Perhaps somebody could explain what the hell the title means?
The two Dark Side characters talk about feeling an awakening in the force, and it disturbs them because it's implying that while they've been having a few good years the light side is about to make a resurgence.
I think that it was worth it to see the Force Awakens in movie theaters. J.J only pulled off one universe defying trick (which is way better than what he did with Into Darkness), by allowing Han to hyperspace past planetary defenses and come out of hyperspace well into the planets gravity well. It's been well established in Star Wars that hyperspacing doesn't work once you're close enough to a strong gravitational pull. And if you could all weapons would become hyperspace rockets.
The movie is fun, though one thing that myself and all of my siblings agree on was that the character that we all liked the most was Poe. He was kind of over powered in the middle battle, but we still like him.
The big disappointment is how powerful they made Kylo Ren at the beginning; stopping a blaster bolt he didn't even see coming with the force, while concentrating on something else; and then near the end couldn't seem to not get hit.
The next beef with the movie was with how fast Rey took to using the force as good or better than Anakin, Luke or Obi-wan after they had years of practice.
One thing which was introduced that I really liked, was how Kylo was feeling a pull from the light side of the force. That certainly never came up as a possibility in the movies, and I never saw it in the Extended Universe. I hope they explore that more.
PS may be a-holes, but they pointing out an unfixed problem.
I'm sorry, but how is it a problem? If they never did the attack, then the network would never go down. At least not go down because of the servers being hit with orders of magnitude more requests than what they're designed for.
So your argument is "We have yet to have formal training for the population at large in how to operate computers and it's resulted in really poorly written scripts. So the solution is certainly to not give the population at large formal training". I believe the counter argument is that if the population at large was given formal training, that the probability of someone writing a poor script would be less because people would have learned their lesson in making poor mistakes in school.
Might it make more sense to people to think logically and procedurally, then worry about applying that to a computer?
Yes, but most students will still have the same frustrations that they do with the math that's taught now. It'll seem like fluff to kill time until graduation. But by providing the students programming experiences, they can see how all that math, logic and procedural thinking can be applied to do something.
Beyond arithmetic most people find all the math that they learn in school to be pointless; something a hair more useful than trivia. It's on the reasons why they're so frustrated with it. Sure a teacher could tell them about some sort advanced scientific calculation which will need it, but that's so far out of the realm of what they imagine themselves doing, it just adds to the frustration.
But if some math classes were converted into programming classes, sure lots of students still wouldn't like it, but I imagine it'll be less frustrating, because they can at least see how it's being applied. Programming has a purposes, and they see the math being applied in the programming.
In a lot of these countries, anyone who works with technology or turns a wrench calls himself an engineer. It could be an elevator operator or a guided-missile designer, or anyone in between.
What if you guide missiles by turning wrenches? Is that some sort of super engineer?
Engineers spend a lot of time learning math and the sciences and do not get enough liberal arts exposure at all in their educational process. Therefore, you are training a sort of human calculator, who is not well connected with the feelings and hopes of others. On top of that, the frustration of seeing what could be dome as opposed to how little is actually done must frustrate the heck out of engineers.
Given that exposure to liberal arts frustrates the heck out of engineers I don't think that more exposure is a good idea.
Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes
Have you seen what the burial marker George Johnson says? While ISIS certainly isn't full of innocent bystanders, you generally want to be confident about who you're going after.
The U.S. has more gun deaths per year but almost all of that is gang violence, who aren't buying guns legally anyway so I'm not sure how you plan to stop them
The idea is if you make it so difficult to legally own a gun that significantly less would be produced. With there being less produced it would be harder for people to even obtain them illegally because they just wouldn't exist to be obtained illegally.
I haven't seen the Left defending Islam. Most of the comments seem to be along the lines of "All religions suck; let's get rid of all of them". Which certainly isn't a defense. Other comments have been along the lines of "Instead of continuing the violence, let's not retaliate and end the cycle." Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Islam, but is more of a belief they would have in any situation. Can you provide a concrete example?
