Perhaps, but think of it in another way. Redhat is trying to protect their own customers by producing and releasing a fix as soon as possible. The fact that other distributers are falling behind on this mark is truly not their fault.
This is why, if I were to purchase a system from a store that I was not intending to run a Microsoft product on, I would return to the store the bundled software and request my money back for that portion. The EULA does allow for that kind of instance, although I have not checked on it in a while now. Perhaps with Windows XP it is different.
My problem with this thing, besides the obvious in that it would be much more tiring to have my wrists suspended in the air all the time, is that it would be blocking my view of the monitor. As such, I would then have to raise my monitor a couple of inches in order to see it properly. At the moment, my monitor is in an ergonomically correct position (just below my level line of sight.) Raising it would create neck and eye strain, something that I would worry more than the supposed strain on my wrists and hands.
I have had fans go out on me from time to time, particularly on my dual celeron 466. I now keep a handful of spare CPU fans on hand for when things like this happen. The last time I had a fan die on me, the motherboard started beeping at me complaining that it was running too hot, and I could hear the fan grinding itself to death.
So out comes the power screwdriver, a couple of quick turns, unplug the old fan, plug in the new one, a couple more turns of the screwdriver, and voila! I have a new fan installed on my still running system with an uptime of two months.
The game was "Frogger", and was put out by Sierra On-Line. They used an Atari 800 as the back end because it had better sound and video processors in it than the Apple, so the game worked a lot better on it.
Take from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we have the following definitions of the word coke:
Main Entry: coke Pronunciation: 'kOk Function: noun Etymology: perhaps from dialect coke, colk core, from Middle English; akin to Swedish kälk pith Date: 1669 : the residue of coal left after destructive distillation and used as fuel; also: a similar residue left by other materials (as petroleum) distilled to dryness
Main Entry: coke Function: verb Inflected Form(s): coked; coking Date: 1763 transitive senses: to change into coke intransitive senses: to become coke or like coke
Seems to me that Coca-Cola hasn't got a leg to stand on, seeing as how these words came into use over 200 years before they even existed.
A little bit of grammer check (this really gets on my nerves) 'maths' is not necessarily proper grammer. If I want to talk about math in the plural form I say just math or mathmetics.
This person is obviously from England, and over there using "maths" in that form is a standard colloquialism that is quite understood. This kind of grammar is used commonly throughout England and Australia, throughout grammar school and secondary school, and probably through the college years as well.
Is it really bad grammar if the society you are in defines that usage as being proper?
This isn't so bad. At least he is alone. When I was in the Navy, being out to sea for a couple of months in a submarine was a lot worse. Imagine being stuck in a house of probably the same square footage, only you are there with 100+ other men at the same time.
Hmmm...the only DoD installation I know of in that area was the Naval Training Center in downtown Orlando, which has since closed and is now being used by the Army National Guard.
Granted, when the Navy was there, they had a bunch of nuclear training facilities on that base in addition to the basic training facilities.
Oh, I agree, the phonetic method is the way to go. That's why I listed writing first. IIRC, learning phonics consisted of repeatedly writing and saying phonemes and then of course concatenating them into words.
From what I remember of when I was taught to read through phonics, I don't recall doing a lot of rote memorization. I got the basics down and worked from there without memorizing. Granted, not learning at that age how to memorize something in that fashion was a detriment to my learning capabilities later in life, because my memorization skills to this day are quite poor.
Arithmetic is certainly rote, the deeper learning in more advanced math (algebra and up) is not entirely rote, but I'll still say that's a large part of learning it. Note that you're already teaching algebra if you ask, "3 plus what is seven?" Although, it's usually not taught that way.
The only rote memorization I remember from mathematics was my times tables, and I only learned them through rote up to the ten times tables...from there I learned how to abstract the tables on the fly and not actually learn them (although the sixteen times tables are in my head forever now, simply through constant use...)
I think one of the things that I am against is the classic form of rote memorization. Kids shouldn't be subjected to repeating the same thing over and over again until they have it down to some sort of chant. They should be taught interactively (with the teacher, not a computer) these things and shown how they can be used in life. I know, this sounds like we should be teaching kids at an early age how to do things in preparation for some sort of trade school, and abandon the pure sciences. This is not so. I just feel that even people that are working in the pure sciences should have an idea of what their studies can do for the real world...
There are some positive and negative things about what you say here. For instance, learning the three R's by rote is not necessarily a good thing. I learned how to read by using phonics, which is a system that allows you to look at a word and have an idea about what it may mean without ever having heard or seen the word before. This also helped me to become a decent speller, something that I have found to be severely lacking in today's society as a whole.
As for mathematics, there is a small amount of rote memorization to be had there, but where you get real progress is where you teach the fundamental tools of mathematics and show how to apply those tools to solve any number of different problems. I used to have problems with teachers because they didn't understand how I could solve a problem in the way I did, even though there was a deeper mathematical reason behind my method compared to theirs.
