Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source College Textbooks Gaining Mindshare
bcrowell writes "The LA Times has a front-page article about how open-source college textbooks are starting to gain traction. One author says, 'I couldn't continue assigning idiotic books that are starting to break $200,' and describes attempts by commercial publishers to bribe faculty to use their books. The Cal State system has started a Digital Marketplace to help faculty find out about their options for free and non-free digital textbooks, and the student group PIRG has collected 1200 faculty signatures on a statement of support for open textbooks."
You don't think Microsoft is pushing back? And much as I love open source, let's get real here. There are VERY few open software projects that even begin to compare to their commercial equivalents. Firefox is about the only one I can think of offhand (and don't EVEN say Gimp, because anyone who thinks that is even close to comparable to Photoshop is a complete r-tard).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No, not experiencing it. Don't use that awful bloated pseudo-OS known a firefox (lightweight??? ). Use a good browser like links2. I use it as mich as possible. It doesn't work on anything requiring JS, but for regular browsing, it's fantastic.
Now I'm going to get modded down for bashing firefox, but it's OK because I have karma to burn.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well I'll just tell you trying to crush the used textbook market is pretty sleazy. Demanding things of professors has a way of backfiring as they tend to be well educated and can see through bullshit like requiring people to use 'online services' for marking and what not. Also putting out new editions is kinda crap too when its the same shit in a different pile.
Thing is students need cheaper textbooks. Thats exactly WHY the used textbook market is booming. Pull your head out of your ass and cut the price on the textbook by half or more and you'll sell a whole lot more and you wont have to change editions every 3 years and bundle subscription services and what not.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Because, even if you got lucky and made no
mistakes, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL YOU FACT CHECKED IT, PROOFREAD IT AND EDITED IT. With code, if it works, nothing else is necessary. With code the goal is to work. With texts, the goal is accuracy and clarity which you cannot have without review. Software has NO such requirement, and your attempts to argue otherwise are demonstrably wrong.
Furthermore, you posted AC which is a tacit admission that your point is too stupid to assign your name to.
Even furthermore, calling me an asshole at the end of a post that had virtually no intelligent commentary in it doesn't do anything to change the fact that I'm right, and frankly, if you zealots think I'm an asshole after I've destroyed your delusions about open source software like I did here, then I'll take the insult with pride.
It must suck for you that you're factually wrong AND you proved yourself pathetic in the same post.
Move along AC, we adults are discussing things you've proven you're not smart enough to understand.
Great offense, you
sound like a fucking imbecile.
"you can't know if a piece of code "works" if you never tested or debugged it"
Hmm, so running the code and seeing it do the job you intendedit for won't tell you it "works"?
OH, YES IT WILL
If i write code that does the job I intended for it, but have never debugged it, you're claiming that's not working code.
That, frankly, is about the dumbest thing I've see posred here, and apart from being logically vacuous ("code that works but hasn't been tested or debugged doesn't work" um, WTF?) it's just wrong.
"You simply cannot "make it work" without researching and understanding the standards. Period"
So a piece of code that does everything it is supposed to with no problems, and works perfectly, but hasn't been debugged or standardized, magically doesn't work because YOU SAY SO?
Sorry, no,that's just moronic on it's face. please don't even attempt to tell me people aren't right now running code that works perfecty but has never been debugged or standardized. Accoring to YOU, that code that is working pwrfectly for them "cannot be made to work". Yet it is.
You simply cannot make your point sound intelligent or correct. Period (see I did what you did so my point is irrefutable now, right?).
First, I didn't use an analogy you fuckwit.
Second, way to be a classless twat and call names anonymously, I'm sure whatever stupid justification you use will be good enough for you.
Third, if you use the software and IT FUCKING WORKS THAT is how you know it works. What a moron like you "thinks" about it irrelvant.
I guarantee you right now people are running tiny little apps they threw together and never debugged, but that do the job.
You can "think" they're not working all you like, but you sound like a humongous retard saying so while the apps are chugging away.
Also, using isn't testing. You sound even more retarded not only trying rhis point, but repeating it as though you saying something stupid over and over makes it definitive.
Last, I'm quite happy you think I'm an asshole, I have no patience for idiots like you and even less of a desire to endear myself to you.
Why don't you insult me as an AC again, that was closer to what you have the intelligence for. Leave the rational debate for people who aren't stupid enough to say "Code that works DOESN'T WORK" like you did.