My only question is that it says they've tested these new teeth out. So where did they find a competent dentist in England? Isn't it illegal to bring them into the country?
Cut the sports budget by a lot, but keep up with physical education. Students need to have physical activity, especially in this country of morbid obesity and fast-food instant gratification. In fact, I would go as far as to say that mandating four years of P.E. would go a long way in keeping kids healthy, and would help in keeping many important blue-collar fields supplied; it's hard to be a plumber if you can't lift the 5lb wrench.
Ditch competitive sports in high schools, though. We don't need multimillion dollar stadiums for kids who can't read. All you need for a PE program is a couple of retired drill instructors, a field, a swimming pool, and a small weight room. We're talking maybe a few hundred thousand to start this kind of program *from scratch*, and most schools already have the equipment and personnel to handle things now.
Don't scrap art. Or music, or drama. These are all important parts of education, because they are important parts of the human experience. Shakespeare, Strauss, and Michelangelo are all as important facets of our culture as Science, Math, and Civics. Especially for developing minds. Kids, even up through high school, need creative outlets, and often don't have the ability to seek these on their own -- it's not easy being a sixteen year old guy and telling your parents that you want to paint, but signing up for an art class because you 'have to' is easy.
Cut the multimillion-dollar stadiums, stop spending millions on computer upgrades, stop buying into the latest educational trends, and stop buying new textbooks all the time -- basic algebra hasn't changed in fifty years. Just pay the teachers well, give the schools the ability to discipline students who step out of line, and watch education get back on track.
The Open Source community would be better served by not spewing this FUD, and it _is_ FUD, and instead concentrating on the real problems with MS such as the monolithic nature of their development and important security problems caused by the monoculture of their monopoly (enough monos for you?).
Other than Slashdot, that bastion of 'Fair and Balanced'(tm)(R)(C)(FU) commentary, where have you seen the Open Source community spreading this FUD? It's not like the front page of OpenOffice.org has "OOo...the replacement for MS Office, because it licks my balls."
Most of the community is pretty fair towards Microsoft; they complain when MS does blatantly anticompetitive stuff, and publish pretty reputable benchmarks, along with reminders that benchmarks are about as reliable as Firestone tires, and are generally very sportsmanlike.
Am I the only one who got a mental flash of a group of sunglass-and-suit wearing penguin tapping Ballmer on the shoulder?
Ballmer: "Linux."
Penguin: "Yes. Linux. Linux, Linux, Linux."
Penguin transforms Ballmer into an identical-looking Penguin.
Penguin: "Hmm...Linux, too."
Re:This is news? Company A cares about smth strate
on
Microsoft's Strategy Memos
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments.
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.
Why do you think I'm an IBM shareholder?
While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
First off, most Linux developers don't code to make money, at least not off of linux; hell, Linus Torvalds was, up until recently, an embedded systems engineer. Linux and its applications are, by and large, hobbies for the developers; but, on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work? Being able to put 'Lead developer, OpenOffice' on a resume is a great way to get a job.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is that they can (a) offer custom code, and (b) give you, as a business, direct access to the developers if you need it. IBM making money off of Linux means *more* jobs for Linux coders, not less.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
Good idea; you wouldn't even have to force professors to write chapters for these books -- I'm willing you could easily get them to do it for free, or in exchange for small textbook-writin grants, which would still cost less than the overall cost of purchasing textbooks published by a major house.
Publishers could still make money, not only by offering supplimental materials (videos, activity packs, demonstration kits, etc.), but by providing low-cost runs of textbooks for schools.
Integrating computers into everyday education is a positive step. In elementary school we had one hour/week in the computer lab which was spent playing Oregon Trail.
And you learned how much U.S. history from this game? Perhaps the names of some of the famous explorers of the trail, or the attributes of some of the plants they used? Was playing the game beneficial in any way other than being entertaining?
In 6th grade we were required to take "Keyboarding" - it was a class that taught typing skills, increased speed and accuracy with tutorials, etc. Probably the most practical (yet boring) computer course I took in K-12.
So was I. We used typewriters, because we couldn't erase the mistakes like we could with a computer, and while I'm aware of typing software, I can't see any reason to equip pre-high-school students with anything more advanced. A quality typewriter, and they are still made, will last decades, and cost $25. Can you say the same for any computer equipment?
