Fifth, This whole separation of church and state thing. NEVER was today's situation meant to happen and our founding fathers are rolling over in thier graves. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting it come to this point. If you dig around, and find statistics, You will find that most of the bad features of America started right when God was removed from schools. Crime rate, Abortion, Murder, Premarital sex, The inability of the average person to keep their promises on anything. Think about it. The reason is so simple. Nobody feels like they are responsible to anyone, not even God.
Which leads us to Six. What is being taught in schools is so terribly inacurate. The driving force for most of early American history is the belief in God. Telling the American story without mentioning God is like trying to explain how a nuclear reactor works without explaining what fission is. "Oh well these rod thingies get hot and- Why? Well they just do. Trust me, I work for the govornment."
Speaking as someone who is rather fond of "This whole separation of church and state thing", I disagree. First, some of us are not Christians. Does this mean our children should be forced to learn your religion? Or perhaps "special shcools" are in order? Maybe they should just shuffle their feet and look vaguely uncomfortable everytime someone mentions religion. Heh, I was a teacher for a year. Do Wiccan teachers get to lead the children in Sabbats and Esabbats, or do only Christian teachers get to provide religous guidence to children? Public schools get paid for out of public money, and if they expouse your religious views over mine, they are creating a sitution of favoritism. Certainly you have the right (which you excercised) to teach your children your own views in your own way, but critisising the public system for trying to be as fair as possible is un reasonable. Imagine you lived in Salt Lake City where the majority of the population is Mormon. Would you want "God" to be in the schools there? Someone else's God? (I'm not knocking Mormons here, just using that as an example, since there are relativly few places in this country where "standard" Protesant Christian views are not dominant.)
As to your statement about about the the relationship of relgion to history, and the founding fathers.. I have to both agree and disagree with you. First, you are right that the history of this nation cannot be taught without mentioning God. Yes, here I am talking about the Christian God, his preceived will has been a dominatin force in outr nation's history. One point I disagree on is your implication that this has always, or even often, been a good thing. Christian sentiment in this country has been responsible for amonst other things in our history: Prohibition, the Red Scare, the Salem Witch Trials (No, I am not a rabid Wiccan who thinks that Witch trial were either common or even successful in US History, but Salem was a stand out), Slavery (Yes it was also important in abolitionist circles, I'll get to that), the near eradication of the native population of this contient, and more than one war. On the other hand it has also been responsible for the progressive movement (Which had its good and bad points, but was generally positive), abolitionism, recent movements toward Civil Rights for various respressed people, and various antiwar movements. Hardly a perfect record. I might also add that this country is far less violent than it typically has been in it's history, and you are attempting to compare today's modern "degeneration" to the imagined perfections of the late forties and the fifties. Even if they had been as beautiful as pop culture portrays them, they were an aberation in American history. And I rather doubt that too many black southerners who were alive then would pain the picture that Ozy and Harriet did.
As to the founding fathers, some 25% of the them were probably Deists, who really didn't have much to sasy on the subject of religion in the first place. As a rule, whenever people bring up the "intent" of the founding fathers, early Americanists kinda laugh. The truth is that only a small fraction of them left enough info about themselves to really get an idea what their "intent" was, and the of those that did, much of it is contradictory. The famous Jeffersonian "All men are created equal" from a slave owner is just one example. Most writings of his indicate that Jefferson KNEW slavery was wrong, but could not see a reasonable way out. The founding fathers were men of great courage certainly, but still, alas, human, and full of contradiction. While some may be turning over in their graves from the removal of Christianity from public schools, most are probably resting as well as their own deeds will allow them.
Why yes, I do have a BA in history that I hardly ever get to drag out.
Re:Do what my university did
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Heh! My department would fall apart if the Uni banned *nix machines. Most of the Professors use either Linux or Solaris, I use Linux on my workstation (Dept. Sys Admin), and all of our graduate student computers run Linux (We're cheap, the hardware is old and Linux run much nicer that Win95 which the best these babies could handle). We'd be bankrupt just buying licences for all the copies of Windows we'd need (Not to mention the faculty and staff rebellion (well ok, I'd actually be the only on to notice on the staff)).
All AUP's for broadband services will say, in one form or another, that running servers is prohibited.
Not true. I use Telocity (Now DirectTV) residential DSL. Their TOS specifically allows servers (and they gaurentee a static IP). I have heard customer service horror stories from people in other service areas, but my service has about a 99% uptime (not great, but hey for $50 bucks a month who's counting), and most of the complaints I have heard have been about their e-mail service, which I don't use.
As another poster points out, I believe this battery pack is smaller, but more importantly, there is no direct "hole in the skin" connection between the battery and te heart. Without a hole, infection has a MUCH lower chance of setting in. taht is waht makes this thig so revolutionary. It's still a bit of a pain, but it's a pain that can be used outside a sterile environment. The guy can go home, go to the mall, play with the kids, whatever. He probably can't strain much (I doubt the pump can respond to increases or decreases in activity), but he can live a semi normal life. Previous attempts, because of the wires passing through the skin into your innards, left the patient confined to to a sterile environment (which, sterile environments being somewhat imperfect under most circumstances would still eventually allow them to die of an infection.)
They knew this was doing to happen in the next couple of weeks, as the company already said as much.
A source inside the hospital (presumably one they trust) says the operation has been performed.
The spokes person for the hospital and compnay was evasive enough ( ie refuseing to confirm or deny) that it seems likely he was indicating that it happened, they just don't want to talk about it yet.
