First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
-- Ghandi.
The Ghandi quote, when applied to Microsoft, appears to be backwards. They once seemed to be winning, then open source brought the fight to them. Open source has been ridiculing them for some time now, and as per the article, it is time to sit back and ignore them.
Or am I getting your intention backwards, with Microsoft being "they" and open source being "you"? In that case, I'd say Microsoft is thinking step 3, when we're actually already at step 4.
The question is asking about a high school district, meaning 1) most of these students, no matter how gifted, are not doing the same thing now as they will be doing, and 2) we are talking about a significant number of students, with at least some variation. So it doesn't matter specifically what kind of science and engineering, we're looking for the best general answer.
As someone who took the science route, I will let the engineers debate the IT side. But I can say that my lab uses a mix of XP, Windows 7 and OS 10.6, and that either OS can be used effectively to teach. The main difference will be applications, so the best bet would be to choose the option that allowed the students access to the best and most varied access to applications
I was attempting to point out a flaw in the article, not complain about the development/innovation. These articles often fluff up the green aspect without addressing any of the negatives. That, and I was also curious about PV impact, but I should've made that more clear.
Oh, and what alternatives are you talking about that are less environmentally friendly than lead coated in a mercury/innocent blood mixture? Cause, well, that seems pretty bad to me.
While this sounds like a win-win, environmentally speaking (renewable energy using renewable plant materials) and TFA uses the term "environmentally friendly," it doesn't address whether the fiber based cells are using traditional photovoltaic material. If they are, there's still going to be a significant initial environmental negative, because AFAIK, photovoltaics are still pretty messy to produce. Though, if the new cells are cheaper and more efficient as the article says, it's still an improvement, albeit not a perfectly green one.
Posting announcements of new research projects is still valuable news. Even if the product never materializes, maybe especially if it doesn't, it's important to know what types of things people are developing. If we waited four years until the project was complete, or a year or more after that until the results are analyzed and published, then we would lose all the benefits of announcing that a project was underway. Benefits like inspiring collaboration or competition, informing those interested in the field, and the general education of the layperson on what an industry is trying to accomplish. An idea can be news, earning funding to pursue an idea even more so.
The economic implications of transitioning completely to automated labor are not as simple as it may seem. Depending on how quickly the transition happens, the immediate loss of jobs could be massively jarring to economics and culture as we know it now, but that doesn't mean that there "won't be much work left for humans to do." Increasing automation (through more capable robots) will just move us closer to a post-scarcity economy, wherein less of the world will be forced to work miserable jobs just to subsist. Wage-slavery is a necessary evil now, but increased production could allow us a society to provide for everyone's basic needs without requiring that so many people have unfulfilling or downright abusive jobs. And if capitalism forces could survive the upheaval and continue to reward those that make life better through innovation, entertainment etc. (rather than society entering a WALL-E-esque apathy once robots can take care of our day-to-day needs) then the temporary economic upset of lost jobs is well worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
-- Ghandi.
The Ghandi quote, when applied to Microsoft, appears to be backwards. They once seemed to be winning, then open source brought the fight to them. Open source has been ridiculing them for some time now, and as per the article, it is time to sit back and ignore them. Or am I getting your intention backwards, with Microsoft being "they" and open source being "you"? In that case, I'd say Microsoft is thinking step 3, when we're actually already at step 4.
The question is asking about a high school district, meaning 1) most of these students, no matter how gifted, are not doing the same thing now as they will be doing, and 2) we are talking about a significant number of students, with at least some variation. So it doesn't matter specifically what kind of science and engineering, we're looking for the best general answer. As someone who took the science route, I will let the engineers debate the IT side. But I can say that my lab uses a mix of XP, Windows 7 and OS 10.6, and that either OS can be used effectively to teach. The main difference will be applications, so the best bet would be to choose the option that allowed the students access to the best and most varied access to applications
I was attempting to point out a flaw in the article, not complain about the development/innovation. These articles often fluff up the green aspect without addressing any of the negatives. That, and I was also curious about PV impact, but I should've made that more clear. Oh, and what alternatives are you talking about that are less environmentally friendly than lead coated in a mercury/innocent blood mixture? Cause, well, that seems pretty bad to me.
While this sounds like a win-win, environmentally speaking (renewable energy using renewable plant materials) and TFA uses the term "environmentally friendly," it doesn't address whether the fiber based cells are using traditional photovoltaic material. If they are, there's still going to be a significant initial environmental negative, because AFAIK, photovoltaics are still pretty messy to produce. Though, if the new cells are cheaper and more efficient as the article says, it's still an improvement, albeit not a perfectly green one.
Dry? Haven't you heard? http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/0212221/Unambiguous-Evidence-of-Water-On-the-Moon
Posting announcements of new research projects is still valuable news. Even if the product never materializes, maybe especially if it doesn't, it's important to know what types of things people are developing. If we waited four years until the project was complete, or a year or more after that until the results are analyzed and published, then we would lose all the benefits of announcing that a project was underway. Benefits like inspiring collaboration or competition, informing those interested in the field, and the general education of the layperson on what an industry is trying to accomplish. An idea can be news, earning funding to pursue an idea even more so.
The economic implications of transitioning completely to automated labor are not as simple as it may seem. Depending on how quickly the transition happens, the immediate loss of jobs could be massively jarring to economics and culture as we know it now, but that doesn't mean that there "won't be much work left for humans to do." Increasing automation (through more capable robots) will just move us closer to a post-scarcity economy, wherein less of the world will be forced to work miserable jobs just to subsist. Wage-slavery is a necessary evil now, but increased production could allow us a society to provide for everyone's basic needs without requiring that so many people have unfulfilling or downright abusive jobs. And if capitalism forces could survive the upheaval and continue to reward those that make life better through innovation, entertainment etc. (rather than society entering a WALL-E-esque apathy once robots can take care of our day-to-day needs) then the temporary economic upset of lost jobs is well worth it.