Somalia has no government and one of the cheapest per minute wireless rates in the world.
With an average per capita income of about 1% of the U.S., I bet the average person there still can't afford to call someone.
Nevertheless, like with the rest of the Federal government we should consider ourselves lucky if things are actually not significantly worse with the FCC than without them.
Lazarus Long reminds me of The Simpsons... there is a quote by him relevant to practically any imaginable topic, The Simpsons by dint of its sheer volume and Lazarus Long because of the universality of his quotes.
"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship."
Well, then, there must be some open source versions that you can DIY. I have a 5-year-old PocketPC that I use. Sure, it's not e-Ink, but it works for me.
The Church of Scientology isn't even on my list a problem organization. Some people need to get a grip and need to learn how evaluate things better.
I think once you learn a little bit more, you'll realize that people have evaluated appropriately. Scientology is a lot more than just a money sink for the credulous.
Well said. The fact of the matter is, I would stand up for the rights of parents who would want to teach their kids only creationism, even though I personally think that is a really stupid thing to do. However, the trade-off for accepting Federal money, i.e., your voucher, would be that your school meets certain standards, one of which would be the student's ability to pass a standard test (here in Virginia, we call it "Standards of Learning" tests, implemented after NCLB was passed).
Nevertheless, we should not be, as one poster above claimed, under any circumstances forcing children into public education. It worries me that some states require standards for private or homeschooling that are, in essence, stricter than the public schools themselves. I do not presume that every child needs to be educated in a way that I deem sufficient if there is a reason. However, I understand there must be some standards in play. Certainly it would not count if you locked your kid in a closet every day in lieu of homeschooling, or anything else that would be oblivous against the intent of allowing options in education. On the flip side, however, if you are, say Amish or something similar, and you do not see a reason to educate your children about technology you believe to be unnecessary, then I really don't have a problem with that. Your school may not meet the standards for a public voucher, but on the other hand, I have little doubts that Amish, or people like them are lacking for education. I don't know how things work for non-hypothetical Amish or others who live a life fairly cloistered from the rest of society, but it's definitely a case where the government must tread lightly.
Ultimately, it's very tricky to decide between allowing as much latitude with parents as possible (my libertarian leanings always speak first), without unduly jeopardizing the future life of children who might be subjected to something really ineffective or even harmful in terms of private or home schooling. In short, reasonable people should be allowed total free choice. However, deciding who is reasonable and who isn't is very tricky, especially since the standard deviation of what is 'unreasonable' seems to increase over time.
I realize some of what I'm saying is a copout, but in fact, it's still a much broader and I believe much more effective approach that what is happening now. Free markets except in very contrived situations will always work better than monopolies, and there's no reason why the public schools should have a monopoly, especially among those people who cannot afford to pay for private schools. Standing against vouchers hurts most the people who need the most help. If the public school monopoly is failing, which it is in many places, the people who are hurt the most are the ones who can least afford to change. I'm lucky, overall I'm very satisfied with the public schools my kids attend, but if they were unacceptable, we could (with some sacrifice) afford to send them to private school, or even homeschool them. Why shouldn't a single mom in the inner city struggling to pay the rent have alternatives as well?
What's worse is that Obama has been cynically planning for many, many years for public office by doing everything he can to obscure his past and avoid a paper trail. What does he have to hide? Surely nothing his uncritical cheering section who buys into his vapid, content-free promises.
Sarah Palin isn't necessarily qualified to be the Veep, although she's on her way, IMO. She never planned to get into politics, it just sort of happened in the course of her life when she tried to address problems. In other words, it seems much more believable that she got into politics for a reason other than power. She got in to fix problems that she thought she could, and from what I've read, has had reasonable success.
This to me makes her head-and-shoulders more desirable than Obama, who seems stand for nothing but himself, who seems to love and respect nothing more than himself, and who seems to be serving no one but himself. I have huge reservations about McCain and Palin, but the Democrats have once again managed to top their ability to nominate a candidate that utterly scares me for the future, and I feel it is my duty to vote against him however distateful it is to once again be voting for the lesser of two evils.
