Now there is a question I have. Why is it that it's the year 2007, the PS3 is a "High Definition" system, and costs $500-$600... yet still only includes the same composite video cables people have been using since the NES 22 years ago?
Do you really think you can compete with XBox Live?
Last generation, XBox Live really blew people away and has set the standard for console connectivity. It will be 6 years old this November. Microsoft seems to have learned from it and has enhanced it for the 360 (like achievement points), and will be introducing it for Windows. Nintendo, sadly, doesn't seem to have learned and will be using "friend codes" again on the Wii, with reports that each game will use different codes.
How well do you think your offering will be able to compete with XBox Live? While there is a price associated with XBL, making a service free doesn't make up for what may be lost. From what I know the PS3 doesn't seem to have the same focus and commitment that Microsoft has. And while some of your ideas are quite interesting (like the Home concept), I have to wonder if it will be seen as being as well developed and integrated as XBL is at this point.
Do you think you can beat XBL this generation, or do you think you might be relegated to playing catchup?
Of course, if you can make something half-interesting, the kid may just start doing something (like reading) on their own. This is the problem I have with this kind of stuff. I didn't get into reading more until I was near the end of high-school. I could read well (thanks to my parents pushing me), but I "hated" reading. The reason is simple. I've never really been one to get into fiction books (although some Sci-Fi grabs me). But I had been forced to read so many books for school that were just terrible I didn't have much interest. Even being given more of a choice of what to read might have helped.
Kids want everything to be fun and easy as you say, and it's not. It's work. But it doesn't always have to be. If you can get the kids to find something interesting and work on that they might start working on learning other things.
Too bad many of the kind of things that might help (art, music, hands-on-experience) are being cut.
Plus, not every kid is the same thus inspiring them doesn't fit into the US's "everyone is educated exactly the same, lowest common denominator" system that we seem to have.
Kids learn better by engaging them. Kids are engaged by video games. Thus, kids will learn better from video games,
I know I look forward to learning about Greek Mythology from God of War II.
Seriously though. I'm all for engaging kids. The better job you do, the more likely they are to engage themselves and learn on their own. You know one thing that doesn't engage students? Spending all your time teaching to a standardized test. Why go outside and show kids plants, plant a little garden, let them learn from that. Instead, we can just show them a picture in a book and force them to memorize what geotropism.
Let's not forget that as you dumb down the curriculum and spend more time going over and over the same stuff so that all the kids can memorize it for the test, the kids who are smart (and already got it) and even those who are just normal (and got it 6 times ago, unlike the kid in the back who eats paste) are getting bored and tuning out. You may get them back, or they may learn that "school is boring".
I like the idea behind "No child left behind." I think holding teachers accountable, as radical as that may be, is a good thing. It's just too bad that everyone decided to implement it by teaching to the test all the time. I remember when I was in elementary and middle school. They would teach us stuff, we'd learn, things were good. There was usually at least something interesting. Until that time of year. Yes, time for the CAT (California Achievement Tests) or whatever other yearly test we used. For the month before the test they did nothing but teach to the test, which was boring to no end since it was always below the stuff we were currently learning.
More hands on lessons. That's what schools need. Hands on stuff, experiments, field trips.
How many people here think they would even remember what the Oregon Trail was if it wasn't for the game? How many people here remember all the historical stuff from the game, and how many just remember seeing how fast you could get your friends killed or trying to get a tombstone so you could write something on it.
I agree about Windows. Most Windows users don't know enough to make the choice even if they know the choice exists. They want a computer, so they bought a Dell or HP or what the guy at Best Buy was selling.
Linux... your statement is a stretch. I used Linux for a while but not because of "personal or social accountability." Many people may do that, but I think many more do it because of the reasons I did: to learn, or because it was not Windows but it was cheaper than a Mac (free, after all).
Your Apple idea I disagree with COMPLETELY. I (and everyone else I know who has switched, mostly techies) went to the Mac because it was not Windows, but still had many of the benefits like commercial software, hardware with drivers on a CD from a manufacturer, coherence (which Linux can feel like it's lacking at times), etc. I didn't do it because it was the popular alternative. If anything that would make me LESS likely to switch. I could care less how "trendy" or "hip" my OS is.
I think your comment would have been about perfect without this line: "Education level correlates with leftward politics...". I agree college students get cheaper Macs, buy a larger percentage of Macs vs PCs compared to the general public, have more free time than 9-5ers, and are more likely to be politically active than an average person.
But education level does not necessarily correlate with education. What about all the "rich republican business leaders" people are always stereotyping with? Don't you think they have a high level of education?
