They will be bloody. And some may fall by the wayside faster than the competitive price drops that brought them there. But I fear that, through it all, no matter which company wins and loses...
Sorry, my comment title was an exaggeration. I know that no one is banning the book. I'm not even really criticizing the publisher, but rather the idea that art created by those we disagree with is undesirable. I can see the perspective, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
I think a lot of the commenters are taking my exaggerated comment title a little too seriously. Obviously Card is still free to write, and his publisher is well within its rights not to publish Card's work. This is less a criticism of the publisher as it is of a cultural idea that we don't want art from those we disagree with. From a publisher's perspective it might be the smartest thing for them to have done. However, I personally find it laughable that someone might think they couldn't sell a comic book written by Orson Scott Card.
Some of my favorite books are written by people who I disagree with. Just because someone hold a different opinion is no reason to prevent them from expressing art. Acceptance goes both ways.
What I meant was that I have a strong faith in my religion, but I also love science. There is a contradiction between the two in some regards. But I don't lose much sleep over it because I accept two things: the fact that neither Science nor my own understanding of my Religion or God's power are infallible. I don't claim to have an answer for every way they mesh, but I am convinced that Science and Religion are not opposed if we truly understand them completely—which we do not.
But most importantly I believe that in the realm of education we have to teach Science first. That's what I was taught, when as a young man I watched Carl Segan's "The Cosmos" and watched "Bill Nye the Science Guy" devotedly. On a personal level, I'd like there to be some mention of Intelligent Design, but even among Creationists there is no agreement on what "Intelligent Design" really means, so in the end if you go down that road there is now way to satisfy everyone.
I'm a creationist, and I have no problem with this. School systems' curriculum has to be governed by science first. I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution, but I don't see how that should govern the curriculum in schools. I see Science as our way of understanding God's power, we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
I'm not exactly shocked by this, with more power comes more power consumption. Although I can see how this can be a downside when one is evaluating the usefulness of the device for their purposes. I'm not a fan of Microsoft Products, but I can see why it would be tough to overcome this (at least in the first iteration).
I've got my money on them discovering that curiosity has actually landed on a future earth after getting caught in a temporal anomaly. Turns out SAM found part of the Statue of Liberty.
Now MY question is why are we not arresting these criminal students at the University of Michigan who are forging money! Why is law enforcement not cracking down on this ring of spoiled college brats and their "Free-With-Purchase-Of-Laptop-For-College" ink-jets! Does the treasury think that sitting around and musing over possible longterm solutions is a viable solution to protect the US economy from these Econ Class Flunkies?! We need to send in Treasury agents to bust down the door to their dorms and arrest them! Heck, lets even send in the DEA, I'm sure forgery is only the tip of this tender iceberg! They're probably rollin' doobies with faux Benjamins whilst waiting for their buddies to get more color ink from the bookstore! This is an outrage!
(also, I think the poster missed a comma)
I was actually just wondering the other day if this would happen soon. They didn't really seem like a very solvent operation. However I do hope that they can get funds together. Private funds that is, the Government can't even afford to operate right now. I think a Kickstarter would be ideal, I'd like to see them give it a try. However, the rewards might be a bit tough.
"$1000 level - Dibs on a meet and greet with the first Aliens we find."
I understand that the CLI is not useful to the average user aside from the fact that it is the best way for IT people to fix their computers. So I don't really see why there is any reason to remove the CLI. Plus, I don't know of any server admins who'd like to waste resources by having a GUI on a headless server or any other kind of server set for that matter. The CLI has not over stayed its welcome because it remains the most efficient and thorough way to interact with a Computer. GUIs are great and all, but they still do not provide all that is necessary for full computer operation. The day that changes, then we might be able to have a conversation about their demise. Up until that point the CLI will remain, because it is needed. Its not like we are on the cusp of a massive change in the fundamentals of OS design. They are all, at their core a CLI running a GUI on top. Bidding farewell to the CLI would require a massive change in how we build our operating systems. A change that, with current technology, would be both inefficient and unnecessary. So yes, in a nutshell I may see where his sentiment is coming from, but the proposal is currently ridiculous.
