities here, it seems like "they" were generally deprived as children, and had "proper" adult behavior hammered into them from birth.
But there's a new kid - P2P. If I download Metallica, I'm likely to buy Matallica. However, if I download someone not on the radio, they don't get that Metallica sale because I already spent the fifteen bucks on two indie CDs.
While you may be an exceptional P2P citizen, trying music then buying it or deleting it from your drive, you are a very rare breed. The average P2P user that I know has no intent of EVER buying what they already possess.
Now, assuming your model was more prevalent, what logical market reactions would we be seeing? Independent artists or small-label artists would gladly risk a small percentage of sales for the publicity of people around the world happening on them. Would they flood Kazaa with their music?
No, that would be silly. They'd flood rights-respecting networks with their music, and put it on their web site for people to download from the source.
Point of fact: there are hundreds, thousands, quite likely even more bands doing that right now. Right next to the free music sits a link to buy the rest of the album (or, in some cases, the rest of the song, or the entire album in higher quality than the free preview, etc).
It works. But, ya know what? Kazaa still has several times the user base of legitimate download networks or even artist-sponsored free download sites. In a world where people just wanted to try and then go and buy, would that be the case?
To the point: if you really want small artists to be heard, and don't just want "free" music, then you're putting your cart on the wrong horse here. Take Kazaa and its ilk down; they do nothing but mar your argument and ideals by association. Turn to supporting the various legal alternatives and the artists.
If you're not able to make that step and turn on Kazaa, then obviously Kazaa offers you something more than you're claiming here. Please enlighten me if I'm missing something, but it seems the only other option here is that, as said above, you're just whining because the RIAA doesn't want you taking their music for free.
as all crimes require 'intent'...theft requires 'intent to deprive'
Um, sorry, but that (and pretty much the rest of the post here) is complete BS.
There are crimes "with intent" and there are those without. Manslaughter, for instance, is often without intent (there are varying degrees of "intent" and "negligence" involved) while "murder" is defined as requiring intent.
To the point, "theft" I do believe generally involves intent of action. Which means, you "intended" to take something, or were negligent in ensuring that you did not take it. However, in the case you cited, a legal court would likely have found the man guilty of theft, no matter whether he intended to return it or not. Arbitrations are not intended to adhere to the letter of the law but rather to the "spirit" of the law, and if you can make the two parties get all warm and fuzzy without having to deal harsh consequences on one or both then you've done your job. "intent to return" does NOT play into the definition of theft. All that comes into play is "intent to take". If the trolley owner had thrown that in the back of the guy's pick-up, then there would have been no intent to take. In point of fact, however, the man did willfully take the trolley for use elsewhere. Thus, he is guilty of theft.
All that having been said, I'm sorry, but you sound incredibly naive. In your "boat on a lake" example, the guy "borrowing" the boat did materially deprive the boat owner of its services, and was, indeed, guilty of theft. Period.
The artist gets screwed left right and center, it has nothing to do with stupidity; they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel.
If I may paraphrase my preschool teacher: "It takes two to screw."
It seems that for a contract to be binding the artist needs to sign it as well as the recording label. If you don't like the terms, screw them, and don't sign!
Oh, you say, a band can never "make it" without the backing of a label? Hmm. And here, I thought that bands made all their money hopping amongst bars and selling t-shirts, none of which require a label.
Gee, sounds like something doesn't quite add up here.
I don't like the RIAA either. I think it abuses the power it's been given. But to claim the poor little innocent artists both had no choice but to use the RIAA AND are completely undamaged by your theft of RIAA materials because they really get nothing out of their label contracts is just plain disingenuous.
Ah, dictionary definition showdowns. The absolute best the web has to offer!
First, "steal an idea" is common vernacular, and so from that perspective physical property need not be lost for it to be considered "stealing".
From the legal perspective, are you saying the Supreme Court doesn't know the definition of theft, or are you arguing that the grandparent is incorrect in his citation?
Regardless, theft of service or signal IS considered theft legally in the state I live in (California) AND, so far as I know, pretty much everywhere else too. Which, IMHO, pretty much leads to the incontrovertible conclusion that stealing a copy of copyrighted works is theft, just as stealing a cable signal is theft and stealing a car is theft. They're different types of theft, just like people and squirrels are different types of mammals, but they all fall under the umbrella of "theft", which is, colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have. You'll have to consult a legal library for the full legal definition of "theft" in your state.
