Mr. Guy from Free Jackster: "I know you are afraid I am trying to show you a world without rules." Teen girl says, "No, its wrong."
Wait, I don't get it. Did Disney just identify themselves with an evil, borg-like, inhuman AI (the antagonist) who was defeated by Neo (the protagonist) in The Matrix ? I can see the ad billboards now: "You... are a disease, a plague. And Disney's Bambi is the cure !"
Um, here is a clue, Disney: if you are going to use a movie in your propaganda, watch it first. It helps.
Sorry, this is probably -1 offtopic, but I just want to say, this was a great article - very concise, and almost completely unbiased. It would have been an excellent article, if it weren't for the weasely "% increase, not actual value" graph.
Actually, MS is not making much money from Office. What they ARE making from are the Office format standards -.doc,.xls,.ppt, and so on. This is what the original article was trying to say.
It doesn't matter if someone releases a better, cheaper, more elegamt office suite. It doesn't even matter if Micros~1 Office only works half the time. What matters is that no one can create a.doc file without Microsoft's say-so - and if someone manages to do it, all Microsoft has to do is twiddle a bit somewhere and make the new.doc XP (tm) incompatible with the old one. They can do this because users have NO CHOICE but to use.doc for all their memos and what not -.doc is the de facto standard.
You can argue all you like that, if the users don't like.doc, they should be using postscript or latex or whatever. Unfortunately, just like the original article said, almost everyone in the world uses.doc (and.xls and.ppt and...). This means that if you want to communicate with other people, you have to play by Microsoft's rules.
What MS is trying to do (ok, actually, they have pretty much done it) right now is to do the same thing for every single piece of information that they did for text documents, spreadsheets, slide shows, etc. They want to utterly and completely control the format in which this information travels. This is the danger of.net, and I fear that, this time, Linux cannot win. Microsoft can force XP (with.net in it) down the throats of its immense user base at any time it chooses to do so. Linux has no such user base, and, therefore, Linux is powerless to set standards which control the information.
That's absolutely true; I would argue, however, that computer literacy has become a basic building block, along with reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic (hmmm... "computer" doesn't start with "r", damn it). Even now, most people would be required to point-and-click somewhere at some point in their lives. Computers are becoming cheaper, and ubiquitous Internet access is almost here (despite the recession, even). Portable devices, such as Palms and suped-up cellphones, are also becoming more widespread. It is becoming difficult to survive without having at least a basic understanding of how all this stuff works.
Consider - a couple hundred years ago, basic literacy was really an optional luxury for most people, not a requirement...
Seems like your problems were mehcanical in nature. For example, we never had a program like that in our school (we had fixed computer labs), but almost every desk was equipped with a power outlet; these outlets were mostly used for physics/chemistry experiments. And, of course, 486 and Word just don't mix. As to your teachers, well... what can I say ? Sounds like you would have a problem with them anyway, laptop or no laptop. I have had plenty of those glorified substitute losers, and they always manage to make any subject feel like torture.
I guess what I am trying to say that your experience doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole concept of using computers in the classroom - you just got shafted:-(
I agree, the kind of computing you describe has its place in a Disney movie, not in an actual classroom. However, my own computing experience has proved very positive.
What we had is a cross-discipline program: in our Physics class, we learned how to collect experimental data (and what the data means). In our statistics class, we learned how to plot and analyze any data (including the one from physics). And in our Pascal class (yes, Pascal is lame, but still), we learned how to write programs so that all that data needn't be analyzed by hand.
As the result, I gained a much deeper understanding of the subject. It is always easier to understand something by explaining it to another person - and the computer is an ideal "person" for these purposes. It's extra-stupid, but it works fast (actually, the same is true of a TI-85 graphing calculator, but the TI-85 has the added benefit of being portable). And of course, programming is much more fun when you actually have a real problem in mind (calculate where the rocket will land), as opposed to some contrived excercise (write nested loops all day, whee). In any case, computers actually helped me learn, and made the process more enjoyable.
In summary, computers DO have their place in the classroom - not as glorified CD players, dumb Internet terminals or word processors, but as programmable multi-purpose tools. Which is what computers have been originally designed to do, actually.
