Well, once we get bills like SOPA and a few more copyright extensions, we won't need creators anymore.
Just keep selling the old stuff, not like it'll go public domain or anything.:D
Indeed. Being aware of many of your limitations, and that you're unaware of all your limitations is probably the most important part of becoming good at anything.
Of course this doesn't apply to me, as I have no limitations, unlike all those people who are incompetent and are just unaware of it.
Boycott, and get everyone you can find to do so as well.
Don't watch their crap, don't download it, don't turn on the radio.Get your news from somewhere not owned by Murdoch. You can go one step further and fund the alternatives if you're in a position where you can/already do spend a lot of money on music/movies. Put money into things like Jamendo, or projects like Iron Sky. Go find your local music scene and buy albums off of anyone who isn't signed (and tell them that's why you're buying their albums).
If everyone did this, the cartels would not have a leg to stand on. We would have to put up with a significant drop in quality for a short while, and films with budgets in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars would probably become a thing of the past, but once the artists got the idea that the community would support them, the greater artistic freedom would somewhat mitigate the lower budgets.
But there are still concepts to be learned that apply across the board. You still have if statements and loop. Concepts that apply almost everywhere. The concept of what a function is (even if they look like some kind of wizardry in haskell). Closures are an extremely good way of learning about scope.
Take a look at coffeescript sometime if you know javascript. On the surface, js looks very imperative, like a dynamically typed but otherwise C-ish language. Add a bit of syntactic sugar, and suddenly it starts to look considerably more Haskellish. Granted, there are extremes (as I said, many concepts you learn in assembly will be nigh useless in a pure functional language, and vice versa), but thinking in terms of a spectrum is more productive than going 'OMG THIS LANGUAGE IS FUNCTIONAL SO MUST BE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ALL IMPERATIVE LANGUAGES'.
Instead of teaching programming, like you say maybe teach about problem solving? Oh wait that is called being logical! Oh wait maybe that can be called logic and is, I don't know, part of the MATH curriculum! I don't think learning how to program, for everybody, is a good idea.
Far too little problem solving and critical thinking is taught in the maths classroom these days.
1) What language? Unless you decide to keep up in programming languages whatever you learn is going to be completely and uterly useless.
Irrelevant. The skills are almost entirely transferrable. Unless you got to an extremely esoteric language like APL or brainfuck, anyone with a good understanding of one language will be able to learn a language with a similar purpose very quickly.
Going from scheme to assembly may be a bit of a stretch, but learning any language that vaguely follows the style and syntax of C (I am including everything from the more high level parts of some assemblies to javascript here) will give a large headstart towards learning any other.
There is a reason pedagogical languages exist, after all. For a beginner, one of these, or any high level language is probably appropriate as a tool to teach logical thinking.
2) What paradigm? Once you have decided on a programming language are you going to teach via an IDE? Text editor? How about file system communications? Database? Complications, complications, complications...
Again, these are details that don't matter. It's like saying 'what do we teach them maths with? A pencil? Or pens? What model of caclulator?'
As long as you don't pick something entirely esoteric, or bore them with too much low level stuff too soon, it's fine.
One could even make an argument _for_ an otherwise useless and obscure language. This would help kerb plagiarism, or at least force the plagiarist to understand both languages well enough to port some code (a useful end in itself).
I help my niece with her math and my biggest beef today is that you have history, or philosphy folks teaching math. You can teach math and science in two ways. The first and this is what I fear is happening all too much is to teach via remembering the formulas and solutions. This achieves nothing and leads the problems in computer science and science we have today.
Here, I agree. And perhaps one way of getting more teachers that are competent in logic and mathematical thinking is to try and interest students in such matters? The path to a useful knowledge of mathematics is long and arduous. Many of the obstacles also seem arbitrary, and it is only when one looks down after learning a lot, that the point of it all can be truly understood.
Even then, the practical use of it is limited to a few scientific disciplines where the tools are not already available in a packaged and easy to use form.
Mathematical knowledge for its own sake is a wonderful thing, but it is difficult to convince other people of its worth.
The second approach and this is more difficult since it requires an innat understanding of math and science is to teach it in the abstract. I teach math to my niece in the abstract and she GETS it (when she pays attention). I try to get her to understand why the formula she just learned is actually created and what purpose it serves. I get her problem solving skills involved! Oh wait is that not what you try to do with programming?
I would not call understanding the reasoning rather than accepting a formula as gospel abstract. Abstract is where you investigate something without grounding in reality or practicality. Either way, these are skills that are woefully under-taught in today's schools. Mathematics is 'taught' in such a way that getting the answer is considered more important than learning to think.
Perhaps programming is a good way to encourage these skills where other methods have fai
Now imagine playing a video game in 1080p and downloading at the same time via your graphics card... ya no lol.
You think a graphics card is really going to notice the amount of bandwidth your ISP can provide? Or the amount processing that an ethernet card can do?
Maybe if you have fibre, but otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean.
One of the differences between Arch and Debian is that Pacman is much more minimalistic about what it considers a dependancy.
