I applaud Apple for once again holding the line on features that are simply not ready for prime time. Better to have nothing at all than something that is not invented by Apple.
It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?
Is someone claiming that the perpetrators of this violence are not responsible for their own actions?
I don't think so. People are simply wondering why YouTube would want to be associated with such gratuitously inflammatory material. Personally, I think it is a good question. Even if there were no rioting, this video serves no purpose and provides no value. Sure, it is a reminder that scumbags exist, but I didn't need that reminder. YouTube doesn't owe it a platform.
If you are determined to defeat these types of systems, there will always be ways to do so. The point is to make the undesired behavior inconvenient enough to deter casual transgressors.
Consider the locks on most doors and windows. It is trivial to defeat them, yet the combination of the minor inconvenience and reminder that you are locked out for a reason keeps a sufficient percentage of potential intruders at bay.
The iPhone gets a ton of additional promotion thanks to the zillions of cases that are constantly being made. There is an entire universe of consumer brands that release a new iPhone case as often as a new jacket, shoe or handbag. If you don't pay attention to fashion, this phenomenon might escape your notice. Then again, this is the iPhone we are talking about.
There was probably a lone gadget-junky on the staff who bought their own iPad and considered the hours of fiddling and significant workflow changes required to make it "just work" for their job to be a "fun" experience that everyone should embrace as a matter of course. So, after flashing around his or her toy and swearing up and down that making it "just work" was a snap, everyone else was on board.
So, should IT professionals be required to get teaching certifications? I mean, if we are demanding that people in one profession remain trained in a completely different field. . .
Have they invented an entire curriculum's worth of IT dependent school subjects? IIRC, it used to be possible to get an education with no computer in any classroom.
When are school boards and parents going to learn that education is not job training, and there is a point to going to school other than indoctrinating the next generation of cube drones and gadget consumers?
The problem though, is that it sounds like they thought they could just dump the product on them and their problems would be solved.
I guess they though it would, you know, just work.
These people will have had deeply-ingrained workflows that frequently include all manner of hacks and workarounds that have glommed together over the years.
They were using well established word processing and presentation applications (Word and PowerPoint). More things that one might be forgiven for assuming would just work (at least, with minimal workflow upheaval).
Bottom line, Apple just didn't work in this case, period.
Having been in this situation twice in the last couple of years, I would bet the IT department did explain the limitations of the iPads and were overruled by the teachers who wanted shiny toys they could show off to their friends.
'Cause teachers always get what they ask for. Especially if it costs money.
How about requiring that the destination of the money is in just as bold print at the top of the page as "obama sux"?
Are you really saying that there should be a regulation which states that the absolute largest print on the page should be the legalese?
What a dipshit you are.
I don't think he was saying that, but I will. Why shouldn't the legalese be the most prominent feature on a page where the viewer is providing payment or some other form of consent.
In fact, many legitimate businesses already do this on their payment processing pages. Dipshits?
You're forgetting that Apple clearly has the room in their profit margin to build them in the US under very good conditions.
But their surplus cash is also seen as a source of brand prestige and proof of their business prowess. Diminishing it may diminish their brand, and thus their sales, etc. in a negative feedback loop.
To want to "bring the manufacturing jobs back" is a lost cause. Programming is the new manufacturing and what Estonia is doing is brilliant. More and more everything in our daily lives is governed by software. Estonia is a small country and choosing this as their national specialty is going to prove monumental to their long-term success.
Being the "new manufacturing" is a dubious honor. What is to stop programming jobs from being off-shored and sucked into a race-to-the-bottom?
Because its about 5-10 years from being a REQUIREMENT in jobs.
Nah. It really won't. Most people will never have to interact with computers other than through canned UIs that are purpose-built to help them do their actual job applying all the skills and insights they gained in the time not spent learning how to program.
By only using the information processing equivalent of a car, which happens to be a program somebody else did for a computer, you lose the WHOLE DAMN POINT of having a computer in the first place, and are actually never using the computer. You just use the program. A fixed-function appliance again.
For most people, their PC/tablet/smartphone is an appliance. They exercise their power and freedom in other domains.