I think your comment, again while mostly accurate, is more reflective of the old maxim: "If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
College student this was a great angle though. That didn't occur to me at all.
Strange, I value the liberty to defend myself, with deadly force if necessary, against a group of people attacking me or a criminal carrying a gun (which they will still do if you make them illegal).
We don't deny all conservation. But are you talking about saving the bald eagle when there were few left, or are you talking about saving a couple dozen acres worth of area in ANOIR that make up less than 0.5% of the total area? Some conservation makes sense, some doesn't. If some group decided to push a ban on lawn-mowing because it hurts dandelions, would you support it or would you think it goes too far and the price is too high? Just a difference of opinion on where the line of value is drawn.
Why do right-to-lifer's support the death penalty?
I support both. My justification? The child is innocent, it hasn't even been born. The guy getting the death penalty did something that we as a society have deemed worth of death and been convicted by a jury of his peers. Probably through 5 appeals. They are not the same thing. That's people who don't support abortion are often also against murder: we don't like innocent people being killed.
Why do liberals promote loss of liberty?
I would say this one is simple. It's hard to make it illegal to make racist remarks and such when you have complete free speech. But if you speech isn't quite so free... then you can restrict it. Just like it's hard to ban guns (D.C, I'm looking at you) when they are a right (they argue that point, which I see as a loss of liberty compared to the view held for the past 200+ years that owning a gun is a right of an American citizen).
Why do those who dodge military service advocate preemptive war?
Cheap shot. Why do those who say we should intervene in a civil war/genoicde in Rowanda think we should get out of a "civil war" in Iraq which could easily turn into a Shi'ite/Suni genocide if we leave?
Just thought I'd give you my answers/views. The answers of a conservative, as opposed to the snarky responses from someone who seems liberal but mostly disgusted with politics (which I can agree with completely).
Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.
Second, Office for Mac is really very nice. I have Office 2004 on my Mac (version 11). I've got to say that I like it's interface WAY better than the Windows versions of Office I've used (up to XP, I haven't had much chance with 2k3 or the newest one). It's really a very nice program. If it wasn't from Microsoft, I think it would still sell very well.
I've also heard of them using the Mac version to "test" things. I think the UI that I like so much (the floating pallets on the right side) was probably a part of the precursor to the ribbon they've been touting so much.
The Windows version may have gotten complacent, but the guys in the Mac Business Unit are good at what they do.
What does any of that have to do with the problems he had? Oh, that's right, next to nothing. If you read the article it said that once he had things running it was nice but Vista still had a ton of problems. The only thing on that list that caused him problems was the SB Live which caused three "unidentified hardware" type errors. A search showed him that the card would never work under Vista (no drivers planned) so he got a new one. The graphics card he upgraded before the install because he knew that it was not enough.
But he ran into problems with his PDA (running Windows Mobile), his web-cam (which the update advisor said would work fine), TCP/IP, etc.
Try reading. You learn things. Like what his problems were, or that he fixed the problems with that configuration.
You don't need a 3.x GHz dual core processor to run Vista. While he'd do better with a full gig, that computer (upgraded the way he did) should run Vista without a problem.
It's about time people start using this kind of stuff. I know it's very CPU intensive so it is only now becoming more viable in a game. Still I would prefer this kind of technology and DreamCast or even PS1 quality graphics over the stuff the 360 and PS3 can make without this technology. I've seen videos and game-play of the recent Madden games and while they often look stunning, they still have these errors. Feet "pop" or "slide" as the mo-cap doesn't match up to exactly what's happening.
While this can be a little blip in these games, in other games (say an adventure game) it can be very obvious that these problems are going on and somewhat distracting.
All I ask from "next-gen" is foot-planting. They can be more than just more poly's and shiny effects.
That's true, but as others have pointed out when you get right down to it, Linux is Linux is Linux because it's all about the kernel. As long as they use parts that have drivers in the kernel provide the drivers, you're golden. Same with other little utilities to modify things. They'll all run on Linux, it doesn't matter if the user is using KDE or GNOME. To a certain degree there are only 4 or so distros out there: Red-Hat based, Debian Based, Slackware Based, and Other. Dell can offer any flavor they want (all Fedora, all the time) but as long as the little parts are there then the people who want can go to Ubuntu, Gentoo, or whatever.
On top of that, Linux is free and much more forgiving of hardware changes. Replace the motherboard in a Windows computer and you can run into all sorts of problems. Do it on Linux and if you have it set up right you'll barely notice the change. This means that they could easily offer 2 or 3 distibutions with little additional effort and very little additional cost to them. It's not like going between Windows, OS X, BeOS, and FreeBSD. Fedora and SuSe are based on much the same stuff.