This allows greater control for those who obsess over what they do and don't want on their system.
It also helps with learning a lot about what each component does and why it's there. When I've tried minimalistic Debian installations in the past, I quickly get overwhelmed by the amount of things each package brings with it.
I probably would not install Arch again, but setting up my current system taught me a lot more than installing Debian or Ubuntu ever has.
Do you really think you are the first to think of things like this?
All these issues (and many more) are considered in making a big budget game. Much of the time fast response and good tolerance to latency are preferred over security. Better to have an actually playable game that sometimes gets hacked than one which is a piece of crap that noone plays.
Comparing a strategy game to a first person is not entirely genuine. Many things have to be working right so that the tank can appear and have all the latest shiny graphics. Forcing the game to display models with no notice, and report back every position of every physics object every frame is an extra constraint which will require a tradeoff somewhere else.
Granted, sometimes decisions are based on whatever is cheap/fast rather than what is the best game, but they still sell. If you don't like it, don't buy it and tell them why. If you'd prefer cheat-proof games to the latest shiny physics effects and graphics, then write a letter.
Don't give up on them quite yet. I seem to recall there was a genetic experiment recently where latent genes for teeth in some birds could be reactivated.
Possibly because the number users that are going to go that far with wanting a lightweight, modular desktop, but not go further into getting rid of shinies altogether is rather small.
As such you see a big bunch of users of the full-on resource hoggin jack-of-all-trades because they either like the shinies, or just don't care. Then there's a smooth spectrum of users from things like xubuntu through to more minimalist roll-your-own stuff where they piece together a light weight wm, and one or two scripts to do anything else they want.
As there are so many options (and it's quicker to make a lightweight option) people just drift to whatever suits them best rather than rallying around whatever is the 'best' technology-wise.
The catholic church showed everyone how terrible a world in which they killed and stole was (not so sure about the raping, but I'd rate it as fairly likely), so people thought it might not be such a good idea?
Slashdot Mirror
What is this (c) unit of discharge they are quoting?
If privacy/selling data to marketers is a concern, isn't a single sign-in even worse than accounts everywhere?
Well, once we get bills like SOPA and a few more copyright extensions, we won't need creators anymore. Just keep selling the old stuff, not like it'll go public domain or anything. :D
Wait, the World Health Organization is a sith lord too?
yeah, well my posts
Indeed. Being aware of many of your limitations, and that you're unaware of all your limitations is probably the most important part of becoming good at anything.
Of course this doesn't apply to me, as I have no limitations, unlike all those people who are incompetent and are just unaware of it.
We'd also have to know where it was at.
Boycott, and get everyone you can find to do so as well.
Don't watch their crap, don't download it, don't turn on the radio.Get your news from somewhere not owned by Murdoch. You can go one step further and fund the alternatives if you're in a position where you can/already do spend a lot of money on music/movies. Put money into things like Jamendo, or projects like Iron Sky. Go find your local music scene and buy albums off of anyone who isn't signed (and tell them that's why you're buying their albums).
If everyone did this, the cartels would not have a leg to stand on. We would have to put up with a significant drop in quality for a short while, and films with budgets in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars would probably become a thing of the past, but once the artists got the idea that the community would support them, the greater artistic freedom would somewhat mitigate the lower budgets.
(Granted (scheme (doesn't( look(
(much (like (imperative (languages)))))))))
But there are still concepts to be learned that apply across the board.
You still have if statements and loop. Concepts that apply almost everywhere.
The concept of what a function is (even if they look like some kind of wizardry in haskell).
Closures are an extremely good way of learning about scope.
Take a look at coffeescript sometime if you know javascript. On the surface, js looks very imperative, like a dynamically typed but otherwise C-ish language.
Add a bit of syntactic sugar, and suddenly it starts to look considerably more Haskellish.
Granted, there are extremes (as I said, many concepts you learn in assembly will be nigh useless in a pure functional language, and vice versa), but thinking in terms of a spectrum is more productive than going 'OMG THIS LANGUAGE IS FUNCTIONAL SO MUST BE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO ALL IMPERATIVE LANGUAGES'.
Instead of teaching programming, like you say maybe teach about problem solving? Oh wait that is called being logical! Oh wait maybe that can be called logic and is, I don't know, part of the MATH curriculum! I don't think learning how to program, for everybody, is a good idea.
Far too little problem solving and critical thinking is taught in the maths classroom these days.
1) What language? Unless you decide to keep up in programming languages whatever you learn is going to be completely and uterly useless.
Irrelevant. The skills are almost entirely transferrable. Unless you got to an extremely esoteric language like APL or brainfuck, anyone with a good understanding of one language will be able to learn a language with a similar purpose very quickly.
Going from scheme to assembly may be a bit of a stretch, but learning any language that vaguely follows the style and syntax of C (I am including everything from the more high level parts of some assemblies to javascript here) will give a large headstart towards learning any other.
There is a reason pedagogical languages exist, after all. For a beginner, one of these, or any high level language is probably appropriate as a tool to teach logical thinking.
