Historically, apprentices would study at the master's feet. They would start by doing menial support tasks (like sweeping floors), moving to copying the master's work as journeymen, then finally after many years becoming themselves masters and actually creating works.
Up to 80% of the cost of software is maintenance. There are very few maintenance programmers. See, most kids want to start out at the master level and skip paying their dues. There's a bug or an enhancement? No problem! just rewrite the program from scratch, do it right this time! It's actually less expensive to rewrite the software than to maintain it, since you save that 80% of the cost. At least in the very very short run.
If programmers were required to do an apprenticeship, doing software maintenance for a couple of years before ever writing something new, they would be exposed to what went before and overall quality would go up. It just seems the know-it-all of youth has been taken too far in the industry and the price is being paid.
Far be it for me to defend the current government, but to be fair they're not attacking science. They're simply getting out of the science business and eschewing it for the purpose of policy formation. They're not persecuting scientists or preventing science from being done outside of government circles.
The problem with Linspire was there was no "there" there. Their office was a wiring closet in San Diego.
Canonical hired no Linspire employees. Zero. None. Nada. Not that the six of them didn't need work after they were sold to Xandros, which itself then disappeared in a puff of debtload and sold themselves to the devil.
Some people are just not cut out for academia, nor is academic persuit a prerequisite for a career as a technician.
An undergraduate degree in a mathematics or science discipline is not job training. It is learning something interesting for the joy of the persuit of knowledge, plain and simple. It is also a valuable way to learn self-discipline and useful information, but not the only way. If you are not earning your undergraduate degree as an end in itself, you may very well be wasting your time and money.
You can also change as you age. You can find joy in learning at any age.
Canonical is dedicated to fixing problems in Unity to the point of having a dedicated team doing just that. Turns out, though, that making Unity work like a clone of Microsoft's Windows XP is just not in the cards, no matter how much Gnome2 used to try. Sorry.
When the first netbook shipped, it ran Xandros (a GNU/Linux distro) instead of Microsoft Windows, partially because the Windows OS was too demanding of the hardware a partially because the license fees wiped out then entire profit margin for the manufacturer. Sales were briesk at first, but then Microsoft dropped the license fees (sellings Windows at a loss to muscle in to an emerging market) and demanded that the manufacturers up the specs to that of a small notebook so their XP product would run. People immediately abandoned their Linux netbooks because, according to the feedback we received at Xandros, "it didn't run Photoshop."
I suspect when folks find out Windows RT doesn't run the copy of Photoshop or Office they's brought home from wor, borrowed from a friend, or downloaded, they're going to raise a stink and abandon it for a "real" computer. If it has a screen and a keyboard and says Microsoft on a sticker on the front it had better run that free copy of expensive software otherwise it's just not going to work. If it doesn't have a keyboard, why don't iPad or Android apps work on it?
Micrisoft has never, ever been a technology leader. They're been a very, very successful marketing and channel sales leader. They have always succeeded by taking technology developed by others that has proven successful, tweaking it to call it their own, and levaraging their sales skills to dominate the reseller channel. Part of it was luck: their competition had a tendency to implode.
Watch for this strategy to continue with the newer tech, unless Microsoft themselves implode.
Sit down in a comfy environment or curl up in bed all together as a family, and read aloud. A chapter or two a night (always leave them wanting more). At first they will probably not listen. Keep at it: by the end of the book they'll probably be able to tell you exactly what happened even if they don't appear to be paying attention.
Repeat with a different book.
Choose books you like. Use different voices for different characters. Don't read aloud too fast. Make the magic happen.
Next thing you know, they're rereading the same books, then moving on to similar books.
Or, they just don't like you books and start gobbling up regency-era comedies of manners. That's OK too.
First, you need to light the spark by taking the words from the page and putting the voices into ther heads.
Fundies aside, there is no "consensus" at all on evolution
Sure there is. The consensus is: species have changed and diverged over time and are continuing to change and diverge.
Nice removal of context. Always a useful way to provide a logical fallacy in the course of rhetoric.
The consensus is that there are species, and that it appears many species are closely related and a good explanation for that is that they share a common ancestor. Evolution is an excellent, abstract, hand-wavy way of explaining this observation, on its own conveniently devoid of useful scientific information but by gum if you don't believe it, whatever it is, you're a kook! Nobody has ever in fact observed speciation taking place, and that's where the consensus breaks down. Ask an evolutionary biologist how speciation takes place, you will probably get an awnser. Ask another one, you will probably get a completely different answer. Nice consensus, if everybody is busy disagreeing.
Here's a question for you, then: how have species changed and diverged over time, and how do they continue to change and diverge? Will you quote Huxley? Gould? have you even read them? Was this taught in school, or was it considered too policially risky to not toe the consensus?
What the hell is a "post-hoc" science?
I did give four examples. There are dictionaries available on the internet for those of you who know how to use them. Here's a brief background, chosen at random from a google search.
Is anthropology not a "real" science?
