If you own a Prius, you know that this is how the shifter behaves all the time. To get it into engine braking you have to hold it in place. Same for neutral since it is in the middle of the pattern between drive, park, and reverse. It may be easy to forget that in an emergency, but it is not because of the throttle being wide open.
Not always directly genetic, as in the presence of an extra X/Y or some other mosaic condition. It can also be caused by the hormones that the embryo is exposed to, possibly this is genetic in the mother but I haven't seen any study about it. Or by obvious or occult physical defect; exstrophies being an obvious one.
Or, to paraphrase the GP: Physiotype is what you've got. Karyotype is what your genes have. Gender is what your brain has. Sex is what you want to be having.
Why would the mother have noticed it? It looked just like the Wii gun, judging by the picture in the article. If the toy was always left on the table, and the mother was used to it, what reason would she have to notice? "Oh, look, someone bought another toy gun for the kids"
What they need to be arrested for is sheer stupidity of having toy guns that look just like real ones. In what version of reality does that ever seem like a good idea?
Wow that last post got screwed up. I hate how small these text boxes are.
I know the feeling hehe.
Well, that's quite a bit different than what you said above. I understand the 106 rights fine. I was looking for a court case or statutory exemption that provides that "the copyright owner [of the home] should be consulted" when you want to modify the house.
If you meant modify the floor plan, then I would not be surprised. I would be surprised if any court found that you need permission to modify the house. This could mean something as small as painting, or as large as an addition. Both are technically derivative works, and I would assume that the original contract comes with an implied license for derivative works for this (the new home the contract is about) single embodiment of the copyrighted work (the floor plan and the construction [which I think may also be a derivative work of the floor plan]), which is assignable at the licensee's exclusive option.
At this point, I do not know what the whole thought I had at the time was. What I tend to do, is type half a thought at the start of a sentence, place a comma, go back to double check my facts, and then finish with my recipe for spaghetti sauce. Yes, my intent was to refer to modifying the plans for the house. The problem I read about, and I wish I had bookmarked it, is that 120 gives permission to modify the building, but does not give permission to modify the plans. Since Title 17 now (1990 act) makes the distinction between the building and the plans, any modification that requires changing the plans may impinge on the author's rights. This may include anything that requires new blue prints to city/town council or zoning. And, depending on the lawyers drawing up the license for the initial development of the house, this may not be something the architect transfers to the home owner and it would, most likely, not be transfered implicitly.
I will go through my copyright and legal bookmarks, I hope it is there someplace. I don't think it was a closed case, so I may have dismissed it as 'over-zealous lawyers with rich clients'.
Multiple problems here. The monument and statue were made before 1990, so AWCPA doesn't hold immediately. Wouldn't anyways, because they are no human-inhabitable. So, no public photography exemption there. What the real stretch will come down to is whether the courts find that a publicly displayed architectural item includes pieces of art, or just buildings.
What gets really strange is that the photograph of the statues is not the problem in the case of the war memorial. The plaintiff, nor the court, seemed to suggest that the photographer did not have copyright of the picture as a legitimate derivative work. In fact, in the most recent ruling on Feb 25, the opinions included that the photographer did have copyright protection on the photo. The problem, in that case, only exists between the US government and the person who created the statues. What will be interesting is to see if Gaylord turns and sues the photographer for selling prints of the picture next.
The other cases, I can see lots of ways that copyright could be enforced for the sculptor that would not imping upon a photographer's rights either. They will be interesting to follow, though
Look at my reply to the other response to this. I forget to finish complete thoughts when I type in a hurry, and did so in this post. Bad habit of mine.
Modifying a house you own is legal and all fine and dandy, as is distributing the modified blueprints for zoning and city/town council and records and what not should be as well. Usually those copies are covered in the license with the architect, as the other poster said. License, but not copyright, so beat any architect who won't license those rather formal legal requirements. Modifying the house, making blueprints of the new total house, and claiming them as your own is not. Not a lawyer, so while I can find the legal code pretty well I do not have such a memory for cases and precedent. Title 17, Chapter 1 is the best place to look, if you mean for US Code. Section 102(a)5 for how copyright covers buildings. And Wiki has lists of cases that have hinged on this code.
