Seriously. ISO has no power of any kind over anyone. ISO only has any power or value as long as people belive ISO is worth listening to. If we all simply ignore ISO in every way we can, then they will dry up and blow away. Problem solved.
I'm a member at the TechShop, and they have a 3D printer from Stratasys. It prints in ABS, what Lego is made of, but it doesn't yield Lego-like parts. First, resolution is limited because it feeds small diameter ABS rod from spools and fuses it together -- imagine printing in 3D with weed-whacker cord and you have a good mental picture. Secondly, it is not as strong because it has lots of heat-fused joints and also not all ABS is created equal. You can dip your resulting part in acetone and get the whole thing to fuse together better, and improve the surface finish, but it doesn't improve the resolution.
Whether or not the part is strong enough to use directly in the application depends on a lot of factors, but it will be more brittle and quite a bit less strong than an optimized injection-molded part. Heli blades made from this technology are probably a health hazard. I've seen suspension parts made for R/C trucks, though, because the builder could print a part thick enough and otherwise large enough to handle the load.
The material costs in the range of $10-$15 per cubic inch of consumed volume. Be aware that since it can't start printing in mid air, cantelever sections need a break-away scaffolding printed underneath them. (Think coffee cup handle - you need to build from the table to the bottom of the handle, and also fill in the hole to build the top part of the handle on something.) Since it isn't solid, you don't consume a whole cubic inch of material to get a "cubic inch" of scaffold, but it does add to the cost of the completed part. Since material volume is directly proportional to machine time, the $/in^3 factor is both rolled together, since there is a maintenance contract on the machine to pay for and so forth.
Where it could be really cool is for making a master for a vacuum-formed widget, I have some ideas for that. One member printed a master that he rammed up in a sand mold and poured aluminum castings -- I think he was casting eye balls for a giant dragon sculpture he was building.
My thought for the day: Your staff is there to educate you. You will be too busy to keep up, and to do all your own filtering and analysis. Make sure they know it is their job to keep you up to date on things that matter.
My favorite meeting moment: Boss steps into my cube for 1-on-1 meeting. I fire up a demo of a new technology I think he should see. Boss: "I just got out of a 1-on-1 with the general manager! He asked me what I knew about this and if I had started a project on it! I had to tell him I had never heard of it. Why didn't you show me sooner?" Me: "You're the one that rescheduled our 1-on-1 3 times this week."
The great thing about having a staff is the astronomical amount of information you can learn from them. Their job is to find and filter it. Your job is to make decisions with it.
It's interesting that you should pick on "Camptown Races", by Stephen Foster. Foster was pretty much the first person to attempt to make a living as a writer of popular songs. It was a tough slog, mainly due to the fact that his work was widely "pirated" by music publishers. It is in part because of his efforts in the early days that songwriters today actually can make a living writing music.
BTW -- if you want an intelligent, well-researched, non-corny, sensitive, and exquisitely recorded selection of Stephen Foster works, go here: http://www.joeweed.com/ and look for "Swanee - The Music of Stephen Foster". (Disclaimer: yes, Joe is a friend of mine. My opinion of his work wouldn't change if he wasn't -- just google for some reviews.)
A key differentiator among Linux distros is package inclusion policies and release policies. Some people like Ubuntu because it has "stable" packages -- I can hardly stand Ubuntu because it has stale packages. I prefer rolling-release distros -- Shuttleworth's idea doesn't even have a translation into that world.
Choice is good. Package QA and selection policies are a big part of what drives the choice.
.. because I could safely ignore the language until such day as it became relevant. As to the future, now the language has a chance to prosper, if it can catch up.
As an engineering manager, I've hired a lot (and fired a few) engineers and tech writers.
I don't give a rat's behind what your grades are. I care if you can think. Yes, I've rejected 4.0 "homework machines" and hired lesser GPA candidates who showed me that they could problem-solve, not just answer homework. And major doesn't matter much either, if you can show you can do the work. One of the best programmers I know has degrees in linguistics, not engineering.