Anthopology is clearly a post-hoc science, as are sociology, most of behavoural psychology, and a good chunk of medicine.
What about cosmology?
Find out the difference between a hard science and a post-hoc science and decide for yourself.
Reading the comments here it seems to me that a certain degree of debate is warranted.
Fundies aside, there is no "consensus" at all on evolution. Oh, sure, evolution is an observation of fact, it can only be denied by the willfully blind and they can have their cosy little padded cells. But how does evolution work? Which theory is correct? Is it punctuated equilibrium? Darwin's gradual descent by means of natural selection? How does speciation occur? If high school science is not teaching the debate (and evidently, it does not) then it's not teaching science. Consensus my big red babboon behind.
Teaching climate change as science? I have never heard of any high school teaching a fundamental understanding of post-hoc 'science', and my kids are in or have been through high school. The post-hoc 'sciences' like economics, climate science, political science, criminology, and so forth are not the same as the so-called 'hard' sciences like physics and chemistry. It is important nay, fundamental, to teach how they differ and how we can never have any great degree of confidence in or reliability on the predictive power of post-hoc 'sciences'. A consensus among soothsayers does not have more predictive power than reading chicken entrails, no matter how many win valuable Scandanavian prizes.
If posters here, or political activists everywhere, believe otherwise, there is your evidence of the failure of the school system.
The good old Windows 95 interface idiom used by the likes of Windows XP and Gnome2 was good enough for Jesus in the Bible, it should be good enough for everyone in America and the other part of the world (Alaska and maybe Hawaii, too). Doesn't Microsoft know they will burn in Hell for fiddling with the UI God handed down on Mount Ararat?
"A person born in the US at the turn of the 20th century could expect to live 49.2 years. Their ancestor born in 2003 could reasonably expect to see their 77th birthday".
Wow. Just wow. Any article involving the violation of the known laws of physics is a waste of the electrons it was written in.
Slashdot Mirror
"I wish there was a central config team that spanned the distro companies and concentrated on doing a mgmt interface ONCE AND FOR ALL."
Because after all, the free market works best when it is centrally planned and controlled.
Historically, apprentices would study at the master's feet. They would start by doing menial support tasks (like sweeping floors), moving to copying the master's work as journeymen, then finally after many years becoming themselves masters and actually creating works.
Up to 80% of the cost of software is maintenance. There are very few maintenance programmers. See, most kids want to start out at the master level and skip paying their dues. There's a bug or an enhancement? No problem! just rewrite the program from scratch, do it right this time! It's actually less expensive to rewrite the software than to maintain it, since you save that 80% of the cost. At least in the very very short run.
If programmers were required to do an apprenticeship, doing software maintenance for a couple of years before ever writing something new, they would be exposed to what went before and overall quality would go up. It just seems the know-it-all of youth has been taken too far in the industry and the price is being paid.
HELLO [7,3]
PIP/DELE *.*;*
BYE
Far be it for me to defend the current government, but to be fair they're not attacking science. They're simply getting out of the science business and eschewing it for the purpose of policy formation. They're not persecuting scientists or preventing science from being done outside of government circles.
It can even make boy bands sound like their voices have changed.
> If it hates it so much why did it evolve us to do it?
Because it was not very intelligently designed.
The problem with Linspire was there was no "there" there. Their office was a wiring closet in San Diego.
Canonical hired no Linspire employees. Zero. None. Nada. Not that the six of them didn't need work after they were sold to Xandros, which itself then disappeared in a puff of debtload and sold themselves to the devil.
Some people are just not cut out for academia, nor is academic persuit a prerequisite for a career as a technician.
An undergraduate degree in a mathematics or science discipline is not job training. It is learning something interesting for the joy of the persuit of knowledge, plain and simple. It is also a valuable way to learn self-discipline and useful information, but not the only way. If you are not earning your undergraduate degree as an end in itself, you may very well be wasting your time and money.
You can also change as you age. You can find joy in learning at any age.
Srsly guise, if you're asking this question, you're in the wrong field.
Canonical is dedicated to fixing problems in Unity to the point of having a dedicated team doing just that. Turns out, though, that making Unity work like a clone of Microsoft's Windows XP is just not in the cards, no matter how much Gnome2 used to try. Sorry.
What a stupid fucking premise.
When the first netbook shipped, it ran Xandros (a GNU/Linux distro) instead of Microsoft Windows, partially because the Windows OS was too demanding of the hardware a partially because the license fees wiped out then entire profit margin for the manufacturer. Sales were briesk at first, but then Microsoft dropped the license fees (sellings Windows at a loss to muscle in to an emerging market) and demanded that the manufacturers up the specs to that of a small notebook so their XP product would run. People immediately abandoned their Linux netbooks because, according to the feedback we received at Xandros, "it didn't run Photoshop."