It's lighter and cooler-looking, but how tough is an AL case ? For example, what about the threads for the thumbscrews - can they get stripped ? And what if I accidentally sit on the case or something - will it buckle ? Not that sitting on cases is a good idea, but still...
The author is right - Linux cannot win on the desktop, simply because Microsoft already controls about 80% of the world's desktops with an iron grip. Furthermore, Mircosoft has actually managed to produce something workable during all these years.
For example, I do Java server-side development all day, on Solaris. How do I do it ? I run eXceed on my Win2k box, and ssh into our dev server. The three native Unix programs I ever run continuously are xclock, emacs, and a shell (of course, I use grep, ant, and so on on an intermittent basis). Why do I use Windows as my dumb terminal client ? Because DirectX is faster than X will ever be; because Windows can play music, video and Word documents (think memos) without hassles, and because IE is faster and more stable than Mozilla. All these factors can eventually be traced back to Microsoft's choke-hold on the latest drivers, and to their predatory tactics of creating proprietary standards.
Could Linux offer me an easy-to-use, fast desktop with the minimal requirements that I need ? Of course it could, in theory. However, in practice, MS will enforce and mutate its standards to ensure that this will never happen. Linux on the desktop is doomed.
Meanwhile, the one window (no pun intended) of opportunity that Linux has for survival is closing fast. Due to its flexibility and stability, Linux could completely dominate the server market. However, while Linux coders are spending their time trying to get Gnome and KDE to interoperate, Microsoft coders are working on a standard to end all standards:.NET. When.NET finally becomes widespread (and that's easy to do, seeing as MS can force everyone to use it by bundling it with the OS), Linux's opportunity for survival will pass - since "network connectivity" will be synonymous with ".NET (tm)".
If the Linux community doesn't do something to win back the server market share that they are losing, I give them about 2 years, tops. After that, Linux will go the way of Be and OS/2.
I'd develop commercially viable Single Stage to Orbit craft, a la Michael Flynn's Firestar. Once the infrastructure for cheap lifts to orbit is built, moonbases and such will follow.
I am not a physicist, but wouldn't the laser/microwave beam get totally scattered as it travels through the atmosphere/ionosphere ?
On the other hand, it would be cool if power satellites could provide a "boost" for passing spacecraft in orbit (no atmosphere problems there). Perhaps even emit a beam for solar-sail based spacecraft to ride on. Of course, I am just dreaming now...
But to her surprise, she found instead that the new material was magnetic even above 200 C. Until now, the highest temperature at which a non-metallic material was magnetic was 255 C.
above 200 C < above 255 C. Do they mean, "below" ?
200 C is not exactly room-temperature. Water boils at 100 C, roughly
Still, this is a pretty sweet discovery. I wonder how strong these magnets are - strong enough to build an ultra-light motor ?
This essay should become the newest bullet in the DoJ's magazine. Consider: if there was actual competition in the desktop OS world, I could choose my OS based on how secure it is. In this case, the security community would be providing a valuable service to consumers - by helping them choose the best OS. This is already happening in other markets; for example, there are numerous automotive magazines that discuss safety features of multiple cars.
Imagine, however, that the only car you could possibly buy was a Dorf. In this case, if someone posts an article that Dorf cars explode when exposed to infrared light, that someone would put thousands of people in danger. Dorf sure as hell is not going to fix their cars - since people HAVE to buy cars, explosion or no explosion.
So, I could easily see this essay as proof that monopoly practices are harmful - since they create an absurd situation that elevates the latest Outlook bug to a national security threat.
I think it's very depressing how the media spins the facts in the news stories. The news article basically says, "RIAA invented a new shining sword of holy justice to use against the demonic hackers". Now, imagine if the title of the article read "Little Johnny DDoS-es RIAA servers". I bet the article would be a lot less sympathetic to the attacker. Yet, in both cases, it's one entity DDoSing another, there is almost no difference in means or goals.
Hey, someone on/. must know - are there any unbiased news sources left online ?
