I don't think that was what he was saying. He said nothing about users not being able to use "real" computers. He just said they should be trained in a manner that teaches them techniques rather than pure rote learning. I think you are fitting his post to an internal mold.
I have a friend who taught a beginner's course on computers. The first thing he did was get them to break old CPUs with a hammer, and then told them "That's about the only way you'll break a computer". He got them all to disassemble floppy disks. He taught them the difference between their data and the computer. He taught them not to be afraid to experiment, once they had made sure their data was safe.
He taught them how word processors and spreadsheets generally behaved, not a long list of rote muscle movements. The end result was a group of people that were very relaxed with using a computer and found new programs and interfaces non-threatening.
I have met other people who have been to courses that are floored if a menu option gets moved from one menu to another. BZZT Segmentation fault (core dumped). *wail* *panic*
There should be no "ins and outs" to using a computer, I agree. And often there aren't if you are just willing to poke around for a few minutes in a relaxed manner. Of course, this would be easier if UIs were even vaguely consistent.
I object to people using computers like trained animals. Sheep are for eating and wool. However, I don't blame them. I blame the idiots who teach people to be sheep (and the fools that condone it).
Your post has some good points, but they address something the original poster never said, IMO.
What happens is that it goes traight up and you usually get a bit of a "woof" as it burns from the edges inwards, assuming there is something to make it burn. Although the "woof" can sound suspiciously like a "bang", the gas generally has to be partially contained and well mixed with oxygen to be really dangerous.
It doesn't slosh around and burn. It doesn't vapourise into a fuel air emulsion easily either.
I wouldn't like to be near a hydrogen accident (liquid hydrogen is cold and scary), but I think in many cases I would rather be there than in a kerosene fire.
At least in a airplane using hydrogen (not that I think its a useful idea, but hypothetically...), I wouldn't have to run through a field of flaming kerosene assuming I survived the landing shock. The hydrogen would go straight up as fast as it could boil off. I might suffocate or get frostbite, but I don't think I'll burn.:-)
You haven't seen an internet without blocking lists, hence you can say nothing intelligent about the volume of spam now vs the volume of spam on such a hypothetical network.
The internet is a COOPERATIVE. You become antisocial, I cut you out the group. Customers can move to a ISP that is a good netizen. Using a blacklisted ISP isn't like death - it's easily fixable.
I for one would be very pleased to give my own ISP the what-for if I found out they were abetting spammers. Then I'd move elsewhere. It's part of being a good netizen.
Re:Why not a translating assembler?
on
MenuetOS Debuts
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it has been done. It's called Intent, written by the Tao Group (www.tao-group.com), and inspired by a games programmer who got tired of porting assembler bits of atari and amiga games to other platforms.
Incidentally, it's the base of the new Amiga runtime environment. It has a neat feature that you can supply native code for any particular CPU for any function and it will override the compiled version of that function with your code - a great way to get efficiency without compromising portability.
Have a look at the Baen Books Free Library. They explain their thinking and I agree with them. I own a lot of their books, purely because of their free library.
I wish more people did this. Then again, looking at my wallet, perhaps it's good that they don't!:-)
Hmm. Your translation indicates a world view with which I disagree. If I wish to transfer money privately or anonymously, I am not by definition doing it because I am a criminal or a cheat. Maybe I'm just doing it because I think that the extra information people demand when I transfer money is incredibly intrusive.
Actually, there is a point to this sort of thing for some of us. Some of us don't live in the countries in which we are citizens, and have such a hard time transferring money back home (because it seems that anyone who sends money over a border is by definition a money launderer), that this sort of thing would be great.
Most of the measures that have got in my way transferring money seem to make the assumption that money launderers don't lie. This would be laughable, if I didn't have people checking my every move. So, we know money launderers probably don't mind lying, so why exactly are the powers-that-be making my life difficult? Hmmmm? It seems more like a privacy issue to me than anything else.
I find it very irritating that governments can help themselves to my money for a month or more whilst I write facile faxes to confirm that I don't launder money, and give them my life story and sexual habits.
In short, I will do whatever I can to avoid this crap because I see it as tantamount to censoring books because they might contain pornography, whilst asking me for all sorts of personal details to make sure I'm not the pornographer.