Based on these facts, it seems logical to assumethat the operatio DID take place, but nobody want to give out details yet (understandably).
OK, I gotta ask: Assuming you don't just mean getting AOL to run on Wine, how did you do this? I could never get them to give me ANY information on what protocols they used, what the adresses of any of their servers were, or, in general, anything else I needed to get internet access through them on my Linux box (When I first started playing, I didn't want to pay for access twice, anf my wife did not want to give up her AOL). At this point, I am merely curious (I have DSL now), but I would like to know how you pulled this off.
I have a job in the computer industry, and starting in the Fall, I'll be working on a master's of computer science. This means that I'll be spending on average about 60 to eighty hours a week working on a computer. I know people who spend that amount of time on a computer, JUST FOR WORK. I also havea wife, and,hopefully in a year or two, a kid. Maybe I'm just a bit tired of staring at a computer screen after 60 to 80 hours a week? maybe I'd like to have a little time for myself, my wife, a hobby? Maybe I don't have time to learn whatever wizbang technology my boss has latched onto this week on my own time? Ohh, but I forgot, this isn't a profession, it a way of life to which I must sacrifice all else...
Hey, you know, I spent a few years as a teacher. I wasn't very good at it, I'll admit (I have a hard time presenting matirial at the level of the students, I tend to go over their heads without realiseing it. I thought this was a problem, but after reading your post, I've come to understand that it was all my students fault.), but I did learn one interesting thing. Different people learn differently. That's right! Everyone is not like you! Wow, quite a concept I know, it really surprized me.
This kind of comment really pisses me off. Are we professionals, or are we some kind of 133t club, where only people that got their mad skillz from an approved source can be real haxors? "I'm sorry sir, we can't hire you for this position, because you were recently seen with a copy of Perl... For Dummies instead of the Camel Book. As you know, the only Geek appoved source for learning Perl is the Camel Book, so despite your demostrated competance, I'm afraid we shall have to look elsewhere." I mean come on, Some people just learn better from audio input. Some learn better in a social environment. If nothing else, a class gives you at least on additional view point, that of the teacher, and probably those of your classmates as well. Professionals meet, professionals exchange ideas and techniques. Doctors and lawyers go to classes and confrences, so do scientists and professors. Dr. Jones knows that just cause he's a hot shit cardiologist doesn't mean that Dr. Smith doesn't know more than him about infectious diseases, and how they can affect the heart. It's great that you're an ubergeek and you can learn every skill on you own, and you don't need anything from anybody, but you know what? If we fired everyone in the industry that couldn't do that, there wouldn't be enough people left to keep it afloat.
I work for a university. This is both good and bad for training. We don't really have a budget for training per se, I can't do a conference or go to an eight hour "Java Sever Pages and the Enterprize" type of class, but I can take Universtiy CS and CIS classes (Actually I am about to start a masters of CS). In the long run, of course, this is better for us (a master's of CS is going to be more useful to me than all the short two and three day workshops I could sqeeze in), but it is a bit frustrating when all I want is, say, a quick primer on Unix Security, and my chioces are a high level infosec theory class that may be offered in two semesters or nothing.
This is also only refering to the the kernel startup. That goes by so fast that you couldn't read it if you wanted to (at least it does on all my machines). If your distro alerts you of daemon startup statues, as I know Red Hat and Suse do, that won't be affected. Since 99% of the time, that is the data you really want/need at startup, (and even if you needed the kernel startup data, you'd have to search the logs, 'cause you can't read it at start up) I think reducing the Kernel dialog to the screen is a good thing.
Today's Penny Arcade comes pretty Daned close tp apologising for the tone and content of Tycho's rant. Seems he talked to Scott, and they kind of hit it off.
When I learned to read, I didn't start by memorizing oral poetry, and get to actual books after three years.
You didn't? I did. Or something close to it. I learned to read by memorizing the stories my parents read to me. Then I would "read" (actually recite) them to myself. Eventually when i had enough books memorized and recited them to myslef while following the words, I realized what words were what writing. Most peolple don't learn to read that way though... they learn simple stuff: letters, then build to words, then sentences... Similarly Computer science should start with simple stuff, then move on.
When I learned chemistry, I didn't start with colossal proteins, and wait for the third year before I found out about the periodic table.
Exactly, you learned simple stuff: "Here is a table of elements.. elements are whole in and of themselves. They are ALWAY like this". You're confusing your metaphor here and validating my point. Chemistry is taught from the simple(elements) to the complex (molecules).
When I learned about literature, I didn't start with 20th century authors and work backwards to Virgil and then Homer.
This is apples and oragnes. Literature is non linear, and is not taught in a linear way. It's assumed you know the easy stuff (grammer, poetical construction, etc) and are now learning how certain great writers applied them. You can teach lit in any order, The works of Plato are no less worthwhile or important than the works of Tolkien, nor vice versa
Why is CS being taught backwards? CS is taught in universities, to a group of students with sufficient background to understand Gödel and set theory. Why don't we start CS with Turing, and get to OO programming at the end?
What makes you think they have that background? A Comp Sci major in college might never have written a program. University programs as a rule assume that a student has a generalist background when they start (at least in the US), it's not like grad school where the Uni can look and see what the student did his/her bachelors work in.
It is valuable for programmers to understand the basic logical structures upon which the computer operates. These are interesting and would succesfully weed out the tourists. The truth is that most of the people who are entering CS programs these days are doing so because they think that "computers are full of lots of wires and stuff; and oh, yeah, a future" (quotation from an actual public transit ad that I saw a while ago).