I suspect when folks find out Windows RT doesn't run the copy of Photoshop or Office they's brought home from wor, borrowed from a friend, or downloaded, they're going to raise a stink and abandon it for a "real" computer. If it has a screen and a keyboard and says Microsoft on a sticker on the front it had better run that free copy of expensive software otherwise it's just not going to work. If it doesn't have a keyboard, why don't iPad or Android apps work on it?
Micrisoft has never, ever been a technology leader. They're been a very, very successful marketing and channel sales leader. They have always succeeded by taking technology developed by others that has proven successful, tweaking it to call it their own, and levaraging their sales skills to dominate the reseller channel. Part of it was luck: their competition had a tendency to implode.
Watch for this strategy to continue with the newer tech, unless Microsoft themselves implode.
It does not matter what books you choose.
Sit down in a comfy environment or curl up in bed all together as a family, and read aloud. A chapter or two a night (always leave them wanting more). At first they will probably not listen. Keep at it: by the end of the book they'll probably be able to tell you exactly what happened even if they don't appear to be paying attention.
Repeat with a different book.
Choose books you like. Use different voices for different characters. Don't read aloud too fast. Make the magic happen.
Next thing you know, they're rereading the same books, then moving on to similar books.
Or, they just don't like you books and start gobbling up regency-era comedies of manners. That's OK too.
First, you need to light the spark by taking the words from the page and putting the voices into ther heads.
Most moder proofers are 600 or 700 dpi. Most modern presses are 1200 dpi or more.
A printer is someone with ink stains on their sleeve and who wears a funny paper hat.
Microsoft could never buy the kind of publicity in the developer community that this kind of announce/recind behaviour will get them for free.
Man, they're good.
Absolutely. This is a rght-wing erotic fantasy. They need their regular apoplectic release.
Fundies aside, there is no "consensus" at all on evolution
Sure there is. The consensus is: species have changed and diverged over time and are continuing to change and diverge.
Nice removal of context. Always a useful way to provide a logical fallacy in the course of rhetoric.
The consensus is that there are species, and that it appears many species are closely related and a good explanation for that is that they share a common ancestor. Evolution is an excellent, abstract, hand-wavy way of explaining this observation, on its own conveniently devoid of useful scientific information but by gum if you don't believe it, whatever it is, you're a kook! Nobody has ever in fact observed speciation taking place, and that's where the consensus breaks down. Ask an evolutionary biologist how speciation takes place, you will probably get an awnser. Ask another one, you will probably get a completely different answer. Nice consensus, if everybody is busy disagreeing.
Here's a question for you, then: how have species changed and diverged over time, and how do they continue to change and diverge? Will you quote Huxley? Gould? have you even read them? Was this taught in school, or was it considered too policially risky to not toe the consensus?
What the hell is a "post-hoc" science?
I did give four examples. There are dictionaries available on the internet for those of you who know how to use them. Here's a brief background, chosen at random from a google search.
Is anthropology not a "real" science?
Anthopology is clearly a post-hoc science, as are sociology, most of behavoural psychology, and a good chunk of medicine.
What about cosmology?
Find out the difference between a hard science and a post-hoc science and decide for yourself.
Reading the comments here it seems to me that a certain degree of debate is warranted.
Fundies aside, there is no "consensus" at all on evolution. Oh, sure, evolution is an observation of fact, it can only be denied by the willfully blind and they can have their cosy little padded cells. But how does evolution work? Which theory is correct? Is it punctuated equilibrium? Darwin's gradual descent by means of natural selection? How does speciation occur? If high school science is not teaching the debate (and evidently, it does not) then it's not teaching science. Consensus my big red babboon behind.
Teaching climate change as science? I have never heard of any high school teaching a fundamental understanding of post-hoc 'science', and my kids are in or have been through high school. The post-hoc 'sciences' like economics, climate science, political science, criminology, and so forth are not the same as the so-called 'hard' sciences like physics and chemistry. It is important nay, fundamental, to teach how they differ and how we can never have any great degree of confidence in or reliability on the predictive power of post-hoc 'sciences'. A consensus among soothsayers does not have more predictive power than reading chicken entrails, no matter how many win valuable Scandanavian prizes.
If posters here, or political activists everywhere, believe otherwise, there is your evidence of the failure of the school system.
The good old Windows 95 interface idiom used by the likes of Windows XP and Gnome2 was good enough for Jesus in the Bible, it should be good enough for everyone in America and the other part of the world (Alaska and maybe Hawaii, too). Doesn't Microsoft know they will burn in Hell for fiddling with the UI God handed down on Mount Ararat?
And a cavity search.
Because maintining good oral hygeine is always of the utmost importance.
I am naked under my clothes. Right now. Completely naked. C'mon, put me on the list.
You have it backwards. Sainthood prepared me for parenthood.
"A person born in the US at the turn of the 20th century could expect to live 49.2 years. Their ancestor born in 2003 could reasonably expect to see their 77th birthday".
Wow. Just wow. Any article involving the violation of the known laws of physics is a waste of the electrons it was written in.
The rest is crap, too.
Yes. History was not invented here.