My High School is one of those that is just coming out of the dark ages. If you visited, you'd swear you were in the 50's; the conservatism is sickening... (If you were to see the 110 year old gothic building you'd know what I mean.) But anywhey, the school was forced by the local people to teach some kind of computers course.
We got a small class (15 486x66 computers) and we're learning the wonders of MS Works. In the library, we have 5 Pentium II machines for internet use, but no one is allowed on them (they don't trust us).
We don't have CAD, programming, Unix, internet (that we can use), or even a network that students can help on. Actually, we aren't allowed to do or use anything anything except works - not even notepad or calculator. Instead of getting or doing something to supply us with an education close to being called decent, we just got a $4 million gym (valued at 2x the worth of our school!!).
"Here, take this free software that doesn't crash, runs all your favorite appz and gamez, and just looks pretty cool." "Free software! Get it away! It's evil! It doesn't crash because it's got the DEVIL in it!!" "It doesn't have the devil in it. Come on, it's the software you've always dreamed of..." "NO!! You can't make me!" "What's your problem? I'm giving you quality free software." "Is it from Microsoft?" "No." "It's EVIL!!" "No, Microsoft is the Devil." "It is?" "Yes, it is." "I don't believe you." "Just try the software. It works - it's got all the features you want." "No it doesn't." "You know, I'm not getting anywhere with you." "Yeah, run away."
The trouble with Americans....
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
I think you've got that wrong. If you look at the statistics, you'll see that the more legal guns in an area = less crime. At the same time, the more illigal guns in an area = more crime.
In england, you've gotten rid of all of the guns (Less illigal guns = less crime), but here in America, you can't just get rid them. No matter how hard you try, there'll be thousands, or even millions, of illigal guns floating around ready to kill defenseless citizens.
The way we're working on the problem now (getting rid of illigal guns and stopping criminals from using them while giving good citizens concealed weapons licenses etc.) actually works wonders.
Then there's the constitution. We can't just write out part of the constitution in a crime provention experiment. The right to bear arms is a guaranteed right to defend against each other and most importantly our own government.
From Personal Experience...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Game fans can easily distinguish between a good game with gore and a bad game with gore. These anti-violence people can't tell the difference at all. They see blood and think that's all there is.
What exactly is the goal that these school shooters had in mind? I've assumed that the goal was always to kill as many people as possible, but these shooters always do such a horrible job of that. (Remember the "crack shots" that managed to only kill two people.)
Why don't they just put bombs on the bottoms of the school bleachers during a pep rally, or flood the school with chlorine gas? Are they stupid or do they just like guns?
While I'm against randomly killing people, you have to wonder sometimes if being condemed to Hell is OK as long as you save the Earth from just a few of your classmates. You seriously think killing them is a good thing!
And to add a little perspective on the whole "...how could this ever happen in this perfect small town" thing - I'm from a small town. Small towns are not happy and healthy. There is no anonimity or privacy - everyone knows everything about everyone, drug use and crimes are becoming very common simply because it's boring, and High School boys, especially jocks, are all very cruel to each other, but no one cares - "it's their nature". I've never seen anything as evil or uncaring as the small town High School.
There have been some rare occasions when someone pointed out a real fault in Linux and it was responded with a "let's fix it" attitude rather than the FUD Fear you accuse, but in this case, you have to admit, it's borderline FUD/Criticism. Personally, I think it's real criticism that can, and will, be easily transformed into FUD.
I've always found evolutionary biology to bring a clear, simple, and logical reasoning to the complexities and ill-logic of human beings. When it all comes down to it - I think our behaviors and emotions are all fairly simple.
It really frustrates me when microsoft does this. I just want to scream "It's not new! It't not an innovation! I was invented by someone else (20 some) years ago!!
Just a sec!! He's right!!! I'll stop any programming until I'm in a comfy corporate envoronment and I'll charge 10x what it cost to write the software! After all, free software eliminates users choice...
About Linux Being Hard To Use
on
Linuxnewbie.org
·
· Score: 2
I've used programs with options up the wazoo and interfaces that either didn't exist or were incredibly complex, but the only thing I found to cause a program to be hard to use, or user un-friendly, is a non-intuitive interface.
Say you're using Netscape and you want to change your properties. Where do you go? Not to help or view, right? Is there a configure button, settings? You want to change, or edit, your properties - how about edit? There it is! This isn't the best example, but it gets the point across on what might cause a program to be hard to use.
What if the user can't find the settings option? What if there is none, but this user knows the program's settings can be altered. How does this person learn how to change them? He/She just knows what file to edit?
Designing an interface so the action you want to take can be easily translated to the direction or command you use, should be the goal of every programmer. It seems some don't take it into consideration, though.
All user un-friendly programs I've used lacked this trait. Remember, making things easier does not restrict a program's power.
