For what it is worth, the text-to-speech capabilities built into the MacOS could handle this sentence. A few of the voices had trouble with the hyphened word, but most were understandable to the random people I grabbed to listen.
I have been playing around with text-to-speech for several years and I have seen it come a long way since then.
I currently use my computer as an alarm clock. It starts up and checks my mail. While I am sitting in bed, it reads off the sender and the subject line.
A lot of mornings, the time I get out of bed is determined by who sends me mail.
I would like to see Redundant be removed from at least meta-moderation, if not gull moderation. It is impossible to accurately see if a moderation of Redundant is Fair or not. You could go back at look at the original discussion, but that is a lot of work.
As someone who MM's about six timws a week, I have given up trying to meta-moderate Redundant moderations. Doing so would require me to go back and check the original discussion to see what was posted when.
I think that the Slashdot team just needs to remove it from the moderation possibilities.
obTopic: I saw the teaser in the theatre, but it is good tobe able to download it. I am not planning on buying QuickTime Pro anytime soon, though, which sucks. I might have to go to the nearby Apple retail stores. They might have QT Pro installed and then I will be able to watch the trailer on one of their 22" LCD screens.
The last time I went I downloaded the LOTR trailer and watched that in full screen. Very nice...
Perhaps, but the original post was trying to list books that would appeal to AIs of the future. While Jane may not be an AI, what she goes through in the series would most certainly appeal to most AIs capable of understanding literature, I think.
I waited until the 9:15 showing last night so as to avoid as many smaller kids in the theatre as possible.
First off, the Episode II trailer was more of a "teaser." I liked having the only sound be Darth's breathing, but the clips seemed so short (5 seconds or less each?) that it was difficult to get any senese of the movie. In addition, I am not sure I am glad to see that Lucas decided to put the teaser before Monsters, Inc. I think it definitely says something about E.2.'s intended audience.
Also, has anyone else noticed that we are getting more and more in front of movies these days? I went and saw K-Pax last weekend. 23 minutes of commercials and previews. Monsters was not as bad, but was still up over 17 minutes of previews. By the time the movie starts, I frequently have forgetten what I came to see.
To the movie at hand: The bedrooms seemed almost straight out of Toy Story. A great scene is when you see the "scarers" (as opposed to the paperwork monsters) coming out of the light in slow-motion. It has been done in so many fighter-pilot movies, and worked really well here.
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of characters from another movie/show that I cannot think of right now. They should have been dropped.
The CGI was great. I am glad to see that Pixar is getting better and better at human beings (by far one of the more difficult things to realistically render). Boo looked halfway decent.
For the sound: I am still waiting to see a movie that uses theatre digital surround to its full advantage well. What was interesting last night was that one of Goodman's roars was so loud that it shook the ceiling of the threatre, causing a vibration on top of the speakers.
In all, it was a good movie. Toy Story and Shrek were still better, but I think that most kids and most CGI fans should see this one in the threatre. I would give it 2.5 stars out of 5.
If only I could have talked my friend into seeing "The One" instead...
Re:alas, not 0.9.5
on
Netscape 6.2
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
About five minutesbefore reading your post I noticed that Slashdot was using LINK tags. Theyare actually using more than just the ones you list.
Depending on where you are, I have seen Home, Previous, Next, Author, and Search.
iCab has included LINK support since their beginning. At first I had them turned off, now I use them more and more.
I even added them to http://www.ka.net/eudora/faqs/index.html [Eudora/Mac FAQs]
So as not to be modded off-topic, I have never liked the combined mail and news clients in the later Netscape installs. The only version of Netscape I have on my computer is the last true "Navigator" install that Netecape offered on the Mac, 4.0.8
On occasion I run a Mozilla build to see how it is. Most browsing, however, is done in iCab and, occasionally, Opera.
I want a browser to browse, and not shop and checkmy email.
The system requirements for 6.2 are also listed at a 266 mHz 604e (something I do not think ever existed 0 they must mean a G3). That is leaving out a lot of older machines that are still out there.
I tried iCab on the Mac and was given the finger. Changing to a user string of "Mozilla/4.76 (Macintosh; I; PPC)" allowed me to access the site (with nice, broken XHTML).
Changing the user agent string back after loading the home page www.msn.com allowed me to get to all of the links I clicked on.
What makes you think that I...err.... it is not already out among you, posting on Slashdot. Maybe I...err... it has been around a while, with user ID 2031.
I have been looking at getting a portable MP3 player. Will I get the new iPod? I am uncertain. I will definitely consider it, however.
What you need to realize is that while other products may be more "technically advanced/powerfull/whatever," Apple products win, almost hands-down, in the ease-of use department.
Ease of use is something that I am willing to spend a little extra money on. Sure, I might be able to find a 10 gig system that is cheaper than the iPod, but if I hate the menu system and the syncing on the cheaper one, I am not going to enjoy it as much. If it is bad enough, I will think to myself "I wish I had payed the extra $50/$100/$200 to get the iPod."
Re:Paying for _community_ content?
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
>We already "pay" for the site by submitting content!
Huh? Since when is content an acceptable form of payment?
