Seriously, a 7-year-old has too much to learn about almost everything. He is better off with his own account on a shared PC (e.g. a family PC, where our kids started), where he can dabble and can sometimes look over an adult's shoulder. Give him his own PC, and he's likely to still want to use the same one as dad or mom.
You also don't have children.
Sharing a computer with a kid is a bad idea unless you plan to hop off of it the moment they sidle up. Otherwise you're blunting the kids interest and engagement, but you saved $150-200 by not getting them their own.
Money you'll spend 30x over in time spent trying to figure out what Junior did to your PC when you weren't watching.
Got my kid a good laptop when he was 2. He started with fill painting Barney, quickly figured out links and bookmarks, and just clicked on stuff until something fun happened. He spends hours a day on it. Learned to read very early and as a 7 year old reads like a 12 year old with a better vocabulary than most kids.
Of course, his is set up right next to mine, so he and his friends can play minecraft or wizard 101 or whatever suits them, and both machines are right next to the living room couch we watch tv from, so I can always see what he's up to.
I don't know if you're trolling, but assuming you're not, why do you think that the specifics of a current popular OS is going to be useful by the time a 7-year old is old enough to get complex hand-in assignments? He's not gonna need to use the complex features of something like Word or Excel until he's 13, at least. Who knows what he's going to do that on? Windows 10? Windows 11? New Mac OS? Ubuntu 18.04? It doesn't matter, it's all point and click and type anyway. Kids have pliable minds.
By the way I just tried Tux Paint for a laugh and I swear if I was 8 now I would be firmly glued to that until my parents physically removed me from it, which leads us to a much greater problem than the specifics of one OS or another. Computers can be incredibly addictive to kids and adults alike. Proceed with caution.
You don't have or know any children?
My 7 year old and his 7,8,9 and 11 year old friends all use Word to prepare their papers, and use presentation graphics to put together collages and other photo/drawing materials. I work in the computer lab at the elementary school. Every kid in the school uses a windows xp core 2 duo machine, browser, apps, and office applications.
What I can tell you for absolutely certain is that my kid won't ever walk into a school computer lab and see 30 linux machines. This is because (A) they come with windows on them (or in some school districts, macs with mac os), (B) thats what the school has wired into their IT plans, executed by half as many people as they need, with half the money and a change to linux would be very expensive, (C) windows is what the educators are familiar with and what the kids use at home on mom and dads computer, (D) there aren't any educational or business drivers to press for a change to linux, and (E) linux doesn't do anything at all that windows and os x don't do.
Plus given that windows XP hasn't been actively sold for ~5 years, yet its still ~50% of the worldwide installed base, some of which have been running it since 2003, I think my son will have plenty of windows 7 to work with for the next 5-7 years, after which he may see more windows 8.
Kids do have pliable minds, but its best to ply them with useful, repurposeable learning instead of showing them useless stuff they're unlikely to ever see again. I actually quad booted my sons machine with windows 7, windows 8, osx snow lion and whatever the latest ubuntu was 6 months ago...not 12.04 but 11.something. His preference leaned towards windows 8, probably because it looked like a phone and he's been using phones and tablets for a long time. No interest whatsoever in os x. I steered him to win 7 because win 8 isn't quite dry yet.
And yet interested enough to post in the discussion thread about it; curious. The summary says it's a space transportation company, what else did you want to know? Of course, you were probably in such a rush to post your lame-ass comment that you didn't read the summary either.
Ah yes, the Anonymous Coward weighs in. It was pretty easy to imagine that it was space related, but it would have been nice to have a little more detail.
Just tossing in my 2c about article writers who presume that everyone knows the little things they know about.
Sort of like when someone starts a "Why doesn't everyone want linux on the desktop?" thread where everyone debates the technical merits, while not realizing that its a solution in search of problem, and that the technical details aren't relevant.
Now, you do realize that taking the time to snurf on someone elses comment being lame is somewhat more lame than the original lameness, right? Maybe next time you'll post with your actual account...you know, like an actual man?
I'd recommend using an operating system that will build skills in an area where the skills will be reusable. Most schools use windows or macs. Linux is a dead end for an elementary school kid. Linux is a dead end period. Its a solution in search of a problem.
My sons first computer was a pentium dual core laptop, and he got it when he was 2.
About six months ago, we built together an ivy bridge/z77 machine in an Antec Skeleton case. If you want visibility, thats a good way to go. Clear plastic case is good too, but they don't fit well and are a PITA to take apart and reassemble. Obviously I didn't let him socket the cpu, but his little fingers were pretty helpful in a lot of instances. Whole thing probably ran me about $450, and it'll be a good computer for him for 5+ years.
Your 7 year old needs the same computer everyone else has. Fisher Price it and you'll have a throwaway next year.
...someone should have mentioned WTF "Blue Origin" is. Apparently its so secretive, I have no idea as to what it is. Not interested enough to find out either...
"See, I told you organic food wasn't always more nutritious!"
1) Organic food has a bit of a wishy-washy definition;
2) Where the definitions exist, they are re farming methods;
3) Some people prefer to support those particular farming methods;
4) And those methods often produce tastier food.
The most "organic" thing you can do is not have children. Because we have reached the population point where it is very hard to use non-intensive farming methods.
Winner! Just being "organic" doesn't mean anything. Giant chunks of deep fried organic dog poop don't taste good.
However, good growing techniques coupled with organic farming can produce better tasting, healther product.
We buy from a company that's 3rd gen organic, and the products taste MUCH better than what you get in the supermarket, although some of that may be because what I get from them was picked in the last 48 hours, while what is in the supermarket may be a week or two old.
I would believe that random organic supermarket produce tastes worse and is less nutritious than some random non organic food. Probably looks better too.
The problem I have with nutritional studies is that A) they're gamed a lot, B) they often omit data or take sharp right or left turns to get a result, when the data didn't show that result, C) they don't have enough people or spend enough time in the study, D) they can't tell what or how much of anything people actually are and aren't eating, unless they're in prison or a hospital and you have full visibility. We also only see silo studies as to whether things are or aren't good for us. Maybe non organic GMO'd foods sprayed with artificial sweeteners turns out to have a health impact, while each of those separately doesn't show a problem.