Conventional wisdom has always been that campaigning for office is a sales pitch meant to lure as many voters as possible, and the utter lack of cynicism of Obama supporters despite the utter dearth of evidence that he means anything he says shows me that while cynicism of the current political climate is appropriate (In fact, if you're happy, you're either stupid or ignorant), the worst thing you can replace it with is blind faith, which describes Obama's support by so many people. He's never accomplished anything, he's done everything possible to avoid having a past people can criticize or taken concrete, detailed stands that people can either like or dislike and yet we are supposed to believe he's good because he's not George Bush. Well, David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche aren't George Bush either, but I wouldn't vote for either one of them.
I don't think Palin is the most qualified person McCain could have picked by a long shot, but I'd be much more willing to take a chance on someone who makes her stands, positions, and history very clear for all to see rather than some smooth-talking cypher who expects me to have blind faith in a bunch of empty rhetoric. What we do know about his past paints a picture that should worry every American, and the fact that it apparently doesn't shows that groupthink is alive and well in the U.S.A.
Bias is fairly easy to avoid when you are teaching straight science (or is it? The "scientific" debate about global warming seems anything but impartial and unbiased). Facts are facts, and you can explain the process by which facts are determined to be "true". I would more than welcome "creationism" if there were any science to it, but there is nothing falsifyable about concept, and in fact, the way it is described (things that happened that explicitly appear to violate provable facts because they are done by a supernatural force with no limitations), there is no way to make it a theory. I happen to believe that God created the world, but I cannot believe He would give us the tremendous intellect and skills only to make them completely useless in understanding the world around us. I also believe there is no real conflict between religion and science, and for most of the history of Christianity, there wasn't. More specifically, the Catholic Church does not hold, and never has held, the idea that science contradicts faith (despite some mistakes by certain overzealous churchmen that were more political issues than real science vs. religion (e.g., Galileo)). Certain Christian sects and Islam, however, are examples to the contrary. God is God and nothing forces Him to be logical and consistent, and if you are taught something that doesn't make sense or contradicts things you believe to be true, that's YOUR problem. Reason is unnecessary, and even detrimental to religious belief for these people. This is not something I could ever support.
But what about "social studies"? What about sex ed? What about civics, or whatever passes for civics these days?
I would find it almost impossible to teach these classes in a way that could be considered neutral, and even if it were, it would impossible to teach these subjects in a way that any reasonable person would consider it neutral.
And what must be frustrating for non-religious people is that the Church run schools often provide much better educational value for much less money. Catholic schools have a good reputation in this regard. The schools generally offer an education that is competitive with public schools and yet operate for a tiny fraction of the cost that the public schools consume.
Nevertheless, I _would_ support allowing school vouchers where any private school, religious or not, would qualify assuming it met reasonable standards. I don't feel this violates the First Amendment in that you are allowing people to make a choice with what to do with _their_ tax money. No one is being forced to choose a religious school, and the government isn't showing any preference to any school, religious or not, because each individual has a _choice_.
I find it ironic to the point of absurdity that the same people who crow the most loudly about "freedom of choice" don't want to allow that same freedom when it comes to a choice of schools. Hypocrisy abounds.
Conservatives are fond of saying that the US Justice System is based on religious (specifically Christian) principles. The only countries on earth that have a greater influence of religion in their legal systems are the fundamentalist Muslim countries. That's who the "Religious Right" wants to emulate.
Wow. Political discourse on/. tends to be kinda dumb but this wins for non sequitur of the month.
No one claims the U.S. Justice System is based on religious principles. What is the case is that the traditions of U.S. law, and the rights we acknowledge as preceding and superceding any government, are drawn in large part from Judeo/Christian morality. This is undeniable as Western Civilization itself owes most of its very existence and development to Christianity. That's not opinion, that's history.