Coding has become something like medicine and law: a career worth entering into just for the money. I am not profesionally connected with computer programming, so I can afford to be a bit of a purist on this issue. To tell you the truth, though, this is not a job market that will remain staggeringly profitable for any particularly long amount of time. Um, I have to admit that I find that kind of funny.
Yes, it is valuable for a programmer to know those things, and they are very appropriate to an upper level class. Why the hostility to people entering the field for money? I'm sure many execllent doctors and lawyers originally entered their fields for money. Eventually they found that they were good and enjoyed the work as well. If a student enters a CS program dreaming of easy money, they will be awakened. There is no need to deliberatly turn the programs into a torture test to "weed out" students. Today's "tourist" might be tomorrow's Turing. (Man, I've beem reduced to bad puns. It's time to stop now.)
If the question is focused on a highschool AP class, then it's entirely different. The emphasis should cover the broad themes of computer science:
A. critical concepts like algorithm, mathematical logic, and design;
B. application areas familiar to HS students such as computer generated graphics;
I think you have a slightly wrong idea of what AP Computer scienc in high school is. As tudent finishing an AP class in hoigh school and doing well on the test is given college credit for that course. An AP computer science course is expected to replace Computer science 101 or whatever the university calls it's freshman computer science for computer science majors course. It must be designed around the same concepts.
I think the question here is this: Should we start by teaching an easier, higher level language (ie Java) to get programming concepts down, then move to lower level "closer to the machine" language for advanced topics, or should we start with the lower level language and then treat additional languages as extras?
Personally I think the first option is the more viable. Java is a fairly easy, very portable language on which students can create fairly elaborate programs somewhat quickly. With the Swing classes, one can create GUI based programs that will run almost anywhere after probably less that a semester of learning. Java has all the necesary pieces of a fully functional OO language, and it spells them out in a very easy to understand way. It also enforces compartmentalization. I remeber as a freshman, one of the most frustratin things about the way CS was taught was that none of the programs we wrote seemed "real". The assignments were written to develop skills in algorithm analysis and to point out uses of specific structures, but they always looked like a home work assignment, not a useful piece of software. With Java (or hell, even an interpruted language, like Perl or Python) I think the same skills could have been taught while allowing for more... err.. Satisfying.. assignments.
Once the basics of programmiing and software development were learned (and I don't know about anyone else, but my Uni spent most of the first year, and a chunck of the second on these skills. learning "how the computer works at the lowest level" was Sophmore and above classes) C would certainly be appropriate to tech as a lower level "how the machine thinks" langauge. Our low level systems classes were taught in Vax assembler (I never actually learned C in collage, we used Pascal as the teaching langauge, them SmallTalk and assembler in later classes), and I'd have found C both easier and more useful in "real life".
You realize of course that most of the these people have no idea that "Ninth Ward" == "Inner City" right?:-) Where's your dad the Principle? I used to teach at Colton Middle before I started sys admining. As I recall they had a small computer lab, but it was just going in when I left. BTW: Ain't this eather fun.
As to the question at hand, a bit more information would be useful. Elemntry school covers a lot of maturity levels. For fifth and sixth graders (I used to teach sixth grade) I might get a little more in depth than the previous poster suggests. I found that most of my students, while they hadtrouble with basic skills like reading and basic mathematics, they were also often frustrated by a system that associated their lack of skills with being stupid. They aren't stupid, and books made for second graders (while they fit the reading level of some of them) just don't interest them. The other problem with teaching inner city kids is their VERY diverse levels of education. I had kids who were average to above average sitting next to kids that couldn't read. Alot has to do with the motivation and parental support that each kid has individually. Even if you know a class is, say, fifth graders, you are likely to have math and reading levels from the first to the sixth grade levels. Be sure to plan for this. The more advanced children will be VERY bored by the things that the less advanced ones won't understand. Your best bet may be groups, but that has the diadvantage of putting all the slower kids together, with no help from the more advanced ones. A better option might be a "mentor" type deal, but sometimes the kids that need help resent the helper. I can't really say with out seeing the dynamic of your class, but all these are options
I love that joke, but I don't really think it's very accurate anymore. Linux is, in general, very easy to install these days. Red Hat 7.1 went onto my computer way easier than Windows ever has, and everything works (well except for my printer which will print post script fine, but not text, but I can't say that I have ever had a completely cleans Windows Install either) without a whole lot of effort on my part. This isn't the problem. What is the problem you ask? Well there's actually two of them that I see.
Windows comes on the computer- "Why should I install this Linux thing? The computer works fine now." There is not a damn thig to be done about this. Until you can go into CompUSA and buy a computer with linux on it and get support from some guy sitting behind a counter at a major retail chain, forget it. People are afraid to install APPLICATION SOFTWARE, forget about OS's. When I look at the CompUSA ads and see that they offer free installation of simple utility programs, I think "Damn, there is actually a demand for someone to install Office as an add on service.", my neighbor thinks "Well great, now I don't have to pay someone to install Office for me." The non-technical user is a lost cause until an alternative OS can get preinstalled in a retail chain.
