...my classroom rules are simple: Keep the cellphones put up, and the laptops quiet. If you feel compelled to use the cellphone, excuse yourself from class. I have no qualms about embarrassing a student in class if they are behaving in a manner that is distracting to others (and refuse to take subtle hints to correct their behavior). If they refuse to modify their behavior, I ask them to leave.
It's really quite simple: Profs have a duty to maintain a classroom environment that is conducive to learning. Banning laptops isn't the answer. We are obligated to help students who are still maturing in the social skills and who, for the most part, have been raised thinking that the world revolves around them. And if that takes telling a student to put up the laptop, then so be it.
...are so grade school. Why are people so incredibly self-centered, self-absorbed, and egotistical? Those are exactly the type of people I wouldn't want to have as "friends".
However, if an agent of the government uses his/her position to commit a crime, you can sue the agent him/herself, but not their employer.
Even then, there are broad exclusions that protect certain federal employee classifications from lawsuits provided the harm was not caused by the employee's gross negligence. For instance, air traffic controllers (FAA employees) cannot be sued for their actions (for instance, here's an article about an air traffic controller that confused two aircraft and ended up killing 34 people...no gross negligence, no lawsuit). Many other government positions fall under similar exemptions.
No one (other than LE) has the right to be present on private property if they've been asked to leave. It's one of those deals where you can argue all you want, but you'll still get arrested (or issued a ticket) for trespassing. The details will be left for your court date.
FWIW, I've been asked at a big box retailer to not take pictures of merchandise (I was looking at CCTVs, and didn't want to write down all the different model numbers). I didn't protest, mainly because I knew if the police got involved, I *would* be the (immediate) loser. Why make a spectacle of yourself if you know you'll end up looking like the fool?
Not that his concerns are never valid, but he has become the Chicken Little of geekdom.
I would venture to say that Stallman's essay on "the right to read" was rather prescient at the time. Like him or not, I doubt that anyone knowledgeable about RMS would call him the "Chicken Little of geekdom."
Banish your ignorance and read some of RMS' writings. You might be surprised that the hype doesn't always live up to the reality.
I know that I, for one, would use something like this for parallel parking as well... this seems like a pretty useful gadget to install right above the bumper so you see where the back of your car actually is.
It's not as useful as you might think. I have an Acura RDX. Since the rear-view camera uses a "fish-eye" lens, distances aren't perceived as linear. In fact, you can be mere inches away from an obstacle, and it literally looks like feet in the camera. (Yes, I've tested this.) As the closure distance approaches zero, the perceived closure rate suddenly increases at an exponential rate...the last few perceived inches rapidly disappears in a matter of seconds. It's all rather useless for judging distances of and closure rates at less than a few inches...by the time you realize you're too close to an object, it's probably too late to react.
About the only thing the camera is good for is a quick check to make sure no one shorter than the rear tailgate is behind you. Even then, the angular distance covered is rather small -- you still need to actually turn your head (just like you were taught in driver's ed) to ensure no one is approaching from left to right.
...about a lifeform based on silicon, not carbon. Instead of exhaling carbon dioxide, they shit sand (or something like that). Anyone remember the name/author?
Headline is extremely misleading. It's not an extra-galactic planet (otherwise, how the hell could it be in the Milky Way?)...it's a planet of extra-galactic origin.
The editorial standards (such as they are on/.) have really gone downhill in the last few years...
Now they are sure, making this the first time a sample has been collected from the surface of an asteroid (and only the second time a sample has been returned from a celestial object, the first being the Moon missions).
Not exactly. Unless you don't consider comets "celestial objects."
...but is it really possible to be exploited by clicking on a link? Can someone show some concrete examples of this? I'm not interested in "possible" exploits, but something in the wild that can infect a box running the latest versions of Firefox, AdBlock and NoScript?
I just simply find it all too difficult to believe. If there are really browsers running around out there with security holes as big as Peterbilt trucks, shouldn't they be tagged as "enemies of the state"? Or is all this just so much hype?
That sounds more like it would get in the way - perhaps I've come up with a more secure and robust algorithm than they've thought of and all it requires is a bit of data transfer from one section to another - but its deemed insecure due to their constraints - even though I've handled security in a different section.
Much like SELinux. At some point, the security aspects are frustrating enough that you just turn the damn thing off.
The reason people with scanners are not welcome is because they are disruptive and rude to other patrons. Typically these people show up and are waiting when the doors open, they come in and lay claim to an entire section of shelves, or display table and begin sorting into piles by price-point. They stay for hours, and systematically move through the entire inventory. They take up a lot of space, prevent other customers from accessing the merchandise and leave a big mess behind for the staff to clean up.