I do admit to typing hastily and badly mangling details. I had company and didn't want to spend long discussing this. Changing the house that you own is perfectly fine, all legal and dandy. Reproducing the house into a blueprint would not be alright, if the blueprint was copyrighted in modern times because of all those Bono and Disney extensions on what a copyright covers. Taking a blueprint that you licensed for a single building and building two would go against your contract, invalidating it and probably causing a copyright violation. Same works if you just measure the work and have someone else recreate it; reproduction of a copyrighted work. You could not photocopy a book, then type from that and claim it was not infringement because the photocopy was not copyrighted.
However, to respond to the 'bullshit', you could have at least read about photography and copyright. There is an exemption for photographing copyrighted (or other) articles if they are out in public. Otherwise, a photographer taking a picture of a recently made statue would be in violation of copyright laws. If you wanted to point out that I misrepresented Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 120 of the Copyright Act, you better damn well get both points right next time. Since that only covers the modification of buildings, and the photographing of them, I would have to dig around to find the exemption for articles of clothing. I seem to remember it relies on the inability for an average viewer of the photo to discern whether the shirt in question belongs to BigNameDesigner or is just a Chinese knock-off. You see this a lot in TV shows where, if a brand name would show up, it is 'greeked' out. My suspicion is that the same legal ruling there is what holds for photographers. But I wouldn't push my luck by trying to photograph a model wearing a one-of-a-kind Dior gown and later using it commercially without a valid model release for the model, and the gown. Possibly an application section 113 C, but I really would need more time to dig around.
blast, still can't get § to show up as the Section character. Oh well, too tired.
You do not understand 'work for hire', so please, stop. The reason you have difficulty finding a photographer is because you do not understand this distinction. 'Work for hire' only counts in:
You paying them to work for you does not count, unless you are employing them full time or have specified in the contract that it is a 'work for hire'. As a amateur photographer, I have enough respect for my own portfolio to only hand over the copyright in the case that you pay for all the advertising that the photographs would have gotten me had I been able to display them in my portfolio. Don't like that, then don't hire those photographers. But do not confuse the law and think that it is in your favor.
Copyright. The copyright for the blue print of the house is owned by the architect, unless contract otherwise changes that. Since modification to the house is a change to the copyrighted article, the copyright owner should be consulted.
This doesn't often crop up in residential buildings, though in large designed neighborhoods where the architect and developer do all the work it may. It does show up in larger corporate structures, and buildings by more prolific designers.
And XML3D won't be associated with "Yet Another 3-D IRC"? From Blaxxun to Second Life to some Flash site or another, if it has 3-D someone will create an avatar based chat room. Someone will use it for obnoxious advertisements, and someone will create a 100 MB file that has to load completely before starting.
As for it being a plugin, that seems like a better solution. You do not get the benefit of what ever efficiency is gained by being native, but you do not start subjecting everyone to the "Next big thing in advertisement, a 3D picture of a hamburger! With bites being taken out of it at random! Just think of the marketing potential!"
I use Nearly Free Speech as a host. For my small purposes, the pay-as-you-use is cheaper than even the $5-month unlimited everything plans others offer. And since every pays for what they use, it seems like they have good reason to keep pages up all the time, even through a/. or digg wave of requests. And since tech support charges fees for anything that isn't actually their fault, every user who can't figure out Wordpress ends up paying for keeping support busy.
They do have their downsides. I have seen a few outages over the past years, most get resolved in minutes but a few have lasted longer. For me that isn't a problem, but for a business it probably would be. But I have a hard time beating the $0.30 to $0.70 a month baseline hosting cost.
Not a chemist myself, it was just one of the things I have found useful in typing up notes or homework where representing the equation in a textbook manner is more visually appealing than with a ton of parentheses. Mostly because writing out the quadratic equation as (-b +- (b^2 -4ac)^(1/2))/(2a) just looks messy to me. It is something that I wish I had available when I was taking chem, as a typed lab book would have been much easier for my professors to read.
Not a requirement for a HS chem class, by any means. But one of the few things I thought could be useful. Not having used Word in . . . ages, the last I remember was that it's depiction of formulas was atrocious.
a) spreadsheets - Excel, OpenOffice, whatever. How could anyone do a lab without using one for tables, calcs, and graphing? Make them mandatory for experiment reports;
On paper? Really, write it out and understand the process of what the work represents. Do not just plug the numbers into Excel and let that model it. Worst case, you end up with students who can turn their results into a graph, but still do not understand what the graph even means. Then someone else tests them by giving them graphs and asking what it means.