I agree though, it will be very interesting to see how they handle all this.
Yes, but it's all about profit margin, right? Well Linux is free. There Dell just saved $50 a pop (guess). Linux doesn't need anti-virus, so that'll save you another $20. Doesn't need anti-spyware, that's $20. It includes things like firewalls, CD-burning software, and numerous other things. There may be fewer vendors paying to get on the box, but there are also fewer things Dell has to fork out over. My guess is they could price the same and make MORE profit on the Linux box (not including labor differences because they image so many more Windows computers).
For reference, I only mentioned the 60s because video games didn't exist. It had nothing to do with parenting styles and some such. I simply chose that decade for the lack of video-games, and didn't think about it any further.
I posted in this discussion, and I briefly touched on this (just a few words) but I am torn about it. My belief is either this, or sociopathy. I can understand acting out but a certain point (like the beating up a kid in a wheel chair) I have to wonder if he has a conscience at all. I agree with you that divorces (and shuttling, and new marriages, etc) can really mess with a kid. I'm just debating internally whether he was accidently "pushed" into this, he would have headed in this direction but a normal intact family would have been able to deal with it and "save" him until he straightened out, or he is just a sociopath and "born evil".
I usually like to blame the parents, as it is often their fault. You read these stories where the parents had no idea what was going on (Colombine: pipe bomb building in the garage???). Or where the parent just defends them ("Little Johnny never would have done that. The other kids made him do it.").
I gotta say reading that was kind of scary. If I had to take a guess I'd say he is a sociopath (literally), but that's just a guess. He is obviously very intelligent (calling people abusers). The fact they kept investigating it doesn't surprise me (what if it was true one of those times) but he knew how to get power. Kids can also act out like that if they are being abused, so that would lend "credibility".
I'm sure the divorces and remarriages in his life didn't help, but if it really is sociopathic, that probably wouldn't matter. I can offer suggestions of things that might have helped him (if he was help-able). Military boot camp, having him sent to jail those times the police came. Making him a ward of the state. Trying to give him possession of his own life (can't remember the term, basically having him declared an independent adult).
She said she tried "everything" so I don't know which of those were done. I'm amazed that she put up with it for so long.
This kid is REALLY the exception to the rule. He would have been exactly the same if this happened in 1960.
Too bad this kid will probably be the example of what video games do to kids that the media trots out constantly.
People like him (from her description, assuming it's true), are one of the things that make me believe in true evil.
Look, you laugh (I hope your post was just a joke and meant as a valid point), but it's true.
I can't spell all that well, I've always known that. My grammar skills are similarly lacking. But I can do math.
My little sister (14) can't. She can't spell (a family trait compounded by computer use since she was little thanks to the "computers are the magic bullet" theory of modern education). I suspect her grammar is similar (I haven't read a paper she has written in a long time).
But her Math skills are terrible. I don't expect her to be a genius. I understand she is someone who isn't great at it. But they are trying to teach her and her classmates simple algebra (just problems with Xs and Ys). She can't do them without a calculator. I can understand some problems (what's the square root of 147.3?), but for even simple things (56/7) she needs the calculator. She'll hem and haw at it, and I really don't think she could do it in her head. She basically refuses to do 15/3 in problems without running it through the calculator. Her classmates that I've seen are very similar. I have been asked what could be done to help her. My suggestion is always the same: get rid of the calculator.
By the time I was allowed to use calculators, we were expected to know how to do math. People seem amazed at the math I can do in my head. You can't pave over a problem (poor math skills) with something else that depends on it (a calculator) because when something goes wrong (they write a formula down wrong or something) it all falls apart, they are TOTALLY LOST.
I hated not getting to use calculators as kids. I'm sure everyone did. But I think most of us here agree that it was a VERY GOOD THING that they forced us to do that and we weren't allowed to use them until much later. My little sister has been allowed to use them for a few years now.
I agree that the computers in the US are largely wasted. But there are a few things to remember. First is that computers are taught as something you need to get a job. You won't get a job if you can't use Word and Outlook and Powerpoint (so the theory seems) so they teach them. They are basically the replacement of the typing classes that they gave in the 60s and 70s. In the areas where these are going to be distributed that's not the case (I'm guessing). Computers in education in the US exist so little Johnny can type his report.
Second, these are meant to serve more purpose than being glorified typewriters. They are to allow them to learn. Where a kid in the US is told to go look up thing X as an assignment, the people who get these laptops probably won't have physics books, math books, history books, etc. If they do, they probably don't have enough or they are old and out of date. These laptops are meant to be used, at least in part, as the source material to be taught from (like US kids use their textbooks).
