Yes, I'm sure textbook maker Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, who developed the online multimedia educational platform for the iPad being tested in this pilot, are very very concerned about how obnoxious textbook expenses are, and is very, very concerned about reducing the amount of money school districts spend on textbooks.
Or maybe not.
There are an increasing number of open source textbooks that are quite suitable for the classroom. Most of the classics taught in school can be downloaded for free or very cheap. Many libraries have electronic books, which reduces the loss at the library.
Yes, that's exactly why HMH is trying to establish the market for a paid online services as the replacement for textbooks, so that schools will choose that instead of free, open-content static texts.
Didn't we prove that computers have educational value back in the 80's? Then, wasn't it proved a hundred more times throughout the 90's? I guess sometimes you can never have quite enough proof.
They aren't trying to prove that "computers have educational value".
They are trying to prove that a specific an online interactive subscription service developed by a textbook maker and which replaces a traditional static textbook has sufficiently greater educational value that the static textbook to warrant school districts purchasing both the hardware and the subscription service in place of traditional textbooks.
I've seen Android devices for a fraction of the price.
Presumably, those Android devices do not include or support the educational platform and content that Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has developed for the iPad and is testing in this pilot study it is sponsoring in the schools at issue. So they probably wouldn't do much good for this study.
When you consider how much text books are going for nowadays, the thought that a student or school can rent textbook access could be a major game changer.
Certainly. It means that textbook manufacturers can assure that no one will ever be able to use a used textbook, and that a new license to the curriculum will be need to be paid for each student for each term that the access is used.
Much as I dislike them, why not a Kindle loaded with text books.
Because this isn't a static digital textbook, its a digital educational multimedia subscription service being tested that happens to also include access to a textbook.
Its pretty much the textbook manufacturer's way to compete with the drive toward free (libre) static digital textbooks as alternatives to traditional textbooks, by building a market for a subscription service that: 1) Provides something that free static text doesn't, which justifies paying something for it, and 2) Which, because its an interactive, subscription-based service, can't be kept and reused for free once its purchased for as long as the physical media lasts, like a traditional textbook, but must be paid for, each year, for each student, for continued use, so that once a district has gotten into it (likely on a discounted initial plan, the way many consumer services are sold) and built teaching practices around it, they'll pay whatever it takes to keep it up year after year.
Between the cost of a textbook and the rate at which they become 'obsolete' for the state testing I'd imagine with an educational discount from Apple (no need to make the state pay taxes to itself and can prolly write off some of it as a donation) they probably aren't whole lot more expensive than your regular schoolbook in the long run.
Of course, if you would RTFA, you would learn this pilot is a part of a study being conducted for textbook seller Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which has designed a "textbook-as-a-service" system delivered via the iPad, so (while the pilot probably won't cost the district anything) there is only the slimmest chance that this will have anything to do with less expensive content, and a lot more chance it will have something to do with building a market for more expensive content.
California is in the middle of a hiring freeze for the State, and a huge deficit. Where exactly are they getting the money for these iPad projects for these districts
From textbook maker Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which developed the curriculum being used and is conducting an "academic study" in which the 400 students given the iPads and the students they are compared against are the test subjects.
Of course, that position is also self-contradictory. You can't support the right to form corporations (which are distinguished by the shield against personal liability which is a public subsidy to the owners of the corporation) while opposing government subsidies to business.
The corporate form itself is a government subsidy to business.
Summary of the Summary: BP did a bunch of stupid things, but it was TO's (Trans Ocean - the rig owner) responsibility to control the well even if BP purposely designed the rig to fail. They didn't do that. And Boom. IMHO this is not a shot across the bow of Transocean...it's an arrow aimed straight at their heart: "the crew... did not act to control the well".
Summary^3: BP's report says "That sucked. But it was mostly someone else's fault."
Google has been set to block "NSFW" searches by default - this is pure censorship by Google based on unknown values.
Except that that hasn't happened.
