On a per-passenger basis, do Branson's planes take up more petroleum, steel, etc. than a regular car as generally used (that is, one or perhaps two people in the car at the same time)?
I don't know whether it is, but without some facts, I'm not willing to accept on faith that air travel is worse for the environment than all other options. Admittedly, I'd be surprised as hell if planes had less impact than trains, but I don't know about cars.
It's quite disturbing, that kids a few years ago knew DOS and BASIC etc
Back in the day, you had to know how your car worked, just to keep it going. Now practically nobody knows how modern cars really work. Beyond changing the oil, most people simply take the car in to the dealer or mechanic. Is it better that people spend less of their own time fixing cars, or worse? Does it really matter?
Computer technology has advanced to the point where you don't need to know BASIC in order to make your computer do what you need it to do. Plus, when most of the people in society don't know how to do anything beyond move around the GUI, that keeps Slashdotters employed.;-)
In the same vein, all engineers are nerds who can't get a date. All designers are homosexuals. All male programmers are socially inept, and there are no female programmers. All doctors have a God Complex. All firefighters, of course, are heroes;-).
Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.
I agree that massively centralized power is a bad idea, but given that most Americans live in urban areas, how can we avoid centralized power collection? I can't put a windmill on my apartment building. I'm sure the definition of "massively centralized" varies, but are you suggesting that individuals are the solution, or do you think community-owned power collection could work? Even there, I'm a bit skeptical. So many incorporated areas butt up against neighboring cities that it seems it would be very difficult to manage wind collection at even a regional level.
Does localized wind collection seem viable to you in any area but rural land?
Surely only a Devil's Advocate could invoke Axe body spray, a Navy dress uniform, and The Song That Must Not Me Sung all in one sentence without being struck dead by lightning.
I will briefly lament it's passing by wearing Axe body spray, putting on a navy uniform, and going out to bars to sing "She's Lost that Lovin' Feeling" to women who won't sleep with me.
What philosphy? It's legal to ride a bike in traffic. If the lane is wide the law requires that cyclists stay to the right. If the lane isn't wide enough to safely share between a bicycle and a truck then the cyclist is legally allowed to ride in the middle to assert his presence.
It is legal, and it's usually the most effective way to stay safe, but it can be difficult to move out into a lane that is congested with cars.
I do it frequently on certain sections of road, usually when I'm getting ready to make a left turn, but also when the bike lane is simply too narrow. Unfortunately, a lot of car drivers simply aren't paying enough attention, and they sometimes react quite viciously when a cyclist jumps into the middle of what they consider to be their lane. There is the legal, then there's the practical. It's not always practical to mix it up with the cars, particularly when drivers are pissy because of their morning commute.
It's not just the drivers. Many roads seem to have been created with no real thought for cyclists. While this is particularly true in big cities (like SF, where the roads are insane for anyone traveling on them), even nice crunchy places like Santa Cruz make bicycle commuting a risky proposition, because they don't see cyclist-friendly roads to be a high enough priority. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been annihilated because on-street parking forces me almost into the auto lane. Potholes, poorly-designed merge and exit lanes, and fast traffic signals turn a ride to work into a dangerous proposition.
Until there are more people commuting in bikes rather than cars, I don't see the situation changing for the better.
Don't get me wrong, the man's a genuis, but he isn't responsible for half this stuff.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Ive leads a team of designers, so of course every rounded corner or concealed latch isn't his doing. But he is responsible for ensuring that when the hardware ships, the design is top notch. His work is as much about deciding what contributions to refuse as much as it is deciding which to accept. So ultimately he is responsible for all of it.
I'm also unclear on what you mean by "outsourced" in this context. Do you mean that someone in India designed the iMac? Or do you you mean that someone outside of Apple's design team did a lot of the work?
As for conceptualizations being designed by someone else, I'm unclear on that as well. I understand that Jobs always provides input into hardware designs, and that the iPod scroll wheel didn't come from Apple. Beyond that, where are the legions of people whose fame Ive is hijacking?
From reading the posts from jokers and yahoos on Slashdot who pretend to be lawyers (and then hide behind IANAL), you would think that the law on the subject is crystal clear.
I think it's natural for people to want the answers to be crystal-clear. That's particularly true for technology-oriented people, who expect life to be logical.
