Sorry, but I have not swallowed Apple's marketing campaign hook, line, and sinker. Apple produces personal computers, which have always been a part of the PC market. There is not a separate "Macintosh" market, and most of Apple's product lines do not fall into the category of "workstations," if you wanted to claim there is a separate "workstation market." Mainframes, on the other hand, are quite clearly in a different market than other server computers -- they include features that is not even relevant for typical servers (i.e. the ability to replace a motherboard without interrupting service, the ability to execute instructions on two processors at the same time to reduce the chances of erroneous results, etc.); the difference is as clear as the difference between the server market and the PC market. True, a mainframe can be replaced with a couple hundred servers, but I can say the same about replacing a server with a desktop, or perhaps a hammer and a screwdriver.
It runs on an emulator, and an organization that wants to continue running its older mainframe software on non-mainframe hardware may want to use such an emulator.
Probably not, since Apple does not have the kind of market share in the PC market that IBM has in the mainframe market. Last I checked, something like 90% of mainframes were IBM, versus something like 6% of PCs being Apple products.
This sounds like more of the same "states rights" argument. Sorry to break this to you, but the bill of rights covers every level of government, from federal right down to your local town. The school board, being a part of the government, cannot go around violating the first amendment by teaching that the Christian/Jewish creation myth is an accurate description of the world.
Let's not center the blame on the Republicans. Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to protecting corporate profits at the expense of "the little guy," and a lot of Democrats are lining up against net neutrality. America does not really have a "two party system," we really have a one party system in which there are two factions.
"Free markets" don't actually refer to the capitalist ideal. The "free market" really means "the system that best maximizes corporate profits." Usually that means as little regulation on corporations as is possible, except when it comes to regulations that create a barrier to entry. So for example, with ISPs, "free market" means that the ISPs can make whatever changes to their policies that they want, and that the regulations on installing fiber or providing wireless access are sufficient to keep new ISPs out of the market without hurting the profits of existing ISPs too much.
At least that is how I understand the term "free market."
Nobody is talking about crippling anyone. Please stop spreading lies about what net neutrality means. Net neutrality only means that ISPs will provide nondiscriminatory service. Fox News has significantly more money than The Daily Kos, and would therefore benefit far more from a non-neutral net (as they could pay for faster service from ISPs across the board) than The Daily Kos would.
What is new is that deleting your account is now in the same place as "deactivating" it, which should help alleviate some of the confusion people had earlier.
Getting certification does not mean getting a job. She was not simply denied a particular teaching job, she was denied the certification required for all teaching jobs she might apply to -- a blanket rejection. This is not a case of "chopping," it is a case of someone being denied the ability to even apply for a job.
They have not always had an option to delete your account. It was not that long ago that deleting your account required you to call them up and argue about the issue; in fact, the media fallout over that process is the reason they created the "delete account" option in the first place.
Except that this teacher was denied certification, not a job. It would be as if part of the FE/PE exams was a drug test (although I would not be surprised if someone points out that a drug test is actually part of the process to get engineering certification at this point).
It is shocking because until now, the option to delete your account required significant effort to actually locate. In fact, it was not that long ago that deleting your account required a phone call to Facebook (an uproar which eventually resulted in the "delete account" option being made available at all).
How many times do you hear a statement like, "he never drinks," being used as a euphemism for, "he is a moral and upstanding citizen" or something to that effect? Americans are being conditioned to think that going to a party and using drugs reflects negatively on a person. If the media is to be believed, then having a beer after work is something that you need to hide from your boss, friends, and family, and the only people who are going to join you are lonely and depressed.
Except that not everyone goes to parties while they are in college; I knew several such people when I was an undergrad. The problem is that employers are giving preference to those people, and the existence of those people is not going to change any time soon. It does not help that the media conditions us to think that "he doesn't drink" is equivalent to "he is an upstanding citizen."
Why should employers be judging people for going to a party? Look at the first paragraph -- the teacher was fired because a photo of her drinking at a party was "encouraging drinking" and might be found by her students. We are not talking about something horrifying here, we are talking about an adult having a drink and the terrifying possibility that children might see adults drinking.
The problem is not the teacher, nor is it the fact that the teacher posted the picture online. The problem is that people believe that it is terrible for a teacher to go to a party and have a drink, and that if she chooses to do that, she should hide it away like a dirty secret.
I doubt it -- people should already be aware that everyone makes bad choices and that nobody is perfect. The problem is that, at least in America, people are becoming less and less tolerant of "bad choices." When I was a freshman in college, we were warned not to allow pictures of us at parties to find their way onto the Internet, because an employer might see those pictures and not hire us. It is not as if employers are unaware that people go to parties when they are in college, nor is it the case that employers are unaware of what happens at college parties...
In fact, the rituals of a secret society are of historical interest, and that includes sororities. At least one book has been published about what happens inside of sororities. A sorority's rituals are not an individual's private information, there is nothing nebulous about it.
Did I say all criticism is suspect? No, I said an article that takes an overtly negative tone is suspect, and then I went on to mention a detail that should be included in any article that makes a fair criticism of Wikileaks. No, they are not above criticism, but there is a plan out there to discredit Wikileaks, and that does make it hard to know whether the criticisms are just part of that plan.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPad helps you do useful things in ways you couldn't before? Really? Is that you, Steve?
