We need to say what we support. To say "we support Linux" is too generic. Our customers can hold us to that, even if it's some tweaked version of Linux. In order to COA, we have to test each configuration that we claim to support. Additionally, our customers are not the most technically savvy customers so we typically need to do something a little friendlier than RPM. You might think this a little inane but that's been our experience.
Working Linux support into our products is not as trivial as you might imagine. Currently, we use tools that allow us to maintain a single code base. This means that if we want to support Linux, we need development tools that will allow us to develop a single code base for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux (installers not withstanding).
I work for a very large educational publishers in the US in the education software division (they call it New Media). I can't recommend any software because I honestly don't know of any that runs under any Linux distribution. But I can tell why you will be hard pressed to find any. It's the same in the schools as it is in business. Educational software publishers put out their software for Windows and usually the Mac. The schools buy Windows or Mac because that's what the software requires. The publisher looks at what their customers have and say, "We need to make sure our future software works on Windows and Mac" and the cycle begins again.
Linux is apparently making some in roads, though. A few months ago, my manager came to me asking about supporting Linux. I asked which one. Apparently he didn't understand that there are flavors of Linux. Since then, we've determined that Flash 5 would be advantageous to develop in since we're pretty experienced in Macromedia tools and Flash 5 seems to have wide support, including open source plugins. But I still can't see us doing a CD-ROM distribution for Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. It would take forever to QA and the software is typically done as incentive to buy the textbooks, not as way to make money. Even so, we think it might be worth focusing on Red Hat, since it seems to be the most user friendly distribution and K12LTSP is supporting it.
The reason why most people (businesses) won't make the switch from Windows to Linux is that Linux will take too long to retrain employees. Teaching Linux and OpenOffice in schools is the perfect way to get this training done right the first time.
That's a good theory but it's not been my reality. What I've witnessed in business is that switching takes effort and involves risk. And when your IT staff is insuring themselve employment for the rest of their lives by telling you to stick to the status quo, why wouldn't you go with the flow?
One of my more clever friends who was a skilled pianist used to pick a bar from a familiar piece of music for his passwords. I remember one time he needed to give his password to a trusted friend and he really couldn't remember it. All he knew was the manner in which his fingers moved over the keyboard.
Found this press release on the CT Senate Democrats' web site. Note that her rationale for introducing this bill is based on a report from the Surgeon General. I'd be very interested in seeing that report because I'm having some difficulty believing the relationship between FPS and inciting violence is that strong.
Does anybody know where we draw the line? We don't want to censor in public libraries, yet we don't have any way of allowing the pr0n industry to self-regulate. Is there no happy medium somewhere? Something that gives parents a little help without getting others upset over first amendment rights?
Unfortunately, the price of freedom of press, speech, etc. is the risk of being offended. Did you know that some libraries carry Playboy and don't restrict access based on age? There are a great many bookstores that will sell to the underage as well. So this is not a new problem. The new twist is that it's even easier to access.
Like or not, many kids will start to look at porn as they get older. Personal experience is that this starts around the age of puberty. Often, kids who are not yet into puberty that are around those who just hit it may get involved just out of curiousity. This is natural and I think our society tends to overreact a bit. What will happen if a child views porn? Most prepubescent children I know of don't want even sit near the opposite sex, much less see them naked. If you're worried that your children are going to pick up misinformation or have unhealthy attitudes about sex, talk to them before they get there. You don't need to get into great details and incorporate your beliefs about sex. Try to keep it positive and try not to look uncomfortable about it. If you are uncomfortable about it, you might want to have a trusted family member do this.
Why are non-American kids not blowing away their classmates?
Or for that matter, why has this started in the U.S.? I don't think it used to be that common. Part of it is that the current situation has been blown out of proportion. If you listen to the media, there are millions of school kids walking around out there intent on killing or blowing up their school. That's just not the case. I actually heard of some first graders who were suspended for playing cops and robbers because "they were making threats against students".
However, there really are a few students who have carried out threats which scares the hell out of us as a society. In the U.S., we want to keep our kids as innocent as the day they were born until they're legal adults. It's almost incomprehesible that there could be these devils amongst our innocent. So what happened?
For the last 20 years or so (or more if depending on how far back you want to follow the trend), I have observed that many parents have been failing to teach responsibility and consequences. They claim that any negative feedback damages their child's self-esteem and that they want to be their child's friend. I certainly wouldn't assert that most students lack a grasp on responsibility and consequences, but a few who do would be more likely to bring in a gun and use it.
What to do about it? I don't have an answer, but I think taking a real hard look at what is different between the present generation of students and prior ones should be a starting point.
I'm tired of this argument. I have yet to find a college that _requires_ the use of a particular OS and by the time most student have reached the business world, the computers on their desk will not bear enough resemblance to the current modern OS's that it will matter. To drive home this point, in 1995, Windows 3.1 was the de facto standard for desktop machines in business. Or at least that's the justification that was used to put them in the schools at that time. Then Win95 came out and rewrote many of the rules about how the user interacts with the machine. Now Win2000 is close at hand and that interface is quite a departure from Win98. A kid who was in 6th grade in 1995 would now be on the verge of graduating high school. By the time that kid gets through college, it will be 2005 and who knows what will be in vogue then.
