What normally happens is that Google would refund the money, probably losing some money in the process, which since there main objective is figuring out who people are is just fine. At $5 a developer, they shouldn't have any trouble handling these eventualities without losing money.
$300? Up here in WA state, that ticket is over $600 if I'm not mistaken. They do allow you to submit proof after the fact that you had the insurance and waive most of the fee, but those tickets are expensive. LEOs can ticket you for every single violation they see. They'll generally give a warning on most of them if they feel that you're not going to do it again, but they don't have to. As long as they catch you doing it and it's on the books, the only hope you have is of the judge tossing it.
That's not true, genius is generally defined with respect to the population in general. Generally the top percentage point or two. IQ isn't defined in a way which varies, it's main problem is that it's perhaps too tightly defined. IQ is a way of estimating the capacity for certain types of thought and reasoning as well as memory. What a person does with that capacity is not related to that even the slightest bit. Most of the differences comes from personal interest. I've got interests so I've spent a large amount of time devoted to perfecting skills related to that. Mozart was considered by everybody to be a genius, but he worked his ass off to produce his body of work, he probably worked harder than anybody else, he just happened to have more resources to start with and as such got farther than others had.
There's a difference here. When Ford released his first vehicle, he had ad writers tell people what it was for, and people added ideas onto that. Google, didn't really give much purpose to the software, and unlike cars, which could be used, if in a limited basis as a stand alone unit in town, wave didn't really have a lot of utility unless you knew other people using it and had some idea what it was for.
It wasn't an issue of being radical, it was an issue of it being a collaborative tool, restricted to a small number of people and lacking an obvious purpose. People don't generally learn to use a tool in case it becomes helpful later on, they learn to use it because they have an idea as to what to do with it. They might only need it for a theoretical contingency plan, but they at least have an idea what the purpose is. It's rare for something to take off just from random tinkering.
It doesn't cut both ways, as the idea that you've advanced is more complicated than the alternatives. Rapists don't generally commit crimes when they know that they're being watched, for the simple reason that they don't want to go to prison. Consequently, it would require added complexities to buy into that particular hypothesis.
But, it did come out that the warrant has been withdrawn, whether it was an attempted conspiracy, attempted extortion or just an accident is going to be tough to say.
Point 2 usually isn't that transparent, it usually consists in allocating classes to teachers. Handing a teacher say Shakespeare or math analysis would get that done verily.
That has nothing to do with it. They are employees of the school district not, of the public. Consequently it's not up to you or I to make those decisions. If you don't like the results, you have options, take your kids out of public schools or vote for somebody different to run the school board, but you're no more there boss than I am the boss of the local Starbucks, by virtue of buying a drink from time to time.
I used to work for the state for a while, and it's mind blowing to me that random people think they're your boss. They have no clue what your job is or what the priorities are, nor do they know what the funding status of the project is, but somehow since it's taxpayer dollars, they're the boss. Which isn't true, they aren't the boss, and there is, at least in my state, mandatory auditing that goes on to deal with any problems that might pop up.
Depends, do you get evaluated for somebody else's effort or lack thereof? I don't think anybody's really opposed to evaluating teachers, just the metrics involved. A teacher covering AP topics is going to look a lot better than one that's teaching remedial math is, and that's the default, you can get poor teachers in AP, but in practice the teachers cleaning up the messes from previous teachers end up being screwed just as hard as the ones that made the mess in the first place. And that's assuming that the teachers have the time and resources to teach in the first place, which in my experience is a dicey proposition.
At the end of the day, the proposals would probably be less offensive if administrative employees were being similarly evaluated. Which surprisingly enough, I don't recall hearing any proposals for doing and evaluations at the school district level.
You can usually tell with simple oversight. Take a look at a random sampling of homework assignments and tests and you can usually get a pretty good feel for who's phoning it in. It's going to be somewhat subjective, but chances are if there's meat to the homework and tests that they're doing fine.
Indeed, I've been opposed to this sort of thing for a while on the basis that it at very least discourages the best teachers from risking the toughest schools. A teacher is on campus usually for something like 6 hours a day, and at least at the middle and highschool level probably has 5 hours of actual direct contact with students. You're not going to overcome a bad home environment and learning problems with the resources given. It's just not going to happen, the whole premise of evaluations assumes that you do something about it, and the way evaluations are typically done just doesn't lead anywhere productive.
What they should be doing is stripping back the testing to more generalized criteria, probably just taking a look at a random sampling of the tests that the teachers are assigning. If the test itself isn't good enough, help the teacher formulate better ones, and if the scores themselves are deficient, then that needs more than just discipline or training for the teacher to fix.
The whole teacher's union thing is a MacGuffin, it has very little to do with the problem of ineffectual school management, poor funding, and a lack of parental involvement. Ironically enough, the union is only a small part of the whole situation. And definitely not with the sort of pull necessary to fix the problems.
These days it's very difficult to find a place where that's not the case. North Korea probably, Iran possibly, but the list of nations which would take him is pretty limited and invariably would require him to look the other way about local abuses of power.