All that having been said, we'd be a lot better off if people stopped eating sugar and worthless vegetable oils and worried about the organic/gmo issues after they slash 1000 worthless calories off their diet.
Oh, and I wanted to jump in and say that I suspect the next revised estimate of the number of cases will be "486", followed by the inexplicable "Pentium".
And we don't know how many of those are accurate reports/diagnoses, or if the infection even occurred on this continent, let alone california. I guess I'd be a little happier if we had some idea as to a plausible scope of the issue before it becomes an "unspoken health problem for california". Its unspoken because as of this time there is virtually zero incidence of it, and we aren't even sure it happened here, and because we have no information to think otherwise.
For all we know neurocysticercosis is quite common. We won't know until we look for it.
I think its probably quite likely that most people have a head full of calcified worms.
Literally no one in recorded history has ever been killed by a meteorite.
Now how in the hell would you know? For all we know, everyone who has ever gone missing, including Amelia Earhart, was killed by a meteorite. All the people who show up with bullet wounds? Bullets...or small meterorites.
I'm pretty sure we also fake the shark statistics, since who the hell would want to vacation in california if they knew we had 50 foot great white sharks with legs, who often creep ashore and wipe out entire phalanxes of beachgoers, with the city of San Francisco then assuring citizens that it was just a chilly day, and therefore nobody at the beach, while they kick some fresh sand over the pools of blood?
I did the math. If it really is 386 our of 38,000,000 then it's 0.00101578947368421057713405719624688572366721928119659423828125 percent or barely more then 1 out of every 100,000 people. You have a point! Slow day in the news.
That's pretty much the same percent of the US Population who died in the 9/11 attacks, and over a decade later that's still considered a pretty big deal...
If tapeworms ever take over a group of airliners and crash into some buildings, then I'd see your point. We'd then have to spend ten years bombing Wormistan.
However, what we actually have here is something you're entirely unlikely to ever contract, should you avoid eating things from dumpsters and small holes in the ground. What went unsaid in the article (probably because its unknown) is whether those 386 people contracted the worm in california, or in another 5th world country and then came here. We sort of have a lot of immigrants.
what are you talking about constitutional rights? apply a sales tax to all goods purchased and delivered in the state. why is that weird? it's specifically constrained to the state. i think you should chillax, get off your high horse, get your head out of your ass, and go back to your fanntasy love affair with amazon. zOMG did you see the new KINDLES!!!! They are freaking awesome!!! I fanboi'd my shortz!!!!
Slow news day? 386 cases out of 38,000,000 people? Clearly a serious problem. I'd have to do the math, but I think you're more likely to be hit by a space rock or eaten by a shark.
Well sure, apple gets $125 for the apple branded battery in their stores, and people who paid what they paid for a macbook will probably just cough it up.
$25 online at amazon.
But my original point is that online etailers who open stores, with the exception of apple and its artificial pricing, aren't money makers.
Look, my shoes are made by real slaves in Malaysia, and my maille was linked by some poor family in India. I've got bigger fish to fry in my consumerism than some students getting college credit for making my iPhone.
Did you pay twice as much for the shoes as other shoes, while claiming they're elegant, easier to use and full of fiber?
That largely intelligent, well pursed adults (about the only ones who can afford apple products) continue to buy overpriced products built by slave labor overseas, while throwing off inexplicable benefits such as "its elegant" (although they can't explain why), its "easier to use", but again, they can't give an example of what it does thats easier, that its "virus proof", which is completely idiotic, since nothing is virus proof, that its "made with better parts", when its made from the same parts, on the same assembly line as products marked half the price.
Fun stuff. And most of these folks are liberal leaning too. You'd think they'd have better sensibilities than to spend extra to show they're as cool as Steve, or to show off how much money they make.
All very interesting. However, the studies I am referencing are all being conducted in the neuro-sciences departments at universities and medical facilities, not the education departments. Their purpose is to study learning in general, not the best way to teach something. From that research, though, they discovered that the human brain operates very differently depending on how information is presented to it and the ability to recall that information is related to the method of delivery.
From this, other studies are being conducted with models of education. However, I doubt the experiment in California is a true research project and is statistically valid. For one, you need special permissions and conditions to experiment on human beings and it doesn't sound like what you describe would qualify. More likely, it is a poorly constructed pilot project with no true statistical value and therefore invalid.
As for reading in business, even back in 2002, there is more reading than books. They are now saying that the World Trade Center collapsed from the extra heat generated from all of the burning paper in the offices. That paper included reports and forms and letters and all sorts of business related information, but was probably not in the form of books. The ability to read, analyze and retain information is a vital skill in business, particularly the higher up the ranks one moves. Most of that information, especially externally generated, is still in paper format. U.S. businesses generate more paper reports today than ever before. It is doubtful that will change in the near future, anyway, but maybe by the time your kids are grown it will have.
Okey dokey, show me one of the studies and I'll duly tell you why its a piece of crap. I completely believe that the brain processes information differently when read electronically. From first hand experience, I also see that the electronic method is at least effective, if not better. I'm a little dubious about most research, since someone is paying for it somewhere, and they probably want a specific result. I ran MANY studies before I retired. Every one of them said exactly what I wanted them to at the end.
Also, the world trade center collapsed because it was built poorly, not from the tons of paper cranked out in a day when tablets didn't exist. Check out star trek. Not a lot of paper kicking around in the future;)
this hasn't been my experience at all. in my experience, amazon is always lower than b&m, especially on expensive stuff. also, shipping is free over $25. except for buying a single book or single CD, it's easy to do $25. Also, Amazon has an app where you can compare prices in real time in a store. It's called "showrooming."
Also, it sounds like you're being inconsistent. you're saying that amazon is often more expensive than b&m, so they need a tax break to "level the playing field." don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?
You need to do a little more price comparison work.
And I don't think its a bit hypocritical, since people moan about b&m's having to maintain a store and so forth, while amazon has additional overhead and costs the b&m's dont.
