They do - it's amazing. I was there a couple of weeks ago. The guy who maintains the Colossus gave me a used valve from it. It's beautiful, and now one of my prized possessions:)
One of the biggest problems the place has is the lack of interactivity. They need to restructure and reorganise, and get things for people (especially kids) to play with. The experience is great if you're already a bit nerdy, but I can imagine for younger children it's quite boring when it could be made absolutely fascinating with a bit of work.
I think you underestimate. The book "IBM and the Holocaust" details how the CEO of IBM was closely involved with Nazi Germany, even receiving a medal. These systems were not off the shelf, but custom-built for the Nazis' needs. After the war, when everyone was aware what had happened in the concentration camps, IBM insisted on recovering its profits from the machines used at the camps. They have subsequently refused to apologise for the company's role.
And just because the allies did nothing to stop the holocaust, that doesn't mean that it wasn't being reported. It was known about, especially at higher levels, but generally ignored.
I hate to say it, considering the Godwinism, but the parent's right. It's pretty ironic that IBM should be putting in to save Bletchley, when during the war they were directly involved with Nazi Germany.
"Offtopic" is not the same as "I'm annoyed by this comment"...
Don't know who modded this offtopic, but they're probably not British. The parent makes a valid point, though perhaps the rhetoric is a little excessive! The fact that Bletchley is neglected while the government spends huge amounts of money on pointless projects (Google "Millennium Dome" for an example) shows a lack of interest in history. Bletchley gives us a welcome chance to celebrate something that shortened the war, rather than the usual glorification of bombs and weaponry. It's a history, maths, science and computing lesson all rolled into one, and the fact that the British government can't be bothered to save it is pretty disgraceful.
I utterly agree with you. And now councils are also hoping for people to report their neighbours if they put out the wrong type of rubbish. I'm all for recycling, but when councils can fine someone 200GBP for mistakenly putting a piece of paper in with their metal cans, it's a big problem. My landlords have already reprimanded me for putting out "too much rubbish" (there was an issue with the temperature in my fridge, and a lot of gone-off food had to go), because they worry that the council will fine them for it. This is just a way for hard-up councils to make money with pernickety little rules that are prohibitively difficult to follow. And they're going through people's trash in order to do it - and, yes, that would be stalking in any other circumstances.
But the bulk of that figure for Spanish is made up of people living in Latin America, where studies suggest only a relatively small percentage of the population uses the internet. Cuba has only recently begun allowing PCs in private homes. Some countries in Latin America have less than 3% of the population using the internet; Germany has over 40% (Data refers to years 2004-06; Source) Personal computer ownership per 100 is generally much lower than internet usage per 100 in Latin America, suggesting that this is also a market that can't necessarily choose which software is installed on the computers used.
So, in terms of numbers there are certainly more Spanish-speakers out there using the internet, but a lot of them are in situations where internet usage is rationed and/or not entirely under the user's control. In contrast, Germany has a high rate of internet usage and a high take-up of Firefox - and most users are probably using their own machines, not internet cafes or the like. The figures don't, at first, seem to make sense, but when you take into account the low rates of internet usage and computer ownership in the majority of Spanish-speaking countries, it begins to seem less anomalous.
You're right - I overreacted. I think you're wrong, though, to say that a suicide is always just the responsibility of the person. There are many, many ways of manipulating someone emotionally to that extent - though in this case it seems that Lori Drew didn't know of Megan Meier's psychological problems and probably had no idea that this was a possible outcome of her actions. Anyway, thanks for making me rethink my position.
I guess you're right. I think perhaps I over-reacted to this because of how heinous I find Drew's behaviour. Goes to show, even if you count yourself as relatively sensible, you can still be swayed by tabloid-style rhetoric and emoting! My bad.
Sorry, by "pre-existing crime" I meant a crime that is already on the books as a crime, not something that has been criminalised just to get to her. Of course, I now realise that I was probably talking out of my ass by assuming that her fraudulent mySpace account was actually a criminal offence - sorry about that!
'Kay - I didn't realise the thing about pseudonyms. I was under the impression that she had actually done something criminal, but obviously I was wrong. That being the case, I withdraw my previous comments.