I don't know what your point is with all this, but all I said was that I like OSX, and Macs, I have found them to be a superior product in my experience and that people would likely listen to your posts and not say you were just making stuff up if you came across less combative. I know you have very well thought out arguments, I disagree with many of them, but in the end I guess that I just don't care enough to keep going.
Well, look, it seems you're just really set against Apple products. That may not be the case, but you come across as having a vendetta. I don't think you're trolling, however. My point isn't that Apple is the best bang for your buck, far from it. But they offer a few things which no other manufacturer does (glass track pad, unibody construction, Cocoa interface, etc) these may seem trivial to you, but in the free market if people are willing to pay for them then Apple is smart to charge for it. Apple computers aren't about individual components, for some like myself it is the combination of all those little things together. When I can get that experience (hassel free) from another vendor, I'll jump over in a heartbeat.
There's also another issue to consider, many people are not as computer savvy as your typical Slashdot visitor. (I mean, we write our comments in HTML for crying out loud). Seeing as you're a fellow Linux user I'm sure you'd agree that there is no contest between OSX and Windows. And for the average user, Linux is not easy to configure in a way to get optimal performance. And even for me, sure, I could compile my own kernel for my own hardware, but I don't want to have to. I want to have fun with those sort of things for side projects, but also have at least one machine that just works and does everything I need out of the Box.
I think you'd have people be a little more open to hearing your data if you came across less like you've got a score to settle with Apple. People tend to be more open to hearing opinions from people that don't sound biased. I think that's why so many people up until now have been dismissive of your own experience.
And no, Automatic reference counting is not Garbage Collection, its much more efficient than that. In fact Objective-C does have garbage collection as well. ARC is not yet part of the Objective-C standard, but soon will be I'm sure. It is available on Linux but only since last year.
You're missing the "software tailored for the specific Hardware platform", and "ARC" objective-C. Plus, you'll have to pay at least 900 to your average PC manufacturer to get an i7, High Def display, SSD, & High quality graphics card as well as on board. They aren't bad machines, but they they don't have the same quality track pads and a few other things, which some people may not find important but others are willing to pay for. No one is forcing you to buy one.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Linux too, and use it regularly.
I never said that the expense is what made it superior. A combination of Unix, ARC Objective-C, Sturdy Construction, and Software tailored for the specific Hardware platform take care of that. My MacBook Pro, Linux desktop, and I are quite happy together.
The ergonomics may be less than desirable, and it will be more inconvenient than a good NetBook or MacBook Air. However the idea of combining a Raspberry Pi with a Pico Projector is really fascinating. I might even build a little Lego case that would hold the Raspberry Pi and the projector. The only major problem is what to do for a keyboard and mouse. That could be cumbersome. But it'd be fun to try. Maybe use a projected keyboard as well. Again, the ergonomics would be terrible, but it's be interesting to try.
Having built many a model rocket, I'm not entirely sure how a model rocket could blow up in your face. Maybe I was just lucky, but short of trying what the kids in "October Sky" did, I don't think there's a lot to worry about. Granted, we obviously don't want to have the public schools exposing kids to projects that could lead to lawsuits, but there are plenty of things (model rockets included) which are more than safe enough for children to be trying out and experimenting with in schools which would lead them to become more interested in learning and turn on a life-long love of learning. Despite what the title may say however, the issue at hand is not whether children should be shooting off rockets but in fact is about whether learning should be more hands on than it currently is. Tests don't teach. Practice does. Testing doesn't inspire. Making things does.
Google is not hiding, nor aiding China's censorship. In a way... Google is actually "highlighting" China's censorship. Google is a company that wants to keep its customers. It's customers think that Google is to blame for what they can't find (at least from what I understand about the article) and so Google is trying to make it clear that certain things they look for will not work, since their Government doesn't trust them. To those who grasp this concept, every time a word they type in the query box gets highlighted its like Google saying "sorry, your Government doesn't want you to know about that". Whether Google has any other motive than just making it clear that they are not to blame for failed searches or not, the result in the minds of the observant is still worth noting.
Slashdot Mirror
Provo, UT
They will be bloody. And some may fall by the wayside faster than the competitive price drops that brought them there. But I fear that, through it all, no matter which company wins and loses...
I fear that the real losers will be: The Drivers.
