One thing that I liked about my high school computer class was the broadness. We talked about structure, problem solving, and languages. We learned BASIC, FORTRAN, and assembly. In the second year, we could program in whatever we wanted to, on whatever we wanted to. The time was the early 80's, so we had a DEC PDP and Apples. It was a good way to learn programming as a tool.
If the kids are looking for something different, and if they can be trusted to complete work without massive supervision, I would let then loose on any project they wish. Two examples come up quickly. First, many textbooks for math and science have suggestions of problems to code. These can be done in a computer class for credit. Even if there are no explicit coding questions, there are many ideas that will allow the student to learn computer concepts. These problems range from trajectories, to derivatives, to statistical analysis of historical data.
Second, for the student who wants to pursue computer science, introduce other textbooks If a student wants to learn Perl, JAVA, C++, or whatever, a group study program can allow learning to occur. If the teacher does not know the language, group discussions and newsgroup question can introduce the student to the techniques needed to find solutions in the real world. If the student wishes a more abstract education, you can try books like the The Practice of Programming or, for the truly adventurous, The Art of Computer Programming.
One way to test a hypothesis, check security, or learn about human behavior is to a run simulation. This practice is called game theory. This article is cool because it explicitly demonstrates the value of such simulation. In this case, we are learning about security through playing games.
To solve the cheating problem we can take a lesson from game theory. Most people will only cheat if it benefits them. Most people will not play with others who cheat. We cannot keep people from trying to gain an advantage. Some of these advantages, like convincing people to give up equipment with promises of sex, are a gray area. Others, like hacking the code, is more clear. In either case, it is important for all players to know who the cheaters are. If cheating is obvious, then the players can do something about it.. Often, these cheaters will learn not to cheat, and sometimes will be accepted back into the game. Many of us have already gone through this process. I think it is important to set up Multiplayer Games with these realities in mind.
People, we should be fair to the censorware product. The fact that they block out references to their competitors product, like the bio of John Bastian and ICRA is obviously a well thought out feature. There is no reason to let the user know they have a choice when it comes to who will censor their Internet access.
And of course it is going to filter the ACLU and the Center for Democracy in Technology. It kids are allowed to visit these sites they will might get a point of view inconsistent with the corporate mainstream.
As far as the bible is concerned, have you read it lately? It is full of mass murders, fornication, and this guy who did nothing but talk about pacifism and socialism. If there is book more worthy of censorship, I don't know what it is.
I would say the Peacefire test does not discredit ClickSafe, but rather proves it superiority in the censoreware market.
It is sad that the review of this book has degenerated so quickly and so immediately into an anti-Katz and ageist rant. The irony is thick. The series is very thoughtful, and encourages us to be the same. Of course, when everyone is busy being angry, we have no time to think
For those who converse instead of yell, Dr. Lienhard's radio show and a related class at the University of Houston introduces us many interesting views, and forces us to think critically. For instance, could the Oxygen atom have been "discovered" before we believed in atoms? What relationship exists, if any, exists between the plague and the printing press? Was the loom the first computer controlled industrial device? Dr. John Lienhard is a very intelligent and diverse person. He offers a unique perspective of history. This perspective elevates technical class to their proper place.
It is my personal opinion that we respect and understand how things got to be the way they are. One of the best ways to do this is to understand where the history of thier development. This book should provide much information to help us attain that goal.
The notion that Microsoft would write an emulator is silly. Microsoft does not write compatible software. They write incompatible software that looks the same as an already popular product. They then get everyone to switch over to the incompatible software. I am sure that is the business model in this case.
An interesting question does arise if we turn this around and ask how Microsoft is going to protect itself from emulators. Sony tried to sue Connectix for Virtual PlayStation and gave up. Connectix has a lot of experience writing Window emulators, as well as writing game emulators for Windows. They should be able to write an Xbox emulator in no time at all.
In addition, FWB now has the Windows emulator for Macintoshes and Unix Alpha machines. I suspect that the Xbox will provide a way for them to leverage that property. I bet they will sell Xbox emulators for both platforms.