The point, though, is that this woman really was guilty of a pre-existing crime. As many other commenters have noted here, the fact that we may not like the criminalisation of "fake" myspace accounts doesn't give anyone the right to create such an account. I can't imagine that many fake accounts have been legally pursued in this way - but if you're going to do something illegal, the way to avoid prosecution is not to use that illegal action as a stepping-stone to something obviously and egregiously immoral!
If you hack into your school's computer system, it's possible no-one will notice. If you then use those computers to download kiddie porn or terrorism handbooks, you're far more likely to be caught and to be punished for the lesser crime even if the larger can't be prosecuted.
Alternatively, you can say that most people will never be pursued for this kind of thing, but if they fraudulently open an account and then use that account to hound a 13-year-old girl to suicide, it's not surprising that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on them. Drew can't be prosecuted for harassment or child abuse, of both of which she is apparently utterly guilty.
It's not great, but I have to say that I'm glad she's being prosecuted for something. It's like Al Capone being busted for tax offences - it may not be the ideal, but it's better than letting her go entirely unpunished.
I'm in the same position - my old laptop started pouring smoke, and since I'm in the middle of finishing up my doctoral thesis I needed to replace it pronto, which meant an off-the-shelf with Vista installed. I was really wary, but actually find I like it. I would have been annoyed to have to install it on my old and vastly slower machine, but since this one has much better hardware and runs much faster than XP did on the other, I'm quite happy.
You're kinda wrong about what the Founding Fathers intended. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if read in the context of the times and the meanings of philosophical/theological terminology then, were radically anti-Church and deliberately non-Christian. Jefferson called most of the New Testament dross, including describing the Book of Revelation as "the ravings of a maniac". Read Alan Dershowitz's "Blasphemy" for a very detailed and interesting account of this.
I think my comma was in the wrong place; I meant "the really smart kids who can think for themselves". My point was that a relatively clever and conformist kid will get a lot more attention and mentoring than the outstandingly bright but unusual one.
I guess I just worry about kids whose social lives revolve mostly around adults. That was the norm for my childhood too, and it made life very difficult at high school and even in University, because I wasn't used to how unfair, irrational and silly other kids can be. Even now, I have an exaggerated expectation of fairness and good sense from other people - not actually the best preparation for the real world, however much I might wish that the real world were different.
You're assuming that low grades = needy. But low grades can just as much = not very clever. Kids who can't get As and Bs in their tests are not necessarily going to go on to be criminals and addicts. Very bright kids who are getting Bs and Cs in their tests need help to stop them becoming disaffected and disruptive.
So the inspirational teacher whose students largely go on to work for charities, or low-paying public schools, or become artists and musicians, gets sacked. The goal of teaching is to turn out corporate whores.
Your comment is contradictory. You claim that bright kids don't need extra attention, and then blame your low grades and dropping-out on lack of attention from your teachers.
Bright kids really do need attention, and they need teachers with open minds who are not trying to pigeonhole them into certain ways of thinking. I had the same problems as you, but luckily caught a break with an amazingly good teacher in my final years of secondary education. As a result, from grades which ranged from fail to C, I got an average of 97% in my pre-university exams, and it wasn't even difficult!
But it should not have been the chance meeting with one decent teacher which got me to fulfil my potential. The education system should already have been there doing that for me. My parents are educated and intelligent and interested, but there's only so much they could do, short of giving me a whole extra set of classes when I came home to make up for the crappy ones I'd had in school that day.
In my experience, this isn't the case. The middle class conformist kids who do well because of extra tuition and whose parents are in the same clubs as the teachers get mentored for greater things. The really smart kids, who can think for themselves and have odd ideas and who are not "in the box" are labelled as disruptive.
This sounds like a paranoid rant, but it's a sincere reflection of my own experience!
In the higher-achieving schools, such as the one I went to, B and C grades are "dumb", so the kids do get extra help:)
And your kids won't learn to tolerate other people, or to interact fairly with those who are very different from them, or to make friends outside your social group. Nor will they learn that idiot bureaucracy is how the world works, and that you need to find your own ways to interact with them. Why not send your kids to school, keep a close eye, and supplement at home anything you feel is lacking?