We restricted the internet sales tax stuff for a reason, but now the b&m stores have pumped enough money into the political system to get them to put the arm on amazon. I predict no significant benefit for the state, and a big hole in the side of a very successful business.
Lets remember, the bottom line is that the US constitution gives power to states to do what they will within their own borders, and its not legal for a state to try to charge taxes on something made, sold and shipped in another state. Our rights along with amazons rights were trampled in this case, purely to squeeze more money into the state budget so we aren't extorted into paying more in taxes, which will happen anyhow.
But your seven year old is not a normal seven year old since he/she is reading at a 6th grade level (of course, that would mean that he/she is reading something). Gifted children do learn differently, so it may not be a detriment to their learning ability. Ask any teacher and they will tell you the gifted students are as much of a challenge, if not more, than the below average students. They have very different needs. If your kid is in second grade, reading and doing work at a 6th grade level, I am sure that is a challenge for both the teacher and the student.
Children that don't read books very much, but read well are in strong evidence at my sons school, so I'm not sure your thesis is applicable. My son reads a lot because I exposed him to computers at age 2, video games he had to read to play at age 3, and I've thrown reading into everything he's interested in doing because he's motivated to do that.
By the way, the studies aren't just a couple of weeks. The latest one I have heard of was conducted on children from kindergarten through sixth grade (seven years), specifically looking at schools that have implemented electronic learning and using standard education models as the base comparison (in other words, multiple children in multiple schools that use one or the other methods). Granted, the selection process was much more complicated than that, but the results are consistent that at each level, students who were electronically educated had lower retention levels than the traditional students.
As a side study, it has also been shown that electronically educated students fare much worse, when having to deal with traditional methods found in the workplace or higher education. That last part was from a British study.
Let me share a little scenario with you that may shed a little light on why the studies might stink. California has a program right now that issued 5 ipads to every classroom. But no IT integration and no integration with the curriculum. It has quizzes on it for various reading exercises, but when you're done you have to write down the results on a piece of paper, as there is no upload/integration. The kids love playing with them, but get nothing out of them. Not because the electronic approach doesn't work, but because they didn't do the things needed for that approach to succeed.
I'm also not tossing technology at my kid for the first time at the first, third or sixth grade level, but at age 2+. Perhaps its better when its consistent, effective and targeted?
Because I'm 150% sure that the 'ipad experiment' they've done for the last year in California will suggest that they don't work. Well, not as they implemented them.
Might also be done that way on purpose so they can blunt off anyone who suggests using more technology in the classroom. They'd hate that...less spending, more effective learning with fewer poorly qualified people involved, etc.
Lastly....I've been retired for ten years but my recollection from 2002 was that books were something rarely seen in a fortune 50 company, and most everything was done via email or other online/electronic means. Hell, I was one of the last guys walking around with a piece of paper in his pocket with a daily calendar on it, instead of a PDA or electronic calendar.
So perhaps drilling paper books and avoiding technology because we've poorly implemented it or done studies that didn't tell the whole story is setting our kids up for failure when they run face first into a nearly 100% electronic workplace?
Although I don't disagree in general that politicians don't really care too much what people want, that's a far too cynical attitude to think they like people who do what they're told
You're not much of a student of history. Job one for any political organization, going back a few thousand years, is mollify the crowd. Keep them busy, turn them against each other, and feed them dumb stuff to argue about like paying taxes at amazon.
You know why governments spend our money to build sports stadiums? Keeps us busy thinking about stuff other than being taxed to death so the politicians can spend freely on their pork. Why else would someone take a job that only pays $60k a year, exposes your personal life and past like an open book, and is a giant pain in the ass to perform? Right...power and our money!
Because Amazon will ship same day and have to pay taxes anyways, they are a stone throw away from opening up their own B&M store. Might as well at this point. Imagine all the Best Buy's and Walmarts having some serious competition from that new Amazon flagship store down the road housing all the popular items for impulse shoppers.
I think the only problem with that is that every online store thats opened a b&m presence has generally regretted it. Apple stores sort of work, but only because they overcharge for every single product, usually by adding a zero or at least doubling the price of something. Try buying an ipad charger in the apple store vs getting one online...
I also don't think amazon customers want to drive somewhere to look at something. Why? You have 30 days to return the item, at amazons cost if there was something wrong with it or it didn't match with the description. In fact, if you buy a lot from them, they'll pretty much do anything you want. I've had them take back stuff past 30 days, give me half the purchase price back because the condition was a little off, discount items heavily to make up for shipping issues, etc. Why would I want to spend $5 worth of gas to motor somewhere, fight a crowd...just to look at something? I'd much rather read 500 reviews, look at a dozen photos, and be able to send it back for free if it stinks.
I think its more likely that a single central courier service comes up (I don't think its UPS or Fedex or the USPS, who cant seem to find their own ass with both hands and a 180 degree swivel waist) and a set of services like amazon and grocery delivery.
I've completely stopped shopping at grocery stores. I found they're either intentionally pricing items as sale items that ring up at full price or they're grossly incompetent, since every time I buy groceries there are 2-3 price errors, never in my favor. So I buy a big box of locally raised, grass fed meat for a slight increase in cost vs the supermarkets from a local farm consortium, and a nice group of organic farmers delivers me a big box of locally raised, absolutely delicious fruits and vegetable, also for a slight premium vs the supermarket. Then I buy online and have delivered any other items I need, because the damn price on their web site is firm, I can easily comparison shop between 5 stores and get the best price, and I don't have to dodge customers and product tents in the middle of the aisles or look through the whole store to see where the hell they put the toilet paper this week.
I think it'll go the other way....depots and local delivery, no more b&m.
no, I'm not trying to be a socialist marxist democrat. the playing field is currently slanted in favor of amazon, to the detriment of B&M. why do you want to artificially prop up one group over another?
fact: if I buy a tv at best buy, I pay 10% tax. if I buy a TV at amazon, I do not pay 10% tax. why should tax law favor one merchant over another? the margins on tvs are so razor thin that best buy can't overcome this setback - they can't price their tvs 10% under amazon to make up for the tax benefits.
all i'm saying is, all merchants pay sales tax. level playing field. there's no way you can disagree with that. otherwise, you want to prop up somebody artifically and cut the legs out of someone else. how can you argue otherwise?