In all of that time, the student has been exposed to at least 3 different variations on UI, all of which are so similar but just different enough to cause confusion, and the school has probably spent an awful lot of time and money in tech support (more than with several other platforms I can think off the top of my head). Not to mention how much the suite of software used on Windows has changed. The whole point of using a computer is to make it _do_ something, not to train the user, but that's a point that the decision-makers usually miss.
VHS won because it was an open, semi-free standard with easy licensing terms.
VHS's success was largely due to a push from the motion picture industry. Betamax and VHS started out with approximately equal footing in the consumer market in the early eighties. I remember Betamax tapes were a little more expensive but of noticably higher quality. What really changed things was movies being released on VHS. They were expensive, but became cheaper. With the rise of video rental, Betamax dwindled in the consumer market.
Contrary to popular belief, Betamax is still used today, just not in the consumer market. Many professional broadcasting studios use it. DV is making heavy inroads there, but a lot of television stations still have huge archives of Betamax tape.
------------
As to be not marked "Offtopic" and to get this thread back on track, I will comment on the story. It appears that RAMBUS was, at best, unethical. Sure, other companies might have done the same thing in their situation, but popular != right. I don't know if there's any area of law that covers this specifically, but I would guess that the Sherman Act would cover this in spirit (i.e. you can't take action to restrict free trade). I'd say that failing to disclose pending patents while sitting on a relevant standards body and then using them to be a toll-taker after the standard has been implemented by unsuspecting third parties probably falls under the category of restricting free trade.
Nethack is still one of my favorite games. I think there is technically a score in Nethack, but I don't know of anyone who really pays too much attention to it. The adventure is the point.
Seriously, if you are being harrassed by someone who is a <insert your favorite stereotypical popular type here>, I'd say that qualifies as anti-social and possibly dangerous behavior. Use the hotline. Give details as to how that person has been anti-social and/or dangerous. Examples: physical abuse, public humiliation, slander, anything they'd be arrested for if they were an adult.
Be sure that you think about what you are going to say and how you phrase it. You wouldn't want to come off sounding like sour grapes instead of a genuine report of abuse.
The internet is color blind but it's not culture blind. I find that racism tends be more culturism (is that a word?). Different culture (i.e. language, traditions, dress, etc.) means that you have to cope with a lack of understanding and often stereotypes tend to fill in the blanks. I think everyone is guilty of doing this to a certain degree, although the more watchful and/or sensitive people will try harder.
Ummm scientist, logical... objective... Have you been to a grad school lately? When I think of scientists I think: grants, scheming, politics, building a grad student empire and attaching your name to all their papers.
Universities operate under some different rules nowadays (different from 30 years ago as well as different from the private sector). By and large, engineering and science curricula do not encourage subjectivity. Misrepresenting facts seems to be a convenient and occasionally necessary way to get the means to do the work, but this runs counter to good science.
Of course, it cuts the other way as well. Objectivity has been used as salve to the conscience for those working on projects that bring up ethical quandaries.
You know, the same can be said for operating systems. Replace the bit about strong typing, etc. with scheduling, etc. and it should sound familiar. I guess the point is that everybody's going to have a certain way about solving a task and they're going to have prefered tools for doing it. Suggesting alternatives or comparing the way one tool works to another often leads to feelings of criticism, even where none was intended.
Funny that scientists are supposed to be logical and objective when engaged in their work but I guess programming always has been a mixture of science and art.
The simple fact is that the only way the Olympics gets funded is by these sponsors and by television money paid because the advertising is so lucrative. If you force the television networks to compete with the internet, you are going to create a competitive market that results in less money to support the games. The games are already dominated by the rich and fat countries - allowing Internet broadcasts would make it even worse as the IOC could not afford to help fund athletes from poorer countries.
That doesn't follow in my mind. Is it impossible that some Internet company might have the funds to compete with the traditional networks? That can only drive up the price. OTOH, the thought of MSN Olympics kind of puts me off.
Food for thought: It could be an issue of control. IOC has legitimate reason to be afraid of losing control of what's shown and when, since content can be quickly and easily uploaded, redistributed, and repurposed. At that point, broadcasting rights have little meaning. Streaming could probably help to deal with that though.
Could be many other factors besides who raised you. Children are their own people, and some are actually (believe it or not) born with a tendency to be socially unhealthy. That's not to say that in that case it will always come to fruition, but there are definite tendencies.
Nature provides the potential, nurture brings to it to fruition. Some are born with a low potential in certain areas. I'm going to assume she is not one with a low potential for socialization or anything else for that matter. I will watch for signs for it and deal with it.
Where in the <expletive> did you get the idea that a child's dependence on his mother is unhealthy? I'm sick to death of people thinking that dependence in any form is a bad thing. It is if the child becomes an adult without becoming independent, but a newborn? Come on. They're built to be dependent, and you know it.
