NEWS: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Broadcom Adds Bluetooth 3.0, Wi-Fi Direct to Android
Next: NEWS: Sprint 4Q Loss Narrows,Pre-Paid Growth Falls Short
From: David Kaye on 12 Feb 2010 06:11 malch(a)malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote: >Rather than tracking your vehicle, it seems there's currently >more interest in tracking your cell phone, at least at the >Federal level: As is Google, don't forget.
From: JC Dill on 12 Feb 2010 11:16 Jeff Liebermann wrote: > However, apparently there is now a law in California making it illegal > to use GPS tracking devices for imposing extra charges: > > "Can Car Rental Companies Use Technology to Monitor Our Driving?" > <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20050823.html> > In California, for instance, car rental companies may no longer > use GPS information to impose surcharges, fines or penalties > relating to the renter's use of a leased vehicle. I bet that they store this info with your name and license number, and will refuse to rent to you in the future if you previously violated your rental contract - e.g. took a rental into Mexico or drove it off-road, in violation of the contract terms. jc
From: John Navas on 12 Feb 2010 11:17 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:42:17 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <rKidnRgJTYhE6-jWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>: >In article <srran59mloasjsjs6jisaq9f4pdo27f2cd(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:09:57 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote in <6KmdneZtLPWrHenWnZ2dnUVZ_qNi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>: >> >> >In article <4au8n51ecv1aa21tgg246m49n2t8itjlil(a)4ax.com>, >> > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:18:18 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> >> >> wrote in <fbmdnY3mwsSG6enWnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)earthlink.com>: >> >> >> > There is absolutely no correlation between money spent on education >> >> >and outcomes. ... >> >> >> >> Patently not true. >> > >> > Patently true. Look at the stats. >> >> Been there; done that. If you reduce funding to zero, then outcomes >> would most definitely change. In short, patently not true. > >Which of course is not what we were talking about. The facts still >remain that the lower expenditure per pupil places pump out more >graduates and more that go to college than the higher expenditure >levels. Some do; some do not. You've failed to show any correlation, and control for other variables. >There is little or no correlation between money spent and >educational outcomes. Patently not true. It's trivial to show that more money spent does improve outcomes. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: Kurt Ullman on 12 Feb 2010 11:35 In article <hlvan5tjr7b6eb7natg3st3213tf8nkj1q(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >There is little or no correlation between money spent and > >educational outcomes. > > Patently not true. It's trivial to show that more money spent does > improve outcomes. > Then do it for the first time ever. Studies show that things like parental involvement, single parent households and socio-economic status have much bigger impact than money spent per pupil. -- I get off on '57 Chevys I get off on screamin' guitars --Eric Clapton
From: John Navas on 12 Feb 2010 12:38
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:35:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <GJSdnYbfnaqlHujWnZ2dnUVZ_tRi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>: >In article <hlvan5tjr7b6eb7natg3st3213tf8nkj1q(a)4ax.com>, > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >There is little or no correlation between money spent and >> >educational outcomes. >> >> Patently not true. It's trivial to show that more money spent does >> improve outcomes. > > Then do it for the first time ever. I've already proved the point. As I wrote, it's patently true. You can (and probably will) argue about bang for the buck, but there's simply no real question that there's a direct and strong correlation between spending and educational outcomes. And in fact there have been many such studies; e.g., "Examining the Relationship between Educational Outcomes and Gaps in Funding: An Extension of the New York Adequacy Study" [Peabody Journal of Education, v81 n2 p1-32 2006]: We find that for a majority of districts significantly higher levels of spending are required if the state wishes to provide a sound basic education to all public school students. FURTHERMORE, THE RESULTS SHOW A CLEAR NEGATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DISTRICT-LEVEL SHORTFALL IN SPENDING AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES ACROSS VIRTUALLY ALL STUDENT SUBPOPULATIONS. [emphasis added] >Studies show that things like >parental involvement, single parent households and socio-economic status >have much bigger impact than money spent per pupil. They all have impact, which is why it's sweeping statements like yours are no more than meaningless and misleading sound bites. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> |