Applications- "The server at work only accepts MAPI mail connections, The kids teacher is requireing all their homework in.doc format, my wife's web design class is teaching Front Page, and the kids really like that new Black and White game. Linux sounds good, but how'm I going to do all this stuff?" Wine works on some stuff, but it's a pain to configure, The virtual machine software avaialable is the price of Windows, won't do 3-d graphics, and what the Hell's the point of using Linux if your just going to run Windows on top of it anyway? Even 100% Office compatibility would be nice, at least then people could work on the documents they generate at work and school. You could say "well if you don't like what's there, write something better", but the fact is that if Sun and Corel can't write an app with 100% Office compatibility, I don't have much chance of doing so. Besides we're talking about popular adoption here, and as bad as my chances of outdoing the entire Corel programing staff are, they are better than Joe Average's chances. I like Linux, I use Linux, I still keep a Windows partition because, well, I like games. I will admit that Linux Game support is getting better, but I still can't get Baldurs Gate for Linux, and I really like Baldur's Gate.
This is why Linux is not on more desktops, and unless we can do something (like I said, number two is improving alot) about these two problems, Microsoft will keep on ruling the desktop
I'm really impressed with the number of people recomending exercise. Personally I spend about 7 to 9 hours a week jogging and swimming. and I've started to watch what I eat a bit (nothing serious mind you, just an effort to cut down on the sheer amount of crap). It really does work like they say. You feel better, have more energy, and, as an added bonus, look better (I love pulling clothes out of my closet that I haven't worn since I was a freshman in college and realising they fit again...). In short, ignore the stereotypes, go outside, and do something. (As an aside, I'm reading Alan Turning: The Enigma. I never realised he was an Olympic class runner)
I'm not trying to condem you, but you admit you admit in your post that you brought this on yourself. The doctor told you what you needed to do, you needed to make a lifestyle change, you needed to exercise. The pain would have gone away or at least been signifigantly reduced if you had followed this advice. I've never had serious back pain, but both my father and my wife have. Both have found that following the exercise regiment the doctor recommends (And I mean seriously, we're talking about half and hour three day a week here)has totally taken care of the pain. I also know a guy who has degenerativve disk disease who will keep getting worse no matter what he does, but that does not sound like the situation you were in (Who knows, you may be now, enough reinjuries will do that.)
It's horrible what you went through, it's good that you have worked your way out of it. Exercise is not a cure all, it won't make your addiction go away, but it will help with the root cause (your pain), and help you resist your addiction. You might also wish to consider a form of exercise that instill some sort of mental disipline (tai-chi, yoga, Other martial arts). So take the advice for what it's worth from someone who has not been where you are...
As far as I can see this is similar to the system the NSA wants to develop to make computers with multiple clearance levels on the same system. Each VM is totally independent of the others and of the master system. When a VM is created it gets X amount of CPU time, storage, and RAM. It CANNOT violate these restrictions, only the underlying OS can make a change in the indvidual VM's and you get no access to that. In the case of the NSA they want to use it to make the same computer act like a locked down TS cleared box and a public unclassified box. The two VM's have no idea that each other exist, and the underlying system has no access to the data of the VMs. This probably works the same way only on a much larger scale.
Hello folks I'm Rodger Johnson of CBS news, and I'm here with the winner of this month's "Space Lottery" 59 year old Paul Thompson. Paul is a retired mailman, and knows absolutly nothing about about g-forces, the effects of low gravity on the body, and he has no skills that may be useful on a space flight. Paul retired early after his second heart attack, but likes rollercosters, so he doesn't think the acceleration will bother him much. He is a bit concerned that the diet on the shuttle and ISS can be tailored to his diabetic needs. So here he is folks: America's next Astronaut!
Seriously, at least with the way the Russians are doing it now they can screen people ahead of time. In a lottery sitiuation you'd have to screen people before they bought their tickets. Who's going to submit to a full medical screen and background check before they buy a lottery ticket? The other option is just to keep drawing till you get someone medically qualifed, but what do you tell the people who's numbers were drawn, but couldn't go? Sorry, here's your dollar back? They'd be buried under an avalanche of lawsuits. I'm all for "space for the masses" but the fact is that under current conditions many people CAN'T go to space. to promise an "open lottery" would just be to invite disappointment and problems.
If the site is blocked, there's a good chance they won't see it. If they don't see it, they can't decide whether it's "indecent" or not. Therefore, they won't vote to unblock it.
Now conceivably, you could turn *off* these filters - but would the standard AOL web filters still be in place?
The article is about the "Parental Controls" filters on AOL. Normal adult AOL users can see whatever they want on the web, this filtering system is for "Controlled" accounts. The filtering has three levels (four if you count "no filtering"), one each for "Young Children", "Young Teens", and "Older Teens". Filtering is turned on and off by the "master account", presumably a parent or adult. Did you actually even look at the article? Whether this atually works or not I have no idea, and I still disagree with filters sort of on principle, but jeez, at least make an informed critisism.
That is retarded. "Is Oral Sex Safe?" may be very appropraite for a 16 year old but certainly not for 10 year old.
And had you read the article, you would know that the settings used to get this result were "Mature Teenager". AOL allows filters to work on several levels. There is a "child" level which basically restricts kids to Disney and Nicolodeon sites, a "young teen" level that allows greater access to some stuff, and an "older teen" level which only blocks blatent porn, hate sites, etc. I don't know how well this works (fairly well now according to the article), but I don't have kids so I've never really looked at it.
He started with a hypothetical: What if someone developed a program that could shut off the navigation system in commercial airplanes? What if someone developed a program that could shut off smoke detectors in public buildings? Surely, he said, the government could ban the publication of programs which were a threat to people's lives.
