I clicked the link intentionally. They can have my IP address. I'm not scared and it would give me something interesting to talk about should they come bug me. I have far more free time than they do.
You didn't notice this way back in the Reagan era? Hmm... It isn't your fault but the trend isn't new. As the Blocs become more liberal we become more restrictive. (I had a hard time using restrictive instead of fascist but feel compelled to include it regardless, it is a politically charged word and I believe it fits if one uses a dictionary.)
I believe it docks in a non-collision course - meaning the CanadArm reaches out and grabs it as it goes by. If the folks on the ISS aren't comfortable then they don't do anything except wave as the module goes past. Short of some sort of absurd fault which fires the thrusters off at the last minute there shouldn't be any major risk with this. People smarter than I did the engineering so I may be missing something.
It's no great feat but I wasn't expecting it. I'd be curious to know more about reliability, uptime records and averages in the real world, as well as more data (more is better, right?) but with only about a half dozen providers I'm not sure how meaningful the data would be.
I used to have an HTC Merge. I had rooted (and unlocked, of course) the phone. I sent it in for a repair twice, to HTC itself not an insurance claim, and though the second time resulted in my getting a different phone returned to me I never once had anyone complain or deny my warranty because of this. YMMV and I have since moved away from HTC, great hardware though. I'm pretty rough on stuff.
RTFA: "TI claims that the battery is good for about a week of in-class use or 2 weeks of homework, and my unit seemed to last around 8-10 hours of use on a charge (in a very unscientific test)."
Your analogy, while somewhat humorous, does not fit. If the driver's ed program purported to teach the physics behind the car's engine such as combustion, momentum, torque, etc. then your analogy would be appropriate. A mathematics course is supposed to teach mathematical concepts, which include algebraic manipulation and in some cases calculations. Using a tool that does all the work that is supposed to taught and learn in the class does not actually facilitate learning. I'm not saying that one cannot find an appropriate use for calculators in a classroom. However, if a teacher uses the calculator's factoring function to teach students about quadratic factoring, then they have failed at this objective. This is the main point of the GP.
Your analogy would be more appropriate if the driver's ed program allowed the students to bring in their personal robot that would do the driving for them.
To be fair, your analogy doesn't work all that well either. You'd have to then ask that they know not only what the program for the robot is doing but also understanding the algorithms so that they truly understand the "why" of it all. At least that's my current thought on the situation.
I guess, really, is that an analogy can almost always be complained about because people will assume it isn't the same no matter how close it is. There's probably a reason for this but I'm not qualified to figure it out.
I figure the next step will be allowing the kids to Google the answers as it is, after all, what they'll be doing later on in life/work.
I once told a (now ex) girlfriend this, "You know, sometimes your mother makes me think homicidal thoughts."
I was arrested for "Terrorizing."
I took the plea agreement so I'm unable to remark on the laws themselves and that's about all the information I have. The agreement bundled it into a bunch of other charges and was well worth it in my opinion as I was certainly guilty of the rest.
If I had initiative I'd start a company having to do with GINA in Virginia and make a unique business name. Yes, yes I am three and have no real point other than that.
If they hesitate use that lull in the conversation to assert that you do so, regularly, with his wife. It won't win the argument but it will be hilarious which, really, is all that matters because life is short and we all need a black eye at some point.
I don't think your comment is true though maybe I know a different class of people. Do you have a citation for this? Do you have any evidence suggesting that we want, collectively as it is my road too, our privacy eroded for your inability to accept the risks inherent in a free society?
How much say do you get? I'm almost certain I pay more in taxes, specifically in road taxes, than you so do I get two votes to your one?
Anyhow, provide proof that this is what we want on our public road or take your cowardice on out of here and lets let the adults decide what to do with their property. Mmkay?
It would have been simpler if you just said you don't understand and you don't understand copyrights and haven't a clue what you're on about. That would have saved us some time. It would have been honest, too.
(No, it isn't copyright.)