The negative commentary is hyperbole, to underscore the fact that the saturation of computers is not what us geeks normally expect it to be. We live and work in a field where multiple computers per person is normal. High schools exist in places where there are old computers because the families can not afford new ones. Or afford a computer at all. The poster did not say that they work for a private magnet school, catering to high technology parents and students. I chose my advice based on the type of school I went to, that had 10 to 15 year old computers in their main 'computer lab'. And, before the snark begins, it was one of the better public county schools compared to the others in the Appalachia area of Virginia. Could get better by moving to a larger city, but that was not where the family worked.
Never taught in a county school in the southern parts of the USA, have you? Poor districts in the inner city? High school anywhere?
Pick a railroad town, or coal mining town, or an old bust gold town. Just because you have never stopped in one of these does not mean there are not schools there. There exist school districts where there are students who do not have computers. I grew up in one, where parts of the county still have well water and septic tanks, and phone lines were just being installed 15 years ago. I have developed computer programs to take to schools in the last 2 years, where the school did not even have a pentium 3 era computer to run them on.
Since the poster did not provide any information about that, I figured my responses should be applicable to situations at both ends of the spectrum; where computers might only be available in the school labs, or where every student has the top line gaming machine at home. Strangely, my opinion for chemistry remains unchanged: A computer is not needed for high school chemistry, and at the college level it can get you a lot of extra data, and help you make your reports more readable.
Is Jmol going to teach them the difference between trans- and cis-, or dextro- and levo-? It might be helpful in addition to learning those concepts, but this still looks like something the teacher could use, displayed to the class as a teaching aid, not as extra homework. And students who do not have good spacial recognition may still not understand how flipping the mirror version will not result in the same chemical. Good physical models, that can be passed around, can not be discounted for that.
Granted, it was 10 years ago that I took college level organic chemistry. The only thing I have seen in that time that would have been useful was LaTeX, for putting together nicely typed lab notes. You might, rarely, spend a week explaining how to use a graphing calculator. Keep it vague and the kids can apply it to a TI-83 or a software calc.
You don't mention the funding of your school, or the tax bracket of your school district. For all we know, you want to teach a computer based course so you have more ways to fail the 75% of your students who do not have a computer at home. Really, if you want to teach IT, teach IT or programing or an Online 101 elective. I know, Teaching The Test sucks, but stick within the course. You find some experiments online to do in the classroom, you find time in the semester to add them in, and you make them relevant.
If the multi touch is also pressure sensitive, these will be substantially cheaper than Wacom's Cintiq. Give these the ability to use Wacom pens, and even thought I am not a graphic artist by trade I would pick one up. On the other hand, news like this suggests Apple intends this to just be an over-sized iPhone, killing their chance at getting their artist market to fork over even more cash.
While I would, probably, trust an embedded system compiled from C code, there are just times where the compiler screws up predicting what you want and generates code that is a mess. Sometimes you just need assembly to get the job done. Compare some Java programmers, who think that a integer is an integer and the compiler will figure out how many bits I really need, to a C++ programmer with just a bare knowledge of assembly. I have actually seen that, as my university has moved freshman CS courses from a C and C++ basis, when I started, to Java. Taking the required MIPS ASM course with Computer Engineers taught C++, and CS folks taught Java, it was a laugh riot. I actually heard a third year, self professed 'hacker', ask why 0.1 decimal could not be reasonably represented in a float. I confess, it brings me only a little relief to know that these 'hackers' are going into aerospace companies, instead of banking.
Right, because anyone, anywhere can reproduce climate predictions for anyone who seeks to understand them. And, since when did it become an appeal to authority to use someone else's research to help further your own? Lots of research can be summarized as "We started with what was suggested by Soandso, combined with the knowledge presented by Suchandsuch, and we (succeeded|failed) to prove our hypothesis." Besides, appeal to authority is only fallacious when the quote is from a person that is not actually an expert in their field. Many people believe, for example, that biologists are not actually experts in evolution, should we discount their experiments simply because someone out there does not understand it? Or a statement on human behavior from a psychologist, who has experiments and statistics to back them up without having a logical and empirical understanding of how humans think?
Yes, there is a difference between empirical science and the rest of the world. But just because you value logic and empiricism does not mean you can not seek to understand the non-logical system of human behavior. My appeal was to their curiosity, to learn about something they do not understand. That is, if they want to understand it. If they do not, then that may not be changed. I tried to make no statement to whether they would think it was still art after they had some understanding of the subject.