All of which, as was said away back when, is COMPLETELY off topic of the original issue, which is that the theft of copyrighted works is WRONG, ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and UNSUSTAINABLE.
If this little diversion tactic wasn't meant as a diversion tactic, why is it so commonly used? I don't see other topics so relentlessly and predictably degrade to what amounts to a grammar debate here on Slashdot. Granted, there are moments, but none nearly so predictable as a copyright theft case ending up as a grammar war.
My case (a 7-member family as well, but not the OP):
We have a massive full-sized van for hauling the family about town. Gets about 17 mpg on the highway, a few less in town. Not the best thing to haul around everyone in, but it gives us enough space for the kids and their stuff and a few friends when necessary, and gives just enough space for all of us and our stuff on long road-trips (especially when we take the dog). That's a heck of a lot more than could be said for an Escalade or Navigator (massive vehicles, great road clearance, still fit in the garage, but the passenger/cargo space is nothing compared to a van).
My karma, however, balances out with my little Toyota which I use to travel back and forth to work while my wife hauls the little ones around town during the day.
it always ranks in the top 5 of safest cars for it's weight class... it's one of the tightest for it's class
You see the logical problem here, right?
1. Big cars aren't necessarily safe 2. Nuh-uh! My Crown Vic is Awesome! Nothin' can hurt me in it! 3. It sucks for maneuverability, takes an eon to come to a stop or speed up out of the way of a bigger fish, and instead of crumpling where the passengers aren't and letting you live another day it will barrel through a brick wall, letting the whole thing tumble down into the crushed passenger compartment. 4. It's the safest monster car out there!
End state:
1. Crown Vic might be safer than another large car 2. Theorum that large cars are inherently unsafe relative to smaller, more maneuverable cars remains uncontested. 3. If the Crown Vic is shown less safe than a smaller car model, then that pretty much proves that the entire boat-of-car weight class sucks for safety, as the CV is proclaimed the safest in that class.
Care for another try?
Lesson for today: comparing a vehicle to other vehicles "in its class" is meaningless unless you are only concerned with vehicles in that "class". If you're comparing the relative benefits of different classes, then you need to broaden your horizons a little.
It's easy to convince a bunch of middle aged senators that those evil computer hackers are stealing the labels' music because they typically don't have the greatest understanding of computers. But I'd be surprised to find even one US senator who has never copied an album onto a tape or received a copy from a friend. They will see that recording onto CD is the same thing, and will be a lot more reluctant to try to outlaw an activity that they know people have been doing for a long time.
Okay, assuming you can find an honest congresscritter/senator combo who actually care about not being a complete hypocrite more than they do about funding the next reelection campaign, I have one word for you:
Digital
Boo! Did I scare you? Cause I can tell you, that word sure scares a hell of a lot of middle-aged+ folks in Washington. "Digital" is unknown. "Digital copies" are, obviously, not anything like analog copies. They are, of course, evil.
Have, however, seen more than my share of over-compensating assholes with Durangos and Escalades changing lanes with no blinkers right into smaller cars (like mine). Never seen that happen with a recent-model minivan, although it does seem to happen, strangely enough, with pre-1995 Dodge Caravans. Seems like an odd anomaly, but maybe that explains your perception of minivan drivers as worse than SUV road-owners.
Case in point: Apple's DRM model basically means you rent the music for a one time charge.
Huh? In my day, we used to call that "buying", not "renting".
In any case, unlike CD protections which forbid fair use, Apple's DRM explicitly allows for you to make multiple copies of all the music you own, and the software even reminds you to do so on occasion. Does it allow you to give that music to friends and family (which, as has already been corrected, is NOT fair use, but rather "not enough of a problem for rights-holders to go after until 'friends' suddenly included any internet loser who connected to my Gnutella host")? No, it doesn't. Again, though, that's hardly a poor DRM definition, as it echoes the accepted boundary of rights and makes those explicit rather than "just don't do it too much or you'll get caught".
Now, punk ass bitch CD DRM schemes that don't even allow for media backup? That's just stupid, and DOES trample on accepted "fair use" privileges for the sake of "defending" (quite ineptly, I might add) copy rights.
Pick the right horses in this battle. IMHO it's pretty clear that Apple's a whole lot closer to caring about your rights and privileges than the various other parties jockeying for seats at this table.
