Horace Mann, the father of public education in America, developed his plan for socialized education based on the assertion that all children are alike and can therefore be educated alike. He invented the assembly line long before Ford, but applied it to children instead of cars.
Yeah, exactly. You're complaining that the current government-run schools suck because they're applying business techniques onto kids. You're right. However, as a solution, you're suggesting to get rid of the government interference and go fully private. Ie, have the schools being run by corporations ??? Sounds like a serious contradiction to me. If there is one environment where children would be treated as units, which need to be processed at an effective cost for maximum throughput and revenue, it would be a private school which can run without any possible state interference, regulation or guidelines. So yeah, Mann fucked up but that's precisely because he tried to make state schools similar to privately run factories.
Huh ? If there is one reasonably stable body which is powerful enough to enforce a fixed, decent set of guidelines on what can and cannot be taught at schools, it would be the government.
Granted, in this particular case the government is royally screwing up by asking a private company to deliver a hightech witch-hunt system. But in general, I would rather expect a private corporation to come up with this kind of ideas, than the government. I mean, really, what kind of policies will schools have when they're run by corporations without any state interference ? If there can be a world where the/. fears of a schoolsystem "educating" the youth into mentally flat, 'stable' drones ready for marketing campaigns come true, that would be it. Current private schools at least have the state behind them as the state basically says "educate the kids whatever way you want, but as they leave the place they do know this and this and have these and those abilities". Total separation, as in total freedom for the schools to do what they want, sounds like a recipe for total disaster.
I admit this post is more of a gut feeling than an argument. Still, I like to think this Task Force is rather the exception in an otherwise well-working environment, than the default modus operandi of a schoolsystem which should be dissed altogether in favor of corporate run total-freedom schools. Bleh.
Interesting to see that this new technology is brought up in a context of battlefields and soldiers, and nobody seems to care, either. Am I the only one who thinks this could be pretty interesting for the starving population of the 3rd world ? Sounds similar to the invention of powder-milk, but even better : a single plane can carry 'food' for literally hundreds of thousands of people, the expiring date is practically 'forever', it's easy to administer, and requires no extra resources (like the milk which requires water). Technology actually helping people ! No ?
I believe the bitrate of an mp3 file is the 'final' bitrate, after compressing both channels. This new format seems to explicitly support 128kbps per channel, meaning both formats can deliver exactly the same format. It does make you wonder if this means the new format doesn't exploit inter-channel dependencies the way mp3 does, though, if they mention bitrates per channel...
And I can assure you she is a very nice person. She strives to be a good person, just as much as a good scientist. Don't get me wrong. I don't mean "elite" as a personal, negative label. You can't "blame" somebody for growing up in a stimulating and intellectually rich environment, just you don't go after someone for growing up in a poor situation.
My concern was rather the curious implication that the scientific world, in this example at least, seems to have no problems with the idea that one opportunity, deserved and well exploited, can lead to another, even bigger achievement, which would have been completely unreachable normally. However, at the same time governments, ACM/IEEE, etc, are raising important and valid concerns over the possible wide gap between have's and have-not's of the future, as a result of being online and not being online during the education (and leisure time).
I'm a bit confused here. The article seems to suggest that the DNA encoding was actually executed, instead of merely being theoretically described/proposed. Um, the school I was in when I was 17 most definitely did not have DNA-handling equipment. Does this mean that (a) the price was awarded to somebody who already had access to nonstandard equipment (giving the price a bit of an elitarian ring), or (b) DNA juggling is already common place enough that highschools carry the stuff as basic equipment ? Both options seem a bit of food for thought to me...
When the topic of creating commercial games for Linux pops up, I'm always eager to point out that there is an important difference between making games available on a platform by porting an existing game (at which Linux is, thanks to Loki, becoming highly succesful), and actual creation, out of the blue on the target platform.