You also seem to be missing the difference between Slashdot and Salon - paying a subscription to Slashdot will, based on everything I have ever heard CmdrTaco say about it, never change the *content* you are able to read, but rather things around the content.
The last I checked, running an ad off of Doubleclick was never considered "content." If you pay the subscription, you lose the ad - YOU DO NOT LOSE CONTENT.
So you are not paying for (user-provided) content.
You also mention the difference between in pre- and post-Andover takeover. You seem to trace differences back to this purchase without considering other possibilities. Is is not possible that Slashdot grew enormously during this time and, as a result, hosting costs went up as well?
>Let us know that we're being charged this because of need, and not because
>of the avarice of a few businessmen over at VA.
Let us not forget the other thing - based on everything I have read, there will never be a *need* to pay the subscription fee. It is a choice.
Re:Please inact a subscription service!
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2
I have been wanting a paid Slashdot for some time. Unlike many other people, however, I do not mind if all I get for the subscription are removed ads.
I was one of the people who bought a shirt from ThinkGeek to help support Slashdot (pre-IPO). I do not want people getting things because they paid - I want it like it is now: You get things (+1 posting bonus, moderation) because of what you write, not what you pay.
I already remove ads (iCab is a wonderful browser), but I would most certainly pay to keep Slashdot around (and keep me from stealing content, which is what I feel I am doing by removing ads)
I have my browser set to not send referrer tags from other domains. That is just me, but it is possible that other browsers will start supporting that, as well.
Re:New Sets != Death of Imagination
on
Battle Over Blocks
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Perhaps, but as an avid Lego fan (65,000 blocks), I can say that there have been some good sets out recently.
The Bungee Blaster is one of the best designed sets I have ever seen. Everyone on Slashdot should go out and purchase this set. It is simple, inexpensive, and will have you playing with it for hours.
You could go with one of the original PCI machines and use the Unsupported route. Machines worth looking at that are the x500 and x600 lines. Smalldog http://www.smalldog.com/ has some 7500 and 7600 for sale for under $130. If you go with any of the x500 or x600 lines, you will probably want to put down the $150-$200 for a G3 upgrade. Memory for these machines will run you about $65/128meg chip.
You could also go with an older iMac. You can pick one up for $650-$900. Most of those use standard PC100 or other DIMMs (which are running really cheap right now).
The last is to get an older G3 machine. You can pick one up for about $500-$600. Depending on the model, they use standard PC66 or PC100 chips. Search for either "G3 beige" or "G3 blue and white" to find these machines.
This last way is probably going to get you a pretty good machine. It depends on your other uses for the machine, but all of these, with at least 256 megs of RAM, will be good for OS X.
As others have pointed out, while you still may be required to have a degree to be considered, having that extra bit of education can only help things in the job market (unless you are declared "over-qualified").
Take two people, who graduated from the same program a year apart and have relatively similar work experiences. Suppose one can talk intelligently about a subject that does not show up on his transcript, and explains that he was motivated enough to learn it on the web from MIT. The other is unable. Who do you think looks better to the company?
In addition, the web page also mentions that this is a good reference for other colleges and universities. Want to know how MIT teaches a difficult concept? Just look itup on the web.
I applaud MIT's effort; this is truly a move that can only help mankind.
Perhaps the author was referring to file *extensions*, which are easy to change (simply open the Internet control panel, Advanced, File Extensions). I believe this capability was in the MacOS all the way back to about 7.1 or so.
The speed at which you can turn first hand observation into an ad hominem attack astounds me.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I ignored your ad hominem attacks in your first post. Should I ignore them again? Why not just take a running count.
Perish the thought that you might consider a fresh perspective.
We will start with (1)
It disturbs me that you consider them "children" to be "molded". You belittle them. And your assumption is both non sequitur and argumentative.
Not at all. Call them "Students" to be "developed." That is your argumennt, is it not? That high schools are failing students because they do not "develop" them far or fast enough? Something about the environment assisting psychological development?
You stated that you helped students get to IMSA. Students are accepted to IMSA, in part, based on their capacity to learn. You also made the argument that learning to learn occurs before the age of five. The logical conclusion to these statements is that you were there before they were five.
It's plain that you're not open.
(2) Sounds like an attack to me.
My opinion, and also the opinion of many people I know who have gone there. You seem to think opinion has no bearing on truth. That's disturbing.
In the same way, I have friends, some of whom have gone to MIT, who think that it is a great place to go. Does that make it true? No, it is simply an opinion. Simply because you and your ten friends believe it not to be a great place to go does not make it true any more than the opinions of myself and ten of my friends stating the opposite. Both are simply opinions.
Whether you have access to these "hundreds of developmental psychologists" or not is irrelevant.
My access to them may be irrelevant. Their opinions and findings in the matter, however, are very relevant to the conversation at hand.
It's a pathetic attempt to impress. And that you presume to speak for them is also a pathetic attempt at something.
(3) and (4)
And, uh, that there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," DOES in EVERY way mean that we can not discuss and study it.
What? There is also not a standard definition of "intelligence," either, so we cannot discuss that, either? What, exactly, is your psychological background?
I guess developmental psychologists don't need to study logic.
(5)
Do you think this is about being better than you? Because there's a disease for people who think that way.