I strongly feel that basic computer skills should be taught to students at an early age. In high school, many teachers expect typed papers. If the first time a student is exposed to a computer isn't until HS, that's a heck of a lot to expect.
In our society, expecting a student to not have access to a computer at all is pretty stupid, and mind you, I'm not opposed to giving students some non-class time in a computer lab in 7th and 8th grade. Before that, though, kids do not need to use a computer at all for school related activities, as it interferes with the learning process.
At these young ages, the concepts being taught are either too simple or too easy to bypass using a computer; it's impossible to teach keyboarding to kids who don't know the alphabet yet, and likewise with spelling when the kids can use a spelling checker.
Don't confuse me with some moron luddite who things that anything technology brings is wrong; I do believe that, starting in high school, all students should be learning the basics of computer programming[1], and possibly a thing or two about solid-state electronics, because of how important these things are in our society.
[1] Even non-programmers benefit from having a good understanding of how the computer works inside. To draw an oft-used analogy into play, it's like teaching new drivers the basics of engine operation and automobile-related physics. The information won't turn them into a great mechanic or Mario Andretti, but it will make them more comfortable with the oddities of motor vehicles.
I say fuck what the schools want. Creationism is religious; the parents can teach it home, or pay to have their kids sent to a religious school. I don't give a flying fuck if parents find Uncle Tom's Cabin to be 'offensive', either -- it's supposed to outrage the reader and make them think.
Intelligent, resourceful people don't come out of intellectually sterile environments; kids have to be exposed to new, possibly contradictory ideas, and need the freedom to sort things out for themselves. Show them the bad parts of US history, the ugly parts of partisan politics, and the nastiness of the chemicals in their food; also show them the good that the Americans have done, other political systems, and teach them some biology, so that they can figure out when they're old enough how they want to vote, eat, and live.
Giving people opinions builds subjects. Giving people the tools to form their own opinions builds citizens.
How does this tie in?
I say set up a national curriculm. Math is easy, and Science needs to be taught with an emphasis on the scientific method, rather than an emphasis on current theories -- let the students evaulate things on their own. Teach logic, debate, English literature, foreign language, and art. Let the students who are good at painting paint and sing. Provide a rudimentary computer science education for the older students, things like simple programming and/or circuit building, but don't spend tens of thousands of dollars on state-of-the-art computer labs so that kids can learn to use software their parents have at home. Start giving teachers better salaries, and stop spending so much money on school administration, technology programs, and on building sports arenas for the football team -- all you should need for high-school football is a field with some bleachers on the side.
Perhaps the solution would be to send you home with two ounces of photocopies, written lectures, and worksheets instead. Even better on the back, much cheaper than a laptop, and capable of surviving more bullying than you.;)
As far as I'm concerned, computers should not be a part of a child's in-school education until high school. Reading and writing should be done by hand, using a pen or pencil, paper, dictionary, and thesaurus. Why? Doing schoolwork with computers makes it easier, because the computers automate the 'boring' tasks, which is great, unless it's the boring tasks that you want the students to be learning.
The overuse of computers with younger kids is incredibly evident today, as students emerge from high school with almost no solid reasoning or formal communication ability. The average high-school student is almost completely incapable of communicating with others in a high-level fashion, because the curricula they have been exposed to has never demanded that the student learn to read or write. Surprising as it may be, having a proper command of the English language, which includes spelling and grammar, is still a vital ingredient to success -- even a good mechanic needs to be able to read the factory service manuals.
If the parents want their kids to learn how to use computers in fifth grade, that's great, and a good thing, but the core curriculum should focus on students using their brains.
On top of that, each of these laptops is going to run the school a bit over a grand a pop, which is about the cost of thirty brand-new textbooks -- that's a full classroom set which can be used for years. The laptops will, of course, be abused all to hell by the kids, and require dedicated maintenance personnel, which further adds to the budget. So, this is a nice, long-term, highly expensive solution, put in place because the schools want to save money?
I honestly read the headline as "Dairy Illuminates Einstein's Last Years". I was beginning to wonder how milk could possibly shed any light on Einstein.
