And if Fedora developed it and made it work on a netbook, they probably pushed all of those changes back to the upstream developers Everyone's distro will support these netbooks OOTB in six months. You can bet that Linux-wide support will get better because of projects like this.
Fairly widespread deployment of Linux on netbooks was a great opportunity to get some real user feedback and identify problems that could be addressed,
Like...?
You act as if all of those users who tried Linux netbooks out there used it and then reported bugs and posted all over the mailing lists. Where is this fabled "user feedback" you speak of, and what on Earth would it entail? Amazon.com buyer reviews is a great place to get feedback, I hear. "My son's copy of Tonka Raceway didn't run in Wine because of a regression in the 1.1.13 release."
real end user issues
Again, like...what? No Photoshop? Yeah, that'll hike up the return rate real fast on a device that doesn't have a disc drive. Sounds like you personally just don't like Linux, but want to deflect the blame onto the developers who "don't listen" to this fabled screaming bunch of consumers you made up to seal your vendetta.
The first netbooks were largely adopted by geeks, who like Linux.
If it was just the Linux geeks who bought these things, you could be sure that we wouldn't be talking about Netbooks right now. There had to be a significant amount of consumers outside of the Linux ecosystem that gave it a go and enjoyed themselves enough to get the rest of the manufacturers interested.
I know the "plural of anecdote is not data," yeah, whatever. But I knew quite a few Linux virgins who bought the first generation of EEEPC's and had no issues adjusting. I think that the statement "Linux is not Windows" has been overstated a bit too much lately, and we forget that they do operate and end up working the same way, after the initial configuration.
Just offer different levels of difficulty in classes, if possible. Give the classes the essay discusses to those who can do something like that, but also keep in mind classes for some of the less talented students. Honor or Challenge level classes work well, but open those up even more.
That's why I'm "Eh." about the essay - it's not applicable to everyone, and scrapping it all won't quite work right.
I just wanted to point out that "logic" isn't just the missing part of the puzzle. It's a hard egg to swallow sometimes, as a concept in general, and takes more thna additional material to conquer. A better teacher, for example.
You AC's need to settle down. Geez. You're going to hurt somebody.
Music isn't a required subject, and doesn't apply. If a student doesn't "get" music, they can drop it and take something else that they do get, like drawing or woods. Math is not the same; you need to know how to manipulate numbers at least somewhat.
Besides you don't "create" anything in band class. You play the music the band instructor selects. This is definitely something more musicians, some who can create music without even trying, would object to.
The simple way to keep proofs interesting it to look at the part: "while teachers would like students to appreciate the necessity of proof and proofs in mathematics, they take no steps to convey this."
Yes, teachers I see do try to convey this (and mine did a great job doing so, considering the effort), but they don't really convince anyone. Most students will say, "Why should I prove this is true when you can tell me it is and I can see that it works?" Students aren't all that interested in wondering whether something is true or not.
I'm saying this as a student here: make proofs less about the method and more about why they exist. Keep asking students, "Why do you know that this is true?" If there's a smart kid in the bunch, they'll start catching on.
Bingo, and that's one of the big problems with trying to do anything about the issues the paper raises: there are only so many people with the 1) ability, 2) knowledge, and 3) inclination, to do the kind of real mathematics he's talking about.
And not just the teacher training. This goes beyond what some students are capable of and can handle. What happens to them if they can't function inside a creative mathematical atmosphere?
what we are teaching as "math" in school is totally useless and should be scrapped completely, because it's not even close to what math is.
Manipulating numbers is a valid skill that a lot of people need to be taught. Not "explored" or "created like art." Let's call it Numbers class if "math" doesn't work.
It'd be nice to have the option of what the author's saying, but the revolutionist ideas are faulty at best. And most districts don't have the funds to implement such a program anyway.
Is it the students who are incapable, or are they merely inexperienced?
Some people just don't get math, just like some people just don't get music or science or English. Around here, the math one is probably the largest.
You can ask any teacher. Some students just have a hard limit on their abilities. It's hard to manage these.