So, here's some advice to all you still in school: 1) Don't confuse getting good grades with getting a good education. 2) Hiring managers are looking for people that solve problems, not cause problems.
Many kids at that age are kinesthetic learners. So, associate a password with a sequence of motions she can put her body through.
For instance: small jump = j big jump = J run in a circle = o touch your nose = n touch your ear = e touch your knee = k count to 5 on your fingers = 5, etc, etc.
So... she may be able to remember "little jump, big jump, count to three, touch your knee" very easily. After she "performs" her password a few times, she'll know it forever. Especially if you can associate it with a rhyming game.
The Ubuntu community forums, happily, seem to be frequented by more polite human beings,
Polite, perhaps, but often clueless. See grandparent post about the people who hang out in forums not really knowing anything.
I've been running Linux for many years... heck, I was using Unix in the 1970's. I was a Slackware user for many years, and have most of my machines converted over to Gentoo now. So... I installed Edubuntu on my daughter's machine (she loves Edubuntu, BTW. Nice package selection for kids.) Anyway, I had some "getting started" kind of questions about Ubuntu, not obvious ones, but "experienced Linux user encountering different system organization" questions.
Most of my questions were met with dead silence. I guess keeping your mouth shut when you are clueless is being polite, but the net effect was the community was no help to me.
Anyway, despite the fact that Edubuntu is a very nicely done package for kids, it convinced me never to put Ubuntu on a production machine. Why? 1) The packages are stone-age stale. 2) The forums are of little use to me.
You're missing the point. Where does the good signature come from? This is a release candidate CD -- a CD full of freshly revised software and documentation from 100+ developers in 5 sites on 3 continents, all building their deliverables on workstations in some degree of maintenance. Any one of them can source a virus onto their deliverable. You can only make a checksum once you have a known good master. My job was to declare a candidate master "known good".
Once upon a time I managed a software product testing team. Part of our standard flow for all release candidate CD's was to get fresh signatures and virus scan as both step one and also with refreshed signatures as the last step (2 or 3 weeks later) of declaring a release candidate ready for release. We *still* shipped a CD with malware once, a virus that was too new to show up in the signature files from the scanning software company. Lukily, it was a beta that went to less than 100 customers, and it was a relatively benign Word macro virus. Still, I had to explain to a Vice President how we did virus scanning for releases.
As a result of this, we started using virus scanners from three different manufacturers. As a software vendor, the risk of shipping a nasty virus to your best customers is very real, no matter how hard you try to prevent it.
... if the reason you are going to University is to get a job. You should be there to learn how to think.
Speaking as someone who has spent 20 years on the _other_ side of the interview desk, I care a whole lot less about what you know, than I do about what you can learn. Engineering is a problem solving profession. Show me you can think. Show me you know how to solve problems. If what you "know" is something that you can bring to bear on a problem in a creative way, good. If what you know is how to solve homeworks, buh-bye.
I've intviewed people with an MS and a 4.0 GPA from a name brand university who, when given an interview problem, silently work out some answer, and without checking it, turn the pad around for me to see like I'm some T.A. who is going to check and grade their work. HELLLO... I'm not hiring you so I can check your work, I'm hiring you so you can check my work. And you get to check your own work before you present it to me. And most of all, I'm hiring you to invent things nobody has thought of before. Show me you can do that. If the university is not turning your brain into a tool for inventing, tell off your profs and transfer.
Here's a hint for you. My favorite interview question: "Tell me about something that you taught yourself." Why? It demonstrates determination and ability to find answers for yourself, as well as demonstrating that you are a natural problem solver, not somebody who looks on an engineering education as a meal ticket.
Yes, exactly my question when I read it. How are they going to refresh the seeds? I've read about various heritage seed farms, and keeping old varieties alive is a bunch of work. As you say, they need to be planted while they are still vital so that you get a reasonable germination rate. The Norskies don't seem to be addressing that. I don't buy that the freezing methodology is a complete solution to that. The other thing is keeping varieties pure. Let's say you have 7 varieties of carrots. You can't plant them anywhere near to each other in he same year, or they cross pollinate and their goes your pure strain. So the problem has multiple constraints.