I didn't say the problem was just dependency. I said it was an unhealthy one. More so for me than her. I expect her to be dependent but not to the point where she can't cope without me holding her. This was not just crying, but she wouldn't sleep or eat. I was becoming withdrawn from all activities except that which concerned her because of this situation. I stopped doing important things like personal hygiene, paying bills, etc. We were both pretty miserable. It could be coincidence, but that changed the day she went to daycare.
Quantity and quality is the key, not one or the other. Both must exist. The quality of time my wife spends with Emma (seven months old next week) has remained about the same, but since we got her a baby carrier (to free her hands while she's holding her), Emma's been much happier. No more quality, but much more quantity. It's absolutely amazing.
My point is that it was mentally and physically exhausting for me to spend so much time with her. It was interfering with our relationship. I was actually starting to resent her and I'd feel terrible about that. Perhaps it is not the typical situation, but there does seem to be such a thing as spending too much time together for us. We both ultimately become miserable.
Does your child need experiences out of the house more than he needs you? Oh, wait, I forgot. You think that's unhealthy (see above).
It's not me or the world. It's both. She still spends the majority of her wakeful hours with me. I have the ability to use a larger quantity of time to engage in all of the things good parents are supposed to do (play, read, sing, talk, etc.). I'm not saying this would work for everyone else (or even anyone else) but it works for me.
Well good! Though, you might have learned that from your own parents and parents-in-law, or friends that already have children.
You presume too much. My parents are much too far away to be of help and they are of the "don't punish or you'll damage his self-esteme" crowd which I don't agree with. I have no friends with children except of course my husband. I'm pretty much on my own.
That's why you acquaint yourself with other parents and their children.
You make that sound very easy. Like many others around here, I am poorly socialized. It's a long (but familiar) story, but the basic problem is that I have a lot of trouble making friends.
But back to the benefit - isn't that a large price to pay? At least one friend vs. being raised by his own mother?
Again, it's not an all or nothing situation. I consider it giving her a sort of extended family. I am still very much the center of her universe and she is of mine. But to have nothing but each other in each other's universe was making both of us quite unhappy.
It seems like you believe that "abdication of parental responsibility" and "personal decision" are mutually exclusive. Let me assure you that they are not - in fact, every abdication of responsibility is also a personal decision. (By the way, I hate how people nowadays are using the words "personal decision" to validate everything and expecting people to applaud them for it.)
First of all, I never said that one was mutually exclusive to the other. They were two separate assertions. Sorry that it came off as being linked. My point here is that the decision is mine to make. There is no scientifically proven "right way" to raise a child, and since my husband and I are the only experts on the topic of our family, I don't think there's anyone out there qualified in judging my decisions.
I don't think you made up the list of pros and cons and then made the decision. Most of those "pros" for day care are either not really pros, or you could have handled in a better way - such as actually getting yourself out of the house, learning from people who are already parents (or learning it yourself - gasp!), and getting to know the neighbors.
It's nice to come up with a list of pros and cons, but not after the fact. You had the child. Stop rationalizing, and raise him yourself if you have the means.
Again, you presume incorrectly. I did think very long and hard about the pros and cons of going back to work or staying home. It was a decision that I did not come upon lightly. You dismiss the pros, but they are subjective and I consider them important. Btw, there's a difference between spending all of your time with your child and raising him/her. I've known people who spend all of their time near their child, but not really parenting. Some working parents that I have seen have strong relationships with their children and really show leadership. I try to make all of the time I spend with my daughter count. When she needs me, there is nothing that will get in my way to care for her. As long as she is happy and healthy, I see no reason to feel guilty about sharing some of the parental responsibility with the daycare.
You are lucky, but when are you going to start interacting with your children? When will that interaction outweigh the satisfaction you get from coding, and how will you know?
I never said that I didn't interact act with my child. She is a great joy to me. She spends about 9 nine hours a day, five days at daycare. I spend the bulk of the remaining time with her. Not just near her, but playing, talking, reading, singing, etc. much of the time (talking is pretty one-directional at six months but I like to think she gets something from it). My work is the one piece of my world that isn't utterly consumed by her and I consider it my only sanctuary. I do not feel this makes me a bad parent, just human.
Don't confuse my advococy of motherhood for force. Force is generally comming from the other direction. As things are, it is going to be difficult for my wife NOT to work. We have to make hard choices between the quality of our children's education (private vrs public) and the amount of involvement we will have with them. All of these supposedly liberated women have helped keep wages down for most of us, as demand always meets supply. In general, society is forcing it's lower class women into "service economy". Worse than that is the prospect of government sponsored day care that would force us to subsidise a life style that we do not aprove of. Every little load is helping to push us out of the middle class and into the lower. My wife is the best nanny I can think of, and the only one that we can afford. This will only last as long as we think we can afford a decent education for our children, then we will be forced to move or use day care.
I'm sorry if I'm a little defensive about this. It seems like parents (mothers especially) are in this situation where you're judged as a bad parent if you go back to work or an unmotivated or unskilled worker if you choose to stay home with your kids. Both are almost always false. I'm just tired of people trying to tell me that I'm doing harm to my daughter by working when it's none of their business and they're compleyely unqualified to tell me about my life.