Driving is separate from maintenance. Someone who can't drive can't pass the test to get their license. Someone incapable of maintaining their car spends lots of money at the mechanic or ends up destroying it far earlier than it would have otherwise failed.
Tune, not maintain. There is a difference. Still, not knowing the difference does not preclude someone from driving their car in the factory configuration.
The point is that using a computer does not require the ability to program it. The only reason that computers are so ubiquitous these days is that programming skills are not required to use them.
It is more practical to concentrate certain skills among a few functionaries.
To me, personally, not being able to program is akin to being illiterate. Paper, writing instruments and books and other printed matter are widespread, it'd make one look real bad not to be able to use them. Same goes for computers, and I don't qualify using prepackaged software without any ability to script anything being real use.
For most people, computers are still TVs with typewriters attached. Every so often someone figures out how to bolt another gadget on to them (camera, phone). People who don't know how to turn on a computer, navigate the filesystem, launch applications etc. could be considered illiterate. Beyond that, its like saying that anyone who doesn't know how to tune their car's engine is incapable of driving.
That said, programming is not particularly difficult if there is a reason to know how to do it. Knowing how to program is no more special than being literate.
It is a good chance to exercise their analytic and problem solving skills. Imagine a generation of children who could form their opinions about things like economic and environmental policy by testing theories against simulations. . .
I can see the benefit of using computer programming as a method of teaching kids to approach problem solving and apply these skills in ways that are likely to seem relevant to their generation.
If they think they can raise a generation of super-nerds, good luck with that. Programming isn't hard if you are wired correctly. If you are better suited to other work, learning programming will only ever make you a mediocre programmer who could have been an elite something else (granted, those alternatives aren't always feasible).
Slashdot Mirror
I applaud Apple for once again holding the line on features that are simply not ready for prime time. Better to have nothing at all than something that is not invented by Apple.
ask them why they are rioting, and they will say it is because of this video.
And you just assume that they are not sophisticated enough to disguise their motives?
It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?
Is someone claiming that the perpetrators of this violence are not responsible for their own actions?
I don't think so. People are simply wondering why YouTube would want to be associated with such gratuitously inflammatory material. Personally, I think it is a good question. Even if there were no rioting, this video serves no purpose and provides no value. Sure, it is a reminder that scumbags exist, but I didn't need that reminder. YouTube doesn't owe it a platform.
Faraday cage.
If you are determined to defeat these types of systems, there will always be ways to do so. The point is to make the undesired behavior inconvenient enough to deter casual transgressors.
Consider the locks on most doors and windows. It is trivial to defeat them, yet the combination of the minor inconvenience and reminder that you are locked out for a reason keeps a sufficient percentage of potential intruders at bay.
The iPhone gets a ton of additional promotion thanks to the zillions of cases that are constantly being made. There is an entire universe of consumer brands that release a new iPhone case as often as a new jacket, shoe or handbag. If you don't pay attention to fashion, this phenomenon might escape your notice. Then again, this is the iPhone we are talking about.
Rob Murray from EA got up on stage to show a racing game, claiming that the graphics "have been built to full console quality."
Apparently, Apple and EA don't think the small form factor lowers the bar for display capability.
There was probably a lone gadget-junky on the staff who bought their own iPad and considered the hours of fiddling and significant workflow changes required to make it "just work" for their job to be a "fun" experience that everyone should embrace as a matter of course. So, after flashing around his or her toy and swearing up and down that making it "just work" was a snap, everyone else was on board.
So, should IT professionals be required to get teaching certifications? I mean, if we are demanding that people in one profession remain trained in a completely different field. . .
Have they invented an entire curriculum's worth of IT dependent school subjects? IIRC, it used to be possible to get an education with no computer in any classroom.
When are school boards and parents going to learn that education is not job training, and there is a point to going to school other than indoctrinating the next generation of cube drones and gadget consumers?
The problem though, is that it sounds like they thought they could just dump the product on them and their problems would be solved.
I guess they though it would, you know, just work.
These people will have had deeply-ingrained workflows that frequently include all manner of hacks and workarounds that have glommed together over the years.
They were using well established word processing and presentation applications (Word and PowerPoint). More things that one might be forgiven for assuming would just work (at least, with minimal workflow upheaval).
Bottom line, Apple just didn't work in this case, period.