Kanji are terrible. There's no way around it. By sixth grade, children are expected to be able to read and write 1000 characters--half of what you need to be a functioning adult. It's ridiculous. If a western child can't read and write by age 11, he gets enrolled in the Special Olympics.
If a 'western' child is expected to know everything they need to know as an adult at age eleven, why are English classes mandated up to age 18, with an additional two years in college? Kanji aren't easy to be sure, but I'd wager they're just as difficult as the wealth of non-phonetic vocabulary required for Western students. Words like 'rendezvous', 'necessary', and 'ersatz' are all difficult to learn for kids, yet they make do.
The equivalent Japanese sentence would be something like "Migurushii inu ga imasu." ("There is an ugly dog." The subject is implied. I shit you not.) It's not easy for a westerner to wrap his mind around.
Yes and no; if a Westerner tries to attack Japanese like it's a Western language, than yeah, they'll have a hell of a time; on the other hand, if you're capable (and willing) of twisting your worldview around, then it's a hell of a lot easier. The Japanese language is much less concerned with concepts of ownership and time when compared to the European languages, and instead focuses more on relationships.
This is why things like 'Migurushii inu ga imasu.' make sense -- it's the fact that the dog is ugly that is important, not that it's your dog. If you wanted to emphasize the ownership, you could ('Watashi wa/no migurushii inu ga imasu.'), but you don't have to, whereas in Western languages, ownership is very important and almost never gets left out.
At least we have conclusive proof that Tony Hawk did indeed perform a 900. That seems to move it out of the miracle category.
But then again, Tony's 900, as spectacular as it was, didn't fit over 100 pieces of specific predictive prophecy from several hundreds of years of writing, most several hundreds of years prior to the event.
For every piece of prophecy that the birth-o-Jesus fit, there are probably twenty pieces of predictive prophecy that were violated. People tend to look back at things like the predictions of Nostradamus and comment on how 'uncanny' his predictions were; these comments are, of course, made after the fact, when people can apply the vauge statements and metaphors of written prophecy to modern-day events. It's no more valid than a newspaper horoscope, which is itself a form of written prophecy.
And, Tony's 900 didn't quite heal hundreds or feed thousands and deliver moral teachings or resurrect after a decent Roman crucifixion.
We don't know if Jesus did either, unless you've got video.;)
But then again, there are those who think that the sun rising every morning is the result of an image broadcast into their brain by evil goverrnment agents while their bodies are actually asleep on the slab in the lab.
How is this different in believing that there is a being so incredible as to have created the universe, and so petty as to care about whether or not I like bacon?
...and they'll say that's it's just a matter of time before there's a Church of the Tony Hawk 900.
I just jog in a cheap, threadbare, worn-out T-shirt -- comes complete with extra holes for airflow. Even soaking wet it's not bad (these are only semi-loose shirts), and if I have to pull one off, I don't feel bad throwing it away, because that's the next destination for the thing.
What really sucks is that cheap athletic shorts are impossible to find at under $20 a pair.
Both cycling and running are good exercise. I do both.
Running zones me out to the world; it's calming and exhilirating at the same time. I finish my run and feel like I've just hit some heroin; and spend the rest of my day energized. Running is a great workout.
Cycling involves me in the world. It's calming and exhilirating at the same time, plus I tend to notice more scenery. I finish my bike-ride and spend the rest of the day energized. Biking is a good workout, not as good as running, but has the advantage of taking me somewhere. In an hour I can ride my bike the fifteen miles to work without being totally destroyed -- try running fifteen miles to work every day. And back. With fifteen pounds of gear.
Running demands only my shoes and time; biking requires equipment, but gives me the advantage of being able to bring stuff. I can bike out to a park twenty miles from home with everything I need for a picnic; try doing that running.
Both running and cycling are good, but understand that they serve different purposes. Running is intense, but only good for a workout; cycling is easier, and can be incorporated as a good mode of transportation in addition to giving you exercise.
One: Vary your weight-training routine. If you do nothing but Lats (lateral pull-downs) and push-ups, you will see very little improvement, and might injure yourself. Best bet is to work opposing muscle groups -- so do biceps and triceps one day, pectorals and deltoids the next, and so on. This keeps you from overtraining one group, and gives you a much more even muscle tone.