All in all, I think we will be able to run Xbox in our current machines for about $100.
Katz's article is based on a two fallacies. The first concerns the open media. It will not be open. Whether the editor is a human or a machine, there is an intermidiate agent making decisions. Furthermore, if the revenue stream is ad based, we will inevitable have the problem of self-censorship and priority positions. We already have this problem on national public radio and YAHOO.
The second fallacy is that most people are interest in, or need, information concerning only a small number of subjects and and can ignore the rest of the world. This is not likely the general population. Most of us realize that we are not computers. We realize that we have a complex biological system that seems to work best when we are provide it with a sample set of data from a diverse set of topics. From this information, we can usually extrapolate amazingly good decisions. Any system that ignores this is going to create encyclopedias, not people capable of useful thought.
If we combine these two things, we create an amazingly scary scenario in which the people paying for the ads have even more control over the information that we recieve, instead of less.
Fundamentally the article reminds me of the efficiency experts of the 80's. They had all sort of ideas of how to cram more stuff into less time, but few ideas on how to make a person more in control of his or her own destiny.
There is this parable about a lion approaching a couple of people. One person puts on his running shoes. The other person, confused, states that there is not way to outrun the lion. The reply, of course, is 'I don't have to outrun the lion, I only have to outrun you.'
And here is the fallacy of assuming that consumers are stupid. A consumer does not have to be stupid to fall for ads, just less smart then the copywriters. The FTC is needed not because consumers are stupid, but because advertiser spend their days creating not so obvious lies. The hard job of the FTC is to determine when those lies become harmful. For instance, Pizza Hut can say it has the best pizza under one roof, because that is obvious hyperbole, but Papa John implying that Pizza Hut uses water out rusty taps may be harmful. Saying a PC, or anything, is free when money is required up front is a lie. Even if you get that money back, there is small but finite amount of value lost in inflation. People should understand that this is the case, but it requires a level of critical thinking that many people lack.
My favorite example of successful deceitful advertising is Sunny Delight. Many people buy Sunny Delight instead of Orange juice. It is cheaper, tastes better to a certain palette, and the ads show happy healthy children. Sunny Delight is also mostly sugar with few of the benefits of Orange Juice. These ads do not lie, but they are carefully constructed to mislead and cajole. The only people who do not fall for these lies are those that are smarter than the highly paid, highly motivated, advertising demons.
Science fiction does not get the respect it deserves. Here is a medium that allows us to explore the consequences of our creation. We do not really want to explore the consequences; we just want the immediate benefits. That is fine. We will survive, or we won't. There is little we can do about it.
On the other hand people who ignore science are just stupid. It is especially stupid to contaminate the ethical arguments of science with terms such as "playing god". If you want to believe that god turns on your light bulb, go for it. But I am going to have much more luck building a light bulb if I understand electrons, photons, wire, and vacuum.
How does this relate to the genome project? Simple. Scientific experience has shown us that the universe is much more complicated that we think. When we try to reduce physics to a simple set of deterministic rules, we end up with probabilities. When we try to reduce evolution to survival of the fittest, we get symbiotic relationships, niches, and catastrophes. When we try to cure illnesses with antibiotics, we get super germs that we cannot kill.
Sound byte science is not sound science. A human is not just the sum of his or her genes; memes also play an important role. That is why is cost a lot of money to raise a Kennedy. The people who try to make a perfect human by playing with genes are totally ignoring past experience. Let me reiterate. These people are not just ignoring science fiction, but also science fact.
rant off
Now I am not saying that genetic research is bad. When not diluted by public relation people, it is a very interesting. On the other hand, there is no reason that genetics in itself will cure anything outside the realm of what we call birth defects. For instance, there is no absolute genetic relationship between breast cancer and heredity. Another example is Alzheimer's. There is no reason to believe that it is not perfectly natural to lose ones mind when one gets very old. The progression of the 'disease' is likely variable in the human race, just like height or eye color. Conditions such as cancer, dementia, and low intelligence probably have a significant environmental component, and it is not at all clear that the most cost effective solution is the 'fixing' of bad genes.