I'd also like to state that we have some pretty damn good teachers in our district, who approach math more like the essay stated. Lots of exploration and discovery. For a lot of students it just doesn't work, whether they're told outright (which the math teachers are inevitably forced to do on a one on one basis) or asked to discover the relationships themselves.
Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game.
No, it's not. YOU ARE WRONG.
Games are fun because they are fun. Good gameplay, good controls, interesting mechanics. Innovative ways of interacting with virtual worlds and creating art and understanding from that interaction. Exploring new lands and shooting bad guys. Relaxing, having fun, playing with friends. Enjoying yourself.
Difficulty, suffering, all that tedium that plagues games even today is just nonsense made up by gamers who want to justify how stupidly hard old games are.
The whole idea behind his essay is that he liked playing with numbers and shapes as if it's an art, but he doesn't seem to realize most people don't share this love for math, like pretty much 90% of any student population. This is me speaking as a just-graduated senior: the things he suggests is beyond the ability of most math students in high school.
You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.
The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.
It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?
That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.
Because people don't play games for the "challenges" they surmount. Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment? It's better to relax and ENJOY the game, not brag about beating it.
Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased. Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns. Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?
It's much more fun than sitting there trying to beat something that you can't fucking beat.
I had major issues with the last level of Half-Life ("XEN!" moans the crowd in a weeping fashion) so I threw on a cheat code and beat the game. It was worth it. I got to face the final boss (which was annoying, but enjoyable in a weird way). When I went to play Half-Life 2, I knew what was going on.
Without the cheat code, I would have been stuck on one of those dumb jumping puzzles, and probably never have seen the last third of the level. You tell me if "jump, fall, die, load" over and over again is "fun" to you. Doubt it.
Slashdot Mirror
Insightful? Should be funny.
And if Fedora developed it and made it work on a netbook, they probably pushed all of those changes back to the upstream developers Everyone's distro will support these netbooks OOTB in six months. You can bet that Linux-wide support will get better because of projects like this.
A chair/gun combo will be equipped when Ballmer special-guests in Final Fantasy XV.
Yay, pointless anecdote time!
Once I saw Windows kill a man.
Fairly widespread deployment of Linux on netbooks was a great opportunity to get some real user feedback and identify problems that could be addressed,
Like...?
You act as if all of those users who tried Linux netbooks out there used it and then reported bugs and posted all over the mailing lists. Where is this fabled "user feedback" you speak of, and what on Earth would it entail? Amazon.com buyer reviews is a great place to get feedback, I hear. "My son's copy of Tonka Raceway didn't run in Wine because of a regression in the 1.1.13 release."
real end user issues
Again, like...what? No Photoshop? Yeah, that'll hike up the return rate real fast on a device that doesn't have a disc drive. Sounds like you personally just don't like Linux, but want to deflect the blame onto the developers who "don't listen" to this fabled screaming bunch of consumers you made up to seal your vendetta.
I am sure the Compiz guys are already mimicking some of the windows 7 stuff.
Hell, KDE 4 had the Windows 7 GUI before Windows 7 was announced.
The first netbooks were largely adopted by geeks, who like Linux.
If it was just the Linux geeks who bought these things, you could be sure that we wouldn't be talking about Netbooks right now. There had to be a significant amount of consumers outside of the Linux ecosystem that gave it a go and enjoyed themselves enough to get the rest of the manufacturers interested.
I know the "plural of anecdote is not data," yeah, whatever. But I knew quite a few Linux virgins who bought the first generation of EEEPC's and had no issues adjusting. I think that the statement "Linux is not Windows" has been overstated a bit too much lately, and we forget that they do operate and end up working the same way, after the initial configuration.
No, you're offtopic. And I've got karma to BURN, man!
I was going for "Funny" there. Ahem.
if only they allowed concealed carry on campuses, we'd have a few less rock throwers in this country.
Yeah, they should lift the ban on concealing rocks.
. . .provided the fact he has a gun, and knows how to use it of course
Oh. Never mind.
Just offer different levels of difficulty in classes, if possible. Give the classes the essay discusses to those who can do something like that, but also keep in mind classes for some of the less talented students. Honor or Challenge level classes work well, but open those up even more.
That's why I'm "Eh." about the essay - it's not applicable to everyone, and scrapping it all won't quite work right.