Thanks for pointing this out. I see this all the time, but never made the connection. In the future, I will be sure to point out to these folks that the books are there for all to view, so please move aside and share with others.
...to have Time-Warner install a CableCARD on my Moxi DVR. First off, T-W resolutely refuses to allow customers to self-install. They require a technician to come out and make a call to the "head office" to relay information from the DVR that requires the DVR owner (in this case, me) to pull up. Then, it takes about 2-1/2 additional hours to figure out that the INIT sequence wasn't being properly sent by T-W. Of course, all this time T-W is telling me it's my DVR (even though T-W specifically identifies the Moxi as a "supported" DVR). In the end, it cost me $35 and 3 hours of my time (2 hours of that spent online chatting with a Moxi engineer who was telling me what to tell the cable guy) to deal with T-W's ineptitude when it comes to CableCARD support.
Contrast this to Comcast: I walked into the Comcast office, picked up a CableCARD for my mom's 8-year-old rear projection Mitsubishi, plugged it in, called Comcast, and was up and running in about 1/2 hour. Total cost? $0.
Unfortunately, I don't think the FCC's new regs will address gross technical incompetence on the part of some cable TV providers.
I don't know where you happen to live, but where I'm at, many attorneys (especially in smaller towns) are more than willing to confer with you about options for $50-$100. If you ask the right questions, a half an hour with an attorney can result in some rather useful strategies. Plus, it's nice to have the client-attorney privilege that isn't afforded one who posts on/.
A $50 consultation with an employment attorney when I was laid of from an IT position several years ago was enough to get me several extra weeks of severance pay. He told me in 1/2 hour everything I needed to do to make sure I got what what mine. Not a bad ROI...
I'd like to avoid incurring the cost of a lawyer but I am intent on maintaining my good name and continued employment.
Right...so let me get this straight: You stand a good chance of losing your job, affecting your life and your family's well-being, and you're too cheap to hire a lawyer? I'm sorry, but you really have your priorities out of whack if you think posting your woes on/. is time well spent.
...that it wasn't you? Seriously, folks: Maybe this individual is guilty as charged, and he's asking us about ways to defend his actions, or how to create a web of plausible deniability. Think about it: If this situation really happened to a truly innocent party, with looming consequences of job loss (especially in the current economy), don't you think said party would seek the advice of counsel before airing out his laundry on/.?
I know some of us are always willing to lend a hand to a fellow geek, but sometimes I have to shake my head at how quickly some of you jump to defend an individual who claims to be innocent, framed, whatever.
...in my kids' school district, each child receives a 6-digit PIN, in kindergarten. The children are expected to memorize their PINs in kindergarten, where they must use the PIN to purchase lunch. So there's really nothing new under the sun here. Identification numbers are a fact of life: You'll get one in primary and secondary school, you'll get one in college, and then you'll get an employee ID when you get hired on. Every aspect of one's life is dictated by an identification number.
...from a movie that only opened in "art houses"? At least where I live (largish metropolitan area), the movie opened in *two* indie theaters. I don't exactly know how this works, whether the movie producers steer their movie towards indie or mainstream theaters, or if the theaters can pick and choose the movies they show. At any rate, it's no big surprise that a movie that opened in a city of 2 million+ in only two movie theaters would have been short-lived, over-hyped (as these types of movies often are), and revenue-deficient.
I hope the "second ammendment remedies" crowd is proud.
Where do you think the guns that fuel this bloodbath are coming from??
I debated on whether to use my mod points to mod this comment down as a troll, or to forgo the ego trip and answer the question.
The answer, as it turns out, is "not from the U.S."
Although the Mexican gov't has repeatedly asserted that U.S. is to blame for the flow of guns into Mexico, some forget that the U.S. has sent millions of firearms to various Central and South American factions, firearms that are readily available in Mexico (and not as a result of any 2nd Amendment rights bestowed on U.S. citizens). Or for your consideration: The blatant distortion of facts by which Mexican officials who, while claiming that 80-90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S. fail to mention that the number is extrapolated from a small sample of guns sent to the U.S. that could be traced. This fallacy is substantiated by numbers reported by the ATF in which Mexican authorities confiscated 29,000 firearms in 2008, of which only 5,000 were traceable to the U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
All I see is a title bar (for instance, look at the "Fedora" story), but no story summary. Is this a feature of some sort, like the Firehose?
According to a friend down under, "kit" is Auzzie slang for "computer equipment."
...my classroom rules are simple: Keep the cellphones put up, and the laptops quiet. If you feel compelled to use the cellphone, excuse yourself from class. I have no qualms about embarrassing a student in class if they are behaving in a manner that is distracting to others (and refuse to take subtle hints to correct their behavior). If they refuse to modify their behavior, I ask them to leave.