Furthermore, Christianity has almost never been by its nature, a governmental or theocratic entity regardless of what breathless liberals and clueless bigots will pant. Christ Himself acknowledges this when He teaches us to render unto Caesar and render unto God separately. Of course, the Church held tremendous temporal power in times past (often poorly), and in particular, rightly claimed, based on its belief that it is ultimate arbiter of morality as dictated by God through the Ages, and in particular by Christ, Who established the Church, to hold the authority to ensure that sovereigns acted in accordance with Christian teaching, but the Church itself was never the government (except in a few extraordinary instances like the Papal States). Christian theocracy didn't happen until Calvin came along.
All laws are expressions of morality, and you cannot differentiate between morality based on religious teachings or morality based on secular philosophy when it comes to the laws we choose to implement in this country because it is the legislature that is making the decision, not whatever originally inspires the teaching. Murder is against the law, and I don't think anyone (sane) would consider we should throw that out because it happens to be a major central tenet of almost every religion. Similarly, just because Christians tend to be the biggest supporters of making abortion illegal, an argument which absolutely does not require religious belief to hold or argue, except in the same context that we belief murder is wrong. You might not agree with that logic, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with petitioning government to pass such a law (bogus rulings by the Supreme Court notwithstanding, that's the first problem to fix). The government is not allowed to establish a religion, but that does not prevent the legislature from implementing almost any law based on religious morality, because the law is not itself religion. The legislature could decree we eat no meat on Friday or keep kosher or halal if it chose, and while that is a contrived example, those practices in an of themselves are _not_ religion. Neither is banning pornography, abortion, contraception or homosexual behavior. There are other Constitutional reasons that these things may or may not be legislated, but the fact that these things are taught by Christianity, and many other religions as well, is, again, irrelevant.
Islam on the other hand is different. Christianity is an environment under which Western Civilization thrived and grew. Almost all scientific, philosophical and cultural progress up through the Renaissance not only occurred despite the existence of the Church, but directly because of it. The Church founded universities, hospitals and cultural institutions, and even in the time of the Renaissance and beyond has been a direct contributor to many aspects of progress. Look up the history of seismology for instance. We all know about Kepler, but look up who first derived the idea of the Big Bang from Einstein's equations (and whom Einstein was quoted as saying deserved the Nobel prize), as another small example among many. It was a scientist, George LeMaitre who happe
And somehow you think the public school system in the U.S. is better? What a delusion. Mandatory indoctrination is what you are talking about. That's not freedom. Education in this country was, in many ways, much better before the public school system.
Sorry, but we intelligent people are really ticked off at Microsoft, too. We've just spent way too many hours suffering way too many frustrations that were unnecessary to the point of ludicrousness. Buying a laptop for my wife that came with Vista and could barely boot and was so slow as to be completely unusable (click on an icon, 30 seconds before the hourglass... not the app launching, the hourglass) was an insult from Microsoft beyond the pale. Frankly, they deserve all the animus they get, and more. I'm sorry, it bores you.
Ooops. Shooda proofread. I meant to say, "Even though my kids _aren't_ all avid readers..."
Hey/., can we PLEASE set the "Slow Down, Cowboy" thresholds to 15 seconds and 1 minute?! Some of us can actually think and type fast and this has been a real pain in my side for years. Have a heart!
I have 4 little ones who aren't so little any more. Expose them to science yourself and they will likely be very interested. There are so many resources available now that it's hard not to take an interest in science. We've had great success and fun with the many great documentaries available on DVD by the BBC and others. A friend also lent me a copy of "Cosmos" which the kids really enjoyed too. These are television shows, so they are more accessible than books and will hook the kids, encouraging them to follow up with good books on these subjects, which I have a ton of around the house, is the next step. Reading to them and with them when they are younger is very important, because it shows them what it's like. Although my kids are all avid readers, they are all avid learners and really seem to enjoy it.