They need the code to access the site to submit, grade, and record their work. The use is only good for the duration of the class. You *CAN* buy the books cheap. You can even buy them used. What you can't do is buy the CODE for the website because it was good for only one use. You can buy a used book and a new code.
Copyright, again, has nothing at all to do with this other than you're incorrect zealotry assuming that it has. This isn't a difficult thing to grasp so I'm forced to conclude that you're a fucking idiot which is shameful. With your low user ID you'd think that we'd have taught you a few things by now but it appears that is a mistaken assumption on my part, a failure on our part, or just an impossible task.
I, unlike you, will accept my failings and admit them. What I should have been doing all these past years is babysitting you to remind you that you're not smart enough to speak without doing some thinking and research before typing. Now, try again, and next time it will be $80 for the online course work.
I'm not a fan of laws, I view each law as a limitation of freedom and think we have more than enough laws already. I realize that that's a simplistic view and that things change and new laws will always be required.
I don't think I'd mind too much (though I'd prefer if it were a standard voluntarily followed instead of a law) that **IF** a manufacturer or direct vendor is going to allow user posted online reviews on their site then they should be required or recommended (say for maintaining membership in a BBB or similar organization or for something like 9002 ISO certification or something similar) that verified users of the product who follow certain standards of decorum should not be censored or edited by the company or on the company's behalf.
Wow that is an unwieldy sentence.
Basically... I'd prefer it be for certification purposes or similar but wouldn't be entirely pissed off by a law that:
IF the company allows reviews... AND the user is a verified user... AND the user follows language and readability standards... AND the user submits a review for inclusion on their site...
The company should not edit it. The company should post it regardless of the rating. The company should not have it edited on their behalf. The company should not attempt to get the user to alter their review.
For inclusion I'd add:
The user is limited to a single review per product per some arbitrary period of time. The user is limited in the amount of time during which they can make said initial review. The user is required to have owned/used the product for some arbitrary period of time before reviewing it. The only reviews that would be covered by this would be from people who can demonstrate an ability to judge the product. The company should be able to fix the issue and the user can leave an updated review. The initial review would not be deleted even in the case of the above happening.
Obviously refining would be needed to prevent cheating or dishonesty by either party. People paid for reviews, professional reviews from journalists, and reviews posted by affiliates or those who may benefit directly or indirectly should certainly be allowed but should be disclosed clearly as such if not labeled as advertisements.
I'm not a huge fan of laws but this one wouldn't make me gnash my teeth, rend my clothing, nor cover myself in sackcloth. I'd much rather it be required for inclusion in professional groups, ISO certifications, chambers of commerce, etc... That seems far more reasonable to me than a law. I realize that it isn't perfect but I think it would help. Censoring reviews, while perfectly understandable, is sleazy. I get that a company wants to protect its image and that negative reviews aren't good but it just reeks of dishonesty, shady business, and is absurd.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the subject I suppose. I've pondered this before. While it is funny to read some of the reviews on Amazon, I sometimes feel bad for the company. I also don't really think it is valuable (or valid) to have someone who is clearly out of their league writing pissed off reviews simply because the product (otherwise good by all rights) didn't do what they were expecting. I, for example, have no business writing a scathing review about how Photoshop is too difficult to use because I have absolutely no skills or experience to decide that. Biasing people based on my ignorance or incompetence is bad and protecting the business is just as valid (in this case) as it is protecting the consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
I clicked the link intentionally. They can have my IP address. I'm not scared and it would give me something interesting to talk about should they come bug me. I have far more free time than they do.
You didn't notice this way back in the Reagan era? Hmm... It isn't your fault but the trend isn't new. As the Blocs become more liberal we become more restrictive. (I had a hard time using restrictive instead of fascist but feel compelled to include it regardless, it is a politically charged word and I believe it fits if one uses a dictionary.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#2009_Declaration
I believe it docks in a non-collision course - meaning the CanadArm reaches out and grabs it as it goes by. If the folks on the ISS aren't comfortable then they don't do anything except wave as the module goes past. Short of some sort of absurd fault which fires the thrusters off at the last minute there shouldn't be any major risk with this. People smarter than I did the engineering so I may be missing something.