I remember when I had my first computer all to myself in college, and for about the first two or three years I'd get skins for different music players and whatnot, and spent a lot of time finding every which way I could customize/personalize every program. And now, it's more of a meh. Personally I feel like I "matured" out of the desire to completely overhaul the look of every program. I'm not saying that all personalization is bad, but there can be tasteful lines drawn. Plus, now that I code I'm aware of the potential overhead of a fully customizable system; and a lot of the times it just doesn't feel worth it.
Do you really think that many people have gone that long without having to reinstall Windows?
That depends on if you count upgrading to the next major version as a reinstall. I know for myself, ever since I got my first Win98 PC, back in 2000, that I've never reinstalled Windows. It's either been OS upgrades, or when I get new hardware, which about once every five years.
these only exist because windows doesn't provide a centralised update system for applications to hook into.
Microsoft is afraid that if they did provide that, that when things go wrong with downloads via that channel, that people will blame Microsoft, not the vendor.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact even Finn could defeat a dark Lord of the sith shows how much of a joke it is.
What? Finn lost to Kylo Ren (had his spine sliced up), who isn't Sith, he's a knight of Ren.
Perhaps somebody could explain what the hell the title means?
The two Dark Side characters talk about feeling an awakening in the force, and it disturbs them because it's implying that while they've been having a few good years the light side is about to make a resurgence.
It didn't so well work on the level of being original or even fully making sense within its own universe.
Isn't funny how the Force Awakens is able to make us think of the good points of the prequels.
I think that it was worth it to see the Force Awakens in movie theaters. J.J only pulled off one universe defying trick (which is way better than what he did with Into Darkness), by allowing Han to hyperspace past planetary defenses and come out of hyperspace well into the planets gravity well. It's been well established in Star Wars that hyperspacing doesn't work once you're close enough to a strong gravitational pull. And if you could all weapons would become hyperspace rockets. The movie is fun, though one thing that myself and all of my siblings agree on was that the character that we all liked the most was Poe. He was kind of over powered in the middle battle, but we still like him. The big disappointment is how powerful they made Kylo Ren at the beginning; stopping a blaster bolt he didn't even see coming with the force, while concentrating on something else; and then near the end couldn't seem to not get hit. The next beef with the movie was with how fast Rey took to using the force as good or better than Anakin, Luke or Obi-wan after they had years of practice. One thing which was introduced that I really liked, was how Kylo was feeling a pull from the light side of the force. That certainly never came up as a possibility in the movies, and I never saw it in the Extended Universe. I hope they explore that more.
PS may be a-holes, but they pointing out an unfixed problem.
I'm sorry, but how is it a problem? If they never did the attack, then the network would never go down. At least not go down because of the servers being hit with orders of magnitude more requests than what they're designed for.
Anything that teaches everyone to stay away from goto's is a positive in my book.
1. Self reliance (how to cook, how to do minor repair works around house, etc)
Umm... parents?
2. Think broadly (do projects that encompasses everything from planning, prototyping, executing, teamwork etc.)
Doing those projects sounds exactly like doing a programming homework assignment.
3. Financial management
I don't see how teaching programming would draw away from this.
4. Driving (it is better to start young, see Finland)
Why? the computers do it so much better than humans.
5. Surviving outdoors (you never know when you gonna need it)
Umm, never?
6. Interacting face-to-face
That can be part of every school subject, and would be really boring as a stand alone school subject.
7. Objective thinking (so that they won't fall into sound-bites of politicians)
You realize that it's education majors who are teaching these classes, right?
So your argument is "We have yet to have formal training for the population at large in how to operate computers and it's resulted in really poorly written scripts. So the solution is certainly to not give the population at large formal training". I believe the counter argument is that if the population at large was given formal training, that the probability of someone writing a poor script would be less because people would have learned their lesson in making poor mistakes in school.