Good luck when that gas-guzzling 3 ton SUV slams into your cool and lightweight hybrid in an accident.
Except that study after study finds that small, light cars are significantly less likely to get into a fatal or near-fatal (ie, debilitating long-term effects) accident than SUVs.
The primary reason for this, of course, being just the same physics that conjure your nightmare of a Hummer mowing down an Insight: inertia makes them significantly less maneuverable, and thus get in significantly more accidents per mile traveled, either single-car or multi-car.
The primary safety feature of an Insight or Prius is the brain sitting a few feet back from the windshield, and the responsiveness the vehicle has in acting on the instructions that brain gives it.
Granted, it I were to go out, get drunk, and barrel down the highway while dozing off, I guess I'd rather be in two tons of steel. But with an active, functioning brain, i'd rather avoid the accident than survive it.
Had a Storm, myself. Well, actually my wife had it before we met. We had two carseats in the back of that thing (pop the hatchback to buckle the kids in!).
To the point: Seems like average gas mileage was about 30 in that thing, but we certainly didn't drive with an aim to conserve gas.
A great little car. Would've taken us all out in an accident, but it was a great little car.
I was about to say the same thing. 4x6 is cheaper at many places than on a decent home printer. However, prices go up pretty explosively once you step that up an inch (5x7) or more (8x10, etc). Printing full-color sheets is significantly cheaper at home than via Sam's or Costco etc.
That having been said, there are both pros and cons here:
1 - Chemical processing versus ink/dye processing. Home printers are generally ink process. Outsourced processing may be either chemical (generally mail-in services) or ink-based. Chemical processes last significantly longer as the pigmentation is embedded in the substrate to a significantly higher degree than with inks, and holds color versus air and sunlight significantly better than any of the inks available today. Also, chemical processes are generally impervious to water; a water-damaged chemical-based photo is still viewable, while a water-damaged ink-based photo will generally be nothing but an abstract water color rendition of your baby's first tooth.
2 - You mention recropping photos yourself, etc. I use web-based services exclusively, and do my cropping prior to sending the picture in to be printed. The only case where you wouldn't have an opportunity to recrop would be the "insert your flash card here" walk-up services (although if you're passingly familiar with the DCIM directory on your CF card you can use that just as easily; I do this when I have more than a handful of pictures to print).
3 - Instant gratification - Isn't that what the on-screen preview is for? Personally, there are "draft" prints and there are "final" prints, and I would prefer my "final" prints to be on a higher-quality machine and on a substrate that will last for a few years without completely blanching.
4 - Non-OEM inks, generally speaking, either suck or cost almost as much as OEM inks. That's my experience, and IIRC, that of a Consumer Reports study a few months back as well. Non-OEM papers, for that matter, are generally hit-and-miss; once you find a good paper you should generally stick with it.
and I wouldn't have had to spend 45 hours capturing all the tapes by hand.
Okay, I could understand this if you were talking about hundreds of tapes... but 45?
You know how long the tapes are. Just set up a batch in Final Cut Pro (or whatever) to import from Tape 1 from 0:0:0;01 through to the end (add buffer as needed on your hardware), put the first tape in, hit Log, go enjoy yourself for 60-90 minutes, then repeat.
I mean, I realize this is a two- or three-day project if you have a single machine to dump all this onto (a brilliant student of the arts would scrounge around and borrow a couple friends' machines to do the dumps, then network them all together to move everything to the master machine... then if your friends have Macs and you have FCP keep the borrowed machine to do clustered QMaster runs to render all your edits in 1/3rd the time), but it's not like you're chained to the editing station that whole time!
Slashdot Mirror
No, actually, his idea is significantly superior to the current party-shuffle idea in that it avoids repetition and fits the desired behavior (favoring higher-rated songs) properly. You just are missing an important aspect to how it would work.
If you have 2 5* and 10 4*, and you want to give 2x preference to 5* songs, then you would select from the 5* queue 2 times out of seven, not 2 times out of 3.
IE, given 4* songs ordered as A-J and 5* songs ordered as A-B, you'd see a playlist like:
4A 4B 4C 5A 4D 4E 5B 4F 4G 4H 5A 4I 4J 5B
At which point your weighted playlist would essentially start over. See? For the one time each of the 10 4* songs got played, the 5* songs got played twice each. If the 4*/5* ratio weren't integral, you'd see the overall pattern change from one pass to the next through the 4* list. Also, of course,once you get through either list you could reshuffle the list completely, giving you a significantly randomized pattern, virtually no chance of near-term repeats (just at the shuffle boundaries), and still get weighted occurrences of each rating.