It's no great feat but I wasn't expecting it. I'd be curious to know more about reliability, uptime records and averages in the real world, as well as more data (more is better, right?) but with only about a half dozen providers I'm not sure how meaningful the data would be.
I used to have an HTC Merge. I had rooted (and unlocked, of course) the phone. I sent it in for a repair twice, to HTC itself not an insurance claim, and though the second time resulted in my getting a different phone returned to me I never once had anyone complain or deny my warranty because of this. YMMV and I have since moved away from HTC, great hardware though. I'm pretty rough on stuff.
Ham is for public safety actually. You may want to keep that one free because you may need a ham someday. Really...
RTFA: "TI claims that the battery is good for about a week of in-class use or 2 weeks of homework, and my unit seemed to last around 8-10 hours of use on a charge (in a very unscientific test)."
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ab.x48&hl=en
http://www.mksg.de/
No, it is like rain on your wedding day.
Your analogy, while somewhat humorous, does not fit. If the driver's ed program purported to teach the physics behind the car's engine such as combustion, momentum, torque, etc. then your analogy would be appropriate. A mathematics course is supposed to teach mathematical concepts, which include algebraic manipulation and in some cases calculations. Using a tool that does all the work that is supposed to taught and learn in the class does not actually facilitate learning. I'm not saying that one cannot find an appropriate use for calculators in a classroom. However, if a teacher uses the calculator's factoring function to teach students about quadratic factoring, then they have failed at this objective. This is the main point of the GP.
Your analogy would be more appropriate if the driver's ed program allowed the students to bring in their personal robot that would do the driving for them.
To be fair, your analogy doesn't work all that well either. You'd have to then ask that they know not only what the program for the robot is doing but also understanding the algorithms so that they truly understand the "why" of it all. At least that's my current thought on the situation.
I guess, really, is that an analogy can almost always be complained about because people will assume it isn't the same no matter how close it is. There's probably a reason for this but I'm not qualified to figure it out.
I figure the next step will be allowing the kids to Google the answers as it is, after all, what they'll be doing later on in life/work.
If you post it online is it still in the privacy of your own home? ;)
I wonder if people will troll the "street view" cars of their brain? /might be high
It's not a very good one. I'll leave it to you to figure out why but I'll give you a hint: "NYT"
Also, I wonder what they do about trucks and air brakes.
The brake isn't held on or off by electric power, because that would be illegal.
You got a citation for that?
I get 550+ miles out of my BMW 740iL. It is old too. Of course, well, the tank is 27 US gallons.
I seem to recall Bond doing it first though it is a feature on the HMMV IIRC.
Probably because YouTube has the money to defend themselves in court. I also wonder when they'll start charging knife dealers for armed robbery.
I once told a (now ex) girlfriend this, "You know, sometimes your mother makes me think homicidal thoughts."
I was arrested for "Terrorizing."
I took the plea agreement so I'm unable to remark on the laws themselves and that's about all the information I have. The agreement bundled it into a bunch of other charges and was well worth it in my opinion as I was certainly guilty of the rest.
If I had initiative I'd start a company having to do with GINA in Virginia and make a unique business name. Yes, yes I am three and have no real point other than that.
If they hesitate use that lull in the conversation to assert that you do so, regularly, with his wife. It won't win the argument but it will be hilarious which, really, is all that matters because life is short and we all need a black eye at some point.
I don't think your comment is true though maybe I know a different class of people. Do you have a citation for this? Do you have any evidence suggesting that we want, collectively as it is my road too, our privacy eroded for your inability to accept the risks inherent in a free society?
How much say do you get? I'm almost certain I pay more in taxes, specifically in road taxes, than you so do I get two votes to your one?