So what is dirty money anyway? Does it have something to do with that money-making war-on-drugs thing?
Something I see over and over again is that emulation has to be slower than the original, yadda yadda blah blah.
This is not true.
There are a lot of advantages to being able to modify the code at run time. Most of them involve the optimiser being able to check its initial guess about how to optimise the relevant code. Think of it as a sort of runtime profiling followed by regeneration of code segments.
One example is HP's Dynamo, a PA-RISC CPU emulator that runs code faster on a PA-RISC than the same code running natively. Try:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dynam o-1.html for more information.
Another example would be Dr Michael Franz's work on Dynamic Optimisation. Try: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/DynamicOpt.html for more information.
Um. I'm not sure if you're from the USA, but that usually makes a difference.. The Amiga pretty much passed by the USA. Europe and other bits of the world were too busy coding demos and playing with freeware to worry about the USA.
However, as someone who spent most of his time on the Amiga playing with other people's code, and writing code that I released for free, I would comfortably say that there was a lot of stuff out there where the source was available. Many orders of magnitude more stuff relatively, compared to the Apple/DOS/Doze worlds.
Perhaps it doesn't meet the exact "Open Source" requirements, but the amount of freely available source was amazing.
I think as someone who doesnt have this context, you assumed they were claiming the AmigaOS was open source or something similar. It wasn't. It was just a pleasure to program for, with well defined APIs. The amount of freeware available, with source, is probably what they were talking about.
I dont know what you considered noteable. Obviously it was different from what I considered noteable.
Unfortunately, all the empirical evidence I am aware of (barring one now-discredited study of TV and its effect on children) is against you, and not the original poster.
Children are not stupid. They are initially naive. They typically fully understand abstract concepts such as lying, advertising for personal gain, misdirection, and the difference between fantasy and reality at around age 6. Exposing children to conflicting data can only make them note the conflicts sooner.
I would not normally post on something as offtopic as this, but I get irritated when people assume children are stupid. Perhaps you should write your arguments down in words of two syllables or less, and see if they still convince you.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that was what he was saying. He said nothing about users not being able to use "real" computers. He just said they should be trained in a manner that teaches them techniques rather than pure rote learning. I think you are fitting his post to an internal mold.
I have a friend who taught a beginner's course on computers. The first thing he did was get them to break old CPUs with a hammer, and then told them "That's about the only way you'll break a computer". He got them all to disassemble floppy disks. He taught them the difference between their data and the computer. He taught them not to be afraid to experiment, once they had made sure their data was safe.
He taught them how word processors and spreadsheets generally behaved, not a long list of rote muscle movements. The end result was a group of people that were very relaxed with using a computer and found new programs and interfaces non-threatening.
I have met other people who have been to courses that are floored if a menu option gets moved from one menu to another. BZZT Segmentation fault (core dumped). *wail* *panic*
There should be no "ins and outs" to using a computer, I agree. And often there aren't if you are just willing to poke around for a few minutes in a relaxed manner. Of course, this would be easier if UIs were even vaguely consistent.
I object to people using computers like trained animals. Sheep are for eating and wool. However, I don't blame them. I blame the idiots who teach people to be sheep (and the fools that condone it).
Your post has some good points, but they address something the original poster never said, IMO.
What happens is that it goes traight up and you usually get a bit of a "woof" as it burns from the edges inwards, assuming there is something to make it burn. Although the "woof" can sound suspiciously like a "bang", the gas generally has to be partially contained and well mixed with oxygen to be really dangerous.
:-)
It doesn't slosh around and burn. It doesn't vapourise into a fuel air emulsion easily either.
I wouldn't like to be near a hydrogen accident (liquid hydrogen is cold and scary), but I think in many cases I would rather be there than in a kerosene fire.
At least in a airplane using hydrogen (not that I think its a useful idea, but hypothetically...), I wouldn't have to run through a field of flaming kerosene assuming I survived the landing shock. The hydrogen would go straight up as fast as it could boil off. I might suffocate or get frostbite, but I don't think I'll burn.
I disagree with you.
You haven't seen an internet without blocking lists, hence you can say nothing intelligent about the volume of spam now vs the volume of spam on such a hypothetical network.