Then there is point 3. I kind of alluded to this in the first point. The US education system DOESN'T GET IT. I'll ignore all my other qualms with out system, they don't know what they are doing with computers, that's why they have been relegated to the role of typewriter or library. Negroponte said recently something about this when asked why they are being sent to Alabama or other places in the US. It's because the US educational system just DOESN'T GET IT. Not only that, there are all sorts of people (teachers unions, school boards, parents, etc) who are too afraid of you changing the status quo too much. We admire places like Taiwan or Japan who's students score great on tests through tons and tons of rote memorization. That's not the only way. The OLPC countries are willing to try something different.
I like the idea. I want one myself. I hope it helps the 3rd world. But I REALLY hope it ends up forcing us to re-evaluate the way we teach students in the US if it becomes a great success.
I can tell you from tons of first hand experience, the "computer" education my little sister (14 now) has gotten in all here schooling in a rich school district in the US is practically worthless. Nothing but typing, how to use powerpoint, etc. They are not computer classes. At least they dropped that farce and now call them "Business Technology" or something like that.
Not that they teach how to keep a ledger or use a fax machine or a copier or any other business technology.
You're right. Just think of all those Bank of America accounts waiting to be robbed. Or the PayPal accounts. Or...
I don't think this will be a big problem. I don't think these children would be good phishing targets when relatively rich Americans, Europeans, etc are such easy targets.
I still want one bad. I want them to sell them to geeks like us. I've thought of a few ideas on that front:
Overcharging to help pay for them for other countries or invest in more production
Make them a different color so it is obvious that they were purchased for individuals and not by a government
Sell lower power ones to us so software we write or help develop HAS to be nimble to run on our machines and so it will run even better on the real OLPCs
My only hope that I know of right now is a contest to design a game for them in which you can win an OLPC.
I really want one. I want it I want it I want it I want it I want it...
Can't wait to see what kind of cool things people do with these little laptops.
Are you sure TiVo has never made patches to the kernel that got accepted? I doubt it, I'm sure they have caught and fixed bugs. But even if they didn't, we (as users) get the benefits of them using Linux. Using it cut the development time, cut the price of the box (no OS to develop or license), and reduced bugs (compared to if they had to write their own OS).
And let's not forgot all those people who have hacked their TiVos to do neat things, basically with the implied blessing of TiVo. In fact, I believe that TiVo has even integrated some of those features into their boxes over the years.
Just because someone is using OSS without providing new functionality back to the core all the time doesn't mean they are freeloading.
TiVo is better off, Linux is better off, TiVo users are better off, seems good to me.
Verizon FIOS sounds great to me. But you misunderstood me. As much as I hate Comcast, they are a known enemy. I don't care much about switching to Time Warner. I might, I might not. But if they came to my area, that would be instant competition and I wouldn't be surprised to see my cable bill fall 30% or more within two or three months, if not more. I don't care who it is, I just want someone to come in and compete to force Comcast to stop acting like such a stupid monopoly.
Wow. That has got to me one of the most ignorant and biggoted things I have ever seen on Slashdot. And you got modden insightful.
Let's try thinking, shall we?
The internet lets people in highly remote areas:
Shop for things they have no local access to without driving 2+ hours
Keep an eye on commoditiy prices and such so they can farm more efficently
Discuss farming techniques and such
Entertain themselves when their local video store is tiny and there isn't a theather company anywhere near
Learn things when their local school district has all grades in the same building because it's just that small and can't afford 20+ teachers ini different disciplines
Start/run an internet business and make good money somewhere where the cost of living is very low
Keep in touch with family and friends like the rest of us use the internet for
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but.. I mean... WOW. I know/. hates the red states and red states may have low population density (look at large parts of Montana or even Nevada) but get a clue. This isn't 1900 any more. It's not like the people living in 1800s era cities in the "mountain country" like there were that the TVA was designed to help.
We have civilization here in the middle of the US, despite what stereotypical New York characters in sitcoms think.
This is pure capitalism. Thanks to all the competition in the broadband market, the US is well covered and the prices are great.
No... wait....
Most places are under a monopoly leading to high prices ($60 a month for 2mbps), bad service, late coming to the area, etc.
Let's look at me. I didn't get cable modem access until about 2001 or 2002 despite living near a HUGE development area. One of the fastest growing counties in the entire country at the time. And I'm in a rich/dense neighborhood. You'd think that would spur them.