I guess when you consider that amazons prices with shipping are about 10-20% higher than a b&m that doesn't have to ship to someones door, the little tax thing did level the playing field. When I can find an item at a B&M store (good luck) and its actually in stock and on the shelf (you'll need even better luck on that one), its generally cheaper...even with tax...than amazon is. In fact, you can do a one stop check on this, pick any item on amazon sold by multiple sellers and you'll see that all that charge for shipping have a much lower item cost, many of those are b&m stores, and you can get the same price by walking in the door.
What amazon did is stock everything, make it easy to buy, and they eliminated the efficiency problem of finding something at a local b&m. If they'd been charging me tax the last ten years...I'd have probably bought from them 10-20 times instead of 1000-2000 times.
So I think the playing field was already level. My local B&M stores 'competed' by not carrying plastic swimming pools (for my dogs) in an area that averages 95-105 degree highs for 5 months out of the year. When I went to buy an anchor for my boat, there was an empty spot on the shelf. When I wanted to get some decaf iced tea mix, none of the 10 grocery stores carried it, preferring 12 varieties of caffeinated tea.
The B&M stores farked themselves by not carrying what their customers want, not effectively stocking their shelves or maintaining inventory, doing 'product placement' where they take items from where shoppers are used to finding them and sprinkling them around the store in an effort to make a "hunt" out of shopping but which really makes it hard to shop in a timely manner, and by littering their aisles with products on boxes, hanging from the doors of the freezers, etc.
Amazon has to own buildings, they pay employees to handle everything, AND they pay to ship everything to me in 2 days for $79 a year, which includes as much free video streaming as netflix. How again are the B&M stores at a disadvantage? Seems to me amazon is a superior retailer in most every way, and we just cut the legs out from under them by unleveling the playing field.
You get the government you deserve.
The land of the free has amongst the lowest voter turnout in the democratic world.
If you don't like it, vote to change it. If you don't get enough votes, it's because others don't agree with you. Get over it.
The OP is about calling retailers to make the same tax contribution that is expected of everyone else and not using tax avoidance as a way of being competitive on price, distorting the market.
In california, you're going to have mostly democrats voted in. If not the old guy, the new guy thats already been prepped on what he's going to be voting for and doing for the next few years. The system at the state and federal level is gamed. Money decides who we get to vote for, and if you think that guys like Romney and Obama would do much differently from the other if they're in office next year...think again.
Its not like the old days of Whigs and Torries, nor is it like most other countries where various quite different parties like greens and muslims exist. Then we'd have a little difference.
But right now, money decides who gets the good tv ads, who develops the more appealing campaigns, and who creates the most faux news to support the stupid part of voters brains.
We're being trained and herded. The idea that voting can change anything is quaint, but I'm afraid its just a fake set of motions we go through, and any change we'd implement would be ineffective. Well, short of breaking out the torches and pitchforks and heading to city hall.
SInce the research uses functional mri, it is kind of hard to fake that. FMRI shows that reading from a tablet or even a laptop lights up the same parts of the brain when watching TV, which is different than the areas lit from reading a paper source. Physiologically, the brain is not differentiating between using an electronic device for reading than it is for watching TV. That does not mean one cannot learn, but the learning pathways are different and the neurological pathways to store and retrieve that information is vastly different.
That does not mean that it isn't useful or ins't enjoyable, just that the brain is not as efficient. So, for your gifted child, it could very well be an enhancement to his/her learning. For most kids, whose brain is not wired as your child's brain is, perform worse.
As for your child and your friend's children not being interested in reading, that has been a national trend since the 1960s and correlates with rise of televisions in the home.
While it might be hard to fake whether different parts of the brain light up, the methodology to determine if the learning process was deficient or improved I'm guessing is pretty much up for grabs.
When you can influence peoples answers to questions by changing the font or how you word the question...
My kid also doesn't watch a lot of television, preferring interactive stuff like video gaming and general computer usage. Half his time is spent looking up cheats, easter eggs, and then running to the xbox to try them out.
And it still remains a fact that my kid has read practically no books, but works at a 6th grade level instead of a 1st grade level. So apparently one can learn and will learn well without paper books or paper media. Perhaps we'll find out in 20 years that learning while utilizing the different portions of the brain works BETTER if you stick with it for years (retraining the brain) rather than a one-off study done in a couple of weeks?
Perhaps the issue is that you clearly do not understand how your government works.
That seems to be true, at least for one of us!
The fact that your town is 15 miles outside of Sacto doesn't mean that maintaining your roads is a State issue. In fact it is NOT. It is either the responsibility of your town or your county if unincorporated.
Yeah, the state cut the county road budget, and half the legislature lives in my town or nearby. Next?
Similarly the reasons your school budgets are being cut is most likley because of Prop 13 (which limits property tax) than because of poor management (although both could be at fault).
Yes, 20% taxes on income and sales combined isnt enough for the state with among the highest taxation levels in the country. We should also be raped on property taxes. I see you work for the state? Nobody else picks on prop 13 except the politicians. Stupid because property tends to transact often enough to keep the levels reasonable, and retired people and poor people don't get priced out of their homes during real estate booms.
I have no idea why you think CA spends anywhere near the most per student on education.
You seem to be woefully confused about how your government works. I would suggest you start fixing the government problems you see around by first informing yourself about how it is supposed to operate and stop blaming your state government for the stupidity of your local government (e.g. for putting up expensive signage).
You seem to have trouble processing information and coming to a reasonable conclusion. I would suggest you stop figuring out how to peanut butter the blame around, since most of the stuff I mentioned that is being done locally was done so with federal and state earmarks. I'd suggest you quit your job with the state of california and take a whirl at working at a real company with real budgets and real deliverables. It'll be quite an eye opener for you, for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Pick one: a PC or a circular slide rule...
Seriously, a 7-year-old has too much to learn about almost everything. He is better off with his own account on a shared PC (e.g. a family PC, where our kids started), where he can dabble and can sometimes look over an adult's shoulder. Give him his own PC, and he's likely to still want to use the same one as dad or mom.
