Not only can they sue you,they might win.

This is because the NFL is not an ordinary business. It is a cartel of independent teams. Such cartels, for example OPEC, are illigal in the US since 1890 but is allowed through special acts of congress. This allows it to set rules for all teams, set TV contracts, and set pay scales without any competition.

This leads to the ability to generate profits only available to socialist organizations. For instance, excessively high payment from TV networks require excessively high fees to cable providers which are paid by all cable subscribers, even if they never watch the channel. The cartel is also able to leverage national monies to convince localities to force taxpayer to fund stadiums, even if those that are never going to use the stadiums. These monies then go into individual pockets as profits.

I have heard people saying the same about music halls, but there is certainly no national cartel of music lovers that bribe local officials, that transfers the risk of the building from a for profit organization the taxpayer.

There are other costs to society. Because the rules are set, public tax dollars can be used to train kids for the NFL through public school funds. Because salaries are set, the players, though well paid, do not have the ability to truly negotiate a contract. Recall that tech firms have gotten in trouble for this, even though the employees were generally well paid.

And of course there is a fundamental loss to a society that depends on the free market that kids are taught about fair play and rules within a socialist construct where there is in fact a rule book and powerful referees. While this is useful for a 10 year old, it is disastrous when an adult goes into a work place believing her or his life is really going to be controlled by a rule book. It kills innovation and creativity. At leas in baseball you can steal a base. The immaturity of football can be characterized by the fact that everyone got their panties in bunch over deflate gate. In the real free market world that would just be considered a necessary cost of doing business.

Which is to say that the NFL basically lives within it's own bubble. It has the ability to bribe congress, or throw enough lawyers at the problem, to bend the rules no matter what previous legislation or case law says.

And I don't think the NFL is a natural cartel, like the electric company. I think real competition, not the fake thing taught to kids by the NFL structure and games, is good. I don't think sports fans are nearly as dumb as the average sports cartel thinks they are. The current structure is merely a way to maximize profit at taxpayer expense, and to create a world where fundamental rights are infringed for the sake of the bottom line or a corporation.

There is truth to this. There is a great deal of difference between a 10 year old and a 13 year old, and way more differences within children of the same age than if you were to be dealing with late teens.

This age group is going to be deep into concrete thinking. They are going to spend most of their time challenging rules rather than working with them to develop a functional product. They want to see how rules can be broken and if the framework is still functional with broken rules. They are looking for a minimum set of constraints that will lead to maximizing the freedoms they are looking for, without additional responsibilities.

These are all useful things if channeled properly.

For instance, while I don't see robots as useful for higher grade levels, I think they are useful for the 10-14 year old. Robots can provide instant feedback that forces kids to follow rules, and allows the give and take that lets kids discover principles, like how to make a right turn. Robots can also easily be tailored for individual abilities.

What is missing in many courses is that kids learn differently for older teens and adults. The assumptions they make are different, and they are more likely to spend time 'gaming the system' to look for vagaries.

What kids don't have is the abstract ability to understand how something as abstract as a physical computer interface works. Even though it looks like a concrete representation, it is not. Just try to teach a kid to work a breadboard. Yes, you can teach them rote but are they going to understand what is really happening. My experience is not until they are in high school.

So teach cause and effect. If they are old enough teach them how to solder. Get simple robots and let them play. For older students, get Inventor and 3D printer. If a kid seems to want to program, let them make a tic tac toe web page.

What will happen is that some kids will try spend more time on the internet looking at porn than learning. That is the testing of rules thing.

I paid for virtual machine software for the Mac to run Windows XP and 7. I did not want to reboot. I switched to virtual box not because it was free, but because I felt it was better. I have not needed to run windows for a couple years, so I do not know what the current state of development is in the market, but VirtualBox would be my initial choice if I needed a VM. One data point. For the modeling software I was using on Windows 7, Parallels made my machine run much hotter.

The first question that popped into my mind was did they have a new model that would take data from 100 satellites and produce a more accurate forecast. I don't think that satellites alone are not going to create a more accurate forecast. This reminds me when I was talking to a teacher back in the 80's. He mentioned that at one point it was believed that if we could create a dense enough network of satellites and sensors, we could forecast the weather with great accuracy and for arbitrarily long periods. Theoretically, given an infinite array of sensors, the forecast would be perfect and long range. But then actual science interfered as the work of Lorentz propagated through the ranks. The sensitivity to initial conditions, and the inherent limitations of data collection, made such claims of better forecasting theoretically impossible. I have to think that the current configuration of satellites represents some compromise between cost and benefit. Not to say that more satellites will not provide a benefit. Whoever contracts with the service will be able to claim 'We have better forecasting because we have more satellites', which will help with marketing. It will help push forward the cubesat business and will test out these new technologies, which is of great benefit. And it is an experiment that might succeed in producing useful data that might be able to be put into better models.