The keynote speech is great at explaining why games like System Shock and Thief are better than games like Quake, but the speech is also somewhat near-sighted. It focuses on only one aspect of gaming: realism. However, IMHO, realism alone is not a substitute for good gameplay.
For example, imagine a game that has realistic physics, light and sound propagation, imersive 3d graphics, and hyper-intelligent AI. Sounds fun, right ? Not really. Imagine that, in the game, you play the role of a DMV clerk, grading people's traffic tests in their full 64-bit glory. There is nothing for you to do but sit there and listen to the sound of your pencil realistically propagating around walls, as you scratch out "A" or "C-" on little sheets of paper. I don't know about you, but I eventually would exploit the emergent behavior of the game by stabbing that pencil through my eye in boredom.
On the other end of the spectrum, consider a game like Tetris. Tetris is so unrealistic it's not even funny. It can be rendered on an alphanumeric monitor; in fact, it only requires 1-bit graphics. However, I could spend days playing tetris over and over, trying to best my own high score. This principle does not only apply to single-player games; for example, chess has been popular for quite some time now, and it does not require much more than an 8x8 grid with various icons placed on it.
IMHO, System Shock 2, Thief and Deus Ex were not fun solely because of their simulation prowess. These games were fun because there was something interesting for the player to do, besides merely exploring the game world. Similarly, Black and White gets somewhat boring over time, since, despite its incredibly complex world, the player doesn't have much to do except playing "catch" with his Creature.
In conclusion, while I agree that enhanced realism in games is definitely the way to go, I think that realism alone is nearly worthless. After all, we play games precisely because our real world does not entertain us sufficiently.
How can you honestly say any one of them is any more intellectually honest than the others? They all imply an honest answer to a question with no evidence in any direction.
Well, Strong Atheists profess that they KNOW, with 100% certainty, that there is no God(s). But in order to know that, they'd have to be omniscient. Thus, they would have to BE God(s). That's a contradiction.
On a separate note, Weak Atheists specifically cite evidence in support of their position (as opposed to basing their position purely on faith).
That would make you Agnostic, by my definition (which I basically stole from infidels.org). I should note, though, that several posters seem to disagree with this definition.
Actually, the more correct division (according to infidels.org and my long-forgotten philosophy classes) is as follows:
Strong Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God, thus maiking a statement of faith.
Weak Atheist: you acknowledge the possibility that God exist, but believe that the likelihood of this is too low to be taken seriously
Agnostic - Unlike the Weak Atheist, you believe that the existance or nonexistance of God cannot even be estimated, but that's ok, since it doesn't matter anyway.
Oh the three positions, Weak Atheism is probably the most intellectually honest one. Strong Atheism is hypocritical, and Agnosticism seems more of a cop-out than a philosophical standpoint.
Actually, there are two radical alternatives to wheels for land-based transportation that I can think of:
Today: Caterpillar treads. Bulldozers, tanks, etc., need to travel on surfaces where the wheels would sink hopelessly into the ground. This invention has been out for a while, but it is much younger than 5000 years. The disadvantage of treads is that they are slow and usually damage the surface that they travel on.
Someday: Legs. Even caterpillar treads won't take you through a jagged terrain or up a steep slope. Actually building legs for your vehicle will solve this problem. Legs have similar disadvantages to treads; and, like wheels, they can get stuck easily.
As you can see, wheels are not the be-all-end-all solution for land-based transport. There are other solutions that solve specific tasks that wheels cannot. GUIs are the same way - while WIMP is good for regular users, biologists (and power users in general) need graphical pipes. Artists need a stylus or a tablet instead of a mouse. Gamers need joysticks. Annoying middle manager need voice recognition so that they can yell at their computers. WIMP is good, but it is by no means perfect.
As a sidenote - I don't know perl, but the definition "a word is a string with spaces on the sides" makes no sense to me. Spaces are separators, the letters are the token. Java works this way, and regexps (in any language) do also. So, your prof must have been on crack or something.
There is a difference between "working together" and "cheating", and I wish more college curriculi (curriculae ?) supported this notion.
