A comparison to Calvin & Hobbes brings up an interesting point. One of Watterson's [the cartoonist of Calvin & Hobbes] big problems was restling with those limitations and trying to push the newspapers to break free. UserFriendly, Sluggy Freelance (and Red Meat, et other online comics) are made for the web, and yet they all stick to the traditional formats.
The great thing is that those compendium-type books were given names like 'The Essential Calvin and Hobbes' by their writer since they were clearly anthing but.
Somewhere in England, they were tired of the bus station terminals being shattered and needing replacement, so they replaced the thick glass with plywood. Vandals scrawled, not scratched, though breaking the wood was almost as easy (and probably less painfull) as glass.
Preceptions are important, as the history of computer platforms illustrates clearly.
More than a game machine? Only when a non-game 'killer app' (the writer supresses a shudder at using the cliché) comes along.
Maybe this sytemic view isn't the way. I mean if it works, roll with it.
If it doesn't, get a different paradigm. Maybe it's better to see many systems. Maybe it's better to see no systems. What, even, is meant by system?
Back down to the ground here with a proposal:
It may be easier, instead of looking at a 'system' with you [the reader] possibly defining yourself as 'outside the system', to look as yourself as part of things whether anyone else likes it or not;
you are a citizen of this universe and everyone else just has to deal with it;
not being a part of the system is no one's option, and it does _not_ mean you have to compromise your individuality, and it does _not_ mean that every part of the system gets along with the rest -
it just means things a few small things you've already learned; you can affect others - maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe many, maybe a few, but you probably will never know for sure (I don't) - and such is life.
I can think of some side-effects of this view that have direct positive impact to the matters at hand.
This view, too, won't work for everyone. I'm a perl hacker, in some ways. I'm all for using whatever works.
Perhaps non-cost-prohibitive PCs with gig chips will now be available sooner than predicted?
Frankly, I'm having nice reminders of that part of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance" where he talks about useing part of a beer can as a shim. --
Pieces & Parts (ruminations on a suspended
on
2 Scoops of Quickies
·
· Score: 1
days when the phones were owned by the phone company
I have one of those. I've been tempted to take it a part, but it's box is pretty nice looking. (a box in a very traditional sense- the top is on a hinge, the receiver and buttons are inside).
Anyway, at my last job, one of the hardware technicians had a dual-boot intel machine which had parts on the wall, and parts on the underside of the shelf that was above the motherboard (the disk drive here, the cd-rom drive there, etc....) also a bunch of spare cpu fans happily whirring away, and the audio system taken apart, souped up, and distributed around the room.
I told a friend of mine I wanted one. She looked at me like I was nuts.
Well, if you really want to mess with our own minds:
Taking the idea that society doesn't want to think that horrid things are part of society And noticing that many posters have mentioned personal feelings of outcast-ness when they were of high school age It isn't unreasonable to thing that the fringe, not wanting to have this horror automatially associated with itself, goes and blames society.
(apologies ahead of time if someone already mentioned this. Processing more than ~200/. posts on any given topic gets, for me, to be quite a chore.)
Many people have mentioned a lack on the part of the parents. This lacking thing _can_ be filed by other people than the parents. Our society is perhaps doubly-flawed in the fact that those falling through a hole left by the parents, find themselves falling through another hole of no one else step in and care. For a highschool student these days, having someone who will be an advocate for you - even if you never ask them to be - is rare and empowering. No one specifically is to blame - we all are.
One of the important things is whether someone can tell whether or not you're useing one - but I don't know if not being able to tell is a good thing or a bad thing....
Also, I saw something in about '96 about guys at MIT media lab doing some work of this nature. Does anyone know how far they came?
linux, no matter how much i like it isn't as easy to use or maintain as windows
linux in schools, however, can be all about the learning experience.
Case in point, Bennett high school in Maryland, which has a network entirely student maintained. If a student or teacher needs some service or capability, the students have to come up with solutions. For the students, it's an incredible oportuninty.
...ok - I have no problem with that statment, even though I don't encrypt any of my own mail. But what difference does that matter in culpabilty? As an honest question, I'm afraid I don't understand how decripting the message changes the way fault lies in just going ahead and opening the message after, say, merely reading the subject.
Perhaps, as filters are readily availible, it should be better to rule that you have the right to send me something, and I have the right to ignore it (or, if it presents a believable threat, to be protected by the authorities).
I am _very_ curious to see more of what everyone else has to say.
Filtering software can be a very powerful tool for prioritizing and aranging. Personally, I've never used software that flat out ignores or deletes messages, but I do use software that sorts my email. It's far from perfect, but I can make the choice of postponing work-related things while replying to my friends (or vice-versa), or saving a message from someone I don't care for so that I can read it later, instead of having to waste some time on it to realise that I'm too busy to worry. I used to be on a list that provided technical support, and it was wonderful not to have to worry about questions that already had been answered others - I could concentrate my time on things that everyone else was having trouble figuring out.
Facilities like these are necissary things for an 'information age' to function.
They can also promote bigoted and close-minded behavior, however. Such is life.
-------
"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who survive; the 'learned' find themselves fully equipped to live in a world that no longer exists." Eric Hoffer
Yes, there are (arguably) rapid social changes going on, and this will cause problems for some people. However, isn't the important thing not having data and knowing information, but what you can do with the data and whether you can use the information?
A teacher friend of mine likes this quote:
"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who survive; the 'learned' find themselves fully equipped to live in a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
If we can learn how to learn, we have no reason to fear.