Yesterday I got a call with number withheld which turned out to be the hospital making an appointment for me to attend for a scan. I would not have wanted to miss that call, but they withhold their number for reasons I can understand.

The telescope body, free flying tens to hundreds of miles away, can adjust ti stay in the focus.

This is advertisement from the parent company of /., so there is no need for any real information.

Presenting things as maps is the 21st century method of establishing credibility. It is much cheaper than actually creating an informative graphic with useful data, a la Edward Tufte.

As has been mentioned, this data is not all that useful. One still pretty much makes more money in places that are more expensive to live, but not nearly enough. For instance, in San Jose one might make 25% more than in Houston. On the other hand, the median price for a home in San Jose is 5 times the average pay listed on the site, while in Houston the median price for a home is only 1.4 times the average pay listed on the site. Doing this type of normalization is simple, but does not drive rubes to higher paying jobs that might pay higher commissions to places like Dice.

This seems to be the narrative that the parent company, Xhibit Corp,is pushing. Perhaps blaming 'the market' will help it in bankruptcy with creditors, and protect the owners from personal liability.

What is not being widely reported is that Xhibit Corp sold the customer loyalty fulfillment part of the business last year for around $20 million. This was the unit that apparently generated the vast majority of the revenue and probably all the profit. Why would a firm who expected to stay solvent sell of the unit that generated most of the revenue, a unit with guaranteed sales?

It really seems like a scam to create liquidity of the profitable assets and then screw the creditors. The fact that the business was a failing was probably known at the time of the sale. For instance, it was probably known that Southwest Air was going to stop carrying the catalog.

The Miata is a highly tuned engined with a highly tuned exhaust system in an attempt to create a pleasant engine noise experience.

What we are talking about here is noise for those who need others to notice them. Who buy the big truck or the loud motorcycle because they do not get enough attention at home.

This of course is different from an electric car which needs fake noise so that others are not startled.

In any case the Miata has one of the most expensive engines, and that along with the suspension contributes the majority cost to the car. There is nothing else that one buys a Miata for.

So you think neurologists should be spending a lot of time keeping up to the State of the Art in all new technologies? I would rather they were good neurologists, and waited for people with advanced new technology to offer it to them - as happened in this case. The only difference from what I would expect to be the normal process is that an end user rather than a manufacturer looking for a market came up with the idea. But I do not think skilled medial staff should spend their time surfing the technology scene for possibly good ideas.

Another thing to consider it that is not as necessary. For many in developing world there is no landline, or at least affordable landline.

I remember about 20 years ago I knew many more people in South America who had cell phones that in the US. I, at that time, did not have a cell phone. OTOH, many of those in SA that had cell phones did not have land lines because the lines either did run into the mountains, or the land line was too expensive. In particular, the local service would not sell what we call residential lines, instead requiring the higher business rates.

What they did have outside the US were reletively strong repeaters, and many had then. The cell phones would work in urban areas, then fade, then work again when they were in range of the home signal booster.

Now, as in many places outside the US, the coverage is excellent and one is never very far away from a shop that will top off your data.

This is old news, but still of a concern because of Google. I have noticed lately that sometimes when I search for software to install on a new machine or try out for a project, one of the download services comes up as the first result instead of the actual place hosting the repositories and packages.

This reminds me when link farms were more of an issue than they are today, and when just doing a search could kill your windows machine.

Really it is the search engines that keep these people in business, and modifications of the algorithm could minimize the damage just like it did with link farms.

"gamerfication" is something that some educators want to try. I see no problem with this as some students will respond to this kind of motivation. I see it as worthy as grades. Long term, however, the value will be no more than grades or a high school diploma. There will be issues with validity and value. Did the kid earn the badge or was given the badge. Were the requirements for the badge the same everywhere, or were some people give lower requirements.

The reality is, for instance, that Algebra is derived from Arabic, that Algebra as we know it today was refined in the middle east, and is of particular Arabic origin. Much of the origin myths of the west have been written to exclude non-western contributions. This can be as simple as US children not being taught that the Russians were instrumental in defeating Hitler, to including stirrups on horses in B.C.E Europe even though such technology only existed in China until the 5th or 6th century C.E.

who is going to pay $200 a year for radio. I pay almost that much for contributions to non profit stations, but if I listen to commercial radio it is streaming from my phone, mostly non-US stations to discover movie.

In any case Sirius does not solve the basic problem, which is the payments to the artists for airplay. Streaming services are going to tend to much better than radio to target new music to listeners, and are not running ads to pay for excessive fees to allow artists to publicize their music, so while these services need to pay artists, they cannot be as much as radio. Likewise, the big publishers should be removed from the process, otherwise we are going to end up with same lame formats we have on radio.