I think we will count all of that as (6).
If you had, you would KNOW that the idea that "people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives" is an oversimplification
It is a simplification, but in no way is it in any way incorrect or an oversimplification. Kohlberg and Erikson may not be completely up to date, but their theories still stand.
"I read it on SlashDot" is not a valid argument or reason.
I agree. And knowing that, you completely avoided the ramifications of that statement. Congratulations.
I have absolutely no idea what are you trying to say here. You used it as an argument in your first post. All of my arguments have been backed up with references to developmental psychology.
I don't know what kind of developmental psych professor you'd make, but you're certainly an interesting subject.
(7)
The vast problem with specialized fields of psych is that every one claims to have THE understanding of how the mind of person/social group/age group "X" works.
High school students think at a different level, in general, than college students. That is not a complete explanation. Indeed, we do not know how or why. We do, however, know this based on research and observation.
You choose to remove environment from development.
The environment can only help (or hinder) a person to reach their potential. This potential can be helped along by environment, I am not going to disagree with that, but inate psychology has a lot more to do with that potential. In general, high school students have not developed enough for college-level ideas not because of their environment, but rather their psychological development (helped by environment, but not entirely determined by it).
"How to learn" is a set skill. You just choose not to look at it on the correct level. But no, it's not like learning to add 3 digit numbers, unless you take into account all the abstract reasoning that must go into learning to add 3 digit numbers.
So a second-grader who learns to add three-digit numbers completely understands the abstract reasoning behind that skill? Your argument seems to be that teachers are simply not teaching the abstract ideas, and that is why the second grader does not "get it" on an abstract level.
Can you be open to a new idea? There are psychological reasons, independent of environment, why a second grader is not capable of understanding the abract idea of adding three-digit numbers together.
And you haven't.
(8)
These students are not made capable of "college level work" (a concept I will dispute later, if necessary) because of the education you give them.
I am curious as to your psychological background, as well as your experience working with, and teaching, students.
You grossly underestimate the basic ability of all your students, if you believe they reach you INCAPABLE of a thing.
So I should ignore their natural limitations? When students come to IMSA, they are at a certain developmental level (I am in no way saying the same level, notice). I can help them reach a higher level of understanding, and I can help them reach their potential within their current level, but no one would be doing anyone a favor if the students were taught at a level above their current cognitive state. I could try teaching Calculus to second graders, but no matter how hard I try, they are not going to grasp the abstract concepts, not matter their previous education. According to your theory, I would be able to teach them Calculus. I am saying that one day, when they have developed more, they will be - but, in the mean time, they will not be able to grasp the concepts.
If you, who believe THAT, are capable of getting a job at IMSA, the problem is a lot worse than I thought.
(9)
I'm really taken aback that you could bastardize a respectable field of psychology by using it as evidence to THAT end. Readers take note: this is the attitude that has caused American educational instutitions to fail, and will eventually cause them to collapse entirely.
All I have stated are well-accepted theories in developmental psychology. You called them "oversimplifications," but never gave a clear alternative take on the theories, nor used them to back your own arguments. You state that high schools are failing students, something I agree with, but never give a clear explanation of why this is other than saying "They are not getting the students smart enough."
You apparently beleive that each child's intelectual ability should be ignored, and all students should be treated as if they are working at the highest possible cognitive level; that this will cause them to be at the highest intelectual level. The attitude you seem to have a problem with is the attitude that each student is capable of working at the highest cognitive level sometime in the future, but may or may not be there yet. Is this the attitude that is causing the failure of American schools?
I believe that lawsuit was a result of an agreement made between the two that said that Apple Records was to be used for anything "that makes sounds." Adding sound capability to their line of computers (something they probably never thought of when they made the agreement) got Apple into trouble.
It is at these fringe overlaps that people get into trouble. As others pointed out, Yahoo! Movies is a good example.
No, no one is going to confuse a bad actor and a web portal, but people can confuse Yahoo! Movies with Yahoo Serious Movies.
It should be pointed out that this is not unique to CS. As someone else pointed out, most of the hard sciences are the same way. I think you could go ahead and argue that most any field is the same way.
I was a CS major for three semesters and while there was some colaberation, there was not a lot. Of course, that may have been unique to the school. Later on, as a math major at a different school, there was a lot more. Homework was worked on in groups, or at least compared. I think this happens quite a bit.
I think you could easily write an Honor Code that covers this sort of situation. I know that when I helped people with their work, and when they helped me on mine, I made sure that there was not just rote copying, but actual understanding of the underlying concepts.
So you just have to make sure that Honor Code assures that you are helping students out as peers, and not just letting someone copy. Defining what that means could be up to the Judicial Administrator and the school.
One real test (no pun intended) is the exam. One of the many reasons that my classmates made sure we understood certain problems was that we might see it later on the exam. It does you no good to get that 1 point on a problem set by copying if it them means that you lose 10 points on an exam because you did not know how to do that type of problem/proof.
Work in groups, but be ready for individual exams (although written exams were always so strange in a CS class).
What magic yardstick are you claiming to use as a measure of intellectual ability?