Making school days shorter is not necessarily the greatest idea either, not necessarily from the shorter period of time keeping them more attuned to what is going on in class (I agree with this concept), but with the problem of parents not being around to deal with them. We blame our schools for a lot of problems that are really generated in the home, but no one has the balls to point the finger at the parents (there are exceptions to this, of course.) You say that kids need discipline and structure for part of the day, but they are not going to receive that at home when mommy and daddy are off at work. I could go on here, but I think you get the point.
I agree that kids that are bright enough to do the work should be allowed to advance and not stuck in some "resource room" to whither away and lose their edge. When something like this happens I feel that the kids feel that they don't really have a purpose. As an aside to this though, if they are good enough to advance, they should be advanced into classes that are advanced for that grade level as well. Kids that are in advanced classes understand in the first place, and so won't be causing too many problems with younger kids that are even more advanced than they are.
Concerning the subject at hand, I think it is a bad idea for kids (at least before upper-level high school) should be getting palms in the classroom. Kids should be taught the fundamentals of things before starting to use a computer to display these things for them. The same goes for computers in the classroom. As an example, let's say that we want to graph a probability curve (i.e. the random bell curve). Show those kids on pen and paper and a couple of dice how a bell curve is developed, then bring it up on the computer and show them how to manipulate that information. How about taking notes on a palm, you ask? My experience with a palm so far is that you can take notes a lot faster with a pen and paper, and make those notes a lot more understandable, particularly if there is any sort of drawing or graphing involved, than you could ever do with a Palm. Scheduling? That is what a $0.50 schedule pad is for. Addresses? Same thing.
In essence, I think it is a bad idea for Palms to be in the classroom because they just make more trouble than they are worth. Sure, there are a couple of specific applications where they are usable, but for the most part the tried and true traditional methods of teaching with a blackboard (or dry erase...that is a darned good invention), some books, and personal notebooks is still the best teaching method in town.
Here at UF, I seem to remember a progression when it came to naming schemes. In CIRCA, they had a some VAX/VMS systems names Maple, Oak, Elm, and Cedar. Prior to this they had been named VAXA, VAXB, etc. So we had our trees. Off to one side, we also had a cluster of four Macs that were being used to handle some graphics processing. They had been named after the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
In the math department, I remember a lot of the systems being named after famed mathemeticians. Machines with names like poincare, etc. (Except perhaps for gomek, whose owner had just returned from Australia and was fascinated with lizards.)
Now here in the Brain Institute, there is a whole mishmash of names. Some are named after famous brain specialists, others just after the institute, and then my own which I have a bad habit of naming after marsupials...once I run out of marsupials, I'll start thinking of some other naming scheme.
I had the radial kerotonomy done courtesy of the US Navy, and I must say that it did me a world of good, not to mention being free. The procedure was basically one week, you go in and have one eye done, then the next week the other eye is done. The actual procedure for radial kerotonomy is that they take a knife and reshape your lens in that fashion, after which you feel like you have sand in your eye for the next week, hense them only doing one eye at a time.
I came out of it having nearly 20/20 vision, and the doctor that did it was saying that the percentages are usually very good and that you will have better vision than you had before at around the 99% range. Actual statistics may vary, though.
For anyone who hasn't yet read Stephen Levy's "Hackers", (I, like many, was inspired to re-read my dog-eared copy upon the recent/. review), go read it. IMNSHO, open source has become the canonical embodiment of the original TMRC-era philosophy: "Always yield to the hands-on imperative".
I remember this book very well (yes, mine is dog-eared too), and from what I remember the term "Hacker" actually originates to TMRC and the guys that were working on the model railroad, not Palmer's definition of "...originally meant a very gifted programmer. " You would think that a doctor in the field of computer security (at least, I figured that is what he has his doctorate in) would know something about the history of hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't see Microsoft doing this, do you?
This is why, if I were to purchase a system from a store that I was not intending to run a Microsoft product on, I would return to the store the bundled software and request my money back for that portion. The EULA does allow for that kind of instance, although I have not checked on it in a while now. Perhaps with Windows XP it is different.
What, do they want us to hold it in our laps?
So out comes the power screwdriver, a couple of quick turns, unplug the old fan, plug in the new one, a couple more turns of the screwdriver, and voila! I have a new fan installed on my still running system with an uptime of two months.
Looks like it is time to sell what Trident stock I have.
Limiting the ability for developers to create drivers in the open source market is like shooting oneself in the foot these days.
The way that things are going right now, 15 year old kids don't have a chance because they are being educated in government schools.
The game was "Frogger", and was put out by Sierra On-Line. They used an Atari 800 as the back end because it had better sound and video processors in it than the Apple, so the game worked a lot better on it.