It won't autocomplete certain search terms regardless of SafeSearch settings, but the only filtering on search results is what is already provided by SafeSearch (which, IIRC, has defaulted to "Moderate" setting for years, but can be turned off.)
So now you can't search for the UK city of Scunthorpe
I just did, and Google reported about 40,100,000 results, the first of which is a Google Maps result for Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK.
So I don't see the problem. Maybe dial down the paranoia a notch or two?
In that it is supposed to make Google more useful to the masses and be a competitive advantage against other search engines, thus increasing Google's ability to retain and/or gain search usage share, and therefore have more opportunities to present ads to users than if it lost usage share to its competitors, yes.
Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers.
No, it hasn't. They can still use Google search. "Not extending a new UI convenience to users using older browsers" is not the same as locking-out the people using those browsers.
The strange thing is the netbook is somewhere between a laptop and a tablet. That's why I've never understood the appeal of a netbook. Need portability? Get a tablet. Need raw power, use a laptop.
What if I need portability for, among other things, tasks that also are better done with a keyboard?
I have to admit that when I see a netbook in public, I think it looks incredibly irrelevant next to iPad guy.
I've got stuff to do. My netbook -- which, incidentally, was cheaper than an iPad (when I got it, which was before the iPad came out) -- still lets me do it better than an iPad would. I suppose if I just wanted to look relevant to people with your preferences, the iPad would be a superior option, but that's not my primary goal.
So, what *exactly* are these two, somewhat overlapping niches you are referring to?
My netbook does everything a traditional laptop does except read/write optical disks. (Well, and gaming and other very processor or GPU intensive tasks, but that's more of a desktop role that very high-end laptops can also do, but most laptops don't.)
Web browsing and checking email are part of that. But its an ultraportable platform that I can use for working on the hobby coding I do (mostly Ruby/Python/Racket stuff, usually not using a heavy IDE, though Netbeans and VC# Express are both usable on it.) I also use it for writing (not just quick notes). The keyboard is fine to use (I have a somewhat larger-than-typical 12.1" netbook, but I also have somewhat larger-than-typical fingers, and at about 2.75lbs, its about the same weight as most netbooks.)
Aside from the iPad's issues with Apple-imposed restrictions, a tablet without a keyboard isn't really usable for a lot of what a netbook can be used for.
The word you seem to have misinterpreted is "restrained". I can see how you would be confused. It means prevent, stop, disallow etc.
You simply don't understand contracts very well. If your interpretation held, the law would have no effect, because no contract would ever restrain anything.
There is nothing stopping the person from seeking employment with a competing company by saying "If you choose to work for a competing company within $term after contract termination, you will not receive your Golden Handshake."
A contract is said to restrain an action if it creates an obligation not to engage in an action. A contract always (by definition) exchanges an obligation to engage in or forbear from some action by one party for a similar obligation from the other party.
To the extent the obligation exchanged by one party for consideration from the other party in a contract is an obligation not to engage in a particular lawful trade, profession, or business (other than as specifically excepted from the general prohibition) that obligation is nullified by California law.
Now, its true, that no payment would be due under such a contract, but the offended party would have no recourse to court for breach of contract -- the only remedy available in the case of a "breach" of such a null term would be to not pay if the payment hadn't already been made. It might be possible to recover some or all of any past payment on non-contract grounds, but that's less certain.
Such a contract (part of a severance package not an employment agreement) does *not* restrain someone from working for a competitor, it pays them not too.
I don't think you understand contracts very well.
A contract doesn't pay anyone anything. It creates obligations. A contract might oblige one party not to engage in a particular trade (thus, restraining them from it) and, in return, oblige the other party to pay the first party. That's what a non-compete agreement generally does.
Under California law, however, the provision creating the obligation of the first party not to engage in a particular trade is, however, null and void.
And trade secrets - read the law all the way to the end.
The only mention of trade secrets in the applicable chapter of the California Business & Professions Code is a note that the customer lists of telephone answering services (Sec. 16606) and employment agencies (Sec. 16607) are confidential trade secrets in Sec. 16607.