Two: Most so-called personal trainers supplied by gyms are crap, which is why they work for a gym for slightly above minimum wage. Ask any fitness-nut friends for help with working out; many are more than happy to give advice, and can point you towards some good literature. If you need a trainer, find an independent one, and beware of trainers who offer incredible results in short periods of time -- you will not go from over-the-belt gut to six-pack in a month, period.
Three: If you have problems with keeping entertained when lifting weights, consider a rock-climbing gym. The start-up gear is about as expensive as for running (shoes and a chalkbag will run you $100 - $150), but it will provide incredible upper-body strength and cardiovascular training, and it's fun! I've spent three or four hours bouldering at my local rock gym without even noticing it.
Four: Have fun. Don't do bench-presses if you don't like them; do push-ups or some other pectoral exercise instead. Find a routine that challenges you without getting you down, and you will find it easier to stick with for the future.
Thank you! Shoes are important, but you don't need the rest of the schwag.
Running shoes can get expensive, and are worth what you pay for them -- my quarterly Mizunos run about $80 a pair, and if I run in cheaper shoes, I get shinsplints and knee-pain from hell. Other people, like my boss, are lucky -- he can run in anything without having leg problems, and he's ten years older than I am. But shoes are worth spending money on, just to protect your joints.
As a note for beginners, make sure that you go to a *running* store to purchase your shoes -- not a Big 5 or a Foot Locker. The guys and gals at places like Sacramento's Fleet Feet are all runners themselves, and keep up on the latest in training techniques and technology, whereas the guys at Foot Locker are usually high-school students making minimum wage. A running store will suggest shoes, watch your form, and help you select form-correcting footwear.
So, shoes are important. But don't go out and buy hundred-dollar running outfits, and an iPod, and a heartrate-tracking watch, and all kinds of other crap that looks cool. All you need is a good pair of shoes, some old sweats, and some self-discipline. When you start running, it'll be hard, and you won't get far, but your endurance and distance will slowly creep up on you, and one day you'll realize that someone replaced your gut with a washboard, and that you can run four or five miles without dropping dead afterwards...hell, you'll feel refreshed.
Re:I've read one of those books...
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
My experience with IS MBA textbooks and students is quite different; many of them have barely, if at all, even heard of Linux (and Unix), and almost none of them have any idea of the advantages it can bring to their business. I've shown some of my MBA-student friends some of the utterly cool stuff that can be done with OpenOffice, Python, PostgreSQL, and Samba, and many of them are stunned at the flexibility and capability, given the low cost and ease of development. They're also nominally kind of pissed at their instructors for not bringing this fantastic technology up, because they know that the kinds of advantages offered by free software are the kinds of advantages that can make-or-break a business.
I'll be working on an MBA in a few years myself, and I plan on paying pretty much nothing but lip service in the computer section to the instructors -- I've been working in the field long enough to see how things work, and I'm not stupid enough to think that one vendor is going to be able to solve all of my problems. I'm also not stupid enough to turn down a cost-effective solution just because it's not "commercial" -- nevermind that the non-commericial offerings of the free software world often have better support.
Maybe I should just start up a business that does nothing but set up and train users with free software for a small fee. *grin* It'd still be cheaper than any of the solutions from Redmond...
On top of that, it can make life easier for admins, because a LinuxBIOS could be configured to allow a serial console with full hardware control, just like a Sun box does.
Customs typically doesn't tax unregulated personal-use items up to a certain value (I forget what that value is); this doesn't include cigarettes or booze, but it does include laptops.
Slashdot Mirror
My only question is that it says they've tested these new teeth out. So where did they find a competent dentist in England? Isn't it illegal to bring them into the country?
You are mostly right.
Cut the sports budget by a lot, but keep up with physical education. Students need to have physical activity, especially in this country of morbid obesity and fast-food instant gratification. In fact, I would go as far as to say that mandating four years of P.E. would go a long way in keeping kids healthy, and would help in keeping many important blue-collar fields supplied; it's hard to be a plumber if you can't lift the 5lb wrench.
Ditch competitive sports in high schools, though. We don't need multimillion dollar stadiums for kids who can't read. All you need for a PE program is a couple of retired drill instructors, a field, a swimming pool, and a small weight room. We're talking maybe a few hundred thousand to start this kind of program *from scratch*, and most schools already have the equipment and personnel to handle things now.