The US attorney is obviously argueing that writing and diseminating such programs is illegal. I don't think it is, in fact such programs must exist because it is necesary to turn both of these devices off at times. It is not the writing of such a piece of software that is illeagal nor the disemination, it is the breaking into a computer system to use it, and the use of it for a malicous purpose. This is, in fact, exactly similar to how DeCSS should be viewed. It should not be illegal to write, disseminate, or have the software, simply to use it in illegal ways. It's already a crime to rip a DVD and post it on the net, it's not a crime to rip a DVD and put it on your hard drive for easier viewing. DeCSS is a tool with both legal and illegal uses, but the crime is in the specific uses, not the tool.
You're right! I feel much better knowing that Microsoft's lack luster security will not be protecting my actual credit card information... just the authenication information that will allow people to access my credit card. That way the crackers will have to get through Microsoft in order to USE my credit card instead of having to get through Microsoft in order to get my credit card number.... That's much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Fifth, This whole separation of church and state thing. NEVER was today's situation meant to happen and our founding fathers are rolling over in thier graves. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting it come to this point. If you dig around, and find statistics, You will find that most of the bad features of America started right when God was removed from schools. Crime rate, Abortion, Murder, Premarital sex, The inability of the average person to keep their promises on anything. Think about it. The reason is so simple. Nobody feels like they are responsible to anyone, not even God.
Which leads us to Six. What is being taught in schools is so terribly inacurate. The driving force for most of early American history is the belief in God. Telling the American story without mentioning God is like trying to explain how a nuclear reactor works without explaining what fission is. "Oh well these rod thingies get hot and- Why? Well they just do. Trust me, I work for the govornment."
Speaking as someone who is rather fond of "This whole separation of church and state thing", I disagree. First, some of us are not Christians. Does this mean our children should be forced to learn your religion? Or perhaps "special shcools" are in order? Maybe they should just shuffle their feet and look vaguely uncomfortable everytime someone mentions religion. Heh, I was a teacher for a year. Do Wiccan teachers get to lead the children in Sabbats and Esabbats, or do only Christian teachers get to provide religous guidence to children? Public schools get paid for out of public money, and if they expouse your religious views over mine, they are creating a sitution of favoritism. Certainly you have the right (which you excercised) to teach your children your own views in your own way, but critisising the public system for trying to be as fair as possible is un reasonable. Imagine you lived in Salt Lake City where the majority of the population is Mormon. Would you want "God" to be in the schools there? Someone else's God? (I'm not knocking Mormons here, just using that as an example, since there are relativly few places in this country where "standard" Protesant Christian views are not dominant.)
As to your statement about about the the relationship of relgion to history, and the founding fathers.. I have to both agree and disagree with you. First, you are right that the history of this nation cannot be taught without mentioning God. Yes, here I am talking about the Christian God, his preceived will has been a dominatin force in outr nation's history. One point I disagree on is your implication that this has always, or even often, been a good thing. Christian sentiment in this country has been responsible for amonst other things in our history: Prohibition, the Red Scare, the Salem Witch Trials (No, I am not a rabid Wiccan who thinks that Witch trial were either common or even successful in US History, but Salem was a stand out), Slavery (Yes it was also important in abolitionist circles, I'll get to that), the near eradication of the native population of this contient, and more than one war. On the other hand it has also been responsible for the progressive movement (Which had its good and bad points, but was generally positive), abolitionism, recent movements toward Civil Rights for various respressed people, and various antiwar movements. Hardly a perfect record. I might also add that this country is far less violent than it typically has been in it's history, and you are attempting to compare today's modern "degeneration" to the imagined perfections of the late forties and the fifties. Even if they had been as beautiful as pop culture portrays them, they were an aberation in American history. And I rather doubt that too many black southerners who were alive then would pain the picture that Ozy and Harriet did.
As to the founding fathers, some 25% of the them were probably Deists, who really didn't have much to sasy on the subject of religion in the first place. As a rule, whenever people bring up the "intent" of the founding fathers, early Americanists kinda laugh. The truth is that only a small fraction of them left enough info about themselves to really get an idea what their "intent" was, and the of those that did, much of it is contradictory. The famous Jeffersonian "All men are created equal" from a slave owner is just one example. Most writings of his indicate that Jefferson KNEW slavery was wrong, but could not see a reasonable way out. The founding fathers were men of great courage certainly, but still, alas, human, and full of contradiction. While some may be turning over in their graves from the removal of Christianity from public schools, most are probably resting as well as their own deeds will allow them.
Why yes, I do have a BA in history that I hardly ever get to drag out.
Heh! My department would fall apart if the Uni banned *nix machines. Most of the Professors use either Linux or Solaris, I use Linux on my workstation (Dept. Sys Admin), and all of our graduate student computers run Linux (We're cheap, the hardware is old and Linux run much nicer that Win95 which the best these babies could handle). We'd be bankrupt just buying licences for all the copies of Windows we'd need (Not to mention the faculty and staff rebellion (well ok, I'd actually be the only on to notice on the staff)).
All AUP's for broadband services will say, in one form or another, that running servers is prohibited.
Not true. I use Telocity (Now DirectTV) residential DSL. Their TOS specifically allows servers (and they gaurentee a static IP). I have heard customer service horror stories from people in other service areas, but my service has about a 99% uptime (not great, but hey for $50 bucks a month who's counting), and most of the complaints I have heard have been about their e-mail service, which I don't use.