Since HP is neither a "telephone answering service" nor an "employment agency", that doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Since clauses (including, but not limited to, non-compete clauses) in contracts that prohibit or restrain anyone from engaging in any legal trade or profession in California are categorically void as contrary to public policy, that was a pretty silly thing for an employer in California to have him sign, and would be an even sillier thing for them to expect a California court to enforce.
Not quite. My understanding is that the law treats owners and the highest ranked executives differently than ordinary worker.
It does not. You can look at the law (Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600-16602.5) yourself and see.
It treats owners who sell their interest in a business to new owners different, but it doesn't treat employees who happen to be in executive positions any different to any other employees.
However even for workers the law you cite can get fuzzy.
Its actually quite black and white: to the extent a contract restrains someone from work in a lawful trade or profession, that contract is void. Other than the exceptions for owners transferring their interest in a business.
So what? HP's own lawsuit notes that HP's "world headquarters and principal place of business" are in California, and that Hurd was employed in Santa Clara, California, the suit is filed in a California court, and seeks remedies under California law.
You can tax the wealthiest 1% at 100% of their income, it still won't solve any of the problems you think it will.
Well, since there are no problems that I think that taxing the wealthiest 1% at 100% of income (or even at a 100% marginal rate) would solve, that's obviously not true.
Taxing production cut production.
Even if that was true, so what? That's not what we are talking about.
You want to change behavior, change how you tax something. Cigarettes are a great example. Taxes on a pack are sky high, and consumption has dropped dramatically.
There's very little reason to believe that cigarette taxes have much to do with that, except fto the extent that they fund enforcement efforts that help to reduce cigarette sales to minors and reduce the probability of people being addicted early. The reason tobacco and alcohol taxes ("sin taxes") are so popular is because price changes on the targetted products don't have much effect on unit sales, which makes them very effective means of raising revenue.
taxes should be on things society wants to discourage
So, riddle me this -- why do we have higher taxes on income derived through wage labor (payroll taxes on top of income taxes) than general income, and higher taxes on general income than capital income (due to preferential taxation of capital gains.)
Is work something we want to discourage? And if not, why is it the most heavily taxed broad class of income?
This could have been different in that it may have been required to get his bonus. That sort of thing is almost always legal, since it is regular contract law. You come work for me, we have a normal employment agreement. However I say "You know, there's a lot of stuff you are privy to that I don't want getting out. So if I lay you off, I'll give you a big bonus, but in turn for that you can't go work for my competitors, you can't write an expose book, and so on."
Now of course you don't have to do agree to that, but if you don't, you don't get the bonus.
So while California may well say "You can't have a non-compete on normal employment," a termination bonus is a different thing.
What California, in fact, says (Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600) is:
"Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."
(The exceptions (Bus & Prof Code Secs. 16601-16602.5) all deal with situations that all boil down, in essence, to allowing someone transferring an to agree not to carry on a similar business that competes with the new owner of the business.)
It doesn't seem like an agreement associated with a severance package weould be any more valid under the law than an agreemtn associated with regular employment.
In California, non-compete agreements have been disallowed by the courts...
That's a little misleading. In California, non-compete agreements (except those executed by someone selling a business interest not to compete with the new owners) are expressly prohibited by statute.
(Sure, the courts have enforced this statute, but the statute itself is black and white; the general rule in in Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600, which reads "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." Secs. 16601 to 16602.5 specify exceptions for various types of ownership transfers.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm sure textbook maker Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, who developed the online multimedia educational platform for the iPad being tested in this pilot, are very very concerned about how obnoxious textbook expenses are, and is very, very concerned about reducing the amount of money school districts spend on textbooks.
Or maybe not.
Yes, that's exactly why HMH is trying to establish the market for a paid online services as the replacement for textbooks, so that schools will choose that instead of free, open-content static texts.
They aren't trying to prove that "computers have educational value".
They are trying to prove that a specific an online interactive subscription service developed by a textbook maker and which replaces a traditional static textbook has sufficiently greater educational value that the static textbook to warrant school districts purchasing both the hardware and the subscription service in place of traditional textbooks.