Does irony make the same wooshing sound that deadlines do? I only barely suggested that this was art, and only in the same way all computer programing is programming. As for whether it is good art or bad art, that is up to the viewer to decide. That it is simple 'not art' is up to the artist. For it being a scam, well, don't take part in it if you do not wish to.
You seem angry that things 'pretend to be art'. It is art if the artist says so, and it is valuable if someone is willing to buy it. Collectors, as a lot, are not all idiots and some of them enjoy being in on jokes like this. As for Dali, if I recall that quote was from the Dadaist or Surrealist times? From a surrealist who dressed as the Lindburgh baby and the kidnappers, you get that posers and fakes are just junk? And I won't even touch on the logical fallacy that since I may disagree with one statement, I must think that the person stating it is a fraud or something.
Well, signing a urinal 'R. Mutt' and getting a gallery to put it on display was a pretty interesting accomplishment. The guy helped the dadaist movement in America which, at the time considered to be absolute junk, later inspired art styles like punk rock.
Now, to/. at large, get over yourselves. So you don't understand why this is art, or why someone would pay $5 grand for it. And because you don't understand it, it must be wrong. Take the chance to go learn something, instead. You are geeks, be curious! Read "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", take a high level art class some place. Learn about Fluxus, "Happenings", or Nam June Pak and Tom Igoe. If you can dismiss this just because you do not "get it", then it is pretty reasonable for others who do not "get" your work to just dismiss it as well.
Disclaimer: As a poor artist, I appreciate the mockery this guy is making of the art collecting world, and would love to laugh at the 'stupid collectors' buying it over and over, but I think they get the joke as well.
The content is yours to copy and redistribute as you wish, once the information is in the public domain. The individual manifestation of that data, be it book, film, whatever, is not covered by copyright and is owned. It's owner, in this case CBS, gets to decide who has access to it.
Really, is this so confusing?/. rants about how the MP/RI/AA want to control physical media, but then people make strange arguments like this one.
Slashdot Mirror
If you own a Prius, you know that this is how the shifter behaves all the time. To get it into engine braking you have to hold it in place. Same for neutral since it is in the middle of the pattern between drive, park, and reverse. It may be easy to forget that in an emergency, but it is not because of the throttle being wide open.
Not always directly genetic, as in the presence of an extra X/Y or some other mosaic condition. It can also be caused by the hormones that the embryo is exposed to, possibly this is genetic in the mother but I haven't seen any study about it. Or by obvious or occult physical defect; exstrophies being an obvious one.
Or, to paraphrase the GP:
Physiotype is what you've got.
Karyotype is what your genes have.
Gender is what your brain has.
Sex is what you want to be having.
Why would the mother have noticed it? It looked just like the Wii gun, judging by the picture in the article. If the toy was always left on the table, and the mother was used to it, what reason would she have to notice? "Oh, look, someone bought another toy gun for the kids"
What they need to be arrested for is sheer stupidity of having toy guns that look just like real ones. In what version of reality does that ever seem like a good idea?
AC has a point, here. Pretty basic SIGINT stuff, and Facebook apps do provide an awful lot of information if done correctly.
Try it, write an app and get others to install it on their Facebook profile. The things you can learn about friends is scary.
Wow that last post got screwed up. I hate how small these text boxes are.
I know the feeling hehe.
Well, that's quite a bit different than what you said above. I understand the 106 rights fine. I was looking for a court case or statutory exemption that provides that "the copyright owner [of the home] should be consulted" when you want to modify the house. If you meant modify the floor plan, then I would not be surprised. I would be surprised if any court found that you need permission to modify the house. This could mean something as small as painting, or as large as an addition. Both are technically derivative works, and I would assume that the original contract comes with an implied license for derivative works for this (the new home the contract is about) single embodiment of the copyrighted work (the floor plan and the construction [which I think may also be a derivative work of the floor plan]), which is assignable at the licensee's exclusive option.
At this point, I do not know what the whole thought I had at the time was. What I tend to do, is type half a thought at the start of a sentence, place a comma, go back to double check my facts, and then finish with my recipe for spaghetti sauce. Yes, my intent was to refer to modifying the plans for the house. The problem I read about, and I wish I had bookmarked it, is that 120 gives permission to modify the building, but does not give permission to modify the plans. Since Title 17 now (1990 act) makes the distinction between the building and the plans, any modification that requires changing the plans may impinge on the author's rights. This may include anything that requires new blue prints to city/town council or zoning. And, depending on the lawyers drawing up the license for the initial development of the house, this may not be something the architect transfers to the home owner and it would, most likely, not be transfered implicitly.