Don't scrap art. Or music, or drama. These are all important parts of education, because they are important parts of the human experience. Shakespeare, Strauss, and Michelangelo are all as important facets of our culture as Science, Math, and Civics. Especially for developing minds. Kids, even up through high school, need creative outlets, and often don't have the ability to seek these on their own -- it's not easy being a sixteen year old guy and telling your parents that you want to paint, but signing up for an art class because you 'have to' is easy.
Cut the multimillion-dollar stadiums, stop spending millions on computer upgrades, stop buying into the latest educational trends, and stop buying new textbooks all the time -- basic algebra hasn't changed in fifty years. Just pay the teachers well, give the schools the ability to discipline students who step out of line, and watch education get back on track.
The Open Source community would be better served by not spewing this FUD, and it _is_ FUD, and instead concentrating on the real problems with MS such as the monolithic nature of their development and important security problems caused by the monoculture of their monopoly (enough monos for you?).
Other than Slashdot, that bastion of 'Fair and Balanced'(tm)(R)(C)(FU) commentary, where have you seen the Open Source community spreading this FUD? It's not like the front page of OpenOffice.org has "OOo...the replacement for MS Office, because it licks my balls."
Most of the community is pretty fair towards Microsoft; they complain when MS does blatantly anticompetitive stuff, and publish pretty reputable benchmarks, along with reminders that benchmarks are about as reliable as Firestone tires, and are generally very sportsmanlike.
Microsoft is really the only group spreading FUD.
Am I the only one who got a mental flash of a group of sunglass-and-suit wearing penguin tapping Ballmer on the shoulder?
Ballmer: "Linux."
Penguin: "Yes. Linux. Linux, Linux, Linux."
Penguin transforms Ballmer into an identical-looking Penguin.
Penguin: "Hmm...Linux, too."
For a company with 500+ employees, it makes a little difference whether you deploy Linux + OpenOffice + IBM Global Services or Windows + MSOffice + Ms Support. Pricewise the enterprise agreements are about the same. Yeah, in case you didn't know it, IBM is raking $40-55/hour in support costs for Linux deployments.
No, it does make a difference; for what you pay Microsoft for the product licensing alone, you can purchase the 'product' (which is more-or-less free) and awesome support from IBM. We're talking come-to-your-business, customize-the-software, keep-you-running support, not 90-days-after-its-installed support that comes by default with a Microsoft solution. Sure, you can add MS support on top of things, but a shop with full MS kit and an MS support contract will cost an imperial shitload (that's 36 craploads) more than a comparible IBM solution.
They and HP received the largest benefit and earned over a billion dollars last year off Linux.
Why do you think I'm an IBM shareholder?
While some Linux developers, I heard, had to get a second mortgage to put food on the table.
First off, most Linux developers don't code to make money, at least not off of linux; hell, Linus Torvalds was, up until recently, an embedded systems engineer. Linux and its applications are, by and large, hobbies for the developers; but, on the flip side, can you show me a *major* open-source software project where the core development team is all desperately looking for work? Being able to put 'Lead developer, OpenOffice' on a resume is a great way to get a job.
Second, IBM hires a lot of these people; one of the reasons they justify their support costs is that they can (a) offer custom code, and (b) give you, as a business, direct access to the developers if you need it. IBM making money off of Linux means *more* jobs for Linux coders, not less.
This piece of news is worthless, it would be more exciting if Ballmer said they do not care about Linux.
On that we agree.
Good idea; you wouldn't even have to force professors to write chapters for these books -- I'm willing you could easily get them to do it for free, or in exchange for small textbook-writin grants, which would still cost less than the overall cost of purchasing textbooks published by a major house.
Publishers could still make money, not only by offering supplimental materials (videos, activity packs, demonstration kits, etc.), but by providing low-cost runs of textbooks for schools.
Integrating computers into everyday education is a positive step. In elementary school we had one hour/week in the computer lab which was spent playing Oregon Trail.
And you learned how much U.S. history from this game? Perhaps the names of some of the famous explorers of the trail, or the attributes of some of the plants they used? Was playing the game beneficial in any way other than being entertaining?