I also suspect that part of the reason lawyers have such a bad rap is that they delve into all of these fuzzy, grey areas. They get their hands dirty grappling with issues that are contentious and seldom provide satisfaction for all parties. They're plumbers. People need plumbers, but they don't necessarily enjoy having them around.
Really. It's true. However, in spite of the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court have been curtailing the FCC's mandated oversight capabilities (much less oversight it has not been given) for years, somehow one statement by one person means that there will soon be a serious threat to our ability to freely upload crappy videos to YouTube.
The FCC would have to be given this mandate by Congress, and given current political realities, I find that highly improbable. Chalk this one up to bureaucratic bombast. Everybody wants to rule the world, but nobody is going to let the FCC do it.
As many people have already pointed out, a lot of web developers have been telling their clients to use best practices, and these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. This ruling may help developers, in that it will give them more paying work ("Agh! We need to revamp our website right away!") and perhaps more respect ("Hey, what was that you told us about separating data from presentation?").
Nobody in Slashdot would argue that the Internet hasn't become an integral part of all our lives. We use it for everything, from communicating with friends, to gathering news about the world, to making purchases, obtaining government services more rapidly, and so on.
Given that it took the government to step in with the ADA to make physical businesses make buildings accessible, why would anyone believe that market forces will somehow alleviate the difficulties faced online by people with disabilities?
It is interesting to me that so many Slashdot readers are taking it as a given that the analysts are correct on this one, even though the latter(and many Slashdot readers as well) have been wrong about the iPod pretty much every step of the way, and have a long history of not really grokking Apple. I agree that Apple needs to do something new, either by coming out with a completely new product that leapfrogs ahead of the iPod, or by some other means.
But the problem with forecasts like this is that they never take into account human creativity. The default assumption is that the engineers and designers at Apple (or any other company they examine) can't possibly come up with anything to supplant the currently successful product. Given Apple's track record since the return of Jobs, I'm willing to bet that the company's best days are not behind it.
The Halo Effect of iPod sales is very real. Macs, particularly laptops, have made an impressive comeback. You can bet they'll do more with the Intel-powered Macs than they're letting on now. The iTMS has been a huge success, and Apple can use that to springboard into a variety of media distribution plans, depending on where they want to take it. My guess is that when Apple introduces the new video service, there will be more to it than most pundits have predicted.
Particularly, I see Apple finally bringing consumers a truly easy way to snag video content via the Internet and play it back on a variety of devices easily. Integration isn't just about bringing technology to bear on a problem; it's also about making the technology easy enough for John Q. Public to use. With the success of the iPod, the buying public looks to Apple for easy to use media playback devices.
My predictions are, of course, not any more valuable than those from Wall Street. However, I am continually struck by the limited the range of vision of the Wall Street analysts, and by how frequently people actually listen to them.
The system is broken and needs fixing, but merely supplying technology to kids (e.g., laptops with Word installed) who can't perform adequately without it doesn't seem to meet the need.
I agree completely. I've done volunteer work with a charter school, and it is obvious to me that high standards nurture higher-performing students. Technology can assist in the educational process, but certainly can't replace it.
Perhaps it's because I'm happy to see someone trying something different that I see this school in Philly through rose-colored lenses. My hope is that the school will combine high standards with new technology. If they took a holistic approach in designing the facilities, the curriculum, and the performance standards, it could be a great thing. I do think the school might just give some of its students hope for the future, and a feeling that they have economic opportunities. I've volunteered at schools in Pittsburgh and Washington, DC. In both cities, the kids in old, run-down parts of town attended old, run-down schools. Everything in their surroundings screamed out: "You will never escape this. The American Dream is not for you!" Attending a spiffy new school and interacting with the same technology the rich kids have access to might just give some of those kids the realization that they do have a chance.
Disclaimer: Australia, not US. I don't know if your public education system is beyond hope; it's reasonably good over here.
The school system here, at least in major urban centers, is almost completely dysfunctional. The reason I'm in favor of trying new things is that $63M, even if wasteful, could serve as a catalyst for change. Not trying anything, not taking any risks, is what has landed us in such a dismal situation. Everyone wants the school system to work better, but almost nobody is willing to make radical changes.