You also don't have children.
Sharing a computer with a kid is a bad idea unless you plan to hop off of it the moment they sidle up. Otherwise you're blunting the kids interest and engagement, but you saved $150-200 by not getting them their own.
Money you'll spend 30x over in time spent trying to figure out what Junior did to your PC when you weren't watching.
Got my kid a good laptop when he was 2. He started with fill painting Barney, quickly figured out links and bookmarks, and just clicked on stuff until something fun happened. He spends hours a day on it. Learned to read very early and as a 7 year old reads like a 12 year old with a better vocabulary than most kids.
Of course, his is set up right next to mine, so he and his friends can play minecraft or wizard 101 or whatever suits them, and both machines are right next to the living room couch we watch tv from, so I can always see what he's up to.
I don't know if you're trolling, but assuming you're not, why do you think that the specifics of a current popular OS is going to be useful by the time a 7-year old is old enough to get complex hand-in assignments? He's not gonna need to use the complex features of something like Word or Excel until he's 13, at least. Who knows what he's going to do that on? Windows 10? Windows 11? New Mac OS? Ubuntu 18.04? It doesn't matter, it's all point and click and type anyway. Kids have pliable minds.
By the way I just tried Tux Paint for a laugh and I swear if I was 8 now I would be firmly glued to that until my parents physically removed me from it, which leads us to a much greater problem than the specifics of one OS or another. Computers can be incredibly addictive to kids and adults alike. Proceed with caution.
You don't have or know any children?
My 7 year old and his 7,8,9 and 11 year old friends all use Word to prepare their papers, and use presentation graphics to put together collages and other photo/drawing materials. I work in the computer lab at the elementary school. Every kid in the school uses a windows xp core 2 duo machine, browser, apps, and office applications.
What I can tell you for absolutely certain is that my kid won't ever walk into a school computer lab and see 30 linux machines. This is because (A) they come with windows on them (or in some school districts, macs with mac os), (B) thats what the school has wired into their IT plans, executed by half as many people as they need, with half the money and a change to linux would be very expensive, (C) windows is what the educators are familiar with and what the kids use at home on mom and dads computer, (D) there aren't any educational or business drivers to press for a change to linux, and (E) linux doesn't do anything at all that windows and os x don't do.
Plus given that windows XP hasn't been actively sold for ~5 years, yet its still ~50% of the worldwide installed base, some of which have been running it since 2003, I think my son will have plenty of windows 7 to work with for the next 5-7 years, after which he may see more windows 8.
Kids do have pliable minds, but its best to ply them with useful, repurposeable learning instead of showing them useless stuff they're unlikely to ever see again. I actually quad booted my sons machine with windows 7, windows 8, osx snow lion and whatever the latest ubuntu was 6 months ago...not 12.04 but 11.something. His preference leaned towards windows 8, probably because it looked like a phone and he's been using phones and tablets for a long time. No interest whatsoever in os x. I steered him to win 7 because win 8 isn't quite dry yet.
And yet interested enough to post in the discussion thread about it; curious. The summary says it's a space transportation company, what else did you want to know? Of course, you were probably in such a rush to post your lame-ass comment that you didn't read the summary either.
Ah yes, the Anonymous Coward weighs in. It was pretty easy to imagine that it was space related, but it would have been nice to have a little more detail.
Just tossing in my 2c about article writers who presume that everyone knows the little things they know about.
Sort of like when someone starts a "Why doesn't everyone want linux on the desktop?" thread where everyone debates the technical merits, while not realizing that its a solution in search of problem, and that the technical details aren't relevant.
Now, you do realize that taking the time to snurf on someone elses comment being lame is somewhat more lame than the original lameness, right? Maybe next time you'll post with your actual account...you know, like an actual man?
I'd recommend using an operating system that will build skills in an area where the skills will be reusable. Most schools use windows or macs. Linux is a dead end for an elementary school kid. Linux is a dead end period. Its a solution in search of a problem.
My sons first computer was a pentium dual core laptop, and he got it when he was 2.
About six months ago, we built together an ivy bridge/z77 machine in an Antec Skeleton case. If you want visibility, thats a good way to go. Clear plastic case is good too, but they don't fit well and are a PITA to take apart and reassemble. Obviously I didn't let him socket the cpu, but his little fingers were pretty helpful in a lot of instances. Whole thing probably ran me about $450, and it'll be a good computer for him for 5+ years.
Your 7 year old needs the same computer everyone else has. Fisher Price it and you'll have a throwaway next year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=antec+skeleton&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS477US477&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Jg5NUKWeLZDbigK_soH4CA&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=955
...someone should have mentioned WTF "Blue Origin" is. Apparently its so secretive, I have no idea as to what it is. Not interested enough to find out either...
No. It's what's known as a "straw man".
"See, I told you organic food wasn't always more nutritious!"
1) Organic food has a bit of a wishy-washy definition;
2) Where the definitions exist, they are re farming methods;
3) Some people prefer to support those particular farming methods;
4) And those methods often produce tastier food.
The most "organic" thing you can do is not have children. Because we have reached the population point where it is very hard to use non-intensive farming methods.
Winner! Just being "organic" doesn't mean anything. Giant chunks of deep fried organic dog poop don't taste good.
However, good growing techniques coupled with organic farming can produce better tasting, healther product.
We buy from a company that's 3rd gen organic, and the products taste MUCH better than what you get in the supermarket, although some of that may be because what I get from them was picked in the last 48 hours, while what is in the supermarket may be a week or two old.
I would believe that random organic supermarket produce tastes worse and is less nutritious than some random non organic food. Probably looks better too.
The problem I have with nutritional studies is that A) they're gamed a lot, B) they often omit data or take sharp right or left turns to get a result, when the data didn't show that result, C) they don't have enough people or spend enough time in the study, D) they can't tell what or how much of anything people actually are and aren't eating, unless they're in prison or a hospital and you have full visibility. We also only see silo studies as to whether things are or aren't good for us. Maybe non organic GMO'd foods sprayed with artificial sweeteners turns out to have a health impact, while each of those separately doesn't show a problem.