I feel that I do take responsiblity with my child. I do it with great deliberation and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to give her the best benefit. I also think that families vary quite a lot and the individuals in those families vary even more. In some cases, a full-time mommy or daddy is not the best scenario, but in others, it is absolutely necessary. The average situation is something in between. This is why it is a bad idea to say that daycare is always bad or it's always a great idea. It depends on the situation and the people in it. In my case, daycare has helped. Even if I were to stay home, it would be necessary. I become depressed and dependent when I stay at home for prolonged periods of time with my daughter. I can't take care of her if I don't take care of myself. This is not an issue of self-indulgence. It's an issue of survival.
As rhesus monkey experiments show, infants need the security and comfort of a mother, not the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory. Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom? They grew up sociopaths because the world had never provided them warmth or security. What makes you think some overworked daycare "proffesional" is going to be able to provide any more love? Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel.
I agree that is a cruel scenario but it is not the reality of the daycare that I use. The person that looks after my baby has only two others in her charge and regularly gives my daughter plenty of one-on-one interaction. I wouldn't leave her there if it were any other way. I have done surprise inspections, btw, so I know she really is getting this attention. Of course, there is also a lot of group play. Unfortunately, out of all of the daycare centers that I interviewed, this was the only one that offered this kind of attention.
Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.
I won't pretend to know what most women like, but I personally feel the need to work. I'm just not the full-time mommy type. It's wrong to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their children or their career. I love coding and I work in a great environment with fair compensation. My decision to go back work was a personal one, not based money as much as quality of life for my daughter as well as myself.
As a new parent, I have to disagree. Far be it from me to tell another parent how to raise his or her children, but I do use daycare and I feel it's the right choice for us. Here's some of the benefits that I perceive:
Her social and emotional well-being seem to be much healthier than my own.
We really need the break from each other. It's important that we lead our own lives. I found that while I was on maternity leave, we were developing an unhealthy dependence on each other.
When I am home, I spend the vast majority of my free time interacting with her, but I think we're spending more quality time together now.
Since I'm homebody and somewhat asocial, I know she's getting much richer experience out of the house.
I've also learned quite a bit from the people running the daycare that I may have had to discover the hard way.
I'm hoping that when my daughter is old enough to start kindergarten, she will already have at least one friend in her class.
My decision to use daycare was not an abdication of parental responsibility. It's a personal decision where in my case, the pros outweighed the cons. I view daycare as surrogate parents for your child. This means it's very important to find a place that has as little turn over as possible (daycare seems to have a high turnover rate to begin with) and to find people who will respect your wishes in caring for your child. It can be very difficult if not impossible to find such place. A corporate sponsored daycare may be convenient, but I'd only use it if I felt good about the people working there.
I used to consult for a state agency. While there, a bit of advice given to me by a vetern employee was, "Don't try to leap any tall buildings. If you make it, the next time they'll ask you to leap three." Another thing he used to say was, "I get paid the same whether I stay and finish the job or go home at 4" (That's when the day was officially over). This was from one of the better employees who tried to work to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, you become apathetic when everyone else is. The attitude becomes, "why should I bust my hump when no one else will, especially when some of these pet employees don't even do the minimum?"
The rules for government agencies are very different. Operating in the red or even bankrupcy has different ramifications than it does for a private company. Often, the people who lead these organizations are political appointments and sometimes do not act in the best interest of the organization nor the public which they serve. Barring a scandle, they are replaced when a new administration comes into power, regardless of their affectiveness. The greatest problem I observed was that there was a lot higher incidence of infighting and turf wars. Most of these games would tear an ordinary company apart.
Go ahead and call me naive, but what ARE the benefits of working for the US government, aside from diplomatic immunity and access to the secret underground White House Sex Cave?
Seriously, it used to be job security. Now that has even gone out the window. My mom has been a systems analyst for the federal government for over a decade (DOD until last year and now Social Security). The benefits are pretty hard to beat. Their medical insurance (Mail Handlers) seemed to cover an awful lot. I think she said she gets like 10 weeks a year of time off. She also can work semi-flexible hours (a little under 9 hours a day for 9 work days and then 1 day off). Sadly, she makes little more than I do. She has told me about the programmers who only know COBOL and sleep at their desk waiting for an early retirement package to come along. If you don't care too much about actually accomplishing anything, can deal with the bueracracy, and don't mind the huge paycut, it's not too bad. You could do worse. I guess it depends on your priorities (time verses money).
I've seen a lot of sentement here about less governemt=good. I think responsible government=good. That is, the laws that are passed have been written with the overall welfare of the society in mind and have been carefully examined by those in the know for the likelihood of effectiveness.
I see very little of this happening today. Rather, laws are written and passed based on popular layman beliefs. Riders are attached to sneak irrelevant legislation through. Party alignment can play a role, especially with the petty, but I lay the blame on doing what's popular rather than doing what's right. That, of course, goes back to voters making uninformed decisions (not just on candidates, but on issues as well).