I use QCad extensively for 2D work. BRL-CAD is one of the oldest open source programs around -- dates from the 1970's -- and drives about any 3D file format you can imagine.
At the university I attended, freshmen engineering in 1973-74 required the use of a slide rule. In the 74-75 year, you could take freshmen engineering with either a "slip-stick" or a calculator. My freshmen year, fall of '75, required a pocket calculator. I was facile with a slide from from high school chemistry and physics, and can still do the basics, but haven't used one since. So the transition from slide rule to calculator was very fast.
A slide rule enforces estimating a reasonable answer before hand, and encourges arranging computations for economy of calculation. I think there is a big benefit to critical thinking skills in praticing basic computation with a slide rule.
That said, computers have made it possible to do what was formerly impossible due to computational expense. Integrated circuits would not be where they are if you couldn't burn many flops running spice. Cars would weigh more and get less gas mileage without mechanical simulations because they would have to be over-built in order to simplify strength calculations. Pre-computer-simulation camera optics suck when compared to modern computer optimized lens, ditto for antennas.
I once met a guy whose mother was a computer.... that was her job title: "computer". She worked for a university research department, where row upon row of "computers", mostly women, sat in front of mechanical calculators all day long, 40 hours per week, cranking through tablets of computations for various numerical models. Modern electronic computers enable solutions to problems there were too expensive to attack before, and life *is* better as a result.
While I can't disagree with anything that you say, still it seems to me that the right place for an author to make his wishes known is in the license. How hard is that? Anything less is simply intellectually lazy.
And here is some raw data for you from actual Real World (TM) experience. At one Fortune 500 former employer of mine, code got released under a variety of licenses, including proprietary, BSD, and GPL, as fit the need of the situation. BSD was the license of choice for "fire and forget" situations, where the company wanted the code out there (working example code in an application note, for instance) but didn't want to be a long-term maintainer. One company lawyer said, and I'm quoting precisely: "Don't worry, a free version will always be available. Somebody somewhere will slap a GPL on it within 7 seconds of release." So you see, some people chose the BSD when they actively *want* the code to be forked under the GPL.
There is debate as to whether IQ falls on a normal distribution. Some think there is a "double hump" and that there is another peak someplace above 140. Remember, the normal distribution is simply a convenient assumption to make the math easier for statisticians -- it doesn't apply in all cases.
You are mis-informed. Many IQ tests have ceilings, that is true. The commonly used ones typically ceiling at 145. The Stanfor-Binet form L-M has no ceiling. Unfortunatly, it is an aging test. Some of the questions are anachronistic. Still, it is the best we have. Even then, the statistics get pretty thin above 180 or so. My daughter hit the ceiling in most areas of a modern IQ test. The 187 score was measured by the S-B L-M as administered by the Gifted Development Center in Denver. I belive the GDC is better informed than you.
A score above 140 in any single segment of an IQ test as administered by most school districts should be examined. The child may have hit a test ceiling, and should be retested using a test with higher ceilings. Most school districts will not be well informed in this area.
Sorry to inform you, but it doesn't work like that. Kid's need intellectual coaching, just like the future sports stars need sports coaching. What if you had a stand-out little leaguer, and the coach absolutely refused to nurture that athletic giftedness. Two things would happen: a) the kid would not become a major leaguer, even if he had the potential, and b) every dad in the neighborhood would get together and form a lynch mob to take out the coach (rightly so, I'd join). Yet, your attitude with respect to intellectual giftedness is extremely common -- and it absolutely does great harm to these kids.