As another poster points out, I believe this battery pack is smaller, but more importantly, there is no direct "hole in the skin" connection between the battery and te heart. Without a hole, infection has a MUCH lower chance of setting in. taht is waht makes this thig so revolutionary. It's still a bit of a pain, but it's a pain that can be used outside a sterile environment. The guy can go home, go to the mall, play with the kids, whatever. He probably can't strain much (I doubt the pump can respond to increases or decreases in activity), but he can live a semi normal life. Previous attempts, because of the wires passing through the skin into your innards, left the patient confined to to a sterile environment (which, sterile environments being somewhat imperfect under most circumstances would still eventually allow them to die of an infection.)
Well, they have two facts.
Based on these facts, it seems logical to assumethat the operatio DID take place, but nobody want to give out details yet (understandably).
OK, I gotta ask: Assuming you don't just mean getting AOL to run on Wine, how did you do this? I could never get them to give me ANY information on what protocols they used, what the adresses of any of their servers were, or, in general, anything else I needed to get internet access through them on my Linux box (When I first started playing, I didn't want to pay for access twice, anf my wife did not want to give up her AOL). At this point, I am merely curious (I have DSL now), but I would like to know how you pulled this off.
I have a job in the computer industry, and starting in the Fall, I'll be working on a master's of computer science. This means that I'll be spending on average about 60 to eighty hours a week working on a computer. I know people who spend that amount of time on a computer, JUST FOR WORK. I also havea wife, and ,hopefully in a year or two, a kid. Maybe I'm just a bit tired of staring at a computer screen after 60 to 80 hours a week? maybe I'd like to have a little time for myself, my wife, a hobby? Maybe I don't have time to learn whatever wizbang technology my boss has latched onto this week on my own time? Ohh, but I forgot, this isn't a profession, it a way of life to which I must sacrifice all else...
Hey, you know, I spent a few years as a teacher. I wasn't very good at it, I'll admit (I have a hard time presenting matirial at the level of the students, I tend to go over their heads without realiseing it. I thought this was a problem, but after reading your post, I've come to understand that it was all my students fault.), but I did learn one interesting thing. Different people learn differently. That's right! Everyone is not like you! Wow, quite a concept I know, it really surprized me.
This kind of comment really pisses me off. Are we professionals, or are we some kind of 133t club, where only people that got their mad skillz from an approved source can be real haxors? "I'm sorry sir, we can't hire you for this position, because you were recently seen with a copy of Perl... For Dummies instead of the Camel Book. As you know, the only Geek appoved source for learning Perl is the Camel Book, so despite your demostrated competance, I'm afraid we shall have to look elsewhere." I mean come on, Some people just learn better from audio input. Some learn better in a social environment. If nothing else, a class gives you at least on additional view point, that of the teacher, and probably those of your classmates as well. Professionals meet, professionals exchange ideas and techniques. Doctors and lawyers go to classes and confrences, so do scientists and professors. Dr. Jones knows that just cause he's a hot shit cardiologist doesn't mean that Dr. Smith doesn't know more than him about infectious diseases, and how they can affect the heart. It's great that you're an ubergeek and you can learn every skill on you own, and you don't need anything from anybody, but you know what? If we fired everyone in the industry that couldn't do that, there wouldn't be enough people left to keep it afloat.
I work for a university. This is both good and bad for training. We don't really have a budget for training per se, I can't do a conference or go to an eight hour "Java Sever Pages and the Enterprize" type of class, but I can take Universtiy CS and CIS classes (Actually I am about to start a masters of CS). In the long run, of course, this is better for us (a master's of CS is going to be more useful to me than all the short two and three day workshops I could sqeeze in), but it is a bit frustrating when all I want is, say, a quick primer on Unix Security, and my chioces are a high level infosec theory class that may be offered in two semesters or nothing.
This is also only refering to the the kernel startup. That goes by so fast that you couldn't read it if you wanted to (at least it does on all my machines). If your distro alerts you of daemon startup statues, as I know Red Hat and Suse do, that won't be affected. Since 99% of the time, that is the data you really want/need at startup, (and even if you needed the kernel startup data, you'd have to search the logs, 'cause you can't read it at start up) I think reducing the Kernel dialog to the screen is a good thing.
Today's Penny Arcade comes pretty Daned close tp apologising for the tone and content of Tycho's rant. Seems he talked to Scott, and they kind of hit it off.
Umm... Tomb Raider?
When I learned to read, I didn't start by memorizing oral poetry, and get to actual books after three years.
You didn't? I did. Or something close to it. I learned to read by memorizing the stories my parents read to me. Then I would "read" (actually recite) them to myself. Eventually when i had enough books memorized and recited them to myslef while following the words, I realized what words were what writing. Most peolple don't learn to read that way though... they learn simple stuff: letters, then build to words, then sentences... Similarly Computer science should start with simple stuff, then move on.
When I learned chemistry, I didn't start with colossal proteins, and wait for the third year before I found out about the periodic table.
Exactly, you learned simple stuff: "Here is a table of elements.. elements are whole in and of themselves. They are ALWAY like this". You're confusing your metaphor here and validating my point. Chemistry is taught from the simple(elements) to the complex (molecules).
When I learned about literature, I didn't start with 20th century authors and work backwards to Virgil and then Homer.