Slashdot Mirror
We need to say what we support. To say "we support Linux" is too generic. Our customers can hold us to that, even if it's some tweaked version of Linux. In order to COA, we have to test each configuration that we claim to support. Additionally, our customers are not the most technically savvy customers so we typically need to do something a little friendlier than RPM. You might think this a little inane but that's been our experience.
Working Linux support into our products is not as trivial as you might imagine. Currently, we use tools that allow us to maintain a single code base. This means that if we want to support Linux, we need development tools that will allow us to develop a single code base for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux (installers not withstanding).
-Jennifer
I work for a very large educational publishers in the US in the education software division (they call it New Media). I can't recommend any software because I honestly don't know of any that runs under any Linux distribution. But I can tell why you will be hard pressed to find any. It's the same in the schools as it is in business. Educational software publishers put out their software for Windows and usually the Mac. The schools buy Windows or Mac because that's what the software requires. The publisher looks at what their customers have and say, "We need to make sure our future software works on Windows and Mac" and the cycle begins again.
Linux is apparently making some in roads, though. A few months ago, my manager came to me asking about supporting Linux. I asked which one. Apparently he didn't understand that there are flavors of Linux. Since then, we've determined that Flash 5 would be advantageous to develop in since we're pretty experienced in Macromedia tools and Flash 5 seems to have wide support, including open source plugins. But I still can't see us doing a CD-ROM distribution for Red Hat, Mandrake, Yellow Dog, etc. It would take forever to QA and the software is typically done as incentive to buy the textbooks, not as way to make money. Even so, we think it might be worth focusing on Red Hat, since it seems to be the most user friendly distribution and K12LTSP is supporting it.
-Jennifer
The reason why most people (businesses) won't make the switch from Windows to Linux is that Linux will take too long to retrain employees. Teaching Linux and OpenOffice in schools is the perfect way to get this training done right the first time.
That's a good theory but it's not been my reality. What I've witnessed in business is that switching takes effort and involves risk. And when your IT staff is insuring themselve employment for the rest of their lives by telling you to stick to the status quo, why wouldn't you go with the flow?
-Jennifer
One of my more clever friends who was a skilled pianist used to pick a bar from a familiar piece of music for his passwords. I remember one time he needed to give his password to a trusted friend and he really couldn't remember it. All he knew was the manner in which his fingers moved over the keyboard.
-Jennifer
Actually, I'm sure they already do. CNN is a Time/Warner subsidiary.
-Jennifer
Found this press release on the CT Senate Democrats' web site. Note that her rationale for introducing this bill is based on a report from the Surgeon General. I'd be very interested in seeing that report because I'm having some difficulty believing the relationship between FPS and inciting violence is that strong.
You can also see the history and the exact verbiage of this bill.
-Jennifer
Does anybody know where we draw the line? We don't want to censor in public libraries, yet we don't have any way of allowing the pr0n industry to self-regulate. Is there no happy medium somewhere? Something that gives parents a little help without getting others upset over first amendment rights?
Unfortunately, the price of freedom of press, speech, etc. is the risk of being offended. Did you know that some libraries carry Playboy and don't restrict access based on age? There are a great many bookstores that will sell to the underage as well. So this is not a new problem. The new twist is that it's even easier to access.
Like or not, many kids will start to look at porn as they get older. Personal experience is that this starts around the age of puberty. Often, kids who are not yet into puberty that are around those who just hit it may get involved just out of curiousity. This is natural and I think our society tends to overreact a bit. What will happen if a child views porn? Most prepubescent children I know of don't want even sit near the opposite sex, much less see them naked. If you're worried that your children are going to pick up misinformation or have unhealthy attitudes about sex, talk to them before they get there. You don't need to get into great details and incorporate your beliefs about sex. Try to keep it positive and try not to look uncomfortable about it. If you are uncomfortable about it, you might want to have a trusted family member do this.
-Jennifer
Why are non-American kids not blowing away their classmates?
Or for that matter, why has this started in the U.S.? I don't think it used to be that common. Part of it is that the current situation has been blown out of proportion. If you listen to the media, there are millions of school kids walking around out there intent on killing or blowing up their school. That's just not the case. I actually heard of some first graders who were suspended for playing cops and robbers because "they were making threats against students".
However, there really are a few students who have carried out threats which scares the hell out of us as a society. In the U.S., we want to keep our kids as innocent as the day they were born until they're legal adults. It's almost incomprehesible that there could be these devils amongst our innocent. So what happened?
For the last 20 years or so (or more if depending on how far back you want to follow the trend), I have observed that many parents have been failing to teach responsibility and consequences. They claim that any negative feedback damages their child's self-esteem and that they want to be their child's friend. I certainly wouldn't assert that most students lack a grasp on responsibility and consequences, but a few who do would be more likely to bring in a gun and use it.
What to do about it? I don't have an answer, but I think taking a real hard look at what is different between the present generation of students and prior ones should be a starting point.