My own 8 year old daughter would not be able to teach herself math, physics, geometry, literature -- but she absorbs coaching very well. Oh... and she has an IQ of 187, and reads at the college sophomore level. Do the math: earlier in this thread an IQ of 70 was labeled special needs, and an IQ of 130 was labeled gifted. 130-70 = 60. Now, observe that 130+60 = 190, or roughly my daughter's IQ. Does she belong in a class with kids whose IQ is 100-130? If you say the kid with an IQ of 130 does not belong in the same class as the kids with IQ of 70, you have to say no. But she *does* need teaching, coaching, and peer interaction.
It's great to watch her get together with kids that are both age and intellectual peers. She and one of her friends were both studying Egyptology when they were 6 years old. They got together to play -- and did the normal 6 year old "dress up" thing that girls do... except that all the stuffed animals were turned into Egyptian gods and they wove Egyptian history into their play. *That* is why you need to give these kids a chance to interact with each other. A normal classroom is a torture for these kids.
In the 35 years that I have been a computer professional, I've observed that the form factors change very little. The computing power and storage available per square foot has gone up radically, and some new form factors have emerged -- lap top, palm top -- but the fact remains that, by and large, the "square foot" categories remain the same.
1975: Pheasant Under Glass computer rooms. 2007: Lights out server room.
1975: PDP-11/35 2007: Single rack departmental server stack.
1975: 24x80 "glass teletype" time shared VAX. 2007: desktop
1975: first "lugables" on the drawing board. 2007: lap top.
The desktop will not die until the desk dies. It may change form, as the mainframe has been largely replaced by racked up servers, but the *footprint* still exists.
The police actions are not being recored from the point of view of the policed.
Now, if everyone else wore a camera on their head and recorded the police, *then* the police action would be recorded. Given how many times I have seen footage of police putting their hands over TV camera lenses in order to stop the filming of what ever the police were doing, I somehow don't think the idea of all of us pointing our cameras at *them* would be popular.
The first time a camera-wearing officer tries to stop a citizen from filming the officer, *then* we will see what this is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously. ISO has no power of any kind over anyone. ISO only has any power or value as long as people belive ISO is worth listening to. If we all simply ignore ISO in every way we can, then they will dry up and blow away. Problem solved.
I'm a member at the TechShop, and they have a 3D printer from Stratasys. It prints in ABS, what Lego is made of, but it doesn't yield Lego-like parts. First, resolution is limited because it feeds small diameter ABS rod from spools and fuses it together -- imagine printing in 3D with weed-whacker cord and you have a good mental picture. Secondly, it is not as strong because it has lots of heat-fused joints and also not all ABS is created equal. You can dip your resulting part in acetone and get the whole thing to fuse together better, and improve the surface finish, but it doesn't improve the resolution.
Whether or not the part is strong enough to use directly in the application depends on a lot of factors, but it will be more brittle and quite a bit less strong than an optimized injection-molded part. Heli blades made from this technology are probably a health hazard. I've seen suspension parts made for R/C trucks, though, because the builder could print a part thick enough and otherwise large enough to handle the load.
The material costs in the range of $10-$15 per cubic inch of consumed volume. Be aware that since it can't start printing in mid air, cantelever sections need a break-away scaffolding printed underneath them. (Think coffee cup handle - you need to build from the table to the bottom of the handle, and also fill in the hole to build the top part of the handle on something.) Since it isn't solid, you don't consume a whole cubic inch of material to get a "cubic inch" of scaffold, but it does add to the cost of the completed part. Since material volume is directly proportional to machine time, the $/in^3 factor is both rolled together, since there is a maintenance contract on the machine to pay for and so forth.
Where it could be really cool is for making a master for a vacuum-formed widget, I have some ideas for that. One member printed a master that he rammed up in a sand mold and poured aluminum castings -- I think he was casting eye balls for a giant dragon sculpture he was building.
... somebody has discovered "the secret of Stradavari" yet again.
My thought for the day: Your staff is there to educate you. You will be too busy to keep up, and to do all your own filtering and analysis. Make sure they know it is their job to keep you up to date on things that matter.