This is a rather different proposition.
Presumably, those Android devices do not include or support the educational platform and content that Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has developed for the iPad and is testing in this pilot study it is sponsoring in the schools at issue. So they probably wouldn't do much good for this study.
Certainly. It means that textbook manufacturers can assure that no one will ever be able to use a used textbook, and that a new license to the curriculum will be need to be paid for each student for each term that the access is used.
No, California has never been bankrupt.
California has a budget deficit, but that's not bankruptcy.
Because this isn't a static digital textbook, its a digital educational multimedia subscription service being tested that happens to also include access to a textbook.
Its pretty much the textbook manufacturer's way to compete with the drive toward free (libre) static digital textbooks as alternatives to traditional textbooks, by building a market for a subscription service that:
1) Provides something that free static text doesn't, which justifies paying something for it, and
2) Which, because its an interactive, subscription-based service, can't be kept and reused for free once its purchased for as long as the physical media lasts, like a traditional textbook, but must be paid for, each year, for each student, for continued use, so that once a district has gotten into it (likely on a discounted initial plan, the way many consumer services are sold) and built teaching practices around it, they'll pay whatever it takes to keep it up year after year.
Of course, if you would RTFA, you would learn this pilot is a part of a study being conducted for textbook seller Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which has designed a "textbook-as-a-service" system delivered via the iPad, so (while the pilot probably won't cost the district anything) there is only the slimmest chance that this will have anything to do with less expensive content, and a lot more chance it will have something to do with building a market for more expensive content.
From textbook maker Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which developed the curriculum being used and is conducting an "academic study" in which the 400 students given the iPads and the students they are compared against are the test subjects.
Most of that was pretty clear in TFA.
Of course, that position is also self-contradictory. You can't support the right to form corporations (which are distinguished by the shield against personal liability which is a public subsidy to the owners of the corporation) while opposing government subsidies to business.
The corporate form itself is a government subsidy to business.
Summary^3: BP's report says "That sucked. But it was mostly someone else's fault."
Big surprise.
Except that that hasn't happened.
It won't autocomplete certain search terms regardless of SafeSearch settings, but the only filtering on search results is what is already provided by SafeSearch (which, IIRC, has defaulted to "Moderate" setting for years, but can be turned off.)
I just did, and Google reported about 40,100,000 results, the first of which is a Google Maps result for Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK.
So I don't see the problem. Maybe dial down the paranoia a notch or two?
In that it is supposed to make Google more useful to the masses and be a competitive advantage against other search engines, thus increasing Google's ability to retain and/or gain search usage share, and therefore have more opportunities to present ads to users than if it lost usage share to its competitors, yes.
Other than that, probably not.
No, it hasn't. They can still use Google search. "Not extending a new UI convenience to users using older browsers" is not the same as locking-out the people using those browsers.
What if I need portability for, among other things, tasks that also are better done with a keyboard?
I've got stuff to do. My netbook -- which, incidentally, was cheaper than an iPad (when I got it, which was before the iPad came out) -- still lets me do it better than an iPad would. I suppose if I just wanted to look relevant to people with your preferences, the iPad would be a superior option, but that's not my primary goal.
My netbook does everything a traditional laptop does except read/write optical disks. (Well, and gaming and other very processor or GPU intensive tasks, but that's more of a desktop role that very high-end laptops can also do, but most laptops don't.)
Web browsing and checking email are part of that. But its an ultraportable platform that I can use for working on the hobby coding I do (mostly Ruby/Python/Racket stuff, usually not using a heavy IDE, though Netbeans and VC# Express are both usable on it.) I also use it for writing (not just quick notes). The keyboard is fine to use (I have a somewhat larger-than-typical 12.1" netbook, but I also have somewhat larger-than-typical fingers, and at about 2.75lbs, its about the same weight as most netbooks.)
Aside from the iPad's issues with Apple-imposed restrictions, a tablet without a keyboard isn't really usable for a lot of what a netbook can be used for.