The internet is a COOPERATIVE. You become antisocial, I cut you out the group. Customers can move to a ISP that is a good netizen. Using a blacklisted ISP isn't like death - it's easily fixable.
I for one would be very pleased to give my own ISP the what-for if I found out they were abetting spammers. Then I'd move elsewhere. It's part of being a good netizen.
Yes, it has been done. It's called Intent, written by the Tao Group (www.tao-group.com), and inspired by a games programmer who got tired of porting assembler bits of atari and amiga games to other platforms.
Incidentally, it's the base of the new Amiga runtime environment. It has a neat feature that you can supply native code for any particular CPU for any function and it will override the compiled version of that function with your code - a great way to get efficiency without compromising portability.
Have a look at the Baen Books Free Library. They explain their thinking and I agree with them. I own a lot of their books, purely because of their free library.
:-)
I wish more people did this. Then again, looking at my wallet, perhaps it's good that they don't!
Hmm. Your translation indicates a world view with which I disagree. If I wish to transfer money privately or anonymously, I am not by definition doing it because I am a criminal or a cheat. Maybe I'm just doing it because I think that the extra information people demand when I transfer money is incredibly intrusive.
Actually, there is a point to this sort of thing for some of us. Some of us don't live in the countries in which we are citizens, and have such a hard time transferring money back home (because it seems that anyone who sends money over a border is by definition a money launderer), that this sort of thing would be great.
Most of the measures that have got in my way transferring money seem to make the assumption that money launderers don't lie. This would be laughable, if I didn't have people checking my every move. So, we know money launderers probably don't mind lying, so why exactly are the powers-that-be making my life difficult? Hmmmm? It seems more like a privacy issue to me than anything else.
I find it very irritating that governments can help themselves to my money for a month or more whilst I write facile faxes to confirm that I don't launder money, and give them my life story and sexual habits.
In short, I will do whatever I can to avoid this crap because I see it as tantamount to censoring books because they might contain pornography, whilst asking me for all sorts of personal details to make sure I'm not the pornographer.
So what is dirty money anyway? Does it have something to do with that money-making war-on-drugs thing?
Something I see over and over again is that emulation has to be slower than the original, yadda yadda blah blah.
m o-1.html for more information.
:-)
This is not true.
There are a lot of advantages to being able to modify the code at run time. Most of them involve the optimiser being able to check its initial guess about how to optimise the relevant code. Think of it as a sort of runtime profiling followed by regeneration of code segments.
One example is HP's Dynamo, a PA-RISC CPU emulator that runs code faster on a PA-RISC than the same code running natively. Try:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dyna
Another example would be Dr Michael Franz's work on Dynamic Optimisation. Try: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/DynamicOpt.html for more information.
Right. Now stop making assumptions.
Um. I'm not sure if you're from the USA, but that usually makes a difference.. The Amiga pretty much passed by the USA. Europe and other bits of the world were too busy coding demos and playing with freeware to worry about the USA.
However, as someone who spent most of his time on the Amiga playing with other people's code, and writing code that I released for free, I would comfortably say that there was a lot of stuff out there where the source was available. Many orders of magnitude more stuff relatively, compared to the Apple/DOS/Doze worlds.
Perhaps it doesn't meet the exact "Open Source" requirements, but the amount of freely available source was amazing.
I think as someone who doesnt have this context, you assumed they were claiming the AmigaOS was open source or something similar. It wasn't. It was just a pleasure to program for, with well defined APIs. The amount of freeware available, with source, is probably what they were talking about.
I dont know what you considered noteable. Obviously it was different from what I considered noteable.
Unfortunately, all the empirical evidence I am aware of (barring one now-discredited study of TV and its effect on children) is against you, and not the original poster.
Children are not stupid. They are initially naive. They typically fully understand abstract concepts such as lying, advertising for personal gain, misdirection, and the difference between fantasy and reality at around age 6. Exposing children to conflicting data can only make them note the conflicts sooner.
I would not normally post on something as offtopic as this, but I get irritated when people assume children are stupid. Perhaps you should write your arguments down in words of two syllables or less, and see if they still convince you.