-Jennifer
I'm tired of this argument. I have yet to find a college that _requires_ the use of a particular OS and by the time most student have reached the business world, the computers on their desk will not bear enough resemblance to the current modern OS's that it will matter. To drive home this point, in 1995, Windows 3.1 was the de facto standard for desktop machines in business. Or at least that's the justification that was used to put them in the schools at that time. Then Win95 came out and rewrote many of the rules about how the user interacts with the machine. Now Win2000 is close at hand and that interface is quite a departure from Win98. A kid who was in 6th grade in 1995 would now be on the verge of graduating high school. By the time that kid gets through college, it will be 2005 and who knows what will be in vogue then.
In all of that time, the student has been exposed to at least 3 different variations on UI, all of which are so similar but just different enough to cause confusion, and the school has probably spent an awful lot of time and money in tech support (more than with several other platforms I can think off the top of my head). Not to mention how much the suite of software used on Windows has changed. The whole point of using a computer is to make it _do_ something, not to train the user, but that's a point that the decision-makers usually miss.
-Jennifer
VHS won because it was an open, semi-free standard with easy licensing terms.
VHS's success was largely due to a push from the motion picture industry. Betamax and VHS started out with approximately equal footing in the consumer market in the early eighties. I remember Betamax tapes were a little more expensive but of noticably higher quality. What really changed things was movies being released on VHS. They were expensive, but became cheaper. With the rise of video rental, Betamax dwindled in the consumer market.
Contrary to popular belief, Betamax is still used today, just not in the consumer market. Many professional broadcasting studios use it. DV is making heavy inroads there, but a lot of television stations still have huge archives of Betamax tape.
------------
As to be not marked "Offtopic" and to get this thread back on track, I will comment on the story. It appears that RAMBUS was, at best, unethical. Sure, other companies might have done the same thing in their situation, but popular != right. I don't know if there's any area of law that covers this specifically, but I would guess that the Sherman Act would cover this in spirit (i.e. you can't take action to restrict free trade). I'd say that failing to disclose pending patents while sitting on a relevant standards body and then using them to be a toll-taker after the standard has been implemented by unsuspecting third parties probably falls under the category of restricting free trade.
-Jennifer
Nethack is still one of my favorite games. I think there is technically a score in Nethack, but I don't know of anyone who really pays too much attention to it. The adventure is the point.
-Jennifer
Seriously, if you are being harrassed by someone who is a <insert your favorite stereotypical popular type here>, I'd say that qualifies as anti-social and possibly dangerous behavior. Use the hotline. Give details as to how that person has been anti-social and/or dangerous. Examples: physical abuse, public humiliation, slander, anything they'd be arrested for if they were an adult.
Be sure that you think about what you are going to say and how you phrase it. You wouldn't want to come off sounding like sour grapes instead of a genuine report of abuse.
-Jennifer
The internet is color blind but it's not culture blind. I find that racism tends be more culturism (is that a word?). Different culture (i.e. language, traditions, dress, etc.) means that you have to cope with a lack of understanding and often stereotypes tend to fill in the blanks. I think everyone is guilty of doing this to a certain degree, although the more watchful and/or sensitive people will try harder.
-Jennifer
Ummm scientist, logical... objective... Have you been to a grad school lately? When I think of scientists I think: grants, scheming, politics, building a grad student empire and attaching your name to all their papers.
Universities operate under some different rules nowadays (different from 30 years ago as well as different from the private sector). By and large, engineering and science curricula do not encourage subjectivity. Misrepresenting facts seems to be a convenient and occasionally necessary way to get the means to do the work, but this runs counter to good science.
Of course, it cuts the other way as well. Objectivity has been used as salve to the conscience for those working on projects that bring up ethical quandaries.
-Jennifer
You know, the same can be said for operating systems. Replace the bit about strong typing, etc. with scheduling, etc. and it should sound familiar. I guess the point is that everybody's going to have a certain way about solving a task and they're going to have prefered tools for doing it. Suggesting alternatives or comparing the way one tool works to another often leads to feelings of criticism, even where none was intended.
Funny that scientists are supposed to be logical and objective when engaged in their work but I guess programming always has been a mixture of science and art.
-Jennifer
The simple fact is that the only way the Olympics gets funded is by these sponsors and by television money paid because the advertising is so lucrative. If you force the television networks to compete with the internet, you are going to create a competitive market that results in less money to support the games. The games are already dominated by the rich and fat countries - allowing Internet broadcasts would make it even worse as the IOC could not afford to help fund athletes from poorer countries.
That doesn't follow in my mind. Is it impossible that some Internet company might have the funds to compete with the traditional networks? That can only drive up the price. OTOH, the thought of MSN Olympics kind of puts me off.
Food for thought: It could be an issue of control. IOC has legitimate reason to be afraid of losing control of what's shown and when, since content can be quickly and easily uploaded, redistributed, and repurposed. At that point, broadcasting rights have little meaning. Streaming could probably help to deal with that though.
-Jennifer
Could be many other factors besides who raised you. Children are their own people, and some are actually (believe it or not) born with a tendency to be socially unhealthy. That's not to say that in that case it will always come to fruition, but there are definite tendencies.
Nature provides the potential, nurture brings to it to fruition. Some are born with a low potential in certain areas. I'm going to assume she is not one with a low potential for socialization or anything else for that matter. I will watch for signs for it and deal with it.