This is apples and oragnes. Literature is non linear, and is not taught in a linear way. It's assumed you know the easy stuff (grammer, poetical construction, etc) and are now learning how certain great writers applied them. You can teach lit in any order, The works of Plato are no less worthwhile or important than the works of Tolkien, nor vice versa
Why is CS being taught backwards? CS is taught in universities, to a group of students with sufficient background to understand Gödel and set theory. Why don't we start CS with Turing, and get to OO programming at the end?
What makes you think they have that background? A Comp Sci major in college might never have written a program. University programs as a rule assume that a student has a generalist background when they start (at least in the US), it's not like grad school where the Uni can look and see what the student did his/her bachelors work in.It is valuable for programmers to understand the basic logical structures upon which the computer operates. These are interesting and would succesfully weed out the tourists. The truth is that most of the people who are entering CS programs these days are doing so because they think that "computers are full of lots of wires and stuff; and oh, yeah, a future" (quotation from an actual public transit ad that I saw a while ago).
Coding has become something like medicine and law: a career worth entering into just for the money. I am not profesionally connected with computer programming, so I can afford to be a bit of a purist on this issue. To tell you the truth, though, this is not a job market that will remain staggeringly profitable for any particularly long amount of time. Um, I have to admit that I find that kind of funny.
Yes, it is valuable for a programmer to know those things, and they are very appropriate to an upper level class. Why the hostility to people entering the field for money? I'm sure many execllent doctors and lawyers originally entered their fields for money. Eventually they found that they were good and enjoyed the work as well. If a student enters a CS program dreaming of easy money, they will be awakened. There is no need to deliberatly turn the programs into a torture test to "weed out" students. Today's "tourist" might be tomorrow's Turing. (Man, I've beem reduced to bad puns. It's time to stop now.)
If the question is focused on a highschool AP class, then it's entirely different. The emphasis should cover the broad themes of computer science:
A. critical concepts like algorithm, mathematical logic, and design;
B. application areas familiar to HS students such as computer generated graphics;
I think you have a slightly wrong idea of what AP Computer scienc in high school is. As tudent finishing an AP class in hoigh school and doing well on the test is given college credit for that course. An AP computer science course is expected to replace Computer science 101 or whatever the university calls it's freshman computer science for computer science majors course. It must be designed around the same concepts.
I think the question here is this: Should we start by teaching an easier, higher level language (ie Java) to get programming concepts down, then move to lower level "closer to the machine" language for advanced topics, or should we start with the lower level language and then treat additional languages as extras?
Personally I think the first option is the more viable. Java is a fairly easy, very portable language on which students can create fairly elaborate programs somewhat quickly. With the Swing classes, one can create GUI based programs that will run almost anywhere after probably less that a semester of learning. Java has all the necesary pieces of a fully functional OO language, and it spells them out in a very easy to understand way. It also enforces compartmentalization. I remeber as a freshman, one of the most frustratin things about the way CS was taught was that none of the programs we wrote seemed "real". The assignments were written to develop skills in algorithm analysis and to point out uses of specific structures, but they always looked like a home work assignment, not a useful piece of software. With Java (or hell, even an interpruted language, like Perl or Python) I think the same skills could have been taught while allowing for more... err.. Satisfying .. assignments.
Once the basics of programmiing and software development were learned (and I don't know about anyone else, but my Uni spent most of the first year, and a chunck of the second on these skills. learning "how the computer works at the lowest level" was Sophmore and above classes) C would certainly be appropriate to tech as a lower level "how the machine thinks" langauge. Our low level systems classes were taught in Vax assembler (I never actually learned C in collage, we used Pascal as the teaching langauge, them SmallTalk and assembler in later classes), and I'd have found C both easier and more useful in "real life".
You realize of course that most of the these people have no idea that "Ninth Ward" == "Inner City" right? :-) Where's your dad the Principle? I used to teach at Colton Middle before I started sys admining. As I recall they had a small computer lab, but it was just going in when I left. BTW: Ain't this eather fun.
As to the question at hand, a bit more information would be useful. Elemntry school covers a lot of maturity levels. For fifth and sixth graders (I used to teach sixth grade) I might get a little more in depth than the previous poster suggests. I found that most of my students, while they hadtrouble with basic skills like reading and basic mathematics, they were also often frustrated by a system that associated their lack of skills with being stupid. They aren't stupid, and books made for second graders (while they fit the reading level of some of them) just don't interest them. The other problem with teaching inner city kids is their VERY diverse levels of education. I had kids who were average to above average sitting next to kids that couldn't read. Alot has to do with the motivation and parental support that each kid has individually. Even if you know a class is, say, fifth graders, you are likely to have math and reading levels from the first to the sixth grade levels. Be sure to plan for this. The more advanced children will be VERY bored by the things that the less advanced ones won't understand. Your best bet may be groups, but that has the diadvantage of putting all the slower kids together, with no help from the more advanced ones. A better option might be a "mentor" type deal, but sometimes the kids that need help resent the helper. I can't really say with out seeing the dynamic of your class, but all these are options
I love that joke, but I don't really think it's very accurate anymore. Linux is, in general, very easy to install these days. Red Hat 7.1 went onto my computer way easier than Windows ever has, and everything works (well except for my printer which will print post script fine, but not text, but I can't say that I have ever had a completely cleans Windows Install either) without a whole lot of effort on my part. This isn't the problem. What is the problem you ask? Well there's actually two of them that I see.