2) What paradigm? Once you have decided on a programming language are you going to teach via an IDE? Text editor? How about file system communications? Database? Complications, complications, complications...
Again, these are details that don't matter. It's like saying 'what do we teach them maths with? A pencil? Or pens? What model of caclulator?'
As long as you don't pick something entirely esoteric, or bore them with too much low level stuff too soon, it's fine.
One could even make an argument _for_ an otherwise useless and obscure language. This would help kerb plagiarism, or at least force the plagiarist to understand both languages well enough to port some code (a useful end in itself).
I help my niece with her math and my biggest beef today is that you have history, or philosphy folks teaching math. You can teach math and science in two ways. The first and this is what I fear is happening all too much is to teach via remembering the formulas and solutions. This achieves nothing and leads the problems in computer science and science we have today.
Here, I agree. And perhaps one way of getting more teachers that are competent in logic and mathematical thinking is to try and interest students in such matters? The path to a useful knowledge of mathematics is long and arduous. Many of the obstacles also seem arbitrary, and it is only when one looks down after learning a lot, that the point of it all can be truly understood.
Even then, the practical use of it is limited to a few scientific disciplines where the tools are not already available in a packaged and easy to use form.
Mathematical knowledge for its own sake is a wonderful thing, but it is difficult to convince other people of its worth.
The second approach and this is more difficult since it requires an innat understanding of math and science is to teach it in the abstract. I teach math to my niece in the abstract and she GETS it (when she pays attention). I try to get her to understand why the formula she just learned is actually created and what purpose it serves. I get her problem solving skills involved! Oh wait is that not what you try to do with programming?
I would not call understanding the reasoning rather than accepting a formula as gospel abstract. Abstract is where you investigate something without grounding in reality or practicality. Either way, these are skills that are woefully under-taught in today's schools. Mathematics is 'taught' in such a way that getting the answer is considered more important than learning to think.
Perhaps programming is a good way to encourage these skills where other methods have fai
Now imagine playing a video game in 1080p and downloading at the same time via your graphics card... ya no lol.
You think a graphics card is really going to notice the amount of bandwidth your ISP can provide? Or the amount processing that an ethernet card can do?
Maybe if you have fibre, but otherwise it's just pissing in the ocean.
Don't worry, they'll force their laws on your country, too with 'free trade' agreements and treaties..
One of the differences between Arch and Debian is that Pacman is much more minimalistic about what it considers a dependancy.
This allows greater control for those who obsess over what they do and don't want on their system.
It also helps with learning a lot about what each component does and why it's there. When I've tried minimalistic Debian installations in the past, I quickly get overwhelmed by the amount of things each package brings with it.
I probably would not install Arch again, but setting up my current system taught me a lot more than installing Debian or Ubuntu ever has.
Something to do with enthalpies and the amount of water formed.
Real world chemistry is complicated. Too complicated for me.
I think you're confusing poverty and social problems with skin color again.
Maybe the whole color-blind-harmony thing is further off than I hoped.
Do you really think you are the first to think of things like this?
All these issues (and many more) are considered in making a big budget game. Much of the time fast response and good tolerance to latency are preferred over security. Better to have an actually playable game that sometimes gets hacked than one which is a piece of crap that noone plays.
Comparing a strategy game to a first person is not entirely genuine. Many things have to be working right so that the tank can appear and have all the latest shiny graphics. Forcing the game to display models with no notice, and report back every position of every physics object every frame is an extra constraint which will require a tradeoff somewhere else.
Granted, sometimes decisions are based on whatever is cheap/fast rather than what is the best game, but they still sell. If you don't like it, don't buy it and tell them why. If you'd prefer cheat-proof games to the latest shiny physics effects and graphics, then write a letter.
It's ironic how much people using the word irony bothers you.
I cannot describe how much of an awesome idea this is.
But it's such an improvement over javascript.
Don't give up on them quite yet. I seem to recall there was a genetic experiment recently where latent genes for teeth in some birds could be reactivated.
So there is some hope yet.
Why have type safety when you can have type coercion? Actually knowing how your variables are represented isn't trendy these days.
Possibly because the number users that are going to go that far with wanting a lightweight, modular desktop, but not go further into getting rid of shinies altogether is rather small.
As such you see a big bunch of users of the full-on resource hoggin jack-of-all-trades because they either like the shinies, or just don't care. Then there's a smooth spectrum of users from things like xubuntu through to more minimalist roll-your-own stuff where they piece together a light weight wm, and one or two scripts to do anything else they want.
As there are so many options (and it's quicker to make a lightweight option) people just drift to whatever suits them best rather than rallying around whatever is the 'best' technology-wise.
Well....other than Mark Zuckerberg.
Unless you were talking about Mark Zukerberg and I misunderstood, in which case you are correct.
The catholic church showed everyone how terrible a world in which they killed and stole was (not so sure about the raping, but I'd rate it as fairly likely), so people thought it might not be such a good idea?
note to self, read preview when it comes up