Porting "merely" requires technical skill at the engine level : know-how on how to port Win32 to X, getting DirectX to work with SDL, OpenGL cross-platform issues, etc. Creation, on the other hand, requires the full asset of content creation tools that are of vital importance in every software house, but remain hidden from the end user -- and the porter. I like to call those tools the "boring 50%" of game production, and they consist of level editors, model builders, conversion tools (eg 3DS Max to native format), sound editors, etc.
Since Loki has recently showed interest in developing, instead of porting, Linux games, I'd like to hear what your take is on the apparent lack of solid, existing authoring tools (other than the Gimp), and the lack of solid desktop development support (KDevelop et al are nice but no match for the MSVC/MFC combo) needed to write all those quick'n'dirty but ultra-vital editor tools.
Do you agree that this lack of Linux equivalents of 3DS Max, Soundforge and MSVC is currently a major hurdle for Linux-native development ? If you go for full Linux development, would you create authoring support all by yourself and release it (a la MPEG SDL), or rather sit back and wait until Codewarrior, Kinetix etc all get their Linux products up to par with Win32 ?
Does this mean everything coming from a mailing list, which is a non profit organization in itself, must have "ADV:" in it ? I hope not, most lists have a marker in their header already.. soon there'll be 3 characters left to squeeze the subject in.
It doesn't bother me the Linux is small fries. It can stay that way. BSD can stay that way. It's not going to stop people (geeks) from developing on these platforms. The cool apps/tools will not stop coming through. Depending on what you mean with cool, they could stop coming through !
My favorite example are games. We think all is well with Linux and games because Loki etc are now porting commercial quality. But the actual development of such quality games under Linux requires that the non-programmers of a software team migrate to linux as well : to edit the video, the story, the dialogue, the puzzles, whatnot. And that will require tools that are easy to use by those non-code guys.. and trust me, artists and editors can be really stupid.
So there you have a concrete example : if you want companies to build games, their editors will need content editors of ultra easy to use interface. That's an example of cool apps that haven't even started to come through.
So can you really be happy to keep Linux in the niche, avoid it's commercialization, and at the same time cry out for cooler games and cooler multimedia native to Linux ?...
Not to mention that a boom of Linux to the desktop would probably a great incentive for OEMs to add support for their scanners, point devices (tablets,..), printers, modems and whatnot to Linux.
Well, it's simple : some tasks require that content ("data files") are edited by people who are not geeks. If you want that kind of editing done on Linux, someone, ie the geeks, are gonna have to write the tools that allow this "dumb" editor person to edit that data.
Examples : sound editing, video editing, document writing, business presentations, stock analysis, etc etc etc. You want Linux to be useful for something else than writing more software ? Then make the tools for doing those other tasks usable by people that only know how to do those other tasks, and know shit about programming.
Yeah, that group doesn't include you and me, but if you proceed and say "ergo I don't care".. don't expect those desktop users to care about you, or your favorite OS...
No, I think he's right. We have feedback loops from end-users when those end-users are fellow geeks. In fact, we have the tightest feedback loop possible because those "end-users" are going straight to the code to fix what they don't like ! But when it comes to our whole new category of end-users, the desktop clicketee-click monkeys which we try to lurk over from their windows machine, we're stubborn as hell to accept that those guys simply need their dumb-ass buttons to click or they'll ignore Linux, period.
Check out the truckload of arguments dumped here as to why we really don't need GUIs, and then go ask that dumb secretary sitting next to you at the office what she'd think about a PC that gives here "# >" when booted. Yeah, maybe Gnome and KDE is listening to what their users' complaints are.. but the majority of the geeks definitely isn't. I think that's what he was saying.
Yes, it's not making sense to put a GUI on top of an application which doesn't need one. But you're making the mistake imho of throwing the child away with the water (heheheh is that English ?:)
Yeah,/etc makes a helluva lot more sense to configure an OS than those goddamn un-navigatable WinNT comboboxes. But a nice button with a diskette on it makes a helluva lot more sense to save a file than ":wq".