My favorite meeting moment: Boss steps into my cube for 1-on-1 meeting. I fire up a demo of a new technology I think he should see. Boss: "I just got out of a 1-on-1 with the general manager! He asked me what I knew about this and if I had started a project on it! I had to tell him I had never heard of it. Why didn't you show me sooner?" Me: "You're the one that rescheduled our 1-on-1 3 times this week."
The great thing about having a staff is the astronomical amount of information you can learn from them. Their job is to find and filter it. Your job is to make decisions with it.
It's interesting that you should pick on "Camptown Races", by Stephen Foster. Foster was pretty much the first person to attempt to make a living as a writer of popular songs. It was a tough slog, mainly due to the fact that his work was widely "pirated" by music publishers. It is in part because of his efforts in the early days that songwriters today actually can make a living writing music.
BTW -- if you want an intelligent, well-researched, non-corny, sensitive, and exquisitely recorded selection of Stephen Foster works, go here: http://www.joeweed.com/ and look for "Swanee - The Music of Stephen Foster". (Disclaimer: yes, Joe is a friend of mine. My opinion of his work wouldn't change if he wasn't -- just google for some reviews.)
A key differentiator among Linux distros is package inclusion policies and release policies. Some people like Ubuntu because it has "stable" packages -- I can hardly stand Ubuntu because it has stale packages. I prefer rolling-release distros -- Shuttleworth's idea doesn't even have a translation into that world.
Choice is good. Package QA and selection policies are a big part of what drives the choice.
Hey, Mark: NAK Reject
.. because I could safely ignore the language until such day as it became relevant. As to the future, now the language has a chance to prosper, if it can catch up.
As an engineering manager, I've hired a lot (and fired a few) engineers and tech writers.
I don't give a rat's behind what your grades are. I care if you can think. Yes, I've rejected 4.0 "homework machines" and hired lesser GPA candidates who showed me that they could problem-solve, not just answer homework. And major doesn't matter much either, if you can show you can do the work. One of the best programmers I know has degrees in linguistics, not engineering.
So, here's some advice to all you still in school: 1) Don't confuse getting good grades with getting a good education. 2) Hiring managers are looking for people that solve problems, not cause problems.
I hear they are pretty good a doing hardware/software system audits and design reviews.
Many kids at that age are kinesthetic learners. So, associate a password with a sequence of motions she can put her body through.
For instance:
small jump = j
big jump = J
run in a circle = o
touch your nose = n
touch your ear = e
touch your knee = k
count to 5 on your fingers = 5, etc, etc.
So... she may be able to remember "little jump, big jump, count to three, touch your knee" very easily. After she "performs" her password a few times, she'll know it forever. Especially if you can associate it with a rhyming game.
Polite, perhaps, but often clueless. See grandparent post about the people who hang out in forums not really knowing anything.
I've been running Linux for many years... heck, I was using Unix in the 1970's. I was a Slackware user for many years, and have most of my machines converted over to Gentoo now. So... I installed Edubuntu on my daughter's machine (she loves Edubuntu, BTW. Nice package selection for kids.) Anyway, I had some "getting started" kind of questions about Ubuntu, not obvious ones, but "experienced Linux user encountering different system organization" questions.
Most of my questions were met with dead silence. I guess keeping your mouth shut when you are clueless is being polite, but the net effect was the community was no help to me.
Anyway, despite the fact that Edubuntu is a very nicely done package for kids, it convinced me never to put Ubuntu on a production machine. Why? 1) The packages are stone-age stale. 2) The forums are of little use to me.
You're missing the point. Where does the good signature come from? This is a release candidate CD -- a CD full of freshly revised software and documentation from 100+ developers in 5 sites on 3 continents, all building their deliverables on workstations in some degree of maintenance. Any one of them can source a virus onto their deliverable. You can only make a checksum once you have a known good master. My job was to declare a candidate master "known good".