I will go through my copyright and legal bookmarks, I hope it is there someplace. I don't think it was a closed case, so I may have dismissed it as 'over-zealous lawyers with rich clients'.
Multiple problems here. The monument and statue were made before 1990, so AWCPA doesn't hold immediately. Wouldn't anyways, because they are no human-inhabitable. So, no public photography exemption there. What the real stretch will come down to is whether the courts find that a publicly displayed architectural item includes pieces of art, or just buildings.
What gets really strange is that the photograph of the statues is not the problem in the case of the war memorial. The plaintiff, nor the court, seemed to suggest that the photographer did not have copyright of the picture as a legitimate derivative work. In fact, in the most recent ruling on Feb 25, the opinions included that the photographer did have copyright protection on the photo. The problem, in that case, only exists between the US government and the person who created the statues. What will be interesting is to see if Gaylord turns and sues the photographer for selling prints of the picture next.
The other cases, I can see lots of ways that copyright could be enforced for the sculptor that would not imping upon a photographer's rights either. They will be interesting to follow, though
Look at my reply to the other response to this. I forget to finish complete thoughts when I type in a hurry, and did so in this post. Bad habit of mine.
Modifying a house you own is legal and all fine and dandy, as is distributing the modified blueprints for zoning and city/town council and records and what not should be as well. Usually those copies are covered in the license with the architect, as the other poster said. License, but not copyright, so beat any architect who won't license those rather formal legal requirements. Modifying the house, making blueprints of the new total house, and claiming them as your own is not. Not a lawyer, so while I can find the legal code pretty well I do not have such a memory for cases and precedent. Title 17, Chapter 1 is the best place to look, if you mean for US Code. Section 102(a)5 for how copyright covers buildings. And Wiki has lists of cases that have hinged on this code.
I do admit to typing hastily and badly mangling details. I had company and didn't want to spend long discussing this. Changing the house that you own is perfectly fine, all legal and dandy. Reproducing the house into a blueprint would not be alright, if the blueprint was copyrighted in modern times because of all those Bono and Disney extensions on what a copyright covers. Taking a blueprint that you licensed for a single building and building two would go against your contract, invalidating it and probably causing a copyright violation. Same works if you just measure the work and have someone else recreate it; reproduction of a copyrighted work. You could not photocopy a book, then type from that and claim it was not infringement because the photocopy was not copyrighted.
However, to respond to the 'bullshit', you could have at least read about photography and copyright. There is an exemption for photographing copyrighted (or other) articles if they are out in public. Otherwise, a photographer taking a picture of a recently made statue would be in violation of copyright laws. If you wanted to point out that I misrepresented Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 120 of the Copyright Act, you better damn well get both points right next time. Since that only covers the modification of buildings, and the photographing of them, I would have to dig around to find the exemption for articles of clothing. I seem to remember it relies on the inability for an average viewer of the photo to discern whether the shirt in question belongs to BigNameDesigner or is just a Chinese knock-off. You see this a lot in TV shows where, if a brand name would show up, it is 'greeked' out. My suspicion is that the same legal ruling there is what holds for photographers. But I wouldn't push my luck by trying to photograph a model wearing a one-of-a-kind Dior gown and later using it commercially without a valid model release for the model, and the gown. Possibly an application section 113 C, but I really would need more time to dig around.
blast, still can't get § to show up as the Section character. Oh well, too tired.
You do not understand 'work for hire', so please, stop. The reason you have difficulty finding a photographer is because you do not understand this distinction. 'Work for hire' only counts in:
The work also has to be specified as work for hire, and must be specially commissioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
You paying them to work for you does not count, unless you are employing them full time or have specified in the contract that it is a 'work for hire'. As a amateur photographer, I have enough respect for my own portfolio to only hand over the copyright in the case that you pay for all the advertising that the photographs would have gotten me had I been able to display them in my portfolio. Don't like that, then don't hire those photographers. But do not confuse the law and think that it is in your favor.
Copyright. The copyright for the blue print of the house is owned by the architect, unless contract otherwise changes that. Since modification to the house is a change to the copyrighted article, the copyright owner should be consulted.
This doesn't often crop up in residential buildings, though in large designed neighborhoods where the architect and developer do all the work it may. It does show up in larger corporate structures, and buildings by more prolific designers.