Anyhow, provide proof that this is what we want on our public road or take your cowardice on out of here and lets let the adults decide what to do with their property. Mmkay?
It would have been simpler if you just said you don't understand and you don't understand copyrights and haven't a clue what you're on about. That would have saved us some time. It would have been honest, too.
(No, it isn't copyright.)
They need the code to access the site to submit, grade, and record their work. The use is only good for the duration of the class. You *CAN* buy the books cheap. You can even buy them used. What you can't do is buy the CODE for the website because it was good for only one use. You can buy a used book and a new code.
Copyright, again, has nothing at all to do with this other than you're incorrect zealotry assuming that it has. This isn't a difficult thing to grasp so I'm forced to conclude that you're a fucking idiot which is shameful. With your low user ID you'd think that we'd have taught you a few things by now but it appears that is a mistaken assumption on my part, a failure on our part, or just an impossible task.
I, unlike you, will accept my failings and admit them. What I should have been doing all these past years is babysitting you to remind you that you're not smart enough to speak without doing some thinking and research before typing. Now, try again, and next time it will be $80 for the online course work.
Access to the book != access to the online content which is enabled by the code and tied to an individual user but you knew that, didn't you?
I'm not a fan of laws, I view each law as a limitation of freedom and think we have more than enough laws already. I realize that that's a simplistic view and that things change and new laws will always be required.
I don't think I'd mind too much (though I'd prefer if it were a standard voluntarily followed instead of a law) that **IF** a manufacturer or direct vendor is going to allow user posted online reviews on their site then they should be required or recommended (say for maintaining membership in a BBB or similar organization or for something like 9002 ISO certification or something similar) that verified users of the product who follow certain standards of decorum should not be censored or edited by the company or on the company's behalf.
Wow that is an unwieldy sentence.
Basically... I'd prefer it be for certification purposes or similar but wouldn't be entirely pissed off by a law that:
IF the company allows reviews...
AND the user is a verified user...
AND the user follows language and readability standards...
AND the user submits a review for inclusion on their site...
The company should not edit it.
The company should post it regardless of the rating.
The company should not have it edited on their behalf.
The company should not attempt to get the user to alter their review.
For inclusion I'd add:
The user is limited to a single review per product per some arbitrary period of time.
The user is limited in the amount of time during which they can make said initial review.
The user is required to have owned/used the product for some arbitrary period of time before reviewing it.
The only reviews that would be covered by this would be from people who can demonstrate an ability to judge the product.
The company should be able to fix the issue and the user can leave an updated review.
The initial review would not be deleted even in the case of the above happening.
Obviously refining would be needed to prevent cheating or dishonesty by either party. People paid for reviews, professional reviews from journalists, and reviews posted by affiliates or those who may benefit directly or indirectly should certainly be allowed but should be disclosed clearly as such if not labeled as advertisements.
I'm not a huge fan of laws but this one wouldn't make me gnash my teeth, rend my clothing, nor cover myself in sackcloth. I'd much rather it be required for inclusion in professional groups, ISO certifications, chambers of commerce, etc... That seems far more reasonable to me than a law. I realize that it isn't perfect but I think it would help. Censoring reviews, while perfectly understandable, is sleazy. I get that a company wants to protect its image and that negative reviews aren't good but it just reeks of dishonesty, shady business, and is absurd.
Anyhow, those are my thoughts on the subject I suppose. I've pondered this before. While it is funny to read some of the reviews on Amazon, I sometimes feel bad for the company. I also don't really think it is valuable (or valid) to have someone who is clearly out of their league writing pissed off reviews simply because the product (otherwise good by all rights) didn't do what they were expecting. I, for example, have no business writing a scathing review about how Photoshop is too difficult to use because I have absolutely no skills or experience to decide that. Biasing people based on my ignorance or incompetence is bad and protecting the business is just as valid (in this case) as it is protecting the consumer.