Sorry, but I have not swallowed Apple's marketing campaign hook, line, and sinker. Apple produces personal computers, which have always been a part of the PC market. There is not a separate "Macintosh" market, and most of Apple's product lines do not fall into the category of "workstations," if you wanted to claim there is a separate "workstation market." Mainframes, on the other hand, are quite clearly in a different market than other server computers -- they include features that is not even relevant for typical servers (i.e. the ability to replace a motherboard without interrupting service, the ability to execute instructions on two processors at the same time to reduce the chances of erroneous results, etc.); the difference is as clear as the difference between the server market and the PC market. True, a mainframe can be replaced with a couple hundred servers, but I can say the same about replacing a server with a desktop, or perhaps a hammer and a screwdriver.
It runs on an emulator, and an organization that wants to continue running its older mainframe software on non-mainframe hardware may want to use such an emulator.
Probably not, since Apple does not have the kind of market share in the PC market that IBM has in the mainframe market. Last I checked, something like 90% of mainframes were IBM, versus something like 6% of PCs being Apple products.
When has there ever been any credibility to corporate lobbying?
This sounds like more of the same "states rights" argument. Sorry to break this to you, but the bill of rights covers every level of government, from federal right down to your local town. The school board, being a part of the government, cannot go around violating the first amendment by teaching that the Christian/Jewish creation myth is an accurate description of the world.
Now we are going to see a torrent of pornography for the iPhone! Think of the children!
Let's not center the blame on the Republicans. Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to protecting corporate profits at the expense of "the little guy," and a lot of Democrats are lining up against net neutrality. America does not really have a "two party system," we really have a one party system in which there are two factions.
"Free markets" don't actually refer to the capitalist ideal. The "free market" really means "the system that best maximizes corporate profits." Usually that means as little regulation on corporations as is possible, except when it comes to regulations that create a barrier to entry. So for example, with ISPs, "free market" means that the ISPs can make whatever changes to their policies that they want, and that the regulations on installing fiber or providing wireless access are sufficient to keep new ISPs out of the market without hurting the profits of existing ISPs too much.
At least that is how I understand the term "free market."
Nobody is talking about crippling anyone. Please stop spreading lies about what net neutrality means. Net neutrality only means that ISPs will provide nondiscriminatory service. Fox News has significantly more money than The Daily Kos, and would therefore benefit far more from a non-neutral net (as they could pay for faster service from ISPs across the board) than The Daily Kos would.
The "free market" theory is obviously worth as much as tits on a bull when it comes to ISPs.
Blasphemy! Are you suggesting that the "free market" might not be able to solve all our problems?!
You could, of course, use their job performance as proof.
What is new is that deleting your account is now in the same place as "deactivating" it, which should help alleviate some of the confusion people had earlier.
Getting certification does not mean getting a job. She was not simply denied a particular teaching job, she was denied the certification required for all teaching jobs she might apply to -- a blanket rejection. This is not a case of "chopping," it is a case of someone being denied the ability to even apply for a job.
They have not always had an option to delete your account. It was not that long ago that deleting your account required you to call them up and argue about the issue; in fact, the media fallout over that process is the reason they created the "delete account" option in the first place.
Actually, he compared it to tic-tac-toe.
Except that this teacher was denied certification, not a job. It would be as if part of the FE/PE exams was a drug test (although I would not be surprised if someone points out that a drug test is actually part of the process to get engineering certification at this point).
It is shocking because until now, the option to delete your account required significant effort to actually locate. In fact, it was not that long ago that deleting your account required a phone call to Facebook (an uproar which eventually resulted in the "delete account" option being made available at all).
How many times do you hear a statement like, "he never drinks," being used as a euphemism for, "he is a moral and upstanding citizen" or something to that effect? Americans are being conditioned to think that going to a party and using drugs reflects negatively on a person. If the media is to be believed, then having a beer after work is something that you need to hide from your boss, friends, and family, and the only people who are going to join you are lonely and depressed.
Except that not everyone goes to parties while they are in college; I knew several such people when I was an undergrad. The problem is that employers are giving preference to those people, and the existence of those people is not going to change any time soon. It does not help that the media conditions us to think that "he doesn't drink" is equivalent to "he is an upstanding citizen."
Why should employers be judging people for going to a party? Look at the first paragraph -- the teacher was fired because a photo of her drinking at a party was "encouraging drinking" and might be found by her students. We are not talking about something horrifying here, we are talking about an adult having a drink and the terrifying possibility that children might see adults drinking.
The problem is not the teacher, nor is it the fact that the teacher posted the picture online. The problem is that people believe that it is terrible for a teacher to go to a party and have a drink, and that if she chooses to do that, she should hide it away like a dirty secret.
When did drinking at a party suddenly become a reason to be denied a teaching certification?
I doubt it -- people should already be aware that everyone makes bad choices and that nobody is perfect. The problem is that, at least in America, people are becoming less and less tolerant of "bad choices." When I was a freshman in college, we were warned not to allow pictures of us at parties to find their way onto the Internet, because an employer might see those pictures and not hire us. It is not as if employers are unaware that people go to parties when they are in college, nor is it the case that employers are unaware of what happens at college parties...
In fact, the rituals of a secret society are of historical interest, and that includes sororities. At least one book has been published about what happens inside of sororities. A sorority's rituals are not an individual's private information, there is nothing nebulous about it.
Did I say all criticism is suspect? No, I said an article that takes an overtly negative tone is suspect, and then I went on to mention a detail that should be included in any article that makes a fair criticism of Wikileaks. No, they are not above criticism, but there is a plan out there to discredit Wikileaks, and that does make it hard to know whether the criticisms are just part of that plan.