All that having been said, we'd be a lot better off if people stopped eating sugar and worthless vegetable oils and worried about the organic/gmo issues after they slash 1000 worthless calories off their diet.
That's 386 *reported* cases.
Oh, and I wanted to jump in and say that I suspect the next revised estimate of the number of cases will be "486", followed by the inexplicable "Pentium".
That's 386 *reported* cases.
And we don't know how many of those are accurate reports/diagnoses, or if the infection even occurred on this continent, let alone california. I guess I'd be a little happier if we had some idea as to a plausible scope of the issue before it becomes an "unspoken health problem for california". Its unspoken because as of this time there is virtually zero incidence of it, and we aren't even sure it happened here, and because we have no information to think otherwise.
For all we know neurocysticercosis is quite common. We won't know until we look for it.
I think its probably quite likely that most people have a head full of calcified worms.
Literally no one in recorded history has ever been killed by a meteorite.
Now how in the hell would you know? For all we know, everyone who has ever gone missing, including Amelia Earhart, was killed by a meteorite. All the people who show up with bullet wounds? Bullets...or small meterorites.
I'm pretty sure we also fake the shark statistics, since who the hell would want to vacation in california if they knew we had 50 foot great white sharks with legs, who often creep ashore and wipe out entire phalanxes of beachgoers, with the city of San Francisco then assuring citizens that it was just a chilly day, and therefore nobody at the beach, while they kick some fresh sand over the pools of blood?
I did the math. If it really is 386 our of 38,000,000 then it's 0.00101578947368421057713405719624688572366721928119659423828125 percent or barely more then 1 out of every 100,000 people. You have a point! Slow day in the news.
That's pretty much the same percent of the US Population who died in the 9/11 attacks, and over a decade later that's still considered a pretty big deal...
If tapeworms ever take over a group of airliners and crash into some buildings, then I'd see your point. We'd then have to spend ten years bombing Wormistan.
However, what we actually have here is something you're entirely unlikely to ever contract, should you avoid eating things from dumpsters and small holes in the ground. What went unsaid in the article (probably because its unknown) is whether those 386 people contracted the worm in california, or in another 5th world country and then came here. We sort of have a lot of immigrants.
what are you talking about constitutional rights? apply a sales tax to all goods purchased and delivered in the state. why is that weird? it's specifically constrained to the state. i think you should chillax, get off your high horse, get your head out of your ass, and go back to your fanntasy love affair with amazon. zOMG did you see the new KINDLES!!!! They are freaking awesome!!! I fanboi'd my shortz!!!!
My mistake, I thought you were a sentient being.
Slow news day? 386 cases out of 38,000,000 people? Clearly a serious problem. I'd have to do the math, but I think you're more likely to be hit by a space rock or eaten by a shark.
Well sure, apple gets $125 for the apple branded battery in their stores, and people who paid what they paid for a macbook will probably just cough it up.
$25 online at amazon.
But my original point is that online etailers who open stores, with the exception of apple and its artificial pricing, aren't money makers.
Look, my shoes are made by real slaves in Malaysia, and my maille was linked by some poor family in India. I've got bigger fish to fry in my consumerism than some students getting college credit for making my iPhone.
Did you pay twice as much for the shoes as other shoes, while claiming they're elegant, easier to use and full of fiber?
That largely intelligent, well pursed adults (about the only ones who can afford apple products) continue to buy overpriced products built by slave labor overseas, while throwing off inexplicable benefits such as "its elegant" (although they can't explain why), its "easier to use", but again, they can't give an example of what it does thats easier, that its "virus proof", which is completely idiotic, since nothing is virus proof, that its "made with better parts", when its made from the same parts, on the same assembly line as products marked half the price.
Fun stuff. And most of these folks are liberal leaning too. You'd think they'd have better sensibilities than to spend extra to show they're as cool as Steve, or to show off how much money they make.
All very interesting. However, the studies I am referencing are all being conducted in the neuro-sciences departments at universities and medical facilities, not the education departments. Their purpose is to study learning in general, not the best way to teach something. From that research, though, they discovered that the human brain operates very differently depending on how information is presented to it and the ability to recall that information is related to the method of delivery.
From this, other studies are being conducted with models of education. However, I doubt the experiment in California is a true research project and is statistically valid. For one, you need special permissions and conditions to experiment on human beings and it doesn't sound like what you describe would qualify. More likely, it is a poorly constructed pilot project with no true statistical value and therefore invalid.
As for reading in business, even back in 2002, there is more reading than books. They are now saying that the World Trade Center collapsed from the extra heat generated from all of the burning paper in the offices. That paper included reports and forms and letters and all sorts of business related information, but was probably not in the form of books. The ability to read, analyze and retain information is a vital skill in business, particularly the higher up the ranks one moves. Most of that information, especially externally generated, is still in paper format. U.S. businesses generate more paper reports today than ever before. It is doubtful that will change in the near future, anyway, but maybe by the time your kids are grown it will have.
Okey dokey, show me one of the studies and I'll duly tell you why its a piece of crap. I completely believe that the brain processes information differently when read electronically. From first hand experience, I also see that the electronic method is at least effective, if not better. I'm a little dubious about most research, since someone is paying for it somewhere, and they probably want a specific result. I ran MANY studies before I retired. Every one of them said exactly what I wanted them to at the end.
Also, the world trade center collapsed because it was built poorly, not from the tons of paper cranked out in a day when tablets didn't exist. Check out star trek. Not a lot of paper kicking around in the future ;)
this hasn't been my experience at all. in my experience, amazon is always lower than b&m, especially on expensive stuff. also, shipping is free over $25. except for buying a single book or single CD, it's easy to do $25. Also, Amazon has an app where you can compare prices in real time in a store. It's called "showrooming."
Also, it sounds like you're being inconsistent. you're saying that amazon is often more expensive than b&m, so they need a tax break to "level the playing field." don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?
You need to do a little more price comparison work.
And I don't think its a bit hypocritical, since people moan about b&m's having to maintain a store and so forth, while amazon has additional overhead and costs the b&m's dont.