And this is the crux of the matter. The money from genetics will come from an extension of the current massive consumerism. We will have fast cures for being 10% overweight, 2 inches too short, or the infamous non-blonde-hair-blue-eyed epidemic. Will it be worth the money? Maybe. Will it feed the poor? Unlikely. Will people still die? Hopefully.
You know, now that I think about if, the most appropriate fable for this situation is the Star Bellied Sneeches. I wonder if any of the scientists have read it.
Ok, so the article claimed C# is a hybrid of C and C++.
We all know that for all practical intents and purposes, C++ is the child of C, and therefore any hybrid between the two will lead to an animal with 6 limbs, three eyes, no mouth and one butt cheek. In other words, Microsoft has developed another half-assed way to program.
As far as the claim that programmers can use whatever they wish on a Windows machine, history tells another story. MS has consistently done all they could to move people from non-MS development environments to MS development environments. Many programmers won't like to use C#, but much like VB, they won't have a choice.
Ultimately this is another attempt by Microsoft to bring down the average intelligence of programmers another notch.
BTW, I fail to see the use of garbage collection in a serious application language(as opposed to an applet language).
Assuming that the patent link is correct, I am not going to lose any sleep over this. The way we hyperlink works nothing like the patent describes; even with the 'subject to change clause' only specifically addresses the block lengths. I do not think that any relation can be justified.
First of all, the patent covers a custom terminal, with multiple ROM and RAM areas, and keypads hardwired to signal generators for modems. We have details about what type of information goes into what memory segment, what the ROM contains, and even the timing between the display and the memory.
For instance, the patent clearly states that the display text will be in the first transmission block, and will be loaded into one memory area, while the 'hidden information' will be in second block and will be loaded into another memory area. To the contrary, we all know that HTML is embedded, and all information is loaded into the same memory area. Once it is loaded, the appropriate text and graphics is generated for the displayed.
To Quote: "In the operation of the system shown, when a block of which is to be displayed is transmitted by the computer 1 to the terminal and routed to the memory A. The second part of the selected block is transferred to special memory B included in the computer 1 and associated with the input channel of the computer to which the terminal is connected"
The issue of the keyboard is also a problem. Not only is the keyboard used to communicate, but also it appears that they keyboard would be hardwired, though some signal generators, to memory and to the modem, or at least the acoustic coupler. Certainly T1 lines are not modems.
To quote: "Inputs from an operator to the terminal apparatus are entered by means of a key pad 12 which is connected to a signal generator 13 producing signals which after modulation in the modem 6 are transmitted via the isolation and protection circuits 5 and the switch 3 to the line 2, and through that line to the computer 1."
About the only problem I see is that they do talk about an index, which is probably the paragraph that all their lawyers will cite. Again, it only uses a keyboard, and again explicitly states the area of memory(the control area rather than the text area) that the address will be retrieved form. This statement is a bit fuzzy, but the intent is there.
To quote: "The complete reference (i.e. address) of the index items could be displayed on the screen and the operator could be required to press a number of keys on the pad 12 to select a particular item. However, it would be simpler for the operator if the items of the index displayed were simply numbered, say, from 1 to 9 so that all the operator had to do was to press a single key on the pad 12 to select a particular item"
Overall, this sounds more like a custom terminal hooked up to text retrieval service through an X25 line or something like that rather than a GPC connected to the Internet. Even then Kermit would probably do a better job than what they describe.
At first, I did not like Titan AE. I will concur that story, characters, and plot twists, were flat. The romance bit might have been more interesting if it had been a bit more desperate, but that again is the lack of character development, as well as self censorship.
After a while, though, I got into the images, and began to really like it. While Disney goes for technical accuracy and the same old hero(ine), or the Mike/Trey/Mat culture uses bad animation but great dialog and deep social commentary, Titan AE tries to be nothing but beautiful. We expect a story, so it has one. It does not let the story interfere with the photography, and that I think that is ok. Most movies don't let the story interfere with killing, and people still go to see them.