Interesting timing. Just a moment ago I opened my mailbox and found a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It seems they found the stolen hard drive that contained personal info on 26.5 million veterans. According to the letter, the FBI found the laptop and hard drive.
"Based on the results of forensic tests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has told us that they are highly confident the sensitive data were not accessed."
As a further backup, the VA has "obtained data breach analysis services as a means of further ensuring no misuse of this data occurs in the future."
Like Chase, the VA is "throughly examining every aspect" of their information security program. In the case of the VA snafu, an employee took the laptop home in violation of VA policy. The rash of these incidents makes me wonder how we can expect any sort of large organization to keep a lid on data spills like these, given that most people can't be bothered with basic security precautions even on their own computers. Even if the VA spends millions upon millions of dollars upgrading their security technology and processes (which of course will draw the wrath of opponents of government waste), I'm not sure it will make much difference.
And yes, I think indiscriminately throwing technology at a problem is merely a more concrete form of throwing money at it.
How is this indiscriminate? I've volunteered at schools where they had computers sitting around unused because they were donated or purchased, and nobody gave any thought as to how they would be used. Microsoft and the district spent three years thinking about this and planning a school oriented around technology.
I'm not convinced it will work, but this does not appear to be a slapdash effort.
The students should be required to apply to several that they have a decent chance of graduating from.
So it's bad that they are required to apply to a college, because that's not a strict enough standard, even though it's still a more stringent standard than existing public schools? You seem to be saying that this school goes too far with technology, not far enough with its requirements of students, and that it's just a bad idea to conduct any experiment of this sort because it's doomed to failure.
If your wife doesn't teach in a wealthy district, she knows that the existing situation is grim. Doesn't it make sense to try a variety of approaches and see which ones work?
You do not give a corporation control over education...
Nothing in the article said anything about Microsoft doing the teaching. Teachers do the teaching at the school. Microsoft designed the buildings and the digital infrastructure.
This isn't Animal Farm. We're not talking about a revolutionary takeover here. Is Microsoft acting in its best interest by trying to push the education system in a way that produces better knowledge workers? Yes. Is this a bad thing for schools or for students? I don't think it is.
I wouldn't put it past them to make all software Microsoft based...
Think about the big picture here. There are more important things at stake than whether students are using Micrsoft products in their classrooms.
What if you're among the tens of thousands of kids NOT lucky enough to win a spot there? Would you be feeling resentful that someone gave a damn about other kids' educations but not yours, as you fetch your 20-year-old textbooks out of your rusty locker?
You make a good case for not trying to create a new, better school. It's better that all students should get fucked, rather than most of them.
Jesus Christ, there are a lot of sharpshooters in here. Everyone knows the US K-12 system, particularly in big cities, sucks goats through a straw. Philadelphia and MS are trying something new. Maybe it won't work, but at least they're trying to do something to fix the problem.
If I were a kid lucky enough to win that lottery, I'd be happy to have the opportunity to go to a one of a kind, modern school. I'd feel like someone actually gave a damn about my education. Why are so many urban schools so fucked up? Part of the problem is that the facilities are ancient, crumbling edifices left over from the 1800s. I'm not suggesting that every school in the country be razed and rebuilt, but it's no secret that the physical design of schools is a huge factor in the overall learning environment.
Bringing modern technology into schools isn't enough in itself, but I think it's worth trying. As for Microsoft's involvement, if you're badmouthing it, when is the last time you volunteered at a school?
I prefer Macs for personal tasks and use Linux on servers, but like most people, I have to interact with Windows from time to time. It's like death and taxes: unavoidable. My take on Windows is that since most of the world's personal computers run Windows, improvements to Windows are a good thing. If people suffer less annoyance, less hassle and less stress, they may gain more productivity, and perhaps even a happier computing experience. Just because I've found Windows to be lacking doesn't mean that I would wish a crappy OS on the vast majority of computer users.
Sometimes I get the feeling that many Mac and Linux users wish Windows users ill, as if they deserve punishment from on high.
Here's a counter to the examples we so often see of businessmen doing the wrong thing. You don't often hear about people in business doing the right thing, because that seldom makes a juicy story. In business, you have to make ethical decisions all the time. It's nice to see a news story that sheds some light on one of those decisions properly decided.