Yes, let us use standardized testing (or any other way of attempting to measure intellectual ability). We have all seen how well that works in high school and college settings. As I said in my previous post, anyone who has worked with people at both levels can easily see the difference.
Attempting to quantify it is a waste of time.
My point is that the test scores that admitted these students into your "illustrious" sancta were largely thanks to me.
And you think that I am full of myself? Nice to know that you molded these children instead of the rest of their environment. I assume you were with them when, as you put it, before the age of five when they were learning to learn?
My point is that you're avoiding the implications of the evidence staring you plainly in the face.
The implication is what? Since you are obviously so high and mighty and have studied these things, I am open to your take on things.
(On a side note, I don't think going to MIT as an undergraduate is an enviable position.)
Your opinion.
Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? Yes.
Because high school are not able to convey college-level ideas to their students?
Our high schools may be failing students, but it is not because they are not getting their students to work at a college-level.
And, indeed, what does it mean to "develop fully intellectually"? That's ambiguous at best, intentionally vague at worst.
I will let the hundreds of developmental psychologists out there know your opnion. I am sure they would be interested in it. No, there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," but that in no way means that we can not discuss and study it.
College graduates ARE more capable of understanding things than high school graduates are. Gee, I wonder if that's because high schools fall short.
Is this the opinion you have been talking about all this time? The one that is better than mine? Yes, high schools may be failing, but it is not because they are not teaching students how to work at a college level.
You said it well yourself: College graduates ARE more capable of understanding things than high school graduates are.
But definitely not for the reason you state (failing high schools).
Have you studied any developmental psychology? Have you studied any adolescent psychology? Any educational psychology?
If you had, you would know that people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives.
As so many other/.'ers have already pointed out, if you haven't gotten down *how to learn* by the time you're five years old, you never will.
"I read it on SlashDot" is not a valid argument or reason. Developmental psychology shows us completely differently. I suggest you sit down and take a class in it.
Colleges don't teach one how to learn. Knowing how to learn is an entrance requirement.
On one level. I am not suggesting that high school students do not know how to learn, but rather that, as we get older, we are able to understand and learn in new and more profound ways. This is part of maturing and developing, not a matter of the quality of our high schools.
"How to learn" is not a set skill. It is not like learning to add three digit numbers. You do not learn it once and then never have to come back to it again. It is a skill that requires constant attention and development.
Incidentally, if you measure the success of a student by the prestige of the college they go to, I suggest you quit your job in education.
Did you read what I wrote? It was one of the main points I had. These students, later on, are capable of college-level work. But in high school, even at a place like IMSA (that uses more college-type teaching methods), they are not. This is not IMSA's fault, this is the fact that they have not (using your favorite phrase here) "fully developed intellectually."
Getback to me when you can talk about developmental psychology using more explanations than "I read it on SlashDot."
I was not as early. People were amazed at my 2400 baud modem, though.
It was 1992, and I was connected through a free FidoNet-connected BBS in Louisville, KY (called TSCOPE for anyone from the area). We could get Internet email accounts and a very limited Usenet feed.
The SysOp of TSCOPE actually became a friend of mine (local BBS gatherings - those were great fun). The BBS was run on two phone lines connected to a 286.
I was running my 2400 baud modem off of an Apple//gs with 1meg RAM, no hard drive, running at 2.8 mHz.
I remember reading about the Waco comings and going online. Significantly different coverage (for better or worse) than the Trade Center coverage.
Are you suggesting that people graduating from high school are at the peak of their ability to learn? That they have mastered/how/ to learn and should now move soley on to/what/ to learn?
If you are taking classes that could be straight out of a high school, your college is guilty of dumbing down their curriculum. As someone with friends and family working in smaller colleges, I know there is a lot of pressure by the student body (and therefore the administration who watch the purse strings and attendence numbers, especially at smaller community-college-type private schools) to dumb down the curriculum.
There is an astounding gap between the intellectual ability of a high school senior and a college senior in terms of their ability to learn. Colleges are there to further refine your learning ability as you mature.
I work with some of the most gifted kids in the country (I work at the Illinois Math and Science Academy). These are kids who are going to go to Ivy League schools and places like MIT. And they struggle with some concepts and some of the more college-based ways of approaching subjects. Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? No, it simply means that they have not developed fully intellectually.
Colleges teach things like getting information from research journals, and learning from those. How to effectively look at original documents and judge their veracity.
What you are suggesting is that the only difference between a high school senior and a college senior is *what* they know. You obviously have not been around students in a learning environment if you truly believe that.
Colleges teach *how to learn* the same as elementary and high schools. They simply teach it at a much more advanced level.
Re:Idea after being mugged last year...
on
GPS Meets PCS
·
· Score: 1
Some cell phones have gone with holding 9 down to call 911. The result? People would have their phone in their pocket and would somehoe hold the 9 button for a few seconds, wasting 911 services.
Imagine the problems that terrorists could do with something like the maps on http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/cables.html and the information on http://www.iscpc.org/
Major trunk lines in many places. Granted, these often do not locate the lines with enough precision to accurately locate and take out, but they are a start. I am sure that a search of local utilities and maps available to the public could locate things fairly well.