The idea that the story was unoriginal is also meaningless. We live in a world of unoriginal ideas. Episode I, Independence Day, Galaxy Quest are all examples of movies with various degrees of unoriginal ideas and mediocre, but well executed scripts. The difference is that these movies follow appropriate formats. Even though Tim Allen was an incompetent drunk, we always knew he would save the day.
As an aside, one of the most original movies of the season, though it uses a well worn Poe technique, is Small Time Crooks. It isn't doing that well, and I don't think anyone expects it to.
It may be that I am in certain frame of mind (I also like Winter Sleepers), but I hope that we get more films like Titan AE. I am not interested in the Disney crap or the computer generated novelty of the Toy Story. Movies are there to make us believe, through the great imagery, does
It seems to me that there are three questions that we must ask.
1) Is the main purpose of this technology to provide a technically irrelevant selling point for the Pocket PCs?
2) Is the main purpose of this technology to justify the cost of the processors to run the bloated software?
3) Is the main purpose of this technology to show, when two PDAs are running side by side with ClearType, that the Pocket PC is the better machine(given the optimization)?
When we know the answers to these questions, then we can decide whether this is innovative or just annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
If the kids are looking for something different, and if they can be trusted to complete work without massive supervision, I would let then loose on any project they wish. Two examples come up quickly. First, many textbooks for math and science have suggestions of problems to code. These can be done in a computer class for credit. Even if there are no explicit coding questions, there are many ideas that will allow the student to learn computer concepts. These problems range from trajectories, to derivatives, to statistical analysis of historical data.
Second, for the student who wants to pursue computer science, introduce other textbooks If a student wants to learn Perl, JAVA, C++, or whatever, a group study program can allow learning to occur. If the teacher does not know the language, group discussions and newsgroup question can introduce the student to the techniques needed to find solutions in the real world. If the student wishes a more abstract education, you can try books like the The Practice of Programming or, for the truly adventurous, The Art of Computer Programming.
To solve the cheating problem we can take a lesson from game theory. Most people will only cheat if it benefits them. Most people will not play with others who cheat. We cannot keep people from trying to gain an advantage. Some of these advantages, like convincing people to give up equipment with promises of sex, are a gray area. Others, like hacking the code, is more clear. In either case, it is important for all players to know who the cheaters are. If cheating is obvious, then the players can do something about it.. Often, these cheaters will learn not to cheat, and sometimes will be accepted back into the game. Many of us have already gone through this process. I think it is important to set up Multiplayer Games with these realities in mind.
And of course it is going to filter the ACLU and the Center for Democracy in Technology. It kids are allowed to visit these sites they will might get a point of view inconsistent with the corporate mainstream.
As far as the bible is concerned, have you read it lately? It is full of mass murders, fornication, and this guy who did nothing but talk about pacifism and socialism. If there is book more worthy of censorship, I don't know what it is.
I would say the Peacefire test does not discredit ClickSafe, but rather proves it superiority in the censoreware market.
For those who converse instead of yell, Dr. Lienhard's radio show and a related class at the University of Houston introduces us many interesting views, and forces us to think critically. For instance, could the Oxygen atom have been "discovered" before we believed in atoms? What relationship exists, if any, exists between the plague and the printing press? Was the loom the first computer controlled industrial device? Dr. John Lienhard is a very intelligent and diverse person. He offers a unique perspective of history. This perspective elevates technical class to their proper place.
It is my personal opinion that we respect and understand how things got to be the way they are. One of the best ways to do this is to understand where the history of thier development. This book should provide much information to help us attain that goal.
An interesting question does arise if we turn this around and ask how Microsoft is going to protect itself from emulators. Sony tried to sue Connectix for Virtual PlayStation and gave up. Connectix has a lot of experience writing Window emulators, as well as writing game emulators for Windows. They should be able to write an Xbox emulator in no time at all.
In addition, FWB now has the Windows emulator for Macintoshes and Unix Alpha machines. I suspect that the Xbox will provide a way for them to leverage that property. I bet they will sell Xbox emulators for both platforms.
All in all, I think we will be able to run Xbox in our current machines for about $100.