But undoubtedly not bigger than Beyonce. Nothing is.
I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that the Grand Ayatollah runs my ISP...
This is so meta.
Sorry, my comment title was an exaggeration. I know that no one is banning the book. I'm not even really criticizing the publisher, but rather the idea that art created by those we disagree with is undesirable. I can see the perspective, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
I think a lot of the commenters are taking my exaggerated comment title a little too seriously. Obviously Card is still free to write, and his publisher is well within its rights not to publish Card's work. This is less a criticism of the publisher as it is of a cultural idea that we don't want art from those we disagree with. From a publisher's perspective it might be the smartest thing for them to have done. However, I personally find it laughable that someone might think they couldn't sell a comic book written by Orson Scott Card.
Some of my favorite books are written by people who I disagree with. Just because someone hold a different opinion is no reason to prevent them from expressing art. Acceptance goes both ways.
Speaking as the poster of the original parent comment, I don't think that's unfair.
What I meant was that I have a strong faith in my religion, but I also love science. There is a contradiction between the two in some regards. But I don't lose much sleep over it because I accept two things: the fact that neither Science nor my own understanding of my Religion or God's power are infallible. I don't claim to have an answer for every way they mesh, but I am convinced that Science and Religion are not opposed if we truly understand them completely—which we do not.
But most importantly I believe that in the realm of education we have to teach Science first. That's what I was taught, when as a young man I watched Carl Segan's "The Cosmos" and watched "Bill Nye the Science Guy" devotedly. On a personal level, I'd like there to be some mention of Intelligent Design, but even among Creationists there is no agreement on what "Intelligent Design" really means, so in the end if you go down that road there is now way to satisfy everyone.
I'm a creationist, and I have no problem with this. School systems' curriculum has to be governed by science first. I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution, but I don't see how that should govern the curriculum in schools. I see Science as our way of understanding God's power, we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
I'm not exactly shocked by this, with more power comes more power consumption. Although I can see how this can be a downside when one is evaluating the usefulness of the device for their purposes. I'm not a fan of Microsoft Products, but I can see why it would be tough to overcome this (at least in the first iteration).
I've got my money on them discovering that curiosity has actually landed on a future earth after getting caught in a temporal anomaly. Turns out SAM found part of the Statue of Liberty.
Now MY question is why are we not arresting these criminal students at the University of Michigan who are forging money! Why is law enforcement not cracking down on this ring of spoiled college brats and their "Free-With-Purchase-Of-Laptop-For-College" ink-jets! Does the treasury think that sitting around and musing over possible longterm solutions is a viable solution to protect the US economy from these Econ Class Flunkies?! We need to send in Treasury agents to bust down the door to their dorms and arrest them! Heck, lets even send in the DEA, I'm sure forgery is only the tip of this tender iceberg! They're probably rollin' doobies with faux Benjamins whilst waiting for their buddies to get more color ink from the bookstore! This is an outrage! (also, I think the poster missed a comma)
I was actually just wondering the other day if this would happen soon. They didn't really seem like a very solvent operation. However I do hope that they can get funds together. Private funds that is, the Government can't even afford to operate right now. I think a Kickstarter would be ideal, I'd like to see them give it a try. However, the rewards might be a bit tough.
"$1000 level - Dibs on a meet and greet with the first Aliens we find."
I understand that the CLI is not useful to the average user aside from the fact that it is the best way for IT people to fix their computers. So I don't really see why there is any reason to remove the CLI. Plus, I don't know of any server admins who'd like to waste resources by having a GUI on a headless server or any other kind of server set for that matter. The CLI has not over stayed its welcome because it remains the most efficient and thorough way to interact with a Computer. GUIs are great and all, but they still do not provide all that is necessary for full computer operation. The day that changes, then we might be able to have a conversation about their demise. Up until that point the CLI will remain, because it is needed. Its not like we are on the cusp of a massive change in the fundamentals of OS design. They are all, at their core a CLI running a GUI on top. Bidding farewell to the CLI would require a massive change in how we build our operating systems. A change that, with current technology, would be both inefficient and unnecessary.
So yes, in a nutshell I may see where his sentiment is coming from, but the proposal is currently ridiculous.