In 6th grade we were required to take "Keyboarding" - it was a class that taught typing skills, increased speed and accuracy with tutorials, etc. Probably the most practical (yet boring) computer course I took in K-12.
So was I. We used typewriters, because we couldn't erase the mistakes like we could with a computer, and while I'm aware of typing software, I can't see any reason to equip pre-high-school students with anything more advanced. A quality typewriter, and they are still made, will last decades, and cost $25. Can you say the same for any computer equipment?
I strongly feel that basic computer skills should be taught to students at an early age. In high school, many teachers expect typed papers. If the first time a student is exposed to a computer isn't until HS, that's a heck of a lot to expect.
In our society, expecting a student to not have access to a computer at all is pretty stupid, and mind you, I'm not opposed to giving students some non-class time in a computer lab in 7th and 8th grade. Before that, though, kids do not need to use a computer at all for school related activities, as it interferes with the learning process.
At these young ages, the concepts being taught are either too simple or too easy to bypass using a computer; it's impossible to teach keyboarding to kids who don't know the alphabet yet, and likewise with spelling when the kids can use a spelling checker.
Don't confuse me with some moron luddite who things that anything technology brings is wrong; I do believe that, starting in high school, all students should be learning the basics of computer programming[1], and possibly a thing or two about solid-state electronics, because of how important these things are in our society.
[1] Even non-programmers benefit from having a good understanding of how the computer works inside. To draw an oft-used analogy into play, it's like teaching new drivers the basics of engine operation and automobile-related physics. The information won't turn them into a great mechanic or Mario Andretti, but it will make them more comfortable with the oddities of motor vehicles.
I say fuck what the schools want. Creationism is religious; the parents can teach it home, or pay to have their kids sent to a religious school. I don't give a flying fuck if parents find Uncle Tom's Cabin to be 'offensive', either -- it's supposed to outrage the reader and make them think.
Intelligent, resourceful people don't come out of intellectually sterile environments; kids have to be exposed to new, possibly contradictory ideas, and need the freedom to sort things out for themselves. Show them the bad parts of US history, the ugly parts of partisan politics, and the nastiness of the chemicals in their food; also show them the good that the Americans have done, other political systems, and teach them some biology, so that they can figure out when they're old enough how they want to vote, eat, and live.
Giving people opinions builds subjects. Giving people the tools to form their own opinions builds citizens.
How does this tie in?
I say set up a national curriculm. Math is easy, and Science needs to be taught with an emphasis on the scientific method, rather than an emphasis on current theories -- let the students evaulate things on their own. Teach logic, debate, English literature, foreign language, and art. Let the students who are good at painting paint and sing. Provide a rudimentary computer science education for the older students, things like simple programming and/or circuit building, but don't spend tens of thousands of dollars on state-of-the-art computer labs so that kids can learn to use software their parents have at home. Start giving teachers better salaries, and stop spending so much money on school administration, technology programs, and on building sports arenas for the football team -- all you should need for high-school football is a field with some bleachers on the side.
Grr...okay, I'm done rambling.
Perhaps the solution would be to send you home with two ounces of photocopies, written lectures, and worksheets instead. Even better on the back, much cheaper than a laptop, and capable of surviving more bullying than you. ;)
As far as I'm concerned, computers should not be a part of a child's in-school education until high school. Reading and writing should be done by hand, using a pen or pencil, paper, dictionary, and thesaurus. Why? Doing schoolwork with computers makes it easier, because the computers automate the 'boring' tasks, which is great, unless it's the boring tasks that you want the students to be learning.
The overuse of computers with younger kids is incredibly evident today, as students emerge from high school with almost no solid reasoning or formal communication ability. The average high-school student is almost completely incapable of communicating with others in a high-level fashion, because the curricula they have been exposed to has never demanded that the student learn to read or write. Surprising as it may be, having a proper command of the English language, which includes spelling and grammar, is still a vital ingredient to success -- even a good mechanic needs to be able to read the factory service manuals.
If the parents want their kids to learn how to use computers in fifth grade, that's great, and a good thing, but the core curriculum should focus on students using their brains.
On top of that, each of these laptops is going to run the school a bit over a grand a pop, which is about the cost of thirty brand-new textbooks -- that's a full classroom set which can be used for years. The laptops will, of course, be abused all to hell by the kids, and require dedicated maintenance personnel, which further adds to the budget. So, this is a nice, long-term, highly expensive solution, put in place because the schools want to save money?
