Sounds to me like a parent-pressured kid who achieved to satisfy his parents. He likely killed himself, not because of any school punishment, but for failing his parents.
My High School has an idiot teacher. He keeps breaking the computers in our library (which is not supposed to reconfigure) and rarely realizes he's the one doing it.
The latest thing he did was to put three security products (each) on some of the computers--turning off access to any programs, the internet, disks, booting....
As the school intern responsible for the care and feeding of said machines, I turned off his security products and got the computers in working order again.
Later, seeing the security gone, he "fixes" them. Long story short, there is no computing for a while. He reports me for vandalism of the computers and suggests a local company fix them for $3,000.
My previous perfect record is ruined, I get suspended, and the principal no longer believes a word I say. Supposedly, I should have asked my superior for the passwords--which he didn't have, and the guilty teacher forgot.
I spent two hours convincing the principal he doesn't need to spend any money to fix them. It took just 20 minutes for my superior (a bus driver who "knows computers") to do the job.
_That's_ a bad school experience and a bad teacher.
I've seen how good MTU is with CS. And (for example) corrospondance informing you of something, somewhere doesn't leave you wondering what and where. Some universities can write in correct sentances and communicate ideas effectively. But, I digress; NMU's general lack english skills of just my pet peeve.
My friends are trying to convince me to transfer to Tech; saying it would be a healthy challenge compared to Northern. I repeat to them that I'm here for the money (I have none) and my minor, Philosophy. I'm just sleeping until I can get into a good graduate school for some AI research.
This isn't to say the professors are unqualified--I can say Barry Peterson is fully qualified. (I haven't had enough experience with any others to say anything with assurance yet. Though, it is looking good.)
I know why we so often lose the programming competitions (and why I complain). The education hasn't been ambitious in the least. I get the feeling any serious learning will be done on my own projects. This, in itself, isn't unexpected. But it's true to such an extent.
I'm a soph now and a CS major at Northern, so I can tell you a few things about it.
1. No one--student or faculty--can communicate. From the application to the degree it's ambiguity and confusion.
3. There is no research being done; at least nothing more than could be done in a good high school.
2. Computer Science is not a major focus.
4. It gives liberal a bad name. (If liberal isn't already a bad name.)
5. For those expecting quality education, it can only serve as an very cheap stepping stone to graduate school.
Randy Appleton was my advisor a semester back. Strange man.
Religion and the media are usually at odds, clones do have brains (organ donors should not), and abuse may outway use.
And why do we have to jump into cloning right away? It's not nearly perfeced, the implications are not known, and the "idiot in the government" have at least the balls to say don't know everything yet and we should hold off until we do.
When dealing with human lives, it's always best to err on the side of caution. Your almost unthinking support of cloning when so little is known, and your painting of all those who think otherwise as religious morons who fear what they don't understand is the only display of ignorance and hatred I see here.
I don't have a CPU fan and my hard drives are silent. An external power supply would be good for me. (Or a pcpowerandcooling supply, but that's expensiove...)
Thinking for yourself is great--I'm sure he's proud of himself. But the biggest thing I need to know is what "facts" does he derive conclusions from?
When some people speak their truth, and no sophestry is intended by them, they usually argue along the lines of "x is true. so y is true. so z is true."; and with valid reasoning to move from x to y to z.
My response is always: "You are mistaken about the nature of x."
In my dealings with MS employees, and most people in general, everything begins with a few *really* wacked out "truths" which lead logically to conclusions that get everyone all angry.
Take for example: "The success of our products show that our software is preferred over that of the competition."
This assumes all things are fair. It includes pre-installed computer software and ignores the impact of the embrace/extend trap among other things.
Or this example: "Microsoft's software innovations, leadership and product quality make Microsoft a valuable and influential entity."
This is deserving of it's own finding of fact... Many will point to MS's life-long _lack_ of innovations (in fact, it's remarkable ability to copy and claim invention), it's hunter-prey relationships instead of it's leadership, and it's truly remarkable ability to hire what are some of the top programmers in the country while at the same time making some of the buggiest and most badly designed software.
I don't attempt to prove that these things are the way I say. I'm just asking, what beliefs does he base his free thinking on? Microsoft is the best? He's helping those who use his softare as opposed to other softare? He has made something more valuable than some competing product?
This is the thinking of many a Linux user:
(at least it's mine...)
1) My needs, and of those I know and read about, require software different enough from what Microsoft makes to justify a new design. Either with feature set x, or without feature set y, etc.
2) I seem to be in the majority. Why did microsoft just go even further from what I want with the latest releases?