It's all in the mathematics of combinatorics. It's a known solution to a known problem. However, it takes a bit more programming and a bit more runtime cpu power to do this than the current approach of re-pick-at-random-from-weighted-pool that Party Shuffle uses.
Gonna set up a coke machine in a school board? Tax Coke.
Gonna set up a McDonalds's in the school cafeteria, tax McDonald's.
Um... You do realize that the reason those soda machines and McDonalds sit inside many a public high school is precisely because the school district gets a major cut of the "action", right? Is that really a good thing?
Nice.
...
Except for the guy that said it's child abuse to send your kids to public school
1 cord of wood can heat a very large home for an entire year.
And, as an extra bonus, contributes a nice thick layer of smog over the valley in which you live!
Americans must be really stupid if there is anyone (who doesn't have physical disabilities affecting their cognitive skills) who believes English is the only language.
Not only that, they don't ever get a drink at McDonalds! And how many Americans do you know who are both stupid enough to believe the world ends a mile away from their home AND don't regularly visit McDonalds? Huh?
Reading slides before, or after lecture is a nightmare. Slides are usually listed ideas, they are quite often riped off from context by the fact that they are listed and not supported by comments. Therefore I prefer studying from textbook or from my own notes.
From a "real world" perspective (I've never had a powerpoint-based university class, although several of my profs used pre-prepared overhead-projector slides, which I suppose is about the same thing but without the potential upsides of PowerPoint), I attend lots of meetings driven off Powerpoint or Keynote slides (yeah!) When you have access to the slides beforehand, the most successful route is printing them out up-front, and taking notes on the printouts directly. Maybe you kids can figure out how to do that on your laptops or tablet PCs to avoid killing a tree in the process.
If the gist of the lecture/presentation isn't clear from the slides, then you have a bad powerpoint lecturer; he should either take a class on effective presentations or give up trying to look technologically savvy and go from index cards instead. However, dismissing slides as inscrutable before you've tried to use them is just plain foolish on your part as well.
If the scools were doing their job of turning out people with command of the language, then sure, okay, teach 'em how to use a word processor as well.
Hmm. Well, to help someone achieve a command of the language, the first step is helping them enjoy writing. If you make writing a chore, then that is all it will ever be. It needs to be more than just a chore for you to end up with effective communicators.
If I sit down and write a story with pen on paper, I get incredibly frustrated. This is not because I'm not used to pen and paper; I didn't have a word processor at my disposal until senior year in high school. I get incredibly frustrated in writing because my hand simply can not keep up with my mind, and because I never get something right in the "first draft". Since the first draft is never perfect, I end up re-writing the exact same words in the exact same order (but without the cross-outs and insertions) at least a second time if not a third or fourth.
In fact, that desire to get something "perfect" the first time is well known as one of the largest obstacles to good writing.
With this little thing in front of me, I am able to type a lot faster than I could ever write, legibly, and as an extra added bonus do not need to type everything all over again when I decide that the third sentence I wrote really needs to be the second. Because of this, i get a lot less frustrated, to the point that I quite enjoy writing. As a direct result of that, I write more, and, dare I say, have a significantly better "command of the language" than I would have had if still confined to a #2 pencil and notepad (yeah, i know; if you think my writing is bad now you should have seen my writing in high school!)
Using a word processor can not be the end goal. I agree with you there. At the same time, though, learning to use a word processor (or, just having an opportunity to use a word processor) can be a significant and useful tool in teaching a love of writing and, thence, a heightened skill of communication.
From my personal school experience, you start with addition in first grade and reach fractions/decimals in sixth grade. Then in seventh grade you finally start learning some abstart concepts (in pre-algebra). I don't think 6 years is really neccessary to master basic arithmetic.
... heck, I don't know exactly when I first started using variables in math, but I'm quite positive I wasn't doing multi-variable solutions in fourth grade! I think I first saw "x" as something other than "times" in the sixth grade, and that was only because I skipped ahead to an "advanced" class that year, while the other kids were working on, as you said, fractions and decimals (I had to do some extra work to get the fractions/decimals bit I'd skipped over). But they saw "X" (and every other letter and sometimes other shapes too) for the first time two years ago at least, in second grade!