I don't know what your point is with all this, but all I said was that I like OSX, and Macs, I have found them to be a superior product in my experience and that people would likely listen to your posts and not say you were just making stuff up if you came across less combative.
I know you have very well thought out arguments, I disagree with many of them, but in the end I guess that I just don't care enough to keep going.
Well, look, it seems you're just really set against Apple products. That may not be the case, but you come across as having a vendetta. I don't think you're trolling, however. My point isn't that Apple is the best bang for your buck, far from it. But they offer a few things which no other manufacturer does (glass track pad, unibody construction, Cocoa interface, etc) these may seem trivial to you, but in the free market if people are willing to pay for them then Apple is smart to charge for it. Apple computers aren't about individual components, for some like myself it is the combination of all those little things together. When I can get that experience (hassel free) from another vendor, I'll jump over in a heartbeat.
There's also another issue to consider, many people are not as computer savvy as your typical Slashdot visitor. (I mean, we write our comments in HTML for crying out loud). Seeing as you're a fellow Linux user I'm sure you'd agree that there is no contest between OSX and Windows. And for the average user, Linux is not easy to configure in a way to get optimal performance. And even for me, sure, I could compile my own kernel for my own hardware, but I don't want to have to. I want to have fun with those sort of things for side projects, but also have at least one machine that just works and does everything I need out of the Box.
I think you'd have people be a little more open to hearing your data if you came across less like you've got a score to settle with Apple. People tend to be more open to hearing opinions from people that don't sound biased. I think that's why so many people up until now have been dismissive of your own experience.
And no, Automatic reference counting is not Garbage Collection, its much more efficient than that. In fact Objective-C does have garbage collection as well. ARC is not yet part of the Objective-C standard, but soon will be I'm sure. It is available on Linux but only since last year.
You're missing the "software tailored for the specific Hardware platform", and "ARC" objective-C. Plus, you'll have to pay at least 900 to your average PC manufacturer to get an i7, High Def display, SSD, & High quality graphics card as well as on board. They aren't bad machines, but they they don't have the same quality track pads and a few other things, which some people may not find important but others are willing to pay for. No one is forcing you to buy one.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love Linux too, and use it regularly.
I never said that the expense is what made it superior. A combination of Unix, ARC Objective-C, Sturdy Construction, and Software tailored for the specific Hardware platform take care of that. My MacBook Pro, Linux desktop, and I are quite happy together.
An Idiot once said:
"Stop Liking What I Don't!"
In all honesty however, this is quite interesting.
If buying a superior product is what passes for drinking "kook-aid" these days then all I can say is "OH YEAH!"
The ergonomics may be less than desirable, and it will be more inconvenient than a good NetBook or MacBook Air. However the idea of combining a Raspberry Pi with a Pico Projector is really fascinating. I might even build a little Lego case that would hold the Raspberry Pi and the projector. The only major problem is what to do for a keyboard and mouse. That could be cumbersome. But it'd be fun to try. Maybe use a projected keyboard as well. Again, the ergonomics would be terrible, but it's be interesting to try.
Having built many a model rocket, I'm not entirely sure how a model rocket could blow up in your face. Maybe I was just lucky, but short of trying what the kids in "October Sky" did, I don't think there's a lot to worry about. Granted, we obviously don't want to have the public schools exposing kids to projects that could lead to lawsuits, but there are plenty of things (model rockets included) which are more than safe enough for children to be trying out and experimenting with in schools which would lead them to become more interested in learning and turn on a life-long love of learning. Despite what the title may say however, the issue at hand is not whether children should be shooting off rockets but in fact is about whether learning should be more hands on than it currently is.
Tests don't teach. Practice does.
Testing doesn't inspire. Making things does.
Google is not hiding, nor aiding China's censorship. In a way... Google is actually "highlighting" China's censorship. Google is a company that wants to keep its customers. It's customers think that Google is to blame for what they can't find (at least from what I understand about the article) and so Google is trying to make it clear that certain things they look for will not work, since their Government doesn't trust them. To those who grasp this concept, every time a word they type in the query box gets highlighted its like Google saying "sorry, your Government doesn't want you to know about that". Whether Google has any other motive than just making it clear that they are not to blame for failed searches or not, the result in the minds of the observant is still worth noting.