Might it make more sense to people to think logically and procedurally, then worry about applying that to a computer?
Yes, but most students will still have the same frustrations that they do with the math that's taught now. It'll seem like fluff to kill time until graduation. But by providing the students programming experiences, they can see how all that math, logic and procedural thinking can be applied to do something.
Beyond arithmetic most people find all the math that they learn in school to be pointless; something a hair more useful than trivia. It's on the reasons why they're so frustrated with it. Sure a teacher could tell them about some sort advanced scientific calculation which will need it, but that's so far out of the realm of what they imagine themselves doing, it just adds to the frustration.
But if some math classes were converted into programming classes, sure lots of students still wouldn't like it, but I imagine it'll be less frustrating, because they can at least see how it's being applied. Programming has a purposes, and they see the math being applied in the programming.
In a lot of these countries, anyone who works with technology or turns a wrench calls himself an engineer. It could be an elevator operator or a guided-missile designer, or anyone in between.
What if you guide missiles by turning wrenches? Is that some sort of super engineer?
Engineers spend a lot of time learning math and the sciences and do not get enough liberal arts exposure at all in their educational process. Therefore, you are training a sort of human calculator, who is not well connected with the feelings and hopes of others. On top of that, the frustration of seeing what could be dome as opposed to how little is actually done must frustrate the heck out of engineers.
Given that exposure to liberal arts frustrates the heck out of engineers I don't think that more exposure is a good idea.
Remember, in security, Access Denied is success.
the exact things ISIS does already show fully that they hate Allah and Mohammed.
Really? I'm pretty sure they're getting all of their power by following the Q'uran very literally.
Why does anyone require 'due diligence' and fact-checking against insane violent assholes
Have you seen what the burial marker George Johnson says? While ISIS certainly isn't full of innocent bystanders, you generally want to be confident about who you're going after.
The U.S. has more gun deaths per year but almost all of that is gang violence, who aren't buying guns legally anyway so I'm not sure how you plan to stop them
The idea is if you make it so difficult to legally own a gun that significantly less would be produced. With there being less produced it would be harder for people to even obtain them illegally because they just wouldn't exist to be obtained illegally.
ISIS's self-proclaimed strategy is to incite "Rome" to attack them on Syrian soil,
The idiots were off by 1426 kilometers then.
I haven't seen the Left defending Islam. Most of the comments seem to be along the lines of "All religions suck; let's get rid of all of them". Which certainly isn't a defense. Other comments have been along the lines of "Instead of continuing the violence, let's not retaliate and end the cycle." Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Islam, but is more of a belief they would have in any situation. Can you provide a concrete example?
I remember when I had my first computer all to myself in college, and for about the first two or three years I'd get skins for different music players and whatnot, and spent a lot of time finding every which way I could customize/personalize every program. And now, it's more of a meh. Personally I feel like I "matured" out of the desire to completely overhaul the look of every program. I'm not saying that all personalization is bad, but there can be tasteful lines drawn. Plus, now that I code I'm aware of the potential overhead of a fully customizable system; and a lot of the times it just doesn't feel worth it.
Am I the only one who remembers when Apple made machines for creative people?
Yes you are. Apple made computers for people who liked to consume music and tell themselves that they were creative.
True, but many meaningful software project need to live longer than the time you'll be in college for.
Is an ITunes library a giant file, or just a collection of mp3's?
Apple software installs effectively trash your carefully configured machine.
That's because they want you to get frustrated with your current experience and switch to an Apple computer.
Do you really think that many people have gone that long without having to reinstall Windows? That depends on if you count upgrading to the next major version as a reinstall. I know for myself, ever since I got my first Win98 PC, back in 2000, that I've never reinstalled Windows. It's either been OS upgrades, or when I get new hardware, which about once every five years.
these only exist because windows doesn't provide a centralised update system for applications to hook into.
Microsoft is afraid that if they did provide that, that when things go wrong with downloads via that channel, that people will blame Microsoft, not the vendor.