I honestly read the headline as "Dairy Illuminates Einstein's Last Years". I was beginning to wonder how milk could possibly shed any light on Einstein.
Glowing Milk comes from Chernobyl Cows.
Kanji are terrible. There's no way around it. By sixth grade, children are expected to be able to read and write 1000 characters--half of what you need to be a functioning adult. It's ridiculous. If a western child can't read and write by age 11, he gets enrolled in the Special Olympics.
If a 'western' child is expected to know everything they need to know as an adult at age eleven, why are English classes mandated up to age 18, with an additional two years in college? Kanji aren't easy to be sure, but I'd wager they're just as difficult as the wealth of non-phonetic vocabulary required for Western students. Words like 'rendezvous', 'necessary', and 'ersatz' are all difficult to learn for kids, yet they make do.
The equivalent Japanese sentence would be something like "Migurushii inu ga imasu." ("There is an ugly dog." The subject is implied. I shit you not.) It's not easy for a westerner to wrap his mind around.
Yes and no; if a Westerner tries to attack Japanese like it's a Western language, than yeah, they'll have a hell of a time; on the other hand, if you're capable (and willing) of twisting your worldview around, then it's a hell of a lot easier. The Japanese language is much less concerned with concepts of ownership and time when compared to the European languages, and instead focuses more on relationships.
This is why things like 'Migurushii inu ga imasu.' make sense -- it's the fact that the dog is ugly that is important, not that it's your dog. If you wanted to emphasize the ownership, you could ('Watashi wa/no migurushii inu ga imasu.'), but you don't have to, whereas in Western languages, ownership is very important and almost never gets left out.
Only problem is, Gollum talked in a fluid fashion. Do...we...have the...technology...to make...Kirk's......voice?
On the other hand, if this guy didn't have a parachute at twelve stories, he did a good impression of Michael Jackson's career.
At least we have conclusive proof that Tony Hawk did indeed perform a 900. That seems to move it out of the miracle category.
But then again, Tony's 900, as spectacular as it was, didn't fit over 100 pieces of specific predictive prophecy from several hundreds of years of writing, most several hundreds of years prior to the event.
For every piece of prophecy that the birth-o-Jesus fit, there are probably twenty pieces of predictive prophecy that were violated. People tend to look back at things like the predictions of Nostradamus and comment on how 'uncanny' his predictions were; these comments are, of course, made after the fact, when people can apply the vauge statements and metaphors of written prophecy to modern-day events. It's no more valid than a newspaper horoscope, which is itself a form of written prophecy.
And, Tony's 900 didn't quite heal hundreds or feed thousands and deliver moral teachings or resurrect after a decent Roman crucifixion.
We don't know if Jesus did either, unless you've got video. ;)
But then again, there are those who think that the sun rising every morning is the result of an image broadcast into their brain by evil goverrnment agents while their bodies are actually asleep on the slab in the lab.
How is this different in believing that there is a being so incredible as to have created the universe, and so petty as to care about whether or not I like bacon?
You mean there isn't?
Faye and Jet renamed the Bebop to "Neil Stephenson"? That's just lame.
People who use a Comedy Central as a new source are not qualified to comment on the news!
Why, it's more accurate than FOX...
I just jog in a cheap, threadbare, worn-out T-shirt -- comes complete with extra holes for airflow. Even soaking wet it's not bad (these are only semi-loose shirts), and if I have to pull one off, I don't feel bad throwing it away, because that's the next destination for the thing.
What really sucks is that cheap athletic shorts are impossible to find at under $20 a pair.
Both cycling and running are good exercise. I do both.
Running zones me out to the world; it's calming and exhilirating at the same time. I finish my run and feel like I've just hit some heroin; and spend the rest of my day energized. Running is a great workout.
Cycling involves me in the world. It's calming and exhilirating at the same time, plus I tend to notice more scenery. I finish my bike-ride and spend the rest of the day energized. Biking is a good workout, not as good as running, but has the advantage of taking me somewhere. In an hour I can ride my bike the fifteen miles to work without being totally destroyed -- try running fifteen miles to work every day. And back. With fifteen pounds of gear.