Once upon a time I managed a software product testing team. Part of our standard flow for all release candidate CD's was to get fresh signatures and virus scan as both step one and also with refreshed signatures as the last step (2 or 3 weeks later) of declaring a release candidate ready for release. We *still* shipped a CD with malware once, a virus that was too new to show up in the signature files from the scanning software company. Lukily, it was a beta that went to less than 100 customers, and it was a relatively benign Word macro virus. Still, I had to explain to a Vice President how we did virus scanning for releases.
As a result of this, we started using virus scanners from three different manufacturers. As a software vendor, the risk of shipping a nasty virus to your best customers is very real, no matter how hard you try to prevent it.
... if the reason you are going to University is to get a job. You should be there to learn how to think.
Speaking as someone who has spent 20 years on the _other_ side of the interview desk, I care a whole lot less about what you know, than I do about what you can learn. Engineering is a problem solving profession. Show me you can think. Show me you know how to solve problems. If what you "know" is something that you can bring to bear on a problem in a creative way, good. If what you know is how to solve homeworks, buh-bye.
I've intviewed people with an MS and a 4.0 GPA from a name brand university who, when given an interview problem, silently work out some answer, and without checking it, turn the pad around for me to see like I'm some T.A. who is going to check and grade their work. HELLLO... I'm not hiring you so I can check your work, I'm hiring you so you can check my work. And you get to check your own work before you present it to me. And most of all, I'm hiring you to invent things nobody has thought of before. Show me you can do that. If the university is not turning your brain into a tool for inventing, tell off your profs and transfer.
Here's a hint for you. My favorite interview question: "Tell me about something that you taught yourself."
Why? It demonstrates determination and ability to find answers for yourself, as well as demonstrating that you are a natural problem solver, not somebody who looks on an engineering education as a meal ticket.
Yes, exactly my question when I read it. How are they going to refresh the seeds? I've read about various heritage seed farms, and keeping old varieties alive is a bunch of work. As you say, they need to be planted while they are still vital so that you get a reasonable germination rate. The Norskies don't seem to be addressing that. I don't buy that the freezing methodology is a complete solution to that. The other thing is keeping varieties pure. Let's say you have 7 varieties of carrots. You can't plant them anywhere near to each other in he same year, or they cross pollinate and their goes your pure strain. So the problem has multiple constraints.
I use QCad extensively for 2D work. BRL-CAD is one of the oldest open source programs around -- dates from the 1970's -- and drives about any 3D file format you can imagine.
OK, I guess this is now the definition of a civil war. Let's hope the new government, if one comes to pass, is better than the old one.
We had our choice of calculator. HP-55 for me. RPN forever!
At the university I attended, freshmen engineering in 1973-74 required the use of a slide rule. In the 74-75 year, you could take freshmen engineering with either a "slip-stick" or a calculator. My freshmen year, fall of '75, required a pocket calculator. I was facile with a slide from from high school chemistry and physics, and can still do the basics, but haven't used one since. So the transition from slide rule to calculator was very fast.
A slide rule enforces estimating a reasonable answer before hand, and encourges arranging computations for economy of calculation. I think there is a big benefit to critical thinking skills in praticing basic computation with a slide rule.
That said, computers have made it possible to do what was formerly impossible due to computational expense. Integrated circuits would not be where they are if you couldn't burn many flops running spice. Cars would weigh more and get less gas mileage without mechanical simulations because they would have to be over-built in order to simplify strength calculations. Pre-computer-simulation camera optics suck when compared to modern computer optimized lens, ditto for antennas.
I once met a guy whose mother was a computer.... that was her job title: "computer". She worked for a university research department, where row upon row of "computers", mostly women, sat in front of mechanical calculators all day long, 40 hours per week, cranking through tablets of computations for various numerical models. Modern electronic computers enable solutions to problems there were too expensive to attack before, and life *is* better as a result.
While I can't disagree with anything that you say, still it seems to me that the right place for an author to make his wishes known is in the license. How hard is that? Anything less is simply intellectually lazy.