3) Company x has made software like what I want.
4) Company x has gone under and MS still controlls the market with softare I do not want. MS appears to have had a hand in Company x's death...
5) We must now use MS software--compatibility you know. It's popular, we can't easily operate on the undocumented file formats without MS and, again, Company x is gone...
6) I'm bummed and I feel an intense lack of control. My needs are ignored; I'm spoken to like a child when MS tries to convince me that their latest tool is what I want.
6 1/2) To add insult to injury, as time progresses compatibility with everyone else and security concerns force me into new versions--that are further away from what I want.
7) I will help make an alternative and everything will be peachy.
Pay close attenction to point 6--the lack of control. This is what I feel causes most of the religious and intense hate aimed at Microsoft. (It caused mine.) The ignored user with needs unadressed, work to do with ill-fitting tools, and MS playing patch-up games... All the while Microsoft exclaims "We're the best!"
Sorry about my rant. This was building up for a while and just came out when passing by your post.
If memory serves... I don't think Win3.1 offered direct video access like DirectX and GL required/offered until Intel (reluctantly) gave MS the code that eventually was incorporated in the Win'95 video subsystem...
True or not, I concede that graphics on 3.1 sucked ass.
"I regularly have uptimes of a week or so, but tend have reboots forced on me after the app I'm working on hangs or graphics glitches start appearing in the UI (developing games tends to put pressure on DirectX and the video drivers)."
I get uptimes of a month--and I'm the one complaining about reliability!
"You seem to be basing your estimate of the reliability of MS OSs on their age."
Age is not where the estimate came from; it's the pattern that was produced. By my observations--and troubles--each versions of windows adds more features and incorporates more into it's core (IE, directX, utilities, etc.). This introduced complexity, bugs, and unreliability; ever increasing with each version.
"Maybe it's because you have run increasingly complex software- maybe it's because you started building your own machines."
I admit, I have been running increasing complex software--against my own wishes. But I've been building my own machines since 400BC.
"It is a FACT that Win2K is the most stable OS Microsoft has ever produced. The only people who moan on about it being unreliable are using it on hardware not on the HCL..."
I agree to a point. Win2K *is* less likely to commit uptime suicide like the Win9x series does. But the hardware troubles shouldn't be ignored. Win2K is WAAY too sensitive to bad hardware! Most of the bad hardware that kills W2K will run most any other OS just fine--yes, even Win'9x.
(Personally, I consider DOS to be Microsoft's fastest and most reliable OS. Apps can kill themselves, but they OS will never do it for them.)
==============
For note to other posters:
I didn't put 2K or NT in my list because I'm talking about past OS's. I consider 2K to be focused in the present. And I haven't used NT for more than an hour or two in my life--not at all on my box.
I think slashdotter's just hate the "home user" target that MS always aims for--even for server products. It makes no sense... I personally find it a little degrading and it makes using the products more difficult.
I haven't tried W2K in a while, but when I did, it was fairly unreliable (almost 95/98/ME unreliable)--until it was configured _just_ right. It was mostly bugs in the OS freezing it in regular fashion. To get some reliability, I simply had to avoid a few things...
I actually hope things have improved. But with the 50,000 item bug list for '95, and the code base for the 2K series being dozens of times larger, I have my doubts.
I though the 9x quality problems would flag the need for a more simple and elegant design, but instead MS makes a huge, complicated, monolithic THING! Oh well.
P.S. Has anyone else noticed that 3.1 seemed the fastest and most reliable MS OS (not including DOS)? (Win '95 in second, '98 in third, ME fourth.) Do my observations here have any base in your reality, or just mine?
Interesting side-note: Several guns were made for the express purpose of NOT killing!
The M16 and the AR15 are automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles actually designed to injure. While a shot to the head or heart will kill, a shot most anywhere else (even the hand) will result in instant and severe immobilazation. The thinking is that medics come for the injured and, then you shoot them with real guns...
Most 50-Caliber sniper rifles were designed to shoot machinery--not people. Taking out a million dollar machine with a.10$ bullet is sweet.
Slashdot Mirror
We've all been victims of this. You've got my sympathies on this one.
Sounds to me like a parent-pressured kid who achieved to satisfy his parents. He likely killed himself, not because of any school punishment, but for failing his parents.
My High School has an idiot teacher. He keeps breaking the computers in our library (which is not supposed to reconfigure) and rarely realizes he's the one doing it.
The latest thing he did was to put three security products (each) on some of the computers--turning off access to any programs, the internet, disks, booting....
As the school intern responsible for the care and feeding of said machines, I turned off his security products and got the computers in working order again.