Slashdot Mirror
For what it is worth, the text-to-speech capabilities built into the MacOS could handle this sentence. A few of the voices had trouble with the hyphened word, but most were understandable to the random people I grabbed to listen.
I have been playing around with text-to-speech for several years and I have seen it come a long way since then.
I currently use my computer as an alarm clock. It starts up and checks my mail. While I am sitting in bed, it reads off the sender and the subject line.
A lot of mornings, the time I get out of bed is determined by who sends me mail.
I would like to see Redundant be removed from at least meta-moderation, if not gull moderation. It is impossible to accurately see if a moderation of Redundant is Fair or not. You could go back at look at the original discussion, but that is a lot of work.
Contact information for Kentucky can be found at http://www.law.state.ky.us/office/contact.htm. The phone number is (502) 696-5300.
They are closed right now (4:30 Eastern), but I would urge you to call tomorrow.
As someone who MM's about six timws a week, I have given up trying to meta-moderate Redundant moderations. Doing so would require me to go back and check the original discussion to see what was posted when.
I think that the Slashdot team just needs to remove it from the moderation possibilities.
obTopic: I saw the teaser in the theatre, but it is good tobe able to download it. I am not planning on buying QuickTime Pro anytime soon, though, which sucks. I might have to go to the nearby Apple retail stores. They might have QT Pro installed and then I will be able to watch the trailer on one of their 22" LCD screens.
The last time I went I downloaded the LOTR trailer and watched that in full screen. Very nice...
Perhaps, but the original post was trying to list books that would appeal to AIs of the future. While Jane may not be an AI, what she goes through in the series would most certainly appeal to most AIs capable of understanding literature, I think.
Just to nitpick, I suppose.
I waited until the 9:15 showing last night so as to avoid as many smaller kids in the theatre as possible.
First off, the Episode II trailer was more of a "teaser." I liked having the only sound be Darth's breathing, but the clips seemed so short (5 seconds or less each?) that it was difficult to get any senese of the movie. In addition, I am not sure I am glad to see that Lucas decided to put the teaser before Monsters, Inc. I think it definitely says something about E.2.'s intended audience.
Also, has anyone else noticed that we are getting more and more in front of movies these days? I went and saw K-Pax last weekend. 23 minutes of commercials and previews. Monsters was not as bad, but was still up over 17 minutes of previews. By the time the movie starts, I frequently have forgetten what I came to see.
To the movie at hand: The bedrooms seemed almost straight out of Toy Story. A great scene is when you see the "scarers" (as opposed to the paperwork monsters) coming out of the light in slow-motion. It has been done in so many fighter-pilot movies, and worked really well here.
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of characters from another movie/show that I cannot think of right now. They should have been dropped.
The CGI was great. I am glad to see that Pixar is getting better and better at human beings (by far one of the more difficult things to realistically render). Boo looked halfway decent.
For the sound: I am still waiting to see a movie that uses theatre digital surround to its full advantage well. What was interesting last night was that one of Goodman's roars was so loud that it shook the ceiling of the threatre, causing a vibration on top of the speakers.
In all, it was a good movie. Toy Story and Shrek were still better, but I think that most kids and most CGI fans should see this one in the threatre. I would give it 2.5 stars out of 5.
If only I could have talked my friend into seeing "The One" instead...
About five minutesbefore reading your post I noticed that Slashdot was using LINK tags. Theyare actually using more than just the ones you list.
Depending on where you are, I have seen Home, Previous, Next, Author, and Search.
iCab has included LINK support since their beginning. At first I had them turned off, now I use them more and more.
I even added them to http://www.ka.net/eudora/faqs/index.html [Eudora/Mac FAQs]
So as not to be modded off-topic, I have never liked the combined mail and news clients in the later Netscape installs. The only version of Netscape I have on my computer is the last true "Navigator" install that Netecape offered on the Mac, 4.0.8
On occasion I run a Mozilla build to see how it is. Most browsing, however, is done in iCab and, occasionally, Opera.
I want a browser to browse, and not shop and checkmy email.
The system requirements for 6.2 are also listed at a 266 mHz 604e (something I do not think ever existed 0 they must mean a G3). That is leaving out a lot of older machines that are still out there.
I tried iCab on the Mac and was given the finger. Changing to a user string of "Mozilla/4.76 (Macintosh; I; PPC)" allowed me to access the site (with nice, broken XHTML).
Changing the user agent string back after loading the home page www.msn.com allowed me to get to all of the links I clicked on.
What makes you think that I...err.... it is not already out among you, posting on Slashdot. Maybe I...err... it has been around a while, with user ID 2031.
Or maybe not...
I have been looking at getting a portable MP3 player. Will I get the new iPod? I am uncertain. I will definitely consider it, however.
What you need to realize is that while other products may be more "technically advanced/powerfull/whatever," Apple products win, almost hands-down, in the ease-of use department.
Ease of use is something that I am willing to spend a little extra money on. Sure, I might be able to find a 10 gig system that is cheaper than the iPod, but if I hate the menu system and the syncing on the cheaper one, I am not going to enjoy it as much. If it is bad enough, I will think to myself "I wish I had payed the extra $50/$100/$200 to get the iPod."
>We already "pay" for the site by submitting content!