Where in the <expletive> did you get the idea that a child's dependence on his mother is unhealthy? I'm sick to death of people thinking that dependence in any form is a bad thing. It is if the child becomes an adult without becoming independent, but a newborn? Come on. They're built to be dependent, and you know it.
I didn't say the problem was just dependency. I said it was an unhealthy one. More so for me than her. I expect her to be dependent but not to the point where she can't cope without me holding her. This was not just crying, but she wouldn't sleep or eat. I was becoming withdrawn from all activities except that which concerned her because of this situation. I stopped doing important things like personal hygiene, paying bills, etc. We were both pretty miserable. It could be coincidence, but that changed the day she went to daycare.
Quantity and quality is the key, not one or the other. Both must exist. The quality of time my wife spends with Emma (seven months old next week) has remained about the same, but since we got her a baby carrier (to free her hands while she's holding her), Emma's been much happier. No more quality, but much more quantity. It's absolutely amazing.
My point is that it was mentally and physically exhausting for me to spend so much time with her. It was interfering with our relationship. I was actually starting to resent her and I'd feel terrible about that. Perhaps it is not the typical situation, but there does seem to be such a thing as spending too much time together for us. We both ultimately become miserable.
Does your child need experiences out of the house more than he needs you? Oh, wait, I forgot. You think that's unhealthy (see above).
It's not me or the world. It's both. She still spends the majority of her wakeful hours with me. I have the ability to use a larger quantity of time to engage in all of the things good parents are supposed to do (play, read, sing, talk, etc.). I'm not saying this would work for everyone else (or even anyone else) but it works for me.
Well good! Though, you might have learned that from your own parents and parents-in-law, or friends that already have children.
You presume too much. My parents are much too far away to be of help and they are of the "don't punish or you'll damage his self-esteme" crowd which I don't agree with. I have no friends with children except of course my husband. I'm pretty much on my own.
That's why you acquaint yourself with other parents and their children.
You make that sound very easy. Like many others around here, I am poorly socialized. It's a long (but familiar) story, but the basic problem is that I have a lot of trouble making friends.
But back to the benefit - isn't that a large price to pay? At least one friend vs. being raised by his own mother?Again, it's not an all or nothing situation. I consider it giving her a sort of extended family. I am still very much the center of her universe and she is of mine. But to have nothing but each other in each other's universe was making both of us quite unhappy.
It seems like you believe that "abdication of parental responsibility" and "personal decision" are mutually exclusive. Let me assure you that they are not - in fact, every abdication of responsibility is also a personal decision. (By the way, I hate how people nowadays are using the words "personal decision" to validate everything and expecting people to applaud them for it.)
First of all, I never said that one was mutually exclusive to the other. They were two separate assertions. Sorry that it came off as being linked. My point here is that the decision is mine to make. There is no scientifically proven "right way" to raise a child, and since my husband and I are the only experts on the topic of our family, I don't think there's anyone out there qualified in judging my decisions.
I don't think you made up the list of pros and cons and then made the decision. Most of those "pros" for day care are either not really pros, or you could have handled in a better way - such as actually getting yourself out of the house, learning from people who are already parents (or learning it yourself - gasp!), and getting to know the neighbors.
It's nice to come up with a list of pros and cons, but not after the fact. You had the child. Stop rationalizing, and raise him yourself if you have the means.
Again, you presume incorrectly. I did think very long and hard about the pros and cons of going back to work or staying home. It was a decision that I did not come upon lightly. You dismiss the pros, but they are subjective and I consider them important. Btw, there's a difference between spending all of your time with your child and raising him/her. I've known people who spend all of their time near their child, but not really parenting. Some working parents that I have seen have strong relationships with their children and really show leadership. I try to make all of the time I spend with my daughter count. When she needs me, there is nothing that will get in my way to care for her. As long as she is happy and healthy, I see no reason to feel guilty about sharing some of the parental responsibility with the daycare.
-Jennifer
You are lucky, but when are you going to start interacting with your children? When will that interaction outweigh the satisfaction you get from coding, and how will you know?
I never said that I didn't interact act with my child. She is a great joy to me. She spends about 9 nine hours a day, five days at daycare. I spend the bulk of the remaining time with her. Not just near her, but playing, talking, reading, singing, etc. much of the time (talking is pretty one-directional at six months but I like to think she gets something from it). My work is the one piece of my world that isn't utterly consumed by her and I consider it my only sanctuary. I do not feel this makes me a bad parent, just human.
Don't confuse my advococy of motherhood for force. Force is generally comming from the other direction. As things are, it is going to be difficult for my wife NOT to work. We have to make hard choices between the quality of our children's education (private vrs public) and the amount of involvement we will have with them. All of these supposedly liberated women have helped keep wages down for most of us, as demand always meets supply. In general, society is forcing it's lower class women into "service economy". Worse than that is the prospect of government sponsored day care that would force us to subsidise a life style that we do not aprove of. Every little load is helping to push us out of the middle class and into the lower. My wife is the best nanny I can think of, and the only one that we can afford. This will only last as long as we think we can afford a decent education for our children, then we will be forced to move or use day care.