You know, you might enjoy looking at a classroom today and see if that's still the case.
My oldest kids are in the fourth grade right now. You know what they were doing for math homework last night? Solving two equations with two unknowns. Nothing overly complex, just doing addition/subtraction to isolate the variables and substitute, but
The kicker is, they aren't just going off some advanced teacher's whims here; this is straight out of a 4th-grade Houghton-Mifflin text book!
Anyways, you'll find, I think, that schools today are spending a lot less time on multiplication tables and such (my kids still had to do a timed test of mixed multiplication to 12X12 to meet standard last year, but I suspect they didn't have to do them in the lightening-fast timings I had been required to recite at their age), and a lot more time on math theory, including what they not inaccurately term "Algebra" in their syllabus (yeah, when I saw that on their 2nd grade plans I thought, who do they think they're kidding? But, well, yeah, they're doing Algebra!)
That having been said, they still get points docked for not showing their work and for using a calculator to do the math. But, I have to say, they aren't wasting their time dwelling on trying to forge human calculators able to multiply random four-digit numbers in their heads any more. And that is a good thing.
At my High School, pre-calc was the highest class offered, and its not required to graduate or get addmitted to college.
For our non-US friends, the US public school system varies widely. The biggest differences often come between rural schools and suburban schools (urban schools have their own set of quirks). Rural schools generally end up with significantly less ability to handle either "slow" or "advanced" students due simply to their scale and the unlikelihood of the "advanced" students getting shipped off daily to a "magnet" type of school. Suburban schools tend to do a lot better here, offering significantly more choices. This isn't an absolute. In fact, there are some schools in Omaha, Nebraska (not exactly "rural", but also not ritzy upscale suburbia either) that thoroughly trounce any other public school I've seen in the US in terms of both choice and quality of education.
Personally, when I went to high school (in California of all places, not exactly known for its stellar academic standards), I ended up taking Calculus "A-B" Junior year, and took "Calculus B-C" at a local community college Senior year. This translated, oddly enough, to Calculus 1, 2, and 4 when matched up against my university curriculum (I forget what Calc 3 had in it precisely, but the match-up of topics in the others was very exact).
"Pre-calculus" courses, in general, are time-fillers, IMHO. For that matter, the same with pre-Algebra classes. I ended up skipping both of them because they seemed redundant, and certainly didn't feel disadvantaged for that choice. Your mileage may, of course, always vary, but if you're taking a high school course that is not required and isn't going to help you and that is not broadening your horizons, seeking out different options might be a better choice.
My basic math skills came in handy - would have been nice if the store employee had some.
I'd argue that you didn't use your mastery of basic multiplication or addition and subtraction here, but rather your understanding of fractions and laws of multiplication.
The original complaint (well, a few parents back anyway) was that rote grinding through basic arithmetic for several years of school is a waste. I don't completely agree with that, but I don't think the clerk's inability to understand distribution properties really speaks to that particular issue.
Replace early-childhood multiplication tables and long-division drills with a calculator, push basic number theory further "upstream", and I think, in all actuality, that the clerk might end up more able to solve this problem rather than less, due to more time dealing with the difference between ".8*.5*x" and ".3*x" than "70-50".
Since we'll still need oil for lubrication, and due to the law of supply & demand, oil for hings/bearing/drivetrain/etc will probably shoot up to $10+ per quart.
I think you missed a bit of the supply/demand lesson. When supply remains the same, and demand goes down, prices go down (not directly proportionately, but they do go down).
look at everything in their home...every item that is there had at least one (if not many) instance where oil was involved in it existing there.
Correct. However, cutting a key "cut" of oil off the refinery does indeed reduce the amount of oil going into that refinery. Gasoline is a primary driver of refinery output, which is why you see so much "reformulated" gasolines (ie, not "natural" distillery cuts from the oil stack, but the product of enzymatically reducing heavier oils and recombining them into about the right hydrocarbon mixture.
While plastics are themselves a large consumer of oil, cutting oil demand by, say, half, would make for significantly cheaper plastics, significantly cheaper home heating oils, and significantly cheaper lubricant oils. AND, for a bonus, it puts off, perhaps indefinitely, the peak oil crisis which is rapidly approaching (consumption of oil is increasing dramatically faster than production of oil, and spare capacity is approaching zero).