Slashdot Mirror
They do - it's amazing. I was there a couple of weeks ago. The guy who maintains the Colossus gave me a used valve from it. It's beautiful, and now one of my prized possessions :)
One of the biggest problems the place has is the lack of interactivity. They need to restructure and reorganise, and get things for people (especially kids) to play with. The experience is great if you're already a bit nerdy, but I can imagine for younger children it's quite boring when it could be made absolutely fascinating with a bit of work.
I think you underestimate. The book "IBM and the Holocaust" details how the CEO of IBM was closely involved with Nazi Germany, even receiving a medal. These systems were not off the shelf, but custom-built for the Nazis' needs. After the war, when everyone was aware what had happened in the concentration camps, IBM insisted on recovering its profits from the machines used at the camps. They have subsequently refused to apologise for the company's role.
And just because the allies did nothing to stop the holocaust, that doesn't mean that it wasn't being reported. It was known about, especially at higher levels, but generally ignored.
I hate to say it, considering the Godwinism, but the parent's right. It's pretty ironic that IBM should be putting in to save Bletchley, when during the war they were directly involved with Nazi Germany.
"Offtopic" is not the same as "I'm annoyed by this comment"...
Don't know who modded this offtopic, but they're probably not British. The parent makes a valid point, though perhaps the rhetoric is a little excessive! The fact that Bletchley is neglected while the government spends huge amounts of money on pointless projects (Google "Millennium Dome" for an example) shows a lack of interest in history. Bletchley gives us a welcome chance to celebrate something that shortened the war, rather than the usual glorification of bombs and weaponry. It's a history, maths, science and computing lesson all rolled into one, and the fact that the British government can't be bothered to save it is pretty disgraceful.
I utterly agree with you. And now councils are also hoping for people to report their neighbours if they put out the wrong type of rubbish. I'm all for recycling, but when councils can fine someone 200GBP for mistakenly putting a piece of paper in with their metal cans, it's a big problem. My landlords have already reprimanded me for putting out "too much rubbish" (there was an issue with the temperature in my fridge, and a lot of gone-off food had to go), because they worry that the council will fine them for it. This is just a way for hard-up councils to make money with pernickety little rules that are prohibitively difficult to follow. And they're going through people's trash in order to do it - and, yes, that would be stalking in any other circumstances.
But the bulk of that figure for Spanish is made up of people living in Latin America, where studies suggest only a relatively small percentage of the population uses the internet. Cuba has only recently begun allowing PCs in private homes. Some countries in Latin America have less than 3% of the population using the internet; Germany has over 40% (Data refers to years 2004-06; Source) Personal computer ownership per 100 is generally much lower than internet usage per 100 in Latin America, suggesting that this is also a market that can't necessarily choose which software is installed on the computers used.
So, in terms of numbers there are certainly more Spanish-speakers out there using the internet, but a lot of them are in situations where internet usage is rationed and/or not entirely under the user's control. In contrast, Germany has a high rate of internet usage and a high take-up of Firefox - and most users are probably using their own machines, not internet cafes or the like. The figures don't, at first, seem to make sense, but when you take into account the low rates of internet usage and computer ownership in the majority of Spanish-speaking countries, it begins to seem less anomalous.
Heh - brilliant! Though I fear bilingual jokes are wasted on a community whose most common second language is probably C++ :)
You're right - I overreacted. I think you're wrong, though, to say that a suicide is always just the responsibility of the person. There are many, many ways of manipulating someone emotionally to that extent - though in this case it seems that Lori Drew didn't know of Megan Meier's psychological problems and probably had no idea that this was a possible outcome of her actions. Anyway, thanks for making me rethink my position.
I guess you're right. I think perhaps I over-reacted to this because of how heinous I find Drew's behaviour. Goes to show, even if you count yourself as relatively sensible, you can still be swayed by tabloid-style rhetoric and emoting! My bad.
Sorry, by "pre-existing crime" I meant a crime that is already on the books as a crime, not something that has been criminalised just to get to her. Of course, I now realise that I was probably talking out of my ass by assuming that her fraudulent mySpace account was actually a criminal offence - sorry about that!
Yeah, point taken.
'Kay - I didn't realise the thing about pseudonyms. I was under the impression that she had actually done something criminal, but obviously I was wrong. That being the case, I withdraw my previous comments.