Please, stop confusing the server side of Linux with the desktop side !
People are reacting here by saying that so far vi etc has worked just fine, and OSS is for the long term and for the experienced computer user, and this and that.
True !
But, the thing is that recently a large group of these geeks have gotten the attitude that they'll try to push Windows away from the desktop : they're no longer happy with Linux munching away those hardcore textinterface tools on servers, they want Linux on the common end user desktop !
So the contradiction is kindof obvious, no ? On one hand you want to stick with Linux's roots claiming "it has worked before" and "we're not newbies", while at the same time you want to build desktops that enable your grandma to write and print a nice letter under an Office clone.
What the author is saying is that the current situation under Linux is not really suitable for running such apps, and I'd like to add that Linux in general is not suited, right now, for even building them, lest you go the "but I have too much time on my hands" way (see my other post)...
I'm glad to see someone picks this up.. I was recently ranting about this on the linux gamedev list but couldn't find much response for this. Imho this goes pretty deep; yes, we have Gtk and Qt to get away from the 30 year old "command prompt is just fine, thanks" attitude, but we still have a long way to go. Let's not turn this into yet another GUI-vs-console debate : I guess what works best depends on if you're the geek type, or just the end user "where do I click to launch Office" type. To break through, Linux should support both. But here's indeed our Achilles'heel : the development of these apps with smooth, welltested GUIs. Say what you want about MSVC++, but once you've used their built-in editors to model your GUI and attach code to it (a la Visual Basic), you really don't want to go back to native Win32 programming. Since hand-connected signals and slots under Gtk or Qt are the Linux equivalent of such hand-tuning of Win32 code, you also don't want to go program GUI's under Linux anymore without the Linux equivalent of MSVC. This is really important because without such ultra-user friendly, dumb-monkey-could-use-it interfaces the tools to build content, and hence the apps which need such content (like games), will not arrive under Linux. I know, I know, this may be ranting.. but I'm just happy to see this topic getting picked up under developers after months of crying in the void:) As long as the "cutting edge" IDEs of Linux or lagging years behind MSVC, decent GUIs simply wont become common because it takes too much effort to build them... I mean, it's coming (check out the FLTK project).. but the general attitude still seems to be "we don't need GUIs.. so why build them, or build the tools to build them". Maybe KDE and Gnome's IDEs will change this ?...
Why ? They could just as well run the story as a new step towards a more environmental friendly chemistry. We fucked up with coredumps of any poisoneous leftovers into every river and forest available, if we can reverse the damage by packing the same amount of energy in less fuel to burn, it's cool. Check out my 500 miles drive with 4 gallons of fuel, woohoo:) Depends on what the media thinks will sell, I guess.. as usual.
.. with this microsoft stuff ? Someone mentions a superexplosive and up comes the MS beta evaluation program.. and then they call *us* the conspiracy freaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, exactly. You're complaining that the current government-run schools suck because they're applying business techniques onto kids. You're right. However, as a solution, you're suggesting to get rid of the government interference and go fully private. Ie, have the schools being run by corporations ??? Sounds like a serious contradiction to me. If there is one environment where children would be treated as units, which need to be processed at an effective cost for maximum throughput and revenue, it would be a private school which can run without any possible state interference, regulation or guidelines. So yeah, Mann fucked up but that's precisely because he tried to make state schools similar to privately run factories.
Granted, in this particular case the government is royally screwing up by asking a private company to deliver a hightech witch-hunt system. But in general, I would rather expect a private corporation to come up with this kind of ideas, than the government. I mean, really, what kind of policies will schools have when they're run by corporations without any state interference ? If there can be a world where the /. fears of a schoolsystem "educating" the youth into mentally flat, 'stable' drones ready for marketing campaigns come true, that would be it. Current private schools at least have the state behind them as the state basically says "educate the kids whatever way you want, but as they leave the place they do know this and this and have these and those abilities". Total separation, as in total freedom for the schools to do what they want, sounds like a recipe for total disaster.