It's not often that you get someone arguing that reducing gasoline consumption would be a bad thing.
There are fewer people "like me" and a lot more "like them" and the world has become a less fun place to live in as a result.
Ann Coulter, is that you? Or is this Rush talking?
Seems to be the crux of the problem right here: you feel you are superior to everyone around you, and so blame "their" upbringing.
Personally, I know losers who were brought up a variety of different ways. The biggest losers, however, to me are the losers who feel they are superior and live their life with a stick firmly stuck up their rectum and an inability to find or tolerate the slightest bit of enjoyment in their own lives or in others. If I may paint generalities here, it seems like "they" were generally deprived as children, and had "proper" adult behavior hammered into them from birth.
But there's a new kid - P2P. If I download Metallica, I'm likely to buy Matallica. However, if I download someone not on the radio, they don't get that Metallica sale because I already spent the fifteen bucks on two indie CDs.
While you may be an exceptional P2P citizen, trying music then buying it or deleting it from your drive, you are a very rare breed. The average P2P user that I know has no intent of EVER buying what they already possess.
Now, assuming your model was more prevalent, what logical market reactions would we be seeing? Independent artists or small-label artists would gladly risk a small percentage of sales for the publicity of people around the world happening on them. Would they flood Kazaa with their music?
No, that would be silly. They'd flood rights-respecting networks with their music, and put it on their web site for people to download from the source.
Point of fact: there are hundreds, thousands, quite likely even more bands doing that right now. Right next to the free music sits a link to buy the rest of the album (or, in some cases, the rest of the song, or the entire album in higher quality than the free preview, etc).
It works. But, ya know what? Kazaa still has several times the user base of legitimate download networks or even artist-sponsored free download sites. In a world where people just wanted to try and then go and buy, would that be the case?
To the point: if you really want small artists to be heard, and don't just want "free" music, then you're putting your cart on the wrong horse here. Take Kazaa and its ilk down; they do nothing but mar your argument and ideals by association. Turn to supporting the various legal alternatives and the artists.
If you're not able to make that step and turn on Kazaa, then obviously Kazaa offers you something more than you're claiming here. Please enlighten me if I'm missing something, but it seems the only other option here is that, as said above, you're just whining because the RIAA doesn't want you taking their music for free.
as all crimes require 'intent'...theft requires 'intent to deprive'
Um, sorry, but that (and pretty much the rest of the post here) is complete BS.
There are crimes "with intent" and there are those without. Manslaughter, for instance, is often without intent (there are varying degrees of "intent" and "negligence" involved) while "murder" is defined as requiring intent.
To the point, "theft" I do believe generally involves intent of action. Which means, you "intended" to take something, or were negligent in ensuring that you did not take it. However, in the case you cited, a legal court would likely have found the man guilty of theft, no matter whether he intended to return it or not. Arbitrations are not intended to adhere to the letter of the law but rather to the "spirit" of the law, and if you can make the two parties get all warm and fuzzy without having to deal harsh consequences on one or both then you've done your job. "intent to return" does NOT play into the definition of theft. All that comes into play is "intent to take". If the trolley owner had thrown that in the back of the guy's pick-up, then there would have been no intent to take. In point of fact, however, the man did willfully take the trolley for use elsewhere. Thus, he is guilty of theft.
All that having been said, I'm sorry, but you sound incredibly naive. In your "boat on a lake" example, the guy "borrowing" the boat did materially deprive the boat owner of its services, and was, indeed, guilty of theft. Period.
The artist gets screwed left right and center, it has nothing to do with stupidity; they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel.
If I may paraphrase my preschool teacher: "It takes two to screw."
It seems that for a contract to be binding the artist needs to sign it as well as the recording label. If you don't like the terms, screw them, and don't sign!
Oh, you say, a band can never "make it" without the backing of a label? Hmm. And here, I thought that bands made all their money hopping amongst bars and selling t-shirts, none of which require a label.
Gee, sounds like something doesn't quite add up here.
I don't like the RIAA either. I think it abuses the power it's been given. But to claim the poor little innocent artists both had no choice but to use the RIAA AND are completely undamaged by your theft of RIAA materials because they really get nothing out of their label contracts is just plain disingenuous.
Ah, dictionary definition showdowns. The absolute best the web has to offer!