A great program is a balence of many things. Speed, size, functionality, and ease of use (or interface) are the ingredients of a great program. Speed, size, and functionality are the hard parts. Don't forget interface is important too.
The article made no mention of the factors taken into consideration. These things can make a big difference:
* Language - Was the programming language taken into account? Assembly vs. BASIC comes to mind... * Lines/Hour - Is it better to write more lines/hour or just more lines? * Definition of Line - What exactly is a line of code? Does it count if you didn't exacly write it yourself (library)? * Code Re-Use - What if you re-use a lot of your code? Does that count as writing new lines? * Style - Some people write more elegantly than others, producing less LOC than their competition. Some choose methods that get the same done with the same speed, but less space, etc. * Efficiency/Design - It is better sometimes to use less code for the same task! Do Americans spend more time actually planning out the program rather than just jumping into the code. Do Americans spend more time trying to find a better way, or do the other countries programmers just go with the first solution they find?
I can understand Quake, but not Final Fantasy! How did that game get in there?! And on a further note, it's been my experience that people shot in a wild rampage by students are usually responsible for their own deaths.(persicution, etc.)
I'll think this through. A program is a set of instructions. In binary form, it is a set of instructions only for the computer. But, in source form, it is a set of instructions for both the computer and other programmers. If this source can give instructions to people, and a method of giving instructions to someone is a form of speech, than source code is a form of speech. We all agree that communication in any form, writing, talking, sending little encrypted messages, etc. are forms of speech protected under the law. How then, is this any different?
What if MS opens up even just a part of Windows and programmers around the world find bug after bug until they all realize what a horrible peice of crap it is.
People aregue, as much as it's worth, about the results of these bugs in app performance. It is hard, however, to argue about a real bug in the source.
I've seen an actual attempt at this. But, the scientists could only measure the intensity of concentrated thought. They used it as a throttle controll for a small toy train. I'd like to see something like this in a more advanced form.
Remember that the mozilla project isn't just trying to build a better browser - it's building a better development model. There's a lot of work going into the planning and execution of this.
It's also an experiment in OSS. It's success may be the defining factor in how many businesses see the idea later on.
Slashdot Mirror
My High School is one of those that is just coming out of the dark ages. If you visited, you'd swear you were in the 50's; the conservatism is sickening... (If you were to see the 110 year old gothic building you'd know what I mean.) But anywhey, the school was forced by the local people to teach some kind of computers course.
We got a small class (15 486x66 computers) and we're learning the wonders of MS Works. In the library, we have 5 Pentium II machines for internet use, but no one is allowed on them (they don't trust us).
We don't have CAD, programming, Unix, internet (that we can use), or even a network that students can help on. Actually, we aren't allowed to do or use anything anything except works - not even notepad or calculator. Instead of getting or doing something to supply us with an education close to being called decent, we just got a $4 million gym (valued at 2x the worth of our school!!).
If WinAmp were open sourced, it would become very obvious that it doesn't use the AMP engine.
They should test on a 386, then a 486, Pentium, Pentium II, and then Alpha. That would show off what linux really has to offer.
"Here, take this free software that doesn't crash, runs all your favorite appz and gamez, and just looks pretty cool."
"Free software! Get it away! It's evil! It doesn't crash because it's got the DEVIL in it!!"
"It doesn't have the devil in it. Come on, it's the software you've always dreamed of..."
"NO!! You can't make me!"
"What's your problem? I'm giving you quality free software."
"Is it from Microsoft?"
"No."
"It's EVIL!!"
"No, Microsoft is the Devil."
"It is?"
"Yes, it is."
"I don't believe you."
"Just try the software. It works - it's got all the features you want."
"No it doesn't."
"You know, I'm not getting anywhere with you."
"Yeah, run away."
I think you've got that wrong. If you look at the statistics, you'll see that the more legal guns in an area = less crime. At the same time, the more illigal guns in an area = more crime.
In england, you've gotten rid of all of the guns (Less illigal guns = less crime), but here in America, you can't just get rid them. No matter how hard you try, there'll be thousands, or even millions, of illigal guns floating around ready to kill defenseless citizens.
The way we're working on the problem now (getting rid of illigal guns and stopping criminals from using them while giving good citizens concealed weapons licenses etc.) actually works wonders.
Then there's the constitution. We can't just write out part of the constitution in a crime provention experiment. The right to bear arms is a guaranteed right to defend against each other and most importantly our own government.
I couldn't have said it any better.
Exactly. Game fans can easily distinguish between a good game with gore and a bad game with gore. These anti-violence people can't tell the difference at all. They see blood and think that's all there is.
I was being a little sarcastic when I said "rare occasions" and I never said there aren't any valid criticisms.
Since the subject was brought up...
What exactly is the goal that these school shooters had in mind? I've assumed that the goal was always to kill as many people as possible, but these shooters always do such a horrible job of that. (Remember the "crack shots" that managed to only kill two people.)