We also take many "field trips" to places of scientific and historical significance. While vacationing in west Texas last year, we spent a good chunk of the day at McDonald Observatory and returned that night for a program and stargazing party. The entire family really enjoyed it.
The science curriculum at school seems OK, but they usually aren't going to touch the most exciting topics, like the kind we are talking about right here on/. Even if the kids don't really grasp what's going on (like the rest of us do?) know that the LHC is going online and knowing the kinds of exotic things that are being studied, discovered and theorized about spurs imaginations and awakens curiousity.
Evolution of software...
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Netscape took until version 3 to get better than IE (although it didn't last long).
I started using Firefox when it was Phoenix 0.4 or 0.5, by which time it was better than IE.
Now here comes Chrome, which is better than IE with version 0.2.
If I were Microsoft, I think I'd be ready to give up on life right about now. At this rate, people will be writing better browsers than Microsoft in the time it takes Vista to boot. I bet Ballmer is in full Tourette's mode right about now.
Once there are plugins like AdBlock, FlashBlock and NoScript, I think I'd be ready to switch to Chrome today.
I would hazard a guess that this isn't something that's been thought out by anyone of a very high rank...
Two thoughts occur to me. First, most laws are of that caliber. It's well known that at the Federal level, legislators haven't, and in many cases, would not be capable (due to the sheer volume of many bills), read the laws they are voting on.
The second thought is that even if it were thought out by someone of high rank, it would probably wouldn't help.
Think of the unwashed masses who bought their OEM PC with 256mb or 512mb of RAM
You seem to think Microsoft cares. That OEM computer with 512MB of RAM already comes with Vista and is unusable out of the box. I know, I bought one... and I didn't even boot it before sticking and extra GB of RAM in it and it was still the slowest PC I've ever used. You could click on an icon and wait 30 seconds before the hourglass would come up. Not the app. The hourglass. By the way, XP is very snappy on that machine.
You know the old saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence?" Well, incompetence doesn't explain Vista, or anything else MS does these days.
It's hardly more of a stretch than the fact that global warming "caused" the earthquake that made the big tsunami a couple years ago... how many times did we hear that claim (more than a couple for me, anyway)?
Linux needs to pushed, and pushed hard... not in terms of forcing people, which is not what any of this is all about, but in terms of raising awareness, and most importantly, making Linux an available, feasible, and most of all, desirable option.
To the average person Windows _is_ the computer, and it's been that way for 15 years or more. The idea that the computer can "be" something different, and more importantly, something better, more flexible, less constraining is not something I imagine the average computer user would yet understand. Sure, there's Apple, but Apple is its own little world where the machines and the OS come as a package deal. For everything else, Windows is so much a part of the PC world that it _is_ the PC world to most people.
People need to be reminded, or taught, that the OS is just another piece of software that can be replaced just like any other. People need to realize that word processing doesn't have to be cryptic and frustrating (frankly, I think WYSIWYG word processing has completely failed us and 98% of users would be better served by simple markup like reStructured Text). People need to realize that Vista is not only not the wave of the future, but is a wholly unneeded and undesirable sidetrack from the evolution of computer software. The cathedral is decayed and crumbling, but the bazaar is alive with activity and more robust than ever.
When a "killer app" kind of device runs Linux, awareness will grow and people will start to understand the potential of Linux, and how huge the shackles of Microsoft really are.
That's like arguing against interracial marriage by saying that no one's rights are being violated because any available *white* man is free to marry any available *white* woman. It's *exactly* the same.
Hardly. That's a clear violation of the equal protection clause.
Slashdot Mirror
Somalia has no government and one of the cheapest per minute wireless rates in the world.
With an average per capita income of about 1% of the U.S., I bet the average person there still can't afford to call someone.
Nevertheless, like with the rest of the Federal government we should consider ourselves lucky if things are actually not significantly worse with the FCC than without them.