If the students "work together" by spontaneously organizing a team, brainstorming the solution, and then teaming up to find bugs, that is actually a very good thing. It means that the students understand the ideals of good programming practice intrinsically; they don't have to learn XP because that's how they already work. It also means that they will understand the subject matter at a much higher level, since part of working in a group is being able to explain things to one's teammates. It is impossible to explain anything without having a deep understanding of the subject.
On the other hand, if by "working together" the students mean "Alice writes all the code, and Bob, Cindy and Dave copy/paste it", then it's clearly cheating. Unfortunataly, most college professors assume that all students are lazy, dishonest losers, and thus assume that cheating always takes place. This greatly deteriorates the learning process.
The problem with narrow-focused education is that it only teaches you things you already know about. A well-rounded education, on the other hand, may expose you areas of study that you didn't even know existed. It is likely that you will find one or two subjects actually interesting.
In other words, narrow-focused education gives you tunnel vision. You'll miss many interesting things in life if you only stare straight ahead.
Yeah, if you have ever watched ToS, you'd probably notice the cheesy style of the theme song. The new Enterprise song is as cheesy, but in a New Age-ish kind of way.
I think that Star Trek has so much baggage on it already (ToS, the movies, TnG, DS9, Voy, books, encyclopedia, computer games for pete's sake) that it has become a big load of cruft. It would be nice if "Enterprise" basically did a clean rewrite of the entire Star Trek codebase. Sure, they would fork the series, but then, who cares if their new script is better ?
Now, that said, so far they are failing. They brought back the cheesy theme song from the ToS, with a vengeance. They stuck with the "the away team consists of all the senior crew members" protocol. They kept playing the "hick humans versus frigid vulcans" theme that has been overdone. They brough time travel, or whatever the hell that was, into the series in the PILOT - which means that you can kiss interesting plot lines goodbye - it's deux ex machina from now on. And, they played their trump card - soft core porn - way too early, which means the fans have nothing to look forward to:-)
IMHO, the few things that they did right - weak ship, modular space stations, good CGI, soft core porn (wait... did I count that one already ?) - do not outweigh the things they missed (so far).
Slashdot Mirror
Um, here is a clue, Disney: if you are going to use a movie in your propaganda, watch it first. It helps.
Sorry, this is probably -1 offtopic, but I just want to say, this was a great article - very concise, and almost completely unbiased. It would have been an excellent article, if it weren't for the weasely "% increase, not actual value" graph.
It doesn't matter if someone releases a better, cheaper, more elegamt office suite. It doesn't even matter if Micros~1 Office only works half the time. What matters is that no one can create a .doc file without Microsoft's say-so - and if someone manages to do it, all Microsoft has to do is twiddle a bit somewhere and make the new .doc XP (tm) incompatible with the old one. They can do this because users have NO CHOICE but to use .doc for all their memos and what not - .doc is the de facto standard.
You can argue all you like that, if the users don't like .doc, they should be using postscript or latex or whatever. Unfortunately, just like the original article said, almost everyone in the world uses .doc (and .xls and .ppt and...). This means that if you want to communicate with other people, you have to play by Microsoft's rules.
What MS is trying to do (ok, actually, they have pretty much done it) right now is to do the same thing for every single piece of information that they did for text documents, spreadsheets, slide shows, etc. They want to utterly and completely control the format in which this information travels. This is the danger of .net, and I fear that, this time, Linux cannot win. Microsoft can force XP (with .net in it) down the throats of its immense user base at any time it chooses to do so. Linux has no such user base, and, therefore, Linux is powerless to set standards which control the information.
Consider - a couple hundred years ago, basic literacy was really an optional luxury for most people, not a requirement...
I guess what I am trying to say that your experience doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole concept of using computers in the classroom - you just got shafted :-(
What we had is a cross-discipline program: in our Physics class, we learned how to collect experimental data (and what the data means). In our statistics class, we learned how to plot and analyze any data (including the one from physics). And in our Pascal class (yes, Pascal is lame, but still), we learned how to write programs so that all that data needn't be analyzed by hand.