First, "steal an idea" is common vernacular, and so from that perspective physical property need not be lost for it to be considered "stealing".
From the legal perspective, are you saying the Supreme Court doesn't know the definition of theft, or are you arguing that the grandparent is incorrect in his citation?
Regardless, theft of service or signal IS considered theft legally in the state I live in (California) AND, so far as I know, pretty much everywhere else too. Which, IMHO, pretty much leads to the incontrovertible conclusion that stealing a copy of copyrighted works is theft, just as stealing a cable signal is theft and stealing a car is theft. They're different types of theft, just like people and squirrels are different types of mammals, but they all fall under the umbrella of "theft", which is, colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have. You'll have to consult a legal library for the full legal definition of "theft" in your state.
All of which, as was said away back when, is COMPLETELY off topic of the original issue, which is that the theft of copyrighted works is WRONG, ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and UNSUSTAINABLE.
If this little diversion tactic wasn't meant as a diversion tactic, why is it so commonly used? I don't see other topics so relentlessly and predictably degrade to what amounts to a grammar debate here on Slashdot. Granted, there are moments, but none nearly so predictable as a copyright theft case ending up as a grammar war.
My case (a 7-member family as well, but not the OP):
We have a massive full-sized van for hauling the family about town. Gets about 17 mpg on the highway, a few less in town. Not the best thing to haul around everyone in, but it gives us enough space for the kids and their stuff and a few friends when necessary, and gives just enough space for all of us and our stuff on long road-trips (especially when we take the dog). That's a heck of a lot more than could be said for an Escalade or Navigator (massive vehicles, great road clearance, still fit in the garage, but the passenger/cargo space is nothing compared to a van).
My karma, however, balances out with my little Toyota which I use to travel back and forth to work while my wife hauls the little ones around town during the day.
it always ranks in the top 5 of safest cars for it's weight class ... it's one of the tightest for it's class
You see the logical problem here, right?
1. Big cars aren't necessarily safe
2. Nuh-uh! My Crown Vic is Awesome! Nothin' can hurt me in it!
3. It sucks for maneuverability, takes an eon to come to a stop or speed up out of the way of a bigger fish, and instead of crumpling where the passengers aren't and letting you live another day it will barrel through a brick wall, letting the whole thing tumble down into the crushed passenger compartment.
4. It's the safest monster car out there!
End state:
1. Crown Vic might be safer than another large car
2. Theorum that large cars are inherently unsafe relative to smaller, more maneuverable cars remains uncontested.
3. If the Crown Vic is shown less safe than a smaller car model, then that pretty much proves that the entire boat-of-car weight class sucks for safety, as the CV is proclaimed the safest in that class.
Care for another try?
Lesson for today: comparing a vehicle to other vehicles "in its class" is meaningless unless you are only concerned with vehicles in that "class". If you're comparing the relative benefits of different classes, then you need to broaden your horizons a little.
It's easy to convince a bunch of middle aged senators that those evil computer hackers are stealing the labels' music because they typically don't have the greatest understanding of computers. But I'd be surprised to find even one US senator who has never copied an album onto a tape or received a copy from a friend. They will see that recording onto CD is the same thing, and will be a lot more reluctant to try to outlaw an activity that they know people have been doing for a long time.
Okay, assuming you can find an honest congresscritter/senator combo who actually care about not being a complete hypocrite more than they do about funding the next reelection campaign, I have one word for you:
Digital
Boo! Did I scare you? Cause I can tell you, that word sure scares a hell of a lot of middle-aged+ folks in Washington. "Digital" is unknown. "Digital copies" are, obviously, not anything like analog copies. They are, of course, evil.
Interesting. Never heard of that or witnessed it.
Have, however, seen more than my share of over-compensating assholes with Durangos and Escalades changing lanes with no blinkers right into smaller cars (like mine). Never seen that happen with a recent-model minivan, although it does seem to happen, strangely enough, with pre-1995 Dodge Caravans. Seems like an odd anomaly, but maybe that explains your perception of minivan drivers as worse than SUV road-owners.
Case in point: Apple's DRM model basically means you rent the music for a one time charge.
Huh? In my day, we used to call that "buying", not "renting".