The second fallacy is that most people are interest in, or need, information concerning only a small number of subjects and and can ignore the rest of the world. This is not likely the general population. Most of us realize that we are not computers. We realize that we have a complex biological system that seems to work best when we are provide it with a sample set of data from a diverse set of topics. From this information, we can usually extrapolate amazingly good decisions. Any system that ignores this is going to create encyclopedias, not people capable of useful thought.
If we combine these two things, we create an amazingly scary scenario in which the people paying for the ads have even more control over the information that we recieve, instead of less.
Fundamentally the article reminds me of the efficiency experts of the 80's. They had all sort of ideas of how to cram more stuff into less time, but few ideas on how to make a person more in control of his or her own destiny.
And here is the fallacy of assuming that consumers are stupid. A consumer does not have to be stupid to fall for ads, just less smart then the copywriters. The FTC is needed not because consumers are stupid, but because advertiser spend their days creating not so obvious lies. The hard job of the FTC is to determine when those lies become harmful. For instance, Pizza Hut can say it has the best pizza under one roof, because that is obvious hyperbole, but Papa John implying that Pizza Hut uses water out rusty taps may be harmful. Saying a PC, or anything, is free when money is required up front is a lie. Even if you get that money back, there is small but finite amount of value lost in inflation. People should understand that this is the case, but it requires a level of critical thinking that many people lack.
My favorite example of successful deceitful advertising is Sunny Delight. Many people buy Sunny Delight instead of Orange juice. It is cheaper, tastes better to a certain palette, and the ads show happy healthy children. Sunny Delight is also mostly sugar with few of the benefits of Orange Juice. These ads do not lie, but they are carefully constructed to mislead and cajole. The only people who do not fall for these lies are those that are smarter than the highly paid, highly motivated, advertising demons.
Science fiction does not get the respect it deserves. Here is a medium that allows us to explore the consequences of our creation. We do not really want to explore the consequences; we just want the immediate benefits. That is fine. We will survive, or we won't. There is little we can do about it.
On the other hand people who ignore science are just stupid. It is especially stupid to contaminate the ethical arguments of science with terms such as "playing god". If you want to believe that god turns on your light bulb, go for it. But I am going to have much more luck building a light bulb if I understand electrons, photons, wire, and vacuum.
How does this relate to the genome project? Simple. Scientific experience has shown us that the universe is much more complicated that we think. When we try to reduce physics to a simple set of deterministic rules, we end up with probabilities. When we try to reduce evolution to survival of the fittest, we get symbiotic relationships, niches, and catastrophes. When we try to cure illnesses with antibiotics, we get super germs that we cannot kill.
Sound byte science is not sound science. A human is not just the sum of his or her genes; memes also play an important role. That is why is cost a lot of money to raise a Kennedy. The people who try to make a perfect human by playing with genes are totally ignoring past experience. Let me reiterate. These people are not just ignoring science fiction, but also science fact.
rant off
Now I am not saying that genetic research is bad. When not diluted by public relation people, it is a very interesting. On the other hand, there is no reason that genetics in itself will cure anything outside the realm of what we call birth defects. For instance, there is no absolute genetic relationship between breast cancer and heredity. Another example is Alzheimer's. There is no reason to believe that it is not perfectly natural to lose ones mind when one gets very old. The progression of the 'disease' is likely variable in the human race, just like height or eye color. Conditions such as cancer, dementia, and low intelligence probably have a significant environmental component, and it is not at all clear that the most cost effective solution is the 'fixing' of bad genes.
And this is the crux of the matter. The money from genetics will come from an extension of the current massive consumerism. We will have fast cures for being 10% overweight, 2 inches too short, or the infamous non-blonde-hair-blue-eyed epidemic. Will it be worth the money? Maybe. Will it feed the poor? Unlikely. Will people still die? Hopefully.
You know, now that I think about if, the most appropriate fable for this situation is the Star Bellied Sneeches. I wonder if any of the scientists have read it.
We all know that for all practical intents and purposes, C++ is the child of C, and therefore any hybrid between the two will lead to an animal with 6 limbs, three eyes, no mouth and one butt cheek. In other words, Microsoft has developed another half-assed way to program.