I admit this post is more of a gut feeling than an argument. Still, I like to think this Task Force is rather the exception in an otherwise well-working environment, than the default modus operandi of a schoolsystem which should be dissed altogether in favor of corporate run total-freedom schools. Bleh.
Interesting to see that this new technology is brought up in a context of battlefields and soldiers, and nobody seems to care, either. Am I the only one who thinks this could be pretty interesting for the starving population of the 3rd world ? Sounds similar to the invention of powder-milk, but even better : a single plane can carry 'food' for literally hundreds of thousands of people, the expiring date is practically 'forever', it's easy to administer, and requires no extra resources (like the milk which requires water). Technology actually helping people ! No ?
I believe the bitrate of an mp3 file is the 'final' bitrate, after compressing both channels. This new format seems to explicitly support 128kbps per channel, meaning both formats can deliver exactly the same format. It does make you wonder if this means the new format doesn't exploit inter-channel dependencies the way mp3 does, though, if they mention bitrates per channel...
My concern was rather the curious implication that the scientific world, in this example at least, seems to have no problems with the idea that one opportunity, deserved and well exploited, can lead to another, even bigger achievement, which would have been completely unreachable normally.
However, at the same time governments, ACM/IEEE, etc, are raising important and valid concerns over the possible wide gap between have's and have-not's of the future, as a result of being online and not being online during the education (and leisure time).
I'm a bit confused here. The article seems to suggest that the DNA encoding was actually executed, instead of merely being theoretically described/proposed. Um, the school I was in when I was 17 most definitely did not have DNA-handling equipment. Does this mean that (a) the price was awarded to somebody who already had access to nonstandard equipment (giving the price a bit of an elitarian ring), or (b) DNA juggling is already common place enough that highschools carry the stuff as basic equipment ? Both options seem a bit of food for thought to me...
Porting "merely" requires technical skill at the engine level : know-how on how to port Win32 to X, getting DirectX to work with SDL, OpenGL cross-platform issues, etc. Creation, on the other hand, requires the full asset of content creation tools that are of vital importance in every software house, but remain hidden from the end user -- and the porter. I like to call those tools the "boring 50%" of game production, and they consist of level editors, model builders, conversion tools (eg 3DS Max to native format), sound editors, etc.
Since Loki has recently showed interest in developing, instead of porting, Linux games, I'd like to hear what your take is on the apparent lack of solid, existing authoring tools (other than the Gimp), and the lack of solid desktop development support (KDevelop et al are nice but no match for the MSVC/MFC combo) needed to write all those quick'n'dirty but ultra-vital editor tools.
Do you agree that this lack of Linux equivalents of 3DS Max, Soundforge and MSVC is currently a major hurdle for Linux-native development ? If you go for full Linux development, would you create authoring support all by yourself and release it (a la MPEG SDL), or rather sit back and wait until Codewarrior, Kinetix etc all get their Linux products up to par with Win32 ?
Thanks !
Does this mean everything coming from a mailing list, which is a non profit organization in itself, must have "ADV:" in it ? I hope not, most lists have a marker in their header already.. soon there'll be 3 characters left to squeeze the subject in.
My favorite example are games. We think all is well with Linux and games because Loki etc are now porting commercial quality. But the actual development of such quality games under Linux requires that the non-programmers of a software team migrate to linux as well : to edit the video, the story, the dialogue, the puzzles, whatnot. And that will require tools that are easy to use by those non-code guys.. and trust me, artists and editors can be really stupid.
So there you have a concrete example : if you want companies to build games, their editors will need content editors of ultra easy to use interface. That's an example of cool apps that haven't even started to come through.
So can you really be happy to keep Linux in the niche, avoid it's commercialization, and at the same time cry out for cooler games and cooler multimedia native to Linux ?...