Too many CSS and Javascript books out there already.
And as we all know, having choices SUCKS!
Seriously, how is this different from any other computer-related topic? There are zillions of Java books, only some of which are useful to you. The book that is useful to me may not be useful to you. There are Missing Manuals, Head Start, Head Rush, Visual Quickstart, Nutshell, Definitive Guide, Cookbook, Hacks, for Dummies, for Smarties, Programmer to Programmer, and many other different styles of computer books. Surely you can find some ReallyGood books somewhere in there.
Would you really only prefer that there be only one or two flavors?
As I understand it, when a full text content provider republishes copyright-free works, they copyright their newly bundled publication.
The new publisher has copyright on their republishing of the original copyrighted material, but the copyright is "thin." It only applies to the specific manner in which the new publication presents the original material (colors, layout, etc.) The underlying content is still in the public domain. Think of all of the versions of Shakespeare's King Lear. They all contain the same content. It's just presented differently by each individual publisher.
Dowloading ProQuest's PDFs and hosting them on your own would be a violation of their copyright not because you are re-using the underlying content, but because you are appropriating ProQuest's particular presentation of the content.
US government documents that are prepared by the government (as opposed to by a third party) are (with a few exceptions), all automatically in the public domain, on the theory that they belong to the people.
In the long run this will benefit the tech industry. It is much more difficult to sue a manufacturer for a defect in the equipment or how the equipment functions if there is adequate warning. As long as the mythical "reasonable person" would see the warning and read it before using the equipment, nimwits whose unsecured wifi networks get hacked will not be able to sue.
Anticipating responses:
Yes, laywers will attempt to weasel around this, but it will be much more difficult.
Yes, it costs money to create and affix labels to equipment, but it's not going to spell the end of the computer industry any more than warning label requirements on microwave ovens have brought home appliance manufacturers to their knees.
Yes, people will ignore the labels, but over time it will seep into the larger population; just as we stopped hearing about cats in the microwave, unsecured private networks will become less prevalent.
Yes, it is absurd that the legislature had to weigh in on something like this, but just because Slashdotters have more tech affinity than most people doesn't mean that the population at large is retarded.
There are plenty of bloggers who did that for Apple
Here's my translation of what you typed:
"Bloggers who called Maynor and Ellch to task for inconsistencies in their story did so because they were mysteriously being controlled by Apple and didn't have the ability to think for themselves."
Slashdot Mirror
There is a deep and bitter irony
On a per-passenger basis, do Branson's planes take up more petroleum, steel, etc. than a regular car as generally used (that is, one or perhaps two people in the car at the same time)?
I don't know whether it is, but without some facts, I'm not willing to accept on faith that air travel is worse for the environment than all other options. Admittedly, I'd be surprised as hell if planes had less impact than trains, but I don't know about cars.
It's quite disturbing, that kids a few years ago knew DOS and BASIC etc
Back in the day, you had to know how your car worked, just to keep it going. Now practically nobody knows how modern cars really work. Beyond changing the oil, most people simply take the car in to the dealer or mechanic. Is it better that people spend less of their own time fixing cars, or worse? Does it really matter?
Computer technology has advanced to the point where you don't need to know BASIC in order to make your computer do what you need it to do. Plus, when most of the people in society don't know how to do anything beyond move around the GUI, that keeps Slashdotters employed. ;-)
Only if he's a lawyer.
In the same vein, all engineers are nerds who can't get a date. All designers are homosexuals. All male programmers are socially inept, and there are no female programmers. All doctors have a God Complex. All firefighters, of course, are heroes ;-) .
Stop thinking that energy necessarily has to come from some massively centralized third party.
I agree that massively centralized power is a bad idea, but given that most Americans live in urban areas, how can we avoid centralized power collection? I can't put a windmill on my apartment building. I'm sure the definition of "massively centralized" varies, but are you suggesting that individuals are the solution, or do you think community-owned power collection could work? Even there, I'm a bit skeptical. So many incorporated areas butt up against neighboring cities that it seems it would be very difficult to manage wind collection at even a regional level.
Does localized wind collection seem viable to you in any area but rural land?
Surely only a Devil's Advocate could invoke Axe body spray, a Navy dress uniform, and The Song That Must Not Me Sung all in one sentence without being struck dead by lightning.