In that case it's significantly more delusional. Roman Polanski confessed to anally raping the girl and they allowed him to plead down to statutory rape for less time. He's guilty as sin and anybody that says otherwise is a tool. In this case there isn't yet any sort of smoking gun so given the implausibility that somebody that's going a target on them as big as his, isn't it somewhat convenient that the government now has charges available? Sure he could be that stupid, but people who deal with leaks tend to be very paranoid by nature, and I'd be shocked if he would honestly believe he could get away with it.
Occam's razor. While it's possible that he's guilty, the most realistic option that he was in some form set up is probably the correct one. It's not like the US government has ever played a dirty trick on an irritant before or that there are no gold digging women out there looking to cash in on a trumped up story. Wait, didn't some woman try that on David Copperfield recently?
Possible yes, unlikely. He's far to clever to think that he'd get away with it when several governments are gunning for his hide. I'd be surprised if at the end of the day it didn't turn up to be trumped up either as a conspiracy or more likely by an individual looking to cash in on his fame and make a name for herself. Because it's not like women ever do that. Ultimately it's probably even or better odds.
Wrong, it's a net negative, the contribution has already been made, this would reduce it by the difference. And probably even more as you can always trap the CO2 and use it for soda instead of generating C02 for that purpose.
We also do it with landfill off gassing. It takes a fairly sizable landfill, but the gas is going into the atmosphere anyways, may as well trap it and burn it.
It's hardly surprising, it's hardly unheard of for a soldier to take the fascist account of the war and get upset that people don't recognize a pointless and distracting war as legitimately protecting the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, dieing in a uniform is not sufficient to consider it a act of protection for the nation at large.
Actually that's probably a side effect of them not having traffic control devices in place. Because the devices don't exist, they can't be missed and consequently nobody can assume that the other party is going to stop. I remember a study a while back which dealt with signage, the conclusion was that too many traffic control devices was usually worse than too few. As long as there was a strong standard for how to handle 4 way stops common sense went quite a long ways toward making the roads safer.
Speed bumps are great, especially since you can tune them to the speed that you're expecting on the road. Jarring isn't a good idea, if you've got people speeding, jarring them could very easily send them into a crowd of pedestrians, which is presumably not the intention of getting traffic under control.
We've got a few up here in WA state as well, they work pretty well. It's basically a way of putting people on notice that the police are aware of the speeding and can start ticketing anytime, without actually needing to assign anybody to it unless it becomes necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
What normally happens is that Google would refund the money, probably losing some money in the process, which since there main objective is figuring out who people are is just fine. At $5 a developer, they shouldn't have any trouble handling these eventualities without losing money.
Kids and those that are in parts of the world where they can't send money to the US.
Um, that was Jack Kevorkian, and he's still alive as far as I can tell.
$300? Up here in WA state, that ticket is over $600 if I'm not mistaken. They do allow you to submit proof after the fact that you had the insurance and waive most of the fee, but those tickets are expensive. LEOs can ticket you for every single violation they see. They'll generally give a warning on most of them if they feel that you're not going to do it again, but they don't have to. As long as they catch you doing it and it's on the books, the only hope you have is of the judge tossing it.
That's not true, genius is generally defined with respect to the population in general. Generally the top percentage point or two. IQ isn't defined in a way which varies, it's main problem is that it's perhaps too tightly defined. IQ is a way of estimating the capacity for certain types of thought and reasoning as well as memory. What a person does with that capacity is not related to that even the slightest bit. Most of the differences comes from personal interest. I've got interests so I've spent a large amount of time devoted to perfecting skills related to that. Mozart was considered by everybody to be a genius, but he worked his ass off to produce his body of work, he probably worked harder than anybody else, he just happened to have more resources to start with and as such got farther than others had.
Which has subsequently been added to Google docs.
There's a difference here. When Ford released his first vehicle, he had ad writers tell people what it was for, and people added ideas onto that. Google, didn't really give much purpose to the software, and unlike cars, which could be used, if in a limited basis as a stand alone unit in town, wave didn't really have a lot of utility unless you knew other people using it and had some idea what it was for.
It wasn't an issue of being radical, it was an issue of it being a collaborative tool, restricted to a small number of people and lacking an obvious purpose. People don't generally learn to use a tool in case it becomes helpful later on, they learn to use it because they have an idea as to what to do with it. They might only need it for a theoretical contingency plan, but they at least have an idea what the purpose is. It's rare for something to take off just from random tinkering.
It doesn't cut both ways, as the idea that you've advanced is more complicated than the alternatives. Rapists don't generally commit crimes when they know that they're being watched, for the simple reason that they don't want to go to prison. Consequently, it would require added complexities to buy into that particular hypothesis.
But, it did come out that the warrant has been withdrawn, whether it was an attempted conspiracy, attempted extortion or just an accident is going to be tough to say.
Interesting, so next time I get poor service at the local Starbucks, I'll just fire the employee? Cool, I didn't know I could do it.
I don't hire teachers, I don't fire them, I don't get to discipline them, I don't think that's typically the case of bosses.
Point 2 usually isn't that transparent, it usually consists in allocating classes to teachers. Handing a teacher say Shakespeare or math analysis would get that done verily.