Take from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we have the following definitions of the word coke:
: the residue of coal left after destructive distillation and used as fuel; also : a similar residue left by other materials (as petroleum) distilled to dryness
: to change into coke : to become coke or like coke
Main Entry: coke
Pronunciation: 'kOk
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps from dialect coke, colk core, from Middle English; akin to Swedish kälk pith
Date: 1669
Main Entry: coke
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): coked; coking
Date: 1763
transitive senses
intransitive senses
Seems to me that Coca-Cola hasn't got a leg to stand on, seeing as how these words came into use over 200 years before they even existed.
This person is obviously from England, and over there using "maths" in that form is a standard colloquialism that is quite understood. This kind of grammar is used commonly throughout England and Australia, throughout grammar school and secondary school, and probably through the college years as well.
Is it really bad grammar if the society you are in defines that usage as being proper?
Big deal. It's been done.
Granted, when the Navy was there, they had a bunch of nuclear training facilities on that base in addition to the basic training facilities.
From what I remember of when I was taught to read through phonics, I don't recall doing a lot of rote memorization. I got the basics down and worked from there without memorizing. Granted, not learning at that age how to memorize something in that fashion was a detriment to my learning capabilities later in life, because my memorization skills to this day are quite poor.
The only rote memorization I remember from mathematics was my times tables, and I only learned them through rote up to the ten times tables...from there I learned how to abstract the tables on the fly and not actually learn them (although the sixteen times tables are in my head forever now, simply through constant use...)I think one of the things that I am against is the classic form of rote memorization. Kids shouldn't be subjected to repeating the same thing over and over again until they have it down to some sort of chant. They should be taught interactively (with the teacher, not a computer) these things and shown how they can be used in life. I know, this sounds like we should be teaching kids at an early age how to do things in preparation for some sort of trade school, and abandon the pure sciences. This is not so. I just feel that even people that are working in the pure sciences should have an idea of what their studies can do for the real world...
As for mathematics, there is a small amount of rote memorization to be had there, but where you get real progress is where you teach the fundamental tools of mathematics and show how to apply those tools to solve any number of different problems. I used to have problems with teachers because they didn't understand how I could solve a problem in the way I did, even though there was a deeper mathematical reason behind my method compared to theirs.
Making school days shorter is not necessarily the greatest idea either, not necessarily from the shorter period of time keeping them more attuned to what is going on in class (I agree with this concept), but with the problem of parents not being around to deal with them. We blame our schools for a lot of problems that are really generated in the home, but no one has the balls to point the finger at the parents (there are exceptions to this, of course.) You say that kids need discipline and structure for part of the day, but they are not going to receive that at home when mommy and daddy are off at work. I could go on here, but I think you get the point.
I agree that kids that are bright enough to do the work should be allowed to advance and not stuck in some "resource room" to whither away and lose their edge. When something like this happens I feel that the kids feel that they don't really have a purpose. As an aside to this though, if they are good enough to advance, they should be advanced into classes that are advanced for that grade level as well. Kids that are in advanced classes understand in the first place, and so won't be causing too many problems with younger kids that are even more advanced than they are.
Concerning the subject at hand, I think it is a bad idea for kids (at least before upper-level high school) should be getting palms in the classroom. Kids should be taught the fundamentals of things before starting to use a computer to display these things for them. The same goes for computers in the classroom. As an example, let's say that we want to graph a probability curve (i.e. the random bell curve). Show those kids on pen and paper and a couple of dice how a bell curve is developed, then bring it up on the computer and show them how to manipulate that information. How about taking notes on a palm, you ask? My experience with a palm so far is that you can take notes a lot faster with a pen and paper, and make those notes a lot more understandable, particularly if there is any sort of drawing or graphing involved, than you could ever do with a Palm. Scheduling? That is what a $0.50 schedule pad is for. Addresses? Same thing.
In essence, I think it is a bad idea for Palms to be in the classroom because they just make more trouble than they are worth. Sure, there are a couple of specific applications where they are usable, but for the most part the tried and true traditional methods of teaching with a blackboard (or dry erase...that is a darned good invention), some books, and personal notebooks is still the best teaching method in town.
In the math department, I remember a lot of the systems being named after famed mathemeticians. Machines with names like poincare, etc. (Except perhaps for gomek, whose owner had just returned from Australia and was fascinated with lizards.)
Now here in the Brain Institute, there is a whole mishmash of names. Some are named after famous brain specialists, others just after the institute, and then my own which I have a bad habit of naming after marsupials...once I run out of marsupials, I'll start thinking of some other naming scheme.
I came out of it having nearly 20/20 vision, and the doctor that did it was saying that the percentages are usually very good and that you will have better vision than you had before at around the 99% range. Actual statistics may vary, though.