Why don't they just put bombs on the bottoms of the school bleachers during a pep rally, or flood the school with chlorine gas? Are they stupid or do they just like guns?
While I'm against randomly killing people, you have to wonder sometimes if being condemed to Hell is OK as long as you save the Earth from just a few of your classmates. You seriously think killing them is a good thing!
And to add a little perspective on the whole "...how could this ever happen in this perfect small town" thing - I'm from a small town. Small towns are not happy and healthy. There is no anonimity or privacy - everyone knows everything about everyone, drug use and crimes are becoming very common simply because it's boring, and High School boys, especially jocks, are all very cruel to each other, but no one cares - "it's their nature". I've never seen anything as evil or uncaring as the small town High School.
There have been some rare occasions when someone pointed out a real fault in Linux and it was responded with a "let's fix it" attitude rather than the FUD Fear you accuse, but in this case, you have to admit, it's borderline FUD/Criticism. Personally, I think it's real criticism that can, and will, be easily transformed into FUD.
Attention getting isn't it?
Really, that article did have a pretty innacurate title...
I've always found evolutionary biology to bring a clear, simple, and logical reasoning to the complexities and ill-logic of human beings. When it all comes down to it - I think our behaviors and emotions are all fairly simple.
It really frustrates me when microsoft does this. I just want to scream "It's not new! It't not an innovation! I was invented by someone else (20 some) years ago!!
Just a sec!! He's right!!! I'll stop any programming until I'm in a comfy corporate envoronment and I'll charge 10x what it cost to write the software! After all, free software eliminates users choice...
I've used programs with options up the wazoo and interfaces that either didn't exist or were incredibly complex, but the only thing I found to cause a program to be hard to use, or user un-friendly, is a non-intuitive interface.
Say you're using Netscape and you want to change your properties. Where do you go? Not to help or view, right? Is there a configure button, settings? You want to change, or edit, your properties - how about edit? There it is! This isn't the best example, but it gets the point across on what might cause a program to be hard to use.
What if the user can't find the settings option? What if there is none, but this user knows the program's settings can be altered. How does this person learn how to change them? He/She just knows what file to edit?
Designing an interface so the action you want to take can be easily translated to the direction or command you use, should be the goal of every programmer. It seems some don't take it into consideration, though.
All user un-friendly programs I've used lacked this trait. Remember, making things easier does not restrict a program's power.
A great program is a balence of many things. Speed, size, functionality, and ease of use (or interface) are the ingredients of a great program. Speed, size, and functionality are the hard parts. Don't forget interface is important too.
"...the Linux kernel [TRANSLATION: the code that makes the OS work.]."
* Responsibilites other than programming. This take a huge amount of work.
The article made no mention of the factors taken into consideration. These things can make a big difference:
* Language - Was the programming language taken into account? Assembly vs. BASIC comes to mind...
* Lines/Hour - Is it better to write more lines/hour or just more lines?
* Definition of Line - What exactly is a line of code? Does it count if you didn't exacly write it yourself (library)?
* Code Re-Use - What if you re-use a lot of your code? Does that count as writing new lines?
* Style - Some people write more elegantly than others, producing less LOC than their competition. Some choose methods that get the same done with the same speed, but less space, etc.
* Efficiency/Design - It is better sometimes to use less code for the same task! Do Americans spend more time actually planning out the program rather than just jumping into the code. Do Americans spend more time trying to find a better way, or do the other countries programmers just go with the first solution they find?
I can understand Quake, but not Final Fantasy! How did that game get in there?! And on a further note, it's been my experience that people shot in a wild rampage by students are usually responsible for their own deaths.(persicution, etc.)
I'll think this through. A program is a set of instructions. In binary form, it is a set of instructions only for the computer. But, in source form, it is a set of instructions for both the computer and other programmers. If this source can give instructions to people, and a method of giving instructions to someone is a form of speech, than source code is a form of speech. We all agree that communication in any form, writing, talking, sending little encrypted messages, etc. are forms of speech protected under the law. How then, is this any different?
I've encoded that perfectly. I use Audio Catalyst with a variable bitrate. It sounds great.
What if MS opens up even just a part of Windows and programmers around the world find bug after bug until they all realize what a horrible peice of crap it is.
People aregue, as much as it's worth, about the results of these bugs in app performance. It is hard, however, to argue about a real bug in the source.
I've seen an actual attempt at this. But, the scientists could only measure the intensity of concentrated thought. They used it as a throttle controll for a small toy train. I'd like to see something like this in a more advanced form.
Remember that the mozilla project isn't just trying to build a better browser - it's building a better development model. There's a lot of work going into the planning and execution of this.
It's also an experiment in OSS. It's success may be the defining factor in how many businesses see the idea later on.