This is why Linux is not on more desktops, and unless we can do something (like I said, number two is improving alot) about these two problems, Microsoft will keep on ruling the desktop
I'm really impressed with the number of people recomending exercise. Personally I spend about 7 to 9 hours a week jogging and swimming. and I've started to watch what I eat a bit (nothing serious mind you, just an effort to cut down on the sheer amount of crap). It really does work like they say. You feel better, have more energy, and, as an added bonus, look better (I love pulling clothes out of my closet that I haven't worn since I was a freshman in college and realising they fit again...). In short, ignore the stereotypes, go outside, and do something. (As an aside, I'm reading Alan Turning: The Enigma. I never realised he was an Olympic class runner)
I'm not trying to condem you, but you admit you admit in your post that you brought this on yourself. The doctor told you what you needed to do, you needed to make a lifestyle change, you needed to exercise. The pain would have gone away or at least been signifigantly reduced if you had followed this advice. I've never had serious back pain, but both my father and my wife have. Both have found that following the exercise regiment the doctor recommends (And I mean seriously, we're talking about half and hour three day a week here)has totally taken care of the pain. I also know a guy who has degenerativve disk disease who will keep getting worse no matter what he does, but that does not sound like the situation you were in (Who knows, you may be now, enough reinjuries will do that.)
It's horrible what you went through, it's good that you have worked your way out of it. Exercise is not a cure all, it won't make your addiction go away, but it will help with the root cause (your pain), and help you resist your addiction. You might also wish to consider a form of exercise that instill some sort of mental disipline (tai-chi, yoga, Other martial arts). So take the advice for what it's worth from someone who has not been where you are...
As far as I can see this is similar to the system the NSA wants to develop to make computers with multiple clearance levels on the same system. Each VM is totally independent of the others and of the master system. When a VM is created it gets X amount of CPU time, storage, and RAM. It CANNOT violate these restrictions, only the underlying OS can make a change in the indvidual VM's and you get no access to that. In the case of the NSA they want to use it to make the same computer act like a locked down TS cleared box and a public unclassified box. The two VM's have no idea that each other exist, and the underlying system has no access to the data of the VMs. This probably works the same way only on a much larger scale.
I can see it now:
Hello folks I'm Rodger Johnson of CBS news, and I'm here with the winner of this month's "Space Lottery" 59 year old Paul Thompson. Paul is a retired mailman, and knows absolutly nothing about about g-forces, the effects of low gravity on the body, and he has no skills that may be useful on a space flight. Paul retired early after his second heart attack, but likes rollercosters, so he doesn't think the acceleration will bother him much. He is a bit concerned that the diet on the shuttle and ISS can be tailored to his diabetic needs. So here he is folks: America's next Astronaut!
Seriously, at least with the way the Russians are doing it now they can screen people ahead of time. In a lottery sitiuation you'd have to screen people before they bought their tickets. Who's going to submit to a full medical screen and background check before they buy a lottery ticket? The other option is just to keep drawing till you get someone medically qualifed, but what do you tell the people who's numbers were drawn, but couldn't go? Sorry, here's your dollar back? They'd be buried under an avalanche of lawsuits. I'm all for "space for the masses" but the fact is that under current conditions many people CAN'T go to space. to promise an "open lottery" would just be to invite disappointment and problems.
If the site is blocked, there's a good chance they won't see it. If they don't see it, they can't decide whether it's "indecent" or not. Therefore, they won't vote to unblock it. Now conceivably, you could turn *off* these filters - but would the standard AOL web filters still be in place?
The article is about the "Parental Controls" filters on AOL. Normal adult AOL users can see whatever they want on the web, this filtering system is for "Controlled" accounts. The filtering has three levels (four if you count "no filtering"), one each for "Young Children", "Young Teens", and "Older Teens". Filtering is turned on and off by the "master account", presumably a parent or adult. Did you actually even look at the article? Whether this atually works or not I have no idea, and I still disagree with filters sort of on principle, but jeez, at least make an informed critisism.
That is retarded. "Is Oral Sex Safe?" may be very appropraite for a 16 year old but certainly not for 10 year old.
And had you read the article, you would know that the settings used to get this result were "Mature Teenager". AOL allows filters to work on several levels. There is a "child" level which basically restricts kids to Disney and Nicolodeon sites, a "young teen" level that allows greater access to some stuff, and an "older teen" level which only blocks blatent porn, hate sites, etc. I don't know how well this works (fairly well now according to the article), but I don't have kids so I've never really looked at it.
This is the part I found interesting:
He started with a hypothetical: What if someone developed a program that could shut off the navigation system in commercial airplanes? What if someone developed a program that could shut off smoke detectors in public buildings? Surely, he said, the government could ban the publication of programs which were a threat to people's lives.
The US attorney is obviously argueing that writing and diseminating such programs is illegal. I don't think it is, in fact such programs must exist because it is necesary to turn both of these devices off at times. It is not the writing of such a piece of software that is illeagal nor the disemination, it is the breaking into a computer system to use it, and the use of it for a malicous purpose. This is, in fact, exactly similar to how DeCSS should be viewed. It should not be illegal to write, disseminate, or have the software, simply to use it in illegal ways. It's already a crime to rip a DVD and post it on the net, it's not a crime to rip a DVD and put it on your hard drive for easier viewing. DeCSS is a tool with both legal and illegal uses, but the crime is in the specific uses, not the tool.You're right! I feel much better knowing that Microsoft's lack luster security will not be protecting my actual credit card information... just the authenication information that will allow people to access my credit card. That way the crackers will have to get through Microsoft in order to USE my credit card instead of having to get through Microsoft in order to get my credit card number.... That's much better.