Open source? What could that possibly have to do with a textbook? Is it compiled?
If it's written in LaTex and you can get the source with the book, then it would be a wholly accurate description.
Lazarus Long reminds me of The Simpsons... there is a quote by him relevant to practically any imaginable topic, The Simpsons by dint of its sheer volume and Lazarus Long because of the universality of his quotes.
"The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship."
Well, then, there must be some open source versions that you can DIY. I have a 5-year-old PocketPC that I use. Sure, it's not e-Ink, but it works for me.
The Church of Scientology isn't even on my list a problem organization. Some people need to get a grip and need to learn how evaluate things better.
I think once you learn a little bit more, you'll realize that people have evaluated appropriately. Scientology is a lot more than just a money sink for the credulous.
One down, a million to go.
Well said. The fact of the matter is, I would stand up for the rights of parents who would want to teach their kids only creationism, even though I personally think that is a really stupid thing to do. However, the trade-off for accepting Federal money, i.e., your voucher, would be that your school meets certain standards, one of which would be the student's ability to pass a standard test (here in Virginia, we call it "Standards of Learning" tests, implemented after NCLB was passed).
Nevertheless, we should not be, as one poster above claimed, under any circumstances forcing children into public education. It worries me that some states require standards for private or homeschooling that are, in essence, stricter than the public schools themselves. I do not presume that every child needs to be educated in a way that I deem sufficient if there is a reason. However, I understand there must be some standards in play. Certainly it would not count if you locked your kid in a closet every day in lieu of homeschooling, or anything else that would be oblivous against the intent of allowing options in education. On the flip side, however, if you are, say Amish or something similar, and you do not see a reason to educate your children about technology you believe to be unnecessary, then I really don't have a problem with that. Your school may not meet the standards for a public voucher, but on the other hand, I have little doubts that Amish, or people like them are lacking for education. I don't know how things work for non-hypothetical Amish or others who live a life fairly cloistered from the rest of society, but it's definitely a case where the government must tread lightly.
Ultimately, it's very tricky to decide between allowing as much latitude with parents as possible (my libertarian leanings always speak first), without unduly jeopardizing the future life of children who might be subjected to something really ineffective or even harmful in terms of private or home schooling. In short, reasonable people should be allowed total free choice. However, deciding who is reasonable and who isn't is very tricky, especially since the standard deviation of what is 'unreasonable' seems to increase over time.
I realize some of what I'm saying is a copout, but in fact, it's still a much broader and I believe much more effective approach that what is happening now. Free markets except in very contrived situations will always work better than monopolies, and there's no reason why the public schools should have a monopoly, especially among those people who cannot afford to pay for private schools. Standing against vouchers hurts most the people who need the most help. If the public school monopoly is failing, which it is in many places, the people who are hurt the most are the ones who can least afford to change. I'm lucky, overall I'm very satisfied with the public schools my kids attend, but if they were unacceptable, we could (with some sacrifice) afford to send them to private school, or even homeschool them. Why shouldn't a single mom in the inner city struggling to pay the rent have alternatives as well?
What's worse is that Obama has been cynically planning for many, many years for public office by doing everything he can to obscure his past and avoid a paper trail. What does he have to hide? Surely nothing his uncritical cheering section who buys into his vapid, content-free promises.
Sarah Palin isn't necessarily qualified to be the Veep, although she's on her way, IMO. She never planned to get into politics, it just sort of happened in the course of her life when she tried to address problems. In other words, it seems much more believable that she got into politics for a reason other than power. She got in to fix problems that she thought she could, and from what I've read, has had reasonable success.
This to me makes her head-and-shoulders more desirable than Obama, who seems stand for nothing but himself, who seems to love and respect nothing more than himself, and who seems to be serving no one but himself. I have huge reservations about McCain and Palin, but the Democrats have once again managed to top their ability to nominate a candidate that utterly scares me for the future, and I feel it is my duty to vote against him however distateful it is to once again be voting for the lesser of two evils.
