Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why would you teach kids to program computers? (Score 1) 107

You will also condemn them to a professional life of being under perpetual pressure to overwork, perpetual blame for failing to do the impossible, and perpetual threat of being outsourced. ... Do you kids a favor and send them to get an MBA or license to practice law instead.

Every MBA and lawyer I know is very overworked and expected to do the impossible daily. While the lawyers might be a lesser risk of being outsourced, most of the MBAs tell me they are quite afraid of being outsourced.

Comment: Re:Here comes a Karma hit.... (Score 1) 107

Otherwise, they will just sit around eating junk food and watching a screen all day, and yes I know this is slashdot.

My daughter did quite well at keeping a balance on her own. My girlfriend and I certainly had a lot of input to our daughter's schedule, but she was the one driving it, not us. She actively pursued out door and social activities, as well as solo activities. Though she tried various junk foods, her preferred snacks were/are "finger friendly" fruits and vegetables (and, sometimes, premium chocolate). She watched very little TV, though did use a computer a lot (mostly for homework, some programming and a little gaming).

I think the kids who watch a screen all day are the ones whose parents are too afraid to let them do anything else.

Comment: Re:Check point starvation (Score 1) 107

I think the only thing my kids ever did at that age for 75 minutes without a break is sleep.

Do you mean like sit (mostly) still for 75+ minutes doing problems in "work books"? The public elementary school my nephew attended required that most days for its first through fifth grade students (ages 6 through 10/11). (The school day was typically lecture/demo/group discussions from 8 am to 11:30 am, with a restroom break around 9:45. Then lunch, Then a review from 12:30 pm to 1:20 pm, followed by a restroom break. Finally, quiet study from 1:30 pm to 3 pm.)

(Additional restroom breaks were allowed, but strongly discouraged.)

Comment: Re:The providers (Score 4, Informative) 127

by UnderCoverPenguin (#48364971) Attached to: FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015

Why should the providers shoulder this burden? They're not marketing, charging for, or making the content available. It's ridiculous. And invasive.

Actually, the major providers also own some of the content producers. Comcast owns NBC/Universal, Time-Warner owns Warner Brothers, etc. As such, the providers want to prioritize their subsidiaries' content.

Comment: Re:They ARE a utility. (Score 1) 704

by UnderCoverPenguin (#48354657) Attached to: President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

The only reason he airline industry is not a natural monopoly is because of the massive public infrastructure provided by the US Government FAA in public use airports and related flight control infrastructure. In every meaningful sense, an airport solves the "last mile problem" for airplanes. Why wouldn't we expect a similar investment in the "last mile problem" for Internet Service?

There have been attempts to do exactly that. But, the big providers devised ways to quash or undermine those efforts. Examples:

A town (in Minnesota, I think) had begged the various providers to provide broad band, but the providers declined. So, the town embarked on a project to build a hub with a fiber cable to each home and business. The town's residents voted to approve a millage to raise the funds needed. Then one of the big providers, in an effort to block the project, sued the town. (The provider also built its own last mile network in the town - despite having previously refused - rendering the project moot.)

The residents of another town, elsewhere, formed a co-op to build a similar hub with a fiber-cable to each member of the co-op - paid for by the members of the co-op, so each member owned his/her cable and a share of the hub. When the co-op invited providers to start signing up customers, the providers demanded that each subscriber sign over ownership of his/her cable to the provider (in exchange for a small monthly credit, for several years, to the original property owner - if the property was sold, the new owner did not receive the remaining credit).

Comment: Re:Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score 1) 704

by UnderCoverPenguin (#48354313) Attached to: President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

Curiously, they're all content producers who would directly benefit from the regulation, and not content "distributor"... I wonder why...

Except that the distributors also produce content (Comcast/Xfinity owns NBC/Universal, Time-Warner owns Warner Brothers, etc). As such the "distributors" want to prioritize their own content.

Comment: Re:iMessage isn't bad... (Score 1) 136

by UnderCoverPenguin (#48354119) Attached to: Apple Releases iMessage Deregistration Utility

If Apple could get their head out of the sand and create a unified protocol with Google and whoever is left in the smartphone OS field (BlackBerry?, Mozilla?), it would be fantastic.

I don't know about Blackberry or Mozilla, but Google supports XMPP messaging with at least several different messaging apps (and Linux/OSX/Windows programs). But even Google has some features that only work with its messaging app.

Comment: Re:sibling fairness (Score 1) 167

by UnderCoverPenguin (#48330415) Attached to: New Website Offers Provably Fair Solutions To Everyday Problems

If employers want to claim it costs $17,000 to provide an employee a healthcare benefit, then the employer should have to pay that amount to the employee when employees decline that benefit.

Employers are not claiming that is their cost, they are reporting what the insurance company claims would be the "retail price" of an equivalent individual policy. Employers also report the actual cost as part of their business expenses. The IRS has a set of formulae for deciding if the employee owes more tax.

"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.