You simply don't understand contracts very well. If your interpretation held, the law would have no effect, because no contract would ever restrain anything.
A contract is said to restrain an action if it creates an obligation not to engage in an action. A contract always (by definition) exchanges an obligation to engage in or forbear from some action by one party for a similar obligation from the other party.
To the extent the obligation exchanged by one party for consideration from the other party in a contract is an obligation not to engage in a particular lawful trade, profession, or business (other than as specifically excepted from the general prohibition) that obligation is nullified by California law.
Now, its true, that no payment would be due under such a contract, but the offended party would have no recourse to court for breach of contract -- the only remedy available in the case of a "breach" of such a null term would be to not pay if the payment hadn't already been made. It might be possible to recover some or all of any past payment on non-contract grounds, but that's less certain.
Well, yeah; the law (in general, not just in this area of law) mostly comes into play between parties that are not friendly.
I don't think you understand contracts very well.
A contract doesn't pay anyone anything. It creates obligations. A contract might oblige one party not to engage in a particular trade (thus, restraining them from it) and, in return, oblige the other party to pay the first party. That's what a non-compete agreement generally does.
Under California law, however, the provision creating the obligation of the first party not to engage in a particular trade is, however, null and void.
The only mention of trade secrets in the applicable chapter of the California Business & Professions Code is a note that the customer lists of telephone answering services (Sec. 16606) and employment agencies (Sec. 16607) are confidential trade secrets in Sec. 16607.
Since HP is neither a "telephone answering service" nor an "employment agency", that doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Since clauses (including, but not limited to, non-compete clauses) in contracts that prohibit or restrain anyone from engaging in any legal trade or profession in California are categorically void as contrary to public policy, that was a pretty silly thing for an employer in California to have him sign, and would be an even sillier thing for them to expect a California court to enforce.
It does not. You can look at the law (Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600-16602.5) yourself and see.
It treats owners who sell their interest in a business to new owners different, but it doesn't treat employees who happen to be in executive positions any different to any other employees.
Its actually quite black and white: to the extent a contract restrains someone from work in a lawful trade or profession, that contract is void. Other than the exceptions for owners transferring their interest in a business.
So what? HP's own lawsuit notes that HP's "world headquarters and principal place of business" are in California, and that Hurd was employed in Santa Clara, California, the suit is filed in a California court, and seeks remedies under California law.
Well, since there are no problems that I think that taxing the wealthiest 1% at 100% of income (or even at a 100% marginal rate) would solve, that's obviously not true.
Even if that was true, so what? That's not what we are talking about.
There's very little reason to believe that cigarette taxes have much to do with that, except fto the extent that they fund enforcement efforts that help to reduce cigarette sales to minors and reduce the probability of people being addicted early. The reason tobacco and alcohol taxes ("sin taxes") are so popular is because price changes on the targetted products don't have much effect on unit sales, which makes them very effective means of raising revenue.
So, riddle me this -- why do we have higher taxes on income derived through wage labor (payroll taxes on top of income taxes) than general income, and higher taxes on general income than capital income (due to preferential taxation of capital gains.)
Is work something we want to discourage? And if not, why is it the most heavily taxed broad class of income?
Since the blanket prohibition and nullification of non-compete clauses in California is pretty black and white, that really doesn't hold any water.
What California, in fact, says (Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600) is:
"Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."
(The exceptions (Bus & Prof Code Secs. 16601-16602.5) all deal with situations that all boil down, in essence, to allowing someone transferring an to agree not to carry on a similar business that competes with the new owner of the business.)
It doesn't seem like an agreement associated with a severance package weould be any more valid under the law than an agreemtn associated with regular employment.
That's a little misleading. In California, non-compete agreements (except those executed by someone selling a business interest not to compete with the new owners) are expressly prohibited by statute.
(Sure, the courts have enforced this statute, but the statute itself is black and white; the general rule in in Business and Professions Code Sec. 16600, which reads "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." Secs. 16601 to 16602.5 specify exceptions for various types of ownership transfers.)