As the result, I gained a much deeper understanding of the subject. It is always easier to understand something by explaining it to another person - and the computer is an ideal "person" for these purposes. It's extra-stupid, but it works fast (actually, the same is true of a TI-85 graphing calculator, but the TI-85 has the added benefit of being portable). And of course, programming is much more fun when you actually have a real problem in mind (calculate where the rocket will land), as opposed to some contrived excercise (write nested loops all day, whee). In any case, computers actually helped me learn, and made the process more enjoyable.
In summary, computers DO have their place in the classroom - not as glorified CD players, dumb Internet terminals or word processors, but as programmable multi-purpose tools. Which is what computers have been originally designed to do, actually.
It's lighter and cooler-looking, but how tough is an AL case ? For example, what about the threads for the thumbscrews - can they get stripped ? And what if I accidentally sit on the case or something - will it buckle ? Not that sitting on cases is a good idea, but still...
For example, I do Java server-side development all day, on Solaris. How do I do it ? I run eXceed on my Win2k box, and ssh into our dev server. The three native Unix programs I ever run continuously are xclock, emacs, and a shell (of course, I use grep, ant, and so on on an intermittent basis). Why do I use Windows as my dumb terminal client ? Because DirectX is faster than X will ever be; because Windows can play music, video and Word documents (think memos) without hassles, and because IE is faster and more stable than Mozilla. All these factors can eventually be traced back to Microsoft's choke-hold on the latest drivers, and to their predatory tactics of creating proprietary standards.
Could Linux offer me an easy-to-use, fast desktop with the minimal requirements that I need ? Of course it could, in theory. However, in practice, MS will enforce and mutate its standards to ensure that this will never happen. Linux on the desktop is doomed.
Meanwhile, the one window (no pun intended) of opportunity that Linux has for survival is closing fast. Due to its flexibility and stability, Linux could completely dominate the server market. However, while Linux coders are spending their time trying to get Gnome and KDE to interoperate, Microsoft coders are working on a standard to end all standards: .NET. When .NET finally becomes widespread (and that's easy to do, seeing as MS can force everyone to use it by bundling it with the OS), Linux's opportunity for survival will pass - since "network connectivity" will be synonymous with ".NET (tm)".
If the Linux community doesn't do something to win back the server market share that they are losing, I give them about 2 years, tops. After that, Linux will go the way of Be and OS/2.
I'd develop commercially viable Single Stage to Orbit craft, a la Michael Flynn's Firestar. Once the infrastructure for cheap lifts to orbit is built, moonbases and such will follow.
On the other hand, it would be cool if power satellites could provide a "boost" for passing spacecraft in orbit (no atmosphere problems there). Perhaps even emit a beam for solar-sail based spacecraft to ride on. Of course, I am just dreaming now...
- above 200 C < above 255 C. Do they mean, "below" ?
- 200 C is not exactly room-temperature. Water boils at 100 C, roughly
Still, this is a pretty sweet discovery. I wonder how strong these magnets are - strong enough to build an ultra-light motor ?Imagine, however, that the only car you could possibly buy was a Dorf. In this case, if someone posts an article that Dorf cars explode when exposed to infrared light, that someone would put thousands of people in danger. Dorf sure as hell is not going to fix their cars - since people HAVE to buy cars, explosion or no explosion.
So, I could easily see this essay as proof that monopoly practices are harmful - since they create an absurd situation that elevates the latest Outlook bug to a national security threat.
Is it actually possible to play as the creature ? We sort of have a running bet on it...
Hey, someone on /. must know - are there any unbiased news sources left online ?
For example, imagine a game that has realistic physics, light and sound propagation, imersive 3d graphics, and hyper-intelligent AI. Sounds fun, right ? Not really. Imagine that, in the game, you play the role of a DMV clerk, grading people's traffic tests in their full 64-bit glory. There is nothing for you to do but sit there and listen to the sound of your pencil realistically propagating around walls, as you scratch out "A" or "C-" on little sheets of paper. I don't know about you, but I eventually would exploit the emergent behavior of the game by stabbing that pencil through my eye in boredom.