In any case, unlike CD protections which forbid fair use, Apple's DRM explicitly allows for you to make multiple copies of all the music you own, and the software even reminds you to do so on occasion. Does it allow you to give that music to friends and family (which, as has already been corrected, is NOT fair use, but rather "not enough of a problem for rights-holders to go after until 'friends' suddenly included any internet loser who connected to my Gnutella host")? No, it doesn't. Again, though, that's hardly a poor DRM definition, as it echoes the accepted boundary of rights and makes those explicit rather than "just don't do it too much or you'll get caught".
Now, punk ass bitch CD DRM schemes that don't even allow for media backup? That's just stupid, and DOES trample on accepted "fair use" privileges for the sake of "defending" (quite ineptly, I might add) copy rights.
Pick the right horses in this battle. IMHO it's pretty clear that Apple's a whole lot closer to caring about your rights and privileges than the various other parties jockeying for seats at this table.
Good luck when that gas-guzzling 3 ton SUV slams into your cool and lightweight hybrid in an accident.
Except that study after study finds that small, light cars are significantly less likely to get into a fatal or near-fatal (ie, debilitating long-term effects) accident than SUVs.
The primary reason for this, of course, being just the same physics that conjure your nightmare of a Hummer mowing down an Insight: inertia makes them significantly less maneuverable, and thus get in significantly more accidents per mile traveled, either single-car or multi-car.
The primary safety feature of an Insight or Prius is the brain sitting a few feet back from the windshield, and the responsiveness the vehicle has in acting on the instructions that brain gives it.
Granted, it I were to go out, get drunk, and barrel down the highway while dozing off, I guess I'd rather be in two tons of steel. But with an active, functioning brain, i'd rather avoid the accident than survive it.
Had a Storm, myself. Well, actually my wife had it before we met. We had two carseats in the back of that thing (pop the hatchback to buckle the kids in!).
To the point: Seems like average gas mileage was about 30 in that thing, but we certainly didn't drive with an aim to conserve gas.
A great little car. Would've taken us all out in an accident, but it was a great little car.
I was about to say the same thing. 4x6 is cheaper at many places than on a decent home printer. However, prices go up pretty explosively once you step that up an inch (5x7) or more (8x10, etc). Printing full-color sheets is significantly cheaper at home than via Sam's or Costco etc.
That having been said, there are both pros and cons here:
1 - Chemical processing versus ink/dye processing. Home printers are generally ink process. Outsourced processing may be either chemical (generally mail-in services) or ink-based. Chemical processes last significantly longer as the pigmentation is embedded in the substrate to a significantly higher degree than with inks, and holds color versus air and sunlight significantly better than any of the inks available today. Also, chemical processes are generally impervious to water; a water-damaged chemical-based photo is still viewable, while a water-damaged ink-based photo will generally be nothing but an abstract water color rendition of your baby's first tooth.
2 - You mention recropping photos yourself, etc. I use web-based services exclusively, and do my cropping prior to sending the picture in to be printed. The only case where you wouldn't have an opportunity to recrop would be the "insert your flash card here" walk-up services (although if you're passingly familiar with the DCIM directory on your CF card you can use that just as easily; I do this when I have more than a handful of pictures to print).
3 - Instant gratification - Isn't that what the on-screen preview is for? Personally, there are "draft" prints and there are "final" prints, and I would prefer my "final" prints to be on a higher-quality machine and on a substrate that will last for a few years without completely blanching.
4 - Non-OEM inks, generally speaking, either suck or cost almost as much as OEM inks. That's my experience, and IIRC, that of a Consumer Reports study a few months back as well. Non-OEM papers, for that matter, are generally hit-and-miss; once you find a good paper you should generally stick with it.
and I wouldn't have had to spend 45 hours capturing all the tapes by hand.
... but 45?
... then if your friends have Macs and you have FCP keep the borrowed machine to do clustered QMaster runs to render all your edits in 1/3rd the time), but it's not like you're chained to the editing station that whole time!
Okay, I could understand this if you were talking about hundreds of tapes
You know how long the tapes are. Just set up a batch in Final Cut Pro (or whatever) to import from Tape 1 from 0:0:0;01 through to the end (add buffer as needed on your hardware), put the first tape in, hit Log, go enjoy yourself for 60-90 minutes, then repeat.
I mean, I realize this is a two- or three-day project if you have a single machine to dump all this onto (a brilliant student of the arts would scrounge around and borrow a couple friends' machines to do the dumps, then network them all together to move everything to the master machine