Running demands only my shoes and time; biking requires equipment, but gives me the advantage of being able to bring stuff. I can bike out to a park twenty miles from home with everything I need for a picnic; try doing that running.
Both running and cycling are good, but understand that they serve different purposes. Running is intense, but only good for a workout; cycling is easier, and can be incorporated as a good mode of transportation in addition to giving you exercise.
Good call! A few pointers...
One: Vary your weight-training routine. If you do nothing but Lats (lateral pull-downs) and push-ups, you will see very little improvement, and might injure yourself. Best bet is to work opposing muscle groups -- so do biceps and triceps one day, pectorals and deltoids the next, and so on. This keeps you from overtraining one group, and gives you a much more even muscle tone.
Two: Most so-called personal trainers supplied by gyms are crap, which is why they work for a gym for slightly above minimum wage. Ask any fitness-nut friends for help with working out; many are more than happy to give advice, and can point you towards some good literature. If you need a trainer, find an independent one, and beware of trainers who offer incredible results in short periods of time -- you will not go from over-the-belt gut to six-pack in a month, period.
Three: If you have problems with keeping entertained when lifting weights, consider a rock-climbing gym. The start-up gear is about as expensive as for running (shoes and a chalkbag will run you $100 - $150), but it will provide incredible upper-body strength and cardiovascular training, and it's fun! I've spent three or four hours bouldering at my local rock gym without even noticing it.
Four: Have fun. Don't do bench-presses if you don't like them; do push-ups or some other pectoral exercise instead. Find a routine that challenges you without getting you down, and you will find it easier to stick with for the future.
Thank you! Shoes are important, but you don't need the rest of the schwag.
Running shoes can get expensive, and are worth what you pay for them -- my quarterly Mizunos run about $80 a pair, and if I run in cheaper shoes, I get shinsplints and knee-pain from hell. Other people, like my boss, are lucky -- he can run in anything without having leg problems, and he's ten years older than I am. But shoes are worth spending money on, just to protect your joints.
As a note for beginners, make sure that you go to a *running* store to purchase your shoes -- not a Big 5 or a Foot Locker. The guys and gals at places like Sacramento's Fleet Feet are all runners themselves, and keep up on the latest in training techniques and technology, whereas the guys at Foot Locker are usually high-school students making minimum wage. A running store will suggest shoes, watch your form, and help you select form-correcting footwear.
So, shoes are important. But don't go out and buy hundred-dollar running outfits, and an iPod, and a heartrate-tracking watch, and all kinds of other crap that looks cool. All you need is a good pair of shoes, some old sweats, and some self-discipline. When you start running, it'll be hard, and you won't get far, but your endurance and distance will slowly creep up on you, and one day you'll realize that someone replaced your gut with a washboard, and that you can run four or five miles without dropping dead afterwards...hell, you'll feel refreshed.
My experience with IS MBA textbooks and students is quite different; many of them have barely, if at all, even heard of Linux (and Unix), and almost none of them have any idea of the advantages it can bring to their business. I've shown some of my MBA-student friends some of the utterly cool stuff that can be done with OpenOffice, Python, PostgreSQL, and Samba, and many of them are stunned at the flexibility and capability, given the low cost and ease of development. They're also nominally kind of pissed at their instructors for not bringing this fantastic technology up, because they know that the kinds of advantages offered by free software are the kinds of advantages that can make-or-break a business.
I'll be working on an MBA in a few years myself, and I plan on paying pretty much nothing but lip service in the computer section to the instructors -- I've been working in the field long enough to see how things work, and I'm not stupid enough to think that one vendor is going to be able to solve all of my problems. I'm also not stupid enough to turn down a cost-effective solution just because it's not "commercial" -- nevermind that the non-commericial offerings of the free software world often have better support.
Maybe I should just start up a business that does nothing but set up and train users with free software for a small fee. *grin* It'd still be cheaper than any of the solutions from Redmond...
No; the insurance is. Given the way most people drive, at any rate.
On top of that, it can make life easier for admins, because a LinuxBIOS could be configured to allow a serial console with full hardware control, just like a Sun box does.
Customs typically doesn't tax unregulated personal-use items up to a certain value (I forget what that value is); this doesn't include cigarettes or booze, but it does include laptops.