Conventional wisdom has always been that campaigning for office is a sales pitch meant to lure as many voters as possible, and the utter lack of cynicism of Obama supporters despite the utter dearth of evidence that he means anything he says shows me that while cynicism of the current political climate is appropriate (In fact, if you're happy, you're either stupid or ignorant), the worst thing you can replace it with is blind faith, which describes Obama's support by so many people. He's never accomplished anything, he's done everything possible to avoid having a past people can criticize or taken concrete, detailed stands that people can either like or dislike and yet we are supposed to believe he's good because he's not George Bush. Well, David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche aren't George Bush either, but I wouldn't vote for either one of them.
I don't think Palin is the most qualified person McCain could have picked by a long shot, but I'd be much more willing to take a chance on someone who makes her stands, positions, and history very clear for all to see rather than some smooth-talking cypher who expects me to have blind faith in a bunch of empty rhetoric. What we do know about his past paints a picture that should worry every American, and the fact that it apparently doesn't shows that groupthink is alive and well in the U.S.A.
Bias is fairly easy to avoid when you are teaching straight science (or is it? The "scientific" debate about global warming seems anything but impartial and unbiased). Facts are facts, and you can explain the process by which facts are determined to be "true". I would more than welcome "creationism" if there were any science to it, but there is nothing falsifyable about concept, and in fact, the way it is described (things that happened that explicitly appear to violate provable facts because they are done by a supernatural force with no limitations), there is no way to make it a theory. I happen to believe that God created the world, but I cannot believe He would give us the tremendous intellect and skills only to make them completely useless in understanding the world around us. I also believe there is no real conflict between religion and science, and for most of the history of Christianity, there wasn't. More specifically, the Catholic Church does not hold, and never has held, the idea that science contradicts faith (despite some mistakes by certain overzealous churchmen that were more political issues than real science vs. religion (e.g., Galileo)). Certain Christian sects and Islam, however, are examples to the contrary. God is God and nothing forces Him to be logical and consistent, and if you are taught something that doesn't make sense or contradicts things you believe to be true, that's YOUR problem. Reason is unnecessary, and even detrimental to religious belief for these people. This is not something I could ever support.
But what about "social studies"? What about sex ed? What about civics, or whatever passes for civics these days?
I would find it almost impossible to teach these classes in a way that could be considered neutral, and even if it were, it would impossible to teach these subjects in a way that any reasonable person would consider it neutral.
And what must be frustrating for non-religious people is that the Church run schools often provide much better educational value for much less money. Catholic schools have a good reputation in this regard. The schools generally offer an education that is competitive with public schools and yet operate for a tiny fraction of the cost that the public schools consume.
Nevertheless, I _would_ support allowing school vouchers where any private school, religious or not, would qualify assuming it met reasonable standards. I don't feel this violates the First Amendment in that you are allowing people to make a choice with what to do with _their_ tax money. No one is being forced to choose a religious school, and the government isn't showing any preference to any school, religious or not, because each individual has a _choice_.
I find it ironic to the point of absurdity that the same people who crow the most loudly about "freedom of choice" don't want to allow that same freedom when it comes to a choice of schools. Hypocrisy abounds.
Conservatives are fond of saying that the US Justice System is based on religious (specifically Christian) principles. The only countries on earth that have a greater influence of religion in their legal systems are the fundamentalist Muslim countries. That's who the "Religious Right" wants to emulate.
Wow. Political discourse on /. tends to be kinda dumb but this wins for non sequitur of the month.
No one claims the U.S. Justice System is based on religious principles. What is the case is that the traditions of U.S. law, and the rights we acknowledge as preceding and superceding any government, are drawn in large part from Judeo/Christian morality. This is undeniable as Western Civilization itself owes most of its very existence and development to Christianity. That's not opinion, that's history.