It's really quite simple: Profs have a duty to maintain a classroom environment that is conducive to learning. Banning laptops isn't the answer. We are obligated to help students who are still maturing in the social skills and who, for the most part, have been raised thinking that the world revolves around them. And if that takes telling a student to put up the laptop, then so be it.
...are so grade school. Why are people so incredibly self-centered, self-absorbed, and egotistical? Those are exactly the type of people I wouldn't want to have as "friends".
...this of harassment by the Detroit PD which is the reason why our gov't officials want to make videotaping of LEOs illegal.
Yet further evidence of our (as in US) slow slip into the grips of a police state.
However, if an agent of the government uses his/her position to commit a crime, you can sue the agent him/herself, but not their employer.
Even then, there are broad exclusions that protect certain federal employee classifications from lawsuits provided the harm was not caused by the employee's gross negligence. For instance, air traffic controllers (FAA employees) cannot be sued for their actions (for instance, here's an article about an air traffic controller that confused two aircraft and ended up killing 34 people...no gross negligence, no lawsuit). Many other government positions fall under similar exemptions.
...no one has heard of!
Seriously, was Gawker on anyone /.ers' radar before this news broke? Or am I the only one who never leaves the cave?
No one (other than LE) has the right to be present on private property if they've been asked to leave. It's one of those deals where you can argue all you want, but you'll still get arrested (or issued a ticket) for trespassing. The details will be left for your court date.
FWIW, I've been asked at a big box retailer to not take pictures of merchandise (I was looking at CCTVs, and didn't want to write down all the different model numbers). I didn't protest, mainly because I knew if the police got involved, I *would* be the (immediate) loser. Why make a spectacle of yourself if you know you'll end up looking like the fool?
Not that his concerns are never valid, but he has become the Chicken Little of geekdom.
I would venture to say that Stallman's essay on "the right to read" was rather prescient at the time. Like him or not, I doubt that anyone knowledgeable about RMS would call him the "Chicken Little of geekdom."
Banish your ignorance and read some of RMS' writings. You might be surprised that the hype doesn't always live up to the reality.
I know that I, for one, would use something like this for parallel parking as well... this seems like a pretty useful gadget to install right above the bumper so you see where the back of your car actually is.
It's not as useful as you might think. I have an Acura RDX. Since the rear-view camera uses a "fish-eye" lens, distances aren't perceived as linear. In fact, you can be mere inches away from an obstacle, and it literally looks like feet in the camera. (Yes, I've tested this.) As the closure distance approaches zero, the perceived closure rate suddenly increases at an exponential rate...the last few perceived inches rapidly disappears in a matter of seconds. It's all rather useless for judging distances of and closure rates at less than a few inches...by the time you realize you're too close to an object, it's probably too late to react.
About the only thing the camera is good for is a quick check to make sure no one shorter than the rear tailgate is behind you. Even then, the angular distance covered is rather small -- you still need to actually turn your head (just like you were taught in driver's ed) to ensure no one is approaching from left to right.
...about a lifeform based on silicon, not carbon. Instead of exhaling carbon dioxide, they shit sand (or something like that). Anyone remember the name/author?
Headline is extremely misleading. It's not an extra-galactic planet (otherwise, how the hell could it be in the Milky Way?)...it's a planet of extra-galactic origin.
The editorial standards (such as they are on /.) have really gone downhill in the last few years...
Now they are sure, making this the first time a sample has been collected from the surface of an asteroid (and only the second time a sample has been returned from a celestial object, the first being the Moon missions).
Not exactly. Unless you don't consider comets "celestial objects."
...but is it really possible to be exploited by clicking on a link? Can someone show some concrete examples of this? I'm not interested in "possible" exploits, but something in the wild that can infect a box running the latest versions of Firefox, AdBlock and NoScript?
I just simply find it all too difficult to believe. If there are really browsers running around out there with security holes as big as Peterbilt trucks, shouldn't they be tagged as "enemies of the state"? Or is all this just so much hype?
...this probably qualifies as the first "photograph" of a human. And up this point, no solid proof has been offered that it's fake.
That sounds more like it would get in the way - perhaps I've come up with a more secure and robust algorithm than they've thought of and all it requires is a bit of data transfer from one section to another - but its deemed insecure due to their constraints - even though I've handled security in a different section.
Much like SELinux. At some point, the security aspects are frustrating enough that you just turn the damn thing off.
