NEWS: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

Cute, but not persuasive. Try supporting your claims above, but I know you won't.

That would be quite a surcharge. My previous vehicle, a 1993 Isuzu Trooper, spent some time at Burning Man compliments of the previous owner. The entire engine and much of the undercarriage was covered with baked on very fine grit white playa sand. Chemical attack and a wire brush was the only things that would touch the stuff. It was very much like trying to clean sandpaper. Various compartments inside were also full of the sand. I've been in the middle east and have never seen sand that fine and sticky. It's more like dust than sand. Yep, I can see the problem.

What this has to do with the FBI demanding web logs from ISP's can be left to the imagination.

You don't have to go very far off-road, or off-road at all, to be off-GPS maps. Large swaths of the Eastern Shore of Maryland west of US50 id not show up in the Hertz Never Lost when I was there a couple of years ago.

Steve

Or.......what happens when you're talking to a narcissistic rock-head.

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:10:23 -0800, Steve Fenwick wrote in :

Depends on the GPS. The newest technology (e.g., SiRFstar III ) is greatly improved.

That only applies to that particular unit.

I have street and topo maps covering the entire USA (in addition to complete marine charts of the West Coast, Hawaii, and North Pacific) for my own GPS, but can only load a portion of them at any one time due to the memory limits of the unit.

No, you can't refute it so you call it "biased". You're very transparent John.

Jerry

Like the ones you consistently making?

Oh, I do keep forgetting, you're the *expert* on just about everything.

Jerry

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:19:04 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters wrote in :

I've already refuted it with an authoritative unbiased study. You're very biased Dan.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:21:03 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters wrote in :

Pretty much everything posted here is just opinion, nothing more.

Is that available on the Net. I haven't been able to find it on Google. I have concerns about the definition of "shortfalls in spending" before I can say it refutes or is authoritative.

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:40:36 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote in :

I don't know.

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@navasgroup.com:

Actually, you've refuted it with one sentence cut & pasted from *one* report that *you* say is unbiased and authoritative, that is not available for anyone else to read.

Me ? Is that your version of the pot ? I'd call it biased for you to dismiss the Heritage Foundation strictly based on where it's from.

You didn't cite any content, or why you think it was biased, it was just dismissed because of where it came from.

Your right Navas, I concede, you are the all-knowing, all-seeing trash heap.

So you took the Cliff notes version, that happened to include a part you agreed with, and call it "authoritative" without actually looking at the details. Should have expected nothing more from someone who dismisses a view against theirs because of the perceived conservativeness instead of the actual work.

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:MqedncZCupBIa- rWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I wasn't even the Cliff notes version....it was the abstract/summary paragraph that is shown at the websites where you can buy the report.

Abstract in full...........

"In 1993, the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) challenged New York State's school financing system on the grounds that it failed to provide students sufficient opportunity for a sound basic education in New York City. CFE prevailed in 2003, after the case went before the New York Court of Appeals, and the state's funding system was determined to be unconstitutional and ordered to be altered to ensure "adequate" funding. The final decision decreed that before any remediation take place, an objective study be conducted to determine how much it would cost to provide an "adequate" education for all public school students in the state, on which this article is based. Although a professional judgment approach forms the centerpiece of the work, components of the analysis draw on other methodological tools (i.e., public engagement, expert panels, and successful schools) to further support the results. 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."