Furthermore, Christianity has almost never been by its nature, a governmental or theocratic entity regardless of what breathless liberals and clueless bigots will pant. Christ Himself acknowledges this when He teaches us to render unto Caesar and render unto God separately. Of course, the Church held tremendous temporal power in times past (often poorly), and in particular, rightly claimed, based on its belief that it is ultimate arbiter of morality as dictated by God through the Ages, and in particular by Christ, Who established the Church, to hold the authority to ensure that sovereigns acted in accordance with Christian teaching, but the Church itself was never the government (except in a few extraordinary instances like the Papal States). Christian theocracy didn't happen until Calvin came along.
All laws are expressions of morality, and you cannot differentiate between morality based on religious teachings or morality based on secular philosophy when it comes to the laws we choose to implement in this country because it is the legislature that is making the decision, not whatever originally inspires the teaching. Murder is against the law, and I don't think anyone (sane) would consider we should throw that out because it happens to be a major central tenet of almost every religion. Similarly, just because Christians tend to be the biggest supporters of making abortion illegal, an argument which absolutely does not require religious belief to hold or argue, except in the same context that we belief murder is wrong. You might not agree with that logic, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with petitioning government to pass such a law (bogus rulings by the Supreme Court notwithstanding, that's the first problem to fix). The government is not allowed to establish a religion, but that does not prevent the legislature from implementing almost any law based on religious morality, because the law is not itself religion. The legislature could decree we eat no meat on Friday or keep kosher or halal if it chose, and while that is a contrived example, those practices in an of themselves are _not_ religion. Neither is banning pornography, abortion, contraception or homosexual behavior. There are other Constitutional reasons that these things may or may not be legislated, but the fact that these things are taught by Christianity, and many other religions as well, is, again, irrelevant.
Islam on the other hand is different. Christianity is an environment under which Western Civilization thrived and grew. Almost all scientific, philosophical and cultural progress up through the Renaissance not only occurred despite the existence of the Church, but directly because of it. The Church founded universities, hospitals and cultural institutions, and even in the time of the Renaissance and beyond has been a direct contributor to many aspects of progress. Look up the history of seismology for instance. We all know about Kepler, but look up who first derived the idea of the Big Bang from Einstein's equations (and whom Einstein was quoted as saying deserved the Nobel prize), as another small example among many. It was a scientist, George LeMaitre who happe
And somehow you think the public school system in the U.S. is better? What a delusion. Mandatory indoctrination is what you are talking about. That's not freedom. Education in this country was, in many ways, much better before the public school system.
Should be you be modded up if I pretend you said something really clever?
Sorry, but we intelligent people are really ticked off at Microsoft, too. We've just spent way too many hours suffering way too many frustrations that were unnecessary to the point of ludicrousness. Buying a laptop for my wife that came with Vista and could barely boot and was so slow as to be completely unusable (click on an icon, 30 seconds before the hourglass... not the app launching, the hourglass) was an insult from Microsoft beyond the pale. Frankly, they deserve all the animus they get, and more. I'm sorry, it bores you.
That was cute, but the one part I found amusing was the onlookers commenting about the Conquistadors... "They run tight."
Ooops. Shooda proofread. I meant to say, "Even though my kids _aren't_ all avid readers..."
Hey /., can we PLEASE set the "Slow Down, Cowboy" thresholds to 15 seconds and 1 minute?! Some of us can actually think and type fast and this has been a real pain in my side for years. Have a heart!
I have 4 little ones who aren't so little any more. Expose them to science yourself and they will likely be very interested. There are so many resources available now that it's hard not to take an interest in science. We've had great success and fun with the many great documentaries available on DVD by the BBC and others. A friend also lent me a copy of "Cosmos" which the kids really enjoyed too. These are television shows, so they are more accessible than books and will hook the kids, encouraging them to follow up with good books on these subjects, which I have a ton of around the house, is the next step. Reading to them and with them when they are younger is very important, because it shows them what it's like. Although my kids are all avid readers, they are all avid learners and really seem to enjoy it.