That has nothing to do with it. They are employees of the school district not, of the public. Consequently it's not up to you or I to make those decisions. If you don't like the results, you have options, take your kids out of public schools or vote for somebody different to run the school board, but you're no more there boss than I am the boss of the local Starbucks, by virtue of buying a drink from time to time.
I used to work for the state for a while, and it's mind blowing to me that random people think they're your boss. They have no clue what your job is or what the priorities are, nor do they know what the funding status of the project is, but somehow since it's taxpayer dollars, they're the boss. Which isn't true, they aren't the boss, and there is, at least in my state, mandatory auditing that goes on to deal with any problems that might pop up.
Depends, do you get evaluated for somebody else's effort or lack thereof? I don't think anybody's really opposed to evaluating teachers, just the metrics involved. A teacher covering AP topics is going to look a lot better than one that's teaching remedial math is, and that's the default, you can get poor teachers in AP, but in practice the teachers cleaning up the messes from previous teachers end up being screwed just as hard as the ones that made the mess in the first place. And that's assuming that the teachers have the time and resources to teach in the first place, which in my experience is a dicey proposition.
At the end of the day, the proposals would probably be less offensive if administrative employees were being similarly evaluated. Which surprisingly enough, I don't recall hearing any proposals for doing and evaluations at the school district level.
You can usually tell with simple oversight. Take a look at a random sampling of homework assignments and tests and you can usually get a pretty good feel for who's phoning it in. It's going to be somewhat subjective, but chances are if there's meat to the homework and tests that they're doing fine.
Indeed, I've been opposed to this sort of thing for a while on the basis that it at very least discourages the best teachers from risking the toughest schools. A teacher is on campus usually for something like 6 hours a day, and at least at the middle and highschool level probably has 5 hours of actual direct contact with students. You're not going to overcome a bad home environment and learning problems with the resources given. It's just not going to happen, the whole premise of evaluations assumes that you do something about it, and the way evaluations are typically done just doesn't lead anywhere productive.
What they should be doing is stripping back the testing to more generalized criteria, probably just taking a look at a random sampling of the tests that the teachers are assigning. If the test itself isn't good enough, help the teacher formulate better ones, and if the scores themselves are deficient, then that needs more than just discipline or training for the teacher to fix.
The whole teacher's union thing is a MacGuffin, it has very little to do with the problem of ineffectual school management, poor funding, and a lack of parental involvement. Ironically enough, the union is only a small part of the whole situation. And definitely not with the sort of pull necessary to fix the problems.
These days it's very difficult to find a place where that's not the case. North Korea probably, Iran possibly, but the list of nations which would take him is pretty limited and invariably would require him to look the other way about local abuses of power.
In that case it's significantly more delusional. Roman Polanski confessed to anally raping the girl and they allowed him to plead down to statutory rape for less time. He's guilty as sin and anybody that says otherwise is a tool. In this case there isn't yet any sort of smoking gun so given the implausibility that somebody that's going a target on them as big as his, isn't it somewhat convenient that the government now has charges available? Sure he could be that stupid, but people who deal with leaks tend to be very paranoid by nature, and I'd be shocked if he would honestly believe he could get away with it.
Occam's razor. While it's possible that he's guilty, the most realistic option that he was in some form set up is probably the correct one. It's not like the US government has ever played a dirty trick on an irritant before or that there are no gold digging women out there looking to cash in on a trumped up story. Wait, didn't some woman try that on David Copperfield recently?
Possible yes, unlikely. He's far to clever to think that he'd get away with it when several governments are gunning for his hide. I'd be surprised if at the end of the day it didn't turn up to be trumped up either as a conspiracy or more likely by an individual looking to cash in on his fame and make a name for herself. Because it's not like women ever do that. Ultimately it's probably even or better odds.
Wrong, it's a net negative, the contribution has already been made, this would reduce it by the difference. And probably even more as you can always trap the CO2 and use it for soda instead of generating C02 for that purpose.
We also do it with landfill off gassing. It takes a fairly sizable landfill, but the gas is going into the atmosphere anyways, may as well trap it and burn it.
It's hardly surprising, it's hardly unheard of for a soldier to take the fascist account of the war and get upset that people don't recognize a pointless and distracting war as legitimately protecting the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, dieing in a uniform is not sufficient to consider it a act of protection for the nation at large.
Actually that's probably a side effect of them not having traffic control devices in place. Because the devices don't exist, they can't be missed and consequently nobody can assume that the other party is going to stop. I remember a study a while back which dealt with signage, the conclusion was that too many traffic control devices was usually worse than too few. As long as there was a strong standard for how to handle 4 way stops common sense went quite a long ways toward making the roads safer.
Speed bumps are great, especially since you can tune them to the speed that you're expecting on the road. Jarring isn't a good idea, if you've got people speeding, jarring them could very easily send them into a crowd of pedestrians, which is presumably not the intention of getting traffic under control.
We've got a few up here in WA state as well, they work pretty well. It's basically a way of putting people on notice that the police are aware of the speeding and can start ticketing anytime, without actually needing to assign anybody to it unless it becomes necessary.