I just wanted to point out that "logic" isn't just the missing part of the puzzle. It's a hard egg to swallow sometimes, as a concept in general, and takes more thna additional material to conquer. A better teacher, for example.
You AC's need to settle down. Geez. You're going to hurt somebody.
Since you have graduated college and moved on to the professional field
I haven't. I just graduated; I'm fresh out of school.
Honor classes are pretty widespread nowadays, and offered to whoever wants to get in.
Music isn't a required subject, and doesn't apply. If a student doesn't "get" music, they can drop it and take something else that they do get, like drawing or woods. Math is not the same; you need to know how to manipulate numbers at least somewhat.
Besides you don't "create" anything in band class. You play the music the band instructor selects. This is definitely something more musicians, some who can create music without even trying, would object to.
The simple way to keep proofs interesting it to look at the part: "while teachers would like students to appreciate the necessity of proof and proofs in mathematics, they take no steps to convey this."
Yes, teachers I see do try to convey this (and mine did a great job doing so, considering the effort), but they don't really convince anyone. Most students will say, "Why should I prove this is true when you can tell me it is and I can see that it works?" Students aren't all that interested in wondering whether something is true or not.
I'm saying this as a student here: make proofs less about the method and more about why they exist. Keep asking students, "Why do you know that this is true?" If there's a smart kid in the bunch, they'll start catching on.
Bingo, and that's one of the big problems with trying to do anything about the issues the paper raises: there are only so many people with the 1) ability, 2) knowledge, and 3) inclination, to do the kind of real mathematics he's talking about.
And not just the teacher training. This goes beyond what some students are capable of and can handle. What happens to them if they can't function inside a creative mathematical atmosphere?
what we are teaching as "math" in school is totally useless and should be scrapped completely, because it's not even close to what math is.
Manipulating numbers is a valid skill that a lot of people need to be taught. Not "explored" or "created like art." Let's call it Numbers class if "math" doesn't work.
It'd be nice to have the option of what the author's saying, but the revolutionist ideas are faulty at best. And most districts don't have the funds to implement such a program anyway.
Is it the students who are incapable, or are they merely inexperienced?
Some people just don't get math, just like some people just don't get music or science or English. Around here, the math one is probably the largest.
You can ask any teacher. Some students just have a hard limit on their abilities. It's hard to manage these.
I'd also like to state that we have some pretty damn good teachers in our district, who approach math more like the essay stated. Lots of exploration and discovery. For a lot of students it just doesn't work, whether they're told outright (which the math teachers are inevitably forced to do on a one on one basis) or asked to discover the relationships themselves.
I was taught the logic part of the deal and I still hated proofs. You decide.
Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game.
No, it's not. YOU ARE WRONG.
Games are fun because they are fun. Good gameplay, good controls, interesting mechanics. Innovative ways of interacting with virtual worlds and creating art and understanding from that interaction. Exploring new lands and shooting bad guys. Relaxing, having fun, playing with friends. Enjoying yourself.
Difficulty, suffering, all that tedium that plagues games even today is just nonsense made up by gamers who want to justify how stupidly hard old games are.
Found it here: http://plato.asu.edu/LockhartsLament.pdf
The whole idea behind his essay is that he liked playing with numbers and shapes as if it's an art, but he doesn't seem to realize most people don't share this love for math, like pretty much 90% of any student population. This is me speaking as a just-graduated senior: the things he suggests is beyond the ability of most math students in high school.
You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.
The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.
It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?
That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.
Because people don't play games for the "challenges" they surmount. Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment? It's better to relax and ENJOY the game, not brag about beating it.
Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased. Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns. Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?
It's much more fun than sitting there trying to beat something that you can't fucking beat.
I had major issues with the last level of Half-Life ("XEN!" moans the crowd in a weeping fashion) so I threw on a cheat code and beat the game. It was worth it. I got to face the final boss (which was annoying, but enjoyable in a weird way). When I went to play Half-Life 2, I knew what was going on.
Without the cheat code, I would have been stuck on one of those dumb jumping puzzles, and probably never have seen the last third of the level. You tell me if "jump, fall, die, load" over and over again is "fun" to you. Doubt it.