We restricted the internet sales tax stuff for a reason, but now the b&m stores have pumped enough money into the political system to get them to put the arm on amazon. I predict no significant benefit for the state, and a big hole in the side of a very successful business.
Lets remember, the bottom line is that the US constitution gives power to states to do what they will within their own borders, and its not legal for a state to try to charge taxes on something made, sold and shipped in another state. Our rights along with amazons rights were trampled in this case, purely to squeeze more money into the state budget so we aren't extorted into paying more in taxes, which will happen anyhow.
Are we seeing the hypocrisy yet?
But your seven year old is not a normal seven year old since he/she is reading at a 6th grade level (of course, that would mean that he/she is reading something). Gifted children do learn differently, so it may not be a detriment to their learning ability. Ask any teacher and they will tell you the gifted students are as much of a challenge, if not more, than the below average students. They have very different needs. If your kid is in second grade, reading and doing work at a 6th grade level, I am sure that is a challenge for both the teacher and the student.
Children that don't read books very much, but read well are in strong evidence at my sons school, so I'm not sure your thesis is applicable. My son reads a lot because I exposed him to computers at age 2, video games he had to read to play at age 3, and I've thrown reading into everything he's interested in doing because he's motivated to do that.
By the way, the studies aren't just a couple of weeks. The latest one I have heard of was conducted on children from kindergarten through sixth grade (seven years), specifically looking at schools that have implemented electronic learning and using standard education models as the base comparison (in other words, multiple children in multiple schools that use one or the other methods). Granted, the selection process was much more complicated than that, but the results are consistent that at each level, students who were electronically educated had lower retention levels than the traditional students.
As a side study, it has also been shown that electronically educated students fare much worse, when having to deal with traditional methods found in the workplace or higher education. That last part was from a British study.
Let me share a little scenario with you that may shed a little light on why the studies might stink. California has a program right now that issued 5 ipads to every classroom. But no IT integration and no integration with the curriculum. It has quizzes on it for various reading exercises, but when you're done you have to write down the results on a piece of paper, as there is no upload/integration. The kids love playing with them, but get nothing out of them. Not because the electronic approach doesn't work, but because they didn't do the things needed for that approach to succeed.
I'm also not tossing technology at my kid for the first time at the first, third or sixth grade level, but at age 2+. Perhaps its better when its consistent, effective and targeted?
Because I'm 150% sure that the 'ipad experiment' they've done for the last year in California will suggest that they don't work. Well, not as they implemented them.
Might also be done that way on purpose so they can blunt off anyone who suggests using more technology in the classroom. They'd hate that...less spending, more effective learning with fewer poorly qualified people involved, etc.
Lastly....I've been retired for ten years but my recollection from 2002 was that books were something rarely seen in a fortune 50 company, and most everything was done via email or other online/electronic means. Hell, I was one of the last guys walking around with a piece of paper in his pocket with a daily calendar on it, instead of a PDA or electronic calendar.
So perhaps drilling paper books and avoiding technology because we've poorly implemented it or done studies that didn't tell the whole story is setting our kids up for failure when they run face first into a nearly 100% electronic workplace?
Although I don't disagree in general that politicians don't really care too much what people want, that's a far too cynical attitude to think they like people who do what they're told
You're not much of a student of history. Job one for any political organization, going back a few thousand years, is mollify the crowd. Keep them busy, turn them against each other, and feed them dumb stuff to argue about like paying taxes at amazon.
You know why governments spend our money to build sports stadiums? Keeps us busy thinking about stuff other than being taxed to death so the politicians can spend freely on their pork. Why else would someone take a job that only pays $60k a year, exposes your personal life and past like an open book, and is a giant pain in the ass to perform? Right...power and our money!
Because Amazon will ship same day and have to pay taxes anyways, they are a stone throw away from opening up their own B&M store. Might as well at this point. Imagine all the Best Buy's and Walmarts having some serious competition from that new Amazon flagship store down the road housing all the popular items for impulse shoppers.
I think the only problem with that is that every online store thats opened a b&m presence has generally regretted it. Apple stores sort of work, but only because they overcharge for every single product, usually by adding a zero or at least doubling the price of something. Try buying an ipad charger in the apple store vs getting one online...
I also don't think amazon customers want to drive somewhere to look at something. Why? You have 30 days to return the item, at amazons cost if there was something wrong with it or it didn't match with the description. In fact, if you buy a lot from them, they'll pretty much do anything you want. I've had them take back stuff past 30 days, give me half the purchase price back because the condition was a little off, discount items heavily to make up for shipping issues, etc. Why would I want to spend $5 worth of gas to motor somewhere, fight a crowd...just to look at something? I'd much rather read 500 reviews, look at a dozen photos, and be able to send it back for free if it stinks.
I think its more likely that a single central courier service comes up (I don't think its UPS or Fedex or the USPS, who cant seem to find their own ass with both hands and a 180 degree swivel waist) and a set of services like amazon and grocery delivery.
I've completely stopped shopping at grocery stores. I found they're either intentionally pricing items as sale items that ring up at full price or they're grossly incompetent, since every time I buy groceries there are 2-3 price errors, never in my favor. So I buy a big box of locally raised, grass fed meat for a slight increase in cost vs the supermarkets from a local farm consortium, and a nice group of organic farmers delivers me a big box of locally raised, absolutely delicious fruits and vegetable, also for a slight premium vs the supermarket. Then I buy online and have delivered any other items I need, because the damn price on their web site is firm, I can easily comparison shop between 5 stores and get the best price, and I don't have to dodge customers and product tents in the middle of the aisles or look through the whole store to see where the hell they put the toilet paper this week.
I think it'll go the other way....depots and local delivery, no more b&m.
no, I'm not trying to be a socialist marxist democrat. the playing field is currently slanted in favor of amazon, to the detriment of B&M. why do you want to artificially prop up one group over another? fact: if I buy a tv at best buy, I pay 10% tax. if I buy a TV at amazon, I do not pay 10% tax. why should tax law favor one merchant over another? the margins on tvs are so razor thin that best buy can't overcome this setback - they can't price their tvs 10% under amazon to make up for the tax benefits. all i'm saying is, all merchants pay sales tax. level playing field. there's no way you can disagree with that. otherwise, you want to prop up somebody artifically and cut the legs out of someone else. how can you argue otherwise?