Not to mention that a boom of Linux to the desktop would probably a great incentive for OEMs to add support for their scanners, point devices (tablets, ..), printers, modems and whatnot to Linux.
Examples : sound editing, video editing, document writing, business presentations, stock analysis, etc etc etc. You want Linux to be useful for something else than writing more software ? Then make the tools for doing those other tasks usable by people that only know how to do those other tasks, and know shit about programming.
Yeah, that group doesn't include you and me, but if you proceed and say "ergo I don't care".. don't expect those desktop users to care about you, or your favorite OS...
Check out the truckload of arguments dumped here as to why we really don't need GUIs, and then go ask that dumb secretary sitting next to you at the office what she'd think about a PC that gives here "# >" when booted. Yeah, maybe Gnome and KDE is listening to what their users' complaints are.. but the majority of the geeks definitely isn't. I think that's what he was saying.
Yeah, /etc makes a helluva lot more sense to configure an OS than those goddamn un-navigatable WinNT comboboxes. But a nice button with a diskette on it makes a helluva lot more sense to save a file than ":wq".
Please, stop confusing the server side of Linux with the desktop side !
True !
But, the thing is that recently a large group of these geeks have gotten the attitude that they'll try to push Windows away from the desktop : they're no longer happy with Linux munching away those hardcore textinterface tools on servers, they want Linux on the common end user desktop !
So the contradiction is kindof obvious, no ? On one hand you want to stick with Linux's roots claiming "it has worked before" and "we're not newbies", while at the same time you want to build desktops that enable your grandma to write and print a nice letter under an Office clone.
What the author is saying is that the current situation under Linux is not really suitable for running such apps, and I'd like to add that Linux in general is not suited, right now, for even building them, lest you go the "but I have too much time on my hands" way (see my other post)...
Just imho ofcourse ;)
I'm glad to see someone picks this up.. I was recently ranting about this on the linux gamedev list but couldn't find much response for this. Imho this goes pretty deep; yes, we have Gtk and Qt to get away from the 30 year old "command prompt is just fine, thanks" attitude, but we still have a long way to go. Let's not turn this into yet another GUI-vs-console debate : I guess what works best depends on if you're the geek type, or just the end user "where do I click to launch Office" type. To break through, Linux should support both. But here's indeed our Achilles'heel : the development of these apps with smooth, welltested GUIs. Say what you want about MSVC++, but once you've used their built-in editors to model your GUI and attach code to it (a la Visual Basic), you really don't want to go back to native Win32 programming. Since hand-connected signals and slots under Gtk or Qt are the Linux equivalent of such hand-tuning of Win32 code, you also don't want to go program GUI's under Linux anymore without the Linux equivalent of MSVC. This is really important because without such ultra-user friendly, dumb-monkey-could-use-it interfaces the tools to build content, and hence the apps which need such content (like games), will not arrive under Linux. I know, I know, this may be ranting.. but I'm just happy to see this topic getting picked up under developers after months of crying in the void :) As long as the "cutting edge" IDEs of Linux or lagging years behind MSVC, decent GUIs simply wont become common because it takes too much effort to build them... I mean, it's coming (check out the FLTK project).. but the general attitude still seems to be "we don't need GUIs.. so why build them, or build the tools to build them". Maybe KDE and Gnome's IDEs will change this ?...
Why ? They could just as well run the story as a new step towards a more environmental friendly chemistry. We fucked up with coredumps of any poisoneous leftovers into every river and forest available, if we can reverse the damage by packing the same amount of energy in less fuel to burn, it's cool. Check out my 500 miles drive with 4 gallons of fuel, woohoo :) Depends on what the media thinks will sell, I guess.. as usual.
.. with this microsoft stuff ? Someone mentions a superexplosive and up comes the MS beta evaluation program.. and then they call *us* the conspiracy freaks.