And here is some raw data for you from actual Real World (TM) experience. At one Fortune 500 former employer of mine, code got released under a variety of licenses, including proprietary, BSD, and GPL, as fit the need of the situation. BSD was the license of choice for "fire and forget" situations, where the company wanted the code out there (working example code in an application note, for instance) but didn't want to be a long-term maintainer. One company lawyer said, and I'm quoting precisely: "Don't worry, a free version will always be available. Somebody somewhere will slap a GPL on it within 7 seconds of release." So you see, some people chose the BSD when they actively *want* the code to be forked under the GPL.
There is debate as to whether IQ falls on a normal distribution. Some think there is a "double hump" and that there is another peak someplace above 140. Remember, the normal distribution is simply a convenient assumption to make the math easier for statisticians -- it doesn't apply in all cases.
You are mis-informed. Many IQ tests have ceilings, that is true. The commonly used ones typically ceiling at 145. The Stanfor-Binet form L-M has no ceiling. Unfortunatly, it is an aging test. Some of the questions are anachronistic. Still, it is the best we have. Even then, the statistics get pretty thin above 180 or so. My daughter hit the ceiling in most areas of a modern IQ test. The 187 score was measured by the S-B L-M as administered by the Gifted Development Center in Denver. I belive the GDC is better informed than you.
A score above 140 in any single segment of an IQ test as administered by most school districts should be examined. The child may have hit a test ceiling, and should be retested using a test with higher ceilings. Most school districts will not be well informed in this area.
Sorry to inform you, but it doesn't work like that. Kid's need intellectual coaching, just like the future sports stars need sports coaching. What if you had a stand-out little leaguer, and the coach absolutely refused to nurture that athletic giftedness. Two things would happen: a) the kid would not become a major leaguer, even if he had the potential, and b) every dad in the neighborhood would get together and form a lynch mob to take out the coach (rightly so, I'd join). Yet, your attitude with respect to intellectual giftedness is extremely common -- and it absolutely does great harm to these kids.
My own 8 year old daughter would not be able to teach herself math, physics, geometry, literature -- but she absorbs coaching very well. Oh... and she has an IQ of 187, and reads at the college sophomore level. Do the math: earlier in this thread an IQ of 70 was labeled special needs, and an IQ of 130 was labeled gifted. 130-70 = 60. Now, observe that 130+60 = 190, or roughly my daughter's IQ. Does she belong in a class with kids whose IQ is 100-130? If you say the kid with an IQ of 130 does not belong in the same class as the kids with IQ of 70, you have to say no. But she *does* need teaching, coaching, and peer interaction.
It's great to watch her get together with kids that are both age and intellectual peers. She and one of her friends were both studying Egyptology when they were 6 years old. They got together to play -- and did the normal 6 year old "dress up" thing that girls do... except that all the stuffed animals were turned into Egyptian gods and they wove Egyptian history into their play. *That* is why you need to give these kids a chance to interact with each other. A normal classroom is a torture for these kids.
(Or square meter, in some countries :)
In the 35 years that I have been a computer professional, I've observed that the form factors change very little. The computing power and storage available per square foot has gone up radically, and some new form factors have emerged -- lap top, palm top -- but the fact remains that, by and large, the "square foot" categories remain the same.
1975: Pheasant Under Glass computer rooms.
2007: Lights out server room.
1975: PDP-11/35
2007: Single rack departmental server stack.
1975: 24x80 "glass teletype" time shared VAX.
2007: desktop
1975: first "lugables" on the drawing board.
2007: lap top.
1975: HP-55 calculator
2007: Palm (or whatever they call themselves today).
The desktop will not die until the desk dies. It may change form, as the mainframe has been largely replaced by racked up servers, but the *footprint* still exists.
The police actions are not being recored from the point of view of the policed.
Now, if everyone else wore a camera on their head and recorded the police, *then* the police action would be recorded. Given how many times I have seen footage of police putting their hands over TV camera lenses in order to stop the filming of what ever the police were doing, I somehow don't think the idea of all of us pointing our cameras at *them* would be popular.
The first time a camera-wearing officer tries to stop a citizen from filming the officer, *then* we will see what this is all about.