Yeah, but those aren't really your options, are they?

The choice you actually get to make it whether you'd prefer a couple number of corporate overlords, each a master of their domain (oil, telecomm, etc) or a small number of government overlords (the military, Federal Justice department, etc).

"online subscribers" was exactly the weasel-word the needed defining, and parent did an awesome job of patching up the summary!

At least, I think I did. Where is the UID listed on this new version of Slashdot? :)

When I got my first license (in MA, USA) I had to do a road-test. But I took that test during high school, so maybe the road test requirement is based on age, or based it being my first license, etc.

When I got my second (WA, USA) I had to do a paper (well, computer) test but no road test. It did kinda weird me out at the time, but I'm guessing that since most people drive pretty much continuously after getting their license it would mostly irritate people to have to re-demonstrate skills they've already got. At least, that's how I rationalized it.

But yeah - I agree that the test isn't nearly as tough as it ought to be.

As someone who's tried this I'm going to say that I'd actually recommend reading something that explains the Bible (either concurrently, before, or even instead). Especially if you haven't read a Bible before. Not only are many passages opaque but the writing style is incredibly concise by modern standards. Not to mention the thousands of years of history since it was written. Having something that will help demystify what each passage means really helps open up the Bible.

Think of it this way - you wouldn't try Emacs / Vim for the first time by digging into source code, instead you'd find a 'tutorial for beginners' Digging into a Bible (not matter which version you choose to read) is way, way more complicated than Emacs or Vim. Smart people have dedicated their lives to understanding it, and some of them have have written orientations for beginners - go read one of those!

Is that actually going to help? Isn't the whole problem that the thieves didn't understand what they'd stolen? (I guess you better make sure you stencil all sorts of radioactive/biohazard/warning signs over the stuff, too) (Also - please make sure to mention this post 6 months from now when you AskSlashdot "Why don't women want to date me after the first time that I bring them back to my place?")

(Yes, I know what they mean. I think they meant to write "In particular, interfaces between two languages (when neither is C) are often difficult to construct".
Still, it amuses me to think about making an interface from C... to C :)

Turns out recording stuff in private without first obtaining active consent from everyone who's being record is illegal in Washington state (RCW 9.73.030). So if the Google Glass guy decided to turn on video recording while enjoying his dinner he wouldn't have just pissed off the owner/other patrons, but also broken WA law, too

I can't believe that the summary writer can actually suggest that "Maybe Faraday cages and anti-surveillance features will become the norm at the restaurants" - I can't think of a single restaurant that wants to spend the vast amounts of cash to prevent wireless communication

and (my) parent post has been down-modded yet. :)

if it was geek oriented it would be "some uncanny suggestions", like the Uncanny X-Men! Amirite?

that this is not a complete sentence:
"Although carbon nanotube based processors are showing promise [...]."

Go, speed-editor, go! :)

Y'know, I was wondering which was going to win out- /.'s general disdain for Formal Education vs. /.'s worship of technology. Looks like MOOCs have been around long enough for /.ers to start thinking about them like the rest of Formal Education.

If anyone's interested, we could probably find some open source software to run a betting pool on how /. will break in it's next article on MOOCs (my money's on "back to mindless adoration").

*cough* that's just "several", not "several of". I should have just stuck with " a couple of", as defined by XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1070/

I had a prof in college who explained the whole 'grading on a curve' thing.
He started his explanation by saying that a good exam would have:
* several of no-brainer questions to check if everyone had at least done the minimum and give them a warm-up for the real questions
* several of real questions, to make sure people actually did study, and to produce some differentiation amongst the general population
* one or two incredibly difficult questions. Questions so tough that most people are NOT expected to get them. Questions so tough that if you do get them then you the prof should come talk to you about majoring in the area (the prof taught Freshman/Sophomore level math).
According to him the point of grading on a curve was to be able to put that third category of questions on the exam without destroying the grade of everyone else in the room.

I, personally don't grade on a curve but I thought it was interesting that it can serve a purpose in some situations.