Huh? Since when is content an acceptable form of payment?
You also seem to be missing the difference between Slashdot and Salon - paying a subscription to Slashdot will, based on everything I have ever heard CmdrTaco say about it, never change the *content* you are able to read, but rather things around the content.
The last I checked, running an ad off of Doubleclick was never considered "content." If you pay the subscription, you lose the ad - YOU DO NOT LOSE CONTENT.
So you are not paying for (user-provided) content.
You also mention the difference between in pre- and post-Andover takeover. You seem to trace differences back to this purchase without considering other possibilities. Is is not possible that Slashdot grew enormously during this time and, as a result, hosting costs went up as well?
>Let us know that we're being charged this because of need, and not because
>of the avarice of a few businessmen over at VA.
Let us not forget the other thing - based on everything I have read, there will never be a *need* to pay the subscription fee. It is a choice.
I have been wanting a paid Slashdot for some time. Unlike many other people, however, I do not mind if all I get for the subscription are removed ads.
I was one of the people who bought a shirt from ThinkGeek to help support Slashdot (pre-IPO). I do not want people getting things because they paid - I want it like it is now: You get things (+1 posting bonus, moderation) because of what you write, not what you pay.
I already remove ads (iCab is a wonderful browser), but I would most certainly pay to keep Slashdot around (and keep me from stealing content, which is what I feel I am doing by removing ads)
I have my browser set to not send referrer tags from other domains. That is just me, but it is possible that other browsers will start supporting that, as well.
Perhaps, but as an avid Lego fan (65,000 blocks), I can say that there have been some good sets out recently.
The Bungee Blaster is one of the best designed sets I have ever seen. Everyone on Slashdot should go out and purchase this set. It is simple, inexpensive, and will have you playing with it for hours.
See this Usenet post and related threads.
You have a few possible routes to take.
You could go with one of the original PCI machines and use the Unsupported route. Machines worth looking at that are the x500 and x600 lines. Smalldog http://www.smalldog.com/ has some 7500 and 7600 for sale for under $130. If you go with any of the x500 or x600 lines, you will probably want to put down the $150-$200 for a G3 upgrade. Memory for these machines will run you about $65/128meg chip.
You could also go with an older iMac. You can pick one up for $650-$900. Most of those use standard PC100 or other DIMMs (which are running really cheap right now).
The last is to get an older G3 machine. You can pick one up for about $500-$600. Depending on the model, they use standard PC66 or PC100 chips. Search for either "G3 beige" or "G3 blue and white" to find these machines.
This last way is probably going to get you a pretty good machine. It depends on your other uses for the machine, but all of these, with at least 256 megs of RAM, will be good for OS X.
As others have pointed out, while you still may be required to have a degree to be considered, having that extra bit of education can only help things in the job market (unless you are declared "over-qualified").
Take two people, who graduated from the same program a year apart and have relatively similar work experiences. Suppose one can talk intelligently about a subject that does not show up on his transcript, and explains that he was motivated enough to learn it on the web from MIT. The other is unable. Who do you think looks better to the company?
In addition, the web page also mentions that this is a good reference for other colleges and universities. Want to know how MIT teaches a difficult concept? Just look itup on the web.
I applaud MIT's effort; this is truly a move that can only help mankind.
Perhaps the author was referring to file *extensions*, which are easy to change (simply open the Internet control panel, Advanced, File Extensions). I believe this capability was in the MacOS all the way back to about 7.1 or so.
The speed at which you can turn first hand observation into an ad hominem attack astounds me.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I ignored your ad hominem attacks in your first post. Should I ignore them again? Why not just take a running count.
Perish the thought that you might consider a fresh perspective.
We will start with (1)
It disturbs me that you consider them "children" to be "molded". You belittle them. And your assumption is both non sequitur and argumentative.
Not at all. Call them "Students" to be "developed." That is your argumennt, is it not? That high schools are failing students because they do not "develop" them far or fast enough? Something about the environment assisting psychological development?
You stated that you helped students get to IMSA. Students are accepted to IMSA, in part, based on their capacity to learn. You also made the argument that learning to learn occurs before the age of five. The logical conclusion to these statements is that you were there before they were five.
It's plain that you're not open.
(2) Sounds like an attack to me.
My opinion, and also the opinion of many people I know who have gone there. You seem to think opinion has no bearing on truth. That's disturbing.
In the same way, I have friends, some of whom have gone to MIT, who think that it is a great place to go. Does that make it true? No, it is simply an opinion. Simply because you and your ten friends believe it not to be a great place to go does not make it true any more than the opinions of myself and ten of my friends stating the opposite. Both are simply opinions.
Whether you have access to these "hundreds of developmental psychologists" or not is irrelevant.
My access to them may be irrelevant. Their opinions and findings in the matter, however, are very relevant to the conversation at hand.
It's a pathetic attempt to impress. And that you presume to speak for them is also a pathetic attempt at something.
(3) and (4)
And, uh, that there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," DOES in EVERY way mean that we can not discuss and study it.
What? There is also not a standard definition of "intelligence," either, so we cannot discuss that, either? What, exactly, is your psychological background?
I guess developmental psychologists don't need to study logic.