Later, seeing the security gone, he "fixes" them. Long story short, there is no computing for a while. He reports me for vandalism of the computers and suggests a local company fix them for $3,000.
My previous perfect record is ruined, I get suspended, and the principal no longer believes a word I say. Supposedly, I should have asked my superior for the passwords--which he didn't have, and the guilty teacher forgot.
I spent two hours convincing the principal he doesn't need to spend any money to fix them. It took just 20 minutes for my superior (a bus driver who "knows computers") to do the job.
_That's_ a bad school experience and a bad teacher.
"political" Deep Space Nine?
I've seen how good MTU is with CS. And (for example) corrospondance informing you of something, somewhere doesn't leave you wondering what and where. Some universities can write in correct sentances and communicate ideas effectively. But, I digress; NMU's general lack english skills of just my pet peeve.
My friends are trying to convince me to transfer to Tech; saying it would be a healthy challenge compared to Northern. I repeat to them that I'm here for the money (I have none) and my minor, Philosophy. I'm just sleeping until I can get into a good graduate school for some AI research.
This isn't to say the professors are unqualified--I can say Barry Peterson is fully qualified. (I haven't had enough experience with any others to say anything with assurance yet. Though, it is looking good.)
I know why we so often lose the programming competitions (and why I complain). The education hasn't been ambitious in the least. I get the feeling any serious learning will be done on my own projects. This, in itself, isn't unexpected. But it's true to such an extent.
I'm a soph now and a CS major at Northern, so I can tell you a few things about it.
1. No one--student or faculty--can communicate. From the application to the degree it's ambiguity and confusion.
3. There is no research being done; at least nothing more than could be done in a good high school.
2. Computer Science is not a major focus.
4. It gives liberal a bad name. (If liberal isn't already a bad name.)
5. For those expecting quality education, it can only serve as an very cheap stepping stone to graduate school.
Randy Appleton was my advisor a semester back. Strange man.
Are you from tech?
Religion and the media are usually at odds, clones do have brains (organ donors should not), and abuse may outway use.
And why do we have to jump into cloning right away? It's not nearly perfeced, the implications are not known, and the "idiot in the government" have at least the balls to say don't know everything yet and we should hold off until we do.
When dealing with human lives, it's always best to err on the side of caution. Your almost unthinking support of cloning when so little is known, and your painting of all those who think otherwise as religious morons who fear what they don't understand is the only display of ignorance and hatred I see here.
This law is supposed to be the first step in preventing that...
I don't have a CPU fan and my hard drives are silent. An external power supply would be good for me. (Or a pcpowerandcooling supply, but that's expensiove...)
Quick now!
What type kernel do you favor?
1. Micro
2. Monolithic
3. Exo
4. Other (Please specify.)
Thinking for yourself is great--I'm sure he's proud of himself. But the biggest thing I need to know is what "facts" does he derive conclusions from?
When some people speak their truth, and no sophestry is intended by them, they usually argue along the lines of "x is true. so y is true. so z is true."; and with valid reasoning to move from x to y to z.
My response is always: "You are mistaken about the nature of x."
In my dealings with MS employees, and most people in general, everything begins with a few *really* wacked out "truths" which lead logically to conclusions that get everyone all angry.
Take for example: "The success of our products show that our software is preferred over that of the competition."
This assumes all things are fair. It includes pre-installed computer software and ignores the impact of the embrace/extend trap among other things.
Or this example: "Microsoft's software innovations, leadership and product quality make Microsoft a valuable and influential entity."
This is deserving of it's own finding of fact... Many will point to MS's life-long _lack_ of innovations (in fact, it's remarkable ability to copy and claim invention), it's hunter-prey relationships instead of it's leadership, and it's truly remarkable ability to hire what are some of the top programmers in the country while at the same time making some of the buggiest and most badly designed software.
I don't attempt to prove that these things are the way I say. I'm just asking, what beliefs does he base his free thinking on? Microsoft is the best? He's helping those who use his softare as opposed to other softare? He has made something more valuable than some competing product?
This is the thinking of many a Linux user:
(at least it's mine...)
1) My needs, and of those I know and read about, require software different enough from what Microsoft makes to justify a new design. Either with feature set x, or without feature set y, etc.
2) I seem to be in the majority. Why did microsoft just go even further from what I want with the latest releases?
3) Company x has made software like what I want.
4) Company x has gone under and MS still controlls the market with softare I do not want. MS appears to have had a hand in Company x's death...
5) We must now use MS software--compatibility you know. It's popular, we can't easily operate on the undocumented file formats without MS and, again, Company x is gone...