Nope. I had to pay for ISDN at INSANE prices.
What about DSL? Still not available. "Too far out.". My guess is they just don't want to compete with the established cable. But I don't get a choice of cable so my prices are high and my service is terrible.
Signing up so that only one cable operator or local phone company can operate in an area is one of the worst decisions a municipality can make.
Slashdot Mirror
Now there is a question I have. Why is it that it's the year 2007, the PS3 is a "High Definition" system, and costs $500-$600... yet still only includes the same composite video cables people have been using since the NES 22 years ago?
Do you really think you can compete with XBox Live?
Last generation, XBox Live really blew people away and has set the standard for console connectivity. It will be 6 years old this November. Microsoft seems to have learned from it and has enhanced it for the 360 (like achievement points), and will be introducing it for Windows. Nintendo, sadly, doesn't seem to have learned and will be using "friend codes" again on the Wii, with reports that each game will use different codes.
How well do you think your offering will be able to compete with XBox Live? While there is a price associated with XBL, making a service free doesn't make up for what may be lost. From what I know the PS3 doesn't seem to have the same focus and commitment that Microsoft has. And while some of your ideas are quite interesting (like the Home concept), I have to wonder if it will be seen as being as well developed and integrated as XBL is at this point.
Do you think you can beat XBL this generation, or do you think you might be relegated to playing catchup?
Of course, if you can make something half-interesting, the kid may just start doing something (like reading) on their own. This is the problem I have with this kind of stuff. I didn't get into reading more until I was near the end of high-school. I could read well (thanks to my parents pushing me), but I "hated" reading. The reason is simple. I've never really been one to get into fiction books (although some Sci-Fi grabs me). But I had been forced to read so many books for school that were just terrible I didn't have much interest. Even being given more of a choice of what to read might have helped.
Kids want everything to be fun and easy as you say, and it's not. It's work. But it doesn't always have to be. If you can get the kids to find something interesting and work on that they might start working on learning other things.
Too bad many of the kind of things that might help (art, music, hands-on-experience) are being cut.
Plus, not every kid is the same thus inspiring them doesn't fit into the US's "everyone is educated exactly the same, lowest common denominator" system that we seem to have.
Kids learn better by engaging them. Kids are engaged by video games. Thus, kids will learn better from video games,
I know I look forward to learning about Greek Mythology from God of War II.
Seriously though. I'm all for engaging kids. The better job you do, the more likely they are to engage themselves and learn on their own. You know one thing that doesn't engage students? Spending all your time teaching to a standardized test. Why go outside and show kids plants, plant a little garden, let them learn from that. Instead, we can just show them a picture in a book and force them to memorize what geotropism.
Let's not forget that as you dumb down the curriculum and spend more time going over and over the same stuff so that all the kids can memorize it for the test, the kids who are smart (and already got it) and even those who are just normal (and got it 6 times ago, unlike the kid in the back who eats paste) are getting bored and tuning out. You may get them back, or they may learn that "school is boring".
I like the idea behind "No child left behind." I think holding teachers accountable, as radical as that may be, is a good thing. It's just too bad that everyone decided to implement it by teaching to the test all the time. I remember when I was in elementary and middle school. They would teach us stuff, we'd learn, things were good. There was usually at least something interesting. Until that time of year. Yes, time for the CAT (California Achievement Tests) or whatever other yearly test we used. For the month before the test they did nothing but teach to the test, which was boring to no end since it was always below the stuff we were currently learning.
More hands on lessons. That's what schools need. Hands on stuff, experiments, field trips.
How many people here think they would even remember what the Oregon Trail was if it wasn't for the game? How many people here remember all the historical stuff from the game, and how many just remember seeing how fast you could get your friends killed or trying to get a tombstone so you could write something on it.
I agree about Windows. Most Windows users don't know enough to make the choice even if they know the choice exists. They want a computer, so they bought a Dell or HP or what the guy at Best Buy was selling.
Linux... your statement is a stretch. I used Linux for a while but not because of "personal or social accountability." Many people may do that, but I think many more do it because of the reasons I did: to learn, or because it was not Windows but it was cheaper than a Mac (free, after all).
Your Apple idea I disagree with COMPLETELY. I (and everyone else I know who has switched, mostly techies) went to the Mac because it was not Windows, but still had many of the benefits like commercial software, hardware with drivers on a CD from a manufacturer, coherence (which Linux can feel like it's lacking at times), etc. I didn't do it because it was the popular alternative. If anything that would make me LESS likely to switch. I could care less how "trendy" or "hip" my OS is.