We also take many "field trips" to places of scientific and historical significance. While vacationing in west Texas last year, we spent a good chunk of the day at McDonald Observatory and returned that night for a program and stargazing party. The entire family really enjoyed it.
The science curriculum at school seems OK, but they usually aren't going to touch the most exciting topics, like the kind we are talking about right here on /. Even if the kids don't really grasp what's going on (like the rest of us do?) know that the LHC is going online and knowing the kinds of exotic things that are being studied, discovered and theorized about spurs imaginations and awakens curiousity.
Netscape took until version 3 to get better than IE (although it didn't last long).
I started using Firefox when it was Phoenix 0.4 or 0.5, by which time it was better than IE.
Now here comes Chrome, which is better than IE with version 0.2.
If I were Microsoft, I think I'd be ready to give up on life right about now. At this rate, people will be writing better browsers than Microsoft in the time it takes Vista to boot. I bet Ballmer is in full Tourette's mode right about now.
Once there are plugins like AdBlock, FlashBlock and NoScript, I think I'd be ready to switch to Chrome today.
I would hazard a guess that this isn't something that's been thought out by anyone of a very high rank...
Two thoughts occur to me. First, most laws are of that caliber. It's well known that at the Federal level, legislators haven't, and in many cases, would not be capable (due to the sheer volume of many bills), read the laws they are voting on.
The second thought is that even if it were thought out by someone of high rank, it would probably wouldn't help.
Think of the unwashed masses who bought their OEM PC with 256mb or 512mb of RAM
You seem to think Microsoft cares. That OEM computer with 512MB of RAM already comes with Vista and is unusable out of the box. I know, I bought one... and I didn't even boot it before sticking and extra GB of RAM in it and it was still the slowest PC I've ever used. You could click on an icon and wait 30 seconds before the hourglass would come up. Not the app. The hourglass. By the way, XP is very snappy on that machine.
You know the old saying, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence?" Well, incompetence doesn't explain Vista, or anything else MS does these days.
What's worse to wonder is... how will I get modded when I comment on the status of the "dot oh" version of KDE 4?
I love KDE, but them doing a Pee-wee Herman "I meant to do that." did not inspire confidence when 4.0 turned out to be a rough prototype.
Where have you been for the last 20 years? In the Microsoft world, the dot oh version is the first beta, if that.
It's hardly more of a stretch than the fact that global warming "caused" the earthquake that made the big tsunami a couple years ago... how many times did we hear that claim (more than a couple for me, anyway)?
Linux needs to pushed, and pushed hard... not in terms of forcing people, which is not what any of this is all about, but in terms of raising awareness, and most importantly, making Linux an available, feasible, and most of all, desirable option.
To the average person Windows _is_ the computer, and it's been that way for 15 years or more. The idea that the computer can "be" something different, and more importantly, something better, more flexible, less constraining is not something I imagine the average computer user would yet understand. Sure, there's Apple, but Apple is its own little world where the machines and the OS come as a package deal. For everything else, Windows is so much a part of the PC world that it _is_ the PC world to most people.
People need to be reminded, or taught, that the OS is just another piece of software that can be replaced just like any other. People need to realize that word processing doesn't have to be cryptic and frustrating (frankly, I think WYSIWYG word processing has completely failed us and 98% of users would be better served by simple markup like reStructured Text). People need to realize that Vista is not only not the wave of the future, but is a wholly unneeded and undesirable sidetrack from the evolution of computer software. The cathedral is decayed and crumbling, but the bazaar is alive with activity and more robust than ever.
When a "killer app" kind of device runs Linux, awareness will grow and people will start to understand the potential of Linux, and how huge the shackles of Microsoft really are.
That's like arguing against interracial marriage by saying that no one's rights are being violated because any available *white* man is free to marry any available *white* woman. It's *exactly* the same.
Hardly. That's a clear violation of the equal protection clause.