Slashdot Mirror
A comparison to Calvin & Hobbes brings up an interesting point. One of Watterson's [the cartoonist of Calvin & Hobbes] big problems was restling with those limitations and trying to push the newspapers to break free. UserFriendly, Sluggy Freelance (and Red Meat, et other online comics) are made for the web, and yet they all stick to the traditional formats.
The great thing is that those compendium-type books were given names like 'The Essential Calvin and Hobbes' by their writer since they were clearly anthing but.
--
Preceptions are important, as the history of computer platforms illustrates clearly.
More than a game machine? Only when a non-game 'killer app' (the writer supresses a shudder at using the cliché) comes along.
--
The ticket info is here, though notice they spelled his name wrong.
--
Maybe this sytemic view isn't the way. I mean if it works, roll with it.
If it doesn't, get a different paradigm. Maybe it's better to see many systems. Maybe it's better to see no systems. What, even, is meant by system?
Back down to the ground here with a proposal:
It may be easier, instead of looking at a 'system' with you [the reader] possibly defining yourself as 'outside the system', to look as yourself as part of things whether anyone else likes it or not;
you are a citizen of this universe and everyone else just has to deal with it;
not being a part of the system is no one's option, and it does _not_ mean you have to compromise your individuality, and it does _not_ mean that every part of the system gets along with the rest -
it just means things a few small things you've already learned; you can affect others - maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe many, maybe a few, but you probably will never know for sure (I don't)
- and such is life.
I can think of some side-effects of this view that have direct positive impact to the matters at hand.
This view, too, won't work for everyone.
I'm a perl hacker, in some ways. I'm all for using whatever works.
--
Perhaps non-cost-prohibitive PCs with gig chips will now be available sooner than predicted?
Frankly, I'm having nice reminders of that part of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance" where he talks about useing part of a beer can as a shim.
--
I have one of those. I've been tempted to take it a part, but it's box is pretty nice looking. (a box in a very traditional sense- the top is on a hinge, the receiver and buttons are inside).
Anyway, at my last job, one of the hardware technicians had a dual-boot intel machine which had parts on the wall, and parts on the underside of the shelf that was above the motherboard (the disk drive here, the cd-rom drive there, etc....) also a bunch of spare cpu fans happily whirring away, and the audio system taken apart, souped up, and distributed around the room.
I told a friend of mine I wanted one. She looked at me like I was nuts.
--
Well, if you really want to mess with our own minds:
Taking the idea that society doesn't want to think that horrid things are part of society
And noticing that many posters have mentioned personal feelings of outcast-ness when they were of high school age
It isn't unreasonable to thing that the fringe, not wanting to have this horror automatially associated with itself, goes and blames society.
Food for thought, is all.
--
(apologies ahead of time if someone already mentioned this. Processing more than ~200
Many people have mentioned a lack on the part of the parents. This lacking thing _can_ be filed by other people than the parents. Our society is perhaps doubly-flawed in the fact that those falling through a hole left by the parents, find themselves falling through another hole of no one else step in and care.
For a highschool student these days, having someone who will be an advocate for you - even if you never ask them to be - is rare and empowering. No one specifically is to blame - we all are.
--
One of the important things is whether someone can tell whether or not you're useing one - but I don't know if not being able to tell is a good thing or a bad thing....
Also, I saw something in about '96 about guys at MIT media lab doing some work of this nature. Does anyone know how far they came?
--
linux in schools, however, can be all about the learning experience.
Case in point, Bennett high school in Maryland, which has a network entirely student maintained. If a student or teacher needs some service or capability, the students have to come up with solutions. For the students, it's an incredible oportuninty.
--
I'll say this much; It makes me want to go out and buy these things.
Way fun.
--
...ok - I have no problem with that statment, even though I don't encrypt any of my own mail. But what difference does that matter in culpabilty? As an honest question, I'm afraid I don't understand how decripting the message changes the way fault lies in just going ahead and opening the message after, say, merely reading the subject.
Perhaps, as filters are readily availible, it should be better to rule that you have the right to send me something, and I have the right to ignore it (or, if it presents a believable threat, to be protected by the authorities).
I am _very_ curious to see more of what everyone else has to say.
--
There's an important point missing here.
Filtering software can be a very powerful tool for prioritizing and aranging.
Personally, I've never used software that flat out ignores or deletes messages, but I do use software that sorts my email. It's far from perfect, but I can make the choice of postponing work-related things while replying to my friends (or vice-versa), or saving a message from someone I don't care for so that I can read it later, instead of having to waste some time on it to realise that I'm too busy to worry.
I used to be on a list that provided technical support, and it was wonderful not to have to worry about questions that already had been answered others - I could concentrate my time on things that everyone else was having trouble figuring out.
Facilities like these are necissary things for an 'information age' to function.
They can also promote bigoted and close-minded behavior, however. Such is life.
-------
"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who survive;
the 'learned' find themselves fully equipped to live in a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
--
Yes, there are (arguably) rapid social changes going on, and this will cause problems for some people.
However, isn't the important thing not having data and knowing information, but what you can do with the data and whether you can use the information?
A teacher friend of mine likes this quote:
"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who
survive; the 'learned' find themselves fully equipped
to live in a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
If we can learn how to learn, we have no reason to fear.
--
> And when is the end of the Mayan calander?
The Mayan calander doesn't end, it just starts over - so saith that veritable wealth of knowledge, emacs, anyway.
--