(5)
Do you think this is about being better than you? Because there's a disease for people who think that way.
I think we will count all of that as (6).
If you had, you would KNOW that the idea that "people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives" is an oversimplification
It is a simplification, but in no way is it in any way incorrect or an oversimplification. Kohlberg and Erikson may not be completely up to date, but their theories still stand.
"I read it on SlashDot" is not a valid argument or reason.
I agree. And knowing that, you completely avoided the ramifications of that statement. Congratulations.
I have absolutely no idea what are you trying to say here. You used it as an argument in your first post. All of my arguments have been backed up with references to developmental psychology.
I don't know what kind of developmental psych professor you'd make, but you're certainly an interesting subject.
(7)
The vast problem with specialized fields of psych is that every one claims to have THE understanding of how the mind of person/social group/age group "X" works.
High school students think at a different level, in general, than college students. That is not a complete explanation. Indeed, we do not know how or why. We do, however, know this based on research and observation.
You choose to remove environment from development.
The environment can only help (or hinder) a person to reach their potential. This potential can be helped along by environment, I am not going to disagree with that, but inate psychology has a lot more to do with that potential. In general, high school students have not developed enough for college-level ideas not because of their environment, but rather their psychological development (helped by environment, but not entirely determined by it).
"How to learn" is a set skill. You just choose not to look at it on the correct level. But no, it's not like learning to add 3 digit numbers, unless you take into account all the abstract reasoning that must go into learning to add 3 digit numbers.
So a second-grader who learns to add three-digit numbers completely understands the abstract reasoning behind that skill? Your argument seems to be that teachers are simply not teaching the abstract ideas, and that is why the second grader does not "get it" on an abstract level.
Can you be open to a new idea? There are psychological reasons, independent of environment, why a second grader is not capable of understanding the abract idea of adding three-digit numbers together.
And you haven't.
(8)
These students are not made capable of "college level work" (a concept I will dispute later, if necessary) because of the education you give them.
I am curious as to your psychological background, as well as your experience working with, and teaching, students.
You grossly underestimate the basic ability of all your students, if you believe they reach you INCAPABLE of a thing.
So I should ignore their natural limitations? When students come to IMSA, they are at a certain developmental level (I am in no way saying the same level, notice). I can help them reach a higher level of understanding, and I can help them reach their potential within their current level, but no one would be doing anyone a favor if the students were taught at a level above their current cognitive state. I could try teaching Calculus to second graders, but no matter how hard I try, they are not going to grasp the abstract concepts, not matter their previous education. According to your theory, I would be able to teach them Calculus. I am saying that one day, when they have developed more, they will be - but, in the mean time, they will not be able to grasp the concepts.
If you, who believe THAT, are capable of getting a job at IMSA, the problem is a lot worse than I thought.
(9)
I'm really taken aback that you could bastardize a respectable field of psychology by using it as evidence to THAT end. Readers take note: this is the attitude that has caused American educational instutitions to fail, and will eventually cause them to collapse entirely.
All I have stated are well-accepted theories in developmental psychology. You called them "oversimplifications," but never gave a clear alternative take on the theories, nor used them to back your own arguments. You state that high schools are failing students, something I agree with, but never give a clear explanation of why this is other than saying "They are not getting the students smart enough."
You apparently beleive that each child's intelectual ability should be ignored, and all students should be treated as if they are working at the highest possible cognitive level; that this will cause them to be at the highest intelectual level. The attitude you seem to have a problem with is the attitude that each student is capable of working at the highest cognitive level sometime in the future, but may or may not be there yet. Is this the attitude that is causing the failure of American schools?
I believe that lawsuit was a result of an agreement made between the two that said that Apple Records was to be used for anything "that makes sounds." Adding sound capability to their line of computers (something they probably never thought of when they made the agreement) got Apple into trouble.
It is at these fringe overlaps that people get into trouble. As others pointed out, Yahoo! Movies is a good example.
No, no one is going to confuse a bad actor and a web portal, but people can confuse Yahoo! Movies with Yahoo Serious Movies.
It should be pointed out that this is not unique to CS. As someone else pointed out, most of the hard sciences are the same way. I think you could go ahead and argue that most any field is the same way.
I was a CS major for three semesters and while there was some colaberation, there was not a lot. Of course, that may have been unique to the school. Later on, as a math major at a different school, there was a lot more. Homework was worked on in groups, or at least compared. I think this happens quite a bit.
I think you could easily write an Honor Code that covers this sort of situation. I know that when I helped people with their work, and when they helped me on mine, I made sure that there was not just rote copying, but actual understanding of the underlying concepts.
So you just have to make sure that Honor Code assures that you are helping students out as peers, and not just letting someone copy. Defining what that means could be up to the Judicial Administrator and the school.
One real test (no pun intended) is the exam. One of the many reasons that my classmates made sure we understood certain problems was that we might see it later on the exam. It does you no good to get that 1 point on a problem set by copying if it them means that you lose 10 points on an exam because you did not know how to do that type of problem/proof.
Work in groups, but be ready for individual exams (although written exams were always so strange in a CS class).