I guess when you consider that amazons prices with shipping are about 10-20% higher than a b&m that doesn't have to ship to someones door, the little tax thing did level the playing field. When I can find an item at a B&M store (good luck) and its actually in stock and on the shelf (you'll need even better luck on that one), its generally cheaper...even with tax...than amazon is. In fact, you can do a one stop check on this, pick any item on amazon sold by multiple sellers and you'll see that all that charge for shipping have a much lower item cost, many of those are b&m stores, and you can get the same price by walking in the door. What amazon did is stock everything, make it easy to buy, and they eliminated the efficiency problem of finding something at a local b&m. If they'd been charging me tax the last ten years...I'd have probably bought from them 10-20 times instead of 1000-2000 times. So I think the playing field was already level. My local B&M stores 'competed' by not carrying plastic swimming pools (for my dogs) in an area that averages 95-105 degree highs for 5 months out of the year. When I went to buy an anchor for my boat, there was an empty spot on the shelf. When I wanted to get some decaf iced tea mix, none of the 10 grocery stores carried it, preferring 12 varieties of caffeinated tea. The B&M stores farked themselves by not carrying what their customers want, not effectively stocking their shelves or maintaining inventory, doing 'product placement' where they take items from where shoppers are used to finding them and sprinkling them around the store in an effort to make a "hunt" out of shopping but which really makes it hard to shop in a timely manner, and by littering their aisles with products on boxes, hanging from the doors of the freezers, etc. Amazon has to own buildings, they pay employees to handle everything, AND they pay to ship everything to me in 2 days for $79 a year, which includes as much free video streaming as netflix. How again are the B&M stores at a disadvantage? Seems to me amazon is a superior retailer in most every way, and we just cut the legs out from under them by unleveling the playing field.
You get the government you deserve. The land of the free has amongst the lowest voter turnout in the democratic world. If you don't like it, vote to change it. If you don't get enough votes, it's because others don't agree with you. Get over it. The OP is about calling retailers to make the same tax contribution that is expected of everyone else and not using tax avoidance as a way of being competitive on price, distorting the market.
In california, you're going to have mostly democrats voted in. If not the old guy, the new guy thats already been prepped on what he's going to be voting for and doing for the next few years. The system at the state and federal level is gamed. Money decides who we get to vote for, and if you think that guys like Romney and Obama would do much differently from the other if they're in office next year...think again. Its not like the old days of Whigs and Torries, nor is it like most other countries where various quite different parties like greens and muslims exist. Then we'd have a little difference. But right now, money decides who gets the good tv ads, who develops the more appealing campaigns, and who creates the most faux news to support the stupid part of voters brains. We're being trained and herded. The idea that voting can change anything is quaint, but I'm afraid its just a fake set of motions we go through, and any change we'd implement would be ineffective. Well, short of breaking out the torches and pitchforks and heading to city hall.
SInce the research uses functional mri, it is kind of hard to fake that. FMRI shows that reading from a tablet or even a laptop lights up the same parts of the brain when watching TV, which is different than the areas lit from reading a paper source. Physiologically, the brain is not differentiating between using an electronic device for reading than it is for watching TV. That does not mean one cannot learn, but the learning pathways are different and the neurological pathways to store and retrieve that information is vastly different.
That does not mean that it isn't useful or ins't enjoyable, just that the brain is not as efficient. So, for your gifted child, it could very well be an enhancement to his/her learning. For most kids, whose brain is not wired as your child's brain is, perform worse.
As for your child and your friend's children not being interested in reading, that has been a national trend since the 1960s and correlates with rise of televisions in the home.
While it might be hard to fake whether different parts of the brain light up, the methodology to determine if the learning process was deficient or improved I'm guessing is pretty much up for grabs. When you can influence peoples answers to questions by changing the font or how you word the question... My kid also doesn't watch a lot of television, preferring interactive stuff like video gaming and general computer usage. Half his time is spent looking up cheats, easter eggs, and then running to the xbox to try them out. And it still remains a fact that my kid has read practically no books, but works at a 6th grade level instead of a 1st grade level. So apparently one can learn and will learn well without paper books or paper media. Perhaps we'll find out in 20 years that learning while utilizing the different portions of the brain works BETTER if you stick with it for years (retraining the brain) rather than a one-off study done in a couple of weeks?
Perhaps the issue is that you clearly do not understand how your government works.
That seems to be true, at least for one of us!
The fact that your town is 15 miles outside of Sacto doesn't mean that maintaining your roads is a State issue. In fact it is NOT. It is either the responsibility of your town or your county if unincorporated.
Yeah, the state cut the county road budget, and half the legislature lives in my town or nearby. Next?
Similarly the reasons your school budgets are being cut is most likley because of Prop 13 (which limits property tax) than because of poor management (although both could be at fault).
Yes, 20% taxes on income and sales combined isnt enough for the state with among the highest taxation levels in the country. We should also be raped on property taxes. I see you work for the state? Nobody else picks on prop 13 except the politicians. Stupid because property tends to transact often enough to keep the levels reasonable, and retired people and poor people don't get priced out of their homes during real estate booms.
I have no idea why you think CA spends anywhere near the most per student on education.
http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/ We also spend more on healthcare in the US than most countries, and also get less. Seems we're underperformers all around.
You seem to be woefully confused about how your government works. I would suggest you start fixing the government problems you see around by first informing yourself about how it is supposed to operate and stop blaming your state government for the stupidity of your local government (e.g. for putting up expensive signage).
You seem to have trouble processing information and coming to a reasonable conclusion. I would suggest you stop figuring out how to peanut butter the blame around, since most of the stuff I mentioned that is being done locally was done so with federal and state earmarks. I'd suggest you quit your job with the state of california and take a whirl at working at a real company with real budgets and real deliverables. It'll be quite an eye opener for you, for sure.