I think your comment would have been about perfect without this line: "Education level correlates with leftward politics...". I agree college students get cheaper Macs, buy a larger percentage of Macs vs PCs compared to the general public, have more free time than 9-5ers, and are more likely to be politically active than an average person.
But education level does not necessarily correlate with education. What about all the "rich republican business leaders" people are always stereotyping with? Don't you think they have a high level of education?
I think your comment, again while mostly accurate, is more reflective of the old maxim: "If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
College student this was a great angle though. That didn't occur to me at all.
Strange, I value the liberty to defend myself, with deadly force if necessary, against a group of people attacking me or a criminal carrying a gun (which they will still do if you make them illegal).
We don't deny all conservation. But are you talking about saving the bald eagle when there were few left, or are you talking about saving a couple dozen acres worth of area in ANOIR that make up less than 0.5% of the total area? Some conservation makes sense, some doesn't. If some group decided to push a ban on lawn-mowing because it hurts dandelions, would you support it or would you think it goes too far and the price is too high? Just a difference of opinion on where the line of value is drawn.
I support both. My justification? The child is innocent, it hasn't even been born. The guy getting the death penalty did something that we as a society have deemed worth of death and been convicted by a jury of his peers. Probably through 5 appeals. They are not the same thing. That's people who don't support abortion are often also against murder: we don't like innocent people being killed.
I would say this one is simple. It's hard to make it illegal to make racist remarks and such when you have complete free speech. But if you speech isn't quite so free... then you can restrict it. Just like it's hard to ban guns (D.C, I'm looking at you) when they are a right (they argue that point, which I see as a loss of liberty compared to the view held for the past 200+ years that owning a gun is a right of an American citizen).
Cheap shot. Why do those who say we should intervene in a civil war/genoicde in Rowanda think we should get out of a "civil war" in Iraq which could easily turn into a Shi'ite/Suni genocide if we leave?
Just thought I'd give you my answers/views. The answers of a conservative, as opposed to the snarky responses from someone who seems liberal but mostly disgusted with politics (which I can agree with completely).
Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.
Second, Office for Mac is really very nice. I have Office 2004 on my Mac (version 11). I've got to say that I like it's interface WAY better than the Windows versions of Office I've used (up to XP, I haven't had much chance with 2k3 or the newest one). It's really a very nice program. If it wasn't from Microsoft, I think it would still sell very well.
I've also heard of them using the Mac version to "test" things. I think the UI that I like so much (the floating pallets on the right side) was probably a part of the precursor to the ribbon they've been touting so much.
The Windows version may have gotten complacent, but the guys in the Mac Business Unit are good at what they do.
What does any of that have to do with the problems he had? Oh, that's right, next to nothing. If you read the article it said that once he had things running it was nice but Vista still had a ton of problems. The only thing on that list that caused him problems was the SB Live which caused three "unidentified hardware" type errors. A search showed him that the card would never work under Vista (no drivers planned) so he got a new one. The graphics card he upgraded before the install because he knew that it was not enough.
But he ran into problems with his PDA (running Windows Mobile), his web-cam (which the update advisor said would work fine), TCP/IP, etc.
Try reading. You learn things. Like what his problems were, or that he fixed the problems with that configuration.
You don't need a 3.x GHz dual core processor to run Vista. While he'd do better with a full gig, that computer (upgraded the way he did) should run Vista without a problem.
It's about time people start using this kind of stuff. I know it's very CPU intensive so it is only now becoming more viable in a game. Still I would prefer this kind of technology and DreamCast or even PS1 quality graphics over the stuff the 360 and PS3 can make without this technology. I've seen videos and game-play of the recent Madden games and while they often look stunning, they still have these errors. Feet "pop" or "slide" as the mo-cap doesn't match up to exactly what's happening.
While this can be a little blip in these games, in other games (say an adventure game) it can be very obvious that these problems are going on and somewhat distracting.
All I ask from "next-gen" is foot-planting. They can be more than just more poly's and shiny effects.
That's true, but as others have pointed out when you get right down to it, Linux is Linux is Linux because it's all about the kernel. As long as they use parts that have drivers in the kernel provide the drivers, you're golden. Same with other little utilities to modify things. They'll all run on Linux, it doesn't matter if the user is using KDE or GNOME. To a certain degree there are only 4 or so distros out there: Red-Hat based, Debian Based, Slackware Based, and Other. Dell can offer any flavor they want (all Fedora, all the time) but as long as the little parts are there then the people who want can go to Ubuntu, Gentoo, or whatever.