Yes, let us use standardized testing (or any other way of attempting to measure intellectual ability). We have all seen how well that works in high school and college settings. As I said in my previous post, anyone who has worked with people at both levels can easily see the difference.
Attempting to quantify it is a waste of time.
My point is that the test scores that admitted these students into your "illustrious" sancta were largely thanks to me.
And you think that I am full of myself? Nice to know that you molded these children instead of the rest of their environment. I assume you were with them when, as you put it, before the age of five when they were learning to learn?
My point is that you're avoiding the implications of the evidence staring you plainly in the face.
The implication is what? Since you are obviously so high and mighty and have studied these things, I am open to your take on things.
(On a side note, I don't think going to MIT as an undergraduate is an enviable position.)
Your opinion.
Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? Yes.
Because high school are not able to convey college-level ideas to their students?
Our high schools may be failing students, but it is not because they are not getting their students to work at a college-level.
And, indeed, what does it mean to "develop fully intellectually"? That's ambiguous at best, intentionally vague at worst.
I will let the hundreds of developmental psychologists out there know your opnion. I am sure they would be interested in it. No, there is no standard definition of "develop fully intellectually," but that in no way means that we can not discuss and study it.
College graduates ARE more capable of understanding things than high school graduates are. Gee, I wonder if that's because high schools fall short.
Is this the opinion you have been talking about all this time? The one that is better than mine? Yes, high schools may be failing, but it is not because they are not teaching students how to work at a college level.
You said it well yourself: College graduates ARE more capable of understanding things than high school graduates are.
But definitely not for the reason you state (failing high schools).
Have you studied any developmental psychology? Have you studied any adolescent psychology? Any educational psychology?
If you had, you would know that people progress through different intellectual levels through their entire lives.
As so many other
"I read it on SlashDot" is not a valid argument or reason. Developmental psychology shows us completely differently. I suggest you sit down and take a class in it.
Colleges don't teach one how to learn. Knowing how to learn is an entrance requirement.
On one level. I am not suggesting that high school students do not know how to learn, but rather that, as we get older, we are able to understand and learn in new and more profound ways. This is part of maturing and developing, not a matter of the quality of our high schools.
"How to learn" is not a set skill. It is not like learning to add three digit numbers. You do not learn it once and then never have to come back to it again. It is a skill that requires constant attention and development.
Incidentally, if you measure the success of a student by the prestige of the college they go to, I suggest you quit your job in education.
Did you read what I wrote? It was one of the main points I had. These students, later on, are capable of college-level work. But in high school, even at a place like IMSA (that uses more college-type teaching methods), they are not. This is not IMSA's fault, this is the fact that they have not (using your favorite phrase here) "fully developed intellectually."
Getback to me when you can talk about developmental psychology using more explanations than "I read it on SlashDot."
I was not as early. People were amazed at my 2400 baud modem, though.
//gs with 1meg RAM, no hard drive, running at 2.8 mHz.
It was 1992, and I was connected through a free FidoNet-connected BBS in Louisville, KY (called TSCOPE for anyone from the area). We could get Internet email accounts and a very limited Usenet feed.
The SysOp of TSCOPE actually became a friend of mine (local BBS gatherings - those were great fun). The BBS was run on two phone lines connected to a 286.
I was running my 2400 baud modem off of an Apple
I remember reading about the Waco comings and going online. Significantly different coverage (for better or worse) than the Trade Center coverage.
Are you suggesting that people graduating from high school are at the peak of their ability to learn? That they have mastered /how/ to learn and should now move soley on to /what/ to learn?
If you are taking classes that could be straight out of a high school, your college is guilty of dumbing down their curriculum. As someone with friends and family working in smaller colleges, I know there is a lot of pressure by the student body (and therefore the administration who watch the purse strings and attendence numbers, especially at smaller community-college-type private schools) to dumb down the curriculum.
There is an astounding gap between the intellectual ability of a high school senior and a college senior in terms of their ability to learn. Colleges are there to further refine your learning ability as you mature.
I work with some of the most gifted kids in the country (I work at the Illinois Math and Science Academy). These are kids who are going to go to Ivy League schools and places like MIT. And they struggle with some concepts and some of the more college-based ways of approaching subjects. Does this mean that our high schools are failing them? No, it simply means that they have not developed fully intellectually.
Colleges teach things like getting information from research journals, and learning from those. How to effectively look at original documents and judge their veracity.
What you are suggesting is that the only difference between a high school senior and a college senior is *what* they know. You obviously have not been around students in a learning environment if you truly believe that.
Colleges teach *how to learn* the same as elementary and high schools. They simply teach it at a much more advanced level.
Some cell phones have gone with holding 9 down to call 911. The result? People would have their phone in their pocket and would somehoe hold the 9 button for a few seconds, wasting 911 services.
4 26 /News/911/911.htm
http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/Archive/2000/
A panic button would be all the worse. Maybe charge people $100 for any false alarms.
Imagine the problems that terrorists could do with something like the maps on http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/cables.html and the information on http://www.iscpc.org/
Major trunk lines in many places. Granted, these often do not locate the lines with enough precision to accurately locate and take out, but they are a start. I am sure that a search of local utilities and maps available to the public could locate things fairly well.
What could be done to secure these?