And XML3D won't be associated with "Yet Another 3-D IRC"? From Blaxxun to Second Life to some Flash site or another, if it has 3-D someone will create an avatar based chat room. Someone will use it for obnoxious advertisements, and someone will create a 100 MB file that has to load completely before starting.
As for it being a plugin, that seems like a better solution. You do not get the benefit of what ever efficiency is gained by being native, but you do not start subjecting everyone to the "Next big thing in advertisement, a 3D picture of a hamburger! With bites being taken out of it at random! Just think of the marketing potential!"
I use Nearly Free Speech as a host. For my small purposes, the pay-as-you-use is cheaper than even the $5-month unlimited everything plans others offer. And since every pays for what they use, it seems like they have good reason to keep pages up all the time, even through a /. or digg wave of requests. And since tech support charges fees for anything that isn't actually their fault, every user who can't figure out Wordpress ends up paying for keeping support busy.
They do have their downsides. I have seen a few outages over the past years, most get resolved in minutes but a few have lasted longer. For me that isn't a problem, but for a business it probably would be. But I have a hard time beating the $0.30 to $0.70 a month baseline hosting cost.
Octanitrocubane. Detonation velocity of nearly 30 times the speed of sound. Keep away from High School students.
Not a chemist myself, it was just one of the things I have found useful in typing up notes or homework where representing the equation in a textbook manner is more visually appealing than with a ton of parentheses. Mostly because writing out the quadratic equation as (-b +- (b^2 -4ac)^(1/2))/(2a) just looks messy to me. It is something that I wish I had available when I was taking chem, as a typed lab book would have been much easier for my professors to read.
Not a requirement for a HS chem class, by any means. But one of the few things I thought could be useful. Not having used Word in . . . ages, the last I remember was that it's depiction of formulas was atrocious.
a) spreadsheets - Excel, OpenOffice, whatever. How could anyone do a lab without using one for tables, calcs, and graphing? Make them mandatory for experiment reports;
On paper?
Really, write it out and understand the process of what the work represents. Do not just plug the numbers into Excel and let that model it. Worst case, you end up with students who can turn their results into a graph, but still do not understand what the graph even means. Then someone else tests them by giving them graphs and asking what it means.
The negative commentary is hyperbole, to underscore the fact that the saturation of computers is not what us geeks normally expect it to be. We live and work in a field where multiple computers per person is normal. High schools exist in places where there are old computers because the families can not afford new ones. Or afford a computer at all. The poster did not say that they work for a private magnet school, catering to high technology parents and students. I chose my advice based on the type of school I went to, that had 10 to 15 year old computers in their main 'computer lab'. And, before the snark begins, it was one of the better public county schools compared to the others in the Appalachia area of Virginia. Could get better by moving to a larger city, but that was not where the family worked.
Never taught in a county school in the southern parts of the USA, have you? Poor districts in the inner city? High school anywhere?
Pick a railroad town, or coal mining town, or an old bust gold town. Just because you have never stopped in one of these does not mean there are not schools there. There exist school districts where there are students who do not have computers. I grew up in one, where parts of the county still have well water and septic tanks, and phone lines were just being installed 15 years ago. I have developed computer programs to take to schools in the last 2 years, where the school did not even have a pentium 3 era computer to run them on.
Since the poster did not provide any information about that, I figured my responses should be applicable to situations at both ends of the spectrum; where computers might only be available in the school labs, or where every student has the top line gaming machine at home. Strangely, my opinion for chemistry remains unchanged: A computer is not needed for high school chemistry, and at the college level it can get you a lot of extra data, and help you make your reports more readable.
Is Jmol going to teach them the difference between trans- and cis-, or dextro- and levo-? It might be helpful in addition to learning those concepts, but this still looks like something the teacher could use, displayed to the class as a teaching aid, not as extra homework. And students who do not have good spacial recognition may still not understand how flipping the mirror version will not result in the same chemical. Good physical models, that can be passed around, can not be discounted for that.
Sugar and sulphuric acid to demonstrate the change in volume between reactants and product.
Rust and aluminium powder
Sugar and potassium nitrate
Granted, it was 10 years ago that I took college level organic chemistry. The only thing I have seen in that time that would have been useful was LaTeX, for putting together nicely typed lab notes. You might, rarely, spend a week explaining how to use a graphing calculator. Keep it vague and the kids can apply it to a TI-83 or a software calc.