On the other end of the spectrum, consider a game like Tetris. Tetris is so unrealistic it's not even funny. It can be rendered on an alphanumeric monitor; in fact, it only requires 1-bit graphics. However, I could spend days playing tetris over and over, trying to best my own high score. This principle does not only apply to single-player games; for example, chess has been popular for quite some time now, and it does not require much more than an 8x8 grid with various icons placed on it.
IMHO, System Shock 2, Thief and Deus Ex were not fun solely because of their simulation prowess. These games were fun because there was something interesting for the player to do, besides merely exploring the game world. Similarly, Black and White gets somewhat boring over time, since, despite its incredibly complex world, the player doesn't have much to do except playing "catch" with his Creature.
In conclusion, while I agree that enhanced realism in games is definitely the way to go, I think that realism alone is nearly worthless. After all, we play games precisely because our real world does not entertain us sufficiently.On a separate note, Weak Atheists specifically cite evidence in support of their position (as opposed to basing their position purely on faith).
- Strong Atheist: You take a definite position that there is no God, thus maiking a statement of faith.
- Weak Atheist: you acknowledge the possibility that God exist, but believe that the likelihood of this is too low to be taken seriously
- Agnostic - Unlike the Weak Atheist, you believe that the existance or nonexistance of God cannot even be estimated, but that's ok, since it doesn't matter anyway.
Oh the three positions, Weak Atheism is probably the most intellectually honest one. Strong Atheism is hypocritical, and Agnosticism seems more of a cop-out than a philosophical standpoint.-
-
As you can see, wheels are not the be-all-end-all solution for land-based transport. There are other solutions that solve specific tasks that wheels cannot. GUIs are the same way - while WIMP is good for regular users, biologists (and power users in general) need graphical pipes. Artists need a stylus or a tablet instead of a mouse. Gamers need joysticks. Annoying middle manager need voice recognition so that they can yell at their computers. WIMP is good, but it is by no means perfect.Today: Caterpillar treads. Bulldozers, tanks, etc., need to travel on surfaces where the wheels would sink hopelessly into the ground. This invention has been out for a while, but it is much younger than 5000 years. The disadvantage of treads is that they are slow and usually damage the surface that they travel on.
Someday: Legs. Even caterpillar treads won't take you through a jagged terrain or up a steep slope. Actually building legs for your vehicle will solve this problem. Legs have similar disadvantages to treads; and, like wheels, they can get stuck easily.
As a sidenote - I don't know perl, but the definition "a word is a string with spaces on the sides" makes no sense to me. Spaces are separators, the letters are the token. Java works this way, and regexps (in any language) do also. So, your prof must have been on crack or something.
If the students "work together" by spontaneously organizing a team, brainstorming the solution, and then teaming up to find bugs, that is actually a very good thing. It means that the students understand the ideals of good programming practice intrinsically; they don't have to learn XP because that's how they already work. It also means that they will understand the subject matter at a much higher level, since part of working in a group is being able to explain things to one's teammates. It is impossible to explain anything without having a deep understanding of the subject.
On the other hand, if by "working together" the students mean "Alice writes all the code, and Bob, Cindy and Dave copy/paste it", then it's clearly cheating. Unfortunataly, most college professors assume that all students are lazy, dishonest losers, and thus assume that cheating always takes place. This greatly deteriorates the learning process.
In other words, narrow-focused education gives you tunnel vision. You'll miss many interesting things in life if you only stare straight ahead.
Yeah, if you have ever watched ToS, you'd probably notice the cheesy style of the theme song. The new Enterprise song is as cheesy, but in a New Age-ish kind of way.
Now, that said, so far they are failing. They brought back the cheesy theme song from the ToS, with a vengeance. They stuck with the "the away team consists of all the senior crew members" protocol. They kept playing the "hick humans versus frigid vulcans" theme that has been overdone. They brough time travel, or whatever the hell that was, into the series in the PILOT - which means that you can kiss interesting plot lines goodbye - it's deux ex machina from now on. And, they played their trump card - soft core porn - way too early, which means the fans have nothing to look forward to
IMHO, the few things that they did right - weak ship, modular space stations, good CGI, soft core porn (wait... did I count that one already ?) - do not outweigh the things they missed (so far).