I will briefly lament it's passing by wearing Axe body spray, putting on a navy uniform, and going out to bars to sing "She's Lost that Lovin' Feeling" to women who won't sleep with me.
What philosphy? It's legal to ride a bike in traffic. If the lane is wide the law requires that cyclists stay to the right. If the lane isn't wide enough to safely share between a bicycle and a truck then the cyclist is legally allowed to ride in the middle to assert his presence.
It is legal, and it's usually the most effective way to stay safe, but it can be difficult to move out into a lane that is congested with cars.
I do it frequently on certain sections of road, usually when I'm getting ready to make a left turn, but also when the bike lane is simply too narrow. Unfortunately, a lot of car drivers simply aren't paying enough attention, and they sometimes react quite viciously when a cyclist jumps into the middle of what they consider to be their lane. There is the legal, then there's the practical. It's not always practical to mix it up with the cars, particularly when drivers are pissy because of their morning commute.
It's not just the drivers. Many roads seem to have been created with no real thought for cyclists. While this is particularly true in big cities (like SF, where the roads are insane for anyone traveling on them), even nice crunchy places like Santa Cruz make bicycle commuting a risky proposition, because they don't see cyclist-friendly roads to be a high enough priority. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been annihilated because on-street parking forces me almost into the auto lane. Potholes, poorly-designed merge and exit lanes, and fast traffic signals turn a ride to work into a dangerous proposition.
Until there are more people commuting in bikes rather than cars, I don't see the situation changing for the better.
Don't get me wrong, the man's a genuis, but he isn't responsible for half this stuff.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Ive leads a team of designers, so of course every rounded corner or concealed latch isn't his doing. But he is responsible for ensuring that when the hardware ships, the design is top notch. His work is as much about deciding what contributions to refuse as much as it is deciding which to accept. So ultimately he is responsible for all of it.
I'm also unclear on what you mean by "outsourced" in this context. Do you mean that someone in India designed the iMac? Or do you you mean that someone outside of Apple's design team did a lot of the work?
As for conceptualizations being designed by someone else, I'm unclear on that as well. I understand that Jobs always provides input into hardware designs, and that the iPod scroll wheel didn't come from Apple. Beyond that, where are the legions of people whose fame Ive is hijacking?
From reading the posts from jokers and yahoos on Slashdot who pretend to be lawyers (and then hide behind IANAL), you would think that the law on the subject is crystal clear.
I think it's natural for people to want the answers to be crystal-clear. That's particularly true for technology-oriented people, who expect life to be logical.
I also suspect that part of the reason lawyers have such a bad rap is that they delve into all of these fuzzy, grey areas. They get their hands dirty grappling with issues that are contentious and seldom provide satisfaction for all parties. They're plumbers. People need plumbers, but they don't necessarily enjoy having them around.
Really. It's true. However, in spite of the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court have been curtailing the FCC's mandated oversight capabilities (much less oversight it has not been given) for years, somehow one statement by one person means that there will soon be a serious threat to our ability to freely upload crappy videos to YouTube.
The FCC would have to be given this mandate by Congress, and given current political realities, I find that highly improbable. Chalk this one up to bureaucratic bombast. Everybody wants to rule the world, but nobody is going to let the FCC do it.
As many people have already pointed out, a lot of web developers have been telling their clients to use best practices, and these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears. This ruling may help developers, in that it will give them more paying work ("Agh! We need to revamp our website right away!") and perhaps more respect ("Hey, what was that you told us about separating data from presentation?").
Nobody in Slashdot would argue that the Internet hasn't become an integral part of all our lives. We use it for everything, from communicating with friends, to gathering news about the world, to making purchases, obtaining government services more rapidly, and so on.
Given that it took the government to step in with the ADA to make physical businesses make buildings accessible, why would anyone believe that market forces will somehow alleviate the difficulties faced online by people with disabilities?
It is interesting to me that so many Slashdot readers are taking it as a given that the analysts are correct on this one, even though the latter(and many Slashdot readers as well) have been wrong about the iPod pretty much every step of the way, and have a long history of not really grokking Apple. I agree that Apple needs to do something new, either by coming out with a completely new product that leapfrogs ahead of the iPod, or by some other means.