As far as the claim that programmers can use whatever they wish on a Windows machine, history tells another story. MS has consistently done all they could to move people from non-MS development environments to MS development environments. Many programmers won't like to use C#, but much like VB, they won't have a choice.
Ultimately this is another attempt by Microsoft to bring down the average intelligence of programmers another notch.
BTW, I fail to see the use of garbage collection in a serious application language(as opposed to an applet language).
First of all, the patent covers a custom terminal, with multiple ROM and RAM areas, and keypads hardwired to signal generators for modems. We have details about what type of information goes into what memory segment, what the ROM contains, and even the timing between the display and the memory.
For instance, the patent clearly states that the display text will be in the first transmission block, and will be loaded into one memory area, while the 'hidden information' will be in second block and will be loaded into another memory area. To the contrary, we all know that HTML is embedded, and all information is loaded into the same memory area. Once it is loaded, the appropriate text and graphics is generated for the displayed.
To Quote: "In the operation of the system shown, when a block of which is to be displayed is transmitted by the computer 1 to the terminal and routed to the memory A. The second part of the selected block is transferred to special memory B included in the computer 1 and associated with the input channel of the computer to which the terminal is connected"
The issue of the keyboard is also a problem. Not only is the keyboard used to communicate, but also it appears that they keyboard would be hardwired, though some signal generators, to memory and to the modem, or at least the acoustic coupler. Certainly T1 lines are not modems.
To quote: "Inputs from an operator to the terminal apparatus are entered by means of a key pad 12 which is connected to a signal generator 13 producing signals which after modulation in the modem 6 are transmitted via the isolation and protection circuits 5 and the switch 3 to the line 2, and through that line to the computer 1."
About the only problem I see is that they do talk about an index, which is probably the paragraph that all their lawyers will cite. Again, it only uses a keyboard, and again explicitly states the area of memory(the control area rather than the text area) that the address will be retrieved form. This statement is a bit fuzzy, but the intent is there.
To quote: "The complete reference (i.e. address) of the index items could be displayed on the screen and the operator could be required to press a number of keys on the pad 12 to select a particular item. However, it would be simpler for the operator if the items of the index displayed were simply numbered, say, from 1 to 9 so that all the operator had to do was to press a single key on the pad 12 to select a particular item"
Overall, this sounds more like a custom terminal hooked up to text retrieval service through an X25 line or something like that rather than a GPC connected to the Internet. Even then Kermit would probably do a better job than what they describe.
After a while, though, I got into the images, and began to really like it. While Disney goes for technical accuracy and the same old hero(ine), or the Mike/Trey/Mat culture uses bad animation but great dialog and deep social commentary, Titan AE tries to be nothing but beautiful. We expect a story, so it has one. It does not let the story interfere with the photography, and that I think that is ok. Most movies don't let the story interfere with killing, and people still go to see them.
The idea that the story was unoriginal is also meaningless. We live in a world of unoriginal ideas. Episode I, Independence Day, Galaxy Quest are all examples of movies with various degrees of unoriginal ideas and mediocre, but well executed scripts. The difference is that these movies follow appropriate formats. Even though Tim Allen was an incompetent drunk, we always knew he would save the day.
As an aside, one of the most original movies of the season, though it uses a well worn Poe technique, is Small Time Crooks. It isn't doing that well, and I don't think anyone expects it to.
It may be that I am in certain frame of mind (I also like Winter Sleepers), but I hope that we get more films like Titan AE. I am not interested in the Disney crap or the computer generated novelty of the Toy Story. Movies are there to make us believe, through the great imagery, does
1) Is the main purpose of this technology to provide a technically irrelevant selling point for the Pocket PCs?
2) Is the main purpose of this technology to justify the cost of the processors to run the bloated software?
3) Is the main purpose of this technology to show, when two PDAs are running side by side with ClearType, that the Pocket PC is the better machine(given the optimization)?
When we know the answers to these questions, then we can decide whether this is innovative or just annoying.