Having been in this situation twice in the last couple of years, I would bet the IT department did explain the limitations of the iPads and were overruled by the teachers who wanted shiny toys they could show off to their friends.
'Cause teachers always get what they ask for. Especially if it costs money.
Sorry, you have violated the groupthink by posting that people are creating content with tablets. You will now be modded down for telling the truth.
Assuming any tablet users are able to actuate the moderation widget.
How about requiring that the destination of the money is in just as bold print at the top of the page as "obama sux"?
Are you really saying that there should be a regulation which states that the absolute largest print on the page should be the legalese?
What a dipshit you are.
I don't think he was saying that, but I will. Why shouldn't the legalese be the most prominent feature on a page where the viewer is providing payment or some other form of consent.
In fact, many legitimate businesses already do this on their payment processing pages. Dipshits?
Communism may or may not have an inherent scaling problem. But what is clear is that human decency does not scale. At least not naturally.
Isn't convict labor common inside the US?
Convict labor may still be paid and voluntary.
You're forgetting that Apple clearly has the room in their profit margin to build them in the US under very good conditions.
But their surplus cash is also seen as a source of brand prestige and proof of their business prowess. Diminishing it may diminish their brand, and thus their sales, etc. in a negative feedback loop.
Doesn't ammo expire and/or become 'less trustworthy' over time ?
Sure. But let me ask you this. . .are you feelin' lucky?
To want to "bring the manufacturing jobs back" is a lost cause. Programming is the new manufacturing and what Estonia is doing is brilliant. More and more everything in our daily lives is governed by software. Estonia is a small country and choosing this as their national specialty is going to prove monumental to their long-term success.
Being the "new manufacturing" is a dubious honor. What is to stop programming jobs from being off-shored and sucked into a race-to-the-bottom?
Because its about 5-10 years from being a REQUIREMENT in jobs.
Nah. It really won't. Most people will never have to interact with computers other than through canned UIs that are purpose-built to help them do their actual job applying all the skills and insights they gained in the time not spent learning how to program.
By only using the information processing equivalent of a car, which happens to be a program somebody else did for a computer, you lose the WHOLE DAMN POINT of having a computer in the first place, and are actually never using the computer. You just use the program. A fixed-function appliance again.
For most people, their PC/tablet/smartphone is an appliance. They exercise their power and freedom in other domains.
I am absolutely against turning education in to job training. OTOH, I think that computers can be used to learn the basics.
Granted, this is probably just a scheme to attract "job creators" with the promise of a buzzword-compliant Estonian work force.
Driving is separate from maintenance. Someone who can't drive can't pass the test to get their license. Someone incapable of maintaining their car spends lots of money at the mechanic or ends up destroying it far earlier than it would have otherwise failed.
Tune, not maintain. There is a difference. Still, not knowing the difference does not preclude someone from driving their car in the factory configuration.
The point is that using a computer does not require the ability to program it. The only reason that computers are so ubiquitous these days is that programming skills are not required to use them.
It is more practical to concentrate certain skills among a few functionaries.
To me, personally, not being able to program is akin to being illiterate. Paper, writing instruments and books and other printed matter are widespread, it'd make one look real bad not to be able to use them. Same goes for computers, and I don't qualify using prepackaged software without any ability to script anything being real use.
For most people, computers are still TVs with typewriters attached. Every so often someone figures out how to bolt another gadget on to them (camera, phone). People who don't know how to turn on a computer, navigate the filesystem, launch applications etc. could be considered illiterate. Beyond that, its like saying that anyone who doesn't know how to tune their car's engine is incapable of driving.
That said, programming is not particularly difficult if there is a reason to know how to do it. Knowing how to program is no more special than being literate.
It is a good chance to exercise their analytic and problem solving skills. Imagine a generation of children who could form their opinions about things like economic and environmental policy by testing theories against simulations. . .
I can see the benefit of using computer programming as a method of teaching kids to approach problem solving and apply these skills in ways that are likely to seem relevant to their generation.
If they think they can raise a generation of super-nerds, good luck with that. Programming isn't hard if you are wired correctly. If you are better suited to other work, learning programming will only ever make you a mediocre programmer who could have been an elite something else (granted, those alternatives aren't always feasible).