6) I'm bummed and I feel an intense lack of control. My needs are ignored; I'm spoken to like a child when MS tries to convince me that their latest tool is what I want.
6 1/2) To add insult to injury, as time progresses compatibility with everyone else and security concerns force me into new versions--that are further away from what I want.
7) I will help make an alternative and everything will be peachy.
Pay close attenction to point 6--the lack of control. This is what I feel causes most of the religious and intense hate aimed at Microsoft. (It caused mine.) The ignored user with needs unadressed, work to do with ill-fitting tools, and MS playing patch-up games... All the while Microsoft exclaims "We're the best!"
Sorry about my rant. This was building up for a while and just came out when passing by your post.
this guy has the spinning ability of a politician.
let's elect him to something. i don't care what--anything.
This post reminds me of political campaigns. Wait, no. This is more accurate than political campaigns. Really.
If memory serves... I don't think Win3.1 offered direct video access like DirectX and GL required/offered until Intel (reluctantly) gave MS the code that eventually was incorporated in the Win'95 video subsystem...
True or not, I concede that graphics on 3.1 sucked ass.
"I regularly have uptimes of a week or so, but tend have reboots forced on me after the app I'm working on hangs or graphics glitches start appearing in the UI (developing games tends to put pressure on DirectX and the video drivers)."
I get uptimes of a month--and I'm the one complaining about reliability!
"You seem to be basing your estimate of the reliability of MS OSs on their age."
Age is not where the estimate came from; it's the pattern that was produced. By my observations--and troubles--each versions of windows adds more features and incorporates more into it's core (IE, directX, utilities, etc.). This introduced complexity, bugs, and unreliability; ever increasing with each version.
"Maybe it's because you have run increasingly complex software- maybe it's because you started building your own machines."
I admit, I have been running increasing complex software--against my own wishes. But I've been building my own machines since 400BC.
"It is a FACT that Win2K is the most stable OS Microsoft has ever produced. The only people who moan on about it being unreliable are using it on hardware not on the HCL..."
I agree to a point. Win2K *is* less likely to commit uptime suicide like the Win9x series does. But the hardware troubles shouldn't be ignored. Win2K is WAAY too sensitive to bad hardware! Most of the bad hardware that kills W2K will run most any other OS just fine--yes, even Win'9x.
(Personally, I consider DOS to be Microsoft's fastest and most reliable OS. Apps can kill themselves, but they OS will never do it for them.)
==============
For note to other posters:
I didn't put 2K or NT in my list because I'm talking about past OS's. I consider 2K to be focused in the present. And I haven't used NT for more than an hour or two in my life--not at all on my box.
All my OS installs were fresh, on GOOD hardware.
I think slashdotter's just hate the "home user" target that MS always aims for--even for server products. It makes no sense... I personally find it a little degrading and it makes using the products more difficult.
I haven't tried W2K in a while, but when I did, it was fairly unreliable (almost 95/98/ME unreliable)--until it was configured _just_ right. It was mostly bugs in the OS freezing it in regular fashion. To get some reliability, I simply had to avoid a few things...
I actually hope things have improved. But with the 50,000 item bug list for '95, and the code base for the 2K series being dozens of times larger, I have my doubts.
I though the 9x quality problems would flag the need for a more simple and elegant design, but instead MS makes a huge, complicated, monolithic THING! Oh well.
P.S. Has anyone else noticed that 3.1 seemed the fastest and most reliable MS OS (not including DOS)? (Win '95 in second, '98 in third, ME fourth.) Do my observations here have any base in your reality, or just mine?
i'll be glad to switch to a free (beer) alternative...
Interesting side-note: Several guns were made for the express purpose of NOT killing!
.10$ bullet is sweet.
The M16 and the AR15 are automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles actually designed to injure. While a shot to the head or heart will kill, a shot most anywhere else (even the hand) will result in instant and severe immobilazation. The thinking is that medics come for the injured and, then you shoot them with real guns...
Most 50-Caliber sniper rifles were designed to shoot machinery--not people. Taking out a million dollar machine with a
I'm not a Statist, and I won't argue about it, but you make us Libertarians look very bad.
It's nice that a substance now exists for holo-disks(?), but at last check the drives that use the disks/cubes/thingies were huge and expensive.
Any news on the drive scene?
I've been using an old G200 for QuakeIII and Half-Life. 45fps with little tweaking--and on a PII-350!
CD's sell many times more copies, and games involve many more people. Plus, CD's sell for decades--you may own Beatles LP's, but do you own Pong?
Dark Visions sucked. It sucked BAD.