On top of that, Linux is free and much more forgiving of hardware changes. Replace the motherboard in a Windows computer and you can run into all sorts of problems. Do it on Linux and if you have it set up right you'll barely notice the change. This means that they could easily offer 2 or 3 distibutions with little additional effort and very little additional cost to them. It's not like going between Windows, OS X, BeOS, and FreeBSD. Fedora and SuSe are based on much the same stuff.
I agree though, it will be very interesting to see how they handle all this.
Yes, but it's all about profit margin, right? Well Linux is free. There Dell just saved $50 a pop (guess). Linux doesn't need anti-virus, so that'll save you another $20. Doesn't need anti-spyware, that's $20. It includes things like firewalls, CD-burning software, and numerous other things. There may be fewer vendors paying to get on the box, but there are also fewer things Dell has to fork out over. My guess is they could price the same and make MORE profit on the Linux box (not including labor differences because they image so many more Windows computers).
For reference, I only mentioned the 60s because video games didn't exist. It had nothing to do with parenting styles and some such. I simply chose that decade for the lack of video-games, and didn't think about it any further.
I posted in this discussion, and I briefly touched on this (just a few words) but I am torn about it. My belief is either this, or sociopathy. I can understand acting out but a certain point (like the beating up a kid in a wheel chair) I have to wonder if he has a conscience at all. I agree with you that divorces (and shuttling, and new marriages, etc) can really mess with a kid. I'm just debating internally whether he was accidently "pushed" into this, he would have headed in this direction but a normal intact family would have been able to deal with it and "save" him until he straightened out, or he is just a sociopath and "born evil".
I usually like to blame the parents, as it is often their fault. You read these stories where the parents had no idea what was going on (Colombine: pipe bomb building in the garage???). Or where the parent just defends them ("Little Johnny never would have done that. The other kids made him do it.").
I gotta say reading that was kind of scary. If I had to take a guess I'd say he is a sociopath (literally), but that's just a guess. He is obviously very intelligent (calling people abusers). The fact they kept investigating it doesn't surprise me (what if it was true one of those times) but he knew how to get power. Kids can also act out like that if they are being abused, so that would lend "credibility".
I'm sure the divorces and remarriages in his life didn't help, but if it really is sociopathic, that probably wouldn't matter. I can offer suggestions of things that might have helped him (if he was help-able). Military boot camp, having him sent to jail those times the police came. Making him a ward of the state. Trying to give him possession of his own life (can't remember the term, basically having him declared an independent adult).
She said she tried "everything" so I don't know which of those were done. I'm amazed that she put up with it for so long.
This kid is REALLY the exception to the rule. He would have been exactly the same if this happened in 1960.
Too bad this kid will probably be the example of what video games do to kids that the media trots out constantly.
People like him (from her description, assuming it's true), are one of the things that make me believe in true evil.
It seems to me, that if the product was created correctly, this could give new meaning to the phrase tooth paste.
Class clowns around the world are waiting in eager anticipation.
Look, you laugh (I hope your post was just a joke and meant as a valid point), but it's true.
I can't spell all that well, I've always known that. My grammar skills are similarly lacking. But I can do math.
My little sister (14) can't. She can't spell (a family trait compounded by computer use since she was little thanks to the "computers are the magic bullet" theory of modern education). I suspect her grammar is similar (I haven't read a paper she has written in a long time).
But her Math skills are terrible. I don't expect her to be a genius. I understand she is someone who isn't great at it. But they are trying to teach her and her classmates simple algebra (just problems with Xs and Ys). She can't do them without a calculator. I can understand some problems (what's the square root of 147.3?), but for even simple things (56/7) she needs the calculator. She'll hem and haw at it, and I really don't think she could do it in her head. She basically refuses to do 15/3 in problems without running it through the calculator. Her classmates that I've seen are very similar. I have been asked what could be done to help her. My suggestion is always the same: get rid of the calculator.
By the time I was allowed to use calculators, we were expected to know how to do math. People seem amazed at the math I can do in my head. You can't pave over a problem (poor math skills) with something else that depends on it (a calculator) because when something goes wrong (they write a formula down wrong or something) it all falls apart, they are TOTALLY LOST.
I hated not getting to use calculators as kids. I'm sure everyone did. But I think most of us here agree that it was a VERY GOOD THING that they forced us to do that and we weren't allowed to use them until much later. My little sister has been allowed to use them for a few years now.
I agree that the computers in the US are largely wasted. But there are a few things to remember. First is that computers are taught as something you need to get a job. You won't get a job if you can't use Word and Outlook and Powerpoint (so the theory seems) so they teach them. They are basically the replacement of the typing classes that they gave in the 60s and 70s. In the areas where these are going to be distributed that's not the case (I'm guessing). Computers in education in the US exist so little Johnny can type his report.