The point, though, is that this woman really was guilty of a pre-existing crime. As many other commenters have noted here, the fact that we may not like the criminalisation of "fake" myspace accounts doesn't give anyone the right to create such an account. I can't imagine that many fake accounts have been legally pursued in this way - but if you're going to do something illegal, the way to avoid prosecution is not to use that illegal action as a stepping-stone to something obviously and egregiously immoral!
If you hack into your school's computer system, it's possible no-one will notice. If you then use those computers to download kiddie porn or terrorism handbooks, you're far more likely to be caught and to be punished for the lesser crime even if the larger can't be prosecuted.
Alternatively, you can say that most people will never be pursued for this kind of thing, but if they fraudulently open an account and then use that account to hound a 13-year-old girl to suicide, it's not surprising that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on them. Drew can't be prosecuted for harassment or child abuse, of both of which she is apparently utterly guilty.
It's not great, but I have to say that I'm glad she's being prosecuted for something. It's like Al Capone being busted for tax offences - it may not be the ideal, but it's better than letting her go entirely unpunished.
I'm in the same position - my old laptop started pouring smoke, and since I'm in the middle of finishing up my doctoral thesis I needed to replace it pronto, which meant an off-the-shelf with Vista installed. I was really wary, but actually find I like it. I would have been annoyed to have to install it on my old and vastly slower machine, but since this one has much better hardware and runs much faster than XP did on the other, I'm quite happy.
Am I alone in finding this extended metaphor tasteless and offensive?
You're kinda wrong about what the Founding Fathers intended. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if read in the context of the times and the meanings of philosophical/theological terminology then, were radically anti-Church and deliberately non-Christian. Jefferson called most of the New Testament dross, including describing the Book of Revelation as "the ravings of a maniac". Read Alan Dershowitz's "Blasphemy" for a very detailed and interesting account of this.
What the companies want is what makes society better, isn't it?
No, really, my previous post was meant to be ironic.
I think my comma was in the wrong place; I meant "the really smart kids who can think for themselves". My point was that a relatively clever and conformist kid will get a lot more attention and mentoring than the outstandingly bright but unusual one.
I guess I just worry about kids whose social lives revolve mostly around adults. That was the norm for my childhood too, and it made life very difficult at high school and even in University, because I wasn't used to how unfair, irrational and silly other kids can be. Even now, I have an exaggerated expectation of fairness and good sense from other people - not actually the best preparation for the real world, however much I might wish that the real world were different.
You're assuming that low grades = needy. But low grades can just as much = not very clever. Kids who can't get As and Bs in their tests are not necessarily going to go on to be criminals and addicts. Very bright kids who are getting Bs and Cs in their tests need help to stop them becoming disaffected and disruptive.
So the inspirational teacher whose students largely go on to work for charities, or low-paying public schools, or become artists and musicians, gets sacked. The goal of teaching is to turn out corporate whores.
Your comment is contradictory. You claim that bright kids don't need extra attention, and then blame your low grades and dropping-out on lack of attention from your teachers.
Bright kids really do need attention, and they need teachers with open minds who are not trying to pigeonhole them into certain ways of thinking. I had the same problems as you, but luckily caught a break with an amazingly good teacher in my final years of secondary education. As a result, from grades which ranged from fail to C, I got an average of 97% in my pre-university exams, and it wasn't even difficult!
But it should not have been the chance meeting with one decent teacher which got me to fulfil my potential. The education system should already have been there doing that for me. My parents are educated and intelligent and interested, but there's only so much they could do, short of giving me a whole extra set of classes when I came home to make up for the crappy ones I'd had in school that day.
"the smart kids get mentored for greater things"
In my experience, this isn't the case. The middle class conformist kids who do well because of extra tuition and whose parents are in the same clubs as the teachers get mentored for greater things. The really smart kids, who can think for themselves and have odd ideas and who are not "in the box" are labelled as disruptive.
This sounds like a paranoid rant, but it's a sincere reflection of my own experience!
In the higher-achieving schools, such as the one I went to, B and C grades are "dumb", so the kids do get extra help :)
And your kids won't learn to tolerate other people, or to interact fairly with those who are very different from them, or to make friends outside your social group. Nor will they learn that idiot bureaucracy is how the world works, and that you need to find your own ways to interact with them. Why not send your kids to school, keep a close eye, and supplement at home anything you feel is lacking?