But the problem with forecasts like this is that they never take into account human creativity. The default assumption is that the engineers and designers at Apple (or any other company they examine) can't possibly come up with anything to supplant the currently successful product. Given Apple's track record since the return of Jobs, I'm willing to bet that the company's best days are not behind it.
The Halo Effect of iPod sales is very real. Macs, particularly laptops, have made an impressive comeback. You can bet they'll do more with the Intel-powered Macs than they're letting on now. The iTMS has been a huge success, and Apple can use that to springboard into a variety of media distribution plans, depending on where they want to take it. My guess is that when Apple introduces the new video service, there will be more to it than most pundits have predicted.
Particularly, I see Apple finally bringing consumers a truly easy way to snag video content via the Internet and play it back on a variety of devices easily. Integration isn't just about bringing technology to bear on a problem; it's also about making the technology easy enough for John Q. Public to use. With the success of the iPod, the buying public looks to Apple for easy to use media playback devices.
My predictions are, of course, not any more valuable than those from Wall Street. However, I am continually struck by the limited the range of vision of the Wall Street analysts, and by how frequently people actually listen to them.
The system is broken and needs fixing, but merely supplying technology to kids (e.g., laptops with Word installed) who can't perform adequately without it doesn't seem to meet the need.
I agree completely. I've done volunteer work with a charter school, and it is obvious to me that high standards nurture higher-performing students. Technology can assist in the educational process, but certainly can't replace it.
Perhaps it's because I'm happy to see someone trying something different that I see this school in Philly through rose-colored lenses. My hope is that the school will combine high standards with new technology. If they took a holistic approach in designing the facilities, the curriculum, and the performance standards, it could be a great thing. I do think the school might just give some of its students hope for the future, and a feeling that they have economic opportunities. I've volunteered at schools in Pittsburgh and Washington, DC. In both cities, the kids in old, run-down parts of town attended old, run-down schools. Everything in their surroundings screamed out: "You will never escape this. The American Dream is not for you!" Attending a spiffy new school and interacting with the same technology the rich kids have access to might just give some of those kids the realization that they do have a chance.
Disclaimer: Australia, not US. I don't know if your public education system is beyond hope; it's reasonably good over here.
The school system here, at least in major urban centers, is almost completely dysfunctional. The reason I'm in favor of trying new things is that $63M, even if wasteful, could serve as a catalyst for change. Not trying anything, not taking any risks, is what has landed us in such a dismal situation. Everyone wants the school system to work better, but almost nobody is willing to make radical changes.
Interesting timing. Just a moment ago I opened my mailbox and found a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It seems they found the stolen hard drive that contained personal info on 26.5 million veterans. According to the letter, the FBI found the laptop and hard drive.
As a further backup, the VA has "obtained data breach analysis services as a means of further ensuring no misuse of this data occurs in the future."
Like Chase, the VA is "throughly examining every aspect" of their information security program. In the case of the VA snafu, an employee took the laptop home in violation of VA policy. The rash of these incidents makes me wonder how we can expect any sort of large organization to keep a lid on data spills like these, given that most people can't be bothered with basic security precautions even on their own computers. Even if the VA spends millions upon millions of dollars upgrading their security technology and processes (which of course will draw the wrath of opponents of government waste), I'm not sure it will make much difference.
And yes, I think indiscriminately throwing technology at a problem is merely a more concrete form of throwing money at it.
How is this indiscriminate? I've volunteered at schools where they had computers sitting around unused because they were donated or purchased, and nobody gave any thought as to how they would be used. Microsoft and the district spent three years thinking about this and planning a school oriented around technology.
I'm not convinced it will work, but this does not appear to be a slapdash effort.
The students should be required to apply to several that they have a decent chance of graduating from.
So it's bad that they are required to apply to a college, because that's not a strict enough standard, even though it's still a more stringent standard than existing public schools? You seem to be saying that this school goes too far with technology, not far enough with its requirements of students, and that it's just a bad idea to conduct any experiment of this sort because it's doomed to failure.
If your wife doesn't teach in a wealthy district, she knows that the existing situation is grim. Doesn't it make sense to try a variety of approaches and see which ones work?
You do not give a corporation control over education...