I'm sorry if I'm a little defensive about this. It seems like parents (mothers especially) are in this situation where you're judged as a bad parent if you go back to work or an unmotivated or unskilled worker if you choose to stay home with your kids. Both are almost always false. I'm just tired of people trying to tell me that I'm doing harm to my daughter by working when it's none of their business and they're compleyely unqualified to tell me about my life.
-Jennifer
I feel that I do take responsiblity with my child. I do it with great deliberation and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to give her the best benefit. I also think that families vary quite a lot and the individuals in those families vary even more. In some cases, a full-time mommy or daddy is not the best scenario, but in others, it is absolutely necessary. The average situation is something in between. This is why it is a bad idea to say that daycare is always bad or it's always a great idea. It depends on the situation and the people in it. In my case, daycare has helped. Even if I were to stay home, it would be necessary. I become depressed and dependent when I stay at home for prolonged periods of time with my daughter. I can't take care of her if I don't take care of myself. This is not an issue of self-indulgence. It's an issue of survival.
-Jennifer
As rhesus monkey experiments show, infants need the security and comfort of a mother, not the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory. Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom? They grew up sociopaths because the world had never provided them warmth or security. What makes you think some overworked daycare "proffesional" is going to be able to provide any more love? Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel.
I agree that is a cruel scenario but it is not the reality of the daycare that I use. The person that looks after my baby has only two others in her charge and regularly gives my daughter plenty of one-on-one interaction. I wouldn't leave her there if it were any other way. I have done surprise inspections, btw, so I know she really is getting this attention. Of course, there is also a lot of group play. Unfortunately, out of all of the daycare centers that I interviewed, this was the only one that offered this kind of attention.
Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.
I won't pretend to know what most women like, but I personally feel the need to work. I'm just not the full-time mommy type. It's wrong to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their children or their career. I love coding and I work in a great environment with fair compensation. My decision to go back work was a personal one, not based money as much as quality of life for my daughter as well as myself.
-Jennifer
As a new parent, I have to disagree. Far be it from me to tell another parent how to raise his or her children, but I do use daycare and I feel it's the right choice for us. Here's some of the benefits that I perceive:
My decision to use daycare was not an abdication of parental responsibility. It's a personal decision where in my case, the pros outweighed the cons. I view daycare as surrogate parents for your child. This means it's very important to find a place that has as little turn over as possible (daycare seems to have a high turnover rate to begin with) and to find people who will respect your wishes in caring for your child. It can be very difficult if not impossible to find such place. A corporate sponsored daycare may be convenient, but I'd only use it if I felt good about the people working there.
-Jennifer
I used to consult for a state agency. While there, a bit of advice given to me by a vetern employee was, "Don't try to leap any tall buildings. If you make it, the next time they'll ask you to leap three." Another thing he used to say was, "I get paid the same whether I stay and finish the job or go home at 4" (That's when the day was officially over). This was from one of the better employees who tried to work to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, you become apathetic when everyone else is. The attitude becomes, "why should I bust my hump when no one else will, especially when some of these pet employees don't even do the minimum?"
The rules for government agencies are very different. Operating in the red or even bankrupcy has different ramifications than it does for a private company. Often, the people who lead these organizations are political appointments and sometimes do not act in the best interest of the organization nor the public which they serve. Barring a scandle, they are replaced when a new administration comes into power, regardless of their affectiveness. The greatest problem I observed was that there was a lot higher incidence of infighting and turf wars. Most of these games would tear an ordinary company apart.
-Jennifer
Go ahead and call me naive, but what ARE the benefits of working for the US government, aside from diplomatic immunity and access to the secret underground White House Sex Cave?
Seriously, it used to be job security. Now that has even gone out the window. My mom has been a systems analyst for the federal government for over a decade (DOD until last year and now Social Security). The benefits are pretty hard to beat. Their medical insurance (Mail Handlers) seemed to cover an awful lot. I think she said she gets like 10 weeks a year of time off. She also can work semi-flexible hours (a little under 9 hours a day for 9 work days and then 1 day off). Sadly, she makes little more than I do. She has told me about the programmers who only know COBOL and sleep at their desk waiting for an early retirement package to come along. If you don't care too much about actually accomplishing anything, can deal with the bueracracy, and don't mind the huge paycut, it's not too bad. You could do worse. I guess it depends on your priorities (time verses money).
-Jennifer
To spare people the search for the swing states:
Michigan
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
-Jennifer
I've seen a lot of sentement here about less governemt=good. I think responsible government=good. That is, the laws that are passed have been written with the overall welfare of the society in mind and have been carefully examined by those in the know for the likelihood of effectiveness.
I see very little of this happening today. Rather, laws are written and passed based on popular layman beliefs. Riders are attached to sneak irrelevant legislation through. Party alignment can play a role, especially with the petty, but I lay the blame on doing what's popular rather than doing what's right. That, of course, goes back to voters making uninformed decisions (not just on candidates, but on issues as well).
-Jennifer