The reason people with scanners are not welcome is because they are disruptive and rude to other patrons. Typically these people show up and are waiting when the doors open, they come in and lay claim to an entire section of shelves, or display table and begin sorting into piles by price-point. They stay for hours, and systematically move through the entire inventory. They take up a lot of space, prevent other customers from accessing the merchandise and leave a big mess behind for the staff to clean up.
Thanks for pointing this out. I see this all the time, but never made the connection. In the future, I will be sure to point out to these folks that the books are there for all to view, so please move aside and share with others.
This should be fun.
...to have Time-Warner install a CableCARD on my Moxi DVR. First off, T-W resolutely refuses to allow customers to self-install. They require a technician to come out and make a call to the "head office" to relay information from the DVR that requires the DVR owner (in this case, me) to pull up. Then, it takes about 2-1/2 additional hours to figure out that the INIT sequence wasn't being properly sent by T-W. Of course, all this time T-W is telling me it's my DVR (even though T-W specifically identifies the Moxi as a "supported" DVR). In the end, it cost me $35 and 3 hours of my time (2 hours of that spent online chatting with a Moxi engineer who was telling me what to tell the cable guy) to deal with T-W's ineptitude when it comes to CableCARD support.
Contrast this to Comcast: I walked into the Comcast office, picked up a CableCARD for my mom's 8-year-old rear projection Mitsubishi, plugged it in, called Comcast, and was up and running in about 1/2 hour. Total cost? $0.
Unfortunately, I don't think the FCC's new regs will address gross technical incompetence on the part of some cable TV providers.
Mine says not found. Probably because I don't have broadcast SSID on my wireless, judging by the procedure he's using (google locator).
I don't broadcast my SSID, never have. Yet this script located my browser to within about a 500 ft. radius of my address.
I don't know where you happen to live, but where I'm at, many attorneys (especially in smaller towns) are more than willing to confer with you about options for $50-$100. If you ask the right questions, a half an hour with an attorney can result in some rather useful strategies. Plus, it's nice to have the client-attorney privilege that isn't afforded one who posts on /.
A $50 consultation with an employment attorney when I was laid of from an IT position several years ago was enough to get me several extra weeks of severance pay. He told me in 1/2 hour everything I needed to do to make sure I got what what mine. Not a bad ROI...
I'd like to avoid incurring the cost of a lawyer but I am intent on maintaining my good name and continued employment.
Right...so let me get this straight: You stand a good chance of losing your job, affecting your life and your family's well-being, and you're too cheap to hire a lawyer? I'm sorry, but you really have your priorities out of whack if you think posting your woes on /. is time well spent.
...that it wasn't you? Seriously, folks: Maybe this individual is guilty as charged, and he's asking us about ways to defend his actions, or how to create a web of plausible deniability. Think about it: If this situation really happened to a truly innocent party, with looming consequences of job loss (especially in the current economy), don't you think said party would seek the advice of counsel before airing out his laundry on /.?
I know some of us are always willing to lend a hand to a fellow geek, but sometimes I have to shake my head at how quickly some of you jump to defend an individual who claims to be innocent, framed, whatever.
...in my kids' school district, each child receives a 6-digit PIN, in kindergarten. The children are expected to memorize their PINs in kindergarten, where they must use the PIN to purchase lunch. So there's really nothing new under the sun here. Identification numbers are a fact of life: You'll get one in primary and secondary school, you'll get one in college, and then you'll get an employee ID when you get hired on. Every aspect of one's life is dictated by an identification number.
...from a movie that only opened in "art houses"? At least where I live (largish metropolitan area), the movie opened in *two* indie theaters. I don't exactly know how this works, whether the movie producers steer their movie towards indie or mainstream theaters, or if the theaters can pick and choose the movies they show. At any rate, it's no big surprise that a movie that opened in a city of 2 million+ in only two movie theaters would have been short-lived, over-hyped (as these types of movies often are), and revenue-deficient.
I debated on whether to use my mod points to mod this comment down as a troll, or to forgo the ego trip and answer the question.
The answer, as it turns out, is "not from the U.S."
Although the Mexican gov't has repeatedly asserted that U.S. is to blame for the flow of guns into Mexico, some forget that the U.S. has sent millions of firearms to various Central and South American factions, firearms that are readily available in Mexico (and not as a result of any 2nd Amendment rights bestowed on U.S. citizens). Or for your consideration: The blatant distortion of facts by which Mexican officials who, while claiming that 80-90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S. fail to mention that the number is extrapolated from a small sample of guns sent to the U.S. that could be traced. This fallacy is substantiated by numbers reported by the ATF in which Mexican authorities confiscated 29,000 firearms in 2008, of which only 5,000 were traceable to the U.S.