Nothing in the article said anything about Microsoft doing the teaching. Teachers do the teaching at the school. Microsoft designed the buildings and the digital infrastructure.
This isn't Animal Farm. We're not talking about a revolutionary takeover here. Is Microsoft acting in its best interest by trying to push the education system in a way that produces better knowledge workers? Yes. Is this a bad thing for schools or for students? I don't think it is.
I wouldn't put it past them to make all software Microsoft based...
Think about the big picture here. There are more important things at stake than whether students are using Micrsoft products in their classrooms.
What if you're among the tens of thousands of kids NOT lucky enough to win a spot there? Would you be feeling resentful that someone gave a damn about other kids' educations but not yours, as you fetch your 20-year-old textbooks out of your rusty locker?
You make a good case for not trying to create a new, better school. It's better that all students should get fucked, rather than most of them.
Jesus Christ, there are a lot of sharpshooters in here. Everyone knows the US K-12 system, particularly in big cities, sucks goats through a straw. Philadelphia and MS are trying something new. Maybe it won't work, but at least they're trying to do something to fix the problem.
If I were a kid lucky enough to win that lottery, I'd be happy to have the opportunity to go to a one of a kind, modern school. I'd feel like someone actually gave a damn about my education. Why are so many urban schools so fucked up? Part of the problem is that the facilities are ancient, crumbling edifices left over from the 1800s. I'm not suggesting that every school in the country be razed and rebuilt, but it's no secret that the physical design of schools is a huge factor in the overall learning environment.
Bringing modern technology into schools isn't enough in itself, but I think it's worth trying. As for Microsoft's involvement, if you're badmouthing it, when is the last time you volunteered at a school?
I prefer Macs for personal tasks and use Linux on servers, but like most people, I have to interact with Windows from time to time. It's like death and taxes: unavoidable. My take on Windows is that since most of the world's personal computers run Windows, improvements to Windows are a good thing. If people suffer less annoyance, less hassle and less stress, they may gain more productivity, and perhaps even a happier computing experience. Just because I've found Windows to be lacking doesn't mean that I would wish a crappy OS on the vast majority of computer users.
Sometimes I get the feeling that many Mac and Linux users wish Windows users ill, as if they deserve punishment from on high.
Here's a counter to the examples we so often see of businessmen doing the wrong thing. You don't often hear about people in business doing the right thing, because that seldom makes a juicy story. In business, you have to make ethical decisions all the time. It's nice to see a news story that sheds some light on one of those decisions properly decided.
Too many CSS and Javascript books out there already.
And as we all know, having choices SUCKS!
Seriously, how is this different from any other computer-related topic? There are zillions of Java books, only some of which are useful to you. The book that is useful to me may not be useful to you. There are Missing Manuals, Head Start, Head Rush, Visual Quickstart, Nutshell, Definitive Guide, Cookbook, Hacks, for Dummies, for Smarties, Programmer to Programmer, and many other different styles of computer books. Surely you can find some ReallyGood books somewhere in there.
Would you really only prefer that there be only one or two flavors?
As I understand it, when a full text content provider republishes copyright-free works, they copyright their newly bundled publication.
The new publisher has copyright on their republishing of the original copyrighted material, but the copyright is "thin." It only applies to the specific manner in which the new publication presents the original material (colors, layout, etc.) The underlying content is still in the public domain. Think of all of the versions of Shakespeare's King Lear. They all contain the same content. It's just presented differently by each individual publisher.
Dowloading ProQuest's PDFs and hosting them on your own would be a violation of their copyright not because you are re-using the underlying content, but because you are appropriating ProQuest's particular presentation of the content.
US government documents that are prepared by the government (as opposed to by a third party) are (with a few exceptions), all automatically in the public domain, on the theory that they belong to the people.
In the long run this will benefit the tech industry. It is much more difficult to sue a manufacturer for a defect in the equipment or how the equipment functions if there is adequate warning. As long as the mythical "reasonable person" would see the warning and read it before using the equipment, nimwits whose unsecured wifi networks get hacked will not be able to sue.
Anticipating responses:
There are plenty of bloggers who did that for Apple
Here's my translation of what you typed:
"Bloggers who called Maynor and Ellch to task for inconsistencies in their story did so because they were mysteriously being controlled by Apple and didn't have the ability to think for themselves."