You don't mention the funding of your school, or the tax bracket of your school district. For all we know, you want to teach a computer based course so you have more ways to fail the 75% of your students who do not have a computer at home. Really, if you want to teach IT, teach IT or programing or an Online 101 elective. I know, Teaching The Test sucks, but stick within the course. You find some experiments online to do in the classroom, you find time in the semester to add them in, and you make them relevant.
If the multi touch is also pressure sensitive, these will be substantially cheaper than Wacom's Cintiq. Give these the ability to use Wacom pens, and even thought I am not a graphic artist by trade I would pick one up. On the other hand, news like this suggests Apple intends this to just be an over-sized iPhone, killing their chance at getting their artist market to fork over even more cash.
While I would, probably, trust an embedded system compiled from C code, there are just times where the compiler screws up predicting what you want and generates code that is a mess. Sometimes you just need assembly to get the job done. Compare some Java programmers, who think that a integer is an integer and the compiler will figure out how many bits I really need, to a C++ programmer with just a bare knowledge of assembly. I have actually seen that, as my university has moved freshman CS courses from a C and C++ basis, when I started, to Java. Taking the required MIPS ASM course with Computer Engineers taught C++, and CS folks taught Java, it was a laugh riot. I actually heard a third year, self professed 'hacker', ask why 0.1 decimal could not be reasonably represented in a float. I confess, it brings me only a little relief to know that these 'hackers' are going into aerospace companies, instead of banking.
Right, because anyone, anywhere can reproduce climate predictions for anyone who seeks to understand them. And, since when did it become an appeal to authority to use someone else's research to help further your own? Lots of research can be summarized as "We started with what was suggested by Soandso, combined with the knowledge presented by Suchandsuch, and we (succeeded|failed) to prove our hypothesis." Besides, appeal to authority is only fallacious when the quote is from a person that is not actually an expert in their field. Many people believe, for example, that biologists are not actually experts in evolution, should we discount their experiments simply because someone out there does not understand it? Or a statement on human behavior from a psychologist, who has experiments and statistics to back them up without having a logical and empirical understanding of how humans think?
Yes, there is a difference between empirical science and the rest of the world. But just because you value logic and empiricism does not mean you can not seek to understand the non-logical system of human behavior. My appeal was to their curiosity, to learn about something they do not understand. That is, if they want to understand it. If they do not, then that may not be changed. I tried to make no statement to whether they would think it was still art after they had some understanding of the subject.
Does irony make the same wooshing sound that deadlines do? I only barely suggested that this was art, and only in the same way all computer programing is programming. As for whether it is good art or bad art, that is up to the viewer to decide. That it is simple 'not art' is up to the artist. For it being a scam, well, don't take part in it if you do not wish to.
You seem angry that things 'pretend to be art'. It is art if the artist says so, and it is valuable if someone is willing to buy it. Collectors, as a lot, are not all idiots and some of them enjoy being in on jokes like this. As for Dali, if I recall that quote was from the Dadaist or Surrealist times? From a surrealist who dressed as the Lindburgh baby and the kidnappers, you get that posers and fakes are just junk? And I won't even touch on the logical fallacy that since I may disagree with one statement, I must think that the person stating it is a fraud or something.
Well, signing a urinal 'R. Mutt' and getting a gallery to put it on display was a pretty interesting accomplishment. The guy helped the dadaist movement in America which, at the time considered to be absolute junk, later inspired art styles like punk rock.
Now, to /. at large, get over yourselves. So you don't understand why this is art, or why someone would pay $5 grand for it. And because you don't understand it, it must be wrong. Take the chance to go learn something, instead. You are geeks, be curious! Read "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", take a high level art class some place. Learn about Fluxus, "Happenings", or Nam June Pak and Tom Igoe. If you can dismiss this just because you do not "get it", then it is pretty reasonable for others who do not "get" your work to just dismiss it as well.
Disclaimer: As a poor artist, I appreciate the mockery this guy is making of the art collecting world, and would love to laugh at the 'stupid collectors' buying it over and over, but I think they get the joke as well.
The content is yours to copy and redistribute as you wish, once the information is in the public domain. The individual manifestation of that data, be it book, film, whatever, is not covered by copyright and is owned. It's owner, in this case CBS, gets to decide who has access to it.
Really, is this so confusing? /. rants about how the MP/RI/AA want to control physical media, but then people make strange arguments like this one.