Second, these are meant to serve more purpose than being glorified typewriters. They are to allow them to learn. Where a kid in the US is told to go look up thing X as an assignment, the people who get these laptops probably won't have physics books, math books, history books, etc. If they do, they probably don't have enough or they are old and out of date. These laptops are meant to be used, at least in part, as the source material to be taught from (like US kids use their textbooks).
Then there is point 3. I kind of alluded to this in the first point. The US education system DOESN'T GET IT. I'll ignore all my other qualms with out system, they don't know what they are doing with computers, that's why they have been relegated to the role of typewriter or library. Negroponte said recently something about this when asked why they are being sent to Alabama or other places in the US. It's because the US educational system just DOESN'T GET IT. Not only that, there are all sorts of people (teachers unions, school boards, parents, etc) who are too afraid of you changing the status quo too much. We admire places like Taiwan or Japan who's students score great on tests through tons and tons of rote memorization. That's not the only way. The OLPC countries are willing to try something different.
I like the idea. I want one myself. I hope it helps the 3rd world. But I REALLY hope it ends up forcing us to re-evaluate the way we teach students in the US if it becomes a great success.
I can tell you from tons of first hand experience, the "computer" education my little sister (14 now) has gotten in all here schooling in a rich school district in the US is practically worthless. Nothing but typing, how to use powerpoint, etc. They are not computer classes. At least they dropped that farce and now call them "Business Technology" or something like that.
Not that they teach how to keep a ledger or use a fax machine or a copier or any other business technology.
You're right. Just think of all those Bank of America accounts waiting to be robbed. Or the PayPal accounts. Or...
I don't think this will be a big problem. I don't think these children would be good phishing targets when relatively rich Americans, Europeans, etc are such easy targets.
I still want one bad. I want them to sell them to geeks like us. I've thought of a few ideas on that front:
My only hope that I know of right now is a contest to design a game for them in which you can win an OLPC.
I really want one. I want it I want it I want it I want it I want it...
Can't wait to see what kind of cool things people do with these little laptops.
Are you sure TiVo has never made patches to the kernel that got accepted? I doubt it, I'm sure they have caught and fixed bugs. But even if they didn't, we (as users) get the benefits of them using Linux. Using it cut the development time, cut the price of the box (no OS to develop or license), and reduced bugs (compared to if they had to write their own OS).
And let's not forgot all those people who have hacked their TiVos to do neat things, basically with the implied blessing of TiVo. In fact, I believe that TiVo has even integrated some of those features into their boxes over the years.
Just because someone is using OSS without providing new functionality back to the core all the time doesn't mean they are freeloading.
TiVo is better off, Linux is better off, TiVo users are better off, seems good to me.
Verizon FIOS sounds great to me. But you misunderstood me. As much as I hate Comcast, they are a known enemy. I don't care much about switching to Time Warner. I might, I might not. But if they came to my area, that would be instant competition and I wouldn't be surprised to see my cable bill fall 30% or more within two or three months, if not more. I don't care who it is, I just want someone to come in and compete to force Comcast to stop acting like such a stupid monopoly.
Wow. That has got to me one of the most ignorant and biggoted things I have ever seen on Slashdot. And you got modden insightful.
Let's try thinking, shall we?
The internet lets people in highly remote areas:
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but.. I mean... WOW. I know /. hates the red states and red states may have low population density (look at large parts of Montana or even Nevada) but get a clue. This isn't 1900 any more. It's not like the people living in 1800s era cities in the "mountain country" like there were that the TVA was designed to help.
We have civilization here in the middle of the US, despite what stereotypical New York characters in sitcoms think.
This is pure capitalism. Thanks to all the competition in the broadband market, the US is well covered and the prices are great.
No... wait....
Most places are under a monopoly leading to high prices ($60 a month for 2mbps), bad service, late coming to the area, etc.
Let's look at me. I didn't get cable modem access until about 2001 or 2002 despite living near a HUGE development area. One of the fastest growing counties in the entire country at the time. And I'm in a rich/dense neighborhood. You'd think that would spur them.
Nope. I had to pay for ISDN at INSANE prices.
What about DSL? Still not available. "Too far out.". My guess is they just don't want to compete with the established cable. But I don't get a choice of cable so my prices are high and my service is terrible.
Signing up so that only one cable operator or local phone company can operate in an area is one of